Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing
You keep bringing up non internet examples while I'm talking about the internet and the way some people expect it to change to suit them but to take your examples if a black person was racially abused in a shop and there were other shops of course go to those other shops why would you want to spend any of your money in that kind of place. As for the gay bar example same applies although in my limited experience gay people tend to have their own bars to go to and how anyone would know someone was gay unless they made it an issue in the first place is beyond me.
We get people all the time bemoaning the nanny state and the entitled expectations some have and then flip the coin we have people who want the state involved in every single aspect of their life protecting and safeguarding them why again is beyond me. As for your education part there have been plenty of attempts at it the problem was that most of those looking to educate the ignorant were themselves ignorant of the type of people they were dealing with and ended up coming across as snooty people looking down their nose at others.
We will never eradicate the negative ism's because there are people too lazy to learn and too unpleasant to care so we either avoid them or learn to not let them get to us what we don't do is give them any attention at all because they view any attention as a win.
|
What I meant about the 'black example' was that the extent of dealing with it would be for the person to only go to another shop (which I'm sure they would do anyway) and not take the issue any further.
I (and the law) see no differentiation between internet and non internet examples. It's true to say that on the internet it is sometimes possible to block contact from people who seek to harass others, but there is no requirement on the part of the person who believes that they are being harassed to take any steps to prevent themselves from hearing or seeing the offending material. In fact, this would be an unwise thing to do as it would prevent incidents from being appropriately dealt with or being used as evidence. Also, doing this would be akin to saying that black people who are being racially abused on the street should deal with the matter by either not using the street that it occurs on, or to wear blindfolds and ear muffs!
I think a lot of the time individuals think that they can get away with more on the internet because they think that they can never be traced, in fact there is a whole industry dedicated to this task (as well as the statutory law enforcement agencies.)
The 'gay example' is primarily about the bar insisting upon mixed sex couples, which is inherinteley problematic with regards to sex and sexuality equality laws. The two men who experienced the discrimination were not obviously gay (not that it should make any difference if they were), but we're turned away because they were not a mixed sex couple. It's just been on the news that the local MP has now become involved and he wants some answers from the bar owner.
I agree with much of what you say in your last paragraph, but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to stamp out discrimination, harassment etc.
I also think that a lot of people mistakenly believe that they satisfy the law by treating everyone the same and there is also an element of the 'if they want equality, why should they expect special treatment' mentality. I was actually told this over the phone recently by an employee of a major electrical manufactur. The woman eventually apologised after I explained that equality does not necessarily mean treating people in the same way and that the law actually insists that people provide extra help and consideration where appropriate.
The example I gave her was that if an able bodied person asked for help up the steps into a shop, the shop would not be under an obligation to do so. If, however, a disabled person asked for the same help, they would be under a legal obligation to provide it. They couldn't say that as they 'treat everyone the same and had refused help to an able bodied person, then they couldn't help the disabled person either'! The woman eventually understood, apologised and the matter was resolved there and then.
It's only those that refuse to amend their ways that end up being embroiled with the police and the legal system, the vast majority of people don't want to cause offence and are horrified to learn that they have done so (though, interestingly, I was advised yesterday that a person who genuinely doesn't mean to or believe that they are causing offence to a person with 'protected characteristics' (like myself) can still technically be prosecuted for harassment). I personally would like to think that an apology and undertaking to amend their behaviour would be enough in this situation.
Free speech has been a hard earned luxury in this country that is still denied to many in the world even today. It should never be abused to intentionally or unintentionally make the lives of minority or vulnerable people any more difficult.
---------- Post added at 22:31 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by richard s
I would like to add to the 5 British values list.
6. Have pride in your country albeit, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.
7. Have the right to fly your countries flag or Union flag if you want to without intimidation or bylaws restricting you.
8. Treat people as you would like to be treated.
Anyone have other suggestions.
|
I'm not particularly proud (or ashamed) to be English, I just am!
I agree with 7 & 8
