Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by nicedream, May 11, 2014.
it makes me not you which is good enough
It's not a question of offering certain people greater protection but of recognising and acting on the fact that certain people are at greater risk.
Do you object when criminals are given harsher sentences when they prey on vulnerable people? Because religious and ethnic minorities are more vulnerable to, or more likely to be victims of certain types of crime with certain specific motivations. This has always been the case and will remain so until we all finally learn to play nicely together.
Maybe there are examples of anti-white or anti-christian hate crimes but what there isn't in those cases is any prospect of escalation to a level that's a genuine risk to the livelihoods of white christians as a population. The only people who see a genuine existential threat to white folk in the UK are deranged racists, everybody else can do the maths and notice little things like the government, police and courts being disproportionately white.
I'm not even sure what people are arguing for here - do they want racially aggravated harassment to no longer be a crime, or for racially aggravating circumstances to be ignored when the person responsible leads a far-right group?
The stiffer sentences are partly because they apparently shared video of their misdeeds on social media channels with large numbers of followers, must have made their victims feel even more threatened.
I think it’s a tricky path to tread to state people are vulnerable across the board by virtue of their ethnicity/religion. The logical conclusion of this kind of identity politics is that they can’t be the predatory party in any way. Look how well that’s turned out over the last few years.
White people aren't the only people who get sentenced for racially aggravated harassment and similar crimes.
I'm not sure the aggravating factors are saying all that much about the victims. It's more about the propensity for some people to target particular groups, so it's not an inherent quality of the groups that is at issue, but the fact that organisations like BF have a long track record of deliberately targeting people in particular groups.
And this patently isn't about some bloke shouting random slurs which happen to be discriminatory...this is part of an organised campaign of harassment by Fransen and Golding of people solely on the basis of their faith/ethnicity. They have been doing it for a long time, it is frequently carefully planned, they state quite openly that they do it, and they even film it, in the knowledge that they have an audience who have an appetite for that kind of behaviour. Those are, essentially, the aggravating factors. And, in view of their history, I think the sentences Fransen and Golding got were surprisingly light.
Conspiracy is about planning together not doing. So their plan was to do something. The fact their stupidity got in the way is no bar. It carries heavy sentences.
I specifically said religious and ethnic minorities are more vunerable to certain types of crime so I can only assume you've pulled the 'across the board' bit straight out of your arse.
As for your logical conclusion it can't be that logical if nobody in the history of time has ever seriously suggested exempting certain groups of people from criminal responsibility.
But if the potatoes in ill fitting people suits make such a hash of their plans might be difficult to persuade a jury they were serious?
There’s been lots of looking the other way and sweeping of things under carpets. You can’t have missed it?
Well, this is all the data I need.
That's a wholly illogical conclusion, tbh. Black people as a whole are more susceptible to racist attacks in the UK than white people. That doesn't mean that individual black people can't be guilty of racist attacks.
Would you agree that someone who attacks a black person because they are black should be sentenced more robustly than someone who attacks someone for many other reasons?
what has happened here? fucking hell
Just laugh at him...his own piss poor argument seeking bilge is more in line with BF than he cares to realise. Utterly depressing.
It's not as if they got done for blasphemy . There was a clear course of conduct that was designed to inflame community tensions and cause further violence.
They got off lightly.
Yeah, those awful "politically designed aggravating factors".
It's getting so you can't even stand outside a student's room in a hall of residence chanting "we hate the blacks" without being arrested for politically designed so-called racially aggravated public order offences...
I saw that earlier. Bloody odd story.
Lesson here is never underestimate just how dumb students (especially 1st year students) can be.
That's one lesson, but those whining about "politically designed aggravating factors" might want to try imagining themselves in the position of the young woman subjected to that sort of shit.
Perhaps that might be an equally worthwhile lesson.
But that's just the thing though isn't it?
Are university campuses normally a hotbed of racism? Sure there will always be individuals.
I'm not really able to answer that, but I'm not sure it's really relevant to the question of why a number of professed anti-fascists are attempting to play down the significance and seriousness of racially or religiously motivated harassment, which is where this thread seems to be right now.
What a strange question...did you read the article? Perhaps you missed this...
Firstly you dismiss the seriousness of this story even though you posted it by suggesting the racist twats are merely dumb 1st years, then you go on to imply that racism isn't common amongst students at university and again wave a dismissive hand with the 'there will be individuals' comment.
It's as if racism is such a fucking, stupid, horrible thing that people are sick and tired of talking about it and want to pretend it doesn't exist, or something.
Stupidity is not the cause of racism, merely a substrate for it.
You’d imagine a student would think chanting we hate the blacks outside a black students room would be something you wouldn’t be able to get away with so you wouldn’t do it even if you were a raving racist.
Bit like the Cambridge student who thought going up to a bunch of angry drunk squaddies to say up the ira was going to end well
I'm not sure why the Manchester incident is lumped in with this. It appears to have nothing to do with students or Universities.
There's been enough other incidents though....
Maybe ask Andysays, he brought it into the conversation.
Well it was the NUS person quoted in the news story, but it just seems an odd example given I doubt there's a shortage.
Just a passing observation.
I'd imagine like many arrogant uni lads they just assumed that if reported they could just fuck it off as drunken foolery, don't ruin my life for a silly joke etc. It's not like people don't usually get away with similar stuff. Difference in that case was she was able to send it viral.
I was quoting the article but yes now having looked at that particular incident it doesn't seem to be uni/student related. I cant speak for the SU bod though as to why he included it.
As you acknowledge there are are enough other incidents anyway...if someone were really interested in knowing how prevalent this stuff is I imagine they'd research it instead of asking me in such a dismissive way as was done above.
Separate names with a comma.