Perverts and Refugees

“It is the time for all British servicemen to be slaughtered.” - Dr. Zaki Badawi

“10 downing Street should be burned to the ground - I have no regard for the occupants within. Go ahead, I will be very happy.” - Dr. Zaki Badawi

“…Gays should be thrown off the top of buildings…” - Dr. Zaki Badawi

This man, a muslim cleric, was allowed to stand in the street surrounded by police recorded by TV cameras and say what he wanted. He incited racial hatred and violence. He was not arrested under new laws preventing the incitement of racial hatred.

And yet, in his Scottish free papers under the heading “Perverts & Refugees”, Mr Buchan wrote:

"The people of rural England have been in massive rebelling (sic) over the establishment of refugee centres holding upwards of 5000 immigrants because they were fully aware that their communities would be swamped and turned into cesspools.[/i]

“The reason that the people of rural England have reject (sic) this is that they know their communities would be turned into ghettos where murder, rape, robbery, assault, break-ins and numerous other crimes became prevalent.”

Of course, this man was charged with inciting racial hatred after a two hour interview with police.
I agree from a journalistic point of view, the writing is a bit sloppy. But to be charged with Incitement to Racial Hatred?

Link to full article:

http://tonguetied.us/archives/001974.php.

Is it me, or are there double standards here? Huge, glaringly obvious, neon signed double standards?

On the same line:

But we are not allowed to talk about that, either.

Badawi’s ravings incite hatred and violence, but not based on race. Therefore that particular law does not apply.

[quote]“It is the time for all British servicemen to be slaughtered.” - Dr. Zaki Badawi
[/quote]

British were singled out, therefore a race was mentioned. If I said all Iraqi’s should be slaughtered, I would be arrested under this law. No?

“British” is neither a race nor an ethnicity, it is a nationality. Do you think British soldiers are all white Anglo-Saxons?

No, but you don’t have to be intelligent to work out that in this case it insinutes that this is what they are.
For your information, you have to be British to join the army, either by birth or by naturalisation.

Answer one question Juba:

“All Iraqis should be slaughtered; and all members of the Iraqi military should be killed.”

Am I being racist?
If I said this publically on television, would a police investigation follow?

If you read the link to the article, where did the author mention any race or colour?
He was arrested and charged but no reference to any race was mentioned at all in his writings. Yet he was charged in accordance with section 19 - Prevention of incitemnet to racial hatred.
Is this fair? Wouldn’t you agree that this is a clear case of double standards in a Britain where you can’t breath British air without being labelled as some kind of raving racist.

The author made reference to refugees. Are refugees belonging to just one race? Country?

Nice avatar, by the way.

[color=red]Race[/color] - [url=http://www.answers.com/topic/race-1]

A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
[/url]

Oh oh. Now, you have done it Tigerman. You have brought up Germans and Race and that cannot be a good mix. Wonder why Gunther Grass would have to say about the race factor along with the ism factor. Maybe that can be the subject of his next book.

[color=red]Race[/color] - [url=http://www.answers.com/topic/race-1]

A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
[/url][/quote]

And we’re off again!

… the recurring debate about the definition of “race”! :laughing:

Actually, Tigerman you may remember this better than I do: How many of these discussions have taken place in the moderators forums, and how many have taken place in the public forums? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think it’s been debated exensively both places.

In any event, I think we can all agree that the definition you quoted confirms that “British” can be considered a race. I think we can also all agree that this usage is less common. Most of us, for example, would not consider “South Africans” to be one single race. As technical matter, yes one can make the argument that South Africans or Americans are all of the same race as their countrymen – but I think in terms of common sense daily usage this strikes most of us as an unhelpful definition. Indeed the link you provided confirms exactly this, as its #1 definition says that race has to do with “genetically transmitted physical characteristics”.

Anyway, at the risk of cutting this horse-race short a bit, maybe we can all stipulate up front the following:

[color=blue]“IF by ‘race’ you mean answers.com’s definition #1, then no – ‘British’ would not be considered a race. IF by ‘race’ you mean answers.com’s definition #2, then ‘British’ would count as a race.”[/color]

Who knows, maybe I am uncessarily worried that the debate is going to get hung up on this point – but perhaps we can all agree to this stipulation and keep the thread moving forward?

-H

[color=red]Race[/color] - [url=http://www.answers.com/topic/race-1]

A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
[/url][/quote]

And we’re off again…

… the recurring debate about the defintion of “race”! :laughing:
[/quote]

And don’t look at me. I didn’t bring it up this time!!! :smiley: Well instead of race you could ‘humanity’ :wink:

[quote=“Dangermouse”]Answer one question Juba:

All Iraqis should be slaughtered; and all members of the Iraqi military should be killed.”

Am I being racist? If I said this publically on television, would a police investigation follow?[/quote]
You are not comparing like with like. The odious mullah did not say that all British people should be slaughtered - only members of the armed forces. Also now you are talking about a police investigation - that is a different matter from arresting the man on the spot, which is what you seem to want judging by what you wrote earlier:

The police probably are investigating the matter and trying to find a more suitable law to use in this case. Why not section 5 of the Public Order Act, for example?

The above stipulation seems to be in order, particularly given this definition. (Sorry, no link, it’s a subscriber website.)[quote=“Oxford English Dictionary”]
Race:
I. A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin.
In the widest sense the term includes all descendants from the original stock, but may also be limited to a single line of descent or to the group as it exists at a particular period.

1. a. The offspring or posterity of a person; a set of children or descendants. Chiefly poet.

b. Breeding, the production of offspring. Obs.

c. A generation. Obs. rare.

2. a. A limited group of persons descended from a common ancestor; a house, family, kindred.

b. A tribe, nation, or people, regarded as of common stock.

c. A group of several tribes or peoples, regarded as forming a distinct ethnical stock.

d. One of the great divisions of mankind, having certain physical peculiarities in common.

The term is often used imprecisely; even among anthropologists there is no generally accepted classification or terminology.[/quote]

The latest British soldier to receive the Victory Cross, Private Johnson Beharry, was born on Grenada. He doesn’t appear to be of what’s usually thought of as anglo-saxon heritage, though he may be. And while he lives in London, I don’t know that he’s even a British citizen… could be he signed up as a member of the Commonwealth. This high-profile example seems to speak against reading Zaki Badawi’s idiocy as racially motivated.

Disclaimer: I find race to be an incredibly stupid concept to get hung up on to begin with–a very bad remnant of 19th-century anthropology. Fools of Badawi’s ilk toss it around indiscriminantly, find an audience, and make it appear necessary that the government to respond on similar grounds. “Incitement to hatred,” properly refined and defined, ought to be enough on which prosecute. One of the surest signs of social advancement will be seeing the concept dropped from common usage.

[quote=“Jaboney”]The above stipulation seems to be in order, particularly given this definition. (Sorry, no link, it’s a subscriber website.)[quote=“Oxford English Dictionary”]
Race:
I. A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin.
In the widest sense the term includes all descendants from the original stock, but may also be limited to a single line of descent or to the group as it exists at a particular period.

1. a. The offspring or posterity of a person; a set of children or descendants. Chiefly poet.

b. Breeding, the production of offspring. Obs.

c. A generation. Obs. rare.

2. a. A limited group of persons descended from a common ancestor; a house, family, kindred.

b. A tribe, nation, or people, regarded as of common stock.

c. A group of several tribes or peoples, regarded as forming a distinct ethnical stock.

d. One of the great divisions of mankind, having certain physical peculiarities in common.

The term is often used imprecisely; even among anthropologists there is no generally accepted classification or terminology.[/quote]

The latest British soldier to receive the Victory Cross, Private Johnson Beharry, was born on Grenada. He doesn’t appear to be of what’s usually thought of as anglo-saxon heritage, though he may be. And while he lives in London, I don’t know that he’s even a British citizen… could be he signed up as a member of the Commonwealth. This high-profile example seems to speak against reading Zaki Badawi’s idiocy as racially motivated.

Disclaimer: I find race to be an incredibly stupid concept to get hung up on to begin with–a very bad remnant of 19th-century anthropology. Fools of Badawi’s ilk toss it around indiscriminantly, find an audience, and make it appear necessary that the government to respond on similar grounds. “Incitement to hatred,” properly refined and defined, ought to be enough on which prosecute. One of the surest signs of social advancement will be seeing the concept dropped from common usage.[/quote]

Bravo, cheers to your post, especially the last paragraph. Yeah aren’t we all like 98% Chimp DNA and everything else? So that means we’re less than 2% different from each other. Race shouldn’t matter. The classification is socially archaic.

Well said, particularly the last sentence.

Don’t you find the idea of prosecuting people for “incitement to hatred” (as opposed to incitement to violence) to be a little troublesome though? I suppose it may depend on what the law actually says, but as an abstract idea I certainly have concerns about making it illegal to to speak freely with other citizens about how they should feel about things. :s

-H

Shrimpcrackers and Hobbes, thank you.

[quote=“Hobbes”]Don’t you find the idea of prosecuting people for “incitement to hatred” (as opposed to incitement to violence) to be a little troublesome though? I suppose it may depend on what the law actually says, but as an abstract idea I certainly have concerns about making it illegal to to speak freely with other citizens about how they should feel about things. :s [/quote] I considered that before posting. It is troublesome, but narrowing the definition to “incitement to violence”, it seems to me, immediately opens a very large loophole: that being, anyone could do their utmost to incite intense hatred–knowing and intending that it lead to violence–without ever condoning or encouraging violence; in which case they would be free and clear. “Incitement to hatred” carries its own dangers, particularly in vigorous, nasty political debates, which would have to be addressed. But I don’t know how to address that question, so I copped out with “properly refined and defined.”

I just can’t see how the Scotsman who wrote the article was arrested and charged with incitement to cause racial hatred when no reference to any race was mentioned. A police investigation is ensuing.
However, Zakki is free to mention the slaughter of citizens - which servicemen are- of a particular country and get away with it.
Zakki has been preaching for ages - just like the infamous hook handed muslim cleric Abbu Hamza who did make glaring obvious racist comments towards the British public and western society as a whole. There seems to be no investigation into Zakki and it took forever for a police investigation to be launched into Hamzas antics.

My question is: why was the Scotsman arrested and charged under section 19 and Zakki not? The two incidents happened at roughly the same time.
Are you in some way agreeing that the Scotsman should have been arrested and charged under 19 for what he wrote in the article?

Now that we’ve agreed that 20% of our DNA is shared with the amoeba, let’s all gather together in a group hug. :unamused:

Alternately, instead of diverting to a ridiculously drivelous discussion of “race” and how horrible it is that anyone would dare mention it since we are all hominids, perhaps we could discuss Dangerm00se’s legitimate concerns regarding an immigrant who wants to destroy the society that gave him a new home, and who is inciting racial hatred and suggesting murder.

I am also curious as to why the title appears to have been changed from “perverts” to “preverts”, and why Jaboney is now listed as the topic author rather than Dangermouse.

I was shifting a few threads around and the technology snuck up and bit me on the ass. Took a fair bit to get it sorted, and I’m still not sure what all went wrong. In the end, I had to move and rename this thread, and when I did so I misspelt “pervert” (you’ll notice it’s since been corrected), and somehow I became the author of the thread. :unamused: I don’t know why. I did, however, PM Dangermouse about it, and if I can figure out how to fix it, I will.

I was shifting a few threads around and the technology snuck up and bit me on the ass. Took a fair bit to get it sorted, and I’m still not sure what all went wrong. In the end, I had to move and rename this thread, and when I did so I misspelt “pervert” (you’ll notice it’s since been corrected), and somehow I became the author of the thread. :unamused: I don’t know why. I did, however, PM Dangermouse about it, and if I can figure out how to fix it, I will.[/quote]
I demand that you be banned for umm whatever. I also demand that you ban me for deliberately misspelling Dangerm00se.

[color=red]Race[/color] - [url=http://www.answers.com/topic/race-1]

A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
[/url][/quote]

German race? You mean with four legs? Wau wau