Man Arrested for Seeming Racist

[Mekh]

I should think a group of bullies monopolising an area to insult people every day would classify correctly as anti-social and a form of harassment.

Or it's a group of upright citizens exercising their right of free speech. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it?

Your scenario here is unrealistic. I would expect after the first or second time church would just ban you from entering. Then it would be a matter of trespassing if you tried to enter and that is a legitimate reason to call the police. No, keep kicking these people out each time they do it.

I can only talk about my experiences in Germany: Churches here are usually always open during the day for anyone to walk in and I don't believe there's a priest or security guard or someone else around (outside mass anyway) to actually interfere should something happen (or they are around but in a backroom and might not notice, I don't know). So a place of prayer and worship (and tourism) could be made a stage for some teenager bullies feeling the need to rebel against something. I don't know how these things would play out, because here there is already a law against that. Still, I don't think I'd want to put away with it. There's still too many kids here 'sticking it to the man' by vandalizing graveyards in the cover of the night.

What about wearing some of their obscene shirts in public?

Nope, that's cool. I guess that's the point when your concept of social ridicule would take.

[marukale]

I'm rather shocked how many people think that being racist should be legal under the guise of "free speech".
In order to avoid a semantic argument I'm using the legal UK definition of racism which includes, race, religion and culture.

First lets look at history: Prior to the Nazi party gaining power in Germany anti-Semitic racism was legal, it was what gained so much support for the Nazi party, a country struggling with economic collapse wanted a scapegoat, the Nazi party provided them with one. So the Nazi party gained power.

at the same time anti-semitic racism was common throughout the world, it was the reason why ships full of Jews fleeing from Germany were turned back by countries like the US and UK. They didn't want a boat full of Jews in their society. But racism can't lead to harm can it, it is only words and words can't hurt? Surely racism can't lead to mass genocide? Racism can't lead to civilized countries turning away thousands of people fleeing from persecution forcing them to their deaths can it?

I'm hoping that everyone can see that racism leads to harm.

I believe that racism should not be tolerated by a nation. That means: through the acts of its people, and through the passing of laws, racism should not be allowed. With no law against racism the government is showing it is acceptable, "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

As for the topic of free-speech, I'm in agreement with the ICCPR: "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice"

I do not agree that that means everyone can say whatever they want, however they want. Everyone is free to have racist thoughts, they are even free to discuss their racism without fear or penalty, they are not free to act upon those racist ideals in society, whether that is through insults or through prejudice. Shouting abuse at someone is not imparting information or ideas, it is about trying to show dominance over them and it is about trying to cause harm.

No country has true free speech in terms of people can say anything without fear of penalty. If you believe you do in your country then try phoning in a bomb scare in a public place. Freedom of speech can only be used when it does not impinge upon other people's right to live free from persecution.

In the USA there is a specific exception on "Fighting Words" which at one point included the word nigger, and "Intentional infliction of emotional distress".

As for the matter of doing a monkey impression, in the UK and most of Europe it has been used as a racist insult for most of the last century and still used that way today. In the USA it might not be so commonly used, to the point where it is not offensive. I'm sure there are many sayings that here would be considered mild and over there are considered highly offensive. When trying to judge the story if you find it ridiculous that it was just a monkey impression, try imagining it as whatever highly offensive racist taunt you want and then reconsider if it is ridiculous.

Now for the idea that making an example of him means his punishment is too severe. Making an example of can happen for multiple reasons:
1) Characteristic of the person - ie a well educated person may be made an example of because they should know better when compared to a young teenager who dropped out of school.
2) Timeliness of the act - ie if the act is carried out after a well publicized effort to dissuade people from those action. For example in the London riots there was a lot of information about how looting is illegal and that people caught would be punished, therefor when people did loot they were punished severely even if they stole a couple of bottle of water.

Neither of those reasons mean the person's punishment were too severe. Punishing someone to the full extent of the law is perfectly reasonable in those situations.

A point about should he have been arrested or should it be handled "in house" by the FA or the stadium. There is an international drive to keep racism out of football, most of that is regulated through criminal records which are shared across Europe. Trying to handle it at an unofficial, local level is impractical.

Finally, lets go back to the famous quote:

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

If we add the line:
Then they came for the blacks

Would you rather the next line be:
and I didn't speak our because I wasn't black

or to be:
and I fought to make racism a crime

[Deleted]

Or it's a group of upright citizens exercising their right of free speech. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it?

It could be. It depends on what they're doing. If a group is doing nothing more than antagonising everyone or everyone in a group that they see every day in their hangout then they should be moved on.

I can only talk about my experiences in Germany: Churches here are usually always open during the day for anyone to walk in and I don't believe there's a priest or security guard or someone else around (outside mass anyway) to actually interfere should something happen (or they are around but in a backroom and might not notice, I don't know). So a place of prayer and worship (and tourism) could be made a stage for some teenager bullies feeling the need to rebel against something.

Yes, it could. If they do so they could be kicked out when spotted.

I don't know how these things would play out, because here there is already a law against that. Still, I don't think I'd want to put away with it. There's still too many kids here 'sticking it to the man' by vandalizing graveyards in the cover of the night.

Vandalizing Graveyards =/= Free Speech issues

Nope, that's cool. I guess that's the point when your concept of social ridicule would take.

I note inconsistency here. Why is that cool? Religious people would be offended at seeing these shirts. Why is it appropriate to wear them according to you?

---------- Post added 2012-11-13 at 04:34 AM ----------

I'm rather shocked how many people think that being racist should be legal under the guise of "free speech".

It is already legal: One is able to join openly racist organisations if they like (assuming said organisation does not double as some far-right terrorist group).

In order to avoid a semantic argument I'm using the legal UK definition of racism which includes, race, religion and culture.

First lets look at history: Prior to the Nazi party gaining power in Germany anti-Semitic racism was legal, it was what gained so much support for the Nazi party, a country struggling with economic collapse wanted a scapegoat, the Nazi party provided them with one. So the Nazi party gained power.

at the same time anti-semitic racism was common throughout the world, it was the reason why ships full of Jews fleeing from Germany were turned back by countries like the US and UK. They didn't want a boat full of Jews in their society. But racism can't lead to harm can it, it is only words and words can't hurt? Surely racism can't lead to mass genocide? Racism can't lead to civilized countries turning away thousands of people fleeing from persecution forcing them to their deaths can it?

I'm hoping that everyone can see that racism leads to harm.

No-one here is arguing that racist ideas becoming mainstream in society would have no consequences.

I believe that racism should not be tolerated by a nation. That means: through the acts of its people, and through the passing of laws, racism should not be allowed. With no law against racism the government is showing it is acceptable, "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

How far would you go on this? Would you make simply expressing racist opinions illegal?

As for the topic of free-speech, I'm in agreement with the ICCPR: "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice"

I do not agree that that means everyone can say whatever they want, however they want. Everyone is free to have racist thoughts, they are even free to discuss their racism without fear or penalty, they are not free to act upon those racist ideals in society, whether that is through insults or through prejudice. Shouting abuse at someone is not imparting information or ideas, it is about trying to show dominance over them and it is about trying to cause harm.

A racist idea in and of itself is prejudiced, by the way.

Things such as abuse and insults in public ought come under legislation regarding keeping the peace.

No country has true free speech in terms of people can say anything without fear of penalty. If you believe you do in your country then try phoning in a bomb scare in a public place. Freedom of speech can only be used when it does not impinge upon other people's right to live free from persecution.

If you fake a bomb scare then you'll be in court for reasons unrelated to what you said specifically but for the actions from others you were trying to induce.

Now for the idea that making an example of him means his punishment is too severe. Making an example of can happen for multiple reasons:
1) Characteristic of the person - ie a well educated person may be made an example of because they should know better when compared to a young teenager who dropped out of school.

That isn't "making an example of" by any definition. That's holding a specific individual to a higher standard.

2) Timeliness of the act - ie if the act is carried out after a well publicized effort to dissuade people from those action. For example in the London riots there was a lot of information about how looting is illegal and that people caught would be punished, therefor when people did loot they were punished severely even if they stole a couple of bottle of water.

I know about that. Making individuals an example then was wrong then as well.

Neither of those reasons mean the person's punishment were too severe. Punishing someone to the full extent of the law is perfectly reasonable in those situations.

Sure, but not on the basis of "making an example of".

A point about should he have been arrested or should it be handled "in house" by the FA or the stadium. There is an international drive to keep racism out of football, most of that is regulated through criminal records which are shared across Europe. Trying to handle it at an unofficial, local level is impractical.

No it isn't. His face was all over the newspapers. He could have been identified trivially and banned from every stadium.

Finally, lets go back to the famous quote:
First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
If we add the line:
Then they came for the blacks
Would you rather the next line be:
and I didn't speak our because I wasn't black
or to be:
and I fought to make racism a crime

Don't be ridiculous. No-one here is "coming for" the blacks.

[Dabrix32]

In the US some stuff still isnt covered by the 1st Ammendment. Like you cant yell fire in a crowded place or bomb on a plane. Also slander is illegal as well. Like I cant call someone a slut in a magazine or on TV or I will get sued. But I can if you sleep with 10 guys a night because if its true then its not slander.

[Letmesleep]

What's this have to do with anything? The results are bullshit and hilariously broad, but why post it in this thread?

Are you do embarrassed that you try to redirect the thread because you hate Americans?

Screw you. I haven't seen any Americans make character attacks to British people specifically. Americans like British people and you are a disgrace to the relationship with your country that they hold dear.

Wow man, check your rage at the door. What makes you think I'm not American? The fact that I pointed out something negative about us? Do I need to specify in my location that I'm from America so you can decide beforehand how to judge my opinions? I was born in California, and have lived here for 27 years. I love my country dearly, and if you actually spent time on these forums instead of bouncing in and out of them whenever you have a political bone to pick, you'd know that about me. Also, are you kidding me? I've been to England six times. I've got nothing against the British and actually find their culture rather endearing. I can dislike things about America or the UK while still being loyal to them. Wild accusations are wild. I mentioned the study because, as I already said, it didn't make sense to start another race thread when we had one open already. I remain saddened by it's implications.

[Raidenx]

This is how we deal with stupid people. We laugh at them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG8E...8&feature=plcp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zpf...8&feature=plcp

[nyc81991]

I was about to write a huge comment on this untill I noticed that it wasn't in America.

Either way, While I don't think people should be racist, I can't understand how someone could be arrested for that.

[Deleted]

First lets look at history: Prior to the Nazi party gaining power in Germany anti-Semitic racism was legal, it was what gained so much support for the Nazi party, a country struggling with economic collapse wanted a scapegoat, the Nazi party provided them with one. So the Nazi party gained power.

at the same time anti-semitic racism was common throughout the world, it was the reason why ships full of Jews fleeing from Germany were turned back by countries like the US and UK. They didn't want a boat full of Jews in their society. But racism can't lead to harm can it, it is only words and words can't hurt? Surely racism can't lead to mass genocide? Racism can't lead to civilized countries turning away thousands of people fleeing from persecution forcing them to their deaths can it?

You can hardly compare the world today to the world 75 years ago, where mainstream media encouraged racism, where professional doctors said that homosexuality was a disease and having a black skin was considered a punishment from God. Some people will still say that today, but those are obviously looked down upon because the majority thinks now that no matter what you are you are equal to everyone else. Unless you're a pedophile. Fuck pedophiles.

[Deleted]

It's populist policing, it's pretty risible.

edit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...oon?CMP=twt_gu

[GreatOak]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...at-Aussie.html

Calling someone Australian ruled by a court as a racist insult after a neighbour mistakenly abused New Zealander during drunken row.

WHAT?! COME ON NOW

[Zhangfei]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...at-Aussie.html WHAT?! COME ON NOW

Say what you want but when I'm called Australian nothing offends me more.

[GreatOak]

Say what you want but when I'm called Australian nothing offends me more.

Canadians hate being called Americans but they don't arrest people over it. They just passive-aggressively shrink back and complain about it later.

[Zhangfei]

Canadians hate being called Americans but they don't arrest people over it. They just passive-aggressively shrink back and complain about it later.

Yes but that's nowhere near as bad as being called Australian. That's pure evil.