Racism - Social pariah or public consensus?

[Truekiwijoker]

'Freedom of speech' does not mean that you are free to say what you like - and I am surprised that there are still people who think that it does.

Sorry Eddie, but if that's not what freedom of speech means, then please elaborate to me what it truely means.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

Objectively, i've seen more racism stemming out of Australia than anywhere else, save perhaps middle east, israel and down south US of A.

You've seen racism stemming out of the middle east, Isreal and the southern U.S.A.? seen it have you?

Either myself or members of my family have spent time in all three of those places, and neither I or them ever saw first-hand much overt racism.

I'm genuinely interested to hear your first-hand experiences...

Nevermind the fact that almost every single ethnic minority in the west ( Indians, native americans, east asians, africans, latin americans, middle easterns, south asians- you name it!) has claimed discrimination against them- despite the fact that these minority groups span the broadest spectrum of human values and interactions and their definitions pertaining to 'race' are often in the most general terms.

And this discrimination doesn't stem from these minorities themselves? Like the animosity between Indians and Pakistanis in Britain? or the Animosity between Pakistanis and West Indians?

It doesn't occur within their countries of origin?, like Idi Amin kicking all the Hindus out of Uganda?

Rather unfair to act as though only non-Caucasians are the victims...

Every western nation claims 'racists are a deplorable and insignificant minority of our population'....but in some countries (such as the US of A and Australia), i've seen clearly racist people/parties operating on national levels with a support base

And which major American party operates a national platform of Racism?

P.S. I had to edit this as it wouldn't let me write p_aki (????). Looks like I've spent my life using a racial slur, and never even knew it!

 

[luckyeddie]

Sorry Eddie, but if that's not what freedom of speech means, then please elaborate to me what it truely means.

Are you serious?

Protection must be established for the rights of others for a start - or would you do away with the laws on defamation, libel, slander etc?

 

[Shounak]

Are you serious?

Protection must be established for the rights of others for a start - or would you do away with the laws on defamation, libel, slander etc?

Eddie, what you mentioned are "torts", not laws.. Police don't arrest people for defmation, libel or slander..

Such things are rarely criminal matters..

 

[Truekiwijoker]

You'll probably find that racists are un-educated un-employed idiots and people who I have no time for what so ever.

Or perhaps not....

I think it's rather hypocritical to be so discriminatory and prejudiced against people who are either unemployed or of low education. In my experience, some of the worst racism here in New Zealand exists amongst the so-called social elite.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

So many racists over there..

Really?
why do you say that?

 

[Shounak]

Or perhaps not....

I think it's rather hypocritical to be so discriminatory and prejudiced against people who are either unemployed or of low education. In my experience, some of the worst racism here in New Zealand exists amongst the so-called social elite.

Different type of racism.. These social elite probably wouldn't be yelling and screaming verbal insults..They'd show a bit more impulse control when it comes to their true feelings..

More insidious, probably a greater evil, but harder to pinpoint..

 

[Top_Cat]

Sorry Eddie, but if that's not what freedom of speech means, then please elaborate to me what it truely means.

Just want to say, Eddie's not referring to 'freedom of thought'. That's taken as a given. There's no-one stopping you from thinking whatever you wish. Eddie's refferring to the public exposition of said views. What he's saying is that with any views, comes responsibility for those views. If you state publically that all Jews should die and that Hitler was a genius for thinking so and some people hear that and kill some Jewish people, you wouldn't be able to fob-off any anger against you by saying "Hey, it's a free country." Incitement towards violence, as an example, means the incitee is at least partially responsible for doing so. We'd all like to believe we are all totally free thinkers, etc. but all of us have our biases/weaknesses to the power of suggestion. It all comes down to the (subjective, given) knowledge of consequences of actions/words.

If you pull a trigger of a gun at someone's head and they die from the bullet wound, a less than successful defence would comprise saying something like "Well, all I did was pull the trigger. The bullet left the gun and struck the person but I didn't make it happen. It was my fault the bullet hit the person. " Of course, we would all say that the person holding the gun should have foreseen that the person the gun was aimed at would have died. Similar with freedom of speech; if you are able to reasonably foresee consequences of your views, with that comes responsibility for those views. Hence freedom of speech isn't totally free in this society.

Second, with freedom of speech comes the onus of justification. You could hold the view that the sky isn't blue but is silver with green polka dots and although I couldn't see what you can see, I have a weight of scientific evidence which suggests it's not the case (Rayleigh Scattering and all that). Now, there's nothing preventing you from holding that view nor should there be but if you were to make it public, the burden of proof is therefore upon your head otherwise your opinion is, essentially, meaningless. Not all opinions are equal, after all. For example, if I got into a debate with Stephen Jay Gould (when he was alive....) over his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, considering he invented it, he'd hand me my own on a platter. Ditto for most people. Why? He can justify his opinion with plenty of evidence. Anyone opposing him would have to have a similar level of evidence to be able to converse with him and those who hold an opinion otherwise, without evidence, are wasting their time and the time of those who are listening.

So, with freedom of speech (of anything, really) comes responsibility; responsibility for consequences and responsibility for justification. That's why freedom of speech isn't free, per se. Or it is but with pretty significant caveats.

 

[Shounak]

Really?
why do you say that?

It was in jest mate.. Just about every Kiwi I talked to engaged me in some sort of banter.. Bagging my Aussie accent.. Telling me I can't pronounce words properly..

It was ironic, but fun..

All of it was good natured..

 

[luckyeddie]

Eddie, what you mentioned are "torts", not laws.. Police don't arrest people for defmation, libel or slander..

Such things are rarely criminal matters..

That is irrelevant to the point of the discussion, and comes across as an exercise in semantics.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

Protection must be established for the rights of others for a start - or would you do away with the laws on defamation, libel, slander etc?

There are no laws on slander, libel or defamation. There are 'torts' however...

But in the context of this thread, we aren't talking about such personally directed insults. And in every western democracy, you are free to say anything provided it does not directly harm someone.

 

[howardj]

Well the ICC are making an official inquiry into the continued reported racism at the cricket here in Australia.

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,17999137-23212,00.html

What's the point of an inquiry? All about being seen to be doing something, I suppose. I mean, if you're serious about addressing it, stop running it through the media (which only encourages more yobbos to be contrary). Rather, focus on discreetly putting practical measures in place (ie plain clothed policemen amongst the troublesome areas of the ground etc). I just hate this whole 'let's be seen to be doing something' mentality. Even if that something is rather useless, and just stains a whole cricketing-loving country in the process.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

It was in jest mate.. Just about every Kiwi I talked to engaged me in some sort of banter.. Bagging my Aussie accent.. Telling me I can't pronounce words properly..

It was ironic, but fun..

All of it was good natured..

C'mon, that's not really Racism. It could be nationalism...

And I'm sure we're not the only ones who get a laugh at Aussie accents

 

[Shounak]

That is irrelevant to the point of the discussion, and comes across as an exercise in semantics.

Your phrase implied that laws exist against slander or in my language "bagging people".. There are no such laws, and there are no such laws for a reason..

There is no such protection for people when it comes to verbal vitriol.. As far as I'm aware, I'm free to call you whatever I wish and you can't rely on any protection afforded to you by the government or anything..

People are free to say what they wish..

 

[luckyeddie]

Your phrase implied that laws exist against slander or in my language "bagging people".. There are no such laws, and there are no such laws for a reason..

There is no such protection for people when it comes to verbal vitriol.. As far as I'm aware, I'm free to call you whatever I wish and you can't rely on any protection afforded to you by the government or anything..

People are free to say what they wish..

I can see that there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

 

[Top_Cat]

Eddie, what you mentioned are "torts", not laws.. Police don't arrest people for defmation, libel or slander..

Such things are rarely criminal matters..

Not true. Section 257 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act; Criminal Defamation.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/clca1935262/s257.html

Additionally, there's indirect consequences of acts in exercising your free speech where bad things can happen. If you incite a mob to commit a crime, you can be charged. A South Australian example; 'Acts to Endanger', common in most western styles of law, in the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act;

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/clca1935262/s29.html

 

[Truekiwijoker]

Just want to say, Eddie's not referring to 'freedom of thought'. That's taken as a given. There's no-one stopping you from thinking whatever you wish. Eddie's refferring to the public exposition of said views. What he's saying is that with any views, comes responsibility for those views. If you state publically that all Jews should die and that Hitler was a genius for thinking so and some people hear that and kill some Jewish people, you wouldn't be able to fob-off any anger against you by saying "Hey, it's a free country." Incitement towards violence, as an example, means the incitee is at least partially responsible for doing so. We'd all like to believe we are all totally free thinkers, etc. but all of us have our biases/weaknesses to the power of suggestion. It all comes down to the (subjective, given) knowledge of consequences of actions/words.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these 'incitement of violence' and 'hate speach' legislations are a recent phenomina.
In any case, I think to blame the speachmaker for any such anti-semirtic scenario would be a knee-jerk easy way out of addressing the real problems and reasons for such an attack. Just my opinion.

 

[Top_Cat]

And in every western democracy, you are free to say anything provided it does not directly harm someone.

Define 'harm'.

 

[Shounak]

Not true. Section 257 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act; Criminal Defamation.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/clca1935262/s257.html

Additionally, there's indirect consequences of acts in exercising your free speech where bad things can happen. If you incite a mob to commit a crime, you can be charged. A South Australian example; 'Acts to Endanger', common in most western styles of law, in the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act;

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/clca1935262/s29.html

In the context of this thread though, it's more personal insults.. T_C, if I saw you in the street and called you an "effing White c-word".. What would a copper tell you if you tried to report me? (Assuming I just said it and kept walking).. What if I just called you an idiot?

Can cops do anything about it?

Just reading that though, that refers to published material if I read it correctly.. It doesn't appear to apply to verbal defamation..

 

[luckyeddie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these 'incitement of violence' and 'hate speach' legislations are a recent phenomina.
In any case, I think to blame the speachmaker for any such anti-semirtic scenario would be a knee-jerk easy way out of addressing the real problems and reasons for such an attack. Just my opinion.

Define 'recent'.

Look up the history of the National Front in England.