Count me in as another UK person who was never heard it used in the way described.
We’ll happily greet friends with “you old fucker” or “you old bugger” but “shagger”?, not to my knowledge.
First of all, i’m a bit surprised that no one has mentioned Scotland yet.
That said, my opinion is that this should be folded into the “how reprehensible do you want to be in the pit?” thread.
Whilst I would not dispute that some people have it worse than others, name-calling that is consistent, persistent, and implies that the subject is, on account of their ethnicity, in some way morally (or intellectually etc) inferior is over the line for hate speech, IMO.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
Hate speech is more than just insulting or even racist. It has to be tied to violence, either to incite new violence or to intimidate with callback to past real violence.
Hell, ginger jokes are more a form of hate speech than sheep shagger ones. AFAIK, Welsh people aren’t being stabbed, sexually harrassed or forced to move houses for merely being Welsh, the way some redheads in the UK have had to.
What you’ve describes is undeniably racism. All racist speech isn’t hate speech, though. Some is just insult.
Plus, of course, insulting people based on their race or nationality hurts the speaker as well. Racist speech is ugly, corrosive, and diminishing, and it’s a hard habit to break.
The UN definition of hate speech
any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.
I’d say the example being discussed in this thread qualifies for that definition. Your own opinion may differ.
Hate crime appears to be closer to what you’re describing.
Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:
- demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Or- been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
That seems to be the case and that makes the UN definition of hate speech so broad as to be meaningless.
“other identity factor” being the main culprit. I know football fans who will say with absolute sincerity that being a fan of a specific team is crucial to their identity. They certainly hold it as strongly as many religious people. By the UN’s definition if they are abused because of that affiliation they have suffered “Hate Speech”.
“You City supporter!!!”
The edge cases relating to any definition are always going to be problematic; that’s a problem with definitions in general, not a specific problem with this one. Besides, why is adherence to a religion more special than football team allegiance anyway?
I’m pretty sure the ‘other identity factor’ clause is there in this definition because people love to lawyer the rules to excuse the thing they want to do - eg: “Ummmm, ackshually, it’s not technically racism because X is not technically a race”
Sheep Shagger isn’t generally directed at Scots. Unless they come from a very rural area, which most Scots do not.
They then immediately went on to say:
However, to date there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still under discussion, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality. So not exactly a rigid definition.
So yes, my opinion differs.
No, a hate crime is the actual violence perpetrated. So hate speech and hate crime are linked, but the one is just the talking, the other the doing. You can have hate crimes without hate speech, and hate speech without actual hate crime attached. Hate speech is not itself a hate crime.
OK, and my opinion is irrelevant because?
It’s different from mine. Who you were replying to. So it’s irrelevant to me. I’m sure it’s super relevant to you.
Probably would have been quicker and easier just to say you disagree; when you went off about what hate speech has to be or is, I foolishly imagined you were invoking some existing shared definition or description somewhere.
I know it seems a little flippant but it is true. Lots of people hold subjectively trivial things as very dear to them, as something critical to their identity. By the UN’s reckoning, insulting people with reference to any of those factors would be “Hate Speech”. The concept loses any credibility but honestly I’ve never found it to have much in the first place.
If you are insulting someone by means of personal attack with the intention of hurting them then clearly you have some degree hate or emnity, calling it by a special name seems unnecessary.
Depends on your jurisdiction. Some hate speech is criminalised in the UK.
I’ve encountered a few people who used ‘shagger’ as a familiar greeting; all in the northern part of the UK, one with an impressive speech impediment that made it sound like ‘sschyagger.’ But it not really a common turn of phrase.
I agree, and trying to define “Hate Speech” seems like a particularly pointless exercise.
In my view, it isn’t, the implication of the UN’s definition is that they don’t think so either. I’m happy to state that people shouldn’t be verbally insulting or attacking each other on the basis of religion or sports team affiliation.
I suggest that many people would consider one case much worse than the other. the UN puts them on the same level.
Personally I don’t feel the need to use the term “Hate Speech” at all. for either scenario.
Well I’m from the north and I’ve never heard it but of course it is such a regionally and linguistically diverse area. My wife comes from 5 miles away from my birthplace and has a subtle dialect and accent difference.
Go 20 miles away and it can be very different indeed so I don’t doubt that it may exist as a thing in pockets, nothing would surprise me about UK verbal inventiveness…
But as you say, that’s a different thing from it being “very common”
Also worth pointing out that “shagger” isn’t necessarily a contract of “sheep shagger”; it can be just a variation on “fucker”.
Mere vulgar abuse isn’t racist, whether used offensively, jocosely or ironically, even if directed to someone of a different race. Abuse only become racist if you’re abused on the basis of some quality explicitly or implicitly imputed to you on account of your racial, national, ethnic, cultural, etc origin or identity.
All of which is to say, you can’t necessarily pick a phrase and say, in the abstract, that it is or is not racist. Often the answer will depend on a number of factors — Who’s using the phrase? Of whom is it used? What’s the context? Is there an (explicit or implicit) link to racial, etc origin or identity? If it’s implicit, how strongly is it implied?