tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13646683.post3877862023688210795..comments2023-03-22T07:54:47.598+00:00Comments on Disgruntled Radical: CoconutDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03281231409865527752noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13646683.post-61913820310802422682010-07-20T21:46:02.013+01:002010-07-20T21:46:02.013+01:00Huh, what do you know? Okay, so yes, I guess from...Huh, what do you know? Okay, so yes, I guess from the synopsis that such a society might need hair colour harassment laws.Tommy Herberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11388244567230723484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13646683.post-6262518226053793422010-07-20T08:14:12.670+01:002010-07-20T08:14:12.670+01:00Hello Tommy ! You may be interested in the film, ...Hello Tommy ! You may be interested in the film, "The boy with green hair" which can be found here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040185/mediaindexDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03281231409865527752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13646683.post-7498818629321902202010-07-19T11:38:14.783+01:002010-07-19T11:38:14.783+01:00"As a society, we have decided that certain i..."As a society, we have decided that certain insults are so much worse than others, that they are criminal."<br /><br />Yes. Because of the historical context. I can picture a society where remarks about skin colour would be relatively innocent but remarks about hair colour would be gravely humiliating. We don't live in that one.Tommy Herberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11388244567230723484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13646683.post-59514119853975079852010-06-29T08:22:14.679+01:002010-06-29T08:22:14.679+01:00Thank you for your comment, PeteP. No, I am not n...Thank you for your comment, PeteP. No, I am not naive. Nor do I care that the councillor delivering the insult is a Liberal and the councillor insulted is a Conservative. I do think it's debateable whether Section 3A was broken. Violating someone's dignity is a higher test than upsetting them. However, my point was to question whether we need such a law in the first place.<br /><br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03281231409865527752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13646683.post-17235617975534825242010-06-29T08:12:59.167+01:002010-06-29T08:12:59.167+01:00Thanks for your comment,Roy. You seem to think tha...Thanks for your comment,Roy. You seem to think that "Targetted personal abuse which has the potential to give rise to unrest" should be criminal. That's a pretty broad definition. There's an old Common Law offence of "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace" which comes near, but the requirement of "breach of the peace" sets the threshhold much higherDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03281231409865527752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13646683.post-79547275752037660422010-06-29T03:14:42.149+01:002010-06-29T03:14:42.149+01:00David, you clearly don't understand the comple...David, you clearly don't understand the complexity of racism - or are distracted by the Liberal v Tory aspect. Shirley Brown had no reason to bring race (or skin colour) into the debate whatever her background and whatever the subject matter. Clearly all three elements of section 3A that you list apply. <br /><br />Your analysis is even worse: <br /><br />"The insult can only be Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11391864456225818693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13646683.post-74067925037037199702010-06-28T21:43:16.611+01:002010-06-28T21:43:16.611+01:00I was present for the entire hearing on 28th and h...I was present for the entire hearing on 28th and have nothing but praise for the conduct of all concerned. The judgement made clear the distinction between strongly expressed opinion, acceptable party political argy-bargy and targetted personal abuse which has the potential to give rise to unrest. I hope it serves as a lesson to those who hitherto have believed racism always requires a white RantingRoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01828500293015772550noreply@blogger.com