Neo Nazi father bans black nurse from looking after his baby

[OkToBeTakei]

I would agree with you that countries should be judged on how they treat the most vulnerable in society, and I would certainly agree that America has a long way to go. In all honesty, as someone who takes in interest in such things, hate speech laws in many countries seem to be an extension of the class system. They allow a certain segment of society to feel nice and progressive without ever having a real discussion about power and access to power. They also have the benefit of keeping the lower classes, of whatever color or religion, from causing too many problems. Such laws may keep things calmer, but do that really do anything meaningfull to improve the lot of the most vulnerable?

I seriously think you are missing the point. Or that this is the view you have which I honestly cannot reconcile with. You think by having laws which give minorities rights that it in some way keeps them sweet? That in some way by giving them a recourse we are marginalising them to some underclass?

[meda]

I think it goes both ways meda. You dismiss what we are saying as you suspect say I have not looked at the legalities. I suspect many did not read the links I posted. TL;DR ? If they or you had you would see it it is not so different. What did come across in this thread to me was strangely from a few posters that freedom of speech to them appeared to be supportive of racism to me. I suspect it was this reaction that made non-americans question why that would be. Which in turn makes some respond as they do.

At no point has any Australian or European said the system is perfect in their country. Everything we do or not do will always be how a country is defined. There is more innate racism in Europe due to many circumstances and that changes every 10 years or so.

I do not see how that is bragging. It is an honest account of living in a society which constantly changes and lawmaking that may get it right or wrong. There are many indigenous people who have been mistreated in every country.

If this is some America v Rest of World crap which your post appears to be I am totally not interested. It is our differences and our mistakes. our flaws, our history and what we learn from it that opens our minds, makes change. Not just some My Mammy's knitting is better than yours crap.

I am not trying to make an America vs the rest of the world arguement, but there does seem to be a belief from you and others that freedom of speech = unchecked racism. I don't agree with that. My point is that you have different forms of government and different ways of dealing with what is after all a global problem. My tone of frustration steps from comments like "a piece of paper is more important to y ou than the rights of minorities" (which did not come from you) simply because several American posters expressed that freedom of speech is important to many Americans.

[meda]

I seriously think you are missing the point. Or that this is the view you have which I honestly cannot reconcile with. You think by having laws which give minorities rights that it in some way keeps them sweet? That in some way by giving them a recourse we are marginalising them to some underclass?

Maybe this is unintentional semantics on my part. When I think of laws that regulate speech, I do not think of laws that grant anyone any rights. Such laws do act as a check on certain words, songs, and actions that could provoke violence and unrest, so the purpose of such laws to me seems to be to prevent conduct that could incite violence against certain marginalized groups, and to preserve order generally. For the record, I don't think this is a bad thing, but it does not seem to me to be granting a right, per se.

This is probably my American concept of rights, but to me laws that confer rights would be laws that enforce equal access to education, the right to own property and work, the right to vote and participate in government, etc. these are the sorts of rights that American anti discrimination laws protect. I don't view such laws to be in the same catagory as laws that regulate the speech of private citizens.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip)

Maybe this is unintentional semantics on my part. When I think of laws that regulate speech, I do not think of laws that grant anyone any rights. Such laws do act as a check on certain words, songs, and actions that could provoke violence and unrest, so the purpose of such laws to me seems to be to prevent conduct that could incite violence against certain marginalized groups, and to preserve order generally. For the record, I don't think this is a bad thing, but it does not seem to me to be granting a right, per se.

This is probably my American concept of rights, but to me laws that confer rights would be laws that enforce equal access to education, the right to own property and work, the right to vote and participate in government, etc. these are the sorts of rights that American anti discrimination laws protect. I don't view such laws to be in the same catagory as laws that regulate the speech of private citizens.

That's all hate-speech laws in the UK are about.

edited for clarity

[yewchapel]

I would agree with you that countries should be judged on how they treat the most vulnerable in society, and I would certainly agree that America has a long way to go. In all honesty, as someone who takes in interest in such things, hate speech laws in many countries seem to be an extension of the class system. They allow a certain segment of society to feel nice and progressive without ever having a real discussion about power and access to power. They also have the benefit of keeping the lower classes, of whatever color or religion, from causing too many problems. Such laws may keep things calmer, but do that really do anything meaningfull to improve the lot of the most vulnerable?

I am truly baffled by the apparent connection between hate speech laws and keeping working class people (not lower class people, thanks) from 'causing too many problems'. People from other classes are prosecuted under hate speech laws too. Nobody thinks that hate speech laws are the end goal of progression, of course an actual discussion on power and access to power needs to happen, but in my experience that does happen without hate speech laws preventing that. And yeah, it is a meaningful difference when far-right fuckwits can't target Asian communities with anti-immigration and/or anti-Islam pamphlets.

[meda]

That's all hate-speech laws in the UK are about.

Ok, we have laws here that also act as a check on violence against certain marginalized groups. They are just not called hate speech laws, and they conform to our constitution. So why the insistence that we are doing it wrong?

[yewchapel]

I am not trying to make an America vs the rest of the world arguement, but there does seem to be a belief from you and others that freedom of speech = unchecked racism. I don't agree with that. My point is that you have different forms of government and different ways of dealing with what is after all a global problem. My tone of frustration steps from comments like "a piece of paper is more important to y ou than the rights of minorities" (which did not come from you) simply because several American posters expressed that freedom of speech is important to many Americans.

When Americans talk about constitutional rights being more important than others' lived experiences, then it does look like a piece of paper (all the constitution is at the end of the day) is more important than the rights of minorities (and I was the one that said that). It doesn't really seem like a big coincidence that the constitution was written by a bunch of wealthy white men. This is just, you know, my personal opinion though, and it's not like this is a universal opinion from Europeans/Australians on this thread.

[Bloo]

But to a lot of people- including many Americans- it seems like there are some Americans who get all up in arms about free speech. Strangely enough, it's never the freedom to say anything nice or particularly intelligent that they care about; I've only ever seen it brought up when it comes to somebody's right to insult somebody else. Usually the majority group is doing the insulting.

As a teacher, I get frustrated when I have to tell a child "we don't say mean things like that!" Sometimes I feel like what I should say is "Wait 'til you're an adult, sweetie."

[meda]

But but...I am a minority, and my "lived experience" is that freedom of speech is important. Does that not count? Also, I would hazard a guess that much of your current government model was also created by rich white men, that is hardly a uniquely American phenominon.

[OkToBeTakei]

Maybe this is unintentional semantics on my part. When I think of laws that regulate speech, I do not think of laws that grant anyone any rights. Such laws do act as a check on certain words, songs, and actions that could provoke violence and unrest, so the purpose of such laws to me seems to be to prevent conduct that could incite violence against certain marginalized groups, and to preserve order generally. For the record, I don't think this is a bad thing, but it does not seem to me to be granting a right, per se.

This is probably my American concept of rights, but to me laws that confer rights would be laws that enforce equal access to education, the right to own property and work, the right to vote and participate in government, etc. these are the sorts of rights that American anti discrimination laws protect. I don't view such laws to be in the same catagory as laws that regulate the speech of private citizens.

Ahh ok get you. But those laws are there anyway. Equal opportunity. For a while because of institutionalised racism in the police, health service it almost became a shoo in to be an ethnic minority. No system will ever get it right. But to have in a public service a workforce that reflects it's populace is not wrong. It took time to get over this. Bear in mind the biggest influx of immigrants to the UK only happened in 1960's. We are not like the USA in the respect of origin.

Institutionalised racism is difficult to shift. What you see as a regulation of free speech to a private citizen, is if that speech is racist, it is a move to shift away from that way of thinking. We may not enact the laws but just by the fact they exist is a moral compass perhaps.

You do realise we also class Disabled, LGBT and the Elderly under this law.

[Widget]

Did you get the bit, where inciting violence and harming others is against the law? Personal opinions are one thing, asking for all out violence is another. CCTV, driving and the location of washing machines have got nothing to do with it. :roll:

Those are all things that while relatively small differences , would never fly in the US. It was a joke.. Both countries have laws to prevent racial violence, the difference is the approach.

It's not inciting violence. It's calling someone a vulgar name. If he was yelling "We should kill these ******ers" then yes it would be a threat and inciting violence and it would be a crime here too.

It's the assumption that specific person that says a specific word will likely do a specific act or cause a specific act to happen and should be punished for that eventuality that doesn't work with US law and I disagree with. Without that assumption there is very little basis that can be used to ban specific speech. Even horrible disgusting speech.

Most cities that have CCTV have open CCTV as in I can tune in online to see what is happening say in Liverpool. It is open and transparent. Anything that help prevents crime is a good thing to me. I am guessing this would also breech something I am not aware of?

A lot of people are peeved about the red light cameras that only go off after someone runs through a red light, and want them declared unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy.

Privacy is another big right along with "ownin' all the guns i wants ta", and "freedom to say whatever I dad gum please" So yes having cameras in public places would never be accepted. Especially if they were open and publicly viewable.

[meda]

Ahh ok get you. But those laws are there anyway. Equal opportunity. For a while because of institutionalised racism in the police, health service it almost became a shoo in to be an ethnic minority. No system will ever get it right. But to have in a public service a workforce that reflects it's populace is not wrong. It took time to get over this. Bear in mind the biggest influx of immigrants to the UK only happened in 1960's. We are not like the USA in the respect of origin.

Institutionalised racism is difficult to shift. What you see as a regulation of free speech to a private citizen, is if that speech is racist, it is a move to shift away from that way of thinking. We may not enact the laws but just by the fact they exist is a moral compass perhaps.

You do realise we also class Disabled, LGBT and the Elderly under this law.

Citizens with disabilities and the elderly are protected here too at the federal level. It is a national disgrace that LGBT is not a protected class at the federal level, and only in certain states. You will get no argument from me on that point.

[yewchapel]

We have freedom of speech too, but the freedom to not be discriminated against or abused because of race or religion or sexuality etc is more important, since that protects the vulnerable. Unchecked freedom of speech doesn't. And sure our government model was created by rich white men, but we have a fluid, uncodified constitution (we do have a constitution) so it doesn't have to stay that way and can change with society. Now UK law in regards to hate speech is by no means perfect - certainly, transphobic hate speech needs to be cracked down on - and no one pretends that racial problems don't exist here. But the sky hasn't fallen in because people aren't free to leave anti-religion leaflets in airport prayer rooms.

[Widget]

We have freedom of speech too, but the freedom to not be discriminated against or abused because of race or religion or sexuality etc is more important, since that protects the vulnerable. Unchecked freedom of speech doesn't. And sure our government model was created by rich white men, but we have a fluid, uncodified constitution (we do have a constitution) so it doesn't have to stay that way and can change with society. Now UK law in regards to hate speech is by no means perfect - certainly, transphobic hate speech needs to be cracked down on - and no one pretends that racial problems don't exist here. But the sky hasn't fallen in because people aren't free to leave anti-religion leaflets in airport prayer rooms.

Nor is unchecked freedom of speech causing the horrible things that non-Americans think it would here. Hate speech is relatively rare without being a crime.

Someone engaging in hate speech in Los Angeles would get basically the same reaction they would in London, minus the criminal charges.

[Patsy]

discussion has slightly moved on, but:

Yeah, I think Europeans, Africans, Asians, whoever have a right to comment on American laws and practice, just as you should do the same to ours if the fancy takes you. "Yoooooou're not an AMERICAN" is a pretty weak argument - we hear your news constantly, you don't hear ours, so obviously we develop opinions about American culture, legal systems etc.

Yeah. And we are on a board largely devoted to criticising the Duggars, and we are... not the Duggars. So "don't decide what Americans need to do, you're not American" not only pisses me off, it seems kind of hilarious in that context.

[meda]

We have freedom of speech too, but the freedom to not be discriminated against or abused because of race or religion or sexuality etc is more important, since that protects the vulnerable. Unchecked freedom of speech doesn't. And sure our government model was created by rich white men, but we have a fluid, uncodified constitution (we do have a constitution) so it doesn't have to stay that way and can change with society. Now UK law in regards to hate speech is by no means perfect - certainly, transphobic hate speech needs to be cracked down on - and no one pretends that racial problems don't exist here. But the sky hasn't fallen in because people aren't free to leave anti-religion leaflets in airport prayer rooms.

Again this may be semantics. Do you believe that we don't have laws that protect minorities against discrimination? Or when you speak of discrimination are you speaking only of discrimination that arises from the speech or writings of individuals that is targeted towards certain groups? Because it sounds like you are equating freedom of speech with systematic discrimination against minorities.

[OkToBeTakei]

But but...I am a minority, and my "lived experience" is that freedom of speech is important. Does that not count? Also, I would hazard a guess that much of your current government model was also created by rich white men, that is hardly a uniquely American phenominon.

VERY VERY true. but even if you look at the discrimination law you see 3 changes in the last 2 decades. 1986. Some date I can't recall and more recently 2010.Times change.

This would be the same as most laws here. It is not easy to revisit and change them. But it happens. Unless we are talking about the Magna Carta we do not have some out of date constitution which allows somebody to bear arms (I mean who says that anymore.) I do not mean to be anything other than respectful to a country that I greatly admire on a lot of fronts. But I am happy to see when my country is criticised, because on many levels at many times it is required. What is wrong with looking at what works in other countries?

Sweden has the best standard of living worldwide? Denmark has a model of childcare that would put the UK to shame. Germany has an amazing education system. Japan has the highest populace in University. What is wrong with seeing that other countries do things differently without becoming so defensive? It may not work but it might be worth at least checking it out.

[OkToBeTakei]

Again this may be semantics. Do you believe that we don't have laws that protect minorities against discrimination? Or when you speak of discrimination are you speaking only of discrimination that arises from the speech or writings of individuals that is targeted towards certain groups? Because it sounds like you are equating freedom of speech with systematic discrimination against minorities.

I do think there is confusion. But going back to the original point. The nurse in this case would have been protected by discriminatory law, it may not have ended up as a criminal conviction on Mr Neo-Nazi. But her employer would be legally bound to ensure that discrimination did not happen. So no in this case I do not see how this woman was protected. There were many options along the way that it appears were missed. But I do realise this is just one case which is likely or hopefully not indicative or common.

[meda]

VERY VERY true. but even if you look at the discrimination law you see 3 changes in the last 2 decades. 1986. Some date I can't recall and more recently 2010.Times change.

This would be the same as most laws here. It is not easy to revisit and change them. But it happens. Unless we are talking about the Magna Carta we do not have some out of date constitution which allows somebody to bear arms (I mean who says that anymore.) I do not mean to be anything other than respectful to a country that I greatly admire on a lot of fronts. But I am happy to see when my country is criticised, because on many levels at many times it is required. What is wrong with looking at what works in other countries?

Sweden has the best standard of living worldwide? Denmark has a model of childcare that would put the UK to shame. Germany has an amazing education system. Japan has the highest populace in University. What is wrong with seeing that other countries do things differently without becoming so defensive? It may not work but it might be worth at least checking it out.

I think maybe people outside the US see the constitution as a bit more inflexible than it actually is. This is probably because Americans tend to take it very seriously, because we view it as a shield to protect us from some very bad things. Distrust of government is shared across the political spectrum. :lol:

But our laws adapt and change too. The original Civil Rights act was passed in 1965. Since then, legislation has expanded and improved the original law at least 5 times that I can think of off the top of my head. Federal courts have expanded protections even further. Since the federal law is seen as a floor, not a ceiling, many states have expanded anti discrimination laws even farther. My state's division of human rights covers 28 classes and characteristics of its citizens, including LGBT and transgender. So very little about civil rights in America is unchanged from the times of the rich white men who wrote the original document. I take this a bit personally because I spend a considerable part of my professional life helping clients dealing with employment discrimination. Quite often, the system works well and protects people.

[HomegirlRuby]

Why did shifts have to be rearranged? There are always multiple nurses on duty - why could she not just work with the other babies? If I were her, I wouldnt want to risk any type of confrontation, lawsuit, etc. A patient has a right to refuse treatment from a healthcare provider, regardless of their reason (even if it is gross). I don't see how the hospital is to blame, and I think this is a frivolous lawsuit looking to cash in on one unfortunate incident from one whackjob patient.

[meda]

I do think there is confusion. But going back to the original point. The nurse in this case would have been protected by discriminatory law, it may not have ended up as a criminal conviction on Mr Neo-Nazi. But her employer would be legally bound to ensure that discrimination did not happen. So no in this case I do not see how this woman was protected. There were many options along the way that it appears were missed. But I do realise this is just one case which is likely or hopefully not indicative or common.

In this case, I think the hospital broke the law and failed to protect. The nurse has a remedy here and it sound like she is pursuing it. The father may also have broken the law if he did in fact flash nazi tats and behave in a threatening manner. That could easily be menacing or harassment, both of which are criminal charges. I don't know enough about the circumstances to say with any certainty.

Criminal charges would hinge on someone reporting the conduct to the police, the same way I would assume someone needs to report a violation of a hate speech law to the police before any action could be taken.

[Turtle]

Why did shifts have to be rearranged? There are always multiple nurses on duty - why could she not just work with the other babies? If I were her, I wouldnt want to risk any type of confrontation, lawsuit, etc. A patient has a right to refuse treatment from a healthcare provider, regardless of their reason (even if it is gross). I don't see how the hospital is to blame, and I think this is a frivolous lawsuit looking to cash in on one unfortunate incident from one whackjob patient.

On that note, why would a black person insist on entering an establishment with a "whites only" sign on the front? Isn't that asking for confrontation?

Whether the nurse wanted to work with that patient isn't relevant to whether or not discrimination occurred.

[OkToBeTakei]

In this case, I think the hospital broke the law and failed to protect. The nurse has a remedy here and it sound like she is pursuing it. The father may also have broken the law if he did in fact flash nazi tats and behave in a threatening manner. That could easily be menacing or harassment, both of which are criminal charges. I don't know enough about the circumstances to say with any certainty.

Criminal charges would hinge on someone reporting the conduct to the police, the same way I would assume someone needs to report a violation of a hate speech law to the police before any action could be taken.

The only difference here would be her protection regarding her professional ability. Any hospital who did not would be as you said. In as much as we are talking about 'hate speech' it does hinge on that exact point you make. It needs to be reported. Although as in the case I posted way back, sometimes it is fait accompli.

I don't think though the impinging on 'free speech' is a valid argument. At least to me. I do not think that is because I am where I am from. I think it is because of what I believe personally.

[OkToBeTakei]

On that note, why would a black person insist on entering an establishment with a "whites only" sign on the front? Isn't that asking for confrontation?

Whether the nurse wanted to work with that patient isn't relevant to whether or not discrimination occurred.

'Whites only" Are you being serious?

[Guest Anonymous]

'Whites only" Are you being serious?

I don't think Turtle was being serious.

I don't like what HomegirlRuby is saying. All this 'why could she not just work with the other babies?' stuff isn't really any different to "why not use the other drinking fountain / restaurant / hospital?". The Neo-Nazi may well have had the right to refuse treatment, and even make racist statements, but the hospital does not have a right to discriminate against their employees on the back of it. I have the right to say: 'I wish I had £1 000 000'. If you robbed a bank in order to give me the money, your illegal action wouldn't be covered by my right to free speech.

Edited: In my brain, drinking fountains are called water fountains. They aren't the same thing, are they? :lol: