The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > What happened to sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me?

What happened to sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Some old duffer sends a Queensland MP an email and the office girl is so upset that he is charged with criminal behaviour that could see him jailed for up to three years.
Was it a bomb threat?
Was it a death threat?
The judge, fortunately, is sane and rules that the email would not be offensive to a reasonable person.
Premier Bligh disagrees with the judge, finding the language of the email highly offensive stating “I don't think that kind of language has any place in modern Australia."
Who are these puritans, these self-styled moral arbiters who would put an old man in jail for using words that they deem criminal?
Why not just return his email stating why they consider it offensive and advising him that he won’t receive a reply until he complies?
Why not just reply to him, expressing regret at his choice of language?
I believe that the plaintiffs and their apologists, not the old duffer, represent the real threat to Australia. .

http://www.mygc.com.au/article/news/local-newsroom/29553-race-hate-words-not-offensive-to-reasonable-people.php
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 7:26:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The judge is wrong that these words are not offensive.
But having said that being offensive is not a crime.
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 9:49:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Proxy,

I read the link that you've provided,
perhaps you should have read it in full
as well. When I clicked onto the full
story given in, "The Bulletin," it seems
that the retiree, 62 year old Dennis
Mulheron of Labrador has sent repeated
faxes to the Broawater MP Peta-Kaye Croft,
complaining about immigration. He pleaded
guilty in 2006 to sending a personally
abusive fax to Ms Croft. The man obviously
has a serious problem.

I therefore would question his lack of knowledge,
he states that he wasn't aware that his language
was offensive, considering his record of abuse
in past faxes,
and pleading guilty in court in 2006.

Continually sending faxes to the Labor Party
telling them to tighten immigration laws
against "n"ggers," "sandn"gger terrorists,"
and Muslim women with circumcised genitals
shows full awareness of what he's doing,
unless of course he's totally paranoid,
ignorant, stupid, or all of the above.

He would have been told about the language
regarding his faxes in the past. It seems to
have had no effect on him. I think he's a very
lucky man that he got off so easily in this
case. Especially, since he's a repeat offender.

There are many terms which reflect the feelings
of superiority of some people over others.
However, words such as "n"gger," "bo"ng,"
"d"go," "w"g," these outmoded words are no longer
acceptable to most people.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 10:08:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

These words were not even acceptable on
this Forum. When I had typed them in full,
I was told to:

"remove the profanity!"

With which I had to comply.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 10:13:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree Foxy. This guy (at 62, I wouldn't call him an 'old duffer')
obviously has some problems with people different from himself.

He knew exactly what he was saying, and that it would cause offence, because he had already been in trouble for it!

The staff at this office did the right thing in reporting him to the police.
Obviously, the police were sufficiently alarmed to pursue him in the courts.

Proxy would also know all this, as I am sure he did read the whole story.
This nasty man should have been jailed, as far as I am concerned
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 12:15:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well put foxy and suzeonline.
However zero intent to harm or hurt I found soon after proxy started posting his/her views are ones I can not share.even understand most times
Other threads speak of such letters from such people and I think he should serve a short term in prison or another place for this if it happens again.
Proxy you have every right to your views as I have every right to avoid you.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 6:25:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
he is luckey they didnt lock him up
the justice systym is qld is living in the dark-ages

they think they can simply pass moralising laws
and do..you cannt smoke/here..you cant let a plant grow
there is a new-law on the way...OUTLAWING...swearing

this is what happens..when lawyers..go into politics/with moralising adgendas..then lawyers make the laws/

then former lawyers..become/judges..judge the laws..
then former judges/ie former lawyers..hear the appeal...and qualify it into law...L.A.W

and suprise suprise..next time/
the judge wont be ALLOWED to be considerate..
because the judge MUST obey..whatever the higher-courts have ruled..

your only seeing the first steps

next the lawyers/govt..pass a NEW legislative rule
then the court of appeal..validates it
and presto..we got a new law...so swearing becomes a crime

dont say/you didnt know
or claim..you wernt told
this is how govt works

and worse..the preceedant/having gone to appeal..
is in future dissalowed..on appeal,..because it has allready been decided..by appeal..!

and..you can swear all you like
but then..its too late

but thats how..its done
in the..'put it where the sun/dont shine/sun-shine'...sunshine state

the state/where the..two party/ex lawyers
run the mate/rate franchise..for their mates

while ever more policing/the public-weal..into submission
via revenue raising/oppression and threats of force and jail
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 7:36:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
suzeonline,
Scratch a "progressive", reveal a totalitarian.
Jail somebody for three years for being nasty?
Welcome to the "tolerant" world of the left.
Let's just jail anybody who sends nasty emails to shy and sensitive politicians.
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 7:52:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Offensive yes, criminal no.

IMHO Police sufficiently alarmed to pursue respondent in court only because complaint came from MP's office !

IF Premier and MP's really want such language to NOT be acceptable should STOP proclaiming others right to so abuse Police doing their job, as well as other members of the community.
Posted by polpak, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 8:40:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Foxy is right...and since he sent these words which are considered to be 'offensive' via a fax machine he did indeed breach the telecommunications laws and should have been charged.

That said, apart from the content of this fellows emails, our MPs should be getting stern emails from all of us about their abject failure to perform for the monies they plunder from our backpockets.

The few letters that do return to authors of concerns are not ever worth receiving, written in a tone that shows they are not interested in responding to the actual concerns.

Whatsisname writes copious books on the topic of pollie-speak... Keatings old speech writer... can't think of his name.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 9:00:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the context is important here.

If he had been standing on a street corner, haranguing passers-by with his "views", I think it would be totally appropriate for a passing copper to whisk him away, and charge him with some sort of public order offence. Likely outcome, a $50 fine and a stern warning.

But using the same language in a fax, addressed, one presumes, to an individual?

The easiest thing in the world: bin it.

Why create such a fuss?

The outcome is now far, far more destructive than simply ignoring the idiot.

It has forced the courts into a position where they really had to declare "de minimis non curat lex", taking into account the scale of the "damage" caused by one fax.

Regrettably, that is then blazoned across the headlines as "Race-hate words 'not offensive to reasonable people'" - which, of course, is arrant nonsense when generalized in this manner.

Of course "race hate words" are offensive. But it's one thing for the soap-box loony to shout "all n8gg8rs are bludgers" to the world at large, but if the bloke at the bar leans across and says the same thing, do you hop onto your phone and dial the police?

Of course not.

The whole incident has been blown out of all proportion.

Some people are so keen to big-note their political correctness, they lose all perception of scale. And in doing so, they create opportunities for people to be precious about our freedom of speech, when the incident hardly warrants a footnote.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 9:05:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Proxy,

We all defecate but would you accept a stranger deliberately doing so in your lounge room, in front of your children or in your office next to your desk. I doubt it, yet in principle you offer the same argument. Just because it's 'everyday(?) language' amongst a limited demographic doesn't mean it's either common in the greater community or acceptable.

any person has the 'right' to break the law or not knowing full well there will be sanctions. This man clearly chose to vent his prejudices on several occasions in an offensive way....I have no sympathy for him.

Unless he's declared incompetent being 64 years old is no excuse.
no is it particularly old (as in old duffer)
BTW a duffer is a livestock thief.

As for your unsupportable claim that "scratch a......." that is poor argument to cover both prejudice and intellectual laziness.

In my various activities I guess I've heard most obscenities, profanities etc but *never* necessary to a meaningful objective point.

I don't know where and who you associate with but I can honestly say I rarely hear those terms today....this is 2010 not 50's slaughter yard. Times have changed get with times.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 9:19:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I much rather this guy...

http://www.27bslash6.com/overdue.html
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 9:53:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that Houellebecq.

I have been looking for a new career, and now I am a fully qualified Chiropractor, just like I have always dreamed of being.

That little test on the side bar of the spider story has changed my life.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 10:22:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are many quite public statements that I find grossly offensive. "All men are Rapists" for instance. Such phrases are not only published but lauded and the holders of such views, far from being prosecuted, get elected to the highest offices in the land.

Getting the police to decend upon some hapless chap for being 'offensive' seems a common female ploy, an example of 'Let's you and him fight'. One never hears of women being prosecuted for being offensive.
Posted by Amfortas, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 1:04:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is common to encounter very offensive labelling of ordinary people expressing their quite ordinary opinions as 'racists', 'xenophobes' and worse.

In the modern politically correct world there are few deliberate slurs as foul as being labelled a racist or any form of 'hater' and the accusers know that. Presently, the Prime Minister is being labelled as a 'homophobe' because she does not agree with the Marriage Act being changed for gay marriage. It is a nonsense that Julia Gillard hates homosexuals and it obvious that this terrible slur is intended as a sledge to embarrass her at election time.

Similarly, for men the slur of being a woman and child beater is a shocking thing and it would be the rare man who didn't cringe when accused directly or by association of such crimes, especially those men with families. Yet men are obliged to cope with those insults being directed at them as a gender by a government funded campaign of television advertisements. On OLO, this and other gross insults are regularly used to sledge respondents rather than present countering arguments.

It is true that if we are to support freedom of speech we also have to accept the rough, uncouth language of the poorly educated as we are required to put up with the usually more sly rhetoric, stereotyping and personal attacks of their educated 'betters'.

The 'old duffer' has already been held up for public ridicule, he has been inconvenienced by the police and court appearance and he is out of pocket for legal costs. It is astounding that some think he should have been gaoled and given a criminal record as well for doing what they do themselves, but usually in a more cunning, politically correct way of course.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 3:23:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Amfortas,

You claim that one never hears of women being
prosecuted for being offensive.

I'm not sure about that. However, they've
certainly had their fair share of abuse
and discrimination over many years.
Look at history, starting with the Bible.

http://www.cybercollege.com/antiwoman.htm

"In Exod. we see that it is permissable to
sell one's daughter (but apparently not one's
son) into slavery." Just one example.

Then look at the way the Catholic Church feels about
the ordination of women.

You raised the issue of "All men are rapists,"
I don't know of any woman that thinks that.
However, I do know of what women have to go
through in a court of law trying to prove that
she was raped.

Words do hurt. No matter what anyone says.
And no matter how uneducated or ignorant a
person may be, a repeat offender would be
well aware of the harm that his words were
doing, regardless of how much he tries to pass
them off as acceptable language. He doesn't
live in a vacuum. And at 62 years of age he
doesn't quite qualify as an "Old duffer,"
merely an obstinate and an ignorant one.
Personally, I would have let him off with a
warning as well, but if he persisted in making
a nuisance of himself, I'd fine him.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 3:55:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I may contribute to this discussion,

I saw an aryan looking figure driving his car yesterday with "Boer" number plates. I was offended and ashamed to think
that my country would allow such promotion of unsavoury racially motivated belief through number plates.

I thought of expressing my dislike as I passed, but then decided against this because of
his right of expression in a free society. ( I also wondered if Vicroads had approved Nazi number plates for anyone. )

Australia, (not unlike Sth Africa) is a country with a deplorable history of racism.
To demonstrate how attitudes have changed in our times,
in my own family older members (being of Aussie outback stock)
would use terms like, "sitting up like Jackie",
a term with a meaning to awful to describe today.

And in my experience language and attitudes go hand in hand, and so therefore
it is very important thing to curtail certain senseless forms of expression.

Gaol is not the solution to everything you disagree with ;
but couldn't we just put this nasty old racist up against a wall
and throw vegies at him for a while perhaps, (joke).

Racist terminology in our modern society is offensive and I thought it was illegal ?
The old fellow seems to have used such offensive terminology.
Posted by thinker 2, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 4:20:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come now this is not a thread about Mr/Mrs average.
It is about a bloke with form for offensive letter writing,a rare bird but far from extinct.
Some times it is linked to a mental problem,do we want all mail to such people ignored?
Innocent staffers open this junk, see the racism and pure hate these contain.
Lets not get warm and cuddly towards this bloke ,few of us share his stated views and most would not want to hear from him via any letters or other way, fools make their own trouble.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 4:27:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower,
You are being far too selective in your choice of facts.
By the way there is a big difference between being uneducated and just plain wantonly ignorant and deliberately offensive.

It is nonsensical to assert that because this man may or may not have a good education or that he's 64 are excuses for his behaviour. This man was a serial offender. He is a white Aussie and has no excuse for his wanton rude behaviour.

Think for a moment if there was staff who or an ethnic work experience girl who had to sort the faxes. . At 64 he is a baby boomer and lived through the 60's and as such he would have been aware of attitudinal changes in society over the last 40+ years.He was either trying to bully or simple was too pig headed to think or care.

Is he a racist? Perhaps, but that is also an unsubstantiated extreme.

Notwithstanding the correction(punishment) must fit the crime...IMO a suspended sentence and a good behaviour bond should suffice. I think that jail time is over the top. However, any repeat he should not expect the court to be so understanding.

>In this PC world< give it a rest! Times change as does acceptable behaviour standards. Claims of PC usually come from those who have no sound argument for their prejudices and simply don't want to accept they may be at fault.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 4:29:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, I find the recourse to biblical references and the furphy of proving rape in court to be disingenuous. No woman has to 'prove rape in court in anything like the ways necessary to prove a burgulary had occured in her home or a whiplash injury acquired in a car accident. Have you never heard of Rape Shield rules?

I do not seek to excuse this fellow of his beligerence or his offensiveness. I simply point out that men as a general group - 50% or thereabouts of the population - seem to be singularly at risk of being accused of 'offensiveness' and have inordinate 'official' pressures applied to them. The involvement of the Police and the Courts in this man's 'offensiveness' would never had occured had it been a foul-mouthed woman writing amd a male office worker who read it. Crikey, she could have walked in stark naked and delivered it with a shaking fist and hysterical demeanour and nothing at all would have happened to her.
Posted by Amfortas, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 5:53:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
thinker 2,

Boer is also a meat goat. Perhaps he is a breeder?. Aryan?. You mean white. Sounds to me like you've got the problem.
Posted by StG, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 5:58:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not white necessarily Stg, just Boer as portrayed on the recent A.B.C. program.

I refer to the remnants of the political extremists that ruled Sth Africa prior
to Democracy. And tell me Stg, do you think people should be able to have Nazi
number plates?.
Posted by thinker 2, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 7:57:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Amfortas,

Women have been jailed for less than just
being "offensive," at least one was jailed for
simply not smiling at the cameras and having
an "indifferent" demeanour. Remember Lindy
Chamberlain? Would a man have been judged
as harshly as she was in the same
circumstances? Uncaring mother?

As for cases of rape or any other offence
involving males - ask any lawyer what
a woman has to go through in court and the
accusations and loss of reputation that
she has to endure when she's the victim.
Or for that matter, talk to any
social worker in a woman's refuge, and see
how many "success" stories there are there.

Gender has nothing to do with this man's
offensive behaviour. It would be offensive no
matter what gender the person was.
The man was the one at fault here, and he had
prior convictions and repeat offences, it's his
behaviour that's being questioned, not the fact
that he was male. And your inferences about women,
is simply that - inferences without much evidence.
The fact remains that in this particular case -
it was the man who was at fault, and he got punished
for it despite having pleaded guilty in 2006 to
sending a personally abusive fax to the MP. You'd
think he'd have learnt his lesson from that
experience. Making excuses for him simply because
he's male simply doesn't wash.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 8:25:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a start, 'Boer' is Afrikaans for 'Farmer'. The word isn't racist. How a 'Boer' acts is.

You left out the bit that was proof this bloke was referring to the Afrikaans 'Boer' with his plates. How do you know his plates are a racist statement and not referring to being a goat meat breeder?.

You didn't explain this. Apologies if you just forgot to mention this.

And obviously 'nazi' plates aren't okay. Good grief.

And just while I'm here gearing up to ignore your next comment. Just FYI. http://www.australianboergoat.com.au/
Posted by StG, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 9:04:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only real issue is that Premier Anna Bligh fell over her feet in her blind rush to support her State Labor MLA Peta-Kaye Croft.

What advice did Anna Bligh obtain from The Honourable Cameron Dick MP, Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations before second-guessing and embarrassing the magistrate?

What was the knee-jerk reaction intended to achieve and was it appropriate for the Premier to take that serious step, especially over a minor matter? She is reported as speculating on future actions by police on similar matters which was also inappropriate:

'Ms Bligh said she thinks the fact that the case was brought before the courts is a step forward.

"I think even the fact that this ended up in court should send a message out there - that sort of thing is part of a different time and part of the last century," she said.'
http://www.mygc.com.au/article/news/local-newsroom/29553-race-hate-words-not-offensive-to-reasonable-people.php

Many would take that as encouraging complaints and police charges, which is the opposite of what should be read into the Magistrate's decision. Courts should not be swayed by populist political opinion. One would have thought the Premier's first consideration would have been to maintain the credibility of the judiciary and courts by not commenting on individual cases, but not so it appears.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 9:19:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any action or word by a chap that is considered 'innaprpriate' by a feminist is likely to result in the Police being called in and/or a feminist Premier seeking 'action'.

One aspect that has evaded scrutiny is the young woman's being 'offended'. Why on earth would she be offended by a message that she simply sighted and was not even meant for her? Why would she be offended at all? It was not a personal attack on her. It did not impune her in any way. Indeed it was nothing to do with her.

But she 'felt' secure in the knowledge that a complaint from her would be sufficient to land a chap in hot water. What made her so sure that her being 'offended' even when no offence could be had by any reasonable person? (the Magistrate's finding). It was a faux-offense.

I put it to you that there is a bias against men that makes any ludicrous complaint about a man by a woman be taken in disproportionate seriousness even top the point of calling in the Police. The police, of course, take any accusation by a woman against a man as 'serious'. This is ironically a denigration of women. Any woman it seems is so fragile and frail that she must be 'protected' from even seeing a message written by a man to someone else in case she has the vapours.

No wonder Superman is no longer to be seen. He is very likey debarred from rescuing anyone since a complaint that his actions offend the sensibilities of the modern 'empowered' woman secretary.
Posted by Amfortas, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 11:01:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
STG,
It actually does say Premier (meat) Goat. Is there such an animal as a Premier Goose as well ?
I find it astounding that some bloke writes an unkind word word & ends up getting taken to court whilst some woman via her incompetent/corrupt supporters can ruin the lives of many & gets rewarded by taxpayers money. Is there any logic out there at all ?
Posted by individual, Thursday, 12 August 2010 5:59:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is truly amazing is that Anna took this opportunity to get national and international attention, while federal Labor has everyone at the pumps trying to overcome the negative effect of the 'Anna Factor' in Queensland.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 12 August 2010 6:51:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
at least we can still use the words 'pom', 'yank' and 'kiwi' without being seen as racist. Or is that a case of double-standards?

The words didn't trigger the "remove the profanity!" safeguard that Foxy came up against http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3870#95257.

Just proves you have to be White to be a racist.
Posted by Austin Powerless, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:28:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The words hater, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe are all used
with gay abandon by the left-leaners on this forum.
I consider that calling someone by these epithets in the first person is far more offensive
than using nasty words to describe the third person or the "other".
I propose that first person offenders be prosecuted, criminalised and jailed.
With all the haters in jail the world will be a much better place.
Posted by Proxy, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:46:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"With all the haters in jail the world will be a much better place."

Proxy, this statement seems to contradict the purpose of your subject if you really value freedom of speech for all, not only those with whom you agree. I don't understand why you think calling someone an Islamophobe is punishable but using the 'N' word is not.

I happen to agree with you on this one in regards to punishment. The beauty is that this sort of prejudice is clearly evident in the emails and shows the writer for exactly who he is and the sort of person he represents.

That is in itself the punishment. We represent and condemn ourselves with our words and actions. That is something no court can ever hope to equal
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 12 August 2010 12:06:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Proxy,
I think you need to read your own contributions.
You are prone to peremptory Labeling base on the slimmest of evidence and even less analysis one might suggest prejudice.

The man in question certainly showed repeated racist tendencies, however I did say there are other probable causes for his behaviour that made his "act like a racist".

So far you have splashed around pejorative terms 'puritans', "self styled moral arbiters", apologists, left leaning (pejorative inference? without that connotation one wonders why did you use it. Surely,"some contributors" would have made the same point.

Labels and purple prose are a means by which to separate people who don't agree with you out. By your labeling you are intending to degrade them and thereby their opinion.

On one hand you scream freedom of speech but on the other you try to belittle individuals or groups thereof in order to what? Rob them of integrity of what they say and therefore their freedom of speech.
Apart from which the term 'left leaning has been corrupted by inaccurate association with socialism and communism.
E.g. I am neither communist nor socialist. I am more a humanist than a lefty.
Untill you can define your terms clearly my suggestion is that you avoid such pointless and inaccurate labels.

NB (he was *acting* in a racist/xenophobic fashion but on the evidence that label was unsubstantiated on the available evidence. I said the man was *possibly* a racist but offered other(IMO)more plausible options.

Contrary to common myth brevity (short cuts)in speech are not necessarily appropriate, they are often based on prejudice not sound reasoning or fact.

Foxy,
Saying that Lindy Chamberlain was jailed for being apparently showed abnormal reactions or that she was found guilty because of that is a looooooooong bow at best.

The media and the great unwashed certainly did make that conclusion but I would suggest the botched evidence and media driven interest probably contributed more, don't you think
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 12 August 2010 2:10:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For once I find myself agreeing with you Pericles.

Are the words offensive? Yes.

Would I use such language? Nope.

Am I disgusted with people who use words like that? Absolutely?

But do the circumstances merit any sort of criminal sanction?

Gimme a break.

I am more alarmed by the fact that this even got to court than I am by some sad sod using these words.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 12 August 2010 7:17:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for profanity].
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 15 August 2010 6:50:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted or obsenity].
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 15 August 2010 6:52:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow.

"[Deleted or obsenity].
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 15 August 2010 6:52:40 PM"

Say it isn't so.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 15 August 2010 11:58:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"[Deleted or obsenity]"

Which was it?

And did you mean "obscene"?.

M'dear Foxy, what little I have seen of you on this forum.... you devil you.

;)
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Monday, 16 August 2010 5:46:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy