So, Bahar Mustafa has been charged with RMMC (according to the Guardian)

[SonOfVoorhees]

I would say an asian/muslim saying "kill all white men" is racist. Mostly due to the fact a white man is more likely not to be a Muslim. That in itself is judging some one based on the colour of their skin. But white people can never be victims of racism even if they are. Which in itself is racist. All these hate speech people - whether racist, homophobic ect should be arrested. Freedom of speech lets you say what you want, but, you are accountable for what you say and can be arrested.

For me its how we can have hate crimes against religions and race but rarely is a news report of a white person being a victim of racism, and they are everyday. Nor a non muslim a victim of a crime from a muslim. Look at Rigby, beheaded by scum that i hope will burn in hell. Thing is he was chosen because he was white and thus likely to not be a Muslim. So a victim of racism and religion. Yet its never treated that way. Lets have both sides treated equal.

 

[EvilRoy]

Any halfway competent lawyer or legislator could foresee such an obvious interpretation, I'd say. Had I heard of this particularly archaic piece beforehand, I'd have been able to spot this potential misuse with ease. There's no earthly reason we'd need to go through with a needless legal kangaroo court.

Hell, as it currently stands, she's not been successfully prosecuted on this charge, and you're perfectly capable of spotting misuse yourself. If you can see it now, without prosecution, why do you also believe prosecution is necessary to see it?

The prosecution is just endgame, where you get into the nitty and gritty of why the law is or is not a poor one. Charging a person is typically the critical stage to get the problem into the public mindset, but it doesn't actually achieve much beyond that. As you said, you hadn't heard of this law before - presumably neither had most of us - but the law has been used, apparently successfully, in the past for similar actions. The law isn't even particularly archaic - at 30 years of age and with a roughly progressive mindset, there isn't anything immediately visibly wrong with the law. The only thing that really needs to be worked out is the severity necessary to actually trigger an investigation and charge. That's why it needs to be prosecuted - this case will help establish whether this level of action from a person is enough to justify an actual charge in future.

If it gets thrown out before real prosecution has even started then the authorities will have a solid gauge of what is and is not severe enough to merit a charge - if it gets all the way to the end of prosecution, then legislators can decide hopefully with the help of voters whether this law should change or not. The thing to keep in mind is that as far as what I have read indicates, this is not really a bad law. It just happens to be applicable in interesting ways. If UK legislators and voters agree that people should be charged for threatening blacks or whites or women or men or conservatives or liberals, then that is that.

 

[Silvanus]

The prosecution is just endgame, where you get into the nitty and gritty of why the law is or is not a poor one. Charging a person is typically the critical stage to get the problem into the public mindset, but it doesn't actually achieve much beyond that. As you said, you hadn't heard of this law before - presumably neither had most of us - but the law has been used, apparently successfully, in the past for similar actions. The law isn't even particularly archaic - at 30 years of age and with a roughly progressive mindset, there isn't anything immediately visibly wrong with the law. The only thing that really needs to be worked out is the severity necessary to actually trigger an investigation and charge. That's why it needs to be prosecuted - this case will help establish whether this level of action from a person is enough to justify an actual charge in future.

That would be setting precedent for how a law should be interpreted, and where the lines stand. That happens very frequently-- it's a staple of the system-- but when precedent is set, hardly ever is actual rewriting required, because the law is usually intended to be interpreted.

When I described it as an "archaic piece", I was a bit confused, and referring to a different law someone mentioned earlier in this thread (they suggested Mustafa was guilty of that, too, IIRC). I was all turned around. Apologies; I'm ill. I don't actually believe the law against threatening communications is archaic.

If it gets thrown out before real prosecution has even started then the authorities will have a solid gauge of what is and is not severe enough to merit a charge - if it gets all the way to the end of prosecution, then legislators can decide hopefully with the help of voters whether this law should change or not. The thing to keep in mind is that as far as what I have read indicates, this is not really a bad law. It just happens to be applicable in interesting ways. If UK legislators and voters agree that people should be charged for threatening blacks or whites or women or men or conservatives or liberals, then that is that.

It would seem, however, that if one were to insist on a law that is not up to interpretation, then it would be impossible to legislate effectively on this matter at all. You would have to outlaw certain words, or certain word combinations, and there would be a million ways to get around it. Reasonable human interpretation has to come into it.

 

[EvilRoy]

That would be setting precedent for how a law should be interpreted, and where the lines stand. That happens very frequently-- it's a staple of the system-- but when precedent is set, hardly ever is actual rewriting required, because the law is usually intended to be interpreted.

When I described it as an "archaic piece", I was a bit confused, and referring to a different law someone mentioned earlier in this thread (they suggested Mustafa was guilty of that, too, IIRC). I was all turned around. Apologies; I'm ill. I don't actually believe the law against threatening communications is archaic.

Kind of. It depends on the system, and how bad people consider the law to be. Countries like mine work almost entirely on a common law system, others work almost entirely on legislative law, but ultimately if a law is considered to be far enough out of line in either system you just stop everything and re-write the whole law. Sometimes it won't even be because the law is particularly out of wack, but more that 50 years of contradictory precedent made a mess of a bit of legislation and it needs a do over.

The push for a re-write is usually difficult, like you said, which is why I would expect we would need to get right into persecution before anyone looks close enough to question the need for a re-write. In this case in particular, if it gets that far, that is what I would expect. Its not that the law is bad, its just that people seem to be asking for exclusions based on certain things, but that is outside the realm of precedent - you can't use precedent to say 'we don't apply this law to members of x group or offenses committed against y group'.

No problem on the misunderstanding. I can appreciate a foggy head making a discussion hard.

It would seem, however, that if one were to insist on a law that is not up to interpretation, then it would be impossible to legislate effectively on this matter at all. You would have to outlaw certain words, or certain word combinations, and there would be a million ways to get around it. Reasonable human interpretation has to come into it.

This sort of goes back to the last statement I made though. I just don't believe precedent is able to comment on this kind of exclusion. You can leave it up to interpretation if you want, but that just means that this will happen over and over again.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Eh, was getting a little tired of that other thread. Came back to see this little comment and was kinda confused:

I'm arguing that the law is stupid, regardless of who gets dinged with it. there is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with a stupid law. there is everything wrong with allowing an oppressive law of that nature run roughshod over ANYBODY. If you are fine with having your freedom of speech taken from you by the government that is your business. Don't expect the rest of use to fall inline behind you like good little cattle.

The exact part I bolded is literally you just repeating what I said. Like...almost exactly what I was saying. Also please don't start with ad hominems. You know pretty much nothing about me.

You can disagree with the law and think its stupid, and it probably is. You can even campaign for it to be stricken from the books. But to arbitrarily declare that because you disagree with the outcome of a law in this particular case (noting that it has been applied to the letter in cases for others previously with little to no blowback) that she should be let off the charges from the very beginning is a fundamental undermining of the legal system itself.

My point is this: You (general 'you' not specific 'you') amend the law when it is found to be unsuitable. You don't apply it in some cases and not in others just because you don't like who it effects for what all the time; that is fundamentally being discriminatory. Instead you should seek to write a law that can be fairly and impartially applied and does what is intended.

In this case, as EvilRoy and Silvanus have been discussing and as I understand where their conversation has gone, it may be that it merely requires a level of precedent of how 'far' someone has to go before its judged to have broken the law. Good conversation by the way there, very interesting stuff.

 

[Strazdas]

No its not a mischaracterisation. This thread is full of people saying "she shouldn't be charged/arrested because its just words on the internet". They're wrong. She should by charged because she has broken the law; a law that other people have broken previously in a similar way and have also been charged with. To not charge her 'because reasons' would make a mockery of the legal system.

There is absolutely no legitimate argument against not charging her here. Arguing that the law is inappropriate is fine, I might even agree (I'm not going to actually express my views on the law in question because its unnecessary to my point), but regardless of personal feelings on that law, it is still a law.

I cant speak for others, but im one of "those people" that said she should not be charged for twitter messages (instead i think she should be charged for her discrimination during her job performance). I think you misunderstood my position entirely here. I dont think that just her should not be charged because of words on the internet, i think that NOONE should be charged because of words on the internet. as in i believe the law itself here is wrong and should be changed. I believe the law itself is a mockery of a legal system to begin with.

Death threats (this is so old I doubt anyone will even bother trying to accuse her of lying):

After the furore, Mustafa denied that her initial request for white men to stay away from a union meeting was racist or sexist, and said she had received rape and death threats.

User named 1981 sent me rape and death threats. Since im an old user i doubt anyone will even bother trying to accuse me of lying. also accusing me of lieing is against forum rules, so you have to believe me.

And yes this is just an example of how stupid this argument is.

That would be setting precedent for how a law should be interpreted, and where the lines stand. That happens very frequently-- it's a staple of the system-- but when precedent is set, hardly ever is actual rewriting required, because the law is usually intended to be interpreted.

I always found this system strangely hilariuos. your courts seem to care more about what some backend judge decided half a century ago than what is actually written in the law. such a backwards way of legal system.

 

[jklinders]

Eh, was getting a little tired of that other thread. Came back to see this little comment and was kinda confused:

I'm arguing that the law is stupid, regardless of who gets dinged with it. there is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with a stupid law. there is everything wrong with allowing an oppressive law of that nature run roughshod over ANYBODY. If you are fine with having your freedom of speech taken from you by the government that is your business. Don't expect the rest of use to fall inline behind you like good little cattle.

The exact part I bolded is literally you just repeating what I said. Like...almost exactly what I was saying. Also please don't start with ad hominems. You know pretty much nothing about me.

You can disagree with the law and think its stupid, and it probably is. You can even campaign for it to be stricken from the books. But to arbitrarily declare that because you disagree with the outcome of a law in this particular case (noting that it has been applied to the letter in cases for others previously with little to no blowback) that she should be let off the charges from the very beginning is a fundamental undermining of the legal system itself.

My point is this: You (general 'you' not specific 'you') amend the law when it is found to be unsuitable. You don't apply it in some cases and not in others just because you don't like who it effects for what all the time; that is fundamentally being discriminatory. Instead you should seek to write a law that can be fairly and impartially applied and does what is intended.

In this case, as EvilRoy and Silvanus have been discussing and as I understand where their conversation has gone, it may be that it merely requires a level of precedent of how 'far' someone has to go before its judged to have broken the law. Good conversation by the way there, very interesting stuff.

I bolded a part that you seem to be mischaracterizing my intent. I never once suggested that the law be applied unevenly. I challenge you to find one instance where I did. Amending your post to say that you were not talking about me in particular does not change that. All I ever said was that the law is is a blunt instrument that is too far reaching and frankly dangerous. Which I thought was sufficiently clear in my statement that the law was stupid. It's fucking appalling that it was used against anybody in a blunt force application against free speech.

For the last fucking time, I am expressing an opinion that the law is ridiculous. I am not trying to overturn the fucking legal system by setting one set of rules for one group and another for another for ever loving fuck's sake.

 

[Petromir]

Eh, was getting a little tired of that other thread. Came back to see this little comment and was kinda confused:

I'm arguing that the law is stupid, regardless of who gets dinged with it. there is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with a stupid law. there is everything wrong with allowing an oppressive law of that nature run roughshod over ANYBODY. If you are fine with having your freedom of speech taken from you by the government that is your business. Don't expect the rest of use to fall inline behind you like good little cattle.

The exact part I bolded is literally you just repeating what I said. Like...almost exactly what I was saying. Also please don't start with ad hominems. You know pretty much nothing about me.

You can disagree with the law and think its stupid, and it probably is. You can even campaign for it to be stricken from the books. But to arbitrarily declare that because you disagree with the outcome of a law in this particular case (noting that it has been applied to the letter in cases for others previously with little to no blowback) that she should be let off the charges from the very beginning is a fundamental undermining of the legal system itself.

Weeelllll, Strictly speaking the English legal system (because don't forget that Scotland is distinct legally, and Wales and Northern Ireland are also not entirely in the English system) there is is a mechanism that somewhat allows this. The CPS is required to carry out a number of tests before carrying on a public criminal prosecution, reasonable chance of conviction is one, but there is also the Public Interest Test, which states is it good for "the public" that this prosecution takes place. The last test has a number of functions, one of which is will it strengthen the law in its function or weaken an unjust law, carrying out a prosecution to define a boundary (I.E this law does not forbid X) is often considered to be. Sometimes it's even used by the CPS to build up pressure to get the law changed.

Remember in common law systems the judgements get more consistent over time, and without prosecution of cases that shouldn't get a conviction but there are no prior judgements that clarify the law, the law is much weaker. Much of the point of a common law system is to arrive at consistent treatment when taking into account more variables than a legislative body can reasonably deal with. They do tend to struggle a bit either just after a fresh law is passed, or when things have changed to much for the old legislation and judgements to deal with (at which point a new law is made, often taking into account the vast body of judgements).

 

[Twintix]

If it's true:

Good.

This ***** brings a bad name to feminists everywhere. Last time I checked, calling for mass homicide is not the same thing as caring for equality.

Let her rot away somewhere far away from society. We don't need scum like her.

 

[omega 616]

Without going to far into it, which means I have a half baked opinion and that's all I care to have.

As far as I am aware, we don't have freedom of speech like America has, which means you can get arrested for saying hateful things. She was also a "A student diversity officer", I don't know what that entails but it seems that you seek diversity among students, so saying "you can't join our club" means at the very least she should be fired ... be like a KKK grand wizard welcoming the black community, you're not really fulfilling your job role.

 

[Tilly]

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Like owning child porn?

Because owning normal porn and even pictures and videos of criminal acts (such as murder and torture) is protected under the US's Free Speech laws.

The owning of child porn doesn't really bear on the question of free speech either way. The owning of it is not a form of speech at all. The making of it is the crime but it's a crime that's based on a illegal act rather than speech. A proper analogy using that subject would be whether you'd defend someone's right to say in public "I want to have sex with kids". Which I probably would. The punishment for saying that will be quite effective in that everyone will keep their kids away from you.

Did you seriously just suggest that the entire white population of Scotland and Ireland has extreme contempt for ethnic minorities?

Mustafa would have stopped Irish men going into the diversity meeting, despite us A. being an ethnic minority, and B. one that was historically oppressed (very important to SocJus) by English people like Mustafa, especially given her middle-class background.

Some minorities remain more equal than others.

Well that's just the logical conclusion of this silly identity politics they've set up. It's based on a completely absurd premise (that all people in one of their predetermined groups are similar enough to be pushed into the same "privilege" category).
It constantly leads to ridiculous injustices. The example you give is one.
Another one that is particularly insidious is how progressives actively try and crush resistance of people from within minority communities who don't fit the status they've been ascribed. A good example of this is to see how they treat progressive muslims like Irshad Manji and Maajid Nawaz:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/don-t-call-me-porch-monkey.html

 

[aba1]

I see a lot of people here who are actually flabbergasted by her choice to have a meeting for marginalized groups exclude cis white men, and I gotta ask, why is that such a bad thing?

Bear with me for like the two seconds it'll take to make this point. If you're an ally, it's not about you, it's about helping others. Sometimes that means letting them have their own space, we don't always need to be included if marginalized groups want to meet without us. She made reference to straight and male allies in the email, so she's clearly not looking to exclude white men from activism.

Being an ally means sometimes (a lot of the time) you just kinda need to shut up and try and understand other people's experiences, that's what intersectional feminism is about. If you're a straight white man a large part of the western world is "your space," don't begrudge people a classroom for a few hours. And ask yourself why you feel attacked by a twitter joke hashtag, because that's what Killallwhitemen is, it's a joke. It was created to mock people who characterize feminism as "just so radical, like Marx and Stalin had a baby and it's name was Andrea Dworkin." It's not a sincere expression of hate, and trying to characterize it as such is ridiculous.

I don't know enough about the woman to defend her from some of the criticisms I've seen leveled against her, but I don't believe the choice to exclude cis white men from a meeting designed by and for marginalized groups is abhorrent in the least. As for the rest, if she is indeed being charged for her use of the hashtag (and this may not be the case, there is apparently another communication which we are not privy to yet) then that is some odd application of justice, considering the actual racist, fascist elements present in the UK political body (which she roundly criticized over social media before being charged).

Edit: Also I get that this is a huge sticking point here on the escapist but there is a prevailing definition of racism in academia which specifically cites the presence of oppressive power structures and behavior reinforcing those structures, under that definition, the "oppressed" cannot be racist, they can internalize racist behavior, but it does not in and of itself constitute racism. I feel like the divisiveness of the definition comes from people who want to define racism as specific action and speech, and people who want to define racism as a complex network of social and economic factors. As for me, it's like porn, I may not be able to tell you exactly what makes a speech or deed racist, but I know it when I see it.

^ This right here is exactly why I am NOT a feminist. "Its all about treating people equally but you people over there need to shut up and do as your told your opinions don't matter and are not valid". Either everyone is held to the same standard or you are not fighting for equality it is really is not that complicated.

 

[Thaluikhain]

^ This right here is exactly why I am NOT a feminist. "Its all about treating people equally but you people over there need to shut up and do as your told your opinions don't matter and are not valid". Either everyone is held to the same standard or you are not fighting for equality it is really is not that complicated.

Is everyone's opinion equally valid when dealing with groups and experiences they may or may not share, though? That's the sticking point.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

Is everyone's opinion equally valid when dealing with groups and experiences they may or may not share, though? That's the sticking point.

According to google, "valid" means (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent. The answer to your question therefore is no, not everyone's opinion is equally valid when dealing with groups and experiences they may or may not share. For example, Bahar Mustafa's opinions and my own are not equally valid on all topics, including thoughts on "groups and experiences" she or I have never been/had, if you want to frame it that way. Some of hers are idiotic and harmful while mine are far more valid indeed.

Could you be more specific about what the "sticking point" is? And are you using the word "valid" in the same way I am using it?

I always found this system strangely hilariuos. your courts seem to care more about what some backend judge decided half a century ago than what is actually written in the law. such a backwards way of legal system.

Judges decide what is written in the law. We're just pragmatic about it. That is why we rely on precedent to make the law consistent and predictable over time. In theory, and often in practice.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Could you be more specific about what the "sticking point" is?

A lot of people interpret being equal to mean having an equal say on all issues, which sounds reasonable enough, but ends up with members of one group claiming their opinion should be taken equally seriously as members of another when talking about the second group. There's a lot of arguing over that.

And, yes, seems to be using the word valid the same way.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

Could you be more specific about what the "sticking point" is?

A lot of people interpret being equal to mean having an equal say on all issues, which sounds reasonable enough, but ends up with members of one group claiming their opinion should be taken equally seriously as members of another when talking about the second group. There's a lot of arguing over that.

So one side claims being equal means having an equal say on all issues, while the other side claims opinions about Group A are more valid when proffered by members of Group A, and less valid when proffered by nonmembers. So if a Jew tells me that Neo-Nazis are up to no good, I can dismiss the claim outright on the basis of group affiliation or lack thereof. If I want a valid opinion about Neo-Nazis, the only way to get a valid opinion is by asking a Neo-Nazi. Opinions from outside the Neo-Nazi group are non-valid as a matter of course. Or at least less valid. Is this what a lot of people are arguing over?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Could you be more specific about what the "sticking point" is?

A lot of people interpret being equal to mean having an equal say on all issues, which sounds reasonable enough, but ends up with members of one group claiming their opinion should be taken equally seriously as members of another when talking about the second group. There's a lot of arguing over that.

So one side claims being equal means having an equal say on all issues, while the other side claims opinions about Group A are more valid when proffered by members of Group A, and less valid when proffered by nonmembers. So if a Jew tells me that Neo-Nazis are up to no good, I can dismiss the claim outright on the basis of group affiliation or lack thereof. If I want a valid opinion about Neo-Nazis, the only way to get a valid opinion is by asking a Neo-Nazi. Opinions from outside the Neo-Nazi group are non-valid as a matter of course. Or at least less valid. Is this what a lot of people are arguing over?

Somewhat, yes, though the bar doesn't need to be set particularly high when asking if Neo-Nazis hate Jews. Putting it the other way around, though, if you want to know what it's like to be Jewish in, say, modern New York, a Jew living in New York is going to have a much better idea than a Neo-Nazi, or a Wiccan in Glasgow.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

Could you be more specific about what the "sticking point" is?

A lot of people interpret being equal to mean having an equal say on all issues, which sounds reasonable enough, but ends up with members of one group claiming their opinion should be taken equally seriously as members of another when talking about the second group. There's a lot of arguing over that.

So one side claims being equal means having an equal say on all issues, while the other side claims opinions about Group A are more valid when proffered by members of Group A, and less valid when proffered by nonmembers. So if a Jew tells me that Neo-Nazis are up to no good, I can dismiss the claim outright on the basis of group affiliation or lack thereof. If I want a valid opinion about Neo-Nazis, the only way to get a valid opinion is by asking a Neo-Nazi. Opinions from outside the Neo-Nazi group are non-valid as a matter of course. Or at least less valid. Is this what a lot of people are arguing over?

Somewhat, yes, though the bar doesn't need to be set particularly high when asking if Neo-Nazis hate Jews. Putting it the other way around, though, if you want to know what it's like to be Jewish in, say, modern New York, a Jew living in New York is going to have a much better idea than a Neo-Nazi, or a Wiccan in Glasgow.

So when the Jew from New York tells me that New York is located on the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, and they commute from New York City to their synagogue in Syracuse on a spaceship piloted by William Shatner, and their job is to paint asteroids salmon colored with their space-brush, I should believe them over the Neo-Nazi who says that is not factually correct. Is that correct?

The bar doesn't need to be set high? How did you determine Neo-Nazis hate Jews? Because I asked a Neo-Nazi and she assures me they are on the up-and-up. I know you are not a Neo-Nazi, so I certainly won't take your nonvalid opinion over her valid one.

 

[Strazdas]

I always found this system strangely hilariuos. your courts seem to care more about what some backend judge decided half a century ago than what is actually written in the law. such a backwards way of legal system.

Judges decide what is written in the law. We're just pragmatic about it. That is why we rely on precedent to make the law consistent and predictable over time. In theory, and often in practice.

So you have no separation between judicial and Legislative branches? I find that quote hard to believe, and if true, very scary.