ComputerMKII
Banned
Thoughtcrime shouldn't exist.
Racist Tube rant woman Jacqueline Woodhouse jailed
- Thread starter Dead Man
- Start date
- Status
Mammoth Jones
Member
I can't stand racism but putting them in jail doesn't solve the problem. You don't just jail people because they have an ideology you don't approve of. History has been filled with examples of why that's not a good idea. Regardless of how well the intentions may be....
Speedymanic
Banned
Oh, it's her.
This was obviously a 'send a message' sentencing and she'll be out in a few weeks. I doubt she'll learn any kind of lessons though, will probably go on to become a figurehead for the EDF or BNP.
This was obviously a 'send a message' sentencing and she'll be out in a few weeks. I doubt she'll learn any kind of lessons though, will probably go on to become a figurehead for the EDF or BNP.
Peer pressure, education and public shaming (by media outlets) is ample enough response.
It's more effective (imo), too.
Why are you saying this? It has nothing to do with the content of this thread. The woman would not have been jailed for simply stating she hates [ethnic minority].
It's the harrassment she's being jailed for.
Stop turning this into a "jailing people for OPINIONS wtf freedom of speech thoughtcrime lol" thing. You guys always do it in every single thread about this sort of thing and I'm sick of it. It's completely dishonest.
edit - You too, ElectricBlue.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Speech is not inherently evil or wrong or intolerant but the listening and comprehending makes it so. Therefore it is the listener that decides, this is important because you cannot always assume two people will decide that the same speech is wrong or right
Harassment is an arbitrary qualifier that could really be applied to ANY speech of any kind
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Ugh, so dumb. While I'm obviously against her rant, jailing someone for being a racist? REALLY?
Not really. That didn't happen.
No it isn't.
Harassment indicates speech that is designed to harm and aggravate. I could easily state a racist opinion in a way that would not be legally considered harassment.
Getting up in someone's face, shouting at them etc. is not a civilised way to go about expressing your opinions. We like opinions in the UK, our ridiculous corporate libel laws aside. We don't like dickheads.
i think it was the three girls who beat up a white girl and got nothing from the judge because they were Muslim and drinking was not normal in their culture.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...urt-hears-they-were-not-used-to-drinking.html
UK justice. words equal jailtime.. beatings ..... probation
Mammoth Jones
Member
Sorry for disagreeing? Perhaps I misread the article. Did she follow people around and spout racist shit at them? All day? Did she follow them into the office? Just standing behind them...spouting nonsense...
What happened to just walking the fuck away? That's what I do. Someone says something dumb...I just walk away. It's a pretty easy solution and it doesn't waste money and someone's life.
We going to pass laws telling people they have to be super nice to everyone all the time?
The Sun, eh? At least we know this article won't be sensationalist or fictional.
Gareth Bale
Member
This isn't a 'thoughtcrime'.
Wait, what?
ElectricBlue187
Member
Talkcrime shouldn't exist then
RibbedHero
Member
I don't see what's wrong with hate speech being illegal. Even in the US hate speech is illegal if it's obscene or it constitutes fighting words.
If I were to scream "bomb" in an airport would that be legal? If you say no then you shouldn't have a problem with hate speech being illegal.
If I were to scream "bomb" in an airport would that be legal? If you say no then you shouldn't have a problem with hate speech being illegal.
They have fingers in many pies.
"Walking the fuck away" on the London underground? You'd have better luck trying to walking against the flow of Japanese business men trying to get on the bullet-train.
No? Why are you making statements like this? It's black and white bullshit.
"Racially aggravated harassment? Well, excuse her for having an opinion!"
"Getting up in someone's face and shouting at them with the intention to make them feel miserable? Well, didn't know there was a be-nice-to-everyone law in effect!"
Laws and law enforcement is not a binary process. 1 or 0. This woman's sole intention was not to express herself, but to cause emotional distress and mental harm to another through the process of harassment.
This isn't about being allowed to speak your mind and your constant categorisation of this as a matter of freedom of speech is wrong. Factually wrong.
Hate speech should and absolutely is legal. I repeat is often, but I can have and express any number of nasty opinions about people in the UK. Nobody will stop me (they might try but I'd be able to sue them later). It is my right to hold a seminar on why nig nogs are bone-idle lazy and should stay way from our women and them pakis are just coming over to take our jobs or any other assortment of absolutely vile, reprehensible garbage.
However, I'm not allowed to incite or to harass.
It's not a complicated system to understand.
FunkyPajamas
Member
Not surprised there's a harassment-defence force on GAF.
"You shouldn't be harmed by the words of others, so it's your fault if you do."
Nice.
"You shouldn't be harmed by the words of others, so it's your fault if you do."
Nice.
and all over their fat faces.
Oh no, it's not a harassment-defence force, it's a freedom-defence force...
EDIT: THIS IS IRONY, BY THE WAY
doesn't mean 20+ weeks for this isnt a barbaric perversion of the justice system.
More Fun To Compute
Member
Trial by youtube.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Yes, because advocating for the freedom of speech requires that ALL speech be protected. You don't get to cherry pick which speech you'll tolerate just because it offends your sensibilities.
And yea, I respect the fact that the UK can make its laws. But I simply disagree.
I've been called some horrifically racist shit to my face in my life...but do I *really* think someone should go to jail for it? Fuck that.
One sentence came from a modern, secular law system .. the other one from a primitive, religious one.
Im not saying that this isn't harrassment. I am saying there are varying degrees of harrassment and this falls way down the ladder and the first time offender should at most be fined or lightly reprimanded.
Spitting on someone and stabbing someone in the ass is both assault. They shouldn't be treated or punished the same way.
Remind what happens in America when a member of the neighbourhood watch shoots an unarmed black kid?
So not being a complete dickhead on every level while drunk on public transport and not ranting Daily Mail reader bullshit about immigrants is being super nice?
Society would probably be a better place anyway.
Now, I'm probably inclined to agree with this. I've actually not stated my opinion on the bloody ruling, as few people in this thread seemed to actually understand what it was about and instead went "freedom of speech thoughtcrime!" etc.
I do not agree with 21 weeks jail time for this at all. Community service, a week in prison and a nice fine would be a good "you done fucked up" punishment. More constructive, too. Throw in some racial-sensitivity training or something and you might have a rehabilitated citizen.
The United Kingdom and her laws agree with this statement!
... she just doesn't see what it has to do with this thread.
edit - Goddamnit, ElectricBlue. You again. Read the thread and OP please.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Heaven forbid you should be given a choice to listen to speech you disagree with, you might actually have to make up your own mind on whats right and wrong! Then where will society be?!
FunkyPajamas
Member
Freedom to harass? This isn't a person talking to their friends about how they hate <insert minority here> (which is still reproachable, but not illegal), this is a person addressing said hate towards an individual, in a public place, disrupting the peace and attacking with words.
There is a huge difference. Your freedom ends where other people's rights begins.
Lionheart1337
Member
^ Which right is that?
This is stupid
This is stupid
The Incarnation
Member
Good job these were words then isn't it.
I was being ironic.
Mammoth Jones
Member
She said mean words that were not nice. Period. You can spin it however you want. Did she push someone? Physically stop them from getting off the train? Punch someone?
No? The entire encounter was just words? Alright then. Glad we cleared that up. She's being jailed for bad words. Gotcha.
Fragmented?
It's odd, like, because every statement in your post up until the bit I bolded was true. I don't quite know how you made the leap.
Well, I suppose she was jailed for "bad words" by proxy, but you have to stretch the truth quite a bit to simplify it to the degree you did.
No I meant more like, tell me more about this death sentence for dancing bullshit the Pakistanis cooked up.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Words and a bullet are two different things. You should know the difference.
I agree, it would. But jailing people isn't the way to get there....
Kind of like expressing one's negative opinion and harrassing someone!
I don't agree with his bullet statement, by the way. That was as equally dishonest as you are being. f0rk should know better.
Gonna have to call bullshit on this. There is a reason why they have harassment laws, and its honestly be better if they were stricter on them.
Savagery and uncouthness, Yenrot! What failure of our legal system is keeping these ruffians out of the cells they belong in?
This is overly harsh imo, but I suppose they are making an example of this as to try and quell any future occurrences similar how they dealt with the riots with overly strict punishments.
Anyway, guess is she won't serve close to that 5 months, so it's not too bad.
So if you're not jailing those people, what do you do with them? Community service? Fines?
Anyway, guess is she won't serve close to that 5 months, so it's not too bad.
So if you're not jailing those people, what do you do with them? Community service? Fines?
I probably should have clarified what I meant. Somebody should never be jailed for harassment like this, where it's obviously some random thing. If someone is following someone, stalking them and harassing them constantly then yes it should result in jail time.
Oh, I'm sorry, I should have linked to the thread in my original post.
There was a thread on it this morning on GAF and it was still fresh in my mind.
So in the UK we jail someone for 5 months (won't actually be that long) for being an awful human being and in the US you let a murderer go free for 2 months. Man the UK justice system is fucked up!
Words have no inherent objective meaning. One can never account for how an individual uses their own internal schema and constructs to interpret a string of words you personally find of an unbecoming nature. Would such a punishment still be a viable solution the "offended" party was not, well, offended? Individuals can be driven to certain actions as a result of psychologically induced trauma from repeated abuse (by that same token, psychological states can be fragile, ostensibly innocuous comments could have the same result); but to somehow legislate something like that linked act makes me uneasy. Note: My musings are only tangentially related to the OP. Calm down. Unless your one of those people who found it reasonable to jail inappropriate and offensive Tweeters -- then you may promptly fuck off.
Mammoth Jones
Member
"Jacqueline Woodhouse, 42, of Romford, east London, directed an expletive-ridden rant at Tube passengers on the Central line on 23 January." Please point out where I'm factually wrong on this. Please.
What does this accomplish by jailing her? Does it keep society "safe" from her? Is she a "threat" that needs to be contained? Or is it just nice to see a jerk get their just deserts?
She and society would benefit FAR more from her being ordered to get anger management and therapy rather than putting her in a box for a few days.
Oh, I'm not in disagreement here.
I'm just bemused at your continued insistence that harassment is "just words" and continuing to classify this as a freedom of speech issue.
case is even less relevant to this thread than freedom of speech laws.
Mammoth Jones
Member
"B-b-b-but America!" - that's really all you said.
C'mon son....
I have -NO- problem with criticizing 'America but don't use it as a shield to prevent criticisms about another nation.
The "B-b-but America!" defense is just pointless.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked