Bahar Mustafa is being investigated by Scotland Yard

[Queen Michael]

*snipped*

Just quoting this because, 3,625?
I know they can be small, but that's ridiculous.
I applaud your love of the medium, even if it is a little bit scary.

Haha, thanks. I started about 13 years ago, so all I had to do is read one book a day at least three days out of four and I'm set.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Whatever answer allows you to sleep at night and wake up in the morning. As said... you've illustrated my point. YOu don't want to go back and look at her videos because I won't tell you what to look fo. Again, sort of like how racists don't find racist jokes racist. BEcause they can't really think outside their own viewpoint. If you can't watch her videos and pick out her hyperbole or the various things that might and honestly has enraged and offended many people...then you are simply incapable of seeing outside your own viewpoint.

This issue was never about whether or not I or anyone can prove something, it's about whether you and others are capable of seeing things from the counterpoint. You can't which is why when ever she or her followers get involved in any debate the debate more or less ends.

"I can't provide any evidence you should just Google it. If you can't be bothered to Google it it's your fault not mine.

If you do Google it and don't find anything though, then you're just ignoring the evidence because you want to.

It's not because I can't find any examples, honest."

When you have the courage to actually look at the truth in front of you...then you may discuss and debate. Something tells me you wouldn't even need to google those vids they're likely sitting in your youtube play list. But since you like to have things handed to you... 'Look for the one where she talks about 'Hitman: Absolution'.

 

[MonsterCrit]

When you have the courage to actually look at the truth in front of you...then you may discuss and debate. Something tells me you wouldn't even need to google those vids they're likely sitting in your youtube play list. But since you like to have things handed to you... 'Look for the one where she talks about 'Hitman: Absolution'.

Feel free to quote the shock jock part of it. I'm sure it wont be hard.

Even better, don't quote it because you want to show me, just straight up quote it and show everyone.

Sigh... Me senses you are the sort of horse that needs not only lead to water but also have it ever so daintily poured down it's throat. If you can't be bothered to review something from the point of view of someone else then you have rather handily proved my point about Ms. A and her legions of adoring followers. They are incapable of seeing any Point of View but their own which is why they more or less are so toxic to any actual discussion on issues.

THank you, for providing a true life case study.

 

[R.K. Meades]

This incident serves to highlight the sheer absurdity of our 'hate speech' laws. Forward them to the shredder.

An update; the 'vote of no confidence' petition failed to gather the required number of signatures.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bahar-mustafa-goldsmiths-university-diversity-officer-keeps-her-job-after-vote-of-no-confidence-petition-fails-10277562.html

Not a good outcome for the institution.

 

[Silvanus]

More seriously, as for the news: honestly, I'm hoping that the amount of noise it's created still gets her employers to sit her down and go "Look, you are doing this job entirely incorrectly and need to fix that, or we'll remove you anyways". Because really, her behavior is pretty unacceptable.

A reprimand would be appropriate, I agree. This event has clearly had an alienating effect, which is the opposite of what her role is supposed to have.

This incident serves to highlight the sheer absurdity of our 'hate speech' laws. Forward them to the shredder.

Get rid of them because of... Improper coverage? That's counterintuitive.

 

[R.K. Meades]

This incident serves to highlight the sheer absurdity of our 'hate speech' laws. Forward them to the shredder.

Get rid of them because of... Improper coverage? That's counterintuitive.

No. They are cumbersome, feel-good laws, with no real net benefit. As distasteful as Ms. Mustafa's conduct has been, the notion that police should be investigating a questionable tweet (which does not constitute a sincere threat against one's person) is nonsense. I didn't agree with it during the Stan Collymore debacle, and I don't agree with it now. Law enforcement should have better things to do. These 'crimes' aren't even as injurious as so-called quality of life offenses, and they are often revenue-raisers at best.

Let Mustafa speak her mind, and let the institution suffer the loss of credibility that results when an exclusionary fruit loop is tasked with overseeing policies pertaining to social inclusion on-campus. I can't see wealthy Goldsmiths alumni being too keen to donate funds right now.

 

[Silvanus]

No. They are cumbersome, feel-good laws

Both charges which could be reasonably levelled at the majority of laws.

As distasteful as Ms. Mustafa's conduct has been, the notion that police should be investigating a questionable tweet (which does not constitute a sincere threat against one's person) is nonsense. I didn't agree with it during the Stan Collymore debacle, and I don't agree with it now. Law enforcement should have better things to do. These 'crimes' aren't even as injurious as so-called quality of life offenses, and they are often revenue-raisers at best.

Well, I slightly misunderstood, at least-- I thought you were arguing that the law should have covered this (for the sake of consistency). I'd agree entirely that this constitutes no threat, and would be a waste of everybody's time if it were actually investigated.

That said, the same does not equally apply to all hate-speech, and is not an equally valid argument for the dismantlement of hate-speech legislation in its entirety.