h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi, Ani!

I'm taking this separately to the main thread because it goes a bit wider than pure socio-linguistics.

I agree 5000% with you that racial nicknames are offensive. I never (except in a context like this) refer to Jocks, Micks, Paddies, Taffs, Frogs, Krauts, Wops, Dagos etc. etc. any more than I tell racist, sexist or homophobic jokes. It's a particularly English disease. Our popular press can't even bring themselves to mention a European nation without using them (and, in the case of Germany, refering to WWII).

But, but, but....Do you think that they have the same level of ignorance or oppression as the n-word? I suppose that at the root of my question is whether these groups have suffered the same level of oppression as African-Americans (does one say 'African-Canadians'?). Yes, I know that the Irish were brutally oppressed by the English (which we refuse to acknowledge!), and that the Irish disapora in N. America tend to fall at the lower end of the (white) socio-economic spectrum. On the other hand - would you say that they still suffer in the same way as African-Americans? As a counter argument, it's fashionable these days for US politicians to actively flaunt their Irish heritage, and I can think of Kennedy (of course), Reagan, Clinton and....Kerry. (Oh..and in Canada, Mulroney. I was in Canada when Trudeau famously called him 'un mangeur de hotdogs').

I say all this not to be awkward. I'm from a working-class background myself and have suffered under the British class system - but then I subscribe to the Marxist idea that the issue is class, not race.

There is, of course, also the religious element. I personally find this trickier as an atheist (in fact, an 'antitheist' - a term I heard on TV last night!) and so disparage all religions equally. Yes, there *is* sectarianism in many places (Hey! I live in sectarian Glasgow!) Is this also the case in Canada (not a rhetorical question)? And would you say any bias is by association with Irish heritage?

I ask this last question because a couple of years ago I had the displeasure of working with a member of the British National Party (who, naturally, hid this shame from his coworkers). He was arrested for distributing leaflets in my (largely Asian) neighbourhood. The argument in court was that these were not racially offensive because they refered to 'Muslims' - but the sherrif rightly said that he clearly meant 'Pakistani'. The lowlife scum got nine months and lost his job (Oh...and one of his colleagues went to the tabloid press and supplied lurid details for an expose of his grubby social life)

Anyway...I hope I haven't touched on any sore points. These are all thorny points with many gray areas. I suppose I'm coming to this as an unreformed Marxist who believes that, while we should be polite, language is just one skirmish in the class war.

I agree. Language is a skirmish in class war. Race is another skirmish in class war. Religion is another skirmish in class war.

As for whether or not the people of the Irish diaspora have suffered to the same degree as people of the African diaspora: how productive is it to compare suffering? On whose scale does one measure suffering?

The bottom line for the Irish is that the putdowns are still there. Sometimes it takes the form of outright name-calling and rock-throwing. Sometimes it takes far more subtle forms. The stereotypes in films, for example: the priest is always Irish; there has to be at least one Irish Catholic policeman per murder mystery; the drunk is either Southern hill country or Irish Catholic or both; oh, and the terrorist is always IRA or Al Q or both.

Religion was just a tool with which to yank people around on that Island.

As for the UK statutes on hatred: I tracked them down. Some of them you will note cover a grey area between race and religion. I am posting all of them because they are in one file and I don't have time to edit out the stuff not pertaining to your leaflet example. Also, the original research had to do with hatred directed toward religious groups. Also the Lord Avebury Bill has now been passed into law.

Criminal Libel Act 1918

Type of offence: Blasphemy: The publication of contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous, or ludicrous matter relating to God as defined by the Christian religion, Jesus, the Bible or the Book of Common Prayer, intending to wound the feelings of Christians or to excite contempt and hatred against the Church of England or immorality.

Group(s) Protected: The Anglican Church and its adherents, but only so far as wounding of the feelings is concerned. The protection is focused more on religion than the individual follower of the religion.

Sentence: Possible prison sentence if found guilty

Remarks: Blasphemy laws do not protect the non-Anglican Christian denominations or any of the other faith communities in Britain. Nor do they protect against incitement of religious hatred directed at individuals (including Anglicans) or against harassment, violence and/or criminal damage resulting to property as a result of such incitement.

Public Order Act 1986

Type of Offence: Incitement of Racial Hatred: To behave in such a manner or to use or to publish insulting or abuse words with the intent to stir up racial hatred or, in the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up as a result of the action.

Group(s) protected: ‘Racial groups’ as defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origin (Race Relations Act 1976). The definition of ‘racial group’ is extended to include mono-ethnic religious communities, like Jews and Sikhs.

Sentence: Maximum of seven years imprisonment.

Remarks: Although Jews and Sikhs enjoy protection from this offence, the protection is not extended to multi-ethnic religious communities. Thus, Christians, Muslim, and most other faith communities in Britain remain unprotected from this offence.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Type of offence: Racially Aggravated Offences: Harassment, violence and/or criminal damage to property motivated by racial hatred or where there is any aggravating evidence of racial hostility in connection with the offence.

Group(s) protected: ‘Racial groups’ as defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origin (Race Relations Act 1976). The definition of ‘racial group’ is extended to include mono-ethnic religious communities, like Jews and Sikhs.

Sentence: The court may give higher penalties for the main offence to reflect the racial aspect to the crime.

Remarks: Although Jews and Sikhs enjoy protection from this offence, the protection is not extended to multi-ethnic religious communities. Thus, Christians, Muslim, and most other faith communities in Britain remain unprotected from this offence.

Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

Type of offence: Religiously Aggravated Offences: Harassment, violence and/or criminal damage to property motivated by religious hatred or where there is any aggravating evidence of religious hostility in connection with the offence.

Group(s) protected: the protection has been extended to adherents of all ‘religious groups.’ ‘Religious group’ has not been defined, but left to the Courts to define should the occasion arise for such a definition.

Sentence: Courts may give higher penalties for the main offence to reflect the religious aspect to the crime.

Remarks: The Act extends the provisions entailed in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to multi-ethnic religious communities, and thereby closes a lacuna in the law creating a hierarchy of protection for different faith groups.

Lord Avebury’s Religious Offences Bill 2002

Type of offence: Incitement of Religious Hatred: To behave in such a manner or to use or publish insulting or abusive words with the intent to stir up religious hatred or, in the circumstances, religious hatred is likely to be stirred up as a result of the action.

Group(s) protected: the protection has been extended to adherents of all ‘religious groups.’ ‘Religious group’ has not been defined, but left to the Courts to define should the occasion arise for such a definition.

Sentence: Maximum seven years imprisonment.

Remarks: The Avery Bill seeks to extend the provisions of the Public Disorder Act 1986 to ALL faith communities, including Anglicans, other Christian denominations, Muslims and other faith communities in Britain presently not protected from incitement of hatred against them.



Protection from Harassment Act 1997

s.4.(1) A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear o each of those occasions.

s.4.(2) For the purpose of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question
ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.

s.7.(2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.

s.7.(3) A ‘course of conduct’ must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

s.7.(4) ‘Conduct’ includes speech.

Good research!

The idea of a 'Religious Hatred' bill very topical in the UK right now. Our Home Secretary, David Blunkett last week proposed repealling the Blasphemy Act and replacing it with a Racial Hatred Act (or, possibly, an extension of the Racial Hatred provisions of the Public Order Act.)

I have mixed feelings on this. Yes, of course religious groups should be protected where their faith is closely related to their ethnicity: a white muslim convert in hijab should no more be the target of abuse than a Pakistani woman in hijab. However - it will have to be carefully phrased. I am slightly worried that the linking of new legislation with the repeal of the Blasphemy Act will be mean that 'religious criticism' falls within its remit. I demand the right to Blaspheme. To say that Islam is a potty load of superstitious tosh, unsuitable for thinking adults would be deeply offensive to Muslims. It is, however, fair comment. I cannot be responsible for the offence. How can I, an unbeliever, work out what will be offensive to believers?

Now...I don't think that *will* happen. It should be possible to phrase laws sensibly. But I'm not convinced it's necessary. There is the case law that I mentioned (although that was in Scots law: England and Wales may be entirely different). Other cases can, probably, be dealt with under run-of-the-mill assault and incitement laws. Is there any particular significance in people being attacked for their religion, as opposed to, say, for wearing a Slipknot T-shirt? Or a Manchester United shirt?

You're right about Irish stereotyping, though. It's all part of divide and rule. My two favourite (pro)-Irish jokes:
Q What is black and blue and floats in the Irish Sea?
A An Englishman who just told an Irish Joke!

Paddy (sorry - but be patient: it's an 'inversion of stereotype' joke) goes for a job on a building site. The foreman decides to test his knowledge and asks him 'What's the difference between a Joist and a Girder'. Paddy says 'Sure, Joist wrote Ulysses and Girder wrote Faust.'

Friendly edit: Padraig goes for a job...Padraig says 'sure...'

Joist and Girder is pretty funny. Ani.

Edward. Re <>:

This is legal terminology. I remind you of the part about inciting hatred. Inciting hatred is not the same as questioning. It is not the same as disagreeing. It is, in my opinion, not even the same as robust debate under which your 'a potty load of superstitious tosh, unsuitable for thinking adults' turn of phrase may or may not fall (depending on context).

What I would question about many of the statutes set out above is their unevenness. Taken together, I suppose they cover everybody. But do they cover everybody to the same extent? Note that the Blasphemy Law only applies to the C of E. One would imagine that equity depended on having ONE LAW FOR ALL. Not individual laws for individual groups. It would be interesting to know how the EU Human Rights legislation is applied and how well (if at all) the UK statutes reflect the covenant to which it is a signatory.

Let us look at the term 'robust debate.' Sounds really attractive doesn't it? Until I found out how it is defined. How it is defined is that the statutes and considerations of courtesy, respect, kindness are for me and mine. But if someone considers himself more important than me; if someone considers himself above the statutes, above considerations of courtesy, respect, kindness, then he can say whatever he wants.

You mention Marx. Hey Marxian discussion does not have to be a limited to social engineering. In times such as these, I can use it for whatever I want. All I have to do is seize the tools which, in this case, are anything which has been written and not just the statutes, holy texts, and so on. Just because someone believes he is more important than me and above those things which I personally value, doesn't mean I have to agree with him. And it certainly does not mean I have to play according to his rules.

The thing about the statutes is about how (or if) they are applied. If they are only to protect a certain class of people (and pretenders thereto) then they are worse than useless. Ani.

Don't get me started on the European Convention on Human Rights

It's the best (read: 'only') written constitution we've ever had. Yet no sooner is it enacted than we've opted out of part of it so that we can imprison foreign nationals without trial.

As Tony Hancock said: 'What about Magna Carta? Did she die in vain?'

I won't get you started if you don't get me started.