Racist Woman On Tram - Charged.

There are many.



No Indian ethnic group is predominantly Negroid. All ethnic groups indigenous to India are of Indian ethnicity -- by definition.

With regard to Gandhi, he specifically resisted Westernisation and made efforts to reinvigorate traditional Indian customs and occupations. No civic nationalist he.

Actually Indians are caucasian, one's race is determined purely by their bone structure and not by the colour of their skin

Actually Indians are caucasian, one's race is determined purely by their bone structure and not by the colour of their skin

I don't know why you're directing this at me?

Indians are generally caucasoid where that term is used; caucasian generally means 'White' i.e., European. The great continental race divisions, more often these days 'continental population groupings' - they pretend race does not exist while studying it and identifying it in ever more detail - are usually defined by genes these days, although forensic anthroplogists among others can identify most people's race from skull shape.

Yeah Caucasian refers to the northern European so the english, Russians, Polish, Georgian etc. I'm not sure about Spanish and Greek though, as ike myself their hair and skin is much darker in comparison. But at the same time the Bone structure thing does make sence

He's dead. Moreover, if you "really do" then, like Mill, you accept the need to impose some restrictions on freedom of expression. The latter is wholly contrary to everything you have said in this thread, hitherto. You seem confused...

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Mill was clearly prejudiced towards a class of people who he viewed as being more "civilised" or "cultivated" but he certainly wasn't racist. In fact, Mill almost worshipped French society in his essay entitled: Considerations on Representative Government (1861). That's unfortunate for you because France was then, as it is now, a highly multicultural society.

Have a read of Nigel Warbuton's (short) book on Free Speech, of Mill he says: "John Stuart Mill, the most celebrated contributor to debates about the limits of individual freedom... set the boundary at the point where speech or writing was an incitement to violence.

On that note, I am no longer having this highly futile conversation with you. You don't seem to know what you believe; it's quite clear, as a matter of fact, that you and Mill have completely different ideas about the extent of free speech but yet you persist in using his writing to advocate your own backwards stance.

I know a thread was created relating to the fact this woman had gone off on a racist rant on a London tram, but I'm not sure if anyone had created a thread about the fact she has now been charged.

"Police have charged a woman after footage of a racist rant on board an east London tram was uploaded to YouTube.

34-year-old Emma West of New Addington, Croydon, has been charged of a racially aggravated public order offence in connection with the video. Ms West will appear before Croydon Magistrates Court on Tuesday. "


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-arrested-after-racial-outburst-goes-viral.html

I don't believe that you did.

Sounds like he means to ... harm people

Less bluster, more modesty and study please. I take no pleasure in embarassing you -- I would much prefer to keep the discussion to just the ideas and leave aside all personal comments.

Just . I can't even be bothered to have this discussion with you any more. My previous post says it all. You contradict yourself in almost every post; your arguments are unintelligible (not to mention, completely ill-founded). I've finished my studying, thanks. Good luck with yours. Seems you still have some distance to go.

Who do you think you're kidding? You haven't identified any contradictions

I quoted Mill’s line about the 'fullest liberty' because this represents my viewpoint (I suppose it’s necessary to say ‘with the usual caveats’). You obviously googled the phrase and rather than reply to the point I was making you responded with a further quotation from Mill that you took to mean he would not grant free speech to immature not terribly bright people like Tram Lady, but which in fact concerned children and the congenitally retarded -- as would have been clear to you if you had been reading the work in its original and full context and were not just googling for soundbites. 0-1.

The same thing happened when you turned up another out of context quote that you took to imply that Mill would repress Tram Lady’s speech on account of her social class. In fact, and as I showed, Mill was intending to say that certain foreign societies lacking the advantage of our mature intellectual and political culture ought not to enjoy the fuller freedoms that we can cope with. 0-2

As an aside I observed that Mill had written about the value of racial, ethnic and cultural homogeneity in maintaining freedoms and functioning political systems but deliberately did not provide the quotation because I already suspected you’d googled the previous passage I provided and wanted to see if you would show any familiarity with this reference -- but obviously it was unknown to you since you came back with a weak and unrelated point about waycism and les Frogs. 0-3.

When you later posted a triumphal note on Mill’s harm principle and its supposed refutation of my comments in this thread, even though my first post in this thread said ‘no harm, no crime’, and in an earlier reply to you I had said that speech which puts people in danger should not be protected, it became clear you were not even reading my posts but were just fulminating righteously against someone whose politics you dislike. 0-4.

Like I said, no hard feelings, but please in future just stick to the ideas if you have any. Everyone comes out of it better.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16051120

Appears to be pleading not guilty...

The question of free speech as it relates to this thread turned not on incitement or age, but on whether some OPINIONS just shouldn't be allowed.

One may be a defender of free speech AND adhere to the harm principle or consider it a responsibility too much for children while still not considering it necessary to shout about these conditions at each turn. Although, as I have said, I did indeed express my approval of these conditions, even before you entered the thread -- your repeated claim that I hadn't is just getting weird now.

I did think she's being an idiot, but I heard that if you claim to be drunk and Muslim (it is a religion not an ethnicity) you can get away with worse.

Ahh I look like an idiot now... when I posted that link the story said she pleaded not guilty oops