Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Racist Woman On Tram - Charged.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40

Beebumble

Original post by Vikki1805

Was it? The article said "East." Therefore I went with that.

Easy way to solve it....

"London."

I used to get that very tram to school. It's definitely South. Someone at yahoo needs a Geography lesson. :biggrin:

As for the woman good. She broke the law and now needs to live up to the consequences. If she has mental health issues I'm sure it will come out in court and the judge will punish her appropriately.

Reply 41

Bonged.

You can be arrested for espousing an unpopular opinion?

How the hell does that solve anything?

Reply 42

nmds

Original post by Bonged.

You can be arrested for espousing an unpopular opinion?

How the hell does that solve anything?

If the aim is to silence political opposition and make the population fearful, it solves plenty.

Reply 43

Bonged.

Original post by nmds

If the aim is to silence political opposition and make the population fearful, it solves plenty.

People seem largely supportive however of crackdowns on free speech, on this site anyway. I literally didn't know it was possible to be arrested in this country for expressing an opinion.

What I find more distressing than the way this mentally disturbed woman articulates her views in such an uneducated and profane manner, is the way that the majority of this site seems to be suggesting that she should have been set upon.

Reply 44

problemsolver

I'm honestly quite surprised by this. I see people going off on rants like this on buses quite often

Reply 45

nmds

Original post by Bonged.

People seem largely supportive however of crackdowns on free speech, on this site anyway. I literally didn't know it was possible to be arrested in this country for expressing an opinion.

Tragic isn't it.

What I find more distressing than the way this mentally disturbed woman articulates her views in such an uneducated and profane manner, is the way that the majority of this site seems to be suggesting that she should have been set upon.

It's the easiest way to show you're Good with a capital G -- pile on a White racist. The second easiest way to show you're Good is to praise a Black or Asian racist -- Gandhi or the Dalai Lama say -- both of them ethnic nationalists just like the sad lady on the tram -- but to eyes taught not to see straight, worlds apart.

Reply 46

Mr_Deeds

Original post by nmds

It appears that the 'freedom' of people to colonise England has resulted in the slavery of the English. Slavery is violation of consent. This lady, like most of us did not consent to being colonised. Now she may not even express resentment about her country being colonised.

I think the word you're looking for is "settled" since, if you have but an iota of history knowledge, you'll realise that "to colonise" actually implies the taking of territory by violence and/or force.

Unless I'm mistaken, we British have a worse history of colonisation than the overwhelming majority of immigrants who arrive here legitimately every year. It might also surprise you to learn that a percentage of those immigrants come from war-torn countries where the presence of our military is, and arguably always has been, wholly unlawful.

Vague.

That doesn't sound like an answer, to me. A quick google search will show you that paedophilia is often, and problematically, justified on freedom of expression grounds.

Sounds like he means to violate a contract and harm people. Not the same. This lady is complaining about a breaking of the social contract among citizens to be loyal to one another over foreigners, and about the harm done to her people.

No. This "lady" is a thug. If she was as well-intentioned as you claim she might have voiced her concerns in the appropriate manner. Today this country has witnessed some of the largest public sector strikes in living memory. Those striking are doing so because of their discontent with part of the current government's economic policy. If you take issue with immigration (or any other decision made by the government) this is the proper way to voice your concerns; i.e. respectfully, responsibly and with humility.

We have no right to insist that views we do not like are silenced.

Of course you cannot silence a view merely because you dislike or disagree with it (and I've never suggested the contrary). But it is perfectly legitimate for the law (and the powers that be) to impose restrictions on the way in which that view is expressed. Freedom of expression is as much a responsibility as it is a right and those whom abuse their rights should be held both responsible and accountable.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 47

nmds

Original post by Mr_Deeds

Force is not at all a necessary factor of colonisation, consult the OED online for example (where the very first definition amusingly has settle and colonise as synonyms) – but in any event force is used. These immigrations were enacted with the support and protection of the government whose agents have frequently acted with force against opposition campaigners.

Unless I'm mistaken, we British have a worse history of colonisation than the overwhelming majority of immigrants who arrive here legitimately every year.

The British continue their tradition of imposing colonies on subject populations today. Most significantly in England. Let's focus on what we can fix.

It might also surprise you to learn that a percentage of those immigrants come from war-torn countries where the presence of our military is, and arguably always has been, wholly unlawful.

Not a surprise at all. But can you have the one without the other?

You should consider that anti-war, anti-imperial, anti-globalisation, pro-Tibetan, pro-Palestinian and other related movements are fundamentally compromised, morally and politically, while they remain hostile to European peoples’ claims for sovereignty and self-determination.

It’s not only that your position is objectively racist, denying to peoples that happen to be White what you defend and promote for all peoples that happen not to be, and that this undermines the claim that e.g. Palestinians or Iraqis have a ‘right’ to live free and unmolested in their homelands. But by insisting that our former ethno states be transformed, against our known wishes, into ‘proposition nations’ defined by expressly universal standards, there is created the ideological necessity to intervene in other countries when these standards are challenged. Where loyalty to a people is replaced with loyalty to an idea that’s said to have universal truth, it becomes necessary to oppose alternatives to that idea, or that model of political order, wherever the opposition arises.

That doesn't sound like an answer, to me. A quick google search will show you that paedophilia is often, and problematically, justified on freedom of expression grounds.

Sexual self expression is a quite different thing to speech.

If she was as well-intentioned as you claim she might have voiced her concerns in the appropriate manner.

Her frustration only exists because the authorities have thwarted the will of the people on this issue for decades. If you think this lady is thuggish, my fear is you ain’t seen nothing yet. No nation allows itself to be destroyed peacefully.

I do not agree. All speech, all writings, all art should be permitted.

Freedom of expression is as much a responsibility as it is a right and those whom abuse their rights should be held both responsible and accountable.

One cannot abuse one’s rights – they’re yours to do whatever you want with – otherwise they are not rights.

Reply 48

effofex

Original post by Bonged.

That's not what she was arrested for.

Reply 49

Tudball

Disturbing public peace? Agreed.
Racially aggravated? No.

Reply 50

effofex

Original post by nmds

Tragic isn't it.

It's the easiest way to show you're Good with a capital G -- pile on a White racist. The second easiest way to show you're Good is to praise a Black or Asian racist -- Gandhi or the Dalai Lama say -- both of them ethnic nationalists just like the sad lady on the tram -- but to eyes taught not to see straight, worlds apart.

He was a civic nationalist, since nobody can be 'ethnically Indian'. The whole nation is multiethnic, and therefore a civic concept.

Reply 51

Kebark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrUJ_NGipv4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

this guy should have sorted the woman out

Reply 52

nmds

Original post by effofex

He was a civic nationalist, since nobody can be 'ethnically Indian'. The whole nation is multiethnic, and therefore a civic concept.

Multiple ethnicities can come under one umbrella: American Indians are another example, obviously it's an ethnic designation because the tribes are related to one another more closely than to other groups and each tribe is an ethnic group in itself. Jews in Israel similarly.

Reply 53

Kebark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrUJ_NGipv4
We should have this bloke on all trams :-D

Reply 54

nmds

The first page of a google search for "ethnic indians" find them being discussed by the BBC, the Guardian and Wikipedia. I personally have known Indians who identify as Indians ethnically.

Reply 55

RustyDavies

I'm probably the last person in Britain to see this clip, but it is truly disgusting how she viewed her opinion so publicly.

Reply 56

Clumsy_Chemist

I don't know why there's such argument over what is or isn't an ethnicity. It's not an absolute/discreet identification, it's a fluid concept applied in different ways by different people and it's a waste of time to try to lay down rules about whether ethnicity means race or nationality.

What I think is most tragic about the video is the fact that her son had to listen to it all. What chance does he have in life with scum like that for a mother?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 57

Mr_Deeds

Original post by nmds

...One cannot abuse one’s rights – they’re yours to do whatever you want with – otherwise they are not rights.

I think we'll just agree to disagree since our views are irreconcilable; you believe that racists should be allowed to express their views when, where and however they please. I think racists are entitled to their views (however disturbing I find them) but that there should be restrictions on the way in which those views can be expressed.

Where you are wrong as a matter of fact, however, is in your argument that one can do whatever one wants with a right merely because that right exists. Freedom of expression derives from Art. 10 ECHR; it is a qualified right, like many others, and it always has been. Article 10(2) itself states that "the exercise of [freedom of expression], since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society...".

Reply 58

effofex

Original post by nmds

The first page of a google search for "ethnic indians" find them being discussed by the BBC, the Guardian and Wikipedia. I personally have known Indians who identify as Indians ethnically.

There cannot be a single Indian ethnicity, since there are people from groups that fall under all three racial categories (Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid) who are considered indigenous to India.

The BBC & Guardian are wrong.