New Race Hate Laws Needed?

[Balthazar]

Senior prosecutors are calling for the laws on race hate crimes to be strengthened to counter the threat posed by the British National party.

The threshold for securing a conviction is so high that far-right activists are able to evade prosecution for material that many people would consider to be threatening and racist, according to sources at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Prosecutors blame the lack of convictions on the strict legal test, which requires showing an intention to "stir up racial hatred" or a likelihood that racial tension would be stirred up.

The offence, which was created under the Public Order Act, only applies to acts that take place or are witnessed in public so it does not cover leaflets that are pushed through people's letter boxes. It also offers no protection against the publication of inaccurate or false information.

Source

Would you support amending the law to make it more costly for the BNP to publish lies or hate speech? Or do you object in principle to any assault on free speech? How would you defend the right of the BNP to publish lies or material likely to stir up racial tension?

[Midas]

Would you support amending the law to make it more costly for the BNP to publish lies or hate speech? Or do you object in principle to any assault on free speech? How would you defend the right of the BNP to publish lies or material likely to stir up racial tension?

Whilst on one hand we do need to 'control' racism, yet more laws restricting free speech is not the way to go. All that will achieve is to drive a certain sector of society underground and potentially increase racial hatred. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, we need to scrap every so-called 'equality' law on the statute books and replace them with a codified bill of rights. That's the only way to place every person in the country on an equal footing with no more rights or privileges than anyone else. There are enough existing laws to handle any overt instances of racial, religious or sexual discrimination which may emerge.

[LA]

I agree with Midas in that Racial legislation should be scrapped and the control of racism cannot be achieved through legislation.

We have already seen the effect of racial hatred legislation in that it only helps minorities and does nothing for racial hatred against causcasions.

If you are going to tackle racism, at least tackle all of it.

However, I do not believe in a codified bill of rights for two reasons.
1. It won't be codified due to the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty in that Parliament can make, amend and undo any law.
2. Why do we need a bill of rights? It only helps those who are in trouble with the law or Government. If you are innocent it serves you no purpose.
By stating our rights, the Government limits our rights.

In Britain we used to have this great tradition of you can do absolutely bloody anything as long as you don't break the law. By giving us a list of freedoms, it in effect limits our freedom to that specific list.

[Opinionated]

2. Why do we need a bill of rights? It only helps those who are in trouble with the law or Government. If you are innocent it serves you no purpose.

A few reasons actually:
1) I don't want the government to be able to listen to my private conversations (or read e-mails) without due cause and I'm not obsessively private but it's none of their damn business.
2) I should not ever be in trouble with the law for speaking my mind, should the government decide tomorrow that they are going to make it illegal to criticise Brown in public then damn right I'll race you to Speakers corner in order to specifically get in trouble with both the law and the government!
3) It is the best possible way to balance the rights of one individual against another, it would automatically starve of oxygen the BNPs most widely held argument as to the mistreatment of the indegenous British population.
4) There is too much power vested in the executive and there needs to be a constitutional settlement to disperse power more widely.

By stating our rights, the Government limits our rights.

You're going to have to walk me through your reasoning on that; we're talking about enshrining basic principles not an exhaustive list of rights

[Midas]

However, I do not believe in a codified bill of rights for two reasons.
1. It won't be codified due to the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty in that Parliament can make, amend and undo any law.
2. Why do we need a bill of rights? It only helps those who are in trouble with the law or Government. If you are innocent it serves you no purpose.
By stating our rights, the Government limits our rights.

In Britain we used to have this great tradition of you can do absolutely bloody anything as long as you don't break the law. By giving us a list of freedoms, it in effect limits our freedom to that specific list.

Doesn't that very much depend on the wording of a bill of rights? If it's as simple and as wide-sweeping as "all people in the UK are to be considered equal in all respects and no any one person shall have any rights or privileges over another...." blah, blah, blah together with a formal parliamentary agreement that such a bill of rights cannot be subsequently amended without a clear public majority vote in favour of any changes, I can't see any fundamental problems.

[Balthazar]

Whilst on one hand we do need to 'control' racism, yet more laws restricting free speech is not the way to go. All that will achieve is to drive a certain sector of society underground and potentially increase racial hatred. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, we need to scrap every so-called 'equality' law on the statute books and replace them with a codified bill of rights. That's the only way to place every person in the country on an equal footing with no more rights or privileges than anyone else. There are enough existing laws to handle any overt instances of racial, religious or sexual discrimination which may emerge.

Well, I wish a lawyer would come on and explain. According to the newspaper article (linked above):

The offence [an intention to "stir up racial hatred" or a likelihood that racial tension would be stirred up] which was created under the Public Order Act, only applies to acts that take place or are witnessed in public so it does not cover leaflets that are pushed through people's letter boxes. It also offers no protection against the publication of inaccurate or false information.

Yet you say:

There are enough existing laws to handle any overt instances of racial, religious or sexual discrimination which may emerge.

One or both of those statements must be false; they can't both be true. I agree with you on a bill of rights. It's badly needed but unlikely to happen any time soon. In the meantime, surely you don't favour the BNP publishing leaflets containing material designed to stir up racial hatred? A one line piece of primary legislation applying existing law to written material could be put through Parliament in an afternoon. BNP officials could then be arrested, charged and brought before a magistrate. What's wrong with that? It seems perfectly straightforward to me.

[TellMeMore]

Well, I wish a lawyer would come on and explain. According to the newspaper article (linked above):



Yet you say:



One or both of those statements must be false; they can't both be true. I agree with you on a bill of rights. It's badly needed but unlikely to happen any time soon. In the meantime, surely you don't favour the BNP publishing leaflets containing material designed to stir up racial hatred? A one line piece of primary legislation applying existing law to written material could be put through Parliament in an afternoon. BNP officials could then be arrested, charged and brought before a magistrate. What's wrong with that? It seems perfectly straightforward to me.

What's wrong with it is it would be badly written. Do remind me of any legilsation this government has made which is not woolly enough to be abused. I wouldn't trust them to find their arse with both hands and a set of instructions. That's what's wrong with it.
I also don't believe that existing laws cannot deal with written material, given the will to do so..

[Balthazar]

What's wrong with it is it would be badly written. Do remind me of any legilsation this government has made which is not woolly enough to be abused. I wouldn't trust them to find their arse with both hands and a set of instructions. That's what's wrong with it.
I also don't believe that existing laws cannot deal with written material, given the will to do so..

Hang on, UK race hate law's worked well since the 1970s. It got Griffin a (richly deserved) criminal conviction. That's good enough for me. If existing law can deal with race-haters posting material designed to stir up racial hatred through letter-boxes - fine. But according to various Chief Constables, and other big wigs mentioned in the article, it can't. Are you claiming they're lying or mistaken?

It's a separate argument to claim that all race hate law should be repealed, that BNP criminals shouldn't have been convicted under it, and should now be allowed to post race-hate material through letter boxes without legal redress. Is that what you're really claiming? It's a respectable free speech argument if that's what you're driving at. I don't agree with it, but that's irrelevant.

[TellMeMore]

Yeah, well according to various chief-constables and big-wigs the police should be able to hold you for 90 days without trial, oh and should be able to intercept your 'phone line and read your mail on their own authority, and stop you demonstrating, and any number of other things which aren't compatible with a free society, so I'm afraid I don't buy that argument. As to the posting of material which might incite hatred should we be arresting anyone who posts copies of the bible, koran, torah, NL manifesto etc. Crap. We all get sent junk mail all of the time, and it just goes into the bin. If you don't want to read a leaflet from the BNP, bin it.

[Balthazar]

Yeah, well according to various chief-constables and big-wigs the police should be able to hold you for 90 days without trial, oh and should be able to intercept your 'phone line and read your mail on their own authority, and stop you demonstrating, and any number of other things which aren't compatible with a free society, so I'm afraid I don't buy that argument. As to the posting of material which might incite hatred should we be arresting anyone who posts copies of the bible, koran, torah, NL manifesto etc. Crap. We all get sent junk mail all of the time, and it just goes into the bin. If you don't want to read a leaflet from the BNP, bin it.

So you are producing the free speech argument? Sheesh. It's like pulling teeth.

[TellMeMore]

So you are producing the free speech argument? Sheesh. It's like pulling teeth.

touche.

[LA]

Doesn't that very much depend on the wording of a bill of rights? If it's as simple and as wide-sweeping as "all people in the UK are to be considered equal in all respects and no any one person shall have any rights or privileges over another...." blah, blah, blah together with a formal parliamentary agreement that such a bill of rights cannot be subsequently amended without a clear public majority vote in favour of any changes, I can't see any fundamental problems.

You could not create a legally binding constitutional bill of rights. You could have a convention on the bill of rights meaning a Government shouldn't alter it.

However, like I have already stated, due to the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty, nothing can be codified.

One of the key principals is that parliament can make, amend and undo any law in any area. As a result, to have a codified bill of rights you would require a fully codified constitution which means losing Parliamentary Sovereignty.

I don't think it is worth it.

A few reasons actually:
1) I don't want the government to be able to listen to my private conversations (or read e-mails) without due cause and I'm not obsessively private but it's none of their damn business.
2) I should not ever be in trouble with the law for speaking my mind, should the government decide tomorrow that they are going to make it illegal to criticise Brown in public then damn right I'll race you to Speakers corner in order to specifically get in trouble with both the law and the government!
3) It is the best possible way to balance the rights of one individual against another, it would automatically starve of oxygen the BNPs most widely held argument as to the mistreatment of the indegenous British population.
4) There is too much power vested in the executive and there needs to be a constitutional settlement to disperse power more widely.

Human Rights Act - Government can ignore it if the please
Freedom of Information Act - Government can ignore it if they please
Data Protection Act - Government can ignore it if they please
Bill of Rights - Government could ignore it if they please

To have a codified bill of rights; as stated above, we require a codified constitution. That removes the flexibility of Parliament Sovereignty, something I think we should keep for that flexibility, the various other benefits and tradition.

What we need is constitutional reform. We need to back date Parliament so that we have the old English Parliamentary System whereby Parliament really does hold the Government to account.

Where Members of Parliament are there to make a change, voice their opinions and the opinions of their constituents. Not where Members of Parliament are focused on patronage.

One step is to remove many powers that have in recent years been granted to the Prime Minister. Weaken the power of the whips, return power to the public.

You're going to have to walk me through your reasoning on that; we're talking about enshrining basic principles not an exhaustive list of rights

Look at the human rights act. That is a list of freedoms you fundamentally receive.
What if I want to do something not on that list?

By stating my rights, you have stated my rights - which means they have been limited to those stated rights.
If you were to have a system whereby you can do as you please assuming you don't break the law, then your rights grow in number because you can do many more things that are not stated.

[Balthazar]

LA's put his thumb on the problem - the British people don't have any rights, Parliament has them and guards them jealously. It graciously subcontracts some to the British people - it passes them to the people temporarily via legislation - but can remove or amend them at any time.

Hence the Tory definition of freedom as "Anything the law does not expressly forbid". The Tory ideologue goes on from there to regard any new law with hostility, as an attack on his personal liberty. He's right. It is. Hence the Tory hostility to the state. By passing laws the state attacks his personal freedom. It reduces the size of the space in which he can be free. It also explains Tory neurosis over Europe - a law production machine if ever there was one; an engine for reducing Tory freedom.

But it is a flexible system (LA's right again). It keeps the courts out of legislators' hair - no supreme court to defend the people's basic rights because they haven't got any rights! It gives unfettered power to a prime minister with a majority in the house of commons and a patronage-controlled house of lords.

When push comes to shove Parliament's there to serve Parliament, not the people. Most British people ('subjects' not 'citizens') know this instinctively, which is one reason politicians are held in such contempt. They're not there for the people, but for themselves. It's not our Parliament, it's their Parliament. It's a rotten, wildly undemocratic system and makes even right-wing American republican friends go wide-eyed with amazement when it's explained to them. A recent conversation (when Brown almost fell):

Let me get this straight,' she said. 'You've got this guy Gordon Brown who's never been elected prime minister.'

Correct!

He was "anointed" by other politicians....

Correct!

..... after Tony Blair had won an election.

Correct!

OK. But now the politicians have decided they don't like Gordon Brown....

Correct!

... and want rid of him

Correct!

And they think his ass [arse] can be canned by getting some more politicians - senior members of the government - to "withdraw support."

Correct!

But then Gordon Brown will be replaced as prime minister - by this mailman Johnson - by politicians choosing him.

Correct!

And the mailman will serve as prime minister until he chooses to call an election, sometime between now and next Summer?

Correct!

Can I ask a stupid question?

Yes!

Where are the British people in all this? Where are the voters, the electorate? Britain's a democracy, right? How can you change leader without consulting the ordinary Joes? You realise that without an election you're talking coup d'état?

Yes! This is Britain. Damn colonials.

So LA's 100% right. A bill of rights is constitutionally impossible within the current system - a historic compromise between crown and gentry which very carefully kept the proles out of the equation. Which mean, in terms of this thread, a bill of rights is a total red herring!

[Opinionated]

Human Rights Act - Government can ignore it if the please
Freedom of Information Act - Government can ignore it if they please
Data Protection Act - Government can ignore it if they please

Precisely my point LA, tell me what's so great about the flexibility of our current system again?

Bill of Rights - Government could ignore it if they please

Aaah, is word "codified" that would make it different.

To have a codified bill of rights; as stated above, we require a codified constitution. That removes the flexibility of Parliament Sovereignty, something I think we should keep for that flexibility, the various other benefits and tradition.

Not necessarily, yes a codified bill of rights would need to be enshrined into a broad written constitution, which we will need if England is to ever get her own assembly btw! As for tradition, no really don't care about preserving it, sorry!

What we need is constitutional reform. We need to back date Parliament so that we have the old English Parliamentary System whereby Parliament really does hold the Government to account.
Where Members of Parliament are there to make a change, voice their opinions and the opinions of their constituents. Not where Members of Parliament are focused on patronage.

You're making the classic Tory mistake of looking back to an era that never existed, unless you want to also take away universal suffrage that is (I'll fight you on that tooth and nail). As if the parliaments of Disraeli, Gladstone etc. didn't have just as much patronage (in fact more given that the PM could effectively give anyone a seat in parliament should he so choose)! It's the twenty first century and we haven't even caught up with the rest of the industrial world from the nineteenth century The Big Question: Why doesn't the UK have a written constitution, and does it matter? - UK Politics, UK - The Independent.

One step is to remove many powers that have in recent years been granted to the Prime Minister. Weaken the power of the whips, return power to the public.

Agreed!

Look at the human rights act. That is a list of freedoms you fundamentally receive.
What if I want to do something not on that list?
By stating my rights, you have stated my rights - which means they have been limited to those stated rights.

It doesn't work like that and you know it! A Bill of rights would protect the basics: freedom of speech, movement, assembly, religion, privacy, silence, vote; everything else is guarenteed as long as it is under the law! There are very few actions that would not be protected by the above - in fact I cannot think of a single one.

If you were to have a system whereby you can do as you please assuming you don't break the law, then your rights grow in number because you can do many more things that are not stated.

No its not about an inexhaustable list of "rights" it's about providing a frame work with which the electorate can hold the government in it's place!

[LA]

Not necessarily, yes a codified bill of rights would need to be enshrined into a broad written constitution, which we will need if England is to ever get her own assembly btw! As for tradition, no really don't care about preserving it, sorry!

Parts of our constitution is written already.
To receive a Parliament we would just write more.

You refer to a codified constitution which is different to a written one

It doesn't work like that and you know it! A Bill of rights would protect the basics: freedom of speech, movement, assembly, religion, privacy, silence, vote; everything else is guarenteed as long as it is under the law! There are very few actions that would not be protected by the above - in fact I cannot think of a single one.

Balthazar understands the reasoning

[Opinionated]

You refer to a codified constitution which is different to a written one

I believe it was codified bill of rights within written constitution, but yes regardless I think written is best way to safeguard constitutional supremecy.

Balthazar understands the reasoning

Well I too understand the argument LA, I just happen to think it's severely limited in practice. You don't need an inexhaustible list of rights in order to cover everything!

[Balthazar]

Balthazar understands the reasoning

* Climbs into bed with Liberal Authoritarian. Shrieks like Tantal confronted by a socialist idea *

[Balthazar]

Incidentally, Britain does have a written constitution and a bill of rights. But it's not pulled together in two, elegant, beautifully written, documents like the US Constitution and BoR. Instead it's a mess of massively indigestible acts of parliament, conventions, memorandum of understanding between Parliament and Palace, treaties, acts of settlement, acts of union etc etc, e.g.

• acts establishing the devolved parliaments/assemblies, explaining their relationship to national and local government, their powers, funding, elections, etc
  
• equality legislation explaining the rights and obligations of blacks, whites, gays, disabled, limitations on freedom of speech, etc
  
• parliament acts setting out electoral boundaries, penalties for electoral fraud, parliamentary terms, etc
  
• justice acts giving legal basis to the jury system, the right to a fair trial, appeals, minimum sentencing, police powers, the legal basis of MI5, MI6, etc
  
• documents detailing the role of the Queen in dissolving parliament, appointing a prime minister, declaring war, signing treaties, etc
  
• embedded EU legislation e.g. the human rights act and UN treaties

Why isn't it gathered together in one or two documents like the US Constitution and BoR? Because no one can be bothered, because there's not the political pressure, and (most importantly) because a single, easily available, readable, document would show everyone what a horrendous, undemocratic, unfair, unjust, hysterical, hypocritical, mess is the British state. It would cause a monumental political scandal once the British people saw the constitutional contempt in which we're held by our rulers. The whole of Europe, America and much of the rest of the world would laugh at us. The Queen, whenever she got off the Royal plane for a commonwealth shindig, would be met with a gale of merriment.

So better to keep it hidden away - like a mad aunt in the attic - and pretend there's no written constitution or bill of rights. But that's a lie. Which itself is a scandal and part of the constitutional mess: there's a big, fat, smelly, lie at the heart of the British state. LOL

[Tantal]

A few reasons actually:
1) I don't want the government to be able to listen to my private conversations (or read e-mails) without due cause and I'm not obsessively private but it's none of their damn business.
2) I should not ever be in trouble with the law for speaking my mind, should the government decide tomorrow that they are going to make it illegal to criticise Brown in public then damn right I'll race you to Speakers corner in order to specifically get in trouble with both the law and the government!
3) It is the best possible way to balance the rights of one individual against another, it would automatically starve of oxygen the BNPs most widely held argument as to the mistreatment of the indegenous British population.
4) There is too much power vested in the executive and there needs to be a constitutional settlement to disperse power more widely.

O74 and I finally agree on something! I shall be waiting patiently for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who, I'm sure, will be along any time now.

The problem with laws limiting free speech, which some are now advocating over here, is that it allows legislatures to create whole categories of speech that is impermissible. Take "hate speech" for example. Once "hate speech" is prohibited, the government then adds to what is considered "hate speech", or changes or expands the definition of "hate speech" so as to include anything they don't want you to say. Then, you have NO rights.

[Neo2012]

Whilst on one hand we do need to 'control' racism, yet more laws restricting free speech is not the way to go. All that will achieve is to drive a certain sector of society underground and potentially increase racial hatred. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, we need to scrap every so-called 'equality' law on the statute books and replace them with a codified bill of rights. That's the only way to place every person in the country on an equal footing with no more rights or privileges than anyone else. There are enough existing laws to handle any overt instances of racial, religious or sexual discrimination which may emerge.

But that is all the equality laws do.

[Midas]

But that is all the equality laws do.

What the so-called 'equality' laws do is raise the legal status of minority groups to supposedly protect them in law. In practice, and in the eyes of many minority groups, this elevates them to a position of superiority and untouchability, causing yet more divisions in society. Muslim or Black groups can chant anti-British slogans with seeming impunity if they like, but woe-betide any white British people who did the same towards them!

[Neo2012]

What the so-called 'equality' laws do is raise the legal status of minority groups to supposedly protect them in law.

IN LAW, it raise women etc, to be equal to men, no more, no less. Do you think blacks and women should be paid less than white Males, merely because they are women or black? If not, what are you going to do about it? When the employers refused to respond to reason, they have to be forced. That is the history of the legislation. It is there to enforce equality, no more nor less.

In practice, and in the eyes of many minority groups, this elevates them to a position of superiority and untouchability, causing yet more divisions in society. Muslim or Black groups can chant anti-British slogans with seeming impunity if they like, but woe-betide any white British people who did the same towards them!

is that true? try counting the number of fascists who have been imprisoned under inciting racial hatred legislation, and then counting the number of Muslims. I think those facts will contradict your statement.

[LA]

Neo, the fact is, the equality laws do not create equality.
They merely move the discrimination from one group to another.

Rather than discrimination against women and ethnics, they move the discrimination to the largest Full Time work group - Which is white males.

Harman wants laws passed so that gender and race are adequate reasons to discriminate against candidates. If there are three people applying for a job all with the exact same qualifications and skill, one being a women the others white males. The bill allows discrimination against the white males in favour of the woman regardless of the companies circumstances.

[Midas]

IN LAW, it raise women etc, to be equal to men, no more, no less. Do you think blacks and women should be paid less than white Males, merely because they are women or black? If not, what are you going to do about it? When the employers refused to respond to reason, they have to be forced. That is the history of the legislation. It is there to enforce equality, no more nor less.

As far as I'm concerned, 'equality' laws have little to do with pay, who you employ etc. All people should be equal, period. no need for further legislation. They are used, abused, to a very large extent by those minority groups they're supposed to help. As an employer myself, for over 25 years, I've seen many, many instances of the equality and race laws being thoroughly abused by minority groups. Given half a chance most employers are reasonable, but when laws that are unfair and open to abuse and interpretation are thrust on us, sometimes with little consideration for circumstances and often taken to the extreme limit by minorities, all funded by the state using our taxes of course, there's bound to be a backlash.

is that true? try counting the number of fascists who have been imprisoned under inciting racial hatred legislation, and then counting the number of Muslims. I think those facts will contradict your statement.

I have no idea of the statistics, but examples of minority groups being able to say and do things which white people would be called racist for are all around us every single day. Just read the daily news.

[Neo2012]

As far as I'm concerned, 'equality' laws have little to do with pay, who you employ etc. All people should be equal, period. no need for further legislation. They are used, abused, to a very large extent by those minority groups they're supposed to help. As an employer myself, for over 25 years, I've seen many, many instances of the equality and race laws being thoroughly abused by minority groups. Given half a chance most employers are reasonable, but when laws that are unfair and open to abuse and interpretation are thrust on us, sometimes with little consideration for circumstances and often taken to the extreme limit by minorities, all funded by the state using our taxes of course, there's bound to be a backlash.

so what should be done when people are NOT treated equally?

I have no idea of the statistics, but examples of minority groups being able to say and do things which white people would be called racist for are all around us every single day. Just read the daily news.

lol I would be dubious of news sources, not because they are involved in a conspiracy as the fascist suggest, but quite simply because their prime concern is producing a product as cheaply as possible, to maximize profits. Spinning a story, is much cheaper than telling the truth.
I consider myself quite skeptical about the media, however IF this is true

I'm so tired of people saying that we immigrants have more rights than British citizens. People really need to get their facts straight. Do we get income support? Nope. Social housing? Nope. The right to vote? Nope. Job seeker's benefits? Nope. Pensions? Nope. Free prescriptions? Nope. Disability assistance? Nope. Right of movement within the EU? Nope. And our British family members and spouses are afraid to take advantage of these services and rights, for fear that it might jeopardize our visa applications.
Do we pay the same income and property taxes as everyone else? Yep. Indirectly support unemployed British people? Yep. Pay repeated astronomical fees to renew our visas? Yep.
Assylum seekers may be supported by the state, but that's because it is illegal for them to support themselves. They could move on to self-sufficiency or go back home a lot easier if the Home Office wasn't so apallingly slow in deciding their cases, or if the government granted them the right to seek employment.
From archaeomanda on Tue Jun 09 06:38PM

The bias in the media is far worse than I have ever believed, wouldn't you ?

[LA]

so what should be done when people are NOT treated equally?
lol I would be dubious of news sources, not because they are involved in a conspiracy as the fascist suggest, but quite simply because their prime concern is producing a product as cheaply as possible, to maximize profits. Spinning a story, is much cheaper than telling the truth.
I consider myself quite skeptical about the media, however IF this is true The bias in the media is far worse than I have ever believed, wouldn't you ?

Neo,

Minorities get away with discrimination with no consequence.
A white British says it, wow you are deemed a racist and prosecuted.

My cousin is an example.
A black guy in his twenties called my cousin a f***ing white c***
My cousin; 16, called him a f***ing black c***

Guess what one was prosecuted?
Yupp my cousin. Even though the black guy gave the racist statement, whilst my cousin merely repeated it.

[Midas]

so what should be done when people are NOT treated equally?

I think you're being deliberately obtuse here! I'm simply saying that everyone should be classified as equal, period. No need for any 'equality' laws to give any one group more, and very much abused, legal rights than any other group.

lol I would be dubious of news sources, not because they are involved in a conspiracy as the fascist suggest, but quite simply because their prime concern is producing a product as cheaply as possible, to maximize profits. Spinning a story, is much cheaper than telling the truth.
I consider myself quite skeptical about the media, however IF this is true The bias in the media is far worse than I have ever believed, wouldn't you ?

And you've never come across any minority groups abusing their legal 'equality privileges' in real life? You're either in denial or have a very narrow and biased viewpoint on this matter, that's all I can say.

[Neo2012]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse here! I'm simply saying that everyone should be classified as equal, period. No need for any 'equality' laws to give any one group more, and very much abused, legal rights than any other group.

most people including me absolutely agree with you. Equality nomore no less.

however, employers etc refused to treat people equally, and equality laws for women and ethnic minorities were introduced. So my question to you is, are you saying nothing should have been done to try to make employers treat women equally to men? At some time you have to stop talking, and start doing, surely? The present equality laws do not give anybody a right to more pay, inequality, they only give them a right to the same pay as everybody else, equality.

And you've never come across any minority groups abusing their legal 'equality privileges' in real life? You're either in denial or have a very narrow and biased viewpoint on this matter, that's all I can say.

I'm open minded on the topic, if it is such a prevalent happening give me an example of minority groups abusing their legal 'equality privileges' in real life.

[Neo2012]

Neo,

Minorities get away with discrimination with no consequence.
A white British says it, wow you are deemed a racist and prosecuted.

My cousin is an example.
A black guy in his twenties called my cousin a f***ing white c***
My cousin; 16, called him a f***ing black c***

Guess what one was prosecuted?
Yupp my cousin. Even though the black guy gave the racist statement, whilst my cousin merely repeated it.

which seems very unjust, and I am sure you would like this injustice to be addressed, yes? I know I would. So why do you think the injustice of an employer advertising only for white workers, shouldn't equally be addressed?

Do you do you also think the equality laws for women should be thrown out too?

[LA]

which seems very unjust, and I am sure you would like this injustice to be addressed, yes? I know I would. So why do you think the injustice of an employer advertising only for white workers, shouldn't equally be addressed?

Do you do you also think the equality laws for women should be thrown out too?

I think all equality laws should be scrapped.
The only one I can see making sense is a regulation stating that an employer cannot under any circumstances discriminate against anyone based on anything other than merit in terms of employment.

[Citizen Smith]

I think all equality laws should be scrapped.
The only one I can see making sense is a regulation stating that an employer cannot under any circumstances discriminate against anyone based on anything other than merit in terms of employment.

Impossible top enforce. Very bad concerning representation of women in top jobs.

[Scooby]

Unless i'm mistaken it is now legal to discrimate, recent legislation now allows for the employer to discriminate in favour of ethnic minorities and women. Positive discrmination, is discrimination by any other description, the only review of the law needed is that if you feel someone has discriminated you, then you should be able to challenge this provided you have reasonable grounds. Currently an employer can employ someone who is black because they want someone who is black, but it is illegal to employ someone who is white because you want a white person, to the point that you can express a preferance for a minority in the advert but not for a preferance for a white candidate.
The only people who will benefit from poorly though out laws are the lawyers as always.

[Neo2012]

Unless i'm mistaken it is now legal to discrimate, recent legislation now allows for the employer to discriminate in favour of ethnic minorities and women. Positive discrmination, is discrimination by any other description, the only review of the law needed is that if you feel someone has discriminated you, then you should be able to challenge this provided you have reasonable grounds. Currently an employer can employ someone who is black because they want someone who is black, but it is illegal to employ someone who is white because you want a white person, to the point that you can express a preferance for a minority in the advert but not for a preferance for a white candidate.
The only people who will benefit from poorly though out laws are the lawyers as always.

am sure that posted in red isn't true.

I think positive discrimination, is a poor choice of words, chosen by the employers. What has happened, is the ethnic minorities are routinely underrepresented in occupations, in other words percentage in the local population, is not reflected in the occupation. SOME employers have chosen to put quotas on the number of people employed, so the ethnicminorities in an employment, reflects what is in the local population, to create EQUALITY. It is an effort to stop the discrimination which is taking place.

Whether these discrepancies in employment, ethnicminorities in occupations not being the same as they are in the local population, is due to employer discrmination or ethnicminorities routinely being too stupid for the jobs, is obviously open to debate.

[Neo2012]

I think all equality laws should be scrapped.
The only one I can see making sense is a regulation stating that an employer cannot under any circumstances discriminate against anyone based on anything other than merit in terms of employment.

I wouldn't have any problem with that, if it was workable.

[LA]

I wouldn't have any problem with that, if it was workable.

It would be very workable.

In relation to your above statement, I think positive discrimination is exactly the right phrase.

As an employer I can choose to discriminate on the grounds of race just so long as that race is not the white race. That in my view is racial discrimination.

You can discriminate against males in favour of females - discrimination none the less.

This Labour Government are so incompetent, they haven't noticed all they are doing is moving the discrimination from one group to a much much larger group.

[Neo2012]

It would be very workable.

In relation to your above statement, I think positive discrimination is exactly the right phrase.

As an employer I can choose to discriminate on the grounds of race just so long as that race is not the white race. That in my view is racial discrimination.

You can discriminate against males in favour of females - discrimination none the less.

This Labour Government are so incompetent, they haven't noticed all they are doing is moving the discrimination from one group to a much much larger group.

. Just think about it for a second. That isn't happening, until minorities and women represent a proportion of employment sectors that disproportionately exceeds their representation in society. At present it is a statistical fact, in many occupations, that women and ethnic minorities are discriminated against. They are not represented in proportion to their numbers.

Now the law you suggested, would have to do something about that. How would you suggest, your law, would enforce equality, better than enforcing by quotas? I'm all ears to a positive suggestion, like I was your last.

[Scooby]

Quotas is not the answer, the answer must always be the one who is best qualified, experienced and suitable must get the job, regardless of how well represented a minority is, if we give jobs to people based on ethnic grouping, sex or religion or whatever else, then a) you are discriminating against someone, full stop there is no justification to infringe the rights of one to promote those of other, if you want to feed the fires of the extreme right, then this will do it.
B) Companies will be employing people who are not the best or most suitable, therefore the companies efficiency will suffer and that isn't good for anyones chances of keeping jobs in tough times.

I recruited staff several times in Peterborough for the quarry i worked on, advertised in both the job centre and local papers, Peterborough has largish strong immigrant communities, i recruited at least 15 times and i NEVER had an application from any one who wasn't white english and male, how would you propose i got the "ethnic" mix right?

[LA]

Neo, though I may understand you wrong, from what I can tell is that you have some deluded view that it is not acceptable to discriminate against ethnics but it is okay to discriminate against white people.


The fact is, there should be no laws promoting one race above another - that is racism! The equality laws are racist and sexist.

[Neo2012]

Neo, though I may understand you wrong, from what I can tell is that you have some deluded view that it is not acceptable to discriminate against ethnics but it is okay to discriminate against white people.


The fact is, there should be no laws promoting one race above another - that is racism! The equality laws are racist and sexist.

you definitely understand me wrong. The fact is, there should be no laws promoting one race/sex above another - that is racism/sexism! And there is NO law that enforces positive discrimination. A minority of employers CHOOSE it, to make their workforce more EQUALLY representative of its community. Now why do you think they do this?
A/ Do you think they do it because they believe there is discrimination taking place?
B/ Do you genuinely believe the white employers want to discriminate against white employees?

Another couple of questions.
Do you believe there has never been any discrimination based upon race and sex? Or do you believe discrimination based upon race and sex no longer exist?

[Neo2012]

Quotas is not the answer, the answer must always be the one who is best qualified, experienced and suitable must get the job, regardless of how well represented a minority is, if we give jobs to people based on ethnic grouping, sex or religion or whatever else, then a) you are discriminating against someone, full stop there is no justification to infringe the rights of one to promote those of other, if you want to feed the fires of the extreme right, then this will do it.
B) Companies will be employing people who are not the best or most suitable, therefore the companies efficiency will suffer and that isn't good for anyones chances of keeping jobs in tough times.

I recruited staff several times in Peterborough for the quarry i worked on, advertised in both the job centre and local papers, Peterborough has largish strong immigrant communities, i recruited at least 15 times and i NEVER had an application from any one who wasn't white english and male, how would you propose i got the "ethnic" mix right?

I don't know. That's a fair question.

How ever, the fact is, there is NO law that enforces positive discrimination. A minority of employers CHOOSE it, to make their workforce more EQUALLY representative of its community. If employers choose to do this, should they be legally punished?

You know in the end, these laws were not introduced without provocation. What should have been done about boarding houses advertising no blacks, no Irish, no dogs? What should have been done about women being paid less for doing exactly the same job as men?

[LA]

you definitely understand me wrong. The fact is, there should be no laws promoting one race/sex above another - that is racism/sexism! And there is NO law that enforces positive discrimination. A minority of employers CHOOSE it, to make their workforce more EQUALLY representative of its community. Now why do you think they do this?
A/ Do you think they do it because they believe there is discrimination taking place?
B/ Do you genuinely believe the white employers want to discriminate against white employees?

Another couple of questions.
Do you believe there has never been any discrimination based upon race and sex? Or do you believe discrimination based upon race and sex no longer exist?

Sorry but there are laws which discriminate against white males in favour of ethnics and females.

Harriet Harman is constantly on about them!!

[Neo2012]

Sorry but there are laws which discriminate against white males in favour of ethnics and females.

Harriet Harman is constantly on about them!!

ok, it's OK to disagree. I think we are both , we're not going to agree.

Can I just had one other point, though not necessarily to you.

One of the things is, that people have been blaming the rise of the fascists on an anti discrimination laws. The problem with that idea to me is, racism, sexism, disability discrimination and significant support for fascist parties, all predated the anti-discrimination laws. The laws were brought in to try and deal with that situation. How successful they have been, he's obviously open to debate. Had personally think they have done little, I think other things have made people today far more fair, on these issues.

[LA]

fascists don't have to be racist - Make that clear. Fascists aren't necessarily racist.
Most people in this country are not racist, but vote for fringe parties purely because the major parties tell them not to.

It is a sort of "up yours society" thing.

Discrimination laws make it far worse, as the only thing they do is discriminate against the white males of this country.

[Balthazar]

Where I live in London was famous for having these notices in landladies' windows in the 1950s and 60s:





The police used to recruit NF members straight from school. They'd wear NF badges openly while on patrol. There was huge discrimination in jobs and housing against non-whites.

The discrimination laws were designed to stop that sort of behaviour and they've worked very well. Those who advocate their removal don't understand the history, or don't care, or wouldn't mind turning the clock back.

[LA]

Balthazar, what you have stated is very ignorant.
The laws may have been passed in good faith but they have failed.
They should be removed.

[Balthazar]

Balthazar, what you have stated is very ignorant.
The laws may have been passed in good faith but they have failed.
They should be removed.

With respect LA, what you've just stated is a series of argument-free assertions. Why, in your view, have the hate laws failed? Forgive me if you've answered this question earlier in the thread - could you link to your post?

An analogy is this internet forum. I'm free, within the law, the posting rules, the ISP's terms of service, and the rules of common decency, to write what I like. If I break the law, the posting rules, etc I'll be sanctioned by a moderator. If I don't like the law, the posting rules etc (or the mod's sanction) I'm free to take my pearl-like utterances elsewhere.

Equality legislation is similar (but more important than free speech on an internet forum because race hate, gay hate etc can lead to death and injury). I agree it shouldn't be pushed too far - it's a balance between total freedom of expression and the need to bash the hate-mongers. I'd also like to see a British constitutional right to free speech, similar to the US, so everyone knows where they stand and the balance can periodically be tested in a superior court.

But are you seriously maintaining that, say, a woman in a British workplace should have the size of her tits commented on by her manager and have no legal redress? There'd be total mayhem and, following a national scandal and ruined political careers of those who abolished the law, the legal hate speech sanction would be reintroduced.

People get mesmerised by the theory of free speech and forget what would happen in practice should the laws be removed. The BNP, of course, has a clear interest in abolishing the hate laws because they wish to publish disgusting lies about black people, free from having their collars felt by the rozzers.

[LA]

With respect LA, what you've just stated is a series of argument-free assertions. Why, in your view, have the hate laws failed? Forgive me if you've answered this question earlier in the thread - could you link to your post?

I will sum it up again for you.

The laws have failed because they do not create equality. They move the discrimination from one group to another.

An analogy is this internet forum. I'm free, within the law, the posting rules, the ISP's terms of service, and the rules of common decency, to write what I like. If I break the law, the posting rules, etc I'll be sanctioned by a moderator. If I don't like the law, the posting rules etc (or the mod's sanction) I'm free to take my pearl-like utterances elsewhere.

Equality legislation is similar (but more important than free speech on an internet forum because race hate, gay hate etc can lead to death and injury). I agree it shouldn't be pushed too far - it's a balance between total freedom of expression and the need to bash the hate-mongers. I'd also like to see a British constitutional right to free speech, similar to the US, so everyone knows where they stand and the balance can periodically be tested in a superior court.

Did you not hear recently, a bloke died because he made an enemy on an online game

But are you seriously maintaining that, say, a woman in a British workplace should have the size of her tits commented on by her manager and have no legal redress? There'd be total mayhem and, following a national scandal and ruined political careers of those who abolished the law, the legal hate speech sanction would be reintroduced.

That's not discrimination, that is very inappropriate behaviour, harassment or worse, perversion.

People get mesmerised by the theory of free speech and forget what would happen in practice should the laws be removed. The BNP, of course, has a clear interest in abolishing the hate laws because they wish to publish disgusting lies about black people, free from having their collars felt by the rozzers.

Freedom of Speech. The BNP can say what they like about black people, same as black people can say what they like about the BNP.

What annoys me most of all is I want to right to say what I damn well please. If I say something that is considered racist, sexist or offensive, rather than the person whom I offended complaining, they should get my attention and explain to me why my comments were foolish and why my view is deluded.

In terms of Freedom of Speech, America has it right. There are huge Nazi groups in America. They like to go on protest. To ensure their safety they are given police escorts.

America believes Freedom of Speech should be a right protected at all costs and I completely agree with that.

[Neo2012]

Balthazar, what you have stated is very ignorant.
The laws may have been passed in good faith but they have failed.
They should be removed.

so why does this no longer have and, if they have failed? A

A sign reading, NO PAKIS NO MUSLIMS NO DOGS, wouldn't happen today?

[LA]

so why does this no longer have and, if they have failed? A

A sign reading, NO PAKIS NO MUSLIMS NO DOGS, wouldn't happen today?

social attitudes have changed. You do not need legislation for that.

The Indians were hated when my dad was a child. No British person liked them and wanted them all to leave. Now we have no real problem with Indians.

Now a days we have problems with Muslims. That will change; hopefully so does the attitudes of the Muslims.

[Balthazar]

The laws have failed because they do not create equality. They move the discrimination from one group to another.

But the laws weren't designed to create equality. They were (and are) designed to criminalise certain types of behaviour which formerly were legal. What has that to do with equality? Sure, one of their effects was to create a more level playing field between blacks and whites when, say, applying for a job or renting a flat, but the law's primary role is to fine and imprison those caught behaving in certain, specified, ways.

What annoys me most of all is I want to right to say what I damn well please.

That's the nub of the problem imo. I feel exactly the same. But I don't have a problem saying precisely what I want while keeping within the law. I suspect you're the same. But that's because I know roughly what the law is, have thought about it, have worked within it, have talked it through with people many times, and generally feel relaxed about discussing these sorts of things.

Many, many people aren't like that. They see, say, a black person getting a council house before they do and fly off the handle. They express their displeasure with illegal, racist language and become even more infuriated when they're threatened with the law. It's at that point they tend to start complaining about 'freedom of speech' and 'political correctness' and may find their way to the BNP web site.

So the problem isn't really freedom of speech, political correctness or the race hate laws. The problem is stupid and/or ignorant people who find it difficult or impossible to discuss certain issues without breaking the law. Now, I think that's their problem and a problem within the education system. The law shouldn't be changed to appease ignorance or stupidity, and it certainly shouldn't be changed because the BNP seek to take advantage of stupid and ignorant people.