Neo Nazi father bans black nurse from looking after his baby

[samurai_sarah]

:lol: I did not know that! Not that I have the urge to kill one. But I agree they are some seriously evil ANGRY birds :shock:

Some poor soul took it upon himself to find that out. :lol: Thankfully, because swans and boars are the only European wildlife that put the fear of God into me. They're seriously evil.

[the 4th survivor]

Am I the only one that doesn't get the big issue here? If this guy feels more comfortable having a white nurse look after his kid I think that should be his choice, assuming the hospital can reasonably accommodate him. Let's not forget if the racial roles were reversed here (black parent saying they want a black nurse taking care of their baby) there wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue over it and I highly doubt the hospital would be getting sued. Seems kind of anti-white if you ask me. Sure, he might have been a Nazi sympathizer but if he was just a regular white guy would that have made a difference?

[valsa]

Am I the only one that doesn't get the big issue here? If this guy feels more comfortable having a white nurse look after his kid I think that should be his choice, assuming the hospital can reasonably accommodate him. Let's not forget if the racial roles were reversed here (black parent saying they want a black nurse taking care of their baby) there wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue over it and I highly doubt the hospital would be getting sued. Seems kind of anti-white if you ask me. Sure, he might have been a Nazi sympathizer but if he was just a regular white guy would that have made a difference?

It's not Friday yet, dear. Come back in a few hours.

[samurai_sarah]

Am I the only one that doesn't get the big issue here? If this guy feels more comfortable having a white nurse look after his kid I think that should be his choice, assuming the hospital can reasonably accommodate him. Let's not forget if the racial roles were reversed here (black parent saying they want a black nurse taking care of their baby) there wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue over it and I highly doubt the hospital would be getting sued. Seems kind of anti-white if you ask me. Sure, he might have been a Nazi sympathizer but if he was just a regular white guy would that have made a difference?

This is a joke, right?

[Widget]

This is a joke, right?

No need to use a new throwaway account on a joke.

On an entirely unrelated matter, have we have found SheWhoTrolls new sock yet? :whistle:

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Some poor soul took it upon himself to find that out. :lol: Thankfully, because swans and boars are the only European wildlife that put the fear of God into me. They're seriously evil.

When one of my friends was a kid, her family had big property with a swan pond (for some reason). One day when she was about 5 or 6, she was standing near the pond when their swan, out of nowhere, started pulling her in and almost drowned her.

The swan got a bullet in the head for its trouble. I don't normally condone that sort of thing, but I can understand her dad's motivation...

[the 4th survivor]

I was serious. What's the problem? Are you going to tell me the story would be the same with a black person not wanting a white nurse?

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Can we starting talking nail varnish now?

[DarkAnts]

When one of my friends was a kid, her family had big property with a swan pond (for some reason). One day when she was about 5 or 6, she was standing near the pond when their swan, out of nowhere, started pulling her in and almost drowned her.

The swan got a bullet in the head for its trouble. I don't normally condone that sort of thing, but I can understand her dad's motivation...

My 7 year old niece recently got bit by a goose while trying to feed the ducks. Poor thing is now afraid of them.

[MyNameIsJonas]

Am I the only one that doesn't get the big issue here? If this guy feels more comfortable having a white nurse look after his kid I think that should be his choice, assuming the hospital can reasonably accommodate him. Let's not forget if the racial roles were reversed here (black parent saying they want a black nurse taking care of their baby) there wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue over it and I highly doubt the hospital would be getting sued. Seems kind of anti-white if you ask me. Sure, he might have been a Nazi sympathizer but if he was just a regular white guy would that have made a difference?

I haven't been able to really tear apart someone's ridiculous and racist views in quite a while. But I'm going to control myself and watch this PBS documentary instead. :lol:

[lilith]

No need to use a new throwaway account on a joke.

On an entirely unrelated matter, have we have found SheWhoTrolls new sock yet? :whistle:

You beat me to it

[Mama Mia]

I was serious. What's the problem? Are you going to tell me the story would be the same with a black person not wanting a white nurse?

Why would the story be any different if it was a black person not wanting a white nurse ? And it isn't just the guy "wanted" a specific sort of nurse, it was that he demanded that he not get a specific sort of nurse, AND that the hospital caved in and inconvienanced their staff to give in to his demands.

If he had said " I don't want Nurse X because I saw her leaving a syringe in the baby's isolette" - yes, reason for hospital to comply.

If he said " I don't want Nurse X because I don't like the color of her skin, she's too skinny, she's too fat, her hairstyle is dated" - no, they should not comply.

keep trying to edit for spelling and errors, not succeeding -time for bed

[OkToBeTakei]

I haven't been able to really tear apart someone's ridiculous and racist views in quite a while. But I'm going to control myself and watch this PBS documentary instead. :lol:

I ALWAYS miss the good shit. STOOPID time difference :lol:

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Why would the story be any different if it was a black person not wanting a white nurse ? And it isn't just the guy "wanted" a specific sort of nurse, it was that he demanded that he not get a specific sort of nurse, AND that the hospital caved in and inconvienanced their staff to give in to his demands.

If he had said " I don't want Nurse X because I saw her leaving a syringe in the baby's isolette" - yes, reason for hospital to comply.

If he said " I don't want Nurse X because I don't like the color of her skin, she's too skinny, she's too fat, her hairstyle is dated" - no, they should not comply.

keep trying to edit for spelling and errors, not succeeding -time for bed

Well, I think it is different. Not that one is ok, but the white racist getting his wish and bumping the black nurse off to worse shifts is an egregious reinforcement of institutional racism. A black person requesting a black nurse is also problematic, but it is problematic for other reasons.

[Guest Anonymous]

Am I the only one that doesn't get the big issue here? If this guy feels more comfortable having a white nurse look after his kid I think that should be his choice, assuming the hospital can reasonably accommodate him. Let's not forget if the racial roles were reversed here (black parent saying they want a black nurse taking care of their baby) there wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue over it and I highly doubt the hospital would be getting sued. Seems kind of anti-white if you ask me. Sure, he might have been a Nazi sympathizer but if he was just a regular white guy would that have made a difference?

This is just ridiculous. I didn't even realise there was a stage beyond "it's intolerant to care about intolerance." "It's racist to care about racism" is like a whole new world of crazy. I also love the poster's hypothetical of 'just a regular white guy' who happens makes decisions based on pure, straight-up racism! Is that supposed to be sympathetic?

[Burris]

Obviously if you can find a case where somebody was jailed in the Uk for being insulting. That a pamphlet expressing a view although not inciting violence resulted in a criminal conviction. A person who was jailed for seven years for saying black people are less evolved. Then I will gladly stand corrected.

This is the law as you described it. If you want a more nuanced discussion, offer a more nuanced overview of the law.

I do see that you are coming from this from a totally different perspective (I suspect) from yewtree who appears to post from a very socialist left point of view. I could be totally making an assumption on both of you. If so advanced apology. Polarising views indeed. I tend not to be so emotionally invested nor am I particularly patriotic. I'm willing to see all views. From my first post on this thread for example to reading others my knowledge and opinion can shift.

I appreciate your attempt to understand competing points of view. My own reactions here are not due to some nebulous desire to see speech defended just for the sake of argument. They're the result, in part, of my having seen what happens when speech is curtailed.

In sum: Bad things happen when people allow the government to regulate non-violent speech allegedly for the sake of public harmony - especially since this public harmony is almost always defined as what best serves those in power.

I do not believe people should trust the government that much. I don't think they should hate the government, but that they should see it as either a tool of the people or as a weapon against the people and act with the appropriate level of caution.

But I do think that you have taken that post and picked out the most extreme examples of what could happen. Sensationalised it to an extent.

If you look beyond the UK, you'll see it's not sensationalism. It's more in the nature of what could happen if you sell liberty for the sake of sentimental concerns over other people's feelings; or worse, if you sell it for "security."

I only see that as a rather poor way of trying to further your own views or beliefs. I don't find it a good way to debate.

I am not debating this issue. I am stating my beliefs. Take them or leave them.

As to our racist patient in the A&E (ER) No he did not refuse treatment. He was refused treatment.

Okay, so, he was refused treatment - a punishment in itself - and then he did six months in jail. That's even worse.

I do wonder though. I did ask before that I was interested in all views. Do you think this case compromised his right to 'free speech?' Because for me that is the crux of the discussion.

Simply, bluntly, yes.

[OkToBeTakei]

A nuanced view of the law would have meant posting it in it's entirety and rather than 20-30 odd page document I posted the header and a link that I assumed anybody interested in commenting on would check out. But as of yet I still cannot see any convicted cases of the examples you gave.

I see earlier in the thread you used various different countries to example curtailing of free speech. I understand that and it may look to you that it is then possible to fall down that rabbit hole. The Public Order Act has been around since 1986 there have been revisions but in essence I would suggest that the UK is actually far more liberal than it was in the 80's and what you see as curtailing I see as liberty and equality for minorities.

I neither trust or hate the government. I have a balanced view of what it's capabilities both positive and negative are. One of the most common complaints from US citizens in the public eye is their view that our press has way to much freedom. The press here is brutal. But it does make for a level of accountability in politics. Not a guarantee for sure. But every UK govt fears the press.

I am not sure if it is my belief per se. I know I am looking for a solution if that makes sense. There are some issues that have no easy solution. You see wanting to be part of a society that gives some legal nod to protecting minorities from prejudice and discrimination as sentimental. I see it is a step in the right direction. The law is used so rarely (I found only four cases while searching) that in some ways I see it as a way to highlight the issues, rather than some massive infringement on right to free speech.

I think you know I am going to disagree on the last point. That is OK. It would be a boring world if everybody agreed all the time.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I don't like feeding trolls, but I'll give an example of legitimate vs. illegitimate patient requests:

My husband is a doctor. He gets approached by people from our community all the time.

Case #1:

Israeli family talks to my husband about their daughter's illness. They seem to have jumped from doctor to doctor, always trying to find the best care and answers, but don't realize that this is actually making it harder to care for their daughter. Her disease is complex, they are worried and confused, and don't fully understand the situation. My husband comes from the same background, so he's able to speak their language and understand some of the cultural quirks as well. He takes on the daughter as a patient, speaks to the family far more bluntly than any other doctor has, and her condition finally improves.

Case #2:

Husband notices that someone close to us is in extreme pain. They discuss possible causes and options. Husband suggests a referral to a neurologist. This person insists that he won't see a Muslim doctor out of fear. Husband says that this neurologist is fully capable and professional, and then basically says, "if you want to be like that, have fun dealing with chronic pain." He's not going to go out of his way to find someone else, when the most convenient and most qualified doctor is rejected.

[Burris]

I see earlier in the thread you used various different countries to example curtailing of free speech. I understand that and it may look to you that it is then possible to fall down that rabbit hole. The Public Order Act has been around since 1986 there have been revisions but in essence I would suggest that the UK is actually far more liberal than it was in the 80's and what you see as curtailing I see as liberty and equality for minorities.

Liberality and freedom, though close cousins, aren't exactly the same. In fact, in some ways, the desire to create a level playing field for everyone can limit freedom - even as it does the freedom of speech for those who wish to express their hateful opinions.

Not all speech is going to be valuable or true or useful. The problem, then, is that different people assign different levels of value to different kinds of speech. Curtail one kind of speech and there may come a time, if the politics shift, when other forms of speech - speech you value - is likewise limited, and for similar reasons.

I know we're not going to agree on this, but consider the possibility.

I neither trust or hate the government. I have a balanced view of what it's capabilities both positive and negative are. One of the most common complaints from US citizens in the public eye is their view that our press has way to much freedom. The press here is brutal. But it does make for a level of accountability in politics. Not a guarantee for sure. But every UK govt fears the press.

Then I really have underestimated your press.

Every government, everywhere, should fear the press. If that model exists in the UK, then good - but what would happen if some judges were ever to pass a statute requiring, say, that every word your reporters utter must be backed by solid, solid paper documentation. It can't be mere investigative journalism. It can't even be damning words caught on tape. If the press is to make a claim, they must produce copies of government documents, some of which are classified, lest they be in danger of trial for libel or slander.

If your statutes are written in stone, then - poof - your press has been robbed of both teeth and claws.

What then?

You see wanting to be part of a society that gives some legal nod to protecting minorities from prejudice and discrimination as sentimental.

Not quite. I think minorities should be legally protected from acts of discrimination (such as hiring and housing bans). I think they should be protected from violent rhetoric. I think they should be protected from violence, full stop.

I just don't think laws should exist designed to protect minorities from, essentially, being offended. If the speech they hear is non-violent but offensive, then so be it. We offend each other all the time. Putting up with offensive crap is one price of living in a free and open society. That is what I meant by "sentimentalism."

[OkToBeTakei]

I'm not sure if we are coming from this from opposing cultural/political view points. Of course there is always the possibility that some massive change in government could lead to a dictatorship, war can cause untold damage to the infrastructure of a society. That is always a possibility. Is it likely? In the US I know the conservative view point is far opposed to the labour point. ie The difference between right and left is huge with some polarising standpoints on issues pertaining to society and choice. Politics and society has been evolving in the UK for countless centuries and now compared to say the US in particular the differences between right and left are negligible in regards to polarising policy change.

That is not to say that we do not have our fair share of political extremists but on the whole I would say that the political climate is and has been stable for decades. The economy not so much, a worldwide problem. So although of course I could consider a radical change in government and how they could then manipulate or change laws we are discussing, I do not think unless some catastrophic event occurs which could shift the change to that extent, is likely.

The press would indeed be an indicator of change which would be a red flag to the above. Considering the most recent change to freedom of press laws was the 'phone hacking' scandal will show you how vicious the UK press actually is. It makes for interesting reading. They defended it by calling it a legitimate form of investigative journalism.

We will not agree on the last point. I am OK with it. I see it as an active way of fighting racism. I suppose I cannot reconcile the right to 'free speech' with the right to be racist. I know you will disagree but honestly that would be my only way of seeing it.

ETA. There is one huge political change in the future. Devolution. I am honestly no further on with that decision than I was four years ago. Obviously mine will be the deciding vote hehe.

[the 4th survivor]

I think you guys missed my point. I'm saying that if this were a story about a black person saying they felt better having a black nurse take care of their baby there wouldn't be any cries of racism and we probably wouldn't be hearing about it because it wouldn't be considered newsworthy. This is all because the father was white and wanted a white nurse. Whites are called racists for wanting to stick to their own but minorities are not and that's a double standard. Now I'm not saying the guy's request was rational but it would be no more rational if he was black now would it?

[Mama Mia]

I think you guys missed my point. I'm saying that if this were a story about a black person saying they felt better having a black nurse take care of their baby there wouldn't be any cries of racism and we probably wouldn't be hearing about it because it wouldn't be considered newsworthy. This is all because the father was white and wanted a white nurse. Whites are called racists for wanting to stick to their own but minorities are not and that's a double standard. Now I'm not saying the guy's request was rational but it would be no more rational if he was black now would it?

I already disagreed with your view.

I do think it would get the same amount of attention if the circumstance was that a black father was demanding a black nurse.

Again - it isn't JUST that some random patient made an irrational request. I'm sure that happens all the time. It is getting attention because the guy was intimidating, the staff caved in to the request, switched the nurses shifts and she sued. And it was based on race, not on an issue the man had with that particular nurses ability to care for the baby.

Because it was based on race, it is discrimination. It would be discrimination if the hospital had handled it the same way and it was a black person who made the demands. I, personally, think it is mostly a matter of the hospital doing a bad job in handling the situation all the way around, and it should have been diffused before it escalated to that level.

If there was a particular reason why the baby should of cared by someone from a particular group that could justifiable - for example if the family did not speak English and there was a nurse on staff that spoke their language it would make sense from a patient care standpoint to assign that nurse to that baby. Or if the family was from a cultural group that had very specific and unusual beliefs regarding health care - and there was a nurse who shared that background it might improve patient care to have that nurse assigned. But the key there is patient care - there is no justifiable reason to demand a nurse not work with a particular patient based solely on race. No matter what the races involved are.

[Anxious Girl]

I think you guys missed my point. I'm saying that if this were a story about a black person saying they felt better having a black nurse take care of their baby there wouldn't be any cries of racism and we probably wouldn't be hearing about it because it wouldn't be considered newsworthy. This is all because the father was white and wanted a white nurse. Whites are called racists for wanting to stick to their own but minorities are not and that's a double standard. Now I'm not saying the guy's request was rational but it would be no more rational if he was black now would it?

There's a difference between being discriminatory and being racist. Blacks can be discriminatory to whites, but they can't be racist because they don't have economic and societal power. For example, it's discriminatory when a black person calls a white person a cracker; but not racist because it doesn't affect the white person's ability to get a job, a white person won't get their group labeled as lazy crackers, etc. But if a white person called a black person a useless n word who wants gifts from the government, that's racist because white men have the most power in government and own most of the companies. It can affect another black person who wasn't called a useless n word, because a white person can still obtained a job without being viewed as a stereotype even if they're called a cracker, because whites have the most economic power. Are you just a shit-stirring troll?

You sound like 1 of those fuckers from that site that that shall not be named. If you're in America and a white posting this who wants to stick to their own group, go back to Europe. I bet you're 1 of those un-intelligent shit-heads that believe that being anti-racist is being anti-white. Get over yourself, people deserve their rights because they're human, not because of their skin color.

[Burris]

I'm not sure if we are coming from this from opposing cultural/political view points.

We're not opposed, precisely.

I don't even want to talk about this part of my...past, but I'll give you a capsule view: Maybe it's just that I've actually seen dictatorship. And before I saw it, I didn't think it could happen. We had art, culture, laws, technology...everything any society could ever want.

And then it was gone.

Racial hatred ran so deep that all efforts to cover it ever did were to drive it below ground where it festered in the dark - and then it exploded. 600-year-old grudges were resurrected to justify murder.

I thought we were free. I thought we were modern. I thought we were beyond this crap!

I thought wrong.

Nobody here in Canada, where I've lived for a looong time, ever thinks this could happen. People in the UK think it won't happen. Most people in the US think it won't happen. And maybe it won't - ever. But it could. And it wouldn't even take that much.

Light the right fire. Pass the wrong law. Defend the wrong party. And then, suddenly, everything you knew - everything you believed - your neighbors and friends and family are with the 'bad guys.' And then before you know it, so are you. And so is the guy on the radio, reading the party line. Because speaking against the prevailing order would be dangerous.

Free speech is not free. It costs having to put up with bullshit like that neo-Nazi. It costs being offended.

It costs a lot less than the alternative.

Of course there is always the possibility that some massive change in government could lead to a dictatorship, war can cause untold damage to the infrastructure of a society.

The change wouldn't even have to be that massive - at first. It would need only to occur along the right social fault line: Old prejudices or new. Class war. Pretty much any area where different social factions collide would be the right - or wrong - line on which to make a law.

First they say, "Society is harmed when one speaks thus." And so people stop speaking thus. And then they say, "Society is harmed when you print too much of the truth." And people stop printing 'too much' of the truth, in an effort to keep everyone calm and treating each other well. And then they say, "Perhaps each group should stick to its own quarter, to relieve growing tension." And everyone sticks to their own.

And then they say, "Those measures are not working. We need a new solution."

I would prefer that people air their grievances against one another out in the open, and that the government keep its laws off the fault lines. That neo-Nazi wanted to be a dick? Fine. He sucks. We agree. He's an asshole and an idiot.

The easiest solution: Switch nurses, so the black nurse can work with parents who appreciate her talents rather than with a nit-picking trouble-maker whose goal in life is to exploit social fault lines for his own ends.

Fuck him. He's not worth giving up any freedom to silence.

That is always a possibility. Is it likely? In the US I know the conservative view point is far opposed to the labour point. ie The difference between right and left is huge with some polarising standpoints on issues pertaining to society and choice. Politics and society has been evolving in the UK for countless centuries and now compared to say the US in particular the differences between right and left are negligible in regards to polarising policy change.

Oh?

Just how much pounding do you think it would take to crack that fault line? Any one of your political parties, or maybe even all of them at different times, could hit it. What do you suppose would happen if they did?

This is a serious question. I actually want to know what you think.

That is not to say that we do not have our fair share of political extremists but on the whole I would say that the political climate is and has been stable for decades.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one Muslim straps on a bomb and detonates it while at one of your transit stations?

Just one guy - but lots of dead because of him. Who would the public listen to - the calm, controlled, stable political parties or the extremists?

How many would listen to whom? Where would the tipping point be?

The explosion of anti-Muslim propaganda would be epic - so epic even that existing hate speech laws couldn't contain it all. The animosity would grow. How would your government react?

Would they answer lies with the truth? Would they launch a public education campaign about how integrated Muslims actually are?

Would they pass newer, harsher laws to drive that speech underground to fester?

The economy not so much, a worldwide problem.

When people are broke and pissed off about it, some of them want to assign blame.

The press would indeed be an indicator of change which would be a red flag to the above.

So you see this red flag - the press has changed. What do you do? Without a free press, where do you speak?

Without freedom of speech, how do you speak?

By the time it gets that far, it's already too damned late.

We will not agree on the last point. I am OK with it. I see it as an active way of fighting racism. I suppose I cannot reconcile the right to 'free speech' with the right to be racist.

You and I can agree: Racism is fucking stupid.

But s racism such an dangerous point of view, when in the open, especially considering the discriminatory elements within the very fabric of human nature, that it should be actively stamped out by curtailing the non-violent speech of racists?

Like I said above, that doesn't even work. They're still racist. They're still speaking their minds. The only difference is that, because they have been driven underground, there is no public discussion on the matter; no voice of reason to enlighten the fence-sitters – the fence-sitters who think, “What if the people whose views have been driven underground are right?â€

I know you will disagree but honestly that would be my only way of seeing it.

I can understand you. I just...can never again agree with such a stance.

[Burris]

I think you guys missed my point. I'm saying that if this were a story about a black person saying they felt better having a black nurse take care of their baby there wouldn't be any cries of racism and we probably wouldn't be hearing about it because it wouldn't be considered newsworthy.

If the white nurse sued for discrimination, that would get even more traction in the press than that the black nurse did it. People like yourself would be all over that shit.

Come on. Seriously? You can't tell me you have never read the comments below news stories of this type. They're filled with people who tell tales of reverse racism.

"WHITE NICU NURSE SUES BLACK PARENT FOR RACIST REMARKS"

"WHITE NURSE SUES HOSPITAL FOR ANTI-WHITE DISCRIMINATION"

That headlines would be nuclear!

This is all because the father was white and wanted a white nurse. Whites are called racists for wanting to stick to their own but minorities are not and that's a double standard. Now I'm not saying the guy's request was rational but it would be no more rational if he was black now would it?

Oh for fuck's sake...

Please, I don't want you on a similar side to mine. Kindly get the hell out of here.