Are these racist crimes?

[anotheoldgit]

Can one be charged with racial offences when it is white British against white Scottish, or white British against white French or white British against white German even, or any such similar combinations?

The reason I ask is because it has often been said on this site that one can't, as these are nationalities and not races.

Yet it appears one can judging by this case.

http://www.dailymail....our-4-years-hell.html

[Gromit]

// White British against white Scottish //

Scottish IS British.

Race is not automatically your colour. British and German are obviously different races, and so it is possible for one to racially abuse the other.

[pa___ul3]

British and German are different races!? Really? I though most of Britain decended from the Saxons?
I personally think this labelling everything as racist is counter productive to the cause. To equate intollerance of anyone with dark skin to jokes about the French is not really justifiable.

[flip_flop]

The law may say it is racist, overriding fact and common sense.

The law isn't always right.

[jno]

of a cricketer, rojash?

[THECORBYLOON]

As I've said more than once, the Court of Session ruled in 2001 that the Race Relations Act applied to discrimination between Scots and the English.

[ludwig]

It's racism. People can be pedantic about the semantics of it all they like, but that's what it is, legally and factually.

The point is if you hate people because of the geographical location of their birth, you're just as big an @rseh0le as someone who hates people because of their skin colour, and should be treated the similarly.

[Kromovaracun]

I really don't see how inter-Caucasian hatred can be defined as racial hatred. The Scots and English are fairly obviously nations rather than races. It's just as bad, of course, so it doesn't make any practical difference. But if we care about upholding the definition of a race (as opposed to other things) then I guess it's technically xenophobic/nationalist.

Which to repeat is just as bad as racism. It just doesn't have the same press. I repeat this just to pre-empt any accusations of 'liberal leftiness' or 'bending over backwards' to somehow appease some unspecified entity or whatever.

[Kromovaracun]

On the 'I can dislike anyone for anything' argument - yes, you can. In the privacy of your own head, I don't see the problem with it.

But a central and important part of freedom is the right to challenge and (frankly) the moral obligation to be challenged. In a truly free (or Open, if you will ;) ) society, nothing ought not to be challenged and scrutinised. If you openly dislike someone for a reason that others see fit to challenge, they have as much right as you have to think it. The idea is that over time we filter out ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny. That's why people challenge racism/xenophobia/anything else.

[ludwig]

Word meanings change over time. Racism has come to mean hatred of different ethnic\cultural groups rather than any sort of literal interpretation about human biology.

That's why when someone says 'I hate all muslims', they're not accused of being religionists. It's viewed as a racist statement by law, and also by general understanding.

[exdc]

I would class your example as a religious crime Ludwig, although there does seem to be an obession with people calling others a racist etc.

[Kromovaracun]

" Racism has come to mean hatred of different ethnic\cultural groups rather than any sort of literal interpretation about human biology. "

I'm perfectly open to words changing, but I'm really not convinced this one actually has. When we talk about 'race', there's not much ambiguity as to what we're discussing - we're talking about racial groups. Not cultural ones or national ones. There's no reason that therefore 'racism' should have an ambiguous meaning like it's often treated as being. The reason it has is partly because the term has been hijacked by people (often from aggrieved minorities) who don't have a very sophisticated understanding of it, and from the legal perspective I imagine because laws of this kind first came into existence to provide protection from racial/gendered prejudice so it's simply easier to use those frameworks than to make new and identical ones for national/xenophobic prejudice.

Fair enough. But this is a separate matter to what a race actually is. Law is not the arbiter of truth in this matter. It just treats racial prejudice as perfectly equivalent to national/xenophobic prejudice - which it is.

I should probably also point out that people who research and study the matter are pretty clear about the above distinctions. Which I'm guessing won't fly much with the Great British Public's dismissal of academics, but for what it's worth.

[Kromovaracun]

"That's why when someone says 'I hate all muslims', they're not accused of being religionists. It's viewed as a racist statement by law, and also by general understanding."

I think the reason that Islamophobia is viewed as racist is because it's usually remarkably targetted at Arab muslims (despite the fact that most muslims are Asian), which in turn probably stems from the fact that most Muslims we see immediately around us (and in the UK press) are Arab. If you look at the imagery Islamophobes cite, it's virtually always Arab Islam. The only time I can ever remember an Islamophobe attacking non-Arab muslims was when R1Geezer made a comment on the uprising in Xinjiang a few years ago.

[whiskeryron]

// The point is if you hate people because of the geographical location of their birth, you're just as big an @rseh0le as someone who hates people because of their skin colour, and should be treated the similarly.//

well said ludwig.

Ron.

[flip_flop]

Legally, it may be racist - but factually, a Scottish person calling an English person an English bastard purely because he is English, is not, and cannot, be racist.

[IggyB]

semantics being argued here - the crimes are not racist if using the accepted meaning of the english word. However they are racially aggravated when using the definition set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The term Racially aggravated in the statute is just a name its not actually accusing him of being a racist (so maybe its not a great name).

See the CPS site re Racially aggravated offences here
http://www.cps.gov.uk..._aggravated_offences/

See The Crime and Disorder Act for definition of Racial group under the Act
http://www.legislatio...ga/1998/37/section/28

[THECORBYLOON]

From the Chambers Dictionary "Race... 2 a tribe, nation or similar group of people thought of as distinct from others" so it seems the English usage DOES include nationality as a race.

[Kromovaracun]

@TCL: Really? I'm surprised. Apparently Merriam-Webster, the Free Dictionary (although not Dictionary.com or wikipedia) agree. Well, in that case I guess I'm wrong and the language is changing. Albeit in a rather dumb way, because it effectively makes the word pretty meaningless surely...

[IggyB]

well I never - I always thought the word race (in language rather than in law) was referring to physical characteristics , and that issues of dislike of certain nationalities was referred to as xenophobia. I stand corrected - thanks Loon

[THECORBYLOON]

If nationality were not included in the racial crimes legislation then no doubt there would be legislation relating to xenophobia, either way, it would be covered.

[Kromovaracun]

@Iggy: To be fair, that's how most people researching the subject (in my experience anyway) treat it. And some definitions do too. But I agree, it does imply a surprising change.

I do wonder if the change does stem from the change in the law though. For instance, the law includes national prejudice in 'racial' legislation because it's easier than not doing it and the provisions would be exactly the same. Then legal definition -> language reaction.