pittrek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGIEHhpfkKY&feature=fvwrel
Thread
Posts in chronological order
john bodega
I love this video and support everything she says! In fact I was on the train last week and delivered the same speech, verbatim.
thomasquinn 32989
It's filth like her that's ruining Europe, not immigration.
Mr.Jingles
Apparently she was arrested.
Most here would agree that her hateful speech is deplorable, especially while taking care of a child. However, there's Freedom of Speech as well, so how far do we allow someone to speak their mind until they arrested?
Most here would agree that her hateful speech is deplorable, especially while taking care of a child. However, there's Freedom of Speech as well, so how far do we allow someone to speak their mind until they arrested?
inu-liger
Freedom of Speech should ONLY be protected to a certain degree. However when you start openly attacking people with racism in public, THAT is one way to overstep boundaries and draw the line, so I'm glad she got arrested and has to face up to her own grave ways!
She could have very well pissed off the wrong person and instigated a physical fight that could have ended up with numerous people (especially in a small space like that tram) getting seriously hurt orworse.
She could have very well pissed off the wrong person and instigated a physical fight that could have ended up with numerous people (especially in a small space like that tram) getting seriously hurt orworse.
catqueen
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]
Apparently she was arrested.
Most here would agree that her hateful speech is deplorable, especially while taking care of a child. However, there's Freedom of Speech as well, so how far do we allow someone to speak their mind until they arrested? [/QUOTE]
Freedom of speech is important, but so is security and respect for others -- and one person's right not to discriminated against is more important then someone else's right to spout hate-speech.
Apparently she was arrested.
Most here would agree that her hateful speech is deplorable, especially while taking care of a child. However, there's Freedom of Speech as well, so how far do we allow someone to speak their mind until they arrested? [/QUOTE]
Freedom of speech is important, but so is security and respect for others -- and one person's right not to discriminated against is more important then someone else's right to spout hate-speech.
catqueen
i really hope she was arrested, that's just sick behaviour... and did anyone notice the comments under the video? Seriously, how can people honestly believe one group of people are more advanced then others. I don't mean as far as technology, government structure, etc, those are just structures, i mean as far as one person being more advanced then another person. How can you grow up believing that?!
pittrek
Well I can't say that I agree with the crap she said, but I still believe she had to right to say it. I can't decide what's more important - the freedom of speech or not tolerating racist comments.
Anyway, the 2012 Olympics are coming. I hope that the police gets people like her off the streets :-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]catqueen[/QUOTENAME]
i really hope she was arrested, that's just sick behaviour... and did anyone notice the comments under the video?
[/QUOTE]
The comments are disturbing, to say it politely. If so many people agree with her, it can lead to some very serious problems in the future.
Anyway, the 2012 Olympics are coming. I hope that the police gets people like her off the streets :-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]catqueen[/QUOTENAME]
i really hope she was arrested, that's just sick behaviour... and did anyone notice the comments under the video?
[/QUOTE]
The comments are disturbing, to say it politely. If so many people agree with her, it can lead to some very serious problems in the future.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]
However, there's Freedom of Speech as well, so how far do we allow someone to speak their mind until they arrested? [/QUOTE]
But then the question becomes, whose rights are more important - hers, or the people she's discriminating against?
However, there's Freedom of Speech as well, so how far do we allow someone to speak their mind until they arrested? [/QUOTE]
But then the question becomes, whose rights are more important - hers, or the people she's discriminating against?
GratefulFan
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Well I can't say that I agree with the crap she said, but I still believe she had to right to say it. I can't decide what's more important - the freedom of speech or not tolerating racist comments[/QUOTE]
It's a difficult line to draw, but not an impossible one. Society can and does enforce reasoned limits on all kinds of things without sacrificing fundamental freedom. Free speech issues are almost always a collision of rights, and there is little reason to think that free speech should always be king; that limitless freedom to have whatever nonsense tumbling out of somebody's ignorant mouth will always be more vital to individual rights and freedoms and democracy than whatever the competing principles are.
'Freedom of speech' in the US has become particularly dogmatic I think. It's held up as an untouchable ideal, but practically circumvented when it becomes too uncomfortable. The nutty Phelps clan are a perfect example. Rather than legally defining their outrageous and unacceptable behaviour as outrageous and unacceptable, cities and states effect their practical silence by limiting how close protests can be to funerals. Individuals show up in greater numbers, surround them or stand in front of them and shout louder, and then hail it as a triumph of free speech and good over evil. Really what's been done is the stripping of their 'free speech rights' by a mob. It seems to me that the wiser course would be to acknowledge that a civilized country must have limits and define and enforce them through dispassionate and accountable institutions.
What we really mean by free speech I think is fearless speech, and it becomes a charade when we pretend that the freedom to intimidate and wound and repress people is inextricably bound to the need for individuals and society to be able to confront and oppose ideas without fear. Want to hold a civil immigration protest based on your view of the evidence? Knock yourself out. Want to publicly scream belittling things at people for being dark skinned and not born there? Not so much. It's not a distinction that is so fraught with subtlety that it's impossible to legislate without compromising the freedoms that truly underpin democracy and individual rights.
Well I can't say that I agree with the crap she said, but I still believe she had to right to say it. I can't decide what's more important - the freedom of speech or not tolerating racist comments[/QUOTE]
It's a difficult line to draw, but not an impossible one. Society can and does enforce reasoned limits on all kinds of things without sacrificing fundamental freedom. Free speech issues are almost always a collision of rights, and there is little reason to think that free speech should always be king; that limitless freedom to have whatever nonsense tumbling out of somebody's ignorant mouth will always be more vital to individual rights and freedoms and democracy than whatever the competing principles are.
'Freedom of speech' in the US has become particularly dogmatic I think. It's held up as an untouchable ideal, but practically circumvented when it becomes too uncomfortable. The nutty Phelps clan are a perfect example. Rather than legally defining their outrageous and unacceptable behaviour as outrageous and unacceptable, cities and states effect their practical silence by limiting how close protests can be to funerals. Individuals show up in greater numbers, surround them or stand in front of them and shout louder, and then hail it as a triumph of free speech and good over evil. Really what's been done is the stripping of their 'free speech rights' by a mob. It seems to me that the wiser course would be to acknowledge that a civilized country must have limits and define and enforce them through dispassionate and accountable institutions.
What we really mean by free speech I think is fearless speech, and it becomes a charade when we pretend that the freedom to intimidate and wound and repress people is inextricably bound to the need for individuals and society to be able to confront and oppose ideas without fear. Want to hold a civil immigration protest based on your view of the evidence? Knock yourself out. Want to publicly scream belittling things at people for being dark skinned and not born there? Not so much. It's not a distinction that is so fraught with subtlety that it's impossible to legislate without compromising the freedoms that truly underpin democracy and individual rights.
Saint Jiub
This happened in Nov 2011 and she has yet to stand trial.
The trial is scheduled June 11th.
Info was not easily available in the mainstream press and all I have is this racist link.
http://www.britainfirst.org/campaigns/emma-west-pleads-not-guilty-trial-set-for-june-11th/
The trial is scheduled June 11th.
Info was not easily available in the mainstream press and all I have is this racist link.
http://www.britainfirst.org/campaigns/emma-west-pleads-not-guilty-trial-set-for-june-11th/
Saint Jiub
After eating dinner I found this more informative mainstream link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102685/Mother-accused-racist-tram-rant-taken-double-dose-medication-court-hears.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102685/Mother-accused-racist-tram-rant-taken-double-dose-medication-court-hears.html
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Well I can't say that I agree with the crap she said, but I still believe she had to right to say it. I can't decide what's more important - the freedom of speech or not tolerating racist comments.[/QUOTE]
I think you are confusing two things here - her undeniable right to have such a vile opinion, and her non-existent right to disturb the peace by expressing it in such a way.
What's in the mind, is free. What you say in private is almost absolutely free. What you do and say in a public area, like public transportation, is subject to the law. I consider this, as I suggested above, as criminal disturbance of the peace, because it can be reasonably assumed that her little speech would directly cause an unsafe situation for herself and others, such as a fight inside the train.
Well I can't say that I agree with the crap she said, but I still believe she had to right to say it. I can't decide what's more important - the freedom of speech or not tolerating racist comments.[/QUOTE]
I think you are confusing two things here - her undeniable right to have such a vile opinion, and her non-existent right to disturb the peace by expressing it in such a way.
What's in the mind, is free. What you say in private is almost absolutely free. What you do and say in a public area, like public transportation, is subject to the law. I consider this, as I suggested above, as criminal disturbance of the peace, because it can be reasonably assumed that her little speech would directly cause an unsafe situation for herself and others, such as a fight inside the train.
catqueen
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
After eating dinner I found this more informative mainstream link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102685/Mother-accused-racist-tram-rant-taken-double-dose-medication-court-hears.html [/QUOTE]
People were there to support her?!!!
Thanks for the link -- i really hope this case gets a lot of publicity.
After eating dinner I found this more informative mainstream link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102685/Mother-accused-racist-tram-rant-taken-double-dose-medication-court-hears.html [/QUOTE]
People were there to support her?!!!
Thanks for the link -- i really hope this case gets a lot of publicity.
GratefulFan
[QUOTE]
[b]catqueen wrote: [/b] People were there to support her?!!!
[/QUOTE]
Eruptions like this unfortunately express what's on the minds of a significant number of people. Anger and fear at rapid social change and feeling psychologically threatened in these situations is in many ways only human. But if immigration policies are fair and just and sound people have to find their better selves and shed their ignorance and inexperience and adapt, even when it's difficult.
[b]catqueen wrote: [/b] People were there to support her?!!!
[/QUOTE]
Eruptions like this unfortunately express what's on the minds of a significant number of people. Anger and fear at rapid social change and feeling psychologically threatened in these situations is in many ways only human. But if immigration policies are fair and just and sound people have to find their better selves and shed their ignorance and inexperience and adapt, even when it's difficult.