Should We Now Be Very Careful What We Choose To Discuss?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10525121/Discussing-Robertsons-jam-golliwog-label-is-racist-judge-rules.html

/// Discussing the ‘Golliwog’ image on Robertson’s jam is “inherently racist” as the term is so offensive, a judge ruled ///

/// Lord Justice Floyd, sitting in the Court of Appeal, said that saying the term in front of a black person, whatever the context, was “offensive", as he upheld a ruling that chef who discussed the image was guilty of racial harassment. ///

Even if one is not in front of a black person????????????

/// Mr McAleese's account was that he and Miss Lindsay had their backs turned to each other as they innocently discussed food and packaging. After chatting about Walker's crisps, he said the conversation turned to Robertson's jam and the fact that its label had changed. ///

Though it seems for this person it was too late to get her hands on some easy money.

/// But the Court of Appeal’s decision may give little comfort to Miss Lindsay who was told she had lodged her complaint too late (5 months after the offence) and that it would not be 'just and equitable' to allow her to continue with her compensation claim against the LSE. ///.

[bazwillrun]

nothing more than mind control

[Gromit]

A curious judgement and, if the facts are as reported, not one I agree with.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like his initial denial of using the term may have gone against him.

I wouldn't let it stop me contributing to a discussion about the old Robertsons Jam labelling.

[VHG]

So there is less and less that we can make jokes about.

Soon there will be less and less that we can talk about.

[ummmm]

No one can control what you think.

[LazyGun]

I thought the judge made it pretty clear in his summation, and in fact in the piece that you quoted, that using the term required a black person to be offended by it ("said that saying the term in front of a black person, whatever the context, was “offensive",).

That's actually contained within the quote you gave, so quite why you then went on to ask this question
"Even if one is not in front of a black person???????????? " mystifies me. The answer is in your own quote!.

It seemed pretty clear from the judges summary that he felt the defendant was clearly aware that the term could be deemed offensive, and that he had intended to use it for that reason. Also the defendants own testimony was regarded as being untrustworthy, the judge pointing out that he had not been truthful, or words to that effect.

So I do not agree with his comment that the term could be deemed offensive "whatever the context", but I can see why some black people might become offended if they felt the term golliwog, or the topic was being used as a coded method of racist offence by using the term.

[jake-the-peg]

No - the point is the decision says the word is inherently rascist and cannot be deemed to be used in a manner outside of that context.

If we are having a discussion about racism (as we are now) using words like Golliwog or n1gg3r objectively is entirely reasonable

What is not reasonable is using them in discussions outside of that context

Effectively this means saying

'Oh sorry do you find the term Golliwog offensive' is not an excuse!

Note the judge also said that:

'coupled with his own subjective view that any use of the term in the presence of a black person would be offensive'

meaning that the defendant himself acknowledged that he knew it would be offensive!


So no you don't need to be careful what you want to discuss

You do need to be carefult that you don't use offensive racial terms in every day conversation.

But I'm sure none of us do that anyway

[jno]

well, some of us start threads about it at every available opportunity.

All in the itnerests of inoffensive discussion, of course.

[Graham-W]

I wonder what the same judge thinks about the "Black and White Minstrels".
A white man, painted to look black, singing, what is ostensibly, American *** music for a white audience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tuu5YtkPIo

[Graham-W]

*** was knee-grow. Why that is considered offensive, I don't know.
It's only a description of race, like Caucasian, or Asian.

[jake-the-peg]

Again I think it's contextual Graham

We don't ban such material

But if I had a company training session and decided to start it off by screening that I think I'd rightly find myself in hot water!

If you really want to find some old offensive material look up 'Birth of a Nation' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0004972/

a 1915 black and white film that was frankly pretty offensive even by the standards of the day!

The whole thing is on youTube I think

Point is you can go and download it and watch it - that's one thing

Sitting people down and showing it to them is another

[LazyGun]

I find the B/W minstrels embarrassing, and do find the notion of "blackface" objectionable in this day and age.Plus which it offered a kind of stereotyped view of black music and black culture.

It was immensely popular in its heyday though, I do know that.

[Old_Geezer]

This sort of judgement just reduces public respect for the legal system. A system where we, the people, have no say in who is to hold that sort of power over us. Based on the OP the judgement is clearly flawed, and the sanity of the judge must be in question.

[bazwillrun]

@emmie

"ummmm, No one can control what you think."

well sorry to say but you are wrong, thats what all this pc garbage is about, its thought control via indoctrination/brainwashing

[bazwillrun]

"and the sanity of the judge must be in question. "

nothing new there then

[jim360]

"Indoctrinating" people to respect each other? I don't see a problem with that.

[bazwillrun]

this is nothing to do with respect

[jim360]

Yes it is, he used an offensive word with the deliberate intent to cause offence. That's called not showing respect.

[anotheoldgit]

LazyGun

/// That's actually contained within the quote you gave, so quite why you then went on to ask this question
"Even if one is not in front of a black person???????????? " mystifies me. The answer is in your own quote!. ///

If you had read the following excerpt, *** Mr McAleese's account was that he and Miss Lindsay had their backs turned to each other ***

It then wouldn't have mystified you surely?

"in front of, backs towards each other*??????

[jim360]

That's just pure pedantry, and I think you know it.