Comments on: Turn again, Dick Warrington

By: Jake McGuire

Jake McGuire — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:51:10 +0000

rob, you’re probably thinking of Yoshi Hattori. Japanese exchange student, trying to find a Halloween party, knocks on wrong door, woman answers and is freaked out, slams door and tells husband to “get the gun”. Husband does so, opens door, tells Yoshi “Freeze!”. Yoshi does not understand, continues walking forward speaking in broken English, gets shot, dies. Husband got charged with manslaughter, said he felt threatened and thought he had to defend his family; Yoshi’s friend said it was dark and maybe the camera he was holding looked like a gun, husband was acquitted. Civil suit was later brought resulting in $650k award for wrongful death. Retell the story a few times, mix in some preconceptions about America, and I’d say this is probably what you heard about.

By: rob

rob — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:36:33 +0000

Two things. First, probably apocryphal story about the American right to self-defence. A man from my mother’s part of Scotland is on a business trip/holiday to Florida. He gets drunk, and accidentally tries to get into the wrong house. Realizing his mistake, and leaving, he is chased down the street and shot in the back whilst running away by the owner of the house, who is not charged with any crime. If the American right to defence of property is anything like this, I do not think that any American ought to be criticizing the British laws, which give the right to use reasonable force in self-defence, as determined by a jury, from the standpoint of the greatness of the American laws. I can’t remember what the second thing was now. It’s late.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:40:48 +0000

As another distantly interested American, it seems to me that you guys are investing far too much time in protecting the people from themselves. Speech laws, laws against self-defense in the home (another frightening tendency we hear about over here)-you’re turning into a continent of hobbits. As I just read this week, “The lights are going out again all over Europe.” Oh well-I guess in the ‘30’s and ‘40’s, the right had its chance to destroy the continent-now its the left’s turn. Steve

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:05:07 +0000

just my theory!

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:04:44 +0000

my theory does!

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:44:16 +0000

Aye, an ‘twould be a sin to do so, morebetoken. Indeed I think Keynes defined the exception not the rule:- “When the Facts change, my mind doesn’t”

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:31:03 +0000

// [...] those riots were of the “oppressed minority finally gets done wrong one too many times” instead of “fascists go out looking to bash darkies” kind, which still happen in Europe every so often. // Every so often? Not very aware of that. And I think it is worse when the situation is that the minority is oppressed by the whole of society (the US case as you seem to imply) than when it is some individuals who are restrained from effectively defining racist policies and then riot. DSW

By: Jake McGuire

Jake McGuire — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:37:50 +0000

When was the last time we had a race riot in the US? Cincinnati three years ago, and Rodney King in ‘92. Crown Heights in ‘91, I guess. Miami in ‘89? Fifteen years ago? And furthermore, those riots were of the “oppressed minority finally gets done wrong one too many times” instead of “fascists go out looking to bash darkies” kind, which still happen in Europe every so often. And yeah, at least in my neck of the woods (San Francisco), there was some incitement to religious hatred. Certainly not so much anymore, but in the couple of weeks after the elections, no doubt. The GOP probably does stir the religious fires much more, but “he did it too” is not usually a legal defense.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:35:10 +0000

‘However, blackboard theorems don’t trump empirical facts and the facts outstanding today is that the only kind of incitment to hatred which is a threat to public order is the racial kind, stirred up on purpose by organised political parties of racial bigots of various kinds. ’ The empirical facts are actually that in the last ten days a homosexual has been kicked to death in London by a crowd of teenagers, apparently for the sole crime of his sexuality, and empirical facts also lead one to note that the fascist nutter who tried and failed to murder Asians and Blacks with homemade bombs then got lucky when he bombed a gay bar in Soho. The BNP may be full of black-hating, Muslim-hating bigots who will die in the last ditch for the sacred cause of homosexual rights, but I doubt it. Similarly, the Brixton riots are a silly subject to bring up in this context: the context being that of extension of the incitement to hatred laws, to protect the religious but not, say, people of a certain sexual orientation. Brixton led to more intelligent policing in the inner cities and some (but not, as far as the stats can show us, too much)added government investment in the inner cities to improve the quality of life. It also led, as per Scarman’s recommendations, to the equipping of the Police with more up-to-date riot equipment. It did not lead to any Act being passed which extended the criminalisation of incitement to hatred. And it did not lead- contrary to Scarman’s call for a huge programme of ‘positive discrimination’ in employment- to the passing of any legislation which violated the principle of equality before the law. The Brixton riots led some civil servants and senior coppers to reconsider their operating practices. They didn’t lead to any amendment of the laws along the lines of this Act. Dsquared is hopelessly out on the facts of the case, which makes an appeal to empiricism something of a doomed gesture. Slightly more philosophically, are we just worried about the threats to public order that are caused by the victims of incitement to hatred? You do seem rather to discount the possibility that the act of stirring up hatred against homosexuals might have the effect of, er, stirring up hatred against homosexuals, leading to acts of violence and the like. And what’s a Coasian analysis of ‘equality before the law’ going to come up with? Good thing, bad thing, depends? Personally I rather like the idea that the protection I receive from the law and the limits the law puts on my behaviour stem from the fact that the law treats my actions like anyone else’s, considering them in the light of how they may or may not harm the lives of others, rather than from the fact that I belong to one or more groups who may go out and riot if they don’t get their own way. From my experience, although white Britons tending towards racism might not use the phrase ‘equality of the law’ very much, if you do talk to a collection of Daily Mail or Sun readers on this matter, you will hear phrases like ‘They don’t get treated the same as we do.. Should be that everyone gets the same deal, but they get special treatment’ etc- ‘they’ being darker-skinned people. I think, and have said, that this isn’t true and everyone does get the same treatment under the law, but if you’re taking an entirely pragmatic line, there is no gain in proving the racists right by sacrificing equality before the law to ‘enhanced group rights for any group who might chuck bricks around’. You might even find yourself agreeing with those of us who say that there are good, principled reasons for equality before the law.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:33:45 +0000

The BNP could indeed complain, but if they did, they might be reminded of the old British colloquialism “ah fucking diddums”.

By: jasper emmering

jasper emmering — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:22:16 +0000

dsquared – then the BNP can complain that the government prosecution doesn’t press charges. If the government refuses to prosecute they can claim double standards. Because that’s what you’ll have: one standard for secular expression, and one for religious expression.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:26:12 +0000

Whenever some mullah says something nasty about infidels, they can press charges Private prosecutions are not allowed under the draft bill.

By: JO'N

JO'N — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:42:52 +0000

jake mcguire writes: …it seems like the incidence of race riots is way lower over here than in Europe. Unless you include Miami and Los Angeles in the US. And would the hysteria over “Jesusland” fall under incitement to religious hatred? In the literal sense that’s exactly what it is… I think that it falls under “incitement to post-election humor”. Seriously, though, is there a single person in whom you can realistically argue hatred was incited by that? In reality, IMHO, the hatred goes in the other direction—speaking as someone whose state of residence, political affiliation, (non-)religious preference and profession have been used by the GOP as curse words and terms of abuse in the last several election cycles.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:16:02 +0000

I think a correction is in order here; there are no schisms between Rastafarians and Gays in Jamaica per se. It’s true that there are some Rastas –more correctly a few [albeit big-name] Dreadlocked singers/artistes- who sing homophobic lyrics and incite violence against Gays in their ignorance but that’s not the same things as the blanket statement that Rastas are homophobes. It’s important to understand that the whole Jamaican way of life is against Homosexuals. That doesn’t make it right, but in the same token it tantamount to libel to accuse Rastafarians of homophobia. Read the Guardian’s Alexis Petridis travels to JA and what he discovered about that island’s culture to homophobia. http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/fridayreview/story/0,,1369875,00.html It amazes me how people in our part of the world could latch unto bits of info without even making the slightest effort to get their facts straight. As an example, I read somewhere that Bobbo Ashantis are the Rastafarian equivalents of Islamic Jihadists/fundamentalist.And how did these folks –Johan Harri et al- reach that erroneous conclusion? Simply because Sizzla is a bobbo Ashanti and Sizzla sings homophobic lyrics. I think its incumbent on us all to educate ourselves on issues before commenting on them. Perhaps we should ask Benji Zephaniah to come give us a crash course in Rastafarianism.

By: jasper emmering

jasper emmering — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:44:20 +0000

We’ve got incitement to religious hatred on the books in Holland. The problem with it is that you cannot apply it to those who incite from the pulpit because they enjoy the freedom of religion. This Rastafarian vs. Tatchell-problem is very much real. Fundamentalist mullahs (and Calvinist pastors) say the darndest things. And because of this, the law is (at least in the Netherlands) counterproductive. With the law in place, it will be easier for the BNP to create an uproar. Whenever some mullah says something nasty about infidels, they can press charges, and constantly having fundamentalist mullahs in the news is not going to help ordinary muslims. Recipe for right-wing idiots to further their cause: Read some muslim websites. Find a translation of some abject sermon by some robed mullah who does not even speak English. File charges and hope he gets aquitted. The Dutch swing to the right with Pim Fortuyn was boosted by the continuing media attention to mr El Moumni, who was aquitted because although in principle his statements had been discriminatory against homosexuals, they were permitted on grounds of freedom of religious expressionsince they were based on the Koran and other holy documents. This law will do nothing to protect ordinary muslims. It will do nothing to protect anyone else, either. It is, on the contrary, the perfect tool for the BNP with which to further stigmatize the entire muslim community.