Woman To Be Prosecuted Under UK Race Hatred Law For Calling Doctor "Immigrant"

[wum]

Calling someone an immigrant can be a racial slur, court rules

Using the word "immigrant" can justify treating an assault as racially aggravated, the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

The court decided that a judge should not have thrown out a charge of racially aggravated assault against a woman who attacked a GP after referring to him as "an immigrant doctor".

Liberals should get a kick out of this

[Senior]

Do you ever get bored of trying to convince yourself that you are being persecuted? Just curious...

[wum]

Originally Posted by Senior

Do you ever get bored of trying to convince yourself that you are being persecuted? Just curious...

say hi to David Rockefeller for me

[automatic]

Originally Posted by The News Telegraph

Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, an offence is racially aggravated if the offender demonstrates hostility based on the victim's membership of a racial group. Judge Breen decided at Luton Crown Court in January that the word "immigrant" did not meet this definition. But three appeal judges said yesterday he should have left the matter to the jury.

big fucking deal.......you should stop writing bogus headlines for articles you don't really understand.

she's not being prosectued for calling him an immigrant, she's being prosecuted for the assault. even if she said nothing she'd still be up for assault. the woman obviously assaulted the doctor, he had scratches on his face and she tried to grab documents from him. the only question is if the assault was racially motivated. read her comments. personally i think that if i call someone "fucking immigrant scum" that qualifies as a racist comment. she wasn't as harsh as that, but her comments could be seen as racist. it's up for a jury to decide, but even if they decide no to the racial aggravation she'll still have the assault charge.

learn to read, pinhead.

[wum]

^uhh, I just posted what's straight from the headline with no ad lib, which should be pretty straightforward. Assault is now being upgraded to something "racially motivated" based on this:

"I can't find another doctor. All the good doctors are taken up by asylum seekers and I am left with an immigrant doctor."

which you construe as racist.

I guess making candid observations should be illegal now?

Political Correctness was a term invented in the Soviet Union afterall...

[esoter1c]

These People Think That Ain't Racist.

[wum]

Momma!

[automatic]

Originally Posted by wum

^uhh, I just posted what's straight from the headline with no ad lib,

uhh....no you didn't

the headline of your post, that i assume you came up with:

"Woman To Be Prosecuted Under UK Race Hatred Law For Calling Doctor "Immigrant""

now if someone reads that it sounds like she's being charged with an offense for what she said. it sounds like she's being prosecuted simply for speaking. she's not.

she's being prosecuted for a physical assault. the question is whether her comments are racially motivated and therefore aggravate that assault. if your post had read:

"Woman who allegedly assaulted doctor to have her charge upgraded to a racially motivated crime because she called him an immigrant."

then it'd be accurate.

get it?

so was her crime racially motivated? ask yourself this, if it had been a white doctor named smith who told her that her kids rash wasn't serious and to come back in a couple of days if it didn't clear up do you think she would have freaked out on him and got into a pushy-shovey? maybe, maybe not, that's probably something that only the officer and lawyers who interviewed her were able to determine, but it's pretty obvious that she didn't like her doctor because of where he came from, and that probably had a lot to do with precipitating the assault. does that qualify as making it racially motivated?

bottom line is that it's a question of law for a jury to decide.

[wum]

Originally Posted by automatic

bottom line is that it's a question of law for a jury to decide.

actually the bottom line is that they managed to pass a new Heresy law and the word "immigrant" is now a hate crime. This is setting a major precedent. You are no longer allowed to scrutinize, much less challenge, the prevailing government policy.

Against Communism, it was called being a "counter revolutionary"

With mass Third World migration, it's called racism and "hate crime."

[automatic]

Originally Posted by wum

actually the bottom line is that they managed to pass a new Heresy law and the word "immigrant" is now a hate crime. This is setting a major precedent. You are no longer allowed to scrutinize, much less challenge, the prevailing government policy.

Against Communism, it was called being a "counter revolutionary"

With mass Third World migration, it's called racism and "hate crime."

god you're thick......

if all the woman had done is say what she said she wouldn't have been charged with a crime. the word immigrant is not on it's own a hate crime.

she didn't get up and say "i think immigration is bad", she assualted someone.

no one has ever been charged witha crime for simply pointing out the negative aspects of immigration.


here's a quick primer:

"i think increased immigration is a badly thought out policy"

=not a hate crime

"i think immigrants are lazy good for nothing smelly bastards and they should be sent back where they came from"

=not a hate crime

"i think immigrants are lazy good for nothing smelly bastards and they should be sent back where they came from" (said while punching an immigrant in the face)

=racially motivated assault

"i think immigrants are lazy good for nothing smelly bastards and everyone should pick up a baseball bat and teach them their place"

=hate crime.

in other words, your opinion is always protected, but if you make statements that would incite violence against a mniority then your speech is not protected.

is this a curb on free speech? yes. is it reasonable? yes. free speech is not nor has it ever been absolute, the classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. not allowed.

[wum]

originally posted by automatic:

no one has ever been charged witha crime for simply pointing out the negative aspects of immigration.


^ is that the case?

Columnist arrested over 'race' speech

A former presenter of One Man and His Dog has been arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred in a pro-hunting speech.


Robin Page, 61, a farmer and countryside campaigner, was questioned over remarks he made at a fair in Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire.

Mr Page was invited to the event by its organisers, the Frampton Court Estate, to urge people to attend the Liberty and Livelihood March in London.

But several people complained to police about his speech, in which he allegedly said supporters of the traditional country way of life should be given the same rights as blacks, Muslims and gays.

Thousands attended the protest march

On Monday Gloucestershire Police asked Mr Page to attend an interview at a police station in Cambridge, near his farm in Barton. The Daily Telegraph columnist was subsequently arrested on suspicion of committing public order offences by breaching section 18 of the Public Order Act, which refers to the stirring up of racial hatred.

Here's a guy who didn't even say anything negative about immigration, rather that hunters should have the same rights as all the other special interest groups. But naming them by name is not allowed, in the same way that calling an immigrant an immigrant is not allowed.

Imagine then if the British people did have real grievances about mass migration? How does banning civil servants who share this view sound?

Pretty much that whole self-righteous spiel you gave about things that would not be hate crimes, in fact are hate crimes, even if it was 100 percent true.

[esoter1c]

Here Wum Go Read This. Never mind Alex Jones.