Neo Nazi father bans black nurse from looking after his baby

[DarkAnts]

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

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.

UK was terrorized during WWII. It was called war but its still the same thing. My grandfather went to the UK during WWII. He was a navigator for the USAF. He used to tell me how bad it was. At least people in the US dont have to sleep in the subway night after night not knowing if they would wake up to find their house destroyed.

[yewchapel]

Burris, most people in the UK are very familiar with the Bosnian conflict since many British soldiers fought there, including members of my family. UK news has pretty good coverage of international conflicts, not just ones we are involved with.

[Burris]

Burris, most people in the UK are very familiar with the Bosnian conflict since many British soldiers fought there, including members of my family. UK news has pretty good coverage of international conflicts, not just ones we are involved with.

They acted too late.

But I'll admit it, since I owe it; I am wrong, as it stands, about the press in the UK.

Wrong for now.

And you have no idea how happy it makes me to hear that people in the UK are more aware of those things that happened.

North America? Er, not so much.

[Burris]

UK was terrorized during WWII. It was called war but its still the same thing. My grandfather went to the UK during WWII. He was a navigator for the USAF. He used to tell me how bad it was. At least people in the US dont have to sleep in the subway night after night not knowing if they would wake up to find their house destroyed.

Yeah, I know that, but thanks.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip)

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.

I hope you haven't bailed entirely, because your views are insightful. Please understand that the following is only in hopes of clarifying a legal point in the UK, which you appear to be unclear on. This is no personal opinion, but my understanding, which may or may not be helpful. Free speech in terms of non-violent racism is protected. Anyone can vilify and insult one another till the cows come home, unless they actively discriminate or call for/get violent. I understand and appreciate your dedication to free speech, but as a complete cynic, "hate speech laws" in the UK aren't about providing anyone with protection, they're about prosecuting the instigators of public violence.

That's what my example with the SDL (Scottish Defence League) upthread, whom I consider to be racist, was all about. They can shout insults all day long, racist or otherwise. They can spew hateful rhetoric, and there's nothing anyone can do to shut them up. JFC gave the example of shouting back at them that she predicts they're going home in an ambulance. Again, perfectly legal. Every chance I get, I rudely advise them to go home and mind their own business, or provide crude suggestions for what they can do to themselves. Again, perfectly legal. At this point, it comes down to semantics to establish intent. Do any of us intend for a violent outcome to this exchange? No. We're within our rights to exchange insults and suggestions. But if I shout "They're all white racists, let's kill them", I've basically broken the peace.

"Hate-speech" is not about hateful speech, but about a breach of peace. As OKTBT said, it's a misnomer, and I think it's easily misunderstood.

As I said, it's a point of law, and in England it really does often come down to semantics. Case in point, a 1600s case (which is still precedent, and I can't find it, because I've misplaced my criminal law books, which drives me insane) about assault. What happened is that a man, in a verbal argument with another, put his hand to his sword and said that "if the judges weren't in town, I'd kill you". The verdict was in his favour, because the assizes were in town that day, and he'd acknowledged that, making his actual intent doubtful.

I understand and appreciate how committed you are to free speech, and this is no personal opinion, just a reflection on how the law in England (again, no idea about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) works.

On a more personal note: I appreciate your personal experiences. That gave me a lot to think about, and made me even more ambiguous on where I stand on free speech. As I've mentioned before, I have a degree in English law, but I do come from a rather different legal tradition, which has been greatly influenced by my country's past atrocities under a - once- legally elected dictatorship. Far be it from me to make excuses for the horror we got others into, and after WW2, the idea of "never again" was and remains quite strong. So, my country's laws reflect that by prohibiting certain freedoms of speech. Unlike in some other European countries, you are technically free to deny the Holocaust, but there are severe limitations. My home-country, basically, prohibits inciting hatred (meaning: violence) towards certain segments of society.

At first glance, it sounds like the "hate-speech" laws in the UK, but the scope is broader. And in this case, in my opinion, the idea of "never again" as a societal force (which is missing in the UK) causes an amount of trouble. My country has freedom of expression, but you fall foul of the law fairly quickly, so discussions are pushed underground. That, I see as a problem. It gives the state the opportunity and possibility to prosecute anyone who treads outside of the accepted historical and societal discourse, and effectively silences discourse. To my mind, we are locked inside a party-line, and subsequent generations don't get the chance to effectively engage, which makes the "forbidden" more appealing.

On the other hand, there's something to be said for the idea of "never again". I grew up biracial in a country, in which some of my friends' grandparents would say things like "not everything Hitler did was bad". History and their ideology tell me that it would have been really, really bad for me at that time. History of that time was taught thoroughly to me as a child, and we had grandparents in my generation, who were kids when it happened, explaining to us how quick and easy it all was.

So...I don't know. In terms of legalese, I'm all with the UK. If I look at the broader aspects, I have to differentiate, and am not sure where I stand, case by case, legal system by legal system, and society by society. But please, don't leave this debate. Your insights give me an awful lot of thought for food, and yes, I am selfish: more, please.

[Burris]

I hope you haven't bailed entirely, because your views are insightful. Please understand that the following is only in hopes of clarifying a legal point in the UK, which you appear to be unclear on. This is no personal opinion, but my understanding, which may or may not be helpful. Free speech in terms of non-violent racism is protected. Anyone can vilify and insult one another till the cows come home, unless they actively discriminate or call for/get violent. I understand and appreciate your dedication to free speech, but as a complete cynic, "hate speech laws" in the UK aren't about providing anyone with protection, they're about prosecuting the instigators of public violence.

That's what my example with the SDL (Scottish Defence League) upthread, whom I consider to be racist, was all about. They can shout insults all day long, racist or otherwise. They can spew hateful rhetoric, and there's nothing anyone can do to shut them up. JFC gave the example of shouting back at them that she predicts they're going home in an ambulance. Again, perfectly legal. Every chance I get, I rudely advise them to go home and mind their own business, or provide crude suggestions for what they can do to themselves. Again, perfectly legal. At this point, it comes down to semantics to establish intent. Do any of us intend for a violent outcome to this exchange? No. We're within our rights to exchange insults and suggestions. But if I shout "They're all white racists, let's kill them", I've basically broken the peace.

"Hate-speech" is not about hateful speech, but about a breach of peace. As OKTBT said, it's a misnomer, and I think it's easily misunderstood.

As I said, it's a point of law, and in England it really does often come down to semantics. Case in point, a 1600s case (which is still precedent, and I can't find it, because I've misplaced my criminal law books, which drives me insane) about assault. What happened is that a man, in a verbal argument with another, put his hand to his sword and said that "if the judges weren't in town, I'd kill you". The verdict was in his favour, because the assizes were in town that day, and he'd acknowledged that, making his actual intent doubtful.

I understand and appreciate how committed you are to free speech, and this is no personal opinion, just a reflection on how the law in England (again, no idea about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) works.

On a more personal note: I appreciate your personal experiences. That gave me a lot to think about, and made me even more ambiguous on where I stand on free speech. As I've mentioned before, I have a degree in English law, but I do come from a rather different legal tradition, which has been greatly influenced by my country's past atrocities under a - once- legally elected dictatorship. Far be it from me to make excuses for the horror we got others into, and after WW2, the idea of "never again" was and remains quite strong. So, my country's laws reflect that by prohibiting certain freedoms of speech. Unlike in some other European countries, you are technically free to deny the Holocaust, but there are severe limitations. My home-country, basically, prohibits inciting hatred (meaning: violence) towards certain segments of society.

At first glance, it sounds like the "hate-speech" laws in the UK, but the scope is broader. And in this case, in my opinion, the idea of "never again" as a societal force (which is missing in the UK) causes an amount of trouble. My country has freedom of expression, but you fall foul of the law fairly quickly, so discussions are pushed underground. That, I see as a problem. It gives the state the opportunity and possibility to prosecute anyone who treads outside of the accepted historical and societal discourse, and effectively silences discourse. To my mind, we are locked inside a party-line, and subsequent generations don't get the chance to effectively engage, which makes the "forbidden" more appealing.

On the other hand, there's something to be said for the idea of "never again". I grew up biracial in a country, in which some of my friends' grandparents would say things like "not everything Hitler did was bad". History and their ideology tell me that it would have been really, really bad for me at that time. History of that time was taught thoroughly to me as a child, and we had grandparents in my generation, who were kids when it happened, explaining to us how quick and easy it all was.

So...I don't know. In terms of legalese, I'm all with the UK. If I look at the broader aspects, I have to differentiate, and am not sure where I stand, case by case, legal system by legal system, and society by society. But please, don't leave this debate. Your insights give me an awful lot of thought for food, and yes, I am selfish: more, please.

This thread has forced me to reevaluate my own views. I get to thinking about how all the racist comments I heard - open and secret - compounded and compounded into...that.

I get to thinking about how radio speech across, say, Rwanda was capable of whipping people into a frenzy. And yes, I think about Nazi Germany as well - another dictatorship where speech itself was used as a weapon.

But then I also think about how dicatorships abridge free speech - and hateful, peace-disturbing speech becomes whatever they decide it is. And I think about how modern countries - Germany in its time, and Yugoslavia in its time - could degenerate so quickly. Quick and easy, as you said.

When I entered this discussion, I thought I had a satisfactory answer to some of it. Now, I'm not so sure anymore.

Now I...am not so sure.

[OkToBeTakei]

*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.

Yes I know about Bosnia. I do in fact recall sitting on a nightshift with colleagues and our drug addict charges watching the live BBC news feed circa early 90's. Coming out of communism does not make for a stable political climate. Sudan, Iraq, Georgia, Darfur, Azerbaijan, Kenya, Rwanda, East Timor, South Africa, the list is long of countries with conflict and political unrest and ethnic cleansing. As I previously said I believe for the moment the UK has a relatively stable political climate and society. Thankfully.

THAT being said I would like to echo samurai_sarah and say that although we may not be approaching this from the same angle I have very much taken on board your point of view and whilst there are probably issues we may never agree on it is a very unwise course to take not to look at all lessons history and other's experience's and opinions can teach us and very wise to subscribe to the 'never say never.'

I have been lucky enough to visit Dubrovnik as a tourist, post conflict. Also Kenya prior to the unrest. Even despite Belfast and bombings being common here in the recent past, seeing the damage and evidence of such a recent large scale conflict was haunting. Kenya is just a beautiful country.

Again to echo samurai_sarah not everybody would agree with my viewpoint there is a campaign to repeal Section 5 of the Public Act. To change the terminology to make it less 'interpretive' by the police in particular. The UK police are not known for their impartiality. Bearing in mind their complicity with the 'phone hacking' scandal.

But I still like to think that in some way rather than take away people's right to 'free speech' it can in fact highlight the issues faced by the minorities, bearing in mind we have large groups of immigrants from most of the countries mentioned above.

When I read the word chicken I thought you were referring to my gorgeous 'Free-Birthing' chicken and it was giving you nightmares :lol:

I have found your perspective has made me challenge myself. Never a bad thing.

[DarkAnts]

Yeah, I know that, but thanks.

Just trying to be supportive of your statement. Terrorism comes in many forms. Just like racism comes.

[DarkAnts]

Yeah, I know that, but thanks.

Just trying to be supportive of your statement. Terrorism comes in many forms. Just like racism.

[Burris]

Yes I know about Bosnia. I do in fact recall sitting on a nightshift with colleagues and our drug addict charges watching the live BBC news feed circa early 90's. Coming out of communism does not make for a stable political climate. Sudan, Iraq, Georgia, Darfur, Azerbaijan, Kenya, Rwanda, East Timor, South Africa, the list is long of countries with conflict and political unrest and ethnic cleansing. As I previously said I believe for the moment the UK has a relatively stable political climate and society. Thankfully.

Freedom. Most people just wanted it so much. Liberty. The right to speak one's mind; to choose one's own destiny. And once it existed, a lot of people thought it always would. I mean, how could something so good, and hard-won, as freedom be discarded so easily?

THAT being said I would like to echo samurai_sarah and say that although we may not be approaching this from the same angle I have very much taken on board your point of view and whilst there are probably issues we may never agree on it is a very unwise course to take not to look at all lessons history and other's experience's and opinions can teach us and very wise to subscribe to the 'never say never.'

That's one of the things this thread is impressing on me.

I do not think I am always right. I project surety a lot because it often gets more respect than vacillation. I was built hard; for conflict. It saved me. It even recently saved my husband - recently, in his case. I hate admitting error, and yet I did err here in this thread.

People who have seen me post here the last few years (which includes the old boards on Yuku) know I don't talk a lot about my own life. I talk about my husband and how we enjoy each other; about his recent and protracted illness. But before my husband, before university and an unfolding mind, my life...it mostly sucked.

I have been lucky enough to visit Dubrovnik as a tourist, post conflict. Also Kenya prior to the unrest. Even despite Belfast and bombings being common here in the recent past, seeing the damage and evidence of such a recent large scale conflict was haunting. Kenya is just a beautiful country.

Dubrovnik by the sea in Croatia. Well-educated population. Great trade at port. Huge cultural mosaic. Old cultural monuments, some of them dating back centuries - damaged or destroyed, by shelling and by fire, in a wartime siege.

All that culture - all that history. All that knowledge. None proof against war. And the citizens there were the 'lucky' ones. Civilian casualties were low compared to other places hit.

But I still like to think that in some way rather than take away people's right to 'free speech' it can in fact highlight the issues faced by the minorities, bearing in mind we have large groups of immigrants from most of the countries mentioned above.

With all those different people interacting, it's easy for violence to erupt somewhere - and even easier for people of all backgrounds to misinterpret that violence as endemic to the culture of its perpetrator.

If people who believe that do not get to voice their grievances, even harshly, then those grievances go unchallenged in the marketplace of ideas. They are not met with education or with higher quality speech. They are not met at all. But they still exist. People still share them amongst one another.

And then, one day - well, not quite a day, but - death camps.

[Burris]

Death camps in the 1990s. My God...my God.

The things people build.

ETA: I imagine the idea was a holdover from the Communist prison system. *sigh*

[JesusFightClub]

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.

Ah, so we're playing "Which Country Is The Best". Or is it "Which Continent Is The Best"? I get soooo confused (and honestly hadn't expected to see a discussion like this on Free Jinger).

Now that is a boring game. You had no clue about 7/7 and got caught with your pants down, then defended yourself by saying it wasn't noteworthy enough or something. Then you did a bit of whataboutery by saying "Well, the EUROPEANS had CONCENTRATION CAMPS and if you ask the man in the street he won't know anything about it!" First of all, I'll have to pick someone over 40, because if you were a kid at the time or a hormonal teenager you are highly unlikely to remember much about the conflict, let alone names and places. Secondly, even if I walk out my front door, collar an old bloke and ask him "do you know about Omarska" and he says "Never fuckin' heard o' him, lemmego or Ah'll call the polis" how would that prove or disprove anything you've said?

I hardly think there are many Europeans who think Europeans have never committed any atrocity at all but I fail to see how it's proving your point. Omarska was an incident where hateful speech became hateful actions (there were many of these). I don't agree 100% with OKToBe on hate speech, but I don't understand where you're coming from in invoking that particular spectre.

PS. I'm surprised that you're spitting mad because people don't agree with you. I've always respected you as a poster, but FJ shows that we all have different sides, I suppose.

[OkToBeTakei]

Death camps in the 1990s. My God...my God.

The things people build.

ETA: I imagine the idea was a holdover from the Communist prison system. *sigh*

People can build great things too.

It is just very, very hard to see it sometimes :(

I also believe without being directly effected by any of the issues being discussed, makes it quite easy for me to be the bleeding heart liberal that I probably am. Or an eternal optimist?

[Burris]

Ah, so we're playing "Which Country Is The Best". Or is it "Which Continent Is The Best"? I get soooo confused (and honestly hadn't expected to see a discussion like this on Free Jinger).

Uh, no.

You had no clue about 7/7 and got caught with your pants down, then defended yourself by saying it wasn't noteworthy enough or something.

Word-twisting. Beneath you.

Then you did a bit of whataboutery by saying "Well, the EUROPEANS had CONCENTRATION CAMPS and if you ask the man in the street he won't know anything about it!" First of all, I'll have to pick someone over 40, because if you were a kid at the time or a hormonal teenager you are highly unlikely to remember much about the conflict, let alone names and places.

Wow - someone has failed to read my most recent posts carefully if at all.

Now it's you who have your pants down.

Secondly, even if I walk out my front door, collar an old bloke and ask him "do you know about Omarska" and he says "Never fuckin' heard o' him, lemmego or Ah'll call the polis" how would that prove or disprove anything you've said?

My point was that what happens, and is a biiig deal, in one country, doesn't necessarily affect people in other areas the same way - especially if said people are already jaded. Your 7/7 wasn't rare. Yes, I heard about it when it happened. No. In the heat of a debate, I did not recall that particular incident.

And you - you attributed that to my being bored by it? This level of cluelessness is beneath you.

I offered a hypothetical situation where the government could have hammered the resulting fault line and created new laws to curtail speech for the sake of public harmony.

They didn't do it in 2005. Guess what? PMs change and judges change and people change.

I hardly think there are many Europeans who think Europeans have never committed any atrocity at all but I fail to see how it's proving your point.

I started out in Europe. (PS: Communism doesn't work.) I live in Canada with my mom and my husband, My brother lives in Australia with his wife.

And do I think Canada has an advantage over the UK, though? Yeah; Canada has a legal Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You have a web of statutes. I want to be able to hold a document in my hand – one I understand – that spells out my rights; that protects me from undo government interference.

I can't even imagine trying to puzzle out your statutes.

Want your speech sanitized? That's on you - and a funny position to take, considering your political beliefs. Didn't you nearly get nicked for inciting a riot because you burned a flag? Aren't you the same guy who thinks the government should fall, and that such a fall might well by bloody?

Know what they would call that where I grew up? Treason. You'd go to prison.

I call it free speech. Your right.

Omarska was an incident where hateful speech became hateful actions (there were many of these). I don't agree 100% with OKToBe on hate speech, but I don't understand where you're coming from in invoking that particular spectre.

Omarska was a hate act - one borne of racial hatred that was never properly aired and channeled. You thought I brought it up to change the subject, eh? No; I mentioned it because different people are affected by different things. 7/7 impacted you. Me? Not so much. Omarska, on the other hand...I am not the least bit interested in answering questions or offering information or whatever. I'm also not interested in arming fundies with enough personal information that they could cripple me in an argument by claiming God punished the victims, etc.

I never once claimed to be an expert on the UK. I answered the information UK posters offered, full stop.

PS. I'm surprised that you're spitting mad because people don't agree with you.

LOL! That is NOT why I was mad. I have a website defending WBC's right to free speech, FFS! You think a mere net argument could piss me off that much? I wasn't upset because you disagree with me; I was upset because I had to reach back into places I'd sooner never go to try and puzzle out some of the good points you and others made.

I still respect you as a poster, but wow, oh WOW did you miss my point here.

No, I did not craft my argument as well as usual. I'm emotionally invested in it and so I ended up all over the fucking place.

[Burris]

People can build great things too.

It is just very, very hard to see it sometimes :(

I also believe without being directly effected by any of the issues being discussed, makes it quite easy for me to be the bleeding heart liberal that I probably am. Or an eternal optimist?

Optimism keeps people alive when all else fails.

[JesusFightClub]

I started out in Europe. (PS: Communism doesn't work.) I live in Canada with my mom and my husband, My brother lives in Australia with his wife.

And do I think Canada has an advantage over the UK, though? Yeah; Canada has a legal Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You have a web of statutes. I want to be able to hold a document in my hand – one I understand – that spells out my rights; that protects me from undo government interference.

I can't even imagine trying to puzzle out your statutes.

Want your speech sanitized? That's on you - and a funny position to take, considering your political beliefs. Didn't you nearly get nicked for inciting a riot because you burned a flag? Aren't you the same guy who thinks the government should fall, and that such a fall might well by bloody?

Know what they would call that where I grew up? Treason. You'd go to prison.

I call it free speech. Your right.

I still respect you as a poster, but wow, oh WOW did you miss my point here.

No, I did not craft my argument as well as usual. I'm emotionally invested in it and so I ended up all over the fucking place.

Aye, well.

I snipped out all the petted lip from both our posts (t'were kinder) and as far as I can see, this is still what OKToBe said. We're all talking past each other.

You may wish to remind me where I mounted a vigorous defence of the UK's free speech/hate crime laws, cos I didn't. All I've done on this thread is a. point out that the hospital let the nurse down but the guy had a right to ask, b. disagree with OKToBe about antisectarian law in Scotland and c. explain, cause I used to work in a court, why that guy got 6 months in jail (hint - not for just saying "I don't want to be treated by a black doctor"). That's it.

From what's been said, I think both countries have something right and something wrong. I don't like the UK's tendency to think everything can be fixed by a series of increasingly bizarre laws (the ConDem government being a sterling example of this - don't get me started on the bedroom tax) and I don't like the US idea that free speech means "I can say whatever I want whenever I want without any consequences". There has to be a better way than either of those, but buggered if I know what it is.

As for the red-baiting, I've been red-baited by far better practitioners of the art :lol: I don't mind discussing the whys and wherefores of various communisms and why they would or would not work, but this may not be quite the thread for it.

[Burris]

I snipped out all the petted lip from both our posts (t'were kinder) and as far as I can see, this is still what OKToBe said. We're all talking past each other.

Yeah. I think you're right.

You may wish to remind me where I mounted a vigorous defence of the UK's free speech/hate crime laws, cos I didn't.

True.

From what's been said, I think both countries have something right and something wrong. I don't like the UK's tendency to think everything can be fixed by a series of increasingly bizarre laws (the ConDem government being a sterling example of this - don't get me started on the bedroom tax) and I don't like the US idea that free speech means "I can say whatever I want whenever I want without any consequences". There has to be a better way than either of those, but buggered if I know what it is.

For my own part - and I know it's an incomplete answer - I think education and ecumenism and shared experience among people of different backgrounds all helps to stem the hate rhetoric by any but the most committed adherents. And the most vocal hatemongers can sometimes be countered in imaginative ways. Take the WBC for example: People tried to block their pickets, to pass laws against their pickets, and even to engage in violent counter-action against their pickets. None of that worked.

But then a few people got the idea to use those pickets as an opportunity to raise money for pro-LGBT causes.

And then one day, something perhaps even better happened: WBC protesters got schooled by a nine-year-old holding a hand-written sign.

If that kid is any indication of what others his age are thinking, then eventually overt anti-gay discrimination will be a thing of the past. When he and his cohort reach adulthood, they probably won't be bigots (or so one would hope).

If he had not seen the picket, which led him to likely ask an adult he trusted why the WBC was doing something that mean, then he may never have so thoroughly internalized the lesson that there's nothing wrong with being different.

And what's more, a major chunk of the younger church members are defecting. Some, such as Megan Phelps Roper and her sister, Grace, were swayed not by angry counter-protect but by actual reasoned debate.

Megan is 27 years old. She had been in WBC all her live. People had screamed insults at her, tried to legislate against her family, and even firebombed her church when she was younger – all to stop her family, and eventually she herself, from continuing to picket.

In the end, education and reason finished her association with the WBC. (I hope the same will one day be true for the child of that racist father.)

If the youth continue to defect, the church will eventually drive itself to extinction.

It's just another reason why I support most forms of speech - even the ugly ones: Because the best outcome, such as above, is then more likely than it would be otherwise.

Unfortunately, as this thread has so painfully reminded me, the outcome can be really bad as well.

So I guess...I want to be an optimist about this: 1) That freedom is protected such that government interference cannot be used to silence minorities with legitimate grievances. 2) That people on the outside looking in can see the speech from both sides, recognize that the non-bigots have a stronger argument by far, and choose their next steps accordingly.

As for the nurse who faced discrimination - it was a no-win situation, really. If the hospital had kept her on with that infant, despite the father's, er, misgivings, then they would likely have had to jump through several legal hoops (perhaps including a request for temporary guardianship). Patients' rights groups, loathe as they might be to defend such a man, would probably defend his right to request a nurse with whom he didn't have a problem.

Even if both individuals were white, and racism didn't enter into it, the father might have had some personality conflict with the nurse and requested that another take her place. (As I mentioned way up-thread, nurses do that with patients as well.) If there's a personality conflict, what can you do? Some people just don't get along.

The source of the father's conflict with this nurse is stupid - seriously; I absolutely agree it's stupid - but it was within his rights to request that someone else care for his child.

If he himself were the patient, then my answer would have been a bit different: If he had no conflict with the nurse but skin color, tough shit. He can take what he gets or he can walk. But since the child would be the one who suffers for the idiocy of its parent, the best course would be for the hospital to say, "Yeah; personality conflict. Let's change the rota."

I can understand why the black nurse believes she was let down; that her employer failed to support her. But they didn't harm her in changing the staff. She was still 'whole' in the sense that she still had her job and her income and her benefits. She was merely offended. And to me, that doesn't seem like sufficient grounds for a lawsuit.

People offend each other, without doing further injury, both in and out of the workplace, all the time. And some racists, being a bit more coy, will offend people of other ethnicities without mentioning race at all. It's difficult to call those sorts out, so people all over the place put up with this shit every day.

Damages should be fixed. There should be evidence of tangible harm that can be measured and judged. Offense is relative.

Offense alone can't be the bar used by a court to determine whether words were sufficiently harmful as to justify paying out damages. If it were, the courts would be clogged up with this for the next thousand years. Libel? Slander? Threats of violence? Counseling murder? These are all quantifiable and actionable. They all do harm that can be traced, seen, tested.

But distress - offense? I know it sounds cold, but the world isn't fair. And the courts can't always make it more fair.

As for the red-baiting, I've been red-baited by far better practitioners of the art :lol: I don't mind discussing the whys and wherefores of various communisms and why they would or would not work, but this may not be quite the thread for it.

You're right: We can argue that another time.

[meda]

Burris, one quibble with your above comment regarding the nurse. In the US, race as a characteristic is treated differently in discrimination law than some other characteristics. Race is specifically precluded from ever being used as an occupational qualification. By virtue of the fact that the hospital granted the request of the father to change nurses because of race, the hospital broke the law. The nurse does not need to prove material harm, just needs to demonstrate that the above situation occurred.

This is different than if the father made a request because of gender, national origin, or age. Those are allowable occupational qualifications, within certain limitations. In these situations, the hospital would still need to raise it as an affirmative defense to win a discrimination suit.

Finally, you don't know if the nurse suffered material harm. You don't know if moving her shifts resulted in a loss of wages or hours, you don't know if anything went in her personnel file. Those would all be factors that would influence any money award she may receive.

[Burris]

Burris, one quibble with your above comment regarding the nurse. In the US, race as a characteristic is treated differently in discrimination law than some other characteristics. Race is specifically precluded from ever being used as an occupational qualification.

But she wasn't stripped of her occupation. She was hired by the hospital, worked there, was still working there when the racist showed up, and kept her job even after his request was was granted. The hospital - the entity she's suing - didn't question her qualifications. The man did.

This is different than if the father made a request because of gender, national origin, or age.

And why would any of these be acceptable - assuming there weren't a language barrier or something else - when reassigning the nurse would not be acceptable?

(What kind of affirmative defense could the hospital raise if, for example, they reassigned someone at the request based on the age of the professional?)

Finally, you don't know if the nurse suffered material harm. You don't know if moving her shifts resulted in a loss of wages or hours, you don't know if anything went in her personnel file. Those would all be factors that would influence any money award she may receive.

Granted. If she lost income because of a shift differential or hours, then yeah, it's discrimination. But her beef seems to be that the hospital acquiesced to the man's request at all. She argues the hospital failed her for having moved her away from that patient. And what's the saying - 'No harm; no foul'? No foul, no case.

ETA: I just went back and reread the article. It said the baby was simply assigned to another nurse and a notation on the child's chart mentioned the prohibition against black nurses working with the baby.

Here's what the article, at least, presents as the crux of the woman's lawsuit:

According to court documents, Battle was “shocked, offended and in disbelief that she was so egregiously discriminated against based on her race and reassigned.â€

(Emphasis mine)

[meda]

It's acceptable because that is how discrimination law in the US works. I'm not passing moral judgement on the model, just offering it as a statement of fact. The reason the hospital is at fault is because it did not have a legal right to agree to the fathers request. The hospital as employer is bound by their legal requirement to not discriminate against its employees. The actions of the father are pretty irrelevant, how the hospital responded is the controlling issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Righ ... #Title_VII

Of all the protected classes, race is the most protected, because of the US's history of race relations. Also, didn't say that the hospital would win if they agreed to move the nurse because of age, I simply said its a permitted affirmative defense in certain cases. There was a case about mandatory retirement ages for pilots being legal, for example.

Edited to add, one does not have to be harmed financially by their employer to be discriminated against. There is such a thing as a hostile work environment that is also illegal.

[Burris]

It's acceptable because that is how discrimination law in the US works. I'm not passing moral judgement on the model, just offering it as a statement of fact. The reason the hospital is at fault is because it did not have a legal right to agree to the fathers request. The hospital as employer is bound by their legal requirement to not discriminate against its employees. The actions of the father are pretty irrelevant, how the hospital responded is the controlling issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Righ ... #Title_VII

Of all the protected classes, race is the most protected, because of the US's history of race relations. Also, didn't say that the hospital would win if they agreed to move the nurse because of age, I simply said its a permitted affirmative defense in certain cases. There was a case about mandatory retirement ages for pilots being legal, for example.

...

In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the bona fide occupational qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the protected trait and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business," and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative...

There are a few points there unclear to me, but I'll try to answer to the three reasons why an employer might discriminate against a member of an otherwise protected class.

1) The nurse couldn't perform her job effectively because the guardian of the child for whom she cared was wary of her based on her race: He could have hindered her in a hundred different ways without so much as admitting he was a racist. (If the patient were an adult, the situation would be different and I'd totally side with the nurse.)

2) The nurse was in no way removed from the central nature of her work.

3) The hospital did offer a less restrictive alternative: 'Work with babies whose parents aren't racists. There are plenty.'

[Burris]

Edited to add, one does not have to be harmed financially by their employer to be discriminated against. There is such a thing as a hostile work environment that is also illegal.

A hostile work environment is harmful - psychologically and, eventually, physically. The harm can be measured by trained professionals – psychologists, doctors, etc. One hostile guy at work, though - that doesn't impact the whole environment.

The nurse worked at that hospital for 25 years. I think it's safe to assume she didn't find the environment itself hostile.

[meda]

Again, those are valid points, but they specifically do not apply to race. There are no circumstances under which race is a valid bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)

This link explains better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_ ... ifications

"One example of bona fide occupational qualifications are mandatory retirement ages for bus drivers and airline pilots, for safety reasons. Further, in advertising, a manufacturer of men's clothing may lawfully advertise for male models. Religious belief may also be considered a BFOQ; for example, a religious school may lawfully require that members of its faculty be members of that denomination, and may lawfully bar from employment anyone who is not a member.

While religion, sex, or national origin may be considered a bona fide occupational qualification in narrow contexts, race can never be a BFOQ."

[meda]

A hostile work environment is harmful - psychologically and, eventually, physically. The harm can be measured by trained professionals – psychologists, doctors, etc. One hostile guy at work, though - that doesn't impact the whole environment.

The nurse worked at that hospital for 25 years. I think it's safe to assume she didn't find the environment itself hostile.

And again, that is not how a hostile work environment is measured under the law. The issue, which you seem unwilling to see, is not "the one hostile guy at work", it is the hospitals response to that guy, and the legal obligation of the hospital to deal with that situation in a way that was not discriminatory. If you look at the linked court filing, the hospital's own attorney told the NICU nurse supervisor to stop complying with the fathers request. The supervisor did not stop, and continued to assign duties based on race. Ergo, hostile work environment for African American nurses in the NICU.

[Burris]

And again, that is not how a hostile work environment is measured under the law. The issue, which you seem unwilling to see, is not "the one hostile guy at work", it is the hospitals response to that guy, and the legal obligation of the hospital to deal with that situation in a way that was not discriminatory. If you look at the linked court filing, the hospital's own attorney told the NICU nurse supervisor to stop complying with the fathers request. The supervisor did not stop, and continued to assign duties based on race. Ergo, hostile work environment for African American nurses in the NICU.

That's true: Even despite counsel to stop, the supervisor continued the practice for another month. If there's anything for which Battle will get traction in court, it's that.