Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Muslim girl gang who kicked young woman in the head while yelling 'kill the white slag' escape jai

page: 19
60
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


No it is not incorrect to do so. It is understanding the nature of the problem




Cultural racism is one of several terms that scholars have coined to describe and explain new racial ideologies and practices that have emerged since World War II. The postwar era has seen the demise of overt forms of racism in Europe, North America, Australia, and the global postcolonial world. Reeling from the horrors of Nazism, Europe and other Western nations formally rejected racist values and established antiracism legislation. The world community, through the 1966 United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, put itself on record as opposing racism. Read more: Cultural Racism - Racial, Literature, “cultural, and Nations - JRank Articles encyclopedia.jrank.org...

encyclopedia.jrank.org...




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 





posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 



“Cultural racism” is not yet a standard label in the race and racism literature, especially in the United States. It is virtually absent in the anthropological literature and has only recently appeared in the U.S. sociological literature (Bonilla-Silva 2003). It is more common in the European literature (Modood 2005) and among U.S. scholars familiar with European debates on race (Wylie 2001). Yet even when scholars use the term “cultural racism,” they do not necessarily employ it in the same way.


As I suspected, newspeak invented only recently by cultural marxist left, intended to blury the lines between real racism and simple bigotry, or even justified criticism of cultures or religions.

edit on 7/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
edit on 7/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
And if you want to use the incorrect term, then fine, call it what you want, it does not change the meaning of the word itself. In that case, I am a proud cultural "racist" (as opposed to real racist), nothing wrong with that in some cases.
edit on 7/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


EDIT: Just dont forget to mention when calling people racist that you really mean "a cultural pseudoracist".
edit on 7/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
And if you want to use the incorrect term, then fine, call it what you want, it does not change the meaning of the word itself. In that case, I am a proud cultural "racist" (as opposed to real racist), nothing wrong with that in some cases.
edit on 7/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


See, this is another reason why they want to stop doing that.

If people start liking the message of the moderate/reasonable culturally/legalistic minded individuals, and they are being called racists...it could make real racists look more attractive.

In the long run, the word game is dangerous.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Aeons
 





Meaning - that's someone's opinion and it is essentially a political tool to silence debate about your CHOICES, by pretending that your political or religious views can be equated to physiology and it is offensive and manipulative.


Dice all you want the definition is clear. If you want to defend racism feel free too....


You are correct. It is.

Race - Racism. The dictionary....it is just SOOOOOOO inconvenient.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
Re Google, I found it strangle that this company who so clearly like to promote the feel good with nice info's about events etc had so obviously played the day down, it would have been better to ignore it all together.


What makes you think it was underplayed ? It comes across as suitably understated, to me.

images4.wikia.nocookie.net...

What did you want them to do ? Have two huge ostentatious poppies crassly displayed where the ''o''s normally are ?

And what possible reason would Google be ''playing it down'' for ? I mean, Muslims against Crusades members are hardly going to set fire to their own computer screens when they bring up Google's homepage and see a poppy.



Originally posted by Mclaneinc
And please do not infer I go looking for things like this, its a personally important day which you probably don't care much about, I do as do many very grateful British people


It's an important day, but it appears that you're the one who is trivialising it by getting your knickers in a twist about the size of a poppy on a multinational corporation's search engine.


Originally posted by Mclaneinc
What annoys is the fact you think or allure to the fact I read the Daily Mail without any proof, please do NOT politicise this subject by using mind numbing slangs, you are not Ian Hislop, you are not on I've got news for you or whatever its called.


I don't recall that I ever suggested you read The Daily Fail.


Originally posted by Mclaneinc
Widely reported, Muslim doctors and theatre staff have been allowed to refrain from washing their whole arm before procedures despite the high problem with cleanliness. This is ONLY offered to Muslims.


By widely reported, I think you mean the BNP website. What you say is not true. The NHS guidelines state that ''strict procedures or washing hands and wrists must still be observed” by all employees. The only relaxation in rules is that a member of medical staff may have their forearms covered for religious purposes when they are not involved in patient care. These rules apply to all staff, and are not Muslim only.


Originally posted by Mclaneinc
Muslim people working in busy supermarkets can opt out of serving alcohol and the lottery, again only offered to Muslim people.


If that's true, then that would be stupid on both sides. The supermarket would be stupid for allowing it, and the Muslim employees would be stupid for requesting it.

But, in the end, who really cares, as supermarkets are private companies who can make their own rules or policies.


Originally posted by Mclaneinc
Muslims have preferential Womens Muslim only swimming nights at the public baths, this is not a private paid night, its at the expense of the tax payers and unneeded as its not a religious right.


Again, this is just not true. There are no ''Muslim women only swimming nights'' at the taxpayers' expense. What a ridiculous suggestion !


Originally posted by Mclaneinc
Some Hospital workers must hide crosses or any religious jewellery because it offends Muslims, no other religion has any such clauses.


Not true. The crosses, and other similar necklaces, are not allowed because of health and safety concerns regarding a patient grabbing them or getting hit by one. This has absolutely nothing to do with ''offending Muslims''.



Originally posted by Mclaneinc
Muslim workers request and are given times to go and pray, this is NOT in the religion, it says that if you are otherwise engaged you can pray later, the same as eating pork, they are permitted to eat pork if their life or needs depends on it.


You're going to have to provide some evidence to suggest that Muslim government workers are given extra time off to pray.


Originally posted by Mclaneinc
Here;s what I can't get about you, there are Muslims sending in replies who are totally repulsed by this case, they are saying as I have that these are not proper muslims and the best thing you can do with your time is do sleazy political correctness posts when someone of your intelligence should be seeing this is a growing problem that Brits AND UK normal Muslims want stamped out


But the fact that the women who committed this crime are Muslim is immaterial. This crime had nothing to do with religion, as it's one - drunken people causing violence towards others - which occurs up and down the country.


Originally posted by Mclaneinc
If you want to highlight genuine racial comments about people hating Muslims then you do that, do not include men in that nonsense, its unwanted, unfair and stupidity on your part....


Please show me where I suggested that you were a racist.


edit on 7-12-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
Er yes, that's exactly what I replied and why I replied...You must have failed to notice..ho humm...I merely said that IF they had been heard it should have had an effect on the charge and the result.


Fair enough, but there are an awful lot of people on this thread who are not thinking through this case logically, and considering the less far-fetched reasons why charges of racial aggravation were not brought against these women.


Originally posted by Mclaneinc
What we do see here is a calculated attempt to use religion as an excuse for crime and the judge went and bought it.

The fact they used religion and can be clearly shown as just about anything but being Muslim at the time is what have should have been worked on, these are louts, I doubt that they even were class-able as drunk considering their very obvious mobility and careful body control during the fighting.


Again, there is nothing to suggest that they used religion as an excuse. It was only mentioned by their defence lawyer in passing during mitigation, as a way of additionally highlighting the claim that drinking was out of character for them.


Originally posted by Mclaneinc
I'm well aware of a defence lawyers job but their defence was based on being Muslim made them unaccountable for their actions because Muslims don't normally drink. The fact that they were behaving un islamically BY drinking was not addressed and nor should it have been as the actions seen on the video was of people very fluid in movement, no staggering until the police van came by one of them.

The video evidence is most important, it shows their ability to run and mobilise their hands and feet, its not indicative of a drunk, merely a set of louts.


You're missing the point. How drunk they were or how often they drink is not important. It is the defence lawyer's job to get the best result for his client, which is why - when someone has been drinking - it is usually used in mitigation to appeal to a judge's more lenient side. I'm pretty sure the mention that they were Muslim was only used as a persuasive tactic to solidify the claim that they don't normally drink.

There's nothing strange about this. It's just a defence lawyer doing what they are paid to do.


Originally posted by Mclaneinc
I am not even giving thought to other cases, things need to be dealt with case by case, this clearly was a huge cock up and allowing the religious aspect was a serious abuse, it sends 'drunk Muslim bad but not really at fault'


And that's a total misrepresentation and distortion of the events in this case.


Originally posted by Mclaneinc
It matter not what the paper printed, its what the judge replied about, he chose to allow this bizarre interpretation of Muslims rituals that I've never seen before in my life.


Where did the judge reply about the alcohol aspect ? His main reason for suspending the sentence appears to be that he believed that the three women were under the impression that the victim's boyfriend used ''unreasonable force''.

No reported mention of alcohol or Muslims in his decision, to my knowledge.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
So you are basically conceding that you have no case that demonstrates a gang of whites who attacked a black person getting off because they are drunk?


You are making an appeal to ignorance.

You asked: ''Can you provide a link to a case illustrating a gang of whites assaulting a black person on the ground shouting "Kill the black slag!" and then walking away from court because they had been drinking and they can't handle their drink?''.

No such case exists, so obviously I can not provide you with a link. Yet, you have formed the illogical position that if I can't provide you with a link ( because the case you request is all in your imagination ) then that ''proves'' that your baseless assertion that white and black people are treated differently in crimes with identical circumstances is correct.

The onus is on you to find two comparable cases which support your premise. Good luck with that.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I'm afraid I'll have to pull you back to the original conversation and question which you still don't get:


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the race of the perpetrators or victim had anything to do with the un-newsworthy sentence that the women received.



Originally posted by ollncasino
Well nothing apart from the fact that as the Somali gang were kicking the white girl on the ground they were shouting "Kill the WHITE bitch!"



Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
And what relevance has that got to do with the sentence they received for assault ?


So, I ask you again: what relevance did the words that the women allegedly said towards their victim have to do with the sentence which they received for assault ?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Logically put.

It is worth mentioning that the girls were not a gang as the Daily Mail described the group. They are sisters and a cousin.

Additionally, a consideration the judge would have made was whether the girls attacked without warning or if it was a consequence of a dispute or argument with the victim and her boyfriend.

If the girls have a violent history then that too would be considered by the judge when making the judgement.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


Still havnt charged 'Stephen Lawrences' Murderers yet.... its been 18 years i think.... maybe once they do charge someone for that, they will take this matter more serious and charge these girls for GBH



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Oh my god, the British media is really the most absurd and most propagandist I have ever seen. Talking about creating division and polarizing, just preposterous. And all the personal details out the in the open, unbelievable. Muslim girls this, muslim girls that, how clever, they know what they are doing.

And why isnt the sentence good enough? It sounds fine with me. People can be so bloodthirsty.
edit on 7-12-2011 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Whats wrong with recruiting to the right I haven't seen the left do **** all about the incy wincy pwoblem.

2ndedededeedded



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
actually, this is probably an important point (regarding their drinking). if they are muslim and unaccustomed to alcohol, this incident will allow them the chance to see why islam is against alcohol: because it inspires people to react without inhibition on any little thought that passes thru their heads.

edit on 7-12-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Twiptwop
 





TextWhite, English and Christian. You are a traitor that does not deserve anything this country has.


I could not resist this one.. So your a white xenophobic worshiping a black god... lol
who is the traitor now..



what a beautiful artwork!
i think he was a bit whiter. think obama.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I'm afraid I'll have to pull you back to the original conversation and question which you still don't get:


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the race of the perpetrators or victim had anything to do with the un-newsworthy sentence that the women received.



Originally posted by ollncasino
Well nothing apart from the fact that as the Somali gang were kicking the white girl on the ground they were shouting "Kill the WHITE bitch!"



Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
And what relevance has that got to do with the sentence they received for assault ?


So, I ask you again: what relevance did the words that the women allegedly said towards their victim have to do with the sentence which they received for assault ?


Okay, if it has no relevance then it NEVER has any.

Either it matters, or it doesn't.

Are you saying that if this was the other way around this wouldn't be considered a hate crime as well?

edit on 2011/12/7 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Wow, I'm not going to continue adding posts as I think it's just going around in circles. Reading some of the latest posts pains me to know that the propaganda machine has worked a treat! There are a few of you absolutely clueless about the reality of this country and the agenda very firmly set in motion. I don't blame you, it's what you believe in and what you believe is true, I once thought like that. Then I started looking at the areas I moved to and from, started to talk to people that should know the score and then working in roles that exposed me to the reality. It's very true when they say that if you're not a Communist at 16 you have no heart, if you are still a Communist at 30 you have no brain. The problem is by the time you realise what has happened to this country and you will eventually realise believe me, it will be far too late to change your opinions and way past the point of no return.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Multiculturalism has worked without major problems for many many years. Countries such as the USA, Great Britain, France, Australia and Germany have grown strong and free with generations of hard working migrants... until the last 5 or 7 years. Hmmmm, can anyone tell me what has changed during this time? Or, more specifically, what religion/ race has changed the dynamic of every country it enters by aggressively spreading to every stable nation on earth and doing their best to piss the locals off and NOT fit in? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

...or do I have to point out the elephant in the room?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
Dear Twitdrop

Please tell me what your culture is. I have asked you twice and you seem unable to answer..

And you have been told at least twice, in this thread and others.

The fact that you choose to ignore people's efforts to educate you says more about you than it does they.






top topics



 
60
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join