Vive La France !!!!!

[hrai]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

It's not illegal for them to use the word nigger. Their hate speech is protected actually. What's considered a hate CRIME is actions like lynching people, burning crosses on their lawns, etc.

Europe is different to US.

Captain of England soccer team has recently been charged with racist abuse. Charged by the CPS not the football authorities.

quote:
John Terry WILL face criminal charges over his alleged racist comments towards Anton Ferdinand.
The Crown Prosecution Service announced this afternoon that they have authorised his prosecution.
Terry will appear before West London Magistrates' Court on February 1. He has been recommended for prosecution for 'a racially aggravated public order offence.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz1jMcF6wHL

Again, the law in the OP is a European law.

[hrai]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

Spelling mistake nothing more.

I knew it was!

You do realise that the Armenian government can chose who to let in the country. Opening the border doesn't mean that there aren't any checkpoints, or anyone guarding the border or that everyone can enter for free.

You do realise that people can cross borders illegally??

It seems that you have no real reason only some conspiracies.

My reasons are based on historical FACT.

Tell me now in which European country is the use of the word a crime. People in Europe use the word more than in the US actually.

This one :

quote:
John Terry will be allowed to continue as England captain, despite being told that he must appear in court next year to answer a criminal charge of using racist language on the field.
To the fury of anti-racism campaigners, top officials at the Football Association stayed silent after the footballer was formally summonsed yesterday over an outburst against a black player during a Premier League clash.
The multi-millionaire defender – who denies any racial abuse – also continued to enjoy the backing of his club, Chelsea.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1jMeuPBP7

Personal attacks how fun it only shows that you have nothing substantial to say.

Bust flush.

[hrai]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

People in Europe use the word more than in the US actually.

I live in Europe, have lived in quite a few European countries and visited most others........................

Another gem of a fact from Karo who earlier said " You do know that there are 500000 Armenians in turcey right now, right?"

Facts from where?

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

I live in Europe, have lived in quite a few European countries and visited most others........................

Another gem of a fact from Karo who earlier said " You do know that there are 500000 Armenians in turcey right now, right?"

Facts from where?

With my interaction with europeans and that Europeans don't have the same connection to the word as the US does.

You do realise that people can cross borders illegally??

You do know they can do that when the borders are officially closed right?

My reasons are based on historical FACT.

It still doesn't explain why the Turks and Kurds aren't storming nakhijevan? So tell me what is the reason why they aren't moving there?
Could it be because the situation there isn't better than their own situation.

This one :

quote:
John Terry will be allowed to continue as England captain, despite being told that he must appear in court next year to answer a criminal charge of using racist language on the field.
To the fury of anti-racism campaigners, top officials at the Football Association stayed silent after the footballer was formally summonsed yesterday over an outburst against a black player during a Premier League clash.
The multi-millionaire defender – who denies any racial abuse – also continued to enjoy the backing of his club, Chelsea.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1jMeuPBP7

First that is the Daily mail find me a real source.
Secondly that is a civil suit from the looks of it so it is one person suing an other. So when are you going to prove that nigger is an illegal word in Europe like you said.

Bust flush.

You are so cute, instead of this please tell me where do we draw the line? Where do we stop?

[Siggie]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

Europe is different to US.

Captain of England soccer team has recently been charged with racist abuse. Charged by the CPS not the football authorities.

quote:
John Terry WILL face criminal charges over his alleged racist comments towards Anton Ferdinand.
The Crown Prosecution Service announced this afternoon that they have authorised his prosecution.
Terry will appear before West London Magistrates' Court on February 1. He has been recommended for prosecution for 'a racially aggravated public order offence.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz1jMcF6wHL

Again, the law in the OP is a European law.

Yes, I am aware that France is in Europe and not in the US. My ethics do not differ based on geographic location, however.

[Mos]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

Where did I say that we should forget about getting international recognition? I said we shouldn't use the suffering of our ancestors for our own political or monetary gains. The only people who should receive something from the Turkish state are the ones that were suffering and their children. Because they are the ones who did the suffering. You or I or anyone else that is living today that wasn't alive back then will never know the suffering of those people.

I'm not saying I want to get money from Turkey. That's not my point. A country which is guilty of Genocide owes certain reparations. Just look at what Germany did and does for the J3ws, why should same reparations not be given to us? Of course, in my view, the biggest thing for me would be a sincere, state-level, apology for the Genocide. Given they have embarked on their dirty denial, we have to hang this issue over their necks until they come and bow their heads at Tsitsernakaberd.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

Hey hey hey ... it's only Siggie that says things like "Thank God For Dead Soldiers." ... Siggie ... I don't know what abhorent means and what you mean by "abhorrent behavior" but SHAME ON YOU for posting such things.

I for one would (if he existed) thank God for every dead American killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their killers made what is probably the greatest unrecognised contribution to world peace. Had the relentless killing of the American invaders not started, America would certainly have continued its invasions unchecked, going into Iran and Syria. Now that there are few Americans left in Iraq to kill, the risk of America resuming its militaristic ways is much greater - but, certainly, many hundreds of thousand of people are alive today thanks to those Iraqi fighters who killed or maimed so many American soldiers.

[Sip]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

Realistically though, if there weren't any casualties, wars would probably never stop. So dead soldiers are one way or another the means to ending Wars.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

Realistically though, if there weren't any casualties, wars would probably never stop. So dead soldiers are one way or another the means to ending Wars.

Bush tried to sell the invasion of Iraq as an easy war without any substantial casualties: almost no American ones, and no pictures shown of any Iraqi ones (who all deserved it anyway). And he was trying to agitate for an invasion of Iran in that light. It was only when the fighting in Iraq did not end on his schedule, and when American casualties started to mount, and their killing seemed to be relentless and without end, that the Iran invasion was shelved.

[hrai]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

With my interaction with europeans and that Europeans don't have the same connection to the word as the US does.

your interaction with Europeans? that's your fact? have you ever been to Europe? I can assure that Europeans have the very same connection with the word as the US.

It still doesn't explain why the Turks and Kurds aren't storming nakhijevan? So tell me what is the reason why they aren't moving there?
Could it be because the situation there isn't better than their own situation.

As I said before, the turcs/baboons have already emptied Nakhichevan of Armenians, no need for them to go there now.

First that is the Daily mail find me a real source. Strike One!
Secondly that is a civil suit from the looks of it so it is one person suing an other.Strike Two! So when are you going to prove that nigger is an illegal word in Europe like you said.Strike Three & He's OUT!

Have you even read the link? Terry has been charged by the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) it is a criminal charge.

quote:

Home � Legal Resources � Legal Guidance � P to R � Racist and Religious crime

Racist and Religious Crime - CPS Guidance

Introduction
This guidance document is designed to be read alongside the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the Public Policy Statement as it provides greater detail on some of the key areas of the policy statement that prosecutors may be concerned with when dealing with this type of crime.

Impact of racist and religious crimes on individuals and communities
The CPS views this type of crime very seriously as it has a real and lasting effect on individuals, communities and the whole of society. By letting people know what they can expect from the CPS when we prosecute racist or religious crime, we aim to improve confidence in the criminal justice system.

Racist and religious crime is particularly hurtful to victims as they are being targeted solely because of their personal identity, their actual or perceived racial or ethnic origin or their actual or perceived belief or faith. Black and minority ethnic victims can also be targeted because they belong to other minority groups and may experience multiple discrimination.

These crimes can happen randomly, for example, at nightclubs, at takeaways or restaurants, on public transport, at football matches, or on shopping trips, or can be a part of a campaign of continued harassment and victimisation by, for example neighbours, extremist groups, customers or even family members. Crimes can sometimes be a combination of these things harassment by neighbours or attacks by organised gangs on a person and their home or random attacks in public places.

The impact on victims is different for each individual, but there are common problems that are experienced by victims of racist of religiously aggravated crime. They can feel extremely isolated or fearful of going out or even staying at home. They may become withdrawn, and suspicious of organisations or strangers. Their mental and physical health may suffer in a variety of ways. For young people in particular, the impact can be damaging to their self-esteem or identity and, without support, a form of self-hatred of their racial or religious identity may result.

The confusion, fear and lack of safety felt by individuals have a ripple effect in the wider community of their racial or religious group. Communities can feel victimised and vulnerable to further attack.


Racist and religious crime the legislation
Parliament has passed legislation aimed at outlawing crime where the offender is motivated by hostility or hatred towards the victim's race or religious beliefs (actual or perceived). A table setting out some of the more commonly used legislation is attached at Annex A.

It is important that prosecutors are aware of the full range of available offences when deciding on the most appropriate charge to prosecute in a particular case.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended)
This Act came into force on 30 September 1998 and created a number of specific offences of racially aggravated crime, based on offences of wounding, assault, damage, harassment and threatening/abusive behaviour. Monitoring had indicated that these types of crime were those most commonly experienced by victims of racial violence or harassment.

The Act was amended by the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, which came into effect on 14 December 2001. It extended the scope of the Crime and Disorder Act by creating new specific religiously aggravated offences and applying the same sentencing duty to all other offences where there is evidence of religious aggravation.

The legislation provides definitions of racial groups and religious groups in the following terms:

A racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. The definition is wide and victims may come within the definition under more than one of the references. Gypsies and some travellers, refugees or asylum seekers or others from less visible minorities would be included within this definition. There has been a legal ruling that xxxs and Sikhs are included in the definition of a racial group (Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1983] 2 AC 548).

A religious group means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. This includes Muslims, Hindus and Christians, and different sects within a religion. It also includes people who do not hold any religious beliefs at all.

Hostility

To prove that an offence is racially or religiously aggravated, the prosecution has to prove the "basic" offence followed by racial or religious aggravation, as defined in section 28 Crime and Disorder Act 1998. An offence will be racially or religiously aggravated if:

a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or

b) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.

demonstrating hostility is not defined by the Act. The ordinary dictionary definition of hostile includes simply being "unfriendly". Proving this limb of the offence requires evidence of words or actions which show hostility toward the victim. However, this hostility may be totally unconnected with the "basic" offence which may have been committed for other, non-racially or religiously motivated reasons. For example, an assault which takes place because of an argument over a parking place, but where the offender then utters racial abuse to the victim of the assault would come within the scope of this part of section 28.

motivated by hostility may prove more difficult in practice. In the absence of a clear statement by the accused that his/her actions were motivated by his hostility to his victim based on his race or religious belief, for example, an admission under caution, how can motive be shown? In some cases, background evidence could well be important if relevant to establish motive, for example, evidence of membership of, or association with, a racist group, or evidence of expressed racist views in the past might, depending on the facts, be admissible in evidence.

The following cases illustrate the approach that the courts have adopted when interpreting the law.

In DPP v McFarlane (2002) EWHC 485, Rose LJ found that once the "basic" offence was proved (in this case a public order offence) and that racist language was used that was hostile or threatening to the victim, it made no difference that the defendant may have had an additional reason for using the language. The test under section 28(1)(a) was satisfied.

In DPP v Woods (2002) EWHC 85, the defendant used racially abusive language to a doorman at a nightclub when expressing anger and frustration over being refused admission. It was held, as in McFarlane, that the fact that the primary reason for the offence was other than a racist motivation, the use of racist abuse during the commission of the basic offence made out the test for racial aggravation in section 28(1)(a). The point was made that, ordinarily, the use of racially (or religiously) insulting remarks would, in the normal course of events, be enough to establish a demonstration of hostility.

In R v Rogers (2007) 2 W.L.R. 280, the defendant was involved in an altercation with three young Spanish women during the course of which he called them bloody foreigners and told them to go back to your own country. The House of Lords, in upholding the defendants conviction, held that the definition of a racial group clearly went beyond groups defined by their colour, race, or ethnic origin. It encompassed both nationality (including citizenship) and national origins. The statute intended a broad non-technical approach. Furthermore the victim might be presumed by the offender to be a member of the hated group, even if s/he was not. Also, the fact that the offenders hostility was based on other factors as well as racism or xenophobia was irrelevant.

Enhanced sentencing powers for racially or religiously aggravated offences
The offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 carry higher maximum penalties than the basic offence equivalents.

In addition to the specific offences created by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the law imposes a general duty on criminal courts, when sentencing an offender, to treat more seriously any offence which can be shown to be racially or religiously aggravated (Section 145 Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into force on 4 April 2005, and which replaced the similarly worded Section 153 Powers of Criminal Courts [Sentencing] Act 2000).

Part III Public Order Act 1986 - Incitement to Racial Hatred
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] allows freedom of expression save in certain limited circumstances. These circumstances include the offences contained within Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 (ss 18-23).

Additionally, Article 17 of the Convention states: "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention." Relevant case law includes Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v Netherlands 18 DR [1987] and Kuhnen v Germany 56 DR [1988].

For an offence to be committed under any of these sections of the Public Order Act 1986, there has to be one of the acts described therein: it has to be "threatening, abusive or insulting", and it has to be intended to or likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred.

The words threatening, abusive or insulting are to be given their ordinary meaning and case law dealing with other provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 can assist with this.

Racial hatred is defined in section 17 of the Act. The prosecution must prove that hatred was intended to be stirred up or that it was likely to be stirred up. Likely does not mean that racial hatred was simply possible. We therefore have to examine the context of any behaviour very carefully, in particular the likely audience, as this will be highly relevant.

These offences appear in the Public Order Act 1986, which is generally designed to prevent acts of violence, disorder, harm or threats. Although it will often be present, the risk of commission of a criminal act of this nature is not essential to prove the commission of an offence of stirring up hatred on the grounds of race.

When people hate others because of race, such hatred may become manifest in the commission of crimes motivated by hate, or in abuse, discrimination or prejudice. Such reactions will vary from person to person, but all hatred has a detrimental effect on both individual victims and society, and this is a relevant factor to take into account when considering whether a prosecution is appropriate.

It is essential in a free, democratic and tolerant society that people are able to robustly exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, we have to balance the rights of the individual to freedom of expression against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.

All such allegations are by their very nature highly sensitive. For that reason, and to ensure a consistent approach, any allegation under this legislation, must be referred by te relevant CPS Area to the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division (SCCTD). Referral means the submission of a report which is sufficient to enable SCCTD and the Area to have an informed discussion about where the responsibility for the case should lie.

When an Area becomes aware of such a case, it should be referred to SCCTD within seven days. If it is decided that the case should be prosecuted as an offence of incitement to racial hatred, SCCTD will take over the conduct of the case from the Area. If SCCTD considers that it is clearly a case where incitement to racial hatred does not apply, the case should be returned to the Area within seven days of that decision being made.

If SCCTD decides to deal with a case, the file is held there and dealt with there. Thereafter, cases can only proceed with the consent of the Attorney General.

The law only covers acts that are intended, or are likely, to stir up racial hatred. Whilst the definition of what constitutes race or racial is wide, it is clear that it does not cover religious hatred.

You are so cute, instead of this please tell me where do we draw the line? Where do we stop?

Can you show confirmation of your stated fact that there are 500000 Armenians in turcey right now, right? Right?