Yep I was getting deja vu thinking about this topic again. I mentioned it above in my edited post. I personally disagree with that point of view but I understand it.
This is a unique case here because the person who has experienced the systematic oppression (has she though? Regardless…) is actually a rich and powerful footballer, and it kind of blasts the argument of systematic racism/oppression into oblivion. So this is again another reason why I think people have to be treated equally because when you start getting into it there is too much context.
Landscapes are always changing too - in fact the majority of London is now non-white. You could in that sense consider a white person a minority now, and if we keep applying laws differently to certain people it may be that in 50 years, white people experience systematic oppression.
Treating people equally is just the best way to go about it imo. Like I said in this case, it was not hard for her to just not be racist, it wasn’t like systematic oppression made it so that she had little option but to be racist. It’s not really an excuse here.
I cant get behind a solution that doesn’t acknowledge difference because it’s “too difficult”.
Yes, as a day to day rule its perfectly fine to say “don’t go around commenting on people’s race or appearance. Don’t swear at people, etc”.
But when it comes to deciding what society should count as behaviour that needs criminal sanction - we can afford to be a bit more nuanced. And we are. The laws around this stuff is very (and necessarily) complex.
I can respect where you and Jubal are coming from here. By the letter of the law, there are no exceptions even if PoC are verbally abusing white people, so it works the way you think it should.
Meanwhile, Tommy Robinson is serving for contempt of court even though he’s on the record making racial slurs. And even that charge is enough to get thousands rallying in his defence.
My point is that the way the law is enforced by the Met or other police forces in former British colonies is racist - not against white people, but in favour of them.
Fair enough, but isn’t this why it is going to trial, and why the court systems exist? Because there is nuance, and to flesh out that nuance? The legal system does indeed have protocols for context and situations instead of just applying things in a black and white manner.
Regardless of the cops ‘feelings’, repeatedly swearing at him, calling stupid and referring to his race is harassment, whether you think he should just cop it or not isn’t relevant
You don’t have to cause harm for something to be called a crime… By that logic, to get rid of racism, we should just be telling people to harden up and not get offended by it
My post earlier to @shabby was also slightly ‘baity’ on re-reading because it’s good that we all want equality based on gender/race/anything else, but we just have different opinions on how to get there. For me it’s more of a simplistic view that we just be more black and white now and things will reach an equilibrium naturally, as opposed to being more nuanced now until we can get to a time where things can be more black and white.
This is interesting and potentially offers an explanation of the broken window and her anger, right now it’s one person’s statement and just like this statement just came out, there could be more shoes to drop.
What this does though is make it very hard to reasonably condemn her actions without looking like a racist/misogynist prick IMO, at least in the absence of contradictory information.
sorry, forgot the bit in attempted murder where someone is caused harm… intent is just as important as the crime, otherwise our legal system would be even more completely fucked.
There are definitely things that don’t add up on this account e.g. from what I’ve read, there is no record of any emergency calls being placed by either of them, even after they claimed they called the police. Then they apparently said ‘we don’t know the number for the police’. Then they said ‘the police hung up on us’. It would appear that they are lying, but it’s true there might be more info to come out.
No you do not, you clearly don’t know much about the law.
The Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which is the backbone of criminal law in NSW has Section 344 which states that any person who attempts to commit a particular offence shall be liable to the penalty provided under that offence. Furthermore, this section explains that a person facing charges for attempting to commit a serious indictable offence shall be convicted as though they committed the crime.
Here’s a list of what the Crimes Act covers
Every single one of those crimes can get you convicted if you attempt them and fail.
