[Indo-Chinese Food]

Im no supporter of militant islamists as most people who have dicussed with me will know, equally im fully supportive of laws to stamp out racism and incitment to racial hatred. But i am proud of our rights of free speech which go hand in hand with our democracy.

However the case im referring to above in which a muslim teenager was arrested by West Yorkshire police for a "racially aggravated public order offence’ " for posting on his facebook page admitedly distastefully vehement critisism of soliders in afganistan shocked me somewhat. Looking at what he posted, i see know evidence of any ethnicity or race being discriminating against of any type. It was simply a crude political statement.
In fact we have seen reports of facebook pages of more inflammatory pages glorifying shooting of afgan "towel heads" as they put it, without any police action.

Anyone that spends time on tsr knows many such similar comments have been made, Infact our laws do allow for us to be critical of all political bodies, here and abroad and the army would be ones of those.

Are the racism laws being re-drawn/reinterpretated - or is this an isolated action of a local police force that is trying to excercise some political strong-arming over muslims in its area? And should this be allowed?

[Bonged.]

As absolutely moronic as charging him for racism is, if people are going to sign up to the idea of race relations, political correctness etc, the truthfulness of what he said and why he said it doesn't matter. It would harm race relations to allow him to say "british soldiers go to hell".

Personally I think you should be able to say whatever you like to whoever you like, but I'm in a zany minority on this.

[Snagprophet]

The definition of racism has already been changed. It now includes cultures(?????), nationalities (?????) and religions (????) for some unknown stupid reason.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
The definition of racism has already been changed. It now includes cultures(?????), nationalities (?????) and religions (????) for some unknown stupid reason.

The United Nations High Commission for Human Rights has always deemed cultural, nationality and religious discrimination as forms of racism. I agree; I don't know why some people think insulting someone's culture or religion somehow less offensive than insulting their race.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Bonged.)
As absolutely moronic as charging him for racism is, if people are going to sign up to the idea of race relations, political correctness etc, the truthfulness of what he said and why he said it doesn't matter. It would harm race relations to allow him to say "british soldiers go to hell".

Personally I think you should be able to say whatever you like to whoever you like, but I'm in a zany minority on this.

i dont beleive he said "british soldiers go to hell" in fact i dont even think he said 'british' People slag off polticians all the time, the army dont get any special treatment from other offical national bodies. That is the right of democracy. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination or even 'political correctness' as you call it.

[silent ninja]

The charges are a joke. I don't know where to start. They are gonna have to lock up half of Britain if that's all it takes to break the law.

Amazing, talk about civilil liberties being eroded...

[tc92]

Do you have a quote of what he said?? Haven't seen much about the case so can't really pass judgement either way.

[prog2djent]

The charges are ridiculous, and the fact that racism now included criticism of religion and culture is absolutely awful, I can understand why being offensive towards nationality can be offensive like "Sly Chinkies" or "Dirty Paki's", I think that is worse than offending a culture/religion, which IMHO, isn't really wrong at all. I was going to put a lot of agressive swear words into the post but the TSR (I am really trying hard not to type out what I'm thinking hahaha, keyboard warriers FTW), lets say TSR overwatch take anything down that a) Even slightly (not completely) fringes on the edge of the terms and conditions, b) they really don't agree with, user Nicknick1 had the book thrown at him yet others like A Level Az I think it is , well, you know the rest.

Our civil liberties are dying, really dying out, its an odd combination, you can't say un PC things in regards to race, naionality, Religion, culture, but when you criticise the UK army, then that's wrong.

Its like the left authoritarians and right authoritarians are battling out to see who can gain more power to the state.

[tufc]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
The United Nations High Commission for Human Rights has always deemed cultural, nationality and religious discrimination as forms of racism. I agree; I don't know why some people think insulting someone's culture or religion somehow less offensive than insulting their race.

It doesn't matter how offensive they are: it's not the government's role to gauge offensiveness of comments, as it's entirely subjective, and it's certainly not their role to legislate against such comments.

[lulubel]

as a white european i am sick and tired of the orwellian state cracking down on our peoples opinions. so, i must condemn this absurd police action otherwise i would be a hypocrite.


so what if he said 'british soldiers go to hell'? i disagree with the statement. he should have said 'british foreign policy go to hell' -- in which case i would agree.

but still, he should not have been arrested.

i will say zionism go to hell. america go to hell-- britain, please try not to get burned on the way down.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by tufc)
It doesn't matter how offensive they are: it's not the government's role to gauge offensiveness of comments, as it's entirely subjective, and it's certainly not their role to legislate against such comments.

The government doesn't gauge the offensiveness of such comments; a judge and jury will.

[tufc]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
The government doesn't gauge the offensiveness of such comments; a judge and jury will.

Yes, using legislation written by the government, and guidelines written by the CPS.

[abdiz12]

(Original post by lulubel)
as a white european i am sick and tired of the orwellian state cracking down on our peoples opinions. so, i must condemn this absurd police action otherwise i would be a hypocrite.


so what if he said 'british soldiers go to hell'? i disagree with the statement. he should have said 'british foreign policy go to hell' -- in which case i would agree.

but still, he should not have been arrested.

i will say zionism go to hell. america go to hell-- britain, please try not to get burned on the way down.

Dude he didn't even say 'British soldiers go to hell', he said 'all soldiers go to hell'. This is an outrage if it takes just that to be arrested.

[Steevee]

Well to be honest, if you can't say 'Muslims go to hell' then you shouldn't be allowed to say 'British soldiers go to hell'.

Personally I think both should be legal to say.

[abdiz12]

(Original post by tc92)
Do you have a quote of what he said?? Haven't seen much about the case so can't really pass judgement either way.

Dude here it is “People gassin about the deaths of soldiers! What about the innocent familys who have been brutally killed.. The women who have been raped.. The children who have been sliced up..! Your enemy’s were the Taliban not innocent harmless familys. All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE FOKKIN SCUM! gotta problem go cry at your soliders grave & wish him hell because that where he is going..”.

[Chimaira]

(Original post by Steevee)
Well to be honest, if you can't say 'Muslims go to hell' then you shouldn't be allowed to say 'British soldiers go to hell'.

Personally I think both should be legal to say.

This, this is the only logical conclusion to come to.

[AverageExcellence]

There is clear bias in society when racism is concerned, gathering the comments already made it seems the case that its quite absurd for arresting the guy for what he said on facebook. But then there was unanimous discontent about what the women said on the 'my tram experience' video. Both were equally abnoxious and offensive regardless of whether its delivered face to face or to the masses on a networking site.

Just saying.

[Time Tourist]

There isn't one. But this is desirable - in the same way that there are no laws in 1984.

It creates the kind of self-censorship the people in this country engage in today.

People know they may be arbitrarily arrested and detained for expressing an opinion which is 'Incorrect'.

Unless of course you are a member of the ruling establishment, like Dianne Abbot.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by tufc)
Yes, using legislation written by the government, and guidelines written by the CPS.

I don't see what you're problem with that is? Do you endorse racism? Do you think it is acceptable?

[darkfang77]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
The United Nations High Commission for Human Rights has always deemed cultural, nationality and religious discrimination as forms of racism. I agree; I don't know why some people think insulting someone's culture or religion somehow less offensive than insulting their race.

Eating fish and chips is just as yummy as eating egg tarts..

But just because I'm eating egg tarts, it doesn't mean I'm eating fish and chips too.