Neo Nazi father bans black nurse from looking after his baby

[valsa]

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?

I don't agree with 4th-generation-inbred at all but I just wanted to point out that not everyone agrees with the power-dynamic-based definition of racism.

[Pearl]

So, out of curiosity, I looked up the definition of racism on the computer. Granted it's a define: racism google search, but here you go:

rac·ism

/ˈrÄËŒsizÉ™m/

Noun

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...

Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

I think that to say that only a group in power can be racist - everyone else is only discriminating is giving a softer word to a minority group that hates someone based on their race. Racism is ugly on both sides. (I hate the word race anyway - if we're human, we're all the same race).

What happened to this nurse should not have happened. If the hospital felt that they HAD to concede to the request of the father - then they should have found an alternate way to grant his request. One that didn't impose upon their employee. I can think of a couple of ways the hospital could have done that. I hope she wins.

[justlurking]

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.

Agreed. Especially if it was discovered that the father was a black nationalist or involved in some other hate group (much like the Neo Nazi shithead that this story was about).

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

So, out of curiosity, I looked up the definition of racism on the computer. Granted it's a define: racism google search, but here you go:

rac·ism

/ˈrÄËŒsizÉ™m/

Noun

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...

Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

I think that to say that only a group in power can be racist - everyone else is only discriminating is giving a softer word to a minority group that hates someone based on their race. Racism is ugly on both sides. (I hate the word race anyway - if we're human, we're all the same race).

What happened to this nurse should not have happened. If the hospital felt that they HAD to concede to the request of the father - then they should have found an alternate way to grant his request. One that didn't impose upon their employee. I can think of a couple of ways the hospital could have done that. I hope she wins.

Don't know where you found this definition, but it is not the accepted definition among social scientists, academics, and activists who study race. The accepted definition in these circles is: racism = race + power. See above - it's already been covered.

[justlurking]

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 can't even with this comment...

Why don't you crawl back into your troll pit...the fuck outta here with that nonsense!

[Mama Mia]

Don't know where you found this definition, but it is not the accepted definition among social scientists, academics, and activists who study race. The accepted definition in these circles is: racism = race + power. See above - it's already been covered.

You can't say that universally. I've been to many trainings in social service settings focusing on 'cultural competency' given by activists that focus on each individual acknowledging their own racist beliefs, which they say everyone has to some extent. Regardless of the persons particular race, or which race(s) they feel those beliefs about.

[the 4th survivor]

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.

Well if he was being threatening about it that's a different story. The first article I read made no mention of that. Even so, I think even if he had been nice about it and the hospital granted his request we would still be hearing about it and the hospital would still be getting sued.

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.

Oh I fully agree that it would be discrimination. The problem is that the rest of society doesn't seem to think of it that way. Minorities and especially blacks can get away with things that white people would be called racist and even get death threats or be arrested for.

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?

I'm no troll but I did come here to debate with you guys. Anyway I seriously can't believe you said that blacks can't be racist. :lol: Please point out to me where you got your twisted definition of racism from because it's not in any dictionary I know of. Here is the definition of racism accord to Merriam-Webster:

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Anyone can be racist. A black person that murders a white person because of their race is just as racist as the other way around and I might point out that black on white violent crime is much more common than vice versa. http://www.examiner.com/article/federal ... n-formulas

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.

Some people who say they are against racism really are but in general I would say many anti-racists are anti-white because they don't hold non-whites to the same standard of what is racist. I can give you plenty of examples of that if you want.

[Burris]

Oh I fully agree that it would be discrimination. The problem is that the rest of society doesn't seem to think of it that way. Minorities and especially blacks can get away with things that white people would be called racist and even get death threats or be arrested for.

The massive power differential alone makes this...unlikely. Oh sure, you have your black nationalists, but they don't have the immediate privilege that people born to the majority do.

Can blacks be racist? Oh hell yeah! Anyone can be racist. Blacks are people. People can be racist. Blacks can be racist. No shit.

But the damage that can be caused by black racism against whites, in North America at least, is severely limited by white privilege.

When a member of a minority aims racism or other discriminatory behavior at a member of the majority, it's bad, but it's not institutionalized in the same way as white-on-black racism. It doesn't pack the same historical punch.

BUT you are still wrong: If a white nurse sued that hospital for discrimination, her story would get incredible traction – if not from the mainstream media, then among the grass-roots (which can be just as powerful).

You really don't see it, do you? You're really that...naive.

[MyNameIsJonas]

Don't know where you found this definition, but it is not the accepted definition among social scientists, academics, and activists who study race. The accepted definition in these circles is: racism = race + power. See above - it's already been covered.

Yup. I think you have to look at the individual but in academic circles now (I'm in school) the power dynamic is included in the definition of racism. Anti-racists and Activists will not consider the dictionary definition accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/09/wonder-how-to-define-racism.html

The first thing you really need to understand is that the definition of racism that you probably have (which is the colloquial definition: "racism is prejudice against someone based on their skin color or ethnicity") is NOT the definition that's commonly used in anti-racist circles.

The definition used in anti-racist circles is the accepted sociological definition (which is commonly used in academic research, and has been used for more than a decade now): "racism is prejudice plus power". What this means, in easy language:

A. Anyone can hold "racial prejudice" -- that is, they can carry positive or negative stereotypes of others based on racial characteristics. For example, a white person thinking all Asians are smart, or all black people are criminals; or a Chinese person thinking Japanese people are untrustworthy; or what-have-you. ANYONE, of any race, can have racial prejudices.

B. People of any race can commit acts of violence, mistreatment, ostracizing, etc., based on their racial prejudices. A black kid can beat up a white kid because he doesn't like white kids. An Indian person can refuse to associate with Asians. Whatever, you get the idea.

C. However, to be racist (rather than simply prejudiced) requires having institutional power. In North America, white people have the institutional power. In large part we head the corporations; we make up the largest proportion of lawmakers and judges; we have the money; we make the decisions. In short, we control the systems that matter. "White" is presented as normal, the default. Because we have institutional power, when we think differently about people based on their race or act on our racial prejudices, we are being racist. Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power.

D. People of color can be prejudiced, but they cannot be racist, because they don't have the institutional power. (However, some people refer to intra-PoC prejudice as "lateral racism". You may also hear the term "colorism", which refers to lighter-skinned PoC being prejudiced toward darker-skinned PoC.) However, that situation can be different in other countries; for example, a Japanese person in Japan can be racist against others, because the Japanese have the institutional power there. But in North America, Japanese people can't be racist because they don't hold the institutional power.

E. If you're in an area of your city/state/province that is predominantly populated by PoC and, as a white person, you get harassed because of your skin color, it's still not racism, even though you're in a PoC-dominated area. The fact is, even though they're the majority population in that area, they still lack the institutional power. They don't have their own special PoC-dominated police force for that area. They don't have their own special PoC-dominated courts in that area. The state/province and national media are still not dominated by PoC. Even though they have a large population in that particular area, they still lack the institutional power overall.

F. So that's the definition of racism that you're likely to encounter. If you start talking about "reverse racism" you're going to either get insulted or laughed at, because it isn't possible under that definition; PoC don't have the power in North America, so by definition, they can't be racist. Crying "reverse racism!" is like waving a Clueless White Person Badge around.

[Anxious Girl]

Well if he was being threatening about it that's a different story. The first article I read made no mention of that. Even so, I think even if he had been nice about it and the hospital granted his request we would still be hearing about it and the hospital would still be getting sued.

Oh I fully agree that it would be discrimination. The problem is that the rest of society doesn't seem to think of it that way. Minorities and especially blacks can get away with things that white people would be called racist and even get death threats or be arrested for.

I'm no troll but I did come here to debate with you guys. Anyway I seriously can't believe you said that blacks can't be racist. :lol: Please point out to me where you got your twisted definition of racism from because it's not in any dictionary I know of. Here is the definition of racism accord to Merriam-Webster:

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Anyone can be racist. A black person that murders a white person because of their race is just as racist as the other way around and I might point out that black on white violent crime is much more common than vice versa. http://www.examiner.com/article/federal ... n-formulas

Some people who say they are against racism really are but in general I would say many anti-racists are anti-white because they don't hold non-whites to the same standard of what is racist. I can give you plenty of examples of that if you want.

How is telling other people that they are racist anti-white? I get it, you're from the weatherfront site and hate people who aren't supportive of the 3rd Reich. Take your own website's advice, and if you don't agree with our opinions, then leave. Valsa, I should have made my stance more clearer, I was being a dipshit. I was talking about racism in America.

[valsa]

C. However, to be racist (rather than simply prejudiced) requires having institutional power. In North America, white people have the institutional power. In large part we head the corporations; we make up the largest proportion of lawmakers and judges; we have the money; we make the decisions. In short, we control the systems that matter. "White" is presented as normal, the default. Because we have institutional power, when we think differently about people based on their race or act on our racial prejudices, we are being racist. Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power.

D. People of color can be prejudiced, but they cannot be racist, because they don't have the institutional power. (However, some people refer to intra-PoC prejudice as "lateral racism". You may also hear the term "colorism", which refers to lighter-skinned PoC being prejudiced toward darker-skinned PoC.) However, that situation can be different in other countries; for example, a Japanese person in Japan can be racist against others, because the Japanese have the institutional power there. But in North America, Japanese people can't be racist because they don't hold the institutional power.

I could not disagree more.

[Arete]

Personally, I bet 4th Generation is SheWhoLaughs . Anyone else want some of that action?

[B5SnowDog]

Don't know where you found this definition, but it is not the accepted definition among social scientists, academics, and activists who study race. The accepted definition in these circles is: racism = race + power. See above - it's already been covered.

I think it's like the difference between "theory" as it is used in scientific circles and "theory" as it is used in casual speech. Most people who aren't in related fields haven't heard of the racism = race + power definition.

[Guest Anonymous]

A lot of words have different meanings in academic circles than they do in everyday life. The many different definitions of the word "culture" are still a total head-fuck for me (and most of those have absolutely nothing to do with the way we use the word in everyday life). Personally, I think the everyday use of the term "racism" (to mean something like "discrimination on the basis of race") is perfectly legitimate. I think of it in the same way as when we use the word "ego" without meaning the Freudian concept.

That said, I really feel we're missing the point here. 4th Troll wants us to feel sympathy for 'just a regular white guy' who makes decisions based purely on racism. The poster apparently wants us to believe that there is something inherently normal, natural and defensible behind the desire for racial segregation (the desire to 'stick to their own'). I don't agree. There is nothing benign about discrimination on the basis of race. You cannot tell whether someone is a good nurse based on the colour of their skin. This kind of discrimination (whether you want to call it "racism" or "prejudice") is not particularly understandable or sympathetic.

I also think the poster is wrong in saying that, if the races were reversed, the case would get less traction. Even I have been on the Internet long enough to know how well discrimination against white people plays. In the comments sections of many newspaper articles about racism against black and/or Asian people, there are almost always comments about racism against white people. The logic seems to be: "It isn't fair that ethnic minorities get to complain about racism when my white nephew is bullied at school."

Edited: wording

[Arete]

Why can't we just say that institutionalized racism has a lot more IMMEDIATE negative consequences to the minority group, instead of redefining terms into racism and "prejudice"? Because no matter what the academics in the ivory towers think, to a lot of people on the ground, it sounds like trying to minimize certain groups hatreds as opposed to other groups. A group in power today will not necessarily be the same group in power for eternity (reference the Middle East and the Balkans). Does their prejudice become racism or racism become prejudice based on whether the group is running the society at any given time?

Racism comes from the same ugly place in the human psyche no matter which group we are talking about. It's whether or not a group can institutionalize their racism that defines the scope of damage that particular group racism can inflict on other groups in a given point in time. The damage is assymetric, but the weapon is the same.

[DarkAnts]

I could not disagree more.

There is racism here in New Mexico. The people who can trace their family back to the early spanish settlers think that they are better then the Mexico descendants. I consider this to be racism. I am sure a class system would still be in place here if New Mexico was not part of the US.

[MyNameIsJonas]

I could not disagree more.

We will probably never agree on this. You've mentioned being bullied/harassed by POC kids before so that has most likely affected your worldview.

There is racism here in New Mexico. The people who can trace their family back to the early spanish settlers think that they are better then the Mexico descendants. I consider this to be racism. I am sure a class system would still be in place here if New Mexico was not part of the US.

The power system is different wherever people are (the Japan example, for instance.)

I have no problem with redefined terms, honestly. Race scholars, feminist scholars, etc as well as people in the movement in general redefine these terms because the people who made the definitions in the first place don't represent them. To say that racism is a prejudiced belief based on someone's skin color is all well and good, but that isn't the truth that we see in real life in the US in different communities. Straight white males will have trouble ever knowing the pain of racism or sexism or homophobia, so these blanket definitions they've created makes it easy to play the victim when they feel like their privilege isn't being recognized the way they'd like.

[OkToBeTakei]

Burris wrote

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?

7/7 It happened.

The 7 July 2005 London bombings (often referred to as 7/7) were a series of co-ordinated suicide attacks in London which targeted civilians using the public transport system during the morning rush hour.

On the morning of Thursday, 7 July 2005, four Islamist home-grown terrorists detonated four bombs, three in quick succession aboard London Underground trains across the city and, later, a fourth on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. Fifty-two civilians and the four bombers were killed in the attacks, and over 700 more were injured.

The explosions were caused by homemade organic peroxide–based devices packed into rucksacks. The bombings were followed exactly two weeks later by a series of attempted attacks.

You referenced this Guardian article. Based on a poll by a University. Whilst there is of course racism against most minorities in the UK none are so well advertised than this due to 'World' events. I grew up in a city with one of the largest Muslim populations in the UK. Mass immigration began in the 70's some 40 odd years ago it is not a new phenomena. Also the final paragraph of your article is probably more an accurate description.

While politicians may claim that multiculturalism has failed, there is a strong case to be made that it operates successfully every day when Britons of different faiths, ethnicities and backgrounds convivially co-operate alongside each other to make the nation what it is today. Muslims are integrated, feel at home in Britain and are quite simply as British as the next person, even though this does not quite match the sensationalised cynicism that some enjoy indulging in. This rather unexciting conclusion is actually rather exciting as it lays to bed many of the unwarranted concerns that are held about British Muslims.

Society did not fracture after 2005.

In discussing this issue the fundamental disagreement is that a law that has essentially been around since 1986 is in some way going to curtail free speech IF a set of particular circumstances happens which causes a society to fracture into what you experienced/described. It would be impossible to say it would not happen. But I see no reason to change one particular law which is there to protect minorities form racism/discrimination JUST in case it does.I would imagine that would be among many laws one could highlight to implode should a despotic government come to pass.

The discussion appears to have taken a new turn. Damn time differences.

[Burris]

7/7 It happened.

You referenced this Guardian article. Based on a poll by a University. Whilst there is of course racism against most minorities in the UK none are so well advertised than this due to 'World' events. I grew up in a city with one of the largest Muslim populations in the UK. Mass immigration began in the 70's some 40 odd years ago it is not a new phenomena. Also the final paragraph of your article is probably more an accurate description.

Society did not fracture after 2005.

In discussing this issue the fundamental disagreement is that a law that has essentially been around since 1986 is in some way going to curtail free speech IF a set of particular circumstances happens which causes a society to fracture into what you experienced/described. It would be impossible to say it would not happen. But I see no reason to change one particular law which is there to protect minorities form racism/discrimination JUST in case it does.I would imagine that would be among many laws one could highlight to implode should a despotic government come to pass.

The discussion appears to have taken a new turn. Damn time differences.

As is obvious already - and I readily admit it - my grasp of situations in the UK is not anywhere near as good as yours (being as you not only live there but pay attention to area politics).

But - and I'm standing my ground on this one - I think there is a difference between protecting vulnerable populations from discrimination - e.g., housing and work bans, race-based violence, counseling to genocide - and "protecting" them from words that don't carry violent overtones; protecting them, essentially, from being offended.

I get the need for anti-discrimination laws. But hate speech is a different matter.

Every time, whether it's necessary or not, that a law is passed to curtail the freedom of some people - and I'm talking, for example, about the freedom of people who need to be in prison for reasons of public safety - something is lost to the rest of the public. It costs the public, all of them, every single time some freedom, somewhere, is legally abridged.

Sometimes these costs are necessary, such as in the legal prohibitions against murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. But make no mistake: Curtailing even these evils - and it's necessary - does carry a penalty that all of society must pay together.

The question then becomes, "Is non-violent racist rhetoric suficiently bad so as to justify the cost to society of silencing it?"

Or better yet: "Can racist rhetoric actually be stemmed by laws that make it illegal?"

I'd say 'no' on both counts.

Racists want to be assholes on the street corners, fine. Let counter demonstrators armed with facts openly humiliate the bigots. Counter bad speech with good speech; with education.

Someone actually did detonate a bomb? It effected you and the other people around you so much that you now have short-hand for it. You call it '7/7' - and everyone in your cultural circle likely knows exactly what it means; just like everyone in the US, and Canada, knows what 9/11 means.

That is profound - the shorthand; the fact everyone is on the same page to such an extent that 9/11 or 7/7 immediately triggers their memory of the event.

These are new fault lines now. Someone will exploit them. In the US, people have been exploiting them for years. The result: The most truthful media on the air right now can be found at Comedy Central - and I'm not even kidding. Other outlets have degenerated into shrill screaming and backbiting and partisanship.

But at least it's in the open where people can duke it out among themselves.

Driven underground, it's far more dangerous.

[JesusFightClub]

Someone actually did detonate a bomb?

Multiple bombs, actually.

Um, Burris, are you seriously saying you didn't know 7/7 happened? :shock:

[OkToBeTakei]

Multiple bombs, actually.

Um, Burris, are you seriously saying you didn't know 7/7 happened? :shock:

Yes that is a bit concerning in view of the fact we are discussing the politics and culture of the UK in relation to it's societal laws.

Burris wrote

But - and I'm standing my ground on this one - I think there is a difference between protecting vulnerable populations from discrimination - e.g., housing and work bans, race-based violence, counseling to genocide - and "protecting" them from words that don't carry violent overtones; protecting them, essentially, from being offended.

I get the need for anti-discrimination laws. But hate speech is a different matter.

I think we already established that the term 'hate speech' is a misnomer. Discrimination law does protect the vulnerable groups from what you mention in the quoted snip but also includes the workplace and and public services. Being offended in your view does not constitute any sort of protection. I would agree, I am offended regularly by many things that would not cause me to seek a legal recourse. But if I were to feel distress because of it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/2 ... -race-rant

She pleaded guilty to one count of causing racially aggravated "harassment, alarm or distress" by using "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour"

Just as you feel strongly that she should have the right to her 'free speech' I feel strongly she should not.

She could easily have been prosecuted under 'Public affray' or a 'Drunk and disorderly' the motivation to use the racially aggravated part of the code is as I previously mentioned I suspect to highlight and educate in regards to hate crime.

Home office website.

Improved recording of hate crime

Research suggests that hate crime is hugely under-reported. Some victims may be reluctant to come forward, for example, for fear of attracting further abuse or because they don't believe the authorities will take them seriously.

The government is keen to address this issue, and has made a committment to improve the recording of hate crime. The long term goal, however, is to achieve a reduction in the actual incidence of hate crime.

Tackling hate crime

In the new approach to cutting crime, professionals are being relieved of top-down micro-management and performance targets, while the police are accountable to the communities they serve. Elected police and crime commissioners, street-level crime maps and regular beat meetings will all focus police forces on the issues that matter to local people, and allow them to develop the strategies that reflect local needs.

Getting the response to hate crime right depends on deep local knowledge of victims, offenders and communities, so the lead must come from professionals at the front line, working with the voluntary sector and communities to respond to local issues and priorities.

International action on hate crime

Hate crime is also a global issue and our responsibility to share our experience, ideas and good practice should also extend to partners overseas. We will therefore continue to push for action on hate crime at international level, through a range of organisations, including the United Nations, the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

It is not a broad hammer fall law. It is a response to a societal problem and an attempt at a workable solution. Again I do not feel 'free speech' should be an automatic right and excuse to be overtly racist/discriminatory. For clarity I am referencing the minorities of the UK. Not any other country.

[Burris]

Um, Burris, are you seriously saying you didn't know 7/7 happened? :shock:

I'll admit it; you got me with my pants down: I actually did know, but - and I'm ashamed to admit it - it ended up in the memory hole: It happens with topics so upsetting that I tend to turn off the news when I encounter a thing like that. I am in no way minimizing the tragedy, but I also had a lot of other things going on that commanded my attention at the time.

What for you was a terrible and singular act was for me...well, not surprising enough or rare enough to impress itself too sharply. Sorry.

(Let's test your own memory hole: Does the name "Omarska" ring any bells?)

I think we already established that the term 'hate speech' is a misnomer. Discrimination law does protect the vulnerable groups from what you mention in the quoted snip but also includes the workplace and and public services. Being offended in your view does not constitute any sort of protection. I would agree, I am offended regularly by many things that would not cause me to seek a legal recourse. But if I were to feel distress because of it?

Distress? Offense? I'm not seeing the difference. These are all matters tied into speech, rather than action.

Just as you feel strongly that she should have the right to her 'free speech' I feel strongly she should not.

I think this is one area where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Research suggests that hate crime is hugely under-reported. Some victims may be reluctant to come forward, for example, for fear of attracting further abuse or because they don't believe the authorities will take them seriously.

Truth.

The government is keen to address this issue, and has made a committment to improve the recording of hate crime. The long term goal, however, is to achieve a reduction in the actual incidence of hate crime.

Yes; crime.

International action on hate crime

Hate crime is also a global issue and our responsibility to share our experience, ideas and good practice should also extend to partners overseas. We will therefore continue to push for action on hate crime at international level, through a range of organisations, including the United Nations, the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

After they failed so miserably to address a massive genocide in modern Europe during the 1990s, I should fucking hope so. Oh yeah, and let's not forget the massive fuck-up they left to run its course in Rwanda - same decade!

Again I do not feel 'free speech' should be an automatic right and excuse to be overtly racist/discriminatory. For clarity I am referencing the minorities of the UK. Not any other country.

If free speech doesn't cover non-violent racist rhetoric, then it's not free speech.

*sigh* I'm so pissed off at the topic - notat you or anyone elsehere, but at the topic - that I can barely form a cogent argument now. I'm sort of wound around.

In short: I disagree with you, but I have also come to see your own point more clearly.

And, I'm going to have to bail like a chicken because if I don't...OMG, I won't sleep for a week.

[JesusFightClub]

Burris, I posted that not OKToBe and, yes ,I do know about Omarska. I dare say I have not fine detail but I know of it from ITN's case vs Living Marxism. Mind you, it would be amazing if I was an expert, since I was eleven at the time. 7/7 happened in 2005.

It's alright not to know about stuff in (what is undoubtedly to you) a boring, far off country, but it is a bit much if you're going to make a case against that country's laws on the grounds that no-one's ever set off a bomb there when we've had plenty. It's a bit like the American I ran into online who told me that no European could ever understand terrorism because we've never experienced it, unlike Americans. :roll:

[Burris]

It's alright not to know about stuff in (what is undoubtedly to you) a boring, far off country, but it is a bit much if you're going to make a case against that country's laws on the grounds that no-one's ever set off a bomb there when we've had plenty.

Waaait a minute: I did not say people hadn't set off bombs there. I know damned well others - IRA - have.

I was offering the 'single bomber, multiple casualties, massive outrage' as - well it turns out a bad - hypothetical situation where a government committed to public order might tighten existing laws to keep racial tensions under wraps.

Oh, and far off and boring? I do not find multiple murder boring. It doesn't matter how far away it is.

And, as an aside, the fact you know what Omarska was puts you in the minority. Go ahead; ask around.

[Burris]

Oh, and one more thing JFC - and I shouldn't even be doing this because I'm spitting mad - but...you think it's bad when some dumbass says the UK can't understand the US because the former 'never had terrorism'?

Try telling people that, yes indeed death camps existed in Europe in the 1990s.

Then I'll pull up some pix of the Benja Luka camp, or Omarska, or another place, or as many as I can find, and they'll say something like, "OMG! I never knew. How could something like that happen?"

And then they go home, sign onto their favorite fora, and bitch about how group 'x' is barely fit to be called human.