Man sends banana to black mans table in Wetherspoons pub
- Thread starter Bassmansam
- Start date
- Status
Where did your fedora place?So clearly there is a discrimination league table, and racism clearly trumps some other forms of discrimination, at least in cases of discrimination based on appearance
A crucifix is a means of killing someone.
A banana is not (normally).
Therefore the symbolism is different. You can imply someone is descended from apes* without an implied threat to their physical wellbeing. (*If you're a dick.)
A crucifix carries that implied threat to wellbeing.
Both may be the result of racism and both may cause offence.
But i really can't help you if you don't think the law should differentiate the two.
Simply being racist and or causing offence are not sufficient to break the law in England.
So insulting some people's uncontrollable physical traits is ok, but not anothers? Is there some sort of ranking? Race and glasses are out of bounds but lay in to the shorties and gingers all you want? What about those with buck teeth or a receding hairline? Which side of the line are they on?
A long time ago in a different country. I'm pretty sure if it were to happen on this soil in the modern day it would also be done as an idiotic prank. Hence, my first post.
I don't think the law should conflate the two, I am asking how it differentiates them
Wow, either this topic gets people worked up the wrong way and they interpret a different meaning to my posts, or I can't write for ****.
I knew it!
We going to argue semantics now?
"Not equal to" strongly implies lesser importance in this context. Unless you're going to say now you meant they're different but equal?
Or not equal but just as important?Regardless, your meaning wasn't ambiguous.
I don't think the law should conflate the two, I am asking how it differentiates them
Leaving something burning on a person's lawn has a clear threatening aspect to it.
Sending someone an object of a pub menu does not.
Both a crucifix and a banana can have racial connotations attached to them but that's about it for similarities.
No, the symbolism *today* of a crucifix is that of death, in this country and elsewhere. Just look inside any church.
Sure they haven't been used for a while, but the symbolism remains.
I don't think a banana has the same significance.
So it's the fact it is on fire, or the fact it is on their property which qualifies it as "threatening"?
Both of those things certainly elevate the threat level, yes.
A banana is an insult in this context but not necessary a threat. A burning crucifix installed on your property is in a whole different league of threat level.
We going to argue semantics now?
"Not equal to" strongly implies lesser importance in this context. Unless you're going to say now you meant they're different but equal?
Regardless, your meaning wasn't ambiguous.
In that context they're not equal, I stand by that. That was comparing two instances at face value, not racism or bullying as a whole.
The crucifix is a symbol of Jesus' death for whatever reasons he died for.
But I concede the cross was used to scare people in the past based on its prior image. I maintain that in the UK if it were to happen it would be as a result of an idiot trying to be funny, such as the Banana incident - and if intent has any weight to conviction I wonder just how that appeals court would play out.
Everyone keeps saying "clearly" - but nothing legally differentiates other than the Magistrates/Judges interpretation.
Now it has been implied and stated in this thread that I am an idiot, by multiple people, so perhaps my moot point is just that.
So "in that instance" racism is more important than the other cause of discrimination based on appearance, ie needing corrective glasses?
What makes racism the more important/more equal form of discrimination?
There is another level of commitment needed to ascertain where somebody lives, build a crucifix, install it in their garden, and set it on fire.
Vs tapping a button in an app to send a banana to a table.
One might be done with little/no thought, the other requires planning and real effort. Along with most probably choosing your victim/target based on some critieria, vs sheer opportunism/random in pub.
Like I said earlier, you just have to look at history to find your answer.
I understand the point you're making. I think ultimately our life experiences are different and so we are looking at this from different perspectives. That's always the issue with discrimination of any kind and why often common views are impossible.
- Status