How about having the discussion out in the open first?
Any judgement and action should follow that discussion. And as posted many times above we have many options open to us other than mob action.
Jonathan
How about having the discussion out in the open first?
What an absurd comment.
You are welcome to try, you would face the same consequences as the individuals that sparked this debate.
It is what the statues mean and signify to people who are alive now that is at the heart of this, not least to people who are black. I am not interested in the judgement of what a few of your 'non-racist' friends consider to be right or wrong. I am interested in what that statue meant to black people. This issue is not about the bad things done by historical figures, but about the veneration and celebration of them in the present, and what that means to those who are discriminated against and disadvantaged because of their skin colour.
The problem with the term racist is that there are two commonly used definitions for the word.
[my bold] This may be a straw man. Is hatred really a key component? First page of google has a number of definitions, and hate/hatred appear in none of them.Vorpal wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 2:48pmThe problem with the term racist is that there are two commonly used definitions for the word.
Many people define racism as 'hatred of people based on their race', which makes it quite easy for most people, even many white supremacists, to say, "But I don't *hate* Black people. I'm not racist"
The victims of racism, however tend to consider it a societal & systemic issue. One where people are, often unconsciously, disadvantaged because of race. One where most people just don't get why that statue was so, so offensive, or how subtle racism plays out in almost every area of life for Black and ethnic minorities.
Using the second definition, it's quite easy to think that anyone doesn't agree with anti-racist protesters is racist.
You introduce the opinions of a few of your unnamed friends and expect those opinions to be considered relevant to this discussion because you have known them for years and because you tell us they are 'non-racists'. Argument to authority is a logical fallacy, but when the authority is a few of your mates whom you yourself have determined to be good arbiters because you have decided that they are not racist, it is a ridiculous argument.
Instead of telling us what your friends think, I suggest you read those threads again.mattheus wrote: ↑20 Jan 2022, 6:07pmSo that would be "No" then.slowster wrote: ↑20 Jan 2022, 4:33pmSpoken to them? Some of them have made their views very clear on this forum. They start by posting about their concern for respect for the law and democratic process etc., but after a while their true colours show through. If you want actual examples they are not difficult to find, e.g. just read through the original thread about the George Floyd protests and the statue.
Whereas I know quite a few non-racist people who were also against the vandalism of statues. These are people I've known for years.
To be honest I've seen hardly any racists posting on this forum (and I think I've read all the George Floyd / Colston threads). I guess we see the world through different prisms.
OK. dislike. prejudice, believing that one race is inferior. I don't think it really matters whether hatred is a component. If you ask people, the vast majority will say that they are not racist. Because they don't believe that they have any prejudice.mattheus wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 4:06pm[my bold] This may be a straw man. Is hatred really a key component? First page of google has a number of definitions, and hate/hatred appear in none of them.Vorpal wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 2:48pmThe problem with the term racist is that there are two commonly used definitions for the word.
Many people define racism as 'hatred of people based on their race', which makes it quite easy for most people, even many white supremacists, to say, "But I don't *hate* Black people. I'm not racist"
The victims of racism, however tend to consider it a societal & systemic issue. One where people are, often unconsciously, disadvantaged because of race. One where most people just don't get why that statue was so, so offensive, or how subtle racism plays out in almost every area of life for Black and ethnic minorities.
Using the second definition, it's quite easy to think that anyone doesn't agree with anti-racist protesters is racist.
Just about EVERYONE* is prejudiced (including the most liberal progressive rights campaigners). It's stronger for some people, and some are more/less self-aware. But anyway: I'm not sure your point has any weight (once you remove the "hatred" bit).Vorpal wrote: ↑24 Jan 2022, 10:47amOK. dislike. prejudice, believing that one race is inferior. I don't think it really matters whether hatred is a component. If you ask people, the vast majority will say that they are not racist. Because they don't believe that they have any prejudice.mattheus wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 4:06pm[my bold] This may be a straw man. Is hatred really a key component? First page of google has a number of definitions, and hate/hatred appear in none of them.Vorpal wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 2:48pm
The problem with the term racist is that there are two commonly used definitions for the word.
Many people define racism as 'hatred of people based on their race', which makes it quite easy for most people, even many white supremacists, to say, "But I don't *hate* Black people. I'm not racist"
The victims of racism, however tend to consider it a societal & systemic issue. One where people are, often unconsciously, disadvantaged because of race. One where most people just don't get why that statue was so, so offensive, or how subtle racism plays out in almost every area of life for Black and ethnic minorities.
Using the second definition, it's quite easy to think that anyone doesn't agree with anti-racist protesters is racist.
if everyone is prejudiced, then aren't those who disagree with some of the actions of anti racist protesters, in fact, racist?mattheus wrote: ↑24 Jan 2022, 12:47pmJust about EVERYONE* is prejudiced (including the most liberal progressive rights campaigners). It's stronger for some people, and some are more/less self-aware. But anyway: I'm not sure your point has any weight (once you remove the "hatred" bit).
*By which I mean studies have proven subconscious bias in a vast spectrum of subjects.
I suppose if the protestors are, then yes I'd agree that those who criticise are also!Vorpal wrote: ↑24 Jan 2022, 1:21pmif everyone is prejudiced, then aren't those who disagree with some of the actions of anti racist protesters, in fact, racist?mattheus wrote: ↑24 Jan 2022, 12:47pmJust about EVERYONE* is prejudiced (including the most liberal progressive rights campaigners). It's stronger for some people, and some are more/less self-aware. But anyway: I'm not sure your point has any weight (once you remove the "hatred" bit).
*By which I mean studies have proven subconscious bias in a vast spectrum of subjects.
It seems I had not understood this correctly, or at least not fully.thirdcrank wrote: ↑7 Jan 2022, 2:28pm I'm a slow thinker these days so I'm still catching up with Suella Benjamin's reported spin (note the "could")
Edward Colston statue case could be sent to appeal court
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59909823
If I've understood this correctly, then the prosecution's right to appeal is here:-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/part/9
Perhaps the significant points here are that the right to appeal is restricted to rulings made by the trial judge and the outcome of the appeal only decides that bit of the law for future prosecutions. I've no idea which, if any, of the trial judge's rulings the attorney general or her spinners may have in mind.
NB No prizes for this but spot the (unlikely to be deliberate) mistake in the BBC report I've linked.
Re the decisionmaking of either jury we can all speculate, safe in the knowledge that under the existing system we will never know.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-60133938Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 allows the Attorney General, following a submission from the Crown Prosecution Service, to ask a higher court to clarify a point of law, but it is not a means of changing the outcome of an individual case.
(No mention of the CPS, which didn't exist in 1972 but that's a minor point.)36 Reference to Court of Appeal of point of law following acquittal on indictment.
- (1)Where a person tried on indictment has been acquitted (whether in respect of the whole or part of the indictment) the Attorney General may, if he desires the opinion of the Court of Appeal on a point of law which has arisen in the case, refer that point to the court, and the court shall, in accordance with this section, consider the point and give their opinion on it.