Would someone's extreme political views prevent you being in a band with them, or working with them?

[Misdee]

10 minutes ago, EssexBuccaneer said:

I didn’t say my definition, did I?

 

I used the Oxford definition, available online. I find that’s better than inventing my own. 

Your definition i.e the one you are presenting as being the "real" definition. My definition is defined in context of the post, and clearly so.

 

This is an argument  about nothing. Except that some people are desperate to accuse other people of racism, either explicitly or implicitly, and that's a very serious allegation to make .

[prowla]

31 minutes ago, EssexBuccaneer said:

Extremism and bigotry both have definitions which are easily found with a quick search.

Yes - there are plenty of definitions to choose from.

[EssexBuccaneer]

1 minute ago, Misdee said:

Except that some people are desperate to accuse other people of racism, either explicitly or implicitly, and that's a very serious allegation to make .

Which is why it’s important that racism is defined officially and legislatively and not left to individuals to arbitrate for themselves. 

[Bassassin]

Just for the record, assuming I finish this before the inevitable lock - no.

 

Racists, homophobes, transphobes & hateful, bin-burning bigots of any faction can do one. Not in my band, not in my life, if I can possibly help it.

[prowla]

3 minutes ago, EssexBuccaneer said:

Which is why it’s important that racism is defined officially and legislatively and not left to individuals to arbitrate for themselves. 

Is there such a thing?

[EssexBuccaneer]

1 minute ago, prowla said:

Is there such a thing?

The equality act 2010 is the primary legislation 

[prowla]

6 minutes ago, EssexBuccaneer said:

The equality act 2010 is the primary legislation 

I know that exists, but does it define the word in question?
 

[EssexBuccaneer]

10 minutes ago, prowla said:

I know that exists, but does it define the word in question?
 

In wordy legalese, yes.

[Dan Dare]

This thread is descending into farce, with a side order of virtue signalling. I suppose it's inevitable on here.

[Dankology]

I think it's really important that we talk about stuff like this here, at work, in the pub and anywhere else possible.

 

If we don't, a vacuum forms and only the most vociferous and cynical voices fill it. And in a world in which unmoderated, unchecked, unleavened info comes at us non-stop (and frequently via channels with opaque motives and intetests) we owe it to ourselves to ensure that moderate voices and quiet wisdom are not drowned out.

 

I'm fairly certain there are people who are currently being led down a particular path who would be easily swayed if real data and logic were presented to them in a digestible way.

 

I fear for what may come to pass ultimately on a wave of populism fired up by ignorance, fear and half-truths.

 

Bickering and semantics are a sure fire way to get discussion shutdown.

Edited 2 hours ago by Dankology

[prowla]

2 minutes ago, EssexBuccaneer said:

In wordy legalese, yes.

I can't see the word anywhere in that document.

The fact that you can look at it and say yes and I can look at it and say no therefore demonstrates that your assertions here are flawed.

41 minutes ago, EssexBuccaneer said:

Which is why it’s important that racism is defined officially and legislatively and not left to individuals to arbitrate for themselves. 

 

27 minutes ago, EssexBuccaneer said:

The equality act 2010 is the primary legislation 

 

5 minutes ago, EssexBuccaneer said:

In wordy legalese, yes.

And therefore the answer is no.

[EssexBuccaneer]

1 minute ago, prowla said:

I can't see the word anywhere in that document.

The fact that you can look at it and say yes and I can look at it and say no therefore demonstrates that your assertions here are flawed.

 

 

And therefore the answer is no.

And yet since it’s the primary legislation used in the U.K, maybe your assertion is wrong. If it didn’t provide a useable definition, then it wouldn’t be fit for purpose. 

[Steve Browning]

I believe two parts of the Act are relevant here.

 

1. the Introduction - An Act to make provision to require Ministers of the Crown and others when making strategic decisions about the exercise of their functions to have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities; to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to discrimination and harassment related to certain personal characteristics; to enable certain employers to be required to publish information about the differences in pay between male and female employees; to prohibit victimisation in certain circumstances; to require the exercise of certain functions to be with regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and other prohibited conduct; to enable duties to be imposed in relation to the exercise of public procurement functions; to increase equality of opportunity; to amend the law relating to rights and responsibilities in family relationships; and for connected purposes.

 

This outlaws "discrimination and harassment" base on a number of personal characteristics,

 

2. the definition of race (at Setion 9) - 

Race

(1)Race includes—

(a)colour;

(b)nationality;

(c)ethnic or national origins.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of race—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group.

(3)A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls.

(4)The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group.

 

Therefore to discriminate or harass based on these characteristics is outlawed. Is not racism being defined here, for the purposes of the Law? The word itself may be missing but the man on the Clapham omnibus will know what is being defined here.

Edited 2 hours ago by Steve Browning

[prowla]

Just now, EssexBuccaneer said:

And yet since it’s the primary legislation used in the U.K, maybe your assertion is wrong. If it didn’t provide a useable definition, then it wouldn’t be fit for purpose. 

It conflates a number of things: age, marital status, skin colour, disabilities into one overarching law.

But, as you hint with your "wordy legalise" comment, it is imprecise and so does not define the term.

As with most/all UK laws, items are open to interpretation and I would certainly say that the Act can be efficacious in providing the desired results.

However, the term "racism" it is not defined.

Therefore its meaning is open to interpretation.

[Wombat]

Quite a lot of legislation isn’t fit for purpose. It’s part of ‘the problem’. Plus the general level of education now means most of us wouldn’t /cant understand it anyway

[prowla]

8 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

I believe two parts of the Act are relevant here.

 

1. the Introduction - An Act to make provision to require Ministers of the Crown and others when making strategic decisions about the exercise of their functions to have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities; to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to discrimination and harassment related to certain personal characteristics; to enable certain employers to be required to publish information about the differences in pay between male and female employees; to prohibit victimisation in certain circumstances; to require the exercise of certain functions to be with regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and other prohibited conduct; to enable duties to be imposed in relation to the exercise of public procurement functions; to increase equality of opportunity; to amend the law relating to rights and responsibilities in family relationships; and for connected purposes.

 

This outlaws "discrimination and harassment" base on a number of personal characteristics,

 

2. the definition of race (at Setion 9) - 

Race

(1)Race includes—

(a)colour;

(b)nationality;

(c)ethnic or national origins.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of race—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group.

(3)A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls.

(4)The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group.

 

Therefore to discriminate or harass based on these characteristics is outlawed. Is not racism being defined here, for the purposes of the Law? The word itself may be missing but the man on the Clapham omnibus wil know what is being defined here.

 

The man on the Clapham omnibus might make a different inference than the man on the Mersey ferry.

BTW, I'm not arguing with the law itself, but rather against the assertion that it definitively defines the term.

 

Incidentally, if it is so definitive, then why is there a multi-page document giving guidance on it (https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance), along with a supplementary multi-page document (https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/public-statement-prosecuting-racist-and-religious-hate-crime)?

 

If you have to read those documents in order to understand what the rules (law) are, then it is evidently not so definitive at all.
I have my interpretation of the word, others have theirs, the UK law has verbiage on the matter, Loughborough University appears to state that only a majority group can manifest racism against a smaller group, the UN has its definition, Brazil has theirs, the USA theirs, and so-on.

Edited 2 hours ago by prowla

[neepheid]

I'm out.  I've made my position clear.  If you're a right wing boor who says bad things about/wishes ill upon people they don't even know based upon where they came from/what religion they adhere to/gender/skin colour/pick an arbitrary reason to make your odious point, then stay the f out of my way.  No doubt you'll call me "woke" - whatever the f that means.

[Al Krow]

It can work both ways though? The fear of being labelled "racist" is widely cited to be a key reason for the police not properly investigating some of the appalling grooming gangs in Bradford and other cities.

If folk are anti large numbers of migrants crossing the channel in small boats and peacefully protest against this, does that make them racist or are they entitled to express what very many others regard as a legitimate viewpoint? 

A parallel question would be: are we comfortable being in a band with a bandmate who is a Class A drug user? 

I'm sure pretty much all BC'ers are anti-racist and not homophobic, as is very clear from this thread, but some of this stuff is not always clear cut and it then goes to our values and a sense of what is right and wrong. We will each know that deep down and it's up to us to live with our consciences.

[fretmeister]

8 minutes ago, prowla said:

It conflates a number of things: age, marital status, skin colour, disabilities into one overarching law.

But, as you hint with your "wordy legalise" comment, it is imprecise and so does not define the term.

As with most/all UK laws, items are open to interpretation and I would certainly say that the Act can be efficacious in providing the desired results.

However, the term "racism" it is not defined.

Therefore its meaning is open to interpretation.

 

It has to be left open to interpretation otherwise friends using words that they have deemed acceptable between them would be viewed as a tort or a crime.

Circumstances matter

 

That being said it will not be the person doing it that has the highest weighted opinion - but the person it is being done to.

 

This is the problem with the "I make my own definition" approach because people saying that are never the ones on the receiving end.

Like the old boy we probably have all come across who describes a local take away as a "Chi*ky" and says he isn't racist and won't change.

 

When it's from a position of genuine ignorance, that is one thing, but once informed that it has offended others who have the mocked characteristic then it is a problem.

It raises the question of once being aware is that old boy racist? Or is he just a very unpleasant person who is continuing to use something that he now knows is upsetting?

 

I take a general view that the strongest weight should be given to those who are on the receiving end, not the giving end. As a white straight class person I don't get to decide what might be offensive to an Asian gay person for example.

 

If they tell me something I said is a problem then I'll change my use of language. It might not be racist for me to not change, but it would certainly make me an arsehole if I didn't. If I can't make my point without offending then that's my failure alone.

[Steve Browning]

13 minutes ago, prowla said:

The man on the Clapham omnibus might make a different inference than the man on the Mersey ferry.

 

In theory, no. The man on the Clapham ominbus is the collective term used to imagine (I'll avoid the word 'define') the average, reasonable person.

[Bassassin]

40 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

This thread is descending into farce, with a side order of virtue signalling. I suppose it's inevitable on here.

 

"Virtue signalling"?

[fretmeister]

5 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

It can work both ways though? The fear of being labelled "racist" is widely cited to be a key reason for the police not properly investigating some of the appalling grooming gangs in Bradford and other cities.

If folk are anti large numbers of migrants crossing the channel in small boats and peacefully protest against this, does that make them racist or are they entitled to express what very many others regard as a legitimate viewpoint? 

A parallel question would be: are we comfortable being in a band with a bandmate who is a Class A drug user? 

I'm sure pretty much all BC'ers are anti-racist and not homophobic, as is very clear from this thread, but some of this stuff is not always clear cut and it then goes to our values and a sense of what is right and wrong. We will each know that deep down and it's up to us to live with our consciences.

 

Some red herrings there. White grooming gangs outnumber non-white ones massively. I've yet to see a protest about them.

"large numbers of migrants" is similarly loaded. There's about 30K in "asylum" hotels. That's about a quarter of Wembley stadium. Some elements have managed to petrify a nation of 70 million people over one quarter capacity of Wembley. They also never mention that one of the reasons it is now so difficult to deal with the actually small numbers of boat crossings is that the thing that cannot be named ended the treaties to return people to the first EU country they went to.

 

I think you can usually tell when a person is coming from a position other than racism. They come with verifiable facts about public services for example. They don't generalise or demonise. They don't come with "They all get free ipads" type nonsense that could be shown to be wrong with 10 seconds of google-fu. They also tend to at least attempt some sort of suggestion for improvement in the process instead of a "I don't like it / them" rant.

 

Anyone who enjoyed Carswell saying "From Epping to the shining sea, lets make England Abdul Free" the other day is probably not actually bothered by facts other than they don't like brown people.

 

Anyone like the LBC caller who said he didn't care about an entire economy crash or people dying in hospitals due to lack of staff as long as all the foreigners were thrown out is probably not really troubled by the concept of rational thought.

[prowla]

4 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

In theory, no. The man on the Clapham ominbus is the collective term used to imagine (I'll avoid the word 'define') the average, reasonable person.

...and your terms "average" and "reasonable" are weighted by your own definitions.

So, my point is that far from being definitive, the term in question is very subjective and is not defined in law.

An example of the subjectiveness is this university's definition (https://www.lboro.ac.uk/internal/online-reporting/looking-for-information/racism/), which states that racism can only be performed by a "dominant" group against a "minoritized" (sic) group - that's not what the Equality Act says (I think!).

[Dad3353]

[fretmeister]

Just now, Dad3353 said:

 

 

I hope I never get so bored / tired that I wouldn't try to stick up for those being demonised for no good reason.

 

“Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. The grave will supply plenty of time for silence.”

― Christopher Hitchens