youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 7HoiM0Au8#!
British woman arrested for yelling racist rants against Poles and blacks on a Croydon
tram. Isn’t she protected with freedom of speech? Even if her speech was racist?
Article’s headline is “arrested” but the text says they have no clue where it was.
Doubt she’ll be arrested. In the worst/best case she’ll get some kind of fine.
[quote=“Maxxis”] Isn’t she protected with freedom of speech? Even if her speech was racist?
guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no … e-arrested[/quote]
Racist speech and any other forms of hate speech ,shouldn’t be protected, IMO.
[quote=“Maxxis”]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i47HoiM0Au8#!
British woman arrested for yelling racist rants against Poles and blacks on a Croydon
tram. Isn’t she protected with freedom of speech? Even if her speech was racist?
guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no … e-arrested[/quote]
I believe that her speech should be protected, to an extent (that is, I believe that only the usual time, place and manner restrictions should apply).
-
Are people opposed to her foul language? C’mon, its Britain. I really doubt that the Brits are offended by her use of the word, fuck.
-
Are people offended by her views on immigration policy? Should the state deny her the right to express her views on official immigration policy? I don’t think so.
My normal response to speech/opinions such as this is to inquire as to what the speaker has contributed to the welfare of the nation, in this case the UK, other than being white, in this particular case. I don’t see why the Government should need to intervene and infringe upon her right to express her political opinion, other than to enforce reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
Racism isn’t taken lightly in Europe anymore, people have been arrested and put to trial.
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Maxxis”]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i47HoiM0Au8#!
British woman arrested for yelling racist rants against Poles and blacks on a Croydon
tram. Isn’t she protected with freedom of speech? Even if her speech was racist?
guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no … e-arrested[/quote]
I believe that her speech should be protected, to an extent (that is, I believe that only the usual time, place and manner restrictions should apply).
-
Are people opposed to her foul language? C’mon, its Britain. I really doubt that the Brits are offended by her use of the word, fuck.
-
Are people offended by her views on immigration policy? Should the state deny her the right to express her views on official immigration policy? I don’t think so.
My normal response to speech/opinions such as this is to inquire as to what the speaker has contributed to the welfare of the nation, in this case the UK, other than being white, in this particular case. I don’t see why the Government should need to intervene and infringe upon her right to express her political opinion, other than to enforce reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.[/quote]
People, even in Britain, tend to take grave offence at people using language like that in front of little kids. And as far as I know, that kind of ranting is classed as hate speech. And she certainly comes across as pretty hateful. Well, more like mentally disturbed, actually.
In that case, there is no reason that the state should not regulate the use of profanity in places where children are expected to be.
I think it likely is. I’m just saying that I don’t think it should be. Well, at least it shouldn’t be against the law.
In that case, there is no reason that the state should not regulate the use of profanity in places where children are expected to be.
I think it likely is. I’m just saying that I don’t think it should be. Well, at least it shouldn’t be against the law.[/quote]
She should be charged for “incitement to riot” if you ask me.
Well… I think people should be held responsible for their actions. Had anyone rioted because of her foul language and objection to British immigration policy, then I would favor the rioters having the Riot Act invoked against them!
Seriously… what if this woman was just sitting on the tram stating the same opinions, but, in a polite way without the foul language? Surely she would/should be permitted to voice her opinion?
The liberal establishment in the UK has ignored a lot of grassroots concerns about mass immigration. I don’t think this tram woman articulated her discontent very productively. However, the liberal establishment in the UK, in the past, has smeared even the most erudite critics of mass immigration. 40 years later, a lot of Powell’s predictions were proven to be correct were they not? I especially like the part in the video about the lack of consultation. It’s that institutional arrogance for decades and decades that gets people like the tram woman riled up.
Perhaps. But, I’m not at all concerned with the correctness of her complaints. I just think that she should be free to express her political views, even if unpopular. The proper, way to deal with most speech is with more speech (rebuttal).
Tigerman,
There are no laws in the UK against using foul language - it is not an offence in itself. However, if you cause alarm, harassment or distress through your behaviour and language, than this is an offence. Even so, in order for the person to be arrested, a police officer has to warn the offender first, informing them that they will be arrested if they continue to behave in this manner.
By comparison, I believe in the US it is illegal to swear or use profanity in public or on the telephone AT ALL in 9 US States, as far as I know, but I’m not sure which ones they are.
In regard to freedom of speech - there is freedom of speech here. But she also committed a crime, and that was to threaten some of the other passengers verbally with violence. If it can be proven that the threats of violence were racially motivated, then her punishment could be stiffer.
Furthermore, if it is believed that a persons language or outspoken views are designed to provoke or incite violence or attack, through either speech or literature, then that person can be arrested.
There is absolutely no question here as to whether or not she is denied the use of free speech here - she wasn’t. it is her mannerisms and other laws she had potentially broken that are in question, and whether the breaking of those laws amount to racially motivated crime.
Seriously… what if this woman was just sitting on the tram stating the same opinions, but, in a polite way without the foul language? Surely she would/should be permitted to voice her opinion?[/quote]
She wasn’t. Take the video at face value. Are you seriously positing that she was merely expressing her views with no agenda other than to politely state her case? Its antisocial behaviour designed to provoke and incense, and KUDOS to those victims of her abuse for not rising to her bait. You might be convinced that she had every right to vilify, insult, mock and denigrate those people on that train to her heart’s content, but I’m pretty certain that, thankfully, there’s not a court in the land that would agree with you on that score. But we’ll see, I guess. I bet the Sun has already indentified her.
[quote=“Super Hans”]There are no laws in the UK against using foul language - it is not an offence in itself. However, if you cause alarm, harassment or distress through your behaviour and language, than this is an offence. Even so, in order for the person to be arrested, a police officer has to warn the offender first, informing them that they will be arrested if they continue to behave in this manner.
By comparison, I believe in the US it is illegal to swear or use profanity in public or on the telephone AT ALL in 9 US States, as far as I know, but I’m not sure which ones they are.[/quote]
Yes? Did she cause alarm? I don’t know. I didn’t see the video. I only read the report. The report indicated that she was sitting on the tram holding her baby on her lap. If so, I doubt that she could have reasonably caused alarm. So, was she harrassing the other passengers? Causing distress?
Well, then. That’s a different matter. That’s possibly assault, in the US. I say possibly, because there would have to be a reasonable fear of imminent battery for there to be an assault. Was she sitting down with her baby on her lap? Or was something else going on? Again, I haven’t seen the video and the report left these details out.
This was a young woman sitting on a tram with a baby on her lap? The only violence or attack I can imagine her inciting would be against her self.
So then. It would have been acceptable for her to state her views re immigration policy had she done so without the use of foul language and in an otherwise polite manner?
Watch the video. You may have a different take on it then.
I haven’t yet seen the video. I’m only commenting on the principles of the matter.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”]
Watch the video. You may have a different take on it then.
[Fantastic footage of a British racist
I’ll watch it when I get home. Cannot view it here at the office.
Yes, absolutely.
[quote]
This was a young woman sitting on a tram with a baby on her lap? The only violence or attack I can imagine her inciting would be against her self.[/quote]
The definition is to cause alarm, harassment or distress - it doesn’t state who to. The potential for her to cause a fight either between herself and another passenger or two or more other passengers who hold differing opinions (one agreeing with her and protecting her and another who takes offence at what she says, for example) is very real. Also, the concepts of what cause alarm, harassment and distress are very subjective and whether one felt alarmed, harassed and distressed would be battled out in court.
If a young woman is capable of spouting this much abuse, so loudly and in the manner in which she did with a child on her lap, I would bet that it wouldn’t take much for her to get up and give someone a slap. The child and the situation she put him in is of no consequence to her.
So, these folks were all hauled into court and prosecuted, too?
Well I believe these guys at least have been
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15688513