"Someone shouted 'terrorists' at a man and woman" incident this afternoon

[titch juicy]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> KidKruger Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > "he might question whether the person who

> shouted

> > out 'terrorists' actually hated the couple he

> > directed it to. He might have thought he was

> being

> > funny, might have been trying to impress

> friends"

> >

> > I have to admit, my chief concern was the

> > recipients of the 'jest' from the perpetrator.

> > They're clearly identifiable as Muslims, so

> how,

> > when they're called a terrorist in a public

> place,

> > could they ever take offence and think it was

> > anything other than "just a laugh" ?

>

> You miss the irony of your post KK

>

> You took offence at GG's post because you thought

> he was belittling the reported incident but them

> called him a name. Two wrongs don't make a right

And you miss the point completely.

Someone on here called someone a name based on something they said/did. The original post is about racial abuse.

If you don't genuinely understand the difference between name calling in response to an action by that person and racial abuse based on nothing but skin colour, it would be very worrying.

[TE44]

I am not looking for an excuse for racism, I know

Of 3 people in this area with tourettes, in reading the original post it was not clear about the shouter.

[JohnL]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As an aside, I found it amazing how many people on

> EDF didn't think the Jeremy Clarkson "lazy Irish

> **** " assault was racially aggravated, yet

> calling someone a terrorist, with no mention of

> country or race, is.

It's covered by the equality act in the UK (used to be race

relations act), but many people seem to call any prejustice

against white people non racist (and this seems to be taught

in University courses in the US as far as I can tell - from

so many twitter users quoting it).

Irish is definitely a 'protected status' under the equality act

in the UK due to history so Clarkson should have been held to

account IMHO.

But more generally I know many white male people (including myself)

find it hard to be offended by 'anti white' remarks in the same

way as someone from a race with a history of oppression (somebody

said 'stupid white boy' at me the other day when I did something really

stupid and I didn't exactly feel abused - maybe I should have ?).

[keano77]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And you miss the point completely.

>

> Someone on here called someone a name based on

> something they said/did. The original post is

> about racial abuse.

>

> If you don't genuinely understand the difference

> between name calling in response to an action by

> that person and racial abuse based on nothing but

> skin colour, it would be very worrying.

I think I get the point titch juicy although the OP seems a bit unclear as to what offense has actually been committed

Posted by Jim1234 February 24, 11:46PM

OK seems I neglected to mention that the couple were assumedly muslim - the lady was wearing a headscarf. Clearly it was racism, islamophobia, discrimination, whatever you want to call it.

If words like racism are misused they become devalued. You have made an assumption about skin colour. Have I missed where the OP mentioned the skin colour of the couple? The lady had a headscarf, her ethnicity wasn't mentioned. Islam is a religion, not a race. To call a muslim a terrorist would probably be more of a hate crime based on religion than racism.

A careful use words is advisable

[titch juicy]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > And you miss the point completely.

> >

> > Someone on here called someone a name based on

> > something they said/did. The original post is

> > about racial abuse.

> >

> > If you don't genuinely understand the

> difference

> > between name calling in response to an action

> by

> > that person and racial abuse based on nothing

> but

> > skin colour, it would be very worrying.

>

> I think I get the point titch juicy although the

> OP seems a bit unclear as to what offense has

> actually been committed

>

> Posted by Jim1234 February 24, 11:46PM

>

> OK seems I neglected to mention that the couple

> were assumedly muslim - the lady was wearing a

> headscarf. Clearly it was racism, islamophobia,

> discrimination, whatever you want to call it.

>

> If words like racism are misused they become

> devalued. You have made an assumption about skin

> colour. Have I missed where the OP mentioned the

> skin colour of the couple? The lady had a

> headscarf, her ethnicity wasn't mentioned. Islam

> is a religion, not a race. To call a muslim a

> terrorist would probably be more of a hate crime

> based on religion than racism.

>

> A careful use words is advisable

Religious hatred or racism. The point obviously and very clearly still stands.

[Mick Mac]

Jim1234 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I really cannot believe the replies on this

> thread.

Jim - which ones? and why? So far, from your comments I'm taking the view that you are simply not someone who likes to discuss matters in detail.

It's only by discussing these things in detail that people develop an understanding. And behind every law there is a history of events and a detailed discussion that gave rise to the law in the first place, and further development of the law.

You clearly did the right thing to see if the victims were ok. In which direction did you expect the thread to go?

[Mugglesworth]

Plenty of barrack room lawyer-speak going on here. No, we don't have a Facebook Live feed of the incident or the medical history of the perpetrator and so cannot be definitive about what was intended. Can we at least agree that it must have been an unpleasant thing to witness and almost certainly distressing to the victims, rather than rack our brains to come up with reasons to excuse what happened?

[JohnL]

Mugglesworth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Plenty of barrack room lawyer-speak going on here.

> No, we don't have a Facebook Live feed of the

> incident or the medical history of the perpetrator

> and so cannot be definitive about what was

> intended. Can we at least agree that it must have

> been an unpleasant thing to witness and almost

> certainly distressing to the victims, rather than

> rack our brains to come up with reasons to excuse

> what happened?

Does intent matter in hate speech - genuine question as the law is below ?

I suppose the important phrase is "having regard to all the circumstances"

I would always give the perpetrator an opportunity to apologise first anyway if possible

"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if?

(a) they intend thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."

[Mick Mac]

Mugglesworth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Plenty of barrack room lawyer-speak going on here.

> No, we don't have a Facebook Live feed of the

> incident or the medical history of the perpetrator

> and so cannot be definitive about what was

> intended. Can we at least agree that it must have

> been an unpleasant thing to witness and almost

> certainly distressing to the victims, rather than

> rack our brains to come up with reasons to excuse

> what happened?

Interestingly, the one key word you have not used is racism. Don't forget that this word was used in the original title which was then changed by Admin to remove the word. Hence the debate.

[Jim1234]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jim1234 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I really cannot believe the replies on this

> > thread.

>

> Jim - which ones? and why? So far, from your

> comments I'm taking the view that you are simply

> not someone who likes to discuss matters in

> detail.

>

> It's only by discussing these things in detail

> that people develop an understanding. And behind

> every law there is a history of events and a

> detailed discussion that gave rise to the law in

> the first place, and further development of the

> law.

>

> You clearly did the right thing to see if the

> victims were ok. In which direction did you expect

> the thread to go?

I'm all for discussing things in detail, however it seems several people on here are using irrelevant details in order to somehow prove that what happened was justifiable. Apologies to anyone that genuinely wants to have some sort of philosophical debate about what racism is.

I guess you are right that I should have expected such responses, unfortunately.

[TE44]

Jim1234 Did anyone say anything to this man/woman?

Was she/he aggressive? What was the reaction of

people that witnessed this. Can you give a description of him/her.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

I blame latte-drinking gentrifiers. Or possibly people that shop at Iceland. I don't know, whichever is more unpopular.

[JohnL]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I blame latte-drinking gentrifiers. Or possibly

> people that shop at Iceland. I don't know,

> whichever is more unpopular.

are these mutually exclusive

[JohnL]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mugglesworth Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Plenty of barrack room lawyer-speak going on

> here.

> > No, we don't have a Facebook Live feed of the

> > incident or the medical history of the

> perpetrator

> > and so cannot be definitive about what was

> > intended. Can we at least agree that it must

> have

> > been an unpleasant thing to witness and almost

> > certainly distressing to the victims, rather

> than

> > rack our brains to come up with reasons to

> excuse

> > what happened?

>

> Interestingly, the one key word you have not used

> is racism. Don't forget that this word was used in

> the original title which was then changed by Admin

> to remove the word. Hence the debate.

Racism is such a difficult word I use hate speech or

hate crime now.

[Rolo Tomasi]

> Racism is such a difficult word I use hate speech

> or hate crime now.

This thread has now reached peak white fragility. I'm out.

[JohnL]

Rolo Tomasi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Racism is such a difficult word I use hate

> speech

> > or hate crime now.

>

> This thread has now reached peak white fragility.

> I'm out.

Aww - Sorry I do take the easy road sometimes in avoiding offence :)

[Earl Aelfheah]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pedantry.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> (Sorry. Just had to)

I'll line them up, you knock 'em down. :-)