By the way, the reaction of the right-wing press is interesting:
Clearly taking a position.
More neutral, but no comment offered.
None of them are demurring from the judgement.
Since you’re referring to it in response to a post about the EU, I suspect you are. The ECHR is an agency of the Council of Europe, an entirely seperate body from the EU. The Council was founded in 1949, compared to the EU’s founding Treaty of Rome in 1957, and is concerned solely with promoting human rights and the rule of law.It has 47 member states, as against the 27 of the EU, and interestingly the UK and Ireland were founder members of the Council, which they clearly were not of the EU.
The UK could leave the EU tomorrow, and it would still be under the jurisdiction of the ECHR.
Well, the Lisbon treaty was a document that provided all citizens in the EU with a bill of rights, before which the highest document an English person could refer to was the Magna Carta (IIRC).
As for whether the comments could be classed as racism: I’d argue yes. I think the person considered themselves superior for not being black and classified all individuals with dark skin as a single group (go pick cotton: referring to Southern slaves). Then again, seeing someone this vehement is rare and is usually more associated with football prejudices from what I’ve seen at my university. The comments were probably intended to incite anger in Bolton fans more than anything else, the racial epithets were just the method used.
The arrest, charging, conviction and sentence are ridiculous. So he Tweeted some vile abuse on Twitter? Boo fucking hoo. Block the guy and get on with your life. The only good thing about this judgment is that it will hopefully ensure nobody ever gets convicted of a crime like this again, as juries refuse to convict and imprison people based on insults.
Why will judicial precedent for the interpretation of a law against inciting racial hatred applying online mean that such incidences are less common in future?
Because if I (and presumably many others, judging from reactions I’ve seen from Britons, both on the left and right, elsewhere) were on a jury with the knowledge that prison sentences were being handed out for typing some text on Twitter then there’s no way in hell I’d be voting to convict in any similar case. The amount of time and money invested by all parties from the Police and CPS onwards in bringing this farce to a court room, and the prison sentence handed down by a buffoon of a judge, are vastly disproportionate to any alleged “crime” that took place.
Yip. But I don’t think he’s right, either. He’d have a case without “go pick cotton,” assuming wog really is an unpopular insult (even less so than chink here in the U.S.). But with that, it was definitely racist.
I’m not sure how I feel about the sentence. I do know I support the basic concept of the law punishing racist speech, as long as racism is clearly defined so that any person can reasonably avoid it.
As far as I’m aware, the jury is aware of the sentence before they determine the guilt of the defendant. If they were aware of the possibility of a custodial sentence and already decided it was unfair then (as far as I’m aware), they would not be able to sit on the jury since their decision would be made on the basis of their perception of the fairness of the sentence rather than the defendant’s guilt. This would probably come up in questioning before the trial actually began, with or without reference to past precedent.
The question is not whether what Stacey tweeted was racist - it clearly was - but whether or not he incited racial hatred. Personally I don’t think so.
ETA: “wog” remains well known and insulting, even if it’s not as common as it used to be.
This is the UK not the US, and what you describe is not how jury selection is performed there. It is done differently.
Well, you’re right that I was mistaken about jury selection… But do they not have a legal obligation to find the defendant guilty if the evidence supports that, despite their objections to the law? Could they keep their objections secret during the swearing in?
From what I remember (went to court to talk with a judge for a criminal psychology lecture), if the decision isn’t unanimous but there is an overwhelming majority, there is a retrial.
Wouldn’t this case have taken place in front of a magistrate? So no jury.
Also I think there’s a wider topic of note, that the British judiciary is having trouble dealing with crimes involving the internet. Parliament has been unwilling to legislate to have online crimes dealt with differently than offline crimes (an argument often supported by the EFF and internet freedom campaigns) but this can seem unduly harsh to people who spend a lot of the time on the internet.
The other big case I remember is the guy who was arrested for trolling a dead girls facebook page. There have been other cases but I can’t remember them.
As mentioned, this is not how juries work in neither the Anglo-Welsh nor the Scottish legal systems. There is no stacking of juries by prosecutors and defenders using voir dire.
That was Sean Duffy.
Yes, if it were heard before a Magistrate’s court rather than a Crown court, no jury would be necessary. I don’t think it would necessitate a Crown court case, either. So that leaves the judge to decide based on past precedent and the judge definitely knows the gravity of the sentence and has sworn to uphold the Queen’s law, so I doubt they could use their own political judgement to find “not guilty”. If they did, the prosecution could appeal (I guess).
I can’t think of any examples, but I know that juries have indeed defied the evidence and even judges’ instructions in the past. Like that linked article says, selection is totally random, so people with hidden agendas could indeed sit on a jury.
However it’s established now that there was no jury, so this is moot.
Slim chance… its more likely to embolden the word police.
It’s not unusual for unis to suspend or expel someone who’s a known racist, to protect the minorities on their campus. Personally I think expulsion for a first offence is too much; I brought it up to point out that he’s already being punished apart from prison. Expulsion from uni is also a bigger deal right now, because it would mean that, if decided to go back and was accepted by another uni, he’d have to pay the new much higher fees.
He can’t appeal the charge, because he plead guilty. He could appeal the sentence, but given that he’ll actually be in prison for less than a month, it’s unlikely his appeal appeal would get heard before he’s out.
I can’t believe anyone on here is trying to claim what he said wasn’t racist. I mean, seriously. :rolleyes:
Not only is it not racist apparently, it’s fine to condone racism on the SDMB:
Un fucking believable.
That’s fine on here, but you musn’t be rude to people spouting racism on the STMB.
I think personal attacks are only permitted in the Pit.
This talk of juries is a little irrelevant in this case. He would’ve been tried (though as he pleaded guilty he wasn’t tried anway) and sentenced by either a bench of three Magistrates or a single District Judge.
As I said he has automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court (but only for sentence because he pleaded guilty; to appeal his conviction he would have to get his plea declared equivocal, which he probably wouldn’t have any grounds to do anyway). At the Crown Court appeals from the Magistrates Court are heard by benches consisted of one Circuit Judge (level above District Judge) AND two Magistrates, with the Circuit Judge having the casting vote.
I don’t know enough to say for certain, but I’m guessing the offence he was convicted of was probably a summary offence and therefore he wouldn’t have had any right to a trial by jury (the offence being deemed not serious enough for a jury trial).
Once again, you miss the point.
The question here is whether the student’s 56 days in jail for “racist remarks” was “sane”. Well, the fact is that he wasn’t jailed for making racist remarks, he pleaded guilty to “inciting racial hatred”.
I don’t believe anyone’s condoned racism here, despite what you think. In any case, believe it or not, it’s not a crime to hold racist views, nor to even openly proclaim that you are racist. You only break the law when you start discriminating against people, or, “incite racial hatred”. Thankfully, you can’t be arrested here for your opinions or beliefs yet, no matter how odious they may be, and long may that be the case.
And, for the record, that’s not me confessing to being a racist. Far from it, wait for it… “some of my best friends are black” (well, one of them).
I fail to see how using the word “wog”, nor mentioning cotton picking, incites anyone to start hating black people. If anything it’s going to incite a black man to punch his lights out, it’s certainly not the kind of word you’d use near my aforementioned friend. As I said above, it’s not a commonly used term round here, I can’t recall the last time I heard that out loud anywhere, it’s a blast from the past. Kids here have no experience of the word, its meaning, nor its usage. Maybe it’ll get picked up to mean something else, a bit like those crazy kids saying “gay” when they mean “shite”?
Anyway, I’ll say it again…this student’s comments were unpleasant, unwise and offensive, but not worthy of a jail sentence. If he’d not pleaded guilty, he’d have got a more realistic sentence, once the knee-jerks had died down. Maybe a half-decent barrister would have had the, IMHO, unsuitable charges dismissed and a more sensible charge made, like something under the Communications Act 2003? Alas, when the screech goes out: “RACIST!!” every sensible person heads for cover, no-one’s going to face the mob with their pitchforks and flaming torches. It’s possibly the most toxic thing to be called these days, apart from maybe “Kiddy-fiddler” or even “Daily Mail reader”.
It’s entirely possible that you can conclude that he is a racist from the comments he made, but like I said, that’s not a crime. Same as if someone hates Englishmen, Daily Mail readers, fat people, gays or gingers - not a crime, and not a crime to say so. Act on it, however, or encourage others to discriminate or “hate” is another story…
Hang on though, perhaps it would be better all round if we had a national debate and published a list of Approved Terms for all racial groups, with any deviation meaning an instant charge of inciting racial hatred? You could list the terms you find so offensive that anyone putting them onto paper or saying them out loud be instantly gaoled, I’ll do the same, then we will all know what’s acceptable.
No uncertainty could exist and no-one could be accused of having “an underlying racial agenda” as said in an above post.
You see, when I was a lad, when the National Front painted “Wogs Out” up and down the land, I played with half-caste kids and sometimes I’d meet their Dads, big coloured men. Alf Garnett was calling them something different, apparently, but the terms I use here were the terms I was brought up to use. Evidently, calling an AfroCaribbean a “coloured” is now akin to being like old Alf himself, and as for “half-caste”…I’d be lucky not to get lynched.
Am I allowed to use the word “lynched”, or does that have too many KKK connotations? “Stoned”? Nope, might upset the Moslems (or Muslims as they are now apparently called).
Eeeh, it’s a minefield out there (with apologies to any Angolans who might read that and think I’m having a pop at them).
I’m not old enough to use words like “picaninny” or “tar baby*” like my Gran did, but I don’t need to fall foul of the Holier-Than-Thou Thought Police, so a Govt Register of Approved Terms would be just the job, would ensure that everyone could keep up to date on the current words that are OK today, but expose you as a White Power (or Black Power, for that matter) extremist tomorrow.
What do you think? It’d create a few jobs in the UK Stasi.
Or perhaps would it be more sensible to use COMMON SENSE, ignore pissed up insults on Twitter, or at least keep them in proportion, and stop having anal twitches every time someone says something that MAY offend people of another group, boo-hoo.
That way we’ll actually see a REAL racist threat when it emerges (are you listening France?).
- Well, whaddaya know, apparently this isn’t the shock-horror slur I assumed it to be. Here’s me thinking my old Gran was a racist!