Sam Kerr: Racial Abuse or 'Tilly Sausage?

For starters should be made to work a shift cleaning vomit out of taxis on Sunday morning.

4 Likes

Hold on, so we should classify crime based on how serious it is? Does that mean we’re no longer going to be saying that stealing a candy bar (for instance) is theft? Because the material loss on that is so minimal that it shouldn’t be a crime? That’s not how the law works. The law attempts to be quite black and white to distinguish between what is illegal and illegal, the grey area is the repercussions and punishment based off of carrying out the crime.

Again your way of thinking just does not work. You look at context and a million other things. If we were to carry out a classification system for every single country and interactions and who has power and who doesn’t and who has historical basis etc. the court systems would be spending more time deliberating on that than actually looking at crime.

It’s literally so so so so so so so simple. If you’re going to have a go at someone, don’t do it because of their skin colour, just do it cos they’ra c*nt

1 Like

You’re arguing two separate arguments. I don’t think anyone really thinks she should be getting a big punishment or anything like that. Was it stupid? Yes. Does it look to be out of character? Maybe. Has it been blown out of proportion because of who she is? Yes.

Like I said before, this 100% stinks of a prosecutor trying to make a name for themselves by taking out one of the most famous female sports stars in the world at the moment.

Without getting into too much, yes we totally do that all the time. That is how the law works. We have different crimes depending on how serious an offences and they carry different sanctions.

My way of thinking does work and it works every other facet of criminal law, other than perhaps summary offences like traffic offences etc.

Also doesn’t just apply to the actual criminality of a thing either imo.

I’m just saying if the seriousness is so minimal as to be ridiculous that it’s even brought to our attention (as kiselonthewing suggests) - is it really worth any punishment? And therefore is there any real problem here?

Like if you want to say that it’s racist but the racism is so minute you can’t detect it, I don’t know what we’re arguing about at that point.

Yes but they’re still crimes. Theft is theft, no matter how much you steal. Assault is assault no matter how hard you punch on. Again the repercussions and punishments are used to sort out the seriousness of the matter.

I was arguing on whether a Coloured person can be racist towards an Anglo

I don’t dispute that at all.

I’ll leave poor @MrRooney to correct me if I’m wrong.

Addressing the last part, there’s a spelling error in my sentence that should shed light

I wrote
To answer your question, I can only give a qualified no, I don’t think there can be such a situation where the words are used in a derogatory manner and with intent to insult, the circumstances we’re discussing.

I intended (and thought I did) to write.
To answer your question, I can only give a qualified no, I don’t think there can be such a situation where the words are used in a derogatory manner and with intent to insult in the circumstances we’re discussing.

In other words, in Kerr’s situation, arguing with a cop, I can’t see ‘stupid white bastard’ not being racist, but I can see other circumstances where it might not be, specifically where there is clearly no dispute or conflict between the two parties, imagined or real.

I have to be honest, this whole thing has made me realise how complex and nuanced the whole ‘what is racism’ debate is and the only thing I’m confident of now is that definitions of racisim are primarily driven by what the definer wants to get out of it and there’s a lot of contradictory positions from ‘authoritative sources’

So being 25% Indian makes them a person of colour? If it was a great grandparent who was Indian, would that still make her a woman of colour?

I don’t know the answer to this, and am not claiming any insight, I simply recognise it as an issue.

My point here is that once you allow for circumstance or genetic makeup, you create a phenomenally difficult to define standard that invariable can’t be effectively applied. Something Paulska’s pointed out more effectively than me.

If we’re talking about the criminality of it, it’s different.

I don’t think it should be a crime to do what Kerr did because it didn’t materially harm anyone.

In particular, the racial comment she made would not have aggrevated her attack on the police officer and the stupid bastard part is hardly crime worthy either.

Whether or not it IS a crime, I don’t know. I don’t know the law there. But I reckon it shouldn’t be a crime and if she is prosecuted over this is a pretty poor misuse of the law and a worse look for the justice system in the UK than it is for Kerr.

I think we’ve been over this.

If we’re talking about the presence of racism in what she did - not considering the criminality - I don’t think there’s racism there for my reasons stated above. And I think that if one thinks that there is racism present but it’s harm is so minimal as to be ridiculous - then I’d say we can probably all ignore it.

And if you’re asking me if I think Kerr should be celebrated for throwing up in a taxi and having a go at a cop - my answer is still no.

Hope that clears it up.

That’s kind of my point. They would be living in a society with a legacy of chattel slavery and centuries of institutional oppression from people that look like them and yet still experience racism.

We can argue the impact of that racsim and the justification and/or mitigation of it I’m not disputing that.

For sure. Sorry I probably shouldn’t have mentioned that in the same post. It was just an aside that always shocks me.

I think there’s no possible way to enforce such a view without unintentionally making everything worse, and I think I’ve finally clarified what it is that I have an issue with.

It’s not the act, it’s not even the definition of racism, it’s the (to me) obvious impossibility of actually doing things that way

So it’s just the practicality of determining harm in the course of enforcement that’s the problem?

Does it reassure you if I told you courts make determinations about the extent of harm caused by offenders actions all the time?

No it’s the practicality in drawing a line under which some racist comments are not criminal and some are, determined by a combination of potential and actual circumstances.

4 Likes

It might be difficult in some cases, but not impossible.

The criminal justice system is set up exactly to deal with stuff like that.

This isn’t a story in regard to whether Sam was racist or not but more to address the fact that Anglos can 100% experience racism.

While backpacking East Africa a long time ago, I found myself in a nasty situation in a public South African hospital with malaria for the second time in a month and a worsening case of bilharzia I picked up swiming in lake Kivu in the DRC 3 months earlier

I was freezing and shivering all night and repeatedly asked for blankets and was not given any. When the night nurses finished their their shifts at 9am they passed on the message that I needed blanket and nurse finally brought me some as the hot flushes began. At 5am i was told to get out of the bed to change the sheets, I asked for blankets again and said it was ok to leave the sheets as I was tired but was told I was a pig and should go to stay on a farm if I didn’t want to change my sheets. I was not given food and was told that skipping a meal wouldn’t kill me. It became very obvious that I was being treated bad because I was white.

After 2 days of horrible treatment I complained to a white doctor about the treatment. He asked me what I was thinking coming to a public hospital? Whites go to private hospitals and the public hospitals are for blacks. He confirmed that what I was experiencing was racism.

Telling this story I always have to add that I am aware of apartheid but there is never an excuse for racism. Racism sucks and while it was a humbling experience, it was horrible. I’ve never felt so small and insignificant in my life. No one should use racism and no one should have to experience it.

Anyone who thinks white peope can experience racism have never left the comfort zone of being the majority.

3 Likes

I don’t think I’ve suggested this? I’ve tried to articulate that on the spectrum of racism it’s low end. But still wrong. In terms of consequences, given the assumed context, I don’t think criminal consequences are appropriate. With her public profile, and role as a leader, some relative punishment may be appropriate. Possibly no longer captain? But I’m not sure, that’s a really complex debate and I don’t have a clear opinion. However I do think it is important it’s brought to our attention. Cases like this allow for discussion and societal improvement. If it wasnt a charge, it’d be a grainy iPhone video.

Sums it up well. Point of criminality is somewhere along the spectrum. I would argue she is on the spectrum of racism, but short of the point of criminality. Therefore should be called out, without criminal punishment. Obviously most of these points are very subjective.

1 Like

You reckon? OK, let’s take one example, a key circumstance weve discussed is the power imbalance between various groups.

If a 50% indian man calls a 12.5% Jamaican woman an insulting racial slur, is that a crime?

How white do you have to be before the court assumes that no harm was caused?
What % non-white do you have to be before the court assumes harm?
Do looks come into it, if you look more asian even though you’re only 37.5% chinese, does that affect the presumption of harm?
How about sex or gender or wealth?

We can’t just say ‘that’s up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis’ because the absolute bedrock of western legal systems is that the law is blind and applied the same way to everyone. While in reality we all know that doesn’t work, it’s DESIGNED and INTENDED to work that way.

Not trying to be a dick, I’m genuninely trying to explain why I can’t see it working.

2 Likes

Spectrum kind of implies a two dimension scale between legal and illegal, or racist and not racist, but its clearly impossible to map anything so simplistically. As with anything founded on morality
its also subject to different cultural or idiological standards and will be different by jurisdiction.

What a mess. Navigating this is as complex as navigating the infintisimal chunks of vomit that penetrate into car upholstery. I have no perfect answer as to why babies and toddlers vomit like they do but can’t we just all agree that it’d be easier if they didn’t?

1 Like