[johnstylet]

Anti-racism is racism too!

And is pro-race!

Maybe some day all the race fanatics, including tolerance criminals and actual real racists, maybe some day we realize that if we want to get rid of racism, we shouldn't treat races differently in common issues.

As in 'you're yellow, I need to treat you differently' or anything else either. How about just treating people like you treat all people, huh?

These tolerance criminals are always strenghtening the role of race, well that leads to racism every single time at the end.

[OixKKcj1]

Originally posted by Pekka
Anti-racism is racism too!

And is pro-race!

Maybe some day all the race fanatics, including tolerance criminals and actual real racists, maybe some day we realize that if we want to get rid of racism, we shouldn't treat races differently in common issues.

As in 'you're yellow, I need to treat you differently' or anything else either. How about just treating people like you treat all people, huh?

These tolerance criminals are always strenghtening the role of race, well that leads to racism every single time at the end.
Just treat people as individuals. No group penalties, no special privileges.

[chootsonege]

Caligastia, yes. Like I feel in msot other issues, if you respect the individual, you ALWAYS respect all minorities.

But not everyone can treat individuals and respecting them at the same time. Racists for example would often find that difficult

[viiagrag]

Originally posted by BeBro
I'm superior to you Yes, yes of course you are dear. *pats head*

[LSg44PDu]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well if you think tehere are average differences based on a race (disregarding environment and other factors), well that's your opinion. I'm not particularly interested in that question so I'm not getting emotional over that. Exactly, and why should anyone get emotional over it? It's scientific question, not a moral one.

What matters is how that carries into your actions of course.

If you treat everyone the same, in the objective world and not your own subjective mind, there's no problem at all. But people like to cry a lot, some people are experts on getting offended, it's their hobby.. for some it's even their job to be offended.

And when you get offended,... it is not YOU who have to reasonably argue, it is the offensive one who has to defend himself, and against what? There's nothing to defend against, because the offended one just got offended, period. So the offensive party always loses that battle, because the tolerance criminals are the ones deciding the winner of that issue, and the winner is the offended one by default and the offensive party is the guilty one - by default.

SO they one who gets offended can always win against anyone, so it's desireable to be offended in certain situatons if they want some goals done. This is, of course ridiculous. But thanks to tolerance criminals, that somehow has gotten to be acceptable and a legit way to act.

That is, the society of the weakest link decides the rules. Yep.

[gdjfhdf]

Well it really comes down to what is tolerance. If we limit the options we have, that's not tolerating other ideas or people. Tolerance is accepting other ideas and people.

Good example is the whole Danish cartoon thing. The difference is, that who is the one not tolerating? The people who get offended by it are the ones who need to tolerate the situation. It is not the others who are being intolerant in that situation.

Even more so when the pressure comes from outside the country. You are letting people, completely out of your realm, to dictate you what is acceptable and what is not, because if we don't accept it, you are being intolerant. How is that again? If we don't accept it, then WE are being intolerant.

This is the way of that country. So we must accept them or we can not accept them, but fi we don't accept them, we are showing intolerance against their ways. That's OK by all means, however don't blame the other one being intolerant.

This is a situation where outsiders are dictating your rights. And you are saying ok we kind of fought for these rights but we'll give it away. that's not tolerance. That's limiting your own options because someone else is being intolerant.

SO the whole scenario is when the tolerance issue is turned upside down and it's really weird. And tolerance criminals are all about ooooh what about their feelings? Yeah, so? What about my feelings? So how about we let these outsiders cry and create themselves their own intolerant nation, why should we stop them doing that, they can do what they want with their own resources.

So what we're really doing is being tolerant with the intolerant ones, as long as they are being intolerant against us. That's just stupid, and in the name of tolerance too! And who was being violent in that situation? Is that a show of tolerance? I don't think so. It was icing on the cake showing intolerance, but our tolerance criminals somehow screwed it up again.

LImiting options is not tolerance, accepting those different things is tolerance.

[steansathtpos]

Pekka, you and I largely agree on this issue. It is good that at least one European here is a true liberal.

[alexbookhyip]

talking about the OP, the BNP are a vile bunch of fascists, but they are entitled to the same rights as everybody else. the governments response to this is far more worrying than anything the BNP have come out with, and is yet another example of their authoritarian tendencies.

the whole thing was a farce from start to finish, there a law against inciting racial hatred, but none against inciting religious hatred (it was defeated in parliament this year) and muslims are not of one race. therefore you'd think it was rather obvious that this prosecuting would fail. however instead of letting the matter quietly drop, the authorities pressed on, giving the BNP lots of free air time to spread their views, and now that the inevitable failure has come, it is being used by new labour, as another excuse to restrict people's freedoms.

[addifttiest]

Seems I'm doomed

[Zhgpavye]

Originally posted by C0ckney
to clear one or two things up about english law regarding defamation. the burden of proof is on the accused, but there are good reasons behind this. the accuser must prove that the accused has published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual, or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. So what? If the person is a public figure (esp. a politician), and it's true, then good for the person who defamed him

[WaydayTew]

Here's what you do about guys like the BNP. You wait until someone is hurt by one of their members, you get the perpetrator to confess that he acted under their influence, then the victim takes the group to court and sues them for a large enough sum to shut them down. It has worked against the KKK in the US.

[DexOnenlyCymn]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
"Hate" laws "Hate crimes" as they are inaccurately labled in the U.S. are aimed at crimes that have two kinds of victims. Like all crimes, the first victim is the direct victim, the poor person who is killed, beat up, or raped. But hate crimes are also aimed at terrorizing a minority community, to keep the members of that ethnic group "in their place." The direct victim is targetted, not because of something that person did or because the crime is a random act, but because the direct victim is a member of an ethnic group which the purpetrators seek to terrorize.

Laws against "hate crimes"
Domestic terrorism

________________________________________

This having been said, the "crime" described in the OP is not a hate crime. It may be hate. But it's not a crime.

Spouting off, criticizing a religion or a political party or whatever, is no crime...not even if the opinion is misguided. We need criticism in order to learn of our weaknesses, so that we may improve ourselves.

Trying to make someone agree with your point of view by outlawing their own.

[ulw7A8Po]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


"Hate crimes" as they are inaccurately labled in the U.S. are aimed at crimes that have two kinds of victims. Like all crimes, the first victim is the direct victim, the poor person who is killed, beat up, or raped. But hate crimes are also aimed at terrorizing a minority community, to keep the members of that ethnic group "in their place." The direct victim is targetted, not because of something that person did or because the crime is a random act, but because the direct victim is a member of an ethnic group which the purpetrators seek to terrorize.

Laws against "hate crimes"
Domestic terrorism

________________________________________

This having been said, the "crime" described in the OP is not a hate crime. It may be hate. But it's not a crime.

Spouting off, criticizing a religion or a political party or whatever, is no crime...not even if the opinion is misguided. We need criticism in order to learn of our weaknesses, so that we may improve ourselves.

Trying to make someone agree with your point of view by outlawing their own.
QFT.

[xochgtlm]

I think any system in which the burden of proof is on the accused is fundamentally broken.

[kneexyFreedly]

Bottom line - if you can't justify it, don't say/publish it.

No, bottom line - if you can't afford to justify it to the level required in court, you're ****ed.