Kayal's Pal: The Galloping, Greek, God, Georgios! (U13244)

Let's be clear.

You picked me up for saying that it's not right for me to have an opinion that racist views cannot be shared, because it means I have an opinion but the racist doesn't.

You were being pedantic, and there's no real way of you justifying that criticism.

I think you'll find most self respecting citizens deem to perfectly valid to have an opinion themselves, whilst rejecting the opinion of a racist.

Totally charming - England wasn't banned from European competition for racism...

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

MrMortimer (U8234)

No it isn't - it's including any form of racial abuse under one set of charges, and using common sense and context to determine that the punishment fits the crime.

If you disagree with that approach, how would you deal with it?

Come on - you've just arrested a guy for making a monkey gesture towards a black football player.

What do you do next? Are you going to try and decide whether it's just banter, and therefore let him off?

You're quick to criticise but you don't have an alternative, do you?

MrM we were banned for violence were we not, in the wake of Heysel?

I didn't say we were banned for racism. I said their culture is similar to what ours was.

MrMortimer (U8234)

I'm pretty sure that if you said to a black person that they were inferior to white people because of their skin colour, in front of a police officer, you'd be arrested.

Yes?

I think you'll find most self respecting citizens deem to perfectly valid to have an opinion themselves, whilst rejecting the opinion of a racist
-----------------------------------------
Rejecting opinions is my point entirely. Anyone should be able to reject any opinion without someone being able to defend themselves by saying "I have a right to my opinion", they should have to justify it.

However, you can't deny someone's RIGHT to an opinion based on their opinion. That's why it's everybody has the right or nobody does.

Kayal's Pal: The Galloping, Greek, God, Georgios! (U13244)

Yes you can.

You deny someone's right to an opinion of racial prejudice.

It has no place in our society.

With Winston here.

My only question is, where does it end? What other opinions do we deny the right to?

It is a risky business, denying opinions, even with the best intentions.

Totally Charming & Wonderful (U6489)

Yes, but ultimately what will be denied is an expression of that opinion.

I understand what you mean, but I think common sense dictates what can and can't be denied... at least for now, anyway!

You deny someone's right to an opinion of racial prejudice.
-----------------------------------------
In that case, your right to an opinion can be revoked if certain people see fit

You can deny an individual's opinion, but not the right (if you believe it exists).

Kayal's Pal: The Galloping, Greek, God, Georgios! (U13244)

That's where your pedantic nature removes common sense from the discussion.

You could technically argue your point - I agree.

But anyone with an ounce of common sense will understand that certain opinions are not accepted, and if demonstrated, will acted upon.

I think you're just debating that point for the sake of it, and it's becoming a bit off topic to be honest.

Of course racist opinions are not and should never be accepted and I haven't said they should, but you've tried to make it that way for the sake of your argument.

I've said if you believe in certain universal rights, then you can't deny people those rights. If you do that they're not rights, they're privileges. I'm not debating the point of denying rights for the sake of it, it is wholly relevant.

If you deny the expression of one opinion then what one is next? Who revokes a right? Who decides what rights should be revoked? It is not conducive with democracy.

What happens when it's decided that certain people don't qualify for certain privileges? More discrimination.

I've not got off topic. I've been trying to explain that you can't fight bigots attempts of suppression with suppression, because ultimately it just leads to more suppression. You can only fight it with education and integration which will eventually lead to acceptance

Kayal's Pal: The Galloping, Greek, God, Georgios! (U13244)

Why does there have to be a next one?

Our society dictates that believing one race is superior to another is not acceptable.

Therefore, if you express an opinion in public that this is the case, you are breaking the law.

It's ridiculous to asert that just because this is the case, suddenly freedom of speech is compromised, it really is.

There is room for common sense and, excuse the pun, but removing people's right to express something is not a black and white issue.

To try and make it one is, in my view, part of why we have so many problems these days - people like you are determined to make a one size fits all rule.

But who takes the right away? That's why it is not conducive with democracy, it can't be voted on, ethically.

Is the PM or the government given the power to do that? Or the police?

If you appoint someone to the position where they have the power to take rights away, it's effectively a dictatorship.

''Why does there have to be a next one?''
-------------------------------------
Winston, there always will be bud, it's human nature.

Winston - I have offered an alternative of how to deal with racism and racial abuse.

I think someone guilty of monkey chants should be charged in the same way that anyone guilty of abuse should be charged.

The entire point of my argument is that we shouldn't single out racism as something special, or abandon fair principles of law and assume guilt just because there are racial connotations.

You accept you cannot know whether someone is genuinely racist - therefore you can only punish them for the act of racial abuse, and you have already accepted you see racial abuse as not inherently worse than any other form of abuse.

Totally charming - yes, banned for violence - had we just been racist we would have been ok!

Winston - I disagree, you could say you believe black people to be inferior because of the colour of their skin without being arrested.
As I say, at speaker's corner you hear far worse.

You would only be arrested if you were inciting violence.

Kayal's Pal: The Galloping, Greek, God, Georgios! (U13244)

So shall we just do away with laws altogether then?

MrMortimer (U8234)

So how does one prove genuine racism?

It's not easy.

I think you're lacking in common sense. Racism is a serious subject - far more serious than someone being called a prat.

The connection that racial abuse has with genuine racism is a grey area, so to just dismiss it entirely is a bizarre suggestion.

Have you not thought about the wider consequences, such as inciting racial hatred?

I'm glad we live in a society where monkey chants towards black people is considered more socially unacceptable than calling someone fatty.

If you don't agree, then there's not much more to be said.

Regarding your last comment, and how do you decide when someone is or isn't inciting violence? Do you wait for the first punch to be thrown?

No, you don't.

Winston - genuine racism would be denying someone a job, or entrance to a match because of their race. Abuse is quite different.

I agree racism is a serious subject, I don't think that because it is a serious subject we should abandon reason and principles of fairness and assume guilt!

Racial abuse, as you have already agreed, is no worse than other forms of abuse. So treating it differently is, in my view, bizarre.

Of course, inciting racial hatred is wrong... surely inciting any hatred is wrong? It is wrong because it is hatred though.

I wish we lived in a society where all abusive chants were considered unacceptable. To separate out racial abuse from others is logically unacceptable. You have agreed with that point - but still continue to argue is should be treated differently.

Regarding inciting violence - no you don't have to wait for the first punch to be thrown... I'm sure there are a number of ways the authorities use. One would be tone of voice, another would be the use of particular language...
Calmly saying "I believe black people to be superior to white people" is not inciting violence is it?

MrMortimer (U8234)

No, what I actually said is that it can be the case that it's no worse.

It is also often the demonstration of genuine racism.

What you have failed to address, and will continue to fail with, is how you deal with cases of racial abuse.

How would you prove it's linked to racism?

Because to deny that many cases of racial abuse will be linked to genuine racism is naive.

On that basis, the way you want the law, racial abuse will become completely disconnected from genuine racism - which is ridiculous.

And no, calmly saying it can still be regarded as inciting violence. Imagine saying that to a group of white people.

Winston - It can be the case that it is no worse. Surely all abuse could be the provoking kind or that backed by genuine prejudice?

To assume racial abuse is always linked to genuine racism is clearly not right.

I have already stated - I would like to see racial abuse treated the same as all abuse - banned.

There may be cases where racial abuse is linked to genuine racist beliefs. People are entitled to whatever beliefs they want, you can't punish people for thinking something - you can punish them for their actions though - and racial abuse like all abuse should be punished.

I want racial abuse to be judged alongside all other forms of abuse.
If a black person kills a black person - it's murder.
If a black person kills a white person - it's murder.
Is the second murder worse? Should we assume it is racially motivated?Should it be punished more harshly because there is a possibility it is racially motivated?

I think we will have to agree to disagree on what counts as incitement then, if you can really not imagine someone having an opinion that others disagree with without it inciting violence then I worry!