Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

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 ?).

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

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.

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?

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?

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."

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.

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.

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

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 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 :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...