Racism - A Growing Business

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Markintime, Sep 7, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I've just read an excellent article by Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent on the Dale Farm situation.

    The following quote got me thinking.

    The will of the majority is being ignored to pander to a minority. In a lot of cases the minority is perfectly happy to accept the benefits of this imbalance but are not often the instigators of it.

    If you can get yourself out of the mire by using the race card, why wouldn't you? There are plenty of squaddies who pull the ID Card in similar circumstances. Is it the offender's fault for using a potential get out of jail card or Authority's for making it such an easy thing to do?

    Is it really necessary to ban every form of racial stereotyped humour? After all humour is just that and as long as it isn't directed in such a way as to incite or to cause fear then I can't see any problem with it. Most people can tell the difference between a joke about a Scotsman or Yorkshireman being 'careful' and the persistent negative stereotyping of one race or another.

    In my experience illogical and ill thought out 'Political Correctness' is more likely to cause friction than the mere presence of people with different coloured skin. Nearly all the more ridiculous PC pronunciations come from white lefties rather than any racial group.

    You just can't have a law that is in the eye of the beholder as to whether an offence was committed or not. One man's banter is another man's abuse. The law should define the offence and make it abundantly clear where the lines are drawn, if you can't define the lines then you shouldn't have the law.

    When setting objectives we always set out to make them SMART, that is Specific, Measurable, Achievable,Realistic and Time Framed. Apart from the Time I would say that Laws should apply the same criteria.

    Isn't it time we redefined what constitutes racism and what constitutes equality?
     
    • Like Like x 6
  2. Don't suppose he knows any good "Kerryman" jokes?
     
  3. It has taken you long to realise this?
     
  4. What's the hardest three years of a Kerry man's life?


    Primary Two
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Now if we had 'The Rule of Law'.

    john
     
  6. Agree with the OP. Military E & D is just as easily picked apart using logic, and how upset do E & D advisors get when you point out the discrepencies. Very. (Apart from the ones which know its rubbish, and have done it for a career advancing tick in the box).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Can't argue with that. There is a whole traunche of bad law out there, profiting no one but the lawyers. The Government must keep its (Conservative) manifesto promise and repeal the lot. Start where ever you like, but the Human Rights Act is a big target.

    B
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Labour have long sought to try to dismiss debate on racial matters and brand any opinion that doesn't suit as evil. Hence we have such a lopsided view of what constitutes racism. If an English person wants to preserve the English culture they are sometimes branded racist or a Little Englander but the converse isn't true. Anyone who wants to preserve their own culture in England is applauded and helped, even encouraged.

    Racism cannot be a one-sided affair. If you are going to outlaw racism then it must be applied equally to all races without exception. I have no objection to anybody retaining their own traditions but they should do so within the confines of our traditions and culture. We should be tolerant but not have to make way for their traditions and culture to supersede or even superimpose itself on ours.

    By creating distinct minorities that are encouraged to maintain their own traditions and cultures, within a greater whole, then you create resentment and barriers to integration. Isolation prevents integration and prevents immigrants breaking out of their situation and succeeding in the mainstream, it certainly does them no favours.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Mate, that's all a bit sensible for Arrse!


    Bloody good points though.
     
  10. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    Can I add to that?

    Labour's reforms also put paid to the idea that we are all equal before the law.

    I can think of a case in London a few years back when two skinheads kicked a gay guy to death in a park. This was seen as homophobic in nature, a so-called 'hate crime', and so there was a greater sentencing tariff applied.

    I don't doubt that the two deserved to be imprisoned for what they did, and I fully agree that what happened to the poor guy who was killed was a tragedy and fundamentally wrong.

    However, I have a very uncomfortable feeling about the fact his death was somehow deemed deserving of a greater level of punishment than if this hadn't somehow been a 'hate crime'; if he'd been kicked to death just because there'd been an altercation, the two perpetrators could potentially have received lighter sentences.

    Okay, I've used a homophobic example here but the same still applies. There's an insidious, ideological element to this. And, once again, to highlight its unfairness is to be branded 'racist' or somehow bigoted.
     
  11. You are confusing race, culture and immigration as a single subject. They are related but not all the same thing.

    Racism is an obviously bad thing which needed to be dealt with, just not in the way Labour did it. They have made laws that encourage rather than tackle the problem.

    Multiculturalism was a shit idea. Of course people should be free to express their cultural heritage but not if it breaks our laws.

    Immigrants shouldn't really be doing crap low paid work. A sensible immigration policy would only have skilled people coming here.

    For over a decade now the official response to anyone raising concerns has been to label them as racists and so stifle debate. A sensible debate is long overdue IMO. Just because it will be difficult to do (as it will attract genuine racists) does not mean it should not be done.
     
  12. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    Can't disagree with anything you've just said. But New Labour had an unstated policy of changing the racial mix of the UK AND creating for itself a client voter block through mass inward migration.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Agreed with my addition. BUT

    MIT - you seem to be changing your tune slightly as at one stage you argued for Sharia Law being allowed - granted with the caveat "In some circumstances"

    So where do you draw the line?
     
  14. You've picked a very good example. The act itself was senseless and, it would appear, motivated my homophobia but what makes that motivation worse than a motiveless attack? If you kick someone to death because he looked at you wrong or because he supported the wrong football team or even because he was the tenth person who happened along why is that considered better than being motivated by a tangible difference?

    If incitement to commit an offense is a crime then why does it have to have a separate offence involving race? Why is mindless violence considered preferable to violence motivated by a perceived difference? Surely both should be equally as severely dealt with?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Yes I know, it was a shit policy designed for party benefit against the overall welfare of the UK. I think that the knee-jerk calling people racists was originally a designed response. Doing that stopped them having to engage in debate. MIT seems to have just realised this or is on the verge of doing so.
     
    • Like Like x 1