It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Race-hate words found not illegal

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by alien
"Excuse me Sir, but please watch your language in public"

Cops talk like that everywhere?


I remember standing around once, with a few friends on a street corner (completely innocently) and we were met with a "Get the F over here, all of you!" by a couple of cops who pulled up in a car.

Public profanity shouldn't be a crime. Sure, it can sometimes be obnoxious, but there are far worse things in life that actually matter.

People shouldn't be locked up just because they're uncultured a-holes.




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Perhaps we should ban people wearing football shirts, too ?


Geez... we've see "God-given rights' brought into this and now it's footy shirts?

The OP topic is the legality of using the n-word in public... in point of fact a fax sent to the local government. Read the link provided and you'd find it wasn't the first time the retiree was abusive in his faxes.

Let's not stray too far afield.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The violence it may cause will undoubtedly lead to a criminal offence being committed.

It seems illogical and draconian to ban something legal, because it may cause another person to do something illegal.

As previously mentioned there are a number of non-racial slurs that would induce similar violent responses when aimed at people.
I don't need to gratuitously print what slurs those are !

People can get violent in regards to terms about politics, religion, and even sport.
In fact, if you wear a team's football shirt in an area that's largely populated by fans of that teams' rival, then you may well find yourself in a violent altercation.

Perhaps we should ban people wearing football shirts, too ?

I guess it also comes down to common sense. I would have little sympathy for a Liverpool fan who flashes their scarf in the face of a group of Man United supporters, is asked to stop doing this, but continues to provoke and winds up getting punched in the face.

Compare this to a situation where a Liverpool fan in full gear walks down to the shop and is approached and roughed up by a bunch of Man United fans because they hate the club. I would feel sorry for this person because they really did nothing wrong.

Quite different situations aren't they?

[edit on 10/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Isn't that a sad aspect of Western society though? Having to walk on egg shells and watch what you say because you might offend a minority. Meanwhile, average Joe White can be ridiculed and denigrated in the media as stupid, selfish and mercenary.


I agree that it's sad that people may have to constantly monitor their own innocuous comments, just in case some overzealous race-obsessed person accuses them of making a racist remark.

There's a difference between that and a person that frequently uses derogatory racial epithets, like the example in the OP.

I don't see a problem with people socially ostracising those sort of people, because they are knowingly being anti-social.


Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Is it because they use the racial slurs or because you fear you will be linked to them via "guilt by association" when others hear them use them? I'm guessing it is the guilt by association link and that is a sad reflection on the society in which we live: fearing others will judge us by the words and actions of our friends.


I just think it's uncivilised and unintelligent to single anybody out because of their race, religion, nationality, hair colour, physical appearance etc.

If a grown man is going around using racial slurs, then it indicates a lack of intelligence and reasoning, if he's gone through life dividing people in his mind along these lines. It also shows a lack of sociability.

There may be an element of not wanting to be seen with him, in a similar way that you mightn't have wanted to have been seen hanging out with a ''geeky'' child at school.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by alien
 


In Britain, it is an offence to swear in front of a police officer.
Having seen a few people arrested after nights out, just about all of them were calling the arresting officers all kinds of names !

It never gets added to their charge-sheet, unfortunately.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Geez... we've see "God-given rights' brought into this and now it's footy shirts?

The OP topic is the legality of using the n-word in public... in point of fact a fax sent to the local government. Read the link provided and you'd find it wasn't the first time the retiree was abusive in his faxes.

Let's not stray too far afield.


I was replying to your specific comment that the reason that words may be illegal, is because of the resulting violence or public disorder that may ensue.

I was pointing out that it is not uncommon for altercations to take place ( especially on match days ) between rival football fans, because they can identify which team a person belongs to, by the football shirt that they are wearing.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I guess it also comes down to common sense. I would have little sympathy for a Liverpool fan who flashes their scarf in the face of a group of Man United supporters, are asked to stop but continue to provoke and wind up getting punched in the face.


They are different situations, but I still can't see anything justifiably ''criminal'' in the Liverpool fan's actions.

Unless being an ''immature arse'' is now a criminal offence.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
EDIT: Double Post.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Oh man,
i get so angry if someone calls me the "w-word",
although i am a "w-word" but still it is offensive to call me that way.
The same goes for my nationality, i almost beat someone because he called me "italian", although i am one still it is offensive to call me that and point it out.


P.S. Disclaimer, i'm not italian, but i needed an example.
P.S. Diclaimer 2, the post was ironical, pretty obvious but you never know if people who get offended for being called what they are have the ability to understand this. So, just in case.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by ProdigalSon]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 



I agree that it's sad that people may have to constantly monitor their own innocuous comments, just in case some overzealous race-obsessed person accuses them of making a racist remark.


Without me swinging this discussion way off topic...you are aware of why legislation was introduced about racist language? You're aware of the social equality battles in the past couple of hundred years?

Class issues, then gender issues and then race issues. Laws have always, ultimately, been brought in to ensure that changes are made to society and people are accountable.

From the 20th century decline of the British Empire (leaving India and N Africa for example) and the rise of human rights for black guys in the USA...the racial stereotypes and slang names held on past their time. The equal opportunities laws and 'positive discrimination' policies were timely and necessary. I don't know how old you are, but I've seen racism in England decline sharply from the late 80s. A lot of that is due to legislation.

I'll stand up for many things and many freedoms, but I won't stand up for the right for someone to be offensive or ignorant. Is the world a better place if you're able to call a different coloured guy something degrading? The judge thought so and so does the defendant.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I just think it's uncivilised and unintelligent to single anybody out because of their race, religion, nationality, hair colour, physical appearance etc.

If these are your personal beliefs then I respect them.


If a grown man is going around using racial slurs, then it indicates a lack of intelligence and reasoning, if he's gone through life dividing people in his mind along these lines. It also shows a lack of sociability.

I have to disagree with you here. It is more the media conditioning people to judge those who happen to be racist/xenophobic as lacking intelligence and reason. Being racist, xenophobic, antisemitic, homophobic etc. has no bearing on one's capacity to be intelligent, knowledgeable or educated. These are merely labels given to people with views we do not agree with and mindsets we think are wrong.

[edit on 10/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 



but I won't stand up for the right for someone to be offensive or ignorant.


Then who will be left to defend YOUR right to speak?


Is the world a better place if you're able to call a different coloured guy something degrading?


Yes.


The judge thought so and so does the defendant.


Good.



You do not have the Right to go through life without being Offended.

Period.


Let's go ahead and make one word illegal to speak, because it hurts someone's feelings.

And let's make these other words illegal, because they are naughty.

Let us create legislation for words that make people think about things that are double-plus bad.

Now, we should take a couple of OTHER words, that are DOUBLE-DOUBLE-PLUS-BAD... and make it a crime to speak them.... because someone is offended.


"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

If I want to say Black in Latin... then I WILL, because it is my RIGHT.

Once you start removing words under the penalty of law... you have just destroyed freedom.


"Race-Hate-Word"


I laughed So HARD when I read that.....


-Edrick



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Although I don't agree with the ruling (I think he knew what he was doing), that's similar to what happened some years ago here in Portugal.

During a discussion a guy called "son of a ****" to the other guy and the other guy took the case to court, saying that he was offended in his good name (a right on the Portuguese constitution).

The judge, after reviewing the case, dismissed it, because that expression is used regularly on that area of Portugal, as common as calling someone by his/her name.

I think that's the best solution, judging each case in itself and specifically stating that's why the case is dismissed or not.

Judges just have to act like Moderators, seeing each case in context.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Without me swinging this discussion way off topic...you are aware of why legislation was introduced about racist language? You're aware of the social equality battles in the past couple of hundred years?

Class issues, then gender issues and then race issues. Laws have always, ultimately, been brought in to ensure that changes are made to society and people are accountable.


That's all ancient history now.

Thankfully, we have full social and legal equality in most Western countries, rendering any ''race hate speech'' legislation redundant.

It is ridiculous to ban any words because they may upset some people. That is showing clear favouritism, and not equality.

In Britain, you can quite legally refer to a lower-class person as a ''chav'' or ''council estate trash''. You can quite legally refer to a woman as a ''bitch''.

Just because some classes and women have previously been discriminated against, doesn't mean that it's illegal to call these groups insulting names.

Why is different for racial slurs ?


Originally posted by Kandinsky
I don't know how old you are, but I've seen racism in England decline sharply from the late 80s. A lot of that is due to legislation.


I'm 29, so I can only talk about my experiences from the mid-90s onwards.

You say you've seen racism decline, a lot of which is down to the legislation.
But isn't that really just overt racism that has declined ?

People are not using racist language, because they don't want to get into trouble, rather than because of a sudden ideological shift.

I've noticed a lot of racism, especially amongst the children and teenagers, but it's mainly aimed towards the Asian, Eastern European and Romany people, rather than black people.


Originally posted by Kandinsky
I'll stand up for many things and many freedoms, but I won't stand up for the right for someone to be offensive or ignorant. Is the world a better place if you're able to call a different coloured guy something degrading? The judge thought so and so does the defendant.


What's offensive and ignorant to one person, may not be to another.
What's harmless and innocuous to one person, may be deeply hurtful and upsetting to another.

Who decides what's ''offensive and ignorant'' ?

As previously mentioned, I find the term ''retard'' offensive and ignorant, should we prosecute everyone that uses that term ?

If not, then why is a so-called equal society favouring anti-racist discrimination over anti-mentally disabled discrimination ?

Is the world a better place if you call a red-head ''duracell'' ? Or a short person ''short-arse'' ?

How is discriminating and using derogatory language against someone because of one physical characteristic any worse than doing the same against somebody for another physical characteristic ?

We can't claim to live in an equal society, when there is clear legal favouritism shown to some people.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I have to disagree with you here. It is more the media conditioning people to judge those who happen to be racist/xenophobic as lacking intelligence and reason. Being racist, xenophobic, antisemitic, homophobic etc. has no bearing on one's capacity to be intelligent, knowledgeable or educated. These are merely labels given to people with views we do not agree with and mindsets we think are wrong.


It is unintelligent and lacking in reasoning to lump a whole group of people together, and make negative comments about them, purely because of their race.

It shows a lack of intelligence for people not to suddenly think: ''Hang on a minute, are my blanket statements about this race actually accurate, or am I just unreasonably prejudiced ?''.

The problem with prejudice is that it's self-perpetuating.
If someone has a pre-conceived idea about negative traits of a certain race, then they are going to notice them more in people they meet from that particular race.
Which in their minds will ''justify'' their biased observations about these traits.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


intellegence is subjective,
so are moral dogmas of
social rituals within pop culture.

It is unfair and lacking in logic to
lump a whole group of people together,
and comment highly about them,
purely because they are humans...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Ok I am from QLD... This guy sent it in a fax and used these words in descriptive manner... I am not condoning it. However you cannot make words or groups of words illegal. QLD is a funny old place, with quite a few racist ugg boot wearing bogans...But like all place not everyone is like that


As for public profanity that is some thing that is not policed here, really. (im new and probably haven't done the links properly, sorry)
Here's another fine article from the Courier, perhaps as a little background


www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/its-ok-to-tell-police-officers-to-f-off-townsville-magistrate-rules/story-e6freoof-1225901967317

www.perthnow.com.au/news/its-ok-to-call-a-cop-a-prk-rules-magistrate-robbie-williams/story-e6frg12c-1225861858878]

*edit trying and failing to fix link


[edit on 10-8-2010 by nonelikeithot]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
It is unintelligent and lacking in reasoning to lump a whole group of people together, and make negative comments about them, purely because of their race.

I see what you are saying, but I still stand by my comments before. Bigotry is due more to a lack of tolerance for those that are different than it is a lack of intelligence or ability to reason.


It shows a lack of intelligence for people not to suddenly think: ''Hang on a minute, are my blanket statements about this race actually accurate, or am I just unreasonably prejudiced ?''.

Intelligence or a lack of empathy? There are extremely smart people without a shred of empathy, and very simple people who are in abundance of that attribute. If I meet 5 people with blue skin (assuming they are a race for argument's sake) and decide they all talk too much, am I being racist when I avoid engaging in conversation with other people with blue skin I am yet to have met? What if the number of people I have met with blue hair rises to 25, 50, 75, 100...and I still feel the same way? At what point have I stopped being racist and woken up to reality?

(Just to be clear, I would not be associating "talking too much" with "having blue skin" but rather "those with blue skin" with "tend to talk excessively".)


The problem with prejudice is that it's self-perpetuating.
If someone has a pre-conceived idea about negative traits of a certain race, then they are going to notice them more in people they meet from that particular race.
Which in their minds will ''justify'' their biased observations about these traits.

That is true and I think most people are guilty of doing this from time to time. But isn't this simply human nature? We prefer to be amongst those we like and those who like us. We tend to get on better with people that have been exposed to similar life experiences and social-economic upbringings that we have.

[edit on 10/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProdigalSon
Oh man,
i get so angry if someone calls me the "w-word",
although i am a "w-word" but still it is offensive to call me that way.


That would be an interesting defence to make, if charged for calling someone the "w-word".....


But he does your honour .....as do you..... the arresting officer etc etc.





[edit on 10-8-2010 by UmbraSumus]

[edit on 10-8-2010 by UmbraSumus]



new topics




 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join