Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This was the conclusion of the NS piece:


"But it's surely wrong that the law accords treatment to members of some statutorily-defined minorities and ignores others whose problems may well be experienced in precisely the same way. It's the very definition of privilege. It sends out a message that some forms of irrational prejudice are more acceptable than others, that an unprovoked attack one someone is somehow worse if it's motivated by the colour of their skin, or by their perceived sexuality, than by the colour of their hair or their weight. In truth, there is an infinite number of possible hate crimes. If the concept of has any meaning, it should apply irrespective of the personal characteristic, innate or adopted, cultural or sartorial, that inspires the hate."


So it's wrong that hate crimes are defined in a limited way, and the concept should apply across the board, but there are an infinaite number of possible......


I'm essentially sympathetic to the argument, but no practical good will come of adding gingers, fat people, glasses wearers, Goths oir anybody else to the Equality Act or any other bit of legislation. There are sensible historical reasons for offering specific protection against discrimination on the grounds of race, gender and sexuality, and there are other laws to protect everybody else from assault, harassment etc.


Re the original topic of the thread, I'm afraid my overwhelming reaction was that I can't believe anybody actually watches this kind of cr@p. I also had to google Katie whoever because I have no idea who she is. Tbh, I had no idea who Holly Willoughby was either.


Re kids names, its not exactly news that prejudice based around social class exists, nor that kid's names are widely seen as an indicator of class. It's also unfortunately not news that there is a never-ending supply of stupid people who are willing (nay desperate) to go on TV and try and make some kind of name for themselves by spouting witless rubbish.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Ah that was it.... When you realise politicians are only ever in it for themselves then everything starts to make sense.  
    • Yup. Student politics. https://bright-green.org/2012/04/09/democracy-and-direct-action-an-interview-with-edinburgh-universitys-new-student-president-james-mcash/
    • I wonder whether his political epiphany and renaissance will stretch to him using his real name - James Ashworth-McLintock - rather than the more proletarian 'McAsh'. To my mind, the only people who should have self-bestowed mononyms are very talented Brazilian footballers - Pele, Kaka, Ronaldinho - very talented female pop icons - Madonna, Shakira, Sonia - or Russian revolutionaries - Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky. Sonia's greatest hits compilation, 'Greatest Hits', is out now on vinyl & CD through PWL Recordings.
    • Probably more helpful to ask simply whether McCash was affiliated with the Greens before becoming a Labour councillor. Trying to explain your thought process and unravel your fevered imagination (particularly when it comes to local politica) is the kind of thing that might require several years of psychoanalysis.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...