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

So to assume it is never linked to genuine racism is better?

That's the crux of it.

And to your last point, it's not about having an opinion. It's about having a prejudiced opinion, based on racism.

Innocent until proven guilty - do you not believe in that?

So, regardless of action, are people not entitled to an opinion unless that opinion falls in line with liberal ideology?

MrMortimer (U8234)

Wheeling out the innocent until proven guilty line is a nonsense.

We're talking about whether racial abuse and genuine racism are connected.

People are not entitled to voice an opinion that is based on racial prejudice, no.

If you want to defend a racist's right to free speech, then we have nothing else to say to each other.

I get the feeling that Mr Mortimer thinks that 'liberal ideology' is taking away his right to do all sorts of things that he really shouldn't be doing.

Winston - Why is it a nonsense?
Surely it is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law? Without it where would we be?

You can't say something is a serious subject therefore we should assume guilt - that to me is nonsense!

We were discussing why racial abuse is seen as worse than other forms of abuse. You accept in itself it isn't, but it is seen as worse because it could be (emphasising could) linked to genuinely held racist beliefs. Then admitting you couldn't prove it was genuinely racist so should just assume so.

That is not right.

I can understand arguing that people are not entitled to voice an opinion in a way that will incite violence or hatred, but I'm uncomfortable with the sweeping suggestion that people are not allowed to voice an opinion which goes against the accepted norm.

Robb - this is not about me personally wanting to do anything, this is a general principle. If we refuse to let people express opinion's that might challenge the accepted wisdom of the time then we are closing ourselves off. If people in previous years had not challenged beliefs we would still have slavery and anti-gay laws in this country.

MrMortimer (U8234)

It's a nonsense because that is NOT what we are doing.

I am suggesting that racial abuse is treated more seriously than other forms of abuse, because of it's ties to genuine racism.

Your suggestion is to break the two apart and treat each charge separately. But that's not possible, is it? Unless we assume anyone guilty of racial abuse is innocent of racism.

I said racial abuse is not necessarily worse. There will be many cases where it is worse, because it's the expression of genuine prejudice.

There will be times, however, where it's an idiot trying to rile someone.

How can you tell the difference?

You can't.

"but I'm uncomfortable with the sweeping suggestion that people are not allowed to voice an opinion which goes against the accepted norm"

Sweeping suggestion?

No. It's the idea that you're not allowed to voice an opinion of racial prejudice in public.

You're desperate to argue for the rights of the racist, it would seem.

Just try turning on the common sense.

People like you are obsessed with applying a one size fits all rule, which ultimately helps the guilty or the prejudiced.

Just look at it for what it is.

Winston - with all due respect you have admitted that you cannot prove the ties between racial abuse and genuine racism, and have stated that if it isn't genuinely racist it is no better or worse than other forms of abuse.

I think you can voice an opinion of prejudice in public, you can have a discussion about race without it being offensive.
I'm not trying to argue for the rights of racists in particular, I am just arguing for the case of rights. If rights are rights they are universal. You can't only have rights for a certain section of society... that is the kind of ignorance that leads to racism, sexism and homophobia.

If someone is accused of a crime they have a right to a fair trial and their guilt has to be proved. There will be lawyers who defend people who are guilty of a crime but win an acquittal because the evidence is not strong enough. These people are not pro-criminal, they are upholding the rule of law.
I am not defending racism, but I do think all people are entitled to rights, and I think we need to apply reason and rationality to things.
I don't understand the problem with criticising all forms of abuse?

MrMortimer (U8234)

Are you just arguing for the sake of it? You failed to respond a single point.

I shall re-post for clarity:

I am suggesting that racial abuse is treated more seriously than other forms of abuse, because of it's ties to genuine racism.

Your suggestion is to break the two apart and treat each charge separately. But that's not possible, is it? Unless we assume anyone guilty of racial abuse is innocent of racism.

I said racial abuse is not necessarily worse. There will be many cases where it is worse, because it's the expression of genuine prejudice.

There will be times, however, where it's an idiot trying to rile someone.

How can you tell the difference?

You can't.


You seem great at criticising something but not very good at proposing alternatives.

"You can't only have rights for a certain section of society"

No one is asking for that.

Yet again you're trying to turn this into a one size fits all rule, which is stupid.

Voicing an opinion based on racial prejudice is not the same as voicing an opinion about the best donut filling.

Let's use our common sense and say that voicing an opinion based on racial prejudice, which could be seen as inciting hatred etc, is not acceptable.

That does not, in anyway, lead to an infringement of rights in terms of voicing opinions that fall within the law.

As I said - common sense.

People like you are obsessed with creating a set of rules to apply to every situation. It's pathetic.

There is one point in here which I am hung on from yesterday. That is, if we are willing to deny the right of a racist opinion, we should do it for sexism, homophobia... And then maybe even more.

Abuse is bad because it is abuse. Discrimination is bad because it is discriminatory. Racism is just one small part of these overlying categories.

Totally Charming & Wonderful (U6489)

I appreciate it's a difficult subject, so starting with UK law is surely the best bet?

If you walked up to a black man, in front of a police officer, and expressed a prejudice based on race, you'd be arrested.

Is there any doubt about that?

I'm not sure why people are so keen for a racist opinion to be allowed to be aired, or why people think that banning it is such an issue?

To suggest it's a case of either everyone can say what they like or no one can say anything at all is ridiculous!

I'm not sure why people are so keen for a racist opinion to be allowed to be aired, or why people think that banning it is such an issue?

----

Because it sets a precedent, which in law is potentially a very dangerous thing. I believe that this is part of the anti-euthanasia arguments (which incidentally I am firmly against)

Totally Charming & Wonderful (U6489)

A precedent based on racist prejudice, not on voicing an opinion about anything.

Winston - no not arguing for the sake of it.

You have accepted there can be racial abuse which is not linked to "genuine racism", therefore listing it as worse because of its links to genuine racism is in many cases invalid, and cannot be a general principle.

I have suggested we punish all abuse equally, I don't know why you struggle to see that as a viable alternative.

Again, you are asking for rights for one section of society as you are claiming someone with extreme opinions does not have the right to express their beliefs.

Voicing an opinion criticising someone for their race is different from donut fillings, however why is it different to criticising someone for another part of their genetic make-up? Abuse for being ginger or being ugly is abuse of someone because of their genetic makeup, so it is directly comparable with skin colour.

Let's use common sense and say that all prejudiced opinions are unacceptable.
It isn't common sense to single out one prejudice from all the others.

I think we do need a set of rules that have a solid and justifiable grounding, based on reason and rationality. Whimsically choosing one subject as worse than another, is not logical, not common sense and unworkable.

Yes but racist prejudice and say, homophobic prejudice are VERY similar things. In fact, unreasonable prejudice is unreasonable prejudice, almost regardless of the prerequisites. Why are we only talking about racism? It's not only different nationalities who need protecting from one another. Homophobia is a big problem and much more acceptable socially.

In fact, there are unquestionably people who are damning of racism while simultaneously holding prejudiced opinions on being gay. Irony at its finest.

Totally Charming - exactly right, racial abuse is bad because it is abuse. The fact it is racial might make it more offensive, but then surely it is worse because it causes more offence, not simply because it is racist.

The problem we have now in society is that people seem to see race as some special subject which mere mortals cannot discuss. Questioning it somehow makes people think you are racist or an extremist. It's silly, racism is wrong because it is unenlightened... you don't defeat it by keeping the subject away from discussion.

MrMortimer (U8234)

I'm not listing it as worse.

There's a grey area of connection between racial abuse and racism, so even if your intent is no worse than calling someone 'fat', it makes it different.

You have suggested that we punish all abuse equally.

So, someone with racially prejudiced beliefs making monkey gestures is as guilty as the guy calling Phil Dowd fat.

Well, I think that's laughable.

It's nothing to do with 'sections of society', unless you think racists are a section of society?

Abuse for being ugly is not the same as abuse for race, because there is no tie to uglyism. There's no history of such a problem, and therefore you have to see the difference between the two.

"Whimsically choosing one subject as worse than another, is not logical, not common sense and unworkable. "

So it's not logical, not common sense and unworkable to decipher that someone saying black people are inferior to white people is different to someone saying that jam donuts are better than custard donuts.

And you wonder why I find your opinion ridiculous?

If you remove the ability to review a situation objectively and apply common sense, then you remove the chance to the right decision to be made.

Sadly, there are more and more people like you in the world.

Abuse for being ugly is not the same as abuse for race, because there is no tie to uglyism. There's no history of such a problem, and therefore you have to see the difference between the two.
----------
What's the difference in not getting a job because you are ugly and not getting one because you are black?

Both are real

Totally Charming & Wonderful (U6489)

We're talking about racism because that the main reason that I believe it was a joke awarding the WC to Russia.

I believe intelligent people can discuss different subject matters individually and agree whether voicing an opinion on those matters is acceptable.

MrMortimer seems to be suggesting that you can either say anything you want or nothing at all, with no in between.

If nothing else, the law clearly disagrees.

But can you see that we should be talking about more than just racism in the current context? Homophobia and sexism, AT LEAST, fall under exactly the same banner.

Totally Charming & Wonderful (U6489)

You're straying off topic there.

You can make comparisons, certainly, but if you can't see the difference then you're beyond help.

Totally Charming & Wonderful (U6489)

They do, yes.

But for the purposes of the point that I am debating with him, it's helpful to keep it within the confines of racism only.

Racism has been a huge issue historically and quite rightly has had its own seperate sphere of consideration for a long time. But, in England anyway, certainly in London, where I live, I feel that homophobia is as much of a problem now as racism is. I don't think that, in my world anyway, racism needs the special consideration that it has had. No more than other prejudices.

What matters really, at the end of all, is whether another person considers you inferior due to characteristics you possess which are beyond your control. That's real prejudice.

Oh, while we are back on the original topic - I think that the culture of football violence and prejudice, of which racism is a part of, is why it's a joke to give Russia a world cup, when we were banned from European competition for having a similar football culture.

Also, just like us, there are nasty far right political leanings which use hooligans as ground troops of sorts