Thought police

[smurphy]

I read the following article with interest recently.[URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jun/21/john-galliano-fashion-racism-trial[/URL]. I have no sympathy for the man. He abused people. But what I find offensive is that as much for the verbal assault he is being persecuted for his beliefs, however wrong they may be.

So which is worse? Having vulgar prejudices based on race, religion etc. or the fact that the "Thought Police" try to actually control what people think? Freedom means that people can believe whatever they want as long other people arent directly affected. Anything less isnt adequate. That is my opinion anyway.

Anyone digress??????

[Sasquatch]

I've thought about this for years, now. It's getting to the point that a crime is punishable by law, but what the criminal was thinking is more punishable. Of course racism, sexism, etc. are wrong, but what should be illegal -- the thoughts, or the actions taken, or both? It's my belief that only the actions should be illegal. If I kill a black person, what matters most? That I killed somebody, or that I killed somebody of a different color than I?

That's the entire idea behind "hate crimes". Some people bitch because a homosexual was beaten severely and tied to a fence. But what aggrivates them most (which, in turn, aggrivates me) isn't that it happened to a human being, but that it happened to a homosexual. People even protested that they weren't punished enough, even though both of them recieved two consecutive life sentences without the possibliity of parole -- meaning, maybe, they could get out in fifty years. There was a political commercial about Matthew Shepard which contained a voice stating (paraphrased), "when George W. Bush refused to pass the hate crimes bill, it was like he had killed him all over again". What the hell more do you want?

I honestly can't stand it. People claim that they want "equal rights" for every group ... but they want stricter punishments for crimes against specific groups. How are they "equal" if they are protected more than anybody else?

Punish the crime. If it's a case of temporary insanity or self-defense (or defense of a third party), punishment may be different or lessened. But a brutal crime (murder, beating, etc.) of a homosexual, black, woman, Jew, or anything else is no worse than a brutal crime against anybody else. And as such, should not be given a greater punishment or treated with greater hostility.

As far as the article goes ... it shouldn't be illegal to be stupid. It's wrong, of course. It's utterly moronic, of course. But illegal? Nobody has the right to never be offended. We keep up with shit like this, and people will be filing lawsuits against every case of alleged "abuse". If he actually did these things, he's an idiot, and he probably deserves to be taken out back and beat with a hose. But having the courts punish him? No way. It's not the government's job to make sure that we all think the same thing.

[Zargabaath]

I'm of the same mind as Sasquatch on this. This trial is troubling. A state, that supposedly believes in "democracy", where everyone has rights decides to charge a person's beliefs as criminal. A slippery slope has France tread upon, best they be careful where it leads if they continue. Better yet to steer clear of this course and retain some semblance of their view of freedom. I wonder how the people of France view this trial. What about tolerance of another person's view? Or is that people must be tolerant of "progressive" views? Are rights given to those whose view fits into the predetermined mindset or are rights there to protect those fringe people even though what they may believe is wrong? If France were apart of this community I would surely give them negative rep for this.

[Alpha]

Wait, wait, wait.

He could face up to six months in prison and €22,500 (£20,000) in fines if convicted of "public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity" after three people said he shouted racist and antisemitic abuse at them in a bar.

This isn't Big Brother's Thought Police... This is the case of a man verbally abusing people on the basis of their race and religion, in public. Of course he's entitled to his opinions, however racist. But when you start abusing people in public, it's no longer private opinion, but public harm, and abuse. No one deserves to be abused, especially for things outside of their control -- like race.

Moreover, if this is what he's prepared to yell at people on public, how fair are his private decisions regarding employment, promotion, etc.? If he yells racist comments in public, I'm sure he favours certain races over others when making decisions for which he does not have to provide reasons (when he is unaccountable).

Sure, those aren't the crimes he's charged with, but racist abuse is not freedom of thought.

Also, Zargabaath, since when was 'not being racist' equivalent to being 'progressive'. I would have hoped everyone, left and right (excluding the fringes) would have chalked this up as blatant public racist abuse. If that's not criminal, something's wrong.

[Zargabaath]

Verbal abuse is not a crime, it largely falls under freedom of speech. He did not enact any type of force against the person unless you want to count his voice resonating against their eardrums as adequate force. He voiced his opinion in a belligerent manner toward someone and the government is charging him for voicing said opinion equals "thought police". Being in fear of possibly getting criminally charged for saying something that is viewed as "unpopular" is exactly the use of a thought police system, otherwise there would be nothing to fear. Freedom of Speech protects most speech, the exclusion would be in the nature of yellling "fire".

Well I have a different view of what a private company can and can't do compared to you Alpha. In a true free society people can not only believe whatever they like, no matter how despicable, but they also can hire or not hire, whomever for whatever reason - including race, sex, religion, etc. That is, if they are a private company. A private company should not be under the control of the government. If the owner decides not to males so be it, but they would have to deal with the consequences stemming from consumers and/or business associates. It's letting the people make choices themselves instead of being shepherded.

As for the progressive part of my prior post I guess it needed elaboration though I felt it was clear enough. By tolerant of "progressive" views only, I meant that. Non-progressive views, like American Conservatism are not tolerated in the same light or at all by "progressives". When people say "be tolerant" they are thinking of being tolerant of progressive views, but to be truly tolerant a person must accept that even deplorable views will be held by some people & even though a person may strongly disagree with them they will defend that person, whom believes in something really out there, their right to keep on believing that and to have the freedom to speak out their beliefs without fear of reproach from the government. However, that does not mean that a medium must be provided.

[Alpha]

The "state" (really the police and the judiciary) have not made it illegal to be a racist or to hold racist views. If you think northeaster Asians are the master race, present your views without resorting to abuse, and maybe you'll gain followers who will vote for you, and convince others to.

Most far-right European parties promote arguably racist policies on the basis of "immigrants are taking our jobs and bludging off the taxpayer (going on welfare; being eligible for universal assistance)". Those arguments are valid and legal because they are not abusive. They also generally refer to recent immigrants, which disguises the issue of race, if indeed they are actually racist (I'm white but could become an immigrant to Europe).

This is not a reasoned, non-abusive argument. This is plain racism (although I read he's claiming he was addicted to alcohol and tranquilizers when he made the statements).

If you have the ability to make political statements based on race without being racist, one is entitled to do so without state interference.

If your 'argument' consists solely of racial abuse, I consider that outside of freedom of thought. For one, that's not 'thought', but prejudice.

[Zargabaath]

The problem is abuse cannot be clearly defined. Therefore any time anything that says something "abusive" they can be charged thus they don't have freedom of speech. It gets into the whole perspective thing and perhaps yelling at person without any apparent goal in mind besides pointing out a "negative" characteristic of the person can be called abusive, yet that is not a crime. It is speech. As long as they don't incite any violence against another party it is game.

And whether it is non-abusive & reasoned or plain racism it is - should be- protected under the freedom of speech if a country wants to pose/be a free society. A problem with freedom of speech is some people don't fully support the concept and only give the right to select views that are very similar to not that fringe. But rights, like the freedom of speech, are not in place to protect the majority but instead the minority whose views are not held in any regard by society. Not upholding that same level of commitment to freedom of speech is a lack of commitment and when the state, through society's apathy, can start dictating what is acceptable.

I don't support/believe in what this person said but I'd protect his right to say his views. Was it the best way to convey his views? No, it could have been done better but those views are just stupid to begin with. Yet, no violence was incited and he did not bring force against anyone so his actions being criminal I don't see.

While I get your "it's not thought, but prejudice", unfortunately it is still thought no matter how poorly formulated.

[che]

A lot of people have said many good things in this thread already, but I wanted to comment and say that I don't think we should set laws against racism, unless it physically harms someone. If we (the world) can't figure out that everyone is equal and should be treated that way without using laws, then by creating laws we will only disguise the racism and people will hide behind it, while being racist anyway. That's not a solution.

Freedom of speech is a great thing and a bad thing because it does not punish people for being ignorant (which is inevitable, not all brains are created equal), and it allows for open discussion. This way those who are ignorant can speak out if they want, and hopefully be corrected before it leads to something physically violent.

edit: Guess I should answer the OP's question. I think people should be able to live however they want to, as long as what they do doesn't harm anyone else. If it gets to that point, then people should be allowed to step in and say something. I know many people live in many different ways, and there is no "wrong" way to live, other than telling someone else how they should live (unless ofc, it harms other people to do what you do).

[Alpha]

OK I will concede ground here. It is not the state's place to tell people that they may not be racist. I don't think a single good or worthwhile idea will EVER come from being racist (or anti-semitic, whatever). But I accept that they may exist. So yeah I understand why this is troubling.

However people tend to favour 'freedom to' rather than 'freedom from'. While practical it is not, if I were given the choice between 'freedom TO be racially abusive' and 'freedom FROM racial abuse', I'd choose the latter. And I think that's what this case demonstrates. It is obviously a grey area.

[Heartless Angel]

I'm honestly appaled that any cizilized nation anywhere would charge someone as a criminal for speaking. It isn't the govenments job to make sure we all hold hands and play nice, that's a load of shit. What really bothers me about this though is the fact that according to the article, the crime with which he is charged is "public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity". He's not being punished for being an asshole. He's not being punished for pissing people off. He's being punished for his way of thinking. If he'd gone out and called a white guy every 4 letter word in the book, not a single **** would've be given that day. When it happens to a minority, now we've got a crime on our hands? Really? So, minorites have the 'right' to not ever have anybody call them names, but nobody else does? That sounds oddly like racism to me. As Sasquatch pointed out, equality means equality. Extra protection from the law and additional rights not given to anyone other than minorities is not equality. Either it's a crime to call everybody names, or it's not a crime to anybody names. Race has no place in the law, nobody is entitled to any more legal protection than anybody else, wronging one person is no worse than wronging any other. The motive for a crime shouldn't have anything to do with its consequences.

People have a right to be wrong (or at least disagreed with, don't wanna get into an argument about what is and isn't right or wrong). It's not the governments job to make sure we all agree with each other and share nice, popular tolerant opinions (which are ironically are usually only tolerant of those who agree with it... sounds like any other kind of intolerance to me). Thought policing is the worst of all forms of oppression. Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, if that is granted, all else follows. This sounds to me just like any other case of those in power saying that two and two make five, and anyone who doesn't agree is wrong.

[Alpha]

Did you read the article, HA?

He told a group of Jewish people that (paraphrased) 'If Hitler had gotten his way, they wouldn't be alive; their grandparents would've been gassed'. He said this in a district of Paris known for its Jewish community. Thus, in this instance, he as a minority abusing a majority. Moreover, the reason Jews were historically (and perhaps today) were abused was because they were economically- and politically-powerful; they were viwed as an elite minority (however, in this distrcit, if not a majority, they are certainly a large minority).

If Gat was a black man, and said the same things, I'd share the same sentiment. He would have been charged with the same crimes.

Say what you want about the law itself; but people in France are certainly equal under the law. You just made up a whole bunch of stuff about minortiy double-standards that frankly has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

[sayian]

Who are we to punish one for the beliefs and thoughts that they may have. However, there is a common judgment of whats evil and evil thoughts are often carried out due to evil beliefs.. But where do those beliefs come from and why?? why do we(as nothing more than humans) want to control what should be natural.. People have their own reasons an the rest of the world will never know EXACTLY why. And with Mathmatics being our only common language,, the rest of out thoughts and beliefs can be argued.

[Heartless Angel]

I guess I didn't pay much attention to the location, but that's really not relevant to what I was getting at anyways. Also I wasn't using the term minority entirely correctly, I was mainly reffering to a group of people without wanting to use a specific group, my apologies for poor word choice on my part.

Most of my post wasn't directed at this particular case so much as the concept as a whole. Who said what to whom is almost irrelevant in the context of my disdain for a government punishing a guy for being a racist douche. Who did the insulting is irrelevant. What the insult was is irrelevant. Who recieved the insult is irrelevant. A man was not charged as a criminal for being a douche, he was charged as a criminal for being a racist douche. He's being charged for his thoughts moreso than his actions. It's not so much the race of the attacker versus the victims I'm concerned with, but that this is only being treated as a crime because it's based on intolerant beliefs the government doesn't share.

[Unknown Entity]

Verbal abuse is not a crime, it largely falls under freedom of speech. He did not enact any type of force against the person unless you want to count his voice resonating against their eardrums as adequate force. He voiced his opinion in a belligerent manner toward someone and the government is charging him for voicing said opinion equals "thought police". Being in fear of possibly getting criminally charged for saying something that is viewed as "unpopular" is exactly the use of a thought police system, otherwise there would be nothing to fear. Freedom of Speech protects most speech, the exclusion would be in the nature of yellling "fire".

I don't think him shouting racist abuse at a group of people is illegal, but it wasn't a very good move on his part, regardless whether or not he was under the influence at the time. If he has that much hatred in his system to say those things, then who's to say it wouldn't be a physical act next time? It's hate speech; there's a difference between hate speech and freedom of speech. I agree that everyone is allowed an opinion, and you should be able to voice those opinions, but when it's direct, verbal abuse at someone who's done no harm to you? Freedom of speech is a sure weak way to get out of that one.

I agree with the charges made against him. He was in a position to be a role model, and he blew it. I'm not saying that celebrities can't have an opinion, but he should have known that by broadcasting such hateful opinions in public would shame him and Dior.

[Sasquatch]

If he has that much hatred in his system to say those things, then who's to say it wouldn't be a physical act next time?

Then next time, and he should be punished for it. Because then, it would be illegal.

It's hate speech; there's a difference between hate speech and freedom of speech

Actually, no. Unless he's inciting violence with his speech, it's well within his rights.

I agree that everyone is allowed an opinion, and you should be able to voice those opinions, but when it's direct, verbal abuse at someone who's done no harm to you? Freedom of speech is a sure weak way to get out of that one.

Them's the breaks, though. I may not like certain opinions, but I can't deny people their right to voice them -- even if they're ignorant and hateful. Unless he actually does something illegal -- like use his "free speech" to incite violence -- he has the right to say what he wants. Even if he is a friggin' moron.

I agree with the charges made against him. He was in a position to be a role model, and he blew it. I'm not saying that celebrities can't have an opinion, but he should have known that by broadcasting such hateful opinions in public would shame him and Dior.

While I agree with you that he should be punished, I believe that it's not up to the law to punish him. If the company he works for wants to fire him because he now gives them a bad name or his continued employment reflects poorly on him, that's their call, and if it's in his employment contract that his employment may be terminated if it no longer suits the company's interests, they would be well within their rights.

But it's not illegal to insult and offend people. It's not illegal to be stupid. I could walk around all day talking about how sexy a twelve-year-old girl is, but that wouldn't be illegal -- it'd be wrong, and it'd be sick, and I should be beaten with a hose for even thinking about it, but it would be legal. Now, if I tried to act on my twisted perversions, that would be illegal, and in that case, I should be punished by the judicial system. It's the same with talking about how evil Jews/blacks/Muslims/Christians/gays/whatever are

If it was illegal to be racist and stupid, every Klan member would be in jail. But it's not illegal to be racist, and it's not illegal to be stupid, and it's not illegal to voice your racist and stupid opinions. Nor should it be. Nobody has a right to not be offended, and assigning specific races that "right" is nothing more than racism itself.

At least ... that's in America. But many parts of the world are intolerant of spoken opinions other than they're own, whether they be too "progressive" or not "progressive" enough.

EDIT:

If Gat was a black man, and said the same things, I'd share the same sentiment. He would have been charged with the same crimes.

I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this. You MIGHT be able to say that if he was of another race insulting them, he might have been charged with the same "crimes". But you can't honestly believe that if a black man hurled the same types of insults to a white man, or a woman to a man, or an American Indian to a white American, or any other minority group to a WASP, that they would have been charged.

[Sinister]

We all like to think of this as the age of Reason and the US as the nation of Tolerance or...*gasp*...Even Freedom. This is a useful illusion that's propagated through our own naivete and pride. We're no better than anywhere else in the world, France included. We can't be. We have too similar a justice system, still ran by faulty humans. You don't like to think that the laws get whored-out to provide satisfaction to someone's personal sense of justice, abused for personal gain, or even just misused by narrow-minded idiots. No one likes to think this. As a matter of fact, no one likes to think about those things at all. And it all seems so black and white when it's splashed onto a headline... Vulgar...shocking, unjust and immoral.

My advice? Don't have the nerve to act surprised... Just shake your head and carry on. If you can help, help. But this will always happen. It's the sacrifice our system took, just hope it's not a fatal one.

In the same breath, total freedom and severe justice do not go together and even if they were possible, they would not suit anyone at this forum. I'm not saying that this man got what he deserves. I'm just saying that after behaving that way, he deserves whatever he gets.

-Sin