Racist Bigot shouting bile on tram...

[acm]

.

[El Pibe]

Oh gosh that's clever, I see what you did there.

Picking up on your post in the sister thread, I can only guess that you are digging around for more examples of behaviour that you think should be protected by the idea of 'free speech'.*

Free speech is about the rights of citizens to say the truth without fear of repurcussions by those in power. It's a privielge and a responsibility as much as it is a right.

It has nothing to do with being free to spew hateful bile.

*Albeit in another country.

[acm]

.

[Fabricio the Guido]

ACM, you have tried to push this EDL line and people have been quite respectful. For the sake of clarity let me explain.

1. The is no equivalence between white racists and other types of racism.

2. This is because other minority groups live in a predominantly white society where power is held by the white majority.

3. Therefore, whilst it is possible to have a minority person who acts in a racist manner, this is a reactive type of racism which is qualitatively different from the sort practiced by majority groups. I am not saying a member of a minority group cannot be racist, I am saying racism and power is more dangerous than mere ignorance without power.

You see during the 1930's, in Germany, the lie put forward was that the jews were "too powerful" and it was in order to address that imbalance that certain measures were put in place to deny citizenship and other rights to the jews.

This trope that some how mainstream society over looks other types of racism, or treats minority groups differently or gives them more 'rights' or respects minority rights better, is all part of a discourse of hate promoted by certain groups.

To the educated it is neither clever nor convincing. To the morons, it glitters like an irresistible argument.

I suggest you stop drinking that kool aid.

[Loz]

I am a huge believer in free speech. I think people should have a right to express their opinions, no matter how much I disagree with them. for instance, although I dislike what they say, I think the BNP have a right to exist in a free society.

But, there is a point where letting people know what you think of them in their face becomes harassment. Both the man and the woman on the trains/trams crossed that line. I'll defend their right to have that opinion, however distasteful, but harassing people by shouting it at them in a public place is crossing the line. 'Get out of my country' and 'I want to kill white people' are not opinions - they are threats.

[Huguenot]

"This trope that some how mainstream society over looks other types of racism, or treats minority groups differently or gives them more 'rights' or respects minority rights better, is all part of a discourse of hate promoted by certain groups.

"To the educated it is neither clever nor convincing. To the morons, it glitters like an irresistible argument."

and how beautifully expressed :)

[Loz]

Fabricio the Guido Wrote:

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

> 1. The is no equivalence between white racists and other types of racism.

> 2. This is because other minority groups live in a predominantly white society where power is held by

> the white majority.

> 3. Therefore, whilst it is possible to have a minority person who acts in a racist manner, this

> is a reactive type of racism which is qualitatively different from the sort practiced by

> majority groups. I am not saying a member of a minority group cannot be racist, I am saying

> racism and power is more dangerous than mere ignorance without power.

And, for the record, sorry Fabricio but that is bullc**p of the highest order. Racism is racism. Hate is hate. Your three points are all racist in their own right.

[DJKillaQueen]

Oooh I have to disagree with you there Guido. There is no difference between the hatred of one person over another. Of course state endorsed racism is going to have more impact and the state will choose whom it protects over others but that doesn't then in turn demean the act of one person displaying hatred twoards another depending on what 'tribe' they belong to.

Most racism anyway is born out of irritation at another group whom is perceived to be 'doing better' out of the ruling system (and a deflection for the racist's own perceived failures). Historical references are then used to justify that racism but in reality have very little to do with anything anymore. The UK has some of the most progressive laws to protect minority groups and those who may be targetted by prejudice.

For me, when someone verbally attacks migrants for example, or the man in the clip in the OP of this thread threatens to kill another group, then I just see people who are not happy with their own lives and have chosen a target to direct their frustration at.

[Otta]

Fabricio the Guido Wrote:

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

> ACM, you have tried to push this EDL line and

> people have been quite respectful. For the sake of

> clarity let me explain.

>

> 1. The is no equivalence between white racists and

> other types of racism.

> 2. This is because other minority groups live in a

> predominantly white society where power is held by

> the white majority.

> 3. Therefore, whilst it is possible to have a

> minority person who acts in a racist manner, this

> is a reactive type of racism which is

> qualitatively different from the sort practiced by

> majority groups. I am not saying a member of a

> minority group cannot be racist, I am saying

> racism and power is more dangerous than mere

> ignorance without power.

>

> You see during the 1930's, in Germany, the lie put

> forward was that the jews were "too powerful" and

> it was in order to address that imbalance that

> certain measures were put in place to deny

> citizenship and other rights to the jews.

>

>

> This trope that some how mainstream society over

> looks other types of racism, or treats minority

> groups differently or gives them more 'rights' or

> respects minority rights better, is all part of a

> discourse of hate promoted by certain groups.

>

> To the educated it is neither clever nor

> convincing. To the morons, it glitters like an

> irresistible argument.

>

>

> I suggest you stop drinking that kool aid.

I half agree with you, however there is a huge distinction between a racist state, such as 30s Germany, or Apartheit South Africa, and individual racism.

For me, racist is racist, whatever your skin colour.

Back to acm, I think s/he used some rubbish examples, like "yummy mummys" drinking in the afternoon, but equally, I think the point about free speech is an important one.

[Otta]

Cross post with DJ, but agree with her.

[DJKillaQueen]

And also, I would rather see hatred exposed than pushed underground.....so freedom of speech is what also makes civilised societies able to respond to hatred etc when it is expressed.

[Huguenot]

I can see where you're coming from Loz, it's a difficult area.

One point of note that I heard was... "Minority racism can serve as a coping mechanism to respond to perceived racism rather than as anti-white bias. Even when minorities are actually prejudiced against whites, they lack the institutional power or intent to adversely affect whites? lives."

I don't know whether that's true or not - but I can see how the "lack of institutional power or intent to adversely affect whites' lives" somehow diminishes the scale or impact of the attack.

White people are regularly abused or ripped off in Asia, but somehow it lacks the scale of threat that Gary Dobson represents.

I wouldn't expect to see a 6 year old in a temper tantrum to be jailed for telling his parents that 'I'm gonna kill you!!' - neither would I expect the parents to be unduly perturbed.

However, I would expect the security services to be interested if that was yelled by a gang of youths at a white teenager at 1am in a deserted High Street.

[Jah Lush]

Yeah! Give 'em enough rope to hang themselves by.

[DJKillaQueen]

One point of note that I heard was... "Minority racism can serve as a coping mechanism to respond to perceived racism rather than as anti-white bias. Even when minorities are actually prejudiced against whites, they lack the institutional power or intent to adversely affect whites? lives."

I don't know whether that's true or not - but I can see how the "lack of institutional power or intent to adversely affect whites' lives" somehow diminishes the scale or impact of the attack.

There are lot's of examples of that from the civil rights movement in America for example. But the problem is that in the end, it serves only to create barriers that thwart any kind of progressive will from the Status Quo to change. On the other hand, how does a minority group then get the kind of attention it needs to force change? There's no perfect answer.

[acm]

.

[KidKruger]

Did anyone see the documentary on American diners last night ?

One part of the programme focussed on the fact that in many parts of the country at one point black folks were still not allowed to eat in a diner (or an in-house, diner in a store like Woolworths). There was actually footage of a 'sit-in' by college students who ordered from their stools at the bar of the diner and were refused. After a while, local hoodlums (or maybe they were regular white Americans - god forbid) congregated and beat-up some of the black folks, I think the black woman was spared. The worst beating shown was a white supporter sat with them who was still being beaten after falling to the ground, cowering. The silent protestors maintained their non-violent stance and didn't respond - even when their peers were getting beaten.

The police arrested the silent, peaceful protestors for public order offences, while the bruised-knuckled white fools walked-off.

Makes me sick.

[KidKruger]

Whoever accused acm of EDL alignment - that's just a cheap shot. Feel free to be ashamed of yourself.

Amazes me how freely some people think they can use offensive accusations like that.

You wouldn't have the balls to say that face to face.

[Huguenot]

"And that's what we all are - equal." - that's what we could be, it's hardly what we are.

We generally seek advantage through association (my family, my neighborhood, my peers) at early stages, but we exert rational judgement to compensate when this threatens the social cohesion necesaary to deliver maximum benefit.

This is the same in business. When opportunities are plentiful, capable businesses compete with each other. When resources are sparse, capable businesses usually collaborate.

Positive discrimination is sensible checks and balances to ensure a productive working environment.

[acm]

.

[El Pibe]

Is it just me that gets annoyed by the misuse of the word 'trope'.

I keep seeing it used in the sense of a recurring idea, whereas it's actually a metaphor or literary use of figurative language.

I think this is an infection* from across the pond where this misuse is now widespread.

Try 'meme', 'motif' or plain old 'idea'.

*now THAT's a trope!!

Regarding the idea that all speech should be free, it is like all ideals, beautiful but unachievable.

If we were a truly civilised society then there weould be no need to protect the weak and no need to combat ignorance and hate, but we aren't and whilst anyone suffers abuse or discrimination due to their origin, colour or religious belief then society needs to continue to protect those using the only tool available to it, the law.

Whilst I agree that racism is racism is racism I'm also inclined to Fabricio's point about equivalence in that minorities are by definition weaker and more vlunerable to the whims of the majority and hence are more likely to be the subject of legal protection.

That said if that chap had done that here I'm sure the law would have been happy to have charged him whatever the appropriate crime was, in this case some sort of threatening behaviour (assault?), racial hate crime or possibly incitement?

ACM's point is essentially straw man, he feels that there is some kind of double standard going on but can't actually point to any evidence bar some spurious video of a man in a French tram, where there may indeed have been a twitter storm, though in a country that has managed to poll up to 12% for the national front, I'm sure that storm would have had a very different character to the one marked by shame at our friendly neighbourhood racist tram lady!

[DJKillaQueen]

It is true that France has a different attitude to issues of race. You only have to see how the CRS treat anyone with black skin on the streets of Paris every day to see that....but I would like to think that here in the UK, the man on the metro would have been charged in the same way the lady on the tram was. The UK has prosecuted non-caucasians for incitement to racial hatred so I think the law does try to be fair, even if the media reporting sometimes gives an impression it is not.

[Horsebox]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> It is true that France has a different attitude to

> issues of race. You only have to see how the CRS

> treat anyone with black skin on the streets of

> Paris every day to see that....

How are they treated?

This sounds like hyperbole to me.

[DJKillaQueen]

I know France and Paris very well. The CRS ask to see the id cards of black people. They do that all day....looking for illegal migrants usually. I've seen it every time I go to Paris.

Edited to add; They are in a similar place to the British Police force prior to the 80s riots.....when stop and search was used to primarily harass minority groups. The Scarman report changed policy with regards to that in the aftermath. France has never had a 'Scarman' report for example.

[Ted Max]

I know France and Paris very well.

Ha ha.

All. The. Talents.

[Annette Curtain]

Ted Max Wrote:

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

> I know France and Paris very well.

>

> Ha ha.

>

> All. The. Talents.

I know the Bois de Boulogne area quite well.

I had a lovely spit-roast down there once.

( mind you I couldn't walk for days after as I was so full up )

Tres bon.

NETTE:-$