Terry Court Case * Mod Note #51 *

Helix

rarnes1 wrote: »

If you abuse someone because of their colour you are making a distincion about them because of their race, which violates one of the human rights.

I don't think height falls into this category.

why doesn't it? it's a physical feature of the person, just as colour is

Fight_Night

Pro. F wrote: »

It's not all in the past. What an idiotic statement to make. Have you heard of the BNP, the National Front, the Klu Klux Klan? The disgusting race psuedo science that is spouted by organisations like these? The unaffiliated people who you can meet in day-to-day life who express a genuine hatred of people of a different race? Of course you have.

BNP =/= Slavery. So it's not an idiotic statement. Where in the western world does slavery still[openly] exist? Yes I have heard of those organistations cheers. Is this honestly what you want, a 'we have more bad guys than you' debate? There are racists groups on both sides obviously none is condoned.

Where did I deny the existence of said hate groups? Where am I being wilfully ignorant? Don't put words in my mouth thank you very much. Just because I don't share your view does not equate to me condoning or batting an eyelid to the bad things in this world. I didn't mention the BNP. Don't be so precious.

Sir Gallagher

:pac:

Frankie Boyle ‏@frankieboyle

Surely if John Terry was being sarcastic he'd have called him a white cnut?

Pro. F

Fight_Night wrote: »

BNP =/= Slavery. So it's not an idiotic statement. Where in the western world does slavery still[openly] exist? Yes I have heard of those organistations cheers. Is this honestly what you want, a 'we have more bad guys than you' debate? There are racists groups on both sides obviously none is condoned.

Where did I deny the existence of said hate groups? Where am I being wilfully ignorant? Don't put words in my mouth thank you very much. Just because I don't share your view does not equate to me condoning or batting an eyelid to the bad things in this world. I didn't mention the BNP. Don't be so precious.

You asked why race is put on such a pedestal compared to height. The only thing you could come up with was slavery, which as you say is in the past*. But there are still lots of very obvious reasons in the present why race is considered unacceptable to use as an insult. There are no such reasons for mundane things like height beyond the purely personal, which applies to everything including racial abuse as well.

You ignored the existence of the hate groups, pseudo science and casual everyday racists with your argument that there should be no reason why a racial insult is seen differently to one based on height or weight, etc. That is where you were being wilfully ignorant.

I never said there were not racist groups from all different races, so obviously I am not interested in a ''we have more bad guys than you debate''. Also, the way you say that, it looks to me like you think I am black, which is odd.

*It obviously still has some hangover economic and social effects, especially in America. But it's not worth debating now.

Fight_Night

Pro. F wrote: »

You asked why race is put on such a pedestal compared to height. The only thing you could come up with was slavery, which as you say is in the past*. But there are still lots of very obvious reasons in the present why race is considered unacceptable to use as an insult. There are no such reasons for mundane things like height beyond the purely personal, which applies to everything including racial abuse as well.

You ignored the existence of the hate groups, pseudo science and casual everyday racists with your argument that there should be no reason why a racial insult is seen differently to one based on height or weight, etc. That is where you were being wilfully ignorant.

I never said there were not racist groups from all different races, so obviously I am not interested in a ''we have more bad guys than you debate''. Also, the way you say that, it looks to me like you think I am black, which is odd.

*It obviously still has some hangover economic and social affects, especially in America. But it's not worth debating now.

No haha I assumed you were white, apologies if I came across that way, I just wanted to be clear that I don't condone the likes of the BNP, but also that I don't condone any of the personal insults either(obviously banter is banter but when it is intended to insult). I see where you're coming from but we'll have to agree to disagree.

mikeym

It shouldnt have went to court in the first place.

The English FA should have sorted it out.

homerjay2005

mikeym wrote: »

It shouldnt have went to court in the first place.

The English FA should have sorted it out.

you and lots of others, are missing the point. this was not a football matter, this was a public matter. it was reported by a member of the public and did not happen in front of the ref or was reported to FA.

once it became public issue, it was out of FAs hands.

desaparecidos

You fat ****
You *insert next town over* ****
You stupid ****
You ginger ****
You black ****
You Irish ****
You smelly ****

I don't see the problem.

LuckyLloyd

I ready know the FA is a shambles of an organisation, but I am confident that they will seize this opportunity to prove it beyond all doubt with both hands.

Oh and lol xavi

~Rebel~

Helix wrote: »

why doesn't it? it's a physical feature of the person, just as colour is

Seriously!? Because short people weren't used as slaves or genuinely considered to be naturally inferior.

Black people have had a significantly ****tier history than any other demographic, it's one which has lasted far longer than others, and is still ongoing in huge swathes of the world. The attitude is so ingrained in some people that only huge, enforced changes of attitudes in mainstream media will be able to help.

It's not as easy for us to understand, but living in the states at the moment, and being in class with black girls from Miami and Paris - their race has definitely shaped their lives more than any other factor. It really really isn't just a character trait/physical feature like you describe. If the world were as it should be, that's all it would be, but unfortunately it's not, and is in fact a hell of a lot more backward than we'd like to believe.

Racism, far more than any of the other abuse people have demonstrated to try to compare it and downplay it next to, has a far greater history of being tied in with genuine hatred, genuine fear, genuine loathing, and genuine oppression.

Fight_Night

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Seriously!? Because short people weren't used as slaves or genuinely considered to be naturally inferior.

Black people have had a significantly ****tier history than any other demographic, it's one which has lasted far longer than others, and is still ongoing in huge swathes of the world. The attitude is so ingrained in some people that only huge, enforced changes of attitudes in mainstream media will be able to help.

It's not as easy for us to understand, but living in the states at the moment, and being in class with black girls from Miami and Paris - their race has definitely shaped their lives more than any other factor. It really really isn't just a character trait/physical feature like you describe. If the world were as it should be, that's all it would be, but unfortunately it's not, and is in fact a hell of a lot more backward than we'd like to believe.

Agreed this is very true for us in Ireland because of the lack of diversity. Although I would not limit this to Black people. Native Americans were all but wiped out, millions of Indians were imported as slaves to the likes of Guyana etc.

Techless

I feel sorry for the FA, now they are faced again with the question of who should be England captain. Sky sports already talking about it !
Steve or JT, two outstanding role models and men of unquestionably high moral standing.

Mr.Crinklewood

desaparecidos wrote: »

You fat ****
You *insert next town over* ****
You stupid ****
You ginger ****
You black ****
You Irish ****
You smelly ****

I don't see the problem.

I'm picturing a black Gary Doherty.

Jimmy Iovine

Techless wrote: »

I feel sorry for the FA, now they are faced again with the question of who should be England captain. Sky sports already talking about it !
Steve or JT, two outstanding role models and men of unquestionably high moral standing.

LOL

I don't feel sorry for them. They haven't been faultless themselves in the whole matter.

It shouldn't be up to the FA to decide who is captain. They interfered the last time and they lost the trust and services of a world class manager.

The decision is firmly in the hands of the manager. Surely they'll have learnt after the last disaster.

Oh and 'role model' and 'high moral standing' are two phrases that I definitely wouldn't associate with John Terry.

willmunny1990

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

LOL

I don't feel sorry for them. They haven't been faultless themselves in the whole matter.

It shouldn't be up to the FA to decide who is captain. They interfered the last time and they lost the trust and services of a world class manager.

The decision is firmly in the hands of the manager. Surely they'll have learnt after the last disaster.

Oh and 'role model' and 'high moral standing' are two phrases that I definitely wouldn't associate with John Terry.

You could hardly associate those phrases with Steven Gerrard either tbf.

Techless

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

LOL

I don't feel sorry for them. They haven't been faultless themselves in the whole matter.

It shouldn't be up to the FA to decide who is captain. They interfered the last time and they lost the trust and services of a world class manager.

The decision is firmly in the hands of the manager. Surely they'll have learnt after the last disaster.

Oh and 'role model' and 'high moral standing' are two phrases that I definitely wouldn't associate with John Terry.

I think my sarcasm was missed

wonderfullife

homerjay2005 wrote: »

you and lots of others, are missing the point. this was not a football matter, this was a public matter. it was reported by a member of the public and did not happen in front of the ref or was reported to FA.

once it became public issue, it was out of FAs hands.

On a legal and wider social context, the CPS chose to take this case to trial well aware they could never attain a guilty verdict. It was a show trial to large extents, the burden of proof and the amount of doubt meant it was impossible for the Magistrate to return any other verdict. The case was simply about making a statement that they are prepared to go to trial on similar offences.

2 points:

1. You'd have to question the process whereby a member of the public can report the incident based on video evidence, where does it stop?

In England it's covered by Section 4A of the Public Order Act (1986)

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

Under the act, we would end up with 20 players every game up in front of the courts. There is, of course, no public interest in the CPS pursuing all this but realistically every time a player is caught on camera calling someone "a fat wanke r" someone can report this to the police and the CPS could go after them under the act. It's a questionable process as the person reporting the offence has not suffered any direct offence as a result of the words/behaviour.

2. Anybody still thinking he 'got off' or 'got away with it', in a legal sense he was always bound to 'get off'. It's his profile that has raised the controversy. In february 2012 a preacher in Somerset was brought before the courts charged with a similar offence. He told a passing gay couple they "were evil and would burn in hell". His defence, which the Taunton Magistrate accepted, was that he was merely quoting from the Bible. If he had the profile and/or reputation of John Terry there would be a national outrage.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Seriously!? Because short people weren't used as slaves or genuinely considered to be naturally inferior.

Black people have had a significantly ****tier history than any other demographic, it's one which has lasted far longer than others, and is still ongoing in huge swathes of the world. The attitude is so ingrained in some people that only huge, enforced changes of attitudes in mainstream media will be able to help.

It's not as easy for us to understand, but living in the states at the moment, and being in class with black girls from Miami and Paris - their race has definitely shaped their lives more than any other factor. It really really isn't just a character trait/physical feature like you describe. If the world were as it should be, that's all it would be, but unfortunately it's not, and is in fact a hell of a lot more backward than we'd like to believe.

Racism, far more than any of the other abuse people have demonstrated to try to compare it and downplay it next to, has a far greater history of being tied in with genuine hatred, genuine fear, genuine loathing, and genuine oppression.

This is true - though as a nation i would argue we have a long history of oppression, fear and hatred against us by hundreds of years of British colonialism. Whilst invoking someones colour is reprehensible, invoking nationality a la "you're an irish c unt" can be viewed as equally distressing to some.

Gandalph

I am glad this tripe is over, I want real football news from the press

eagle eye

Homerjay, I have no words,I really don't. ProF has covered most of it.

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm sorry but I have to ask. Have you ever played competitively in any football sport?

Yeah, I have and did for years in soccer and GAA and school. Never racially abused any black guys though. Called them all sorts, but without mentioning their colour. You know,like a normal non racist person?

Gbear wrote: »

Which one?
I don't want to have to go trawling through the UD of Human Rights.

One of the first few articles.

Helix wrote: »

why doesn't it? it's a physical feature of the person, just as colour is

Bloody hell.

Ok then, height is the same as a persons colour when it comes to abuse

~Rebel~

wonderfullife wrote: »

This is true - though as a nation i would argue we have a long history of oppression, fear and hatred against us by hundreds of years of British colonialism. Whilst invoking someones colour is reprehensible, invoking nationality a la "you're an irish c unt" can be viewed as equally distressing to some.

That's absolutely true and is something which really should help us be more aware of the difference between "just abuse" and racism. Thankfully for most of our generation, we haven't had to put up with that, and so the effect of this type of abuse is less personal to us. Also the fact that it's not a visual trait has made it quicker to drop off as a prejudice, coupled with our rise in stature educationally and industrially as a nation (barring recent issues, but we're still a hell of a lot further than we were). But as recently as the 70's, and even 80's there were restaurants and bars in North America, and even England with signs out front saying "No Dogs, No Irish, No Blacks".

Gbear

rarnes1 wrote: »

One of the first few articles.

This one is it?

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

So it says you can't get discriminated against. How does name-calling involve discrimination?
If anything, by outlawing certain types of name-calling, you're discriminating against people by patronising them with a notion that because they're black they get special treatment.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

amiable

I have a feeling this could get more complicated. It will be interesting to see the English media reaction to Rio's comments on Ashley Cole

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Pro. F

Gbear wrote: »

So it says you can't get discriminated against. How does name-calling involve discrimination?
If anything, by outlawing certain types of name-calling, you're discriminating against people by patronising them with a notion that because they're black they get special treatment.

Bollocks. That document does not give special treatment to black people. It is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for fúck sake. The clue is in the name.

In the UK the Race Relations Act 1976 and Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 specifically outlaws discrimination and harassment based on race, colour, nationality, citizenship or ethnic origins. Those traits are specifically protected against abuse because (and this is fairly fúcking obvious) there has been a lot more violence and societal tension caused by inter racial, national and ethnic distinctions throughout history than there has been caused by the distinctions between people of different heights and weights.

Gbear

Pro. F wrote: »

Bollocks. That document does not give special treatment to black people. It is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for fúck sake. The clue is in the name.

That's my point. I don't see how the UDHR makes any provision for banning the use of certain phrases based on race. It prevents discrimination.
The law banning racist slurs has nothing to do with the UDHR.

Pro. F wrote: »

In the UK the Race Relations Act 1976 and Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 specifically outlaws discrimination and harassment based on race, colour, nationality, citizenship or ethnic origins. Those traits are specifically protected against abuse because (and this is fairly fúcking obvious) there has been a lot more violence and societal tension caused by inter racial, national and ethnic distinctions throughout history than there has been caused by the distinctions between people of different heights and weights.

I find that to be intrinsically racist.
What the law is doing here is singling out particular people based on their culture/ethnicity/whatever and granting them extra rights.
Whether they are discriminated against and lose rights or are patronisingly shielded from some responsibilities, either way it's because the law singles them out because of race and that is racist.
It completely undermines the integrity of the people it is supposed to be protecting.

If the prevention of offence were applied equally, then speech would be impossible.

amiable

Kess73

amiable wrote: »

Very stupid comment by Ferdinand. Choc Ice is slang for Uncle Tom. Brown on the outside, white inside.

donfers

Kess73 wrote: »

Very stupid comment by Ferdinand. Choc Ice is slang for Uncle Tom. Brown on the outside, white inside.

stupid indeed

I expect the FA charge for referring to someone's skin colour/ethnicity to be on its way sharpish for mr. ferdinand

GavRedKing

Rio really has no place making comments about Cole. Thats a very silly thing to post.

Panthro

Rio's fanning the flames with that comment.

McGrath5

We get it Rio, we know your very bitter over missing the Euros. Stay out of it.

bwatson

Rio is doing as much to whip up racial tensions as anyone else in this whole debacle with that comment. Incredible to think that he too was an England captain.

He needs to be told to explain that comment sharpish!

Pro. F

Gbear wrote: »

That's my point. I don't see how the UDHR makes any provision for banning the use of certain phrases based on race. It prevents discrimination.
The law banning racist slurs has nothing to do with the UDHR.

The two arguments are getting confused here. I didn't say that he UDHR banned racial abuse more any other type of abuse. It outlines protection against degradation (ie abuse being a form of that) and it specifically mentions race, nationality, ethnicity, etc., but it could still be read to include any feature of people. That is why I pointed out the Race Relations Act in the UK, because that is the relevant law which specifically outlaws racial abuse.

What I take issue with is your claim that Black people are afforded special protection. They are not under the UDHR and they are not under the Race Relations Act in the UK.

Gbear wrote: »

I find that to be intrinsically racist.
What the law is doing here is singling out particular people based on their culture/ethnicity/whatever and granting them extra rights.
Whether they are discriminated against and lose rights or are patronisingly shielded from some responsibilities, either way it's because the law singles them out because of race and that is racist.
It completely undermines the integrity of the people it is supposed to be protecting.

You have just read the law completely arse-ways. The law here is not singling out a specific people. The Race Relations Act in the UK bans all types of racial/ethnic/xenophobic abuse. Not just the abuse of black people. It offers the same protection to everybody.

Gbear wrote: »

If the prevention of offence were applied equally, then speech would be impossible.

The prevention of offence is applied equally, read the law. And it does not make speech impossible.

Gbear

Pro. F wrote: »

The two arguments are getting confused here. I didn't say that he UDHR banned racial abuse more any other type of abuse. It outlines protection against degradation (ie abuse being a form of that) and it specifically mentions race, nationality, ethnicity, etc., but it could still be read to include any feature of people. That is why I pointed out the Race Relations Act in the UK, because that is the relevant law which specifically outlaws racial abuse.

It doesn't mention "degradation" anywhere.

It mentions race, ethnicity etc.. insofar as it says that all the rights mentioned apply to people of all races.

Funnily enough it also mentions this:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The "Race Relations Act" is clearly in conflict with this, as is any attempt to shield people from "offence" at the expense of freedom of expression.

Pro. F wrote: »

What I take issue with is your claim that Black people are afforded special protection. They are not under the UDHR and they are not under the Race Relations Act in the UK.

So can you be charged with causing offence of any kind to anyone? Is it a criminal offence to call someone "cu*t"? If that is the case then 1) It's childish and insane and 2) Everyone ever should be in prison.

Pro. F wrote: »

You have just read the law completely arse-ways. The law here is not singling out a specific people. The Race Relations Act in the UK bans all types of racial/ethnic/xenophobic abuse. Not just the abuse of black people. It offers the same protection to everybody.

There is no overriding right to not be offended. Singling out race is inherently racist. The law should not even acknowledge such bollocks.

It would be considered childish if you went running to the law every time you felt offended by something. There is no logically consistent way to put race on a pedestal without completely compromising freedom of expression.

Pro. F wrote: »

The prevention of offence is applied equally, read the law. And it does not make speech impossible.

I wasn't referring to equality in tems of who it's applied to; I was referring to equality of offence.

There is no logical reason to hold anything as being more offensive than anything else.
Ergo, if you were to apply the law rationally, and not just single out racist speech arbitrarily, then you would have to apply it to anything capable of causing offence. It is that which would make speech impossible.

Fight_Night

Is anything going to happen to Ferdinand I wonder? Dunno if it's worth punishing over myself but those comments are unnecessary, much like Suarez's handshake(or lack thereof) to Evra.

amiable

Fight_Night wrote: »

Is anything going to happen to Ferdinand I wonder? Dunno if it's worth punishing over myself but those comments are unnecessary, much like Suarez's handshake(or lack thereof) to Evra.

I think it's more serious than that as he was referencing in a negative way to Ashley Cole's skin colour.

Totally unnecessary IMO and wouldn't encourage other black players to support team mate in the future who they believe to be accused wrongly.

In a way it seems like Rio is saying Black people should stick together

Pro. F

Gbear wrote: »

It doesn't mention "degradation" anywhere.

It mentions race, ethnicity etc.. insofar as it says that all the rights mentioned apply to people of all races.

Yes it does. Article 5.

Gbear wrote: »

Funnily enough it also mentions this:
[Article 19]
The "Race Relations Act" is clearly in conflict with this, as is any attempt to shield people from "offence" at the expense of freedom of expression.

You could also say that the UDHR is also in conflict with itself with regard to Article 19 in Article 5. It's a balancing act. Any sensible appreciation of the situation can acknowledge that people racially abusing each other has always led to much bigger problems in society. That is why there are laws in place to prevent it happening.

Gbear wrote: »

So can you be charged with causing offence of any kind to anyone? Is it a criminal offence to call someone "cu*t"? If that is the case then 1) It's childish and insane and 2) Everyone ever should be in prison.

I didn't say that you could be charged with causing offence of any kind to anyone. I didn't imply that you could. It is not a logical follow on step from what I did say. You are being purposefully dumb about this. I pointed you to the Race Relations Act and we discussed it. You have made a ridiculous and illogical leap on from that now.

I happen to know that there is law protecting against threatening language, public disorder, sexual discrimination, disability discrimination and one protecting against harassment in general. I don't know whether you can be charged for calling someone a cúnt and nothing more. You probably can under some type of public order offence. It certainly isn't covered under the Race Relations Act. That is blindingly obvious.

Gbear wrote: »

There is no overriding right to not be offended. Singling out race is inherently racist. The law should not even acknowledge such bollocks.

It would be considered childish if you went running to the law every time you felt offended by something. There is no logically consistent way to put race on a pedestal without completely compromising freedom of expression.
...
There is no logical reason to hold anything as being more offensive than anything else.
Ergo, if you were to apply the law rationally, and not just single out racist speech arbitrarily, then you would have to apply it to anything capable of causing offence. It is that which would make speech impossible.

You are not entitled to complete freedom of speech in Ireland, the UK or even in the USA. If you want freedom of speech which has no compromises or caveats you need to go find some mad country that works that way and go live there.

There is a logical reason for the law to acknowledge the fact that society recognises different races and to prevent people abusing each other on that basis. Obviously, there has been a lot more violence and societal harm caused by inter racial, national and ethnic tensions throughout history (right up into the present day) than there has been caused by people who are just slagging each other on completely individual bases. It is not arbitrary to decide that racial tensions should be kept in check by sensible laws, it is the sensible way to run a country.

Gbear wrote: »

I wasn't referring to equality in tems of who it's applied to; I was referring to equality of offence.

You were in your hoop.

You said this:

Gbear wrote: »

I find that to be intrinsically racist.
What the law is doing here is singling out particular people based on their culture/ethnicity/whatever and granting them extra rights.

I showed you how you were wrong on that count. Stop trying to wriggle out of it.

kryogen

GavRedKing wrote: »

Rio really has no place making comments about Cole. Thats a very silly thing to post.

I wouldn't say he made a comment to be honest, he foolishly condoned another twitter guys comment on Cole and expressed humour at the phrase used, this in itself is wrong of him. He should obviously be staying out of it altogether and not be fanning the flames any further, I don't see anything actionable in his tweet though.

He did not personally call Cole anything, he said "I hear ya fella" expressing the view that he shares the sentiments, or he knows what the guy means. He also laughed at the phrase choc ice, maybe he didn't understand the overall implication of that? Unlikely yes, but not impossible and not the first time a footballer has made a very ill thought out response or tweet.

Someone really needs to get a hold of him and tell him to get his act together, the court case is done, there was not enough evidence to bring in a guilty verdict given to the judge, whatever the reason for that is now irrelevant. He has to get on with it. Nobody died.

If the FA do take action against Terry that will be a different matter entirely and Rio should really just be keeping his mouth shut.

IrishAm

Pro. F wrote: »

What I take issue with is your claim that Black people are afforded special protection.

They are.


Race reporting
Only mention someone's race if it is strictly relevant. Check to make sure you have it right. Would you mention race if the person was white?

Do not sensationalise race relations issues; it harms black people and it could harm you.

Think carefully about the words you use. Words which were once in common usage are now considered offensive, e.g. half-caste and coloured. Use mixed-race and black instead. Black can cover people of Arab, Asian, Chinese and African origin. Ask people how they define themselves.

Immigrant is often used as a term of abuse. Do not use it unless the person really is an immigrant. Most black people in Britain were born here and most immigrants are white.

Do not make assumptions about a person's cultural background - whether it is their name or religious detail. Ask them or where it is not possible check with the local race equality council.

Investigate the treatment of black people in education, health, employment and housing. Do not forget travellers and gypsies. Cover their lives and concerns. Seek the views of their representatives.

Remember that black communities are culturally diverse. Get a full and correct view from representative organisations.

Press for equal opportunities for employment for black staff.

Be wary of disinformation. Just because a source is traditional does not mean it is accurate.

SOURCE: NUJ of The UK and Ireland

IrishAm

I walk by this on a daily basis. Would it be allowed if it was called "white and proud?"

Would it fuck.

Pro. F

IrishAm wrote: »

They are.


Race reporting
Only mention someone's race if it is strictly relevant. Check to make sure you have it right. Would you mention race if the person was white?

Do not sensationalise race relations issues; it harms black people and it could harm you.

Think carefully about the words you use. Words which were once in common usage are now considered offensive, e.g. half-caste and coloured. Use mixed-race and black instead. Black can cover people of Arab, Asian, Chinese and African origin. Ask people how they define themselves.

Immigrant is often used as a term of abuse. Do not use it unless the person really is an immigrant. Most black people in Britain were born here and most immigrants are white.

Do not make assumptions about a person's cultural background - whether it is their name or religious detail. Ask them or where it is not possible check with the local race equality council.

Investigate the treatment of black people in education, health, employment and housing. Do not forget travellers and gypsies. Cover their lives and concerns. Seek the views of their representatives.

Remember that black communities are culturally diverse. Get a full and correct view from representative organisations.

Press for equal opportunities for employment for black staff.

Be wary of disinformation. Just because a source is traditional does not mean it is accurate.

SOURCE: NUJ of The UK and Ireland

NUJ guidelines on dealing with race relations subjects are law for everybody in everyday life now are they? There is nothing wrong with those guidelines, but more importantly, their existence does not contradict what I said in the slightest.

Read the sentences of mine before and after the one you quoted for context. I was talking about specific legal documents. It is impressive that you managed to miss that.

IrishAm wrote: »

[Pic]

I walk by this on a daily basis. Would it be allowed if it was called "white and proud?"

Would it fuck.

Allowed by who? If you put up a sign for your shop that said ''white and proud'' and you were forced to take it down by the court, then the same law will apply for that sign in the pic that you have a problem with. In the extremely unlikely event that the Irish law was racially discriminating against you, you could take it to the European courts.

The law in Ireland is a bit hard to follow because it seems to be all based on case law rather than legislation, so any detailed discussion about particular Irish cases on here I think is going to be difficult.

Have you tried talking to a garda about that sign since you have a problem with it? The Gardaí will explain the law to you and where you stand if you ask them nicely. Well in my experience the good ones do anyway.

Gbear

Pro. F wrote: »

Yes it does. Article 5.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

It's quite clear it's referring to torture and not name calling.

Pro. F wrote: »

You could also say that the UDHR is also in conflict with itself with regard to Article 19 in Article 5. It's a balancing act. Any sensible appreciation of the situation can acknowledge that people racially abusing each other has always led to much bigger problems in society. That is why there are laws in place to prevent it happening.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

As i've already explained, it would require being incredibly obtuse to see a conflict between these.

Pro. F wrote: »

I didn't say that you could be charged with causing offence of any kind to anyone. I didn't imply that you could. It is not a logical follow on step from what I did say. You are being purposefully dumb about this. I pointed you to the Race Relations Act and we discussed it. You have made a ridiculous and illogical leap on from that now.

I didn't say you said that. I asked you a question. You answered it. Good.

Pro. F wrote: »

I happen to know that there is law protecting against threatening language, public disorder, sexual discrimination, disability discrimination and one protecting against harassment in general. I don't know whether you can be charged for calling someone a cúnt and nothing more. You probably can under some type of public order offence. It certainly isn't covered under the Race Relations Act. That is blindingly obvious.

Okeydokey.

Pro. F wrote: »

You are not entitled to complete freedom of speech in Ireland, the UK or even in the USA. If you want freedom of speech which has no compromises or caveats you need to go find some mad country that works that way and go live there.

You assume too much about my position.
For example - yelling fire in a crowded room and causing a panic. You can potentially cause direct harm to people as a result of that. There needs to be provision for speech that leads to direct harm.
My argument is that racialist or blasphemous or any other form of speech who's only form of harm is one of giving offence should not be covered by this.

Pro. F wrote: »

There is a logical reason for the law to acknowledge the fact that society recognises different races and to prevent people abusing each other on that basis

Hang on - society or more importantly in this debate, the government should not recognise different "races". Before the law all people should be equal. The notion of racism shouldn't even exist at a legal level.

Pro. F wrote: »

Obviously, there has been a lot more violence and societal harm caused by inter racial, national and ethnic tensions throughout history (right up into the present day) than there has been caused by people who are just slagging each other on completely individual bases.

It's the logical consistency I'm worried about.
How do you define racialist speech as something which does a particular kind of harm? Can you quantify it? If not, then how can you compare how much harm it does to somebody and how can you decide that racialist speech does more harm than blasphemous speech or simply calling somebody a cu*t?

Pro. F wrote: »

It is not arbitrary to decide that racial tensions should be kept in check by sensible laws, it is the sensible way to run a country.

Are they kept in check? Do you have any peer reviewed evidence to suggest that it works?

And besides, if you stab someone in the face because of racist ideology, you're sent to prison. We already have laws that prevent us from harming one another. Whether it's due to racism, greed or insanity there is a perfectly good framework for protecting society without the need to compromise freedom of expression.

Pro. F wrote: »

You were in your hoop.

You said this:

I showed you how you were wrong on that count. Stop trying to wriggle out of it.

As you rightly pointed out, if you take the word "equally" to mean to refer to equality across ethnic lines, then it would not be a problem.

If, on the other hand, you take it to mean equality between different things that people take offence from, then you get the meaning of what I was trying to say. It was ambiguous. I apologise.
I skipped a line to set it apart from the paragraph above. That clearly wasn't enough.

Pro. F wrote: »

Bollocks. That document does not give special treatment to black people.

This was from 2 posts ago; I got side tracked on the UDHR tangent. Legally speaking, yes, you are correct. I'd still be quite surprised if the law doesn't heavily favour non-white people in practice. By and large getting racially abused for being white doesn't seem to cause as much offence so I can't see a huge number of complaints about it.

Nevertheless, even if it doesn't favour any one ethnicity, it makes an assumption not based on you as a person but as a member of your "race", that you are offended by certain words and that, very simply put, is racist.

IrishAm

Pro. F wrote: »

Have you tried talking to a garda about that sign since you have a problem with it?.

I dont have a problem with the sign, I have issues with the double standards at play. Remember the media furore over the green lights inserted into some taxi drivers roof signs? Compare and contrast that, to the sign(which has been up for four years). If you opened up a barbers called white and proud there would be uproar in the media and you would be forced to take it down. You know it and I know it. To suggest otherwise is to lie.

One rule for them, another for us.

Pro. F

IrishAm wrote: »

I dont have a problem with the sign, I have issues with the double standards at play. Remember the media furore over the green lights inserted into some taxi drivers roof signs? Compare and contrast that, to the sign(which has been up for four years). If you opened up a barbers called white and proud there would be uproar in the media and you would be forced to take it down. You know it and I know it. To suggest otherwise is to lie.

One rule for them, another for us.

Utter right wing paranoia bollocks. Nobody can force you to stop doing something if you are within the law.

So if you opened up a barbers and called it ''White And Proud'' and that name is acceptable under the law, nobody would be able to stop you. If that name is not acceptable under the law, then neither is the ''Black and Proud'' sign. You are just suffering from extreme racial paranoia.

CSF

IrishAm wrote: »

I walk by this on a daily basis. Would it be allowed if it was called "white and proud?"

Would it fuck.

To be honest, I'd be more worried about them advertising a product that they don't know the name of.

IrishAm

Pro. F wrote: »

Utter right wing paranoia bollocks. Nobody can force you to stop doing something if you are within the law.

So if you opened up a barbers and called it ''White And Proud'' and that name is acceptable under the law, nobody would be able to stop you. If that name is not acceptable under the law, then neither is the ''Black and Proud'' sign. You are just suffering from extreme racial paranoia.

As I already stated, the barbershop name does not bother me one iota. The double standards do. Now, here is Minister Leo Varadkars reaction to Irish, Nigerian, Chinese and Poles putting green lights on their taxis;

TRANSPORT LEO VARADKAR has said that the green lights on taxi roofs will have to be removed.
He said that other signs on Irish taxis that indicate a driver is Irish are “inherently racist” and “inherently xenophobic”.

I sent him and the journal.ie journalist who broke the story about "the racist green lights" an email asking them their opinions on the picture I previously posted.

Neither replied. Too busy looking for racist green lights, I presume. :pac:

J. Marston

"Ashley Cole has been made aware of the discussion following comments appearing on Twitter and wishes to make it clear that he and Rio Ferdinand are good friends and Ashley has no intention of making any sort of complaint.

"Ashley appreciates that Tweeting is so quick it often results in off-hand and stray comments."

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-07-14/ashley-cole-statement-no-intention-of-making-any-sort-of-complaint/

Cashley's statement.

Fight_Night

J. Marston wrote: »

Cashley's statement.

Good reaction imo, Rio was a bit foolish knowing that people will look into it but obviously no malice in it.

CSF

donfers wrote: »

stupid indeed

I expect the FA charge for referring to someone's skin colour/ethnicity to be on its way sharpish for mr. ferdinand

But he didn't. He only laughed at it.