Quote:
Originally Posted by zinglebarb
what difference does that make? the law makes the distinction between a racial attack and as far as im concerned it cuts both ways even if both parties are racsist. However I think the discinction should be in law and the fact it is imo is discrimatory towards white men as its a lot less likely for them to go to the police saying he called me names. This case brings the old kids saying "STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES BUT NAMES WILL NEVER HURT ME" this guy used a stick and broke bones any names made no difference
|
I'm not saying that it does make a difference but, having read the article, I can't see any specific mention of it being a racially motivated crime. The fact that white men are less likely to report such incidents isn't discriminatory - maybe if more did, we wouldn't be positions like this where any such incident is immediately described as racially motivated.
I stand by what I said - a drunk guy makes a comment that a witness
perceives as being racist. Without wishing to cast doubt on this witness, none of us were there to confirm that it was a racist comment
