Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

No it's not, it's fact. Anti racist legislation was the first anti discrimination law to be introduced. Subsequent laws to protect women, disabled people, gay people etc were weaker than the laws relating to race.

Well, I always say that the price to pay for being able to express oneself is having to allow others to express themselves also (even if you disagree with said views). This is different to allowing anybody to say what they like, regardless of the effects on others.

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

Racial discrimination laws may well have been introduced first but considering the others being given less precedence and 'weaker' is just your perception.

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

No it's not, the penalties for similar behaviour/offences were either less severe or simply did not exist for non racially motivated discrimination, harassment etc.

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

Unless you can show any proof of that, it's still just your perception.

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

It's fact- believe it or not, you don't actually know everything.

I don't care enough to do your donkey work for you- i'm pretty sure that the verification that you require will be available on the internet.

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

Erm.....

Basic debating courtesy - you put forward a proposition, you back it up.....

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

Just because something is your opinion does not make it a fact and as you're unable to back your view up with any evidence so far it will remain just your perception, as inconvenient as that may be to you.

I could tell everyone you have a conviction for fraud (I do not believe you have such by the way). Unless I can back it up with evidence it's just a perception. As Hugh says if you put forward a premise it's up to you to prove it, not for others to disprove.

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

This is one thing that worries me. One of the foundations of our society is our freedom (within limits, admittedly) to express ourselves. That expression will, from time to time, cause offence. While I don't support racism in any way, shape or form, I am concerned that the amount of controls on what we say being increased will impact on our freedom to disagree with one another. I am worried that we'll end up in a situation where even if we don't get laws controlling what we believe and say, we'll be a situation where we are so concerned about how what we say is being heard that we'll limit it too much, which will have the same effect as any law.

This can (and will) be abused by some people.

Also, there is the slight problem of enforceability. Without the security services devoting a huge amount of resources to monitoring potentially thousands of people, how will we know that a person who has just had some sort of order banning their online access given to them, hasn't just left the court, gone into an internet cafe (there are still some around), paid cash for 15 minutes of access and registered a whole load of other accounts to send abuse from?

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

As previously explained, it is not my opinion, it is fact. I ought to know as I studied this as part of my degree and am involved in diversity issues as part of my job to this day. You would know this if you had done your research (this never seems to be a problem on here when various people wish to undermine what others have said).

Interestingly, Lenny Henry is still calling for 'positive discrimination' to get more blacks onto television. I think that there's enough and that it's a fair representation of the population as a whole.

Disabled people make up 16% of the population, yet get only 2.5% of TV acting and presenting jobs.

Fourteen of the last twenty seven Best Actor Oscar winners played someone with a disability, yet none of them were actually disabled.

Breaking Bad was the exception rather than the rule, in that an actor with Cerebral Palsy actually played the part of someone with Cerebral Palsy.

Getting back to the crux of my point, i'm curious to know why racism is taken more seriously by society than other forms of discrimination.

For example, it was made an offence to 'incite racial hatred'. No such provision was made with regards to gay people, those suffering from a disability, women etc.

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

Again you're asking us to just believe you. I can find nothing online that backs up what you say. Could you cite some of the sources used in your dissertation? Anything from your job you could link us to?

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

Just found out that there's an interesting situation at the moment between the police and lawyers. The police monitor forums, social networking sites, chat rooms, blogs etc.

Sometimes they do this covertly by using a non police registered ip address- lawyers are questioning the use of legislation regarding covert operations and this practice.

Also, lawyers are arguing that views expressed that are not intended for public consumption (even if they are accessible to the public) should not be treated as such.

A blog is defined as being intended for public consumption, whereas they argue that a facebook comment isn't (even if the persons privacy settings do allow the public to access to the material).

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

Recently I used to work for a government department and our internet presence was randomly monitored. If we put the name of our organisation on our Facebook profiles anything we said on our FB wall, status etc was considered 'fair game' for an inquiry if it was deemed controversial etc whereas if we identified ourselves on a public forum there was less potential for further action to be taken. The rational behind this was on a forum we are just one out of hundreds, possibly thousands whereas on Facebook the page was considered to be US, OURS etc, the comparison was a like a forum being us standing in an open crowd giving our views but FB was inviting someone in to our homes and then saying our bit.

This is why I never disclosed online who I worked for, far too much potential for unwarranted hassle.

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

I think Russ and Hugh are saying that unless you provide a link to back up what you are saying, we still don't know for sure if you are right. Saying you studied it as part of your degree and are involved in diversity issues is not really proof. You may have, you may not. I could argue that I am a multi billionaire venture capitalist, thus have in depth knowledge of the world money markets, and you would have no real way (unless you knew me) of knowing whether I'm telling the truth.

Before you say that people wouldn't come on a forum claiming to know something they don't, or claiming to do some job they don't, I've actually seen people do both, on this forum. On one occasion, in the same post.

I'm not saying you don't do what you say for a living, I have no way of knowing, beyond what you say.

BTW, I'm not a multi billionaire venture capitalist. I wish I was a multi billionaire, but have no interest in being a venture capitalist.

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk

All the information that anyone requires should be available here.

---------- Post added at 16:19 ---------- Previous post was at 16:06 ----------

Interesting. I always advise people not to mention where they work either; unless it's something positive.

I have had to deal with inappropriate facebook postings from both current and former employees. It's staggering how many are genuinely shocked that they can't post anything that floats into their mind because "it's their facebook wall"!!

They seem to think that the laws relating to libel etc disappeared the day the internet was invented. Also, they fail to realise that some comments, whilst not against the law, are still inappropriate and can lead to disciplinary action.

Many employers now insist that employees declare all social networking sites that they are a member of and the relevant passwords to them. It is against facebook t&c's to disclose your password to a third party; but most people prefer to do this as opposed to losing a job or not getting the job in the first place.

Re: Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.
 

Is it not the case that the Representation of the people Act of 1918 predates any anti racist legislation as we now know it?