Neo Nazi father bans black nurse from looking after his baby

[justlurking]

That's just...that's not a chance the hospital should have been willing to take just for the pleasure of blowing this idiot off. He's not the one who would be refused service; his kid is. (And while we're on that topic, I wonder how having a kid in NICU fits with being Superman, master of the universe? The father is obviously a hypocrite in addition to being a dumbass.)

I don't see it as the hospital refusing to serve anyone. The hospital would be willing to provide service to the child, but the child's father would be the one refusing it since he wouldn't be able to dictate staffing.

[moodygirl86]

WTFrenchtoast, you took the words right out of my mouth. I don't know how sick the kid is, but what I am sure of is that if this racist scumbag cares more about the colour of the medical personnel administering the child's treatment than he does about the fact that the child is receiving treatment, then he forfeits the right to call himself a parent.

[Mama Mia]

As someone who works for a labor union, it always amazes me how people overestimate union density in the US. I went back and checked, 12% was too high a number. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 13.6% of healthcare workers are covered by a union contract. That number includes, LPNs, CNAs, techs, therapists, etc...so the actual number of RN's is significantly lower.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

About teachers, police, etc... 34% of education employees are unionized, and something like 34.6% of public employees are unionized. Almost 1/2 of states do not allow full collective bargaining rights for public employees, and in some cases where bargaining is allowed for some public employees, police, firefighters, and other "essential employees" are expressly prohibited from joining a union. North Carolina is generally considered the most restrictive, it is actually illegal for any municipality to enter into a collective bargaining agreement (group contract, union or otherwise) with it's employees.

I'm not surprised about it being low for all healthcare workers as that would include nursing homes, cna's, doctors, therapists etc.. but I am very surprised about the Nurses. In my area the teachers in public schools are all unionized, as are the local hospital nurses and the police, fire and other public employees. We don't have much in the way of manufacturing, so I don't think there is a big union presence in anything except for health, education and government workers. The only other area where I think there is much of a union presence here is United Farmworkers and Supermarkets.

[dairyfreelife]

As someone who works for a labor union, it always amazes me how people overestimate union density in the US. I went back and checked, 12% was too high a number. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 13.6% of healthcare workers are covered by a union contract. That number includes, LPNs, CNAs, techs, therapists, etc...so the actual number of RN's is significantly lower.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

About teachers, police, etc... 34% of education employees are unionized, and something like 34.6% of public employees are unionized. Almost 1/2 of states do not allow full collective bargaining rights for public employees, and in some cases where bargaining is allowed for some public employees, police, firefighters, and other "essential employees" are expressly prohibited from joining a union. North Carolina is generally considered the most restrictive, it is actually illegal for any municipality to enter into a collective bargaining agreement (group contract, union or otherwise) with it's employees.

In my state, or at least in my current county they require teachers to join a union, one of the federal ones like the NEA or AFT and/or a WV one, can't think of the name off the top of my head. So are the local hospitals, so I am surprised at the low union rates for nurses. Overall, it's understandable, but the nurse rates surprise me.

Also, I find this conversation interesting that Australians and Europeans are insistent we change our free speech laws in the US to prevent some types of speech. Some words are rude and nasty and intended to be mean, but I can't think of anyone in the US who wants to change our laws allowing free speech. We do have some limitations on it already, like you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre or anything similar when there's not one for obvious reasons, mainly safety. Yes, someone can call someone else the n-word, but the majority will disapprove of such language being used and find disgust at someone using such language.

Most people I know, including myself, disagree with WBC and their stupidity, but the best thing to do with them is pretend they don't exist. They love attention, especially negative and they do obey the laws. Is their speech ugly? Yes. Some people want to make them go away. Who doesn't want them to just go crawl back into their pitiful hole of misery? I mean really. But Americans do enjoy the liberty of free speech and no one I know actually wants to restrict that. I think it's best for non-Americans to not decide what Americans need to do and that they need to change about their laws. If we want them changed, we'll work on that, otherwise we want to keep it the same. I think our laws are just fine in regards to speech just as they are.

Back to the OT, I think it's ironic that he's from the Detroit area, which has a very diverse population, and is a racist dipshit who wants only white nurses. Real genius. Maybe he ought to move somewhere else, though less and less people anywhere in the US tolerate such attitudes. Even in Mississippi, one of the most backward states with the confederate symbol on its state flag, not everyone there will want his attitude and beliefs. (No offense to MS FJers, I'm from WV, we aren't much better overall).

[MyNameIsJonas]

Flint is pretty much the armpit of Michigan. My dad grew up in Detroit and there are places you just do not go. Very large supremacist group populations there.

[Ramona]

I think it's best for non-Americans to not decide what Americans need to do and that they need to change about their laws. If we want them changed, we'll work on that, otherwise we want to keep it the same. I think our laws are just fine in regards to speech just as they are.

....aren't they just operating within the spirit of those free speech laws when they voice their opinions then? ;)

[yewchapel]

Dairyfreelife, some of us who are minorities would like our fellow minorities in the US to receive the same protection they do in Europe/Australia etc. Hate speech laws are about protecting minorities. It is disgusting that LGBT people are not a protected group in the US, btw. And yes, I do know many Americans who want hate speech laws in the US and protection for LGBT people.

[dairyfreelife]

....aren't they just operating within the spirit of those free speech laws when they voice their opinions then? ;)

Yes, but I think it's interesting that the only ones who want to change our laws on FJ seem to be people who don't live here. They an say what they want, but it's rather mute. If people here want to change laws to add hate speech, they can do so. It also seemed that when an American chimed in with their opinion, non-Americans were against it.

I rarely hear hate speech and when I do I think of that person as rude and arrogant. I asked my non-white boyfriend if he had ever been called any words that I suppose could constitute hate speech and he says he has not that he can recall. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I am not for banning speech of any type. I've been called all sorts of rude things, even told to come back when I could see over the counter (I could see over it just fine). Happened once, but I took it as his loss and he was asshole (I was applying for job in senior year of high school). It seems everyone has been treated rudely and had someone say something rather cruel or mean about their appearance. If it's not their skin tone, it'll be their eyes, or chin shape, or ears, or height, or weight, or sexual preference, or something about their personality. Assholes will find a way to make fun of someone no matter what. I don't see a reason to ban words because of a few assholes.

[yewchapel]

Dairyfreelife, there are many accounts written by minorities of the hate speech they've faced (particularly transgender people). It is not for you or other people of privilege to silence those who have encountered hate speech and suggest that it's not as big of a deal as we think it is. It is NOT because I am not American that I think this, but because I am a minority who wants more protection for minorities who live in the US.

[wtfrenchtoast]

I'm a minority. I'm not crazy about the idea of throwing this guy in jail for saying "I hate n*****s". It doesn't sit well with me to punish someone for speaking their mind. Even if what comes out is vile and cruel. Of course, if there are threats involved, then by all means action should be taken. But I think it sets a very negative precedent to start prosecuting speech and personal opinion.

[justlurking]

I'm a minority. I'm not crazy about the idea of throwing this guy in jail for saying "I hate n*****s". It doesn't sit well with me to punish someone for speaking their mind. Even if what comes out is vile and cruel. Of course, if there are threats involved, then by all means action should be taken. But I think it sets a very negative precedent to start prosecuting speech and personal opinion.

My understanding is that (for this particular case) the "hate speech" extended beyond this jerk's "rights" to say he hated a particular group of people. His speech became action which negatively affected the hospital staff's rights (well at least their contractual rights). He can hate black people all he wants, but as soon as he starts to voice that so as to get his way, and disenfranchise others, he's crossed the line.

[wtfrenchtoast]

My understanding is that (for this particular case) the "hate speech" extended beyond this jerk's "rights" to say he hated a particular group of people. His speech became action which negatively affected the hospital staff's rights (well at least their contractual rights). He can hate black people all he wants, but as soon as he starts to voice that so as to get his way, and disenfranchise others, he's crossed the line.

I agree, but I still don't believe he should be thrown in jail for that. Honestly, the hospital had the choice to not cave to his demands, but they chose to do do. His words alone didn't do anything to anyone. Had he threatened anyone or brandished a weapon along with his demands, it would be different. But I disagree with you that his speech became action. The hospital chose freely to remove the nurse from the patient. They could have told the father to get over it, they could have escorted him from the hospital, they could have told him to go elsewhere. His words certainly affected their choice, but he didn't force it.

[2xx1xy1JD]

My understanding is that (for this particular case) the "hate speech" extended beyond this jerk's "rights" to say he hated a particular group of people. His speech became action which negatively affected the hospital staff's rights (well at least their contractual rights). He can hate black people all he wants, but as soon as he starts to voice that so as to get his way, and disenfranchise others, he's crossed the line.

Crossed the line of what?

His behavior is racist and offensive as hell, but it wasn't illegal in the United States.

Canada has laws against "hate speech", but they are so narrow that it's REALLY hard to get a conviction. Merely expressing hatred isn't illegal - you have to be actively promoting it in some way. Hypothetically, standing in front of a hospital or creating a website claiming that black nurses are plotting to hurt white babies could be illegal in Canada, but being a racist prick who requests only white hospital staff isn't illegal (although you won't get your request granted).

[justlurking]

Crossed the line of what?

His behavior is racist and offensive as hell, but it wasn't illegal in the United States.

Canada has laws against "hate speech", but they are so narrow that it's REALLY hard to get a conviction. Merely expressing hatred isn't illegal - you have to be actively promoting it in some way. Hypothetically, standing in front of a hospital or creating a website claiming that black nurses are plotting to hurt white babies could be illegal in Canada, but being a racist prick who requests only white hospital staff isn't illegal (although you won't get your request granted).

I was of the understanding that this guy flashed some white supremacist tattoos as an attempt to intimidate hospital staff into complying with his demands. I see that as being no different than someone who burns a cross on other people's lawns, or hangs a noose in front of the homes of minorities. Each of these things are means of expression being used as means to intimidate others into complying with their racist beliefs.

[MyNameIsJonas]

I was of the understanding that this guy flashed some white supremacist tattoos as an attempt to intimidate hospital staff into complying with his demands. I see that as being no different than someone who burns a cross on other people's lawns, or hangs a noose in front of the homes of minorities. Each of these things are means of expression being used as means to intimidate others into complying with their racist beliefs.

He did. If he had shown it to the black nurse, that might have been considered racial intimidation, but like I said, I think this was all very planned out on his part. Now he gets to sit back and laugh. As for the hospital, they screwed up and they should be punished for it.

[yewchapel]

I'm a minority. I'm not crazy about the idea of throwing this guy in jail for saying "I hate n*****s". It doesn't sit well with me to punish someone for speaking their mind. Even if what comes out is vile and cruel. Of course, if there are threats involved, then by all means action should be taken. But I think it sets a very negative precedent to start prosecuting speech and personal opinion.

Countries with hate speech laws have very strictly defined definitions of hate speech. Saying 'I hate n*****s' would not be enough for a prosecution. It has been said before on the thread that hate speech laws that exist elsewhere are very clearly defined.

[Mama Mia]

I'll say again that my favorite part of free jinger is learning about how people in other areas think about things and what impacts them. Whether I am learning about the difference between culture in California and Alabama, or the U.S. and the U.K. - it is all fascinating.

I think if you had to come up with only one factor that most people in the U.S are going to agree is important - free speech would be it. So it is very interesting to hear different perspectives.

[yewchapel]

But hate speech laws don't prevent free speech! They simply introduce consequences for certain types of speech, and that happens in other ways in the US already.

[dawbs]

I see zero possibility of anything resembling hate-speech law ever coming into being in the US.

Some of that is attitude--Free speech is very much a 'sacred' thing and I think the gut level reaction of every american I know, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, would have the gut-level reaction of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Some of it is government trust. There's not much that's more universally American than distrusting our own government. Again, while people may disagree with me, IME, I'd say this is true on both sides of the political spectrum and..generally also for most of the middle. It's as close to universal as we get sometimes :). The tinfoil hat brigades on both ends would assume slippery slope to government trying to control more speech because the government is trying to muzzle the people (I find myself wanting to make myself a foil hat on that topic myself some days; I wouldn't trust it not to be misused/misapplied/etc)

And then there's the simple fact that it would require a constitutional amendment, IMO, because free speech is #1 in the bill of rights--the ONLY exceptions we've ever had in this country have been for the clear a immediately dangerous speech and I don't think hate-speech falls into that category.

[Widget]

But hate speech laws don't prevent free speech! They simply introduce consequences for certain types of speech, and that happens in other ways in the US already.

Yes they do. The only laws in the US refer to the action of the speech. Calling fire=action of inciting panic. Threatening the president=action of threatening to commit an act.

If those words were used while committing a crime it enhances the penalty because it shows the action of targeting someone for a specific characteristic.

Calling someone a slur alone is not a threat and restricting people's right to that is restricting free speech.

Those words are disgusting and I don't like them but that's not a good enough reason to make it illegal. These people are assholes, but they should have the right to say stupid shit as long as it doesn't go past that.

[Blahblah]

I'm not American, and I wouldn't tell Americans what I think is best for them. But I will certainly tell you how things are in Australia and I will certainly tell you what things I don't understand about America (gun laws spring to mind).

That is not the same as saying that America should change to be like Australia. It is simply providing information and letting you know that things are different here and that sometimes I have trouble resolving some of your laws and practices with my own.

[yewchapel]

Yes they do. The only laws in the US refer to the action of the speech. Calling fire=action of inciting panic. Threatening the president=action of threatening to commit an act.

If those words were used while committing a crime it enhances the penalty because it shows the action of targeting someone for a specific characteristic.

Calling someone a slur alone is not a threat and restricting people's right to that is restricting free speech.

Those words are disgusting and I don't like them but that's not a good enough reason to make it illegal. These people are assholes, but they should have the right to say stupid shit as long as it doesn't go past that.

Did you miss the part where I said that calling someone a slur is not enough for someone to be prosecuted under hate speech law? Hate speech laws are very well-defined. For example, the UK Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 states in Section 29J:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

So protecting free speech is written into our hate speech laws. The UK laws focus on material aimed at minorities as a group (eg a pamphlet saying that Islam is un-British, rather than an individual Muslim) or that which tries to incite racial/religious etc hatred or violence. The cases that have been through the courts here that I can find involve pamphlets, signs etc.

I guess FREE SPEECH!!!!!ELEVENTY ONE!!!! is more important than the well-being of minorities, because 'Murrca :roll:

[Bloo]

In my state, or at least in my current county they require teachers to join a union, one of the federal ones like the NEA or AFT and/or a WV one, can't think of the name off the top of my head. So are the local hospitals, so I am surprised at the low union rates for nurses. Overall, it's understandable, but the nurse rates surprise me.

Also, I find this conversation interesting that Australians and Europeans are insistent we change our free speech laws in the US to prevent some types of speech. Some words are rude and nasty and intended to be mean, but I can't think of anyone in the US who wants to change our laws allowing free speech. We do have some limitations on it already, like you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre or anything similar when there's not one for obvious reasons, mainly safety. Yes, someone can call someone else the n-word, but the majority will disapprove of such language being used and find disgust at someone using such language.

Most people I know, including myself, disagree with WBC and their stupidity, but the best thing to do with them is pretend they don't exist. They love attention, especially negative and they do obey the laws. Is their speech ugly? Yes. Some people want to make them go away. Who doesn't want them to just go crawl back into their pitiful hole of misery? I mean really. But Americans do enjoy the liberty of free speech and no one I know actually wants to restrict that. I think it's best for non-Americans to not decide what Americans need to do and that they need to change about their laws. If we want them changed, we'll work on that, otherwise we want to keep it the same. I think our laws are just fine in regards to speech just as they are.

Back to the OT, I think it's ironic that he's from the Detroit area, which has a very diverse population, and is a racist dipshit who wants only white nurses. Real genius. Maybe he ought to move somewhere else, though less and less people anywhere in the US tolerate such attitudes. Even in Mississippi, one of the most backward states with the confederate symbol on its state flag, not everyone there will want his attitude and beliefs. (No offense to MS FJers, I'm from WV, we aren't much better overall).

I'm American and I want the free speech laws done away with.

[Widget]

I guess FREE SPEECH!!!!!ELEVENTY ONE!!!! is more important than the well-being of minorities, because 'Murrca :roll:

Pretty much. :roll:

In regard to your "just words isn't enough" I'm almost certain people have already been prosecuted in the UK for "Racial Abuse" even in the absence of direct threats too. Simply calling someone a racial epitaph. I don't have links right now, but I can look later.

They were trying to prosecute football fans for calling players the N word for example.

[yewchapel]

Pretty much. :roll:

In regard to your "just words isn't enough" I'm almost certain people have already been prosecuted in the UK for "Racial Abuse" even in the absence of direct threats too. Simply calling someone a racial epitaph. I don't have links right now, but I can look later.

They were trying to prosecute football fans for calling players the N word for example.

Racist chanting at football matches is banned, yes, because football songs are notorious for stirring up violence between rival teams. That's part of a law specifically about football matches, it doesn't apply generally. And I didn't say it had to be a direct threat - it doesn't have to be. But calling someone a racist slur in some contexts CAN be considered a risk for inciting racial hatred and/or violence, and so should be prosecuted. Hate speech law focuses on what effect the racism etc would have.

Good to know that the safety of minorities is worth less than an old piece of paper to Americans :roll: Maybe you should ask some minorities about how hate speech isn't that big a deal to them...