Shola racially abused

Again, what the law says on the matter isn't what we're discussing. Obviously what the guy said was illegal, that's not for dispute.
I've never claimed to be on the higher ground ethically, and I'm not sure if I am. I think people should have the right to say things provided they're not inciting violence/theft etc. Unfortunately that also includes allowing people to say racist things. Is that 'ethically' right? I don't know. It's just how I feel.

Perhaps you weren't using 'crash' in the way it's generally used with technology - As you've shown so much ignorance already I suppose I should've assumed that.
Either way, I've never even remotely implied it would be "hippy-commune-esque", and I'm not sure exactly where you got that idea. Probably pulled from your arse, like most of the other things you've said so far.

Say what you like about Norwich. I'm not from there and I've never even been there. The username has nothing to do with football. I don't think anyone from there would get mad at what you said though, as it's a string of the most basic clichés about the area. You're basically just proving that this subject is above you.

I replied when I saw your post. Just like I'm doing now. Sorry I don't patrol the board 24 hours a day so I can reply sooner. I don't know what your problem with me is, we were having a fairly peaceful discussion about it all until you came in attacking me for no reason.

 

Interesting that you feel it is not appropriate to allow free speech inciting violence or theft but it is to incite racial hatred. Why?

 

Because those two things do far more harm than a simple insult.

I'm not saying words don't harm people, they obviously do, but it's not the same as getting your head kicked in or whatever.
I doubt Shola was really that bothered by it, and I doubt he would have even known it was said until the police got involved and made it a big event.

Silencing those who think racist things won't stop them from having those thoughts, and prohibiting them from expressing them verbally could make them express it in more violent ways.
Racism will be ended by exposure and education, not by charging someone who uses a slur.

 

If you don't think positive steps are required to address racism consider what occurred in the USA in the 1960's and 1970's and what occurred in South Africa in relation to apartheid. Now contrast those to how racism has been addressed in this country part of which is the various statutes against racist acts including words.

I accept that racism was more prevelant in the USA and South Africa but the general principle still applies. The law is in theory dictated by the majority view, by elections and sets standards as to what is believed acceptable behaviour. This applies to criminal acts such as theft, burglary and rape etc and also words believed to incite racial hatred. It is therefore acceptable to curtail behaviour which is deemed to be unacceptable such as racial slurs if they break the law and if necessary to involve the police.

At the end of the day the Courts will decide in any particular case whether the person's written word has broken the law and the standards the majority have set. You will always get the person who doesn't agree with the law but that does not mean they can do or say whatever they want, they still have to abide by the law. If they don't agree there is a way to allow them to do what they want and that is by getting the law changed not just ignoring it. If racists want to write racially inciteful words then persuade the majority that they should be allowed and get them to change the law.

I do agree that using the law should not be the only way to address this issue and that education is important in this area but the law still has a part to play and an important part at that if only to show what standards and beliefs the majority aspire to.

 

You're misunderstanding me a little. I do think positive steps are required, I just don't think that arresting people like this is a positive step. It's just trying to paint over holes rather than fixing what's causing the damage. The attitude seems to be wanting the appearance of a non-racist country, rather than actually having one.

Comparing it to the situations in South Africa and the USA is frankly ridiculous, as things were immeasurably worse in those two countries than they are here.

I don't really have anything else to say on this subject, I've expressed my viewpoint numerous times. I think saying racist things is wrong, but arresting those who have said them is wrong too, and is probably the worst way of stopping racism there is, as well as being an infringement on free speech.

 

Not if you think carefully about the point being made. Ask yourself why it was worse and one of the reasons I believe is that no-one took any positive steps at early enough a stage to prevent the problem from deteriorating to a point where extreme action was required.

What we have done is to take early steps including by legislation, the step you are objecting too, to prevent and avoid our situation escalating to similar scenarioes