UKC

This is just utterly ludicrous. A teenager has been convicted of a "hate crime" for quoting rap lyrics.  The relevant lyrics contained the word ni**a  (that's two "g"s with an -a ending).

She had no intention of being offensive, she simply posted to her Instagram account, intending the lyrics as a tribute to a boy who had been killed in a car accident. 

But a (black) policewoman claimed -- after a screen shot had been anonymously forwarded to her -- that the n-word was offensive to her.  And thus the Instagram was a criminal offence.

Among all the array of reasons why this is ridiculous and a travesty of anything even resembling justice is the sheer arbitrary capriciousness of it. The word must get used thousands of times a day and is routinely used by rappers and many others. 

Just for example, isn't the person who anonymously forwarded it to the police just as guilty of sending an offensive message?

The law has never intended to be used like this.  It dates from pre-internet days and was supposed to be about personal one-on-one communication (such as telephoning someone in person).

And aren't we supposed to now have DPP guidelines to prevent this sort of ludicrous and arbitrary prosecution?  What happened to them?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

It may or may not be a crap judgement, but its not down to the Police to make that call, is it ?

Coel, although it wasn't a police matter and she wasn't quoting other material,I'd be interested to hear what your thoughts were regarding the overnight, non-voted removal of white Emily Parr from the Big Brother house due to her non-malicious non-offensive use of the word "ni**a" during a Big Brother dance "task".
Basically, dancing in the house group, and generally trying to join in and use some banter, she said "yeah push it out ni**a" to one of the black housemates, who did not appear offended but who did seem aware that this could get Emily into hot water.

It made national news at the time, with (iirc) public apologies from C4 and Endemol.

My feeling is that the one person suffering from racial discrimination in that case, was Emily Parr. 

there was, typically, a big thread on here about it, but nobody addressed that point despite my having tried to make it in thread several times.



 

It does seem a bit random and excessive. From the Liverpool Echo:

"[the judge] ordered Russell to comply with a curfew order restricting her movements between 8pm and 8am for 8 weeks. She was ordered to wear an electronic tag on her ankle during this period of time. Russell was also ordered to pay £500 toward costs and a £85 surcharge."

Why a curfew? Perhaps there is some extra context that wasn't reported?

I'd imagine that in cases like this they have a lot of latitude over what gets forwarded to the prosecutors, wouldn't they? 

A thought, do the police have incentives to pursue such cases, such as targets for how many convictions their unit is expected to be responsible for?

Um, because rap concerts are in the evening, and she might attend one and sing along to the lyrics?   How knows?

Can courts award you compensation if you've been offended?

Nope, there are no incentives.

All cases of this nature ('hate crime') are forwaded to the CPS, and the CPS decide whether or not to charge.

A CPS lawyer will then prosecute the case, a pannel will decide on guilt and a judge will hand down the sentence.

Any yet you blame the police?

They are duty bound to investigate ALL offences....not only the ones that you approve of.

Oh, I agree that this does appear to be a sorry tale of politically correct clap-trap, of the type which generally recieves strong support on UKC!

On the surface it seems ridiculous, but it someone officially reports a potential "hate crime" it has to be investigated, there is no police option for "having better things to do with my time".

I suppose we don't know what else is in the past or her background, there may be more to the case. But it does seem a bit silly.

I think if its one of the 'hot' areas they have been told to take more seriously, woe betide any police officer not forwarding it !

"Chelsea Russell, 19, from Liverpool posted the lyric from Snap Dogg's I'm Trippin' to pay tribute to a boy who died in a road crash, a court heard."

Obviously a deeply hateful thing to do.

I do remember the incident. It was clear at the time that the "offended" contestant, Charley Uchea, was nothing of the sort and only exploited the circumstances to see a fellow contestant excluded. Charley became a very angry presence in the house, maybe the most aggressive the show has witnessed. The house cowered before her outbursts. They made for some gripping scenes which must have greatly satisfied the producers.

As for middle class Emily Parr. she was guilty of trying to cross class boundaries, a more egregious error in UK society, even if not a crime. But no, she suffered no racial discrimination. Only wilful ignoring of context.

If she'd been black there would have been no question that she could say that word, because she was white she was kicked off.  How is that anything other than discrimination based on race?

Thanks, I wasn't following the programme at the time so I didn't know whether Charley was smartly exploiting the situation. I read the transcript and it seemed reasonably friendly banter.

I didn't truly believe Emily was a victim of racial discrimination; that was some clumsy/lazy writing on my part. I meant to say that IF ANYONE WERE a victim, it was her - as she was the one who lost out, and possibly would have not been penalised were she herself black. 

DPP guidelines are never going to be enough, the law as written means that they will make political decisions about when to prosecute and when not to.  The only way to prevent this sort of thing happening is to change the law, not leave it up to the police and CPS to exercise the "right" judgment (whatever people think that may be at the time).

The word is a racially charged word no matter what colour the person who voices it. While I agree there would be a great contextual shift, and many would have acknowledged the re-appropriation of the N-word by people of colour, I'd dispute that no one would have complained if the roles had been swapped. This was reality TV not The Wire.

Not arguing, just wondering....were there complaints at the time? Was the incident broadcast live? I recall that C4's reaction was seen as being based upon the storm around the previous CBB (Jade Goody, Danielle Lloyd, Shilpa Shetty........)

You think if she was black she'd have been treated the same, kicked off the show for using the word in that context?

I think C4 / Endemol  were extremely sensitive about race at the time, as it was only months after the Celebrity Big Brother race issues where Jade Goody and others were abusing Shilpa Shetty. A long time ago now.

Sorry, I see you have made the same point.

Probably not, but it’s clearly not the same. I think a black American celebrity contestant was reprimanded and warned he would be kicked off if he used it again.

You lost me at Shilpa Shetty

As in you sighed in happy, starry eyed, remembrance of, shall we say, 'strong' feelings aroused by the lovely Ms Shetty?

Mrs C is angling to be one of the hate crime coppers for Cumbria (the only one?).

Hate crime isn’t nice, but there seems to be a real lack of clarity on what a hate crime actually is. A poor lad/lass was walking through Carlisle in a frock with make up on, only to be followed, verbally abused and threatened with violence by a group of shite for over 30 minutes. Poor lad is found clearly distressed, in tears, virtually incoherent with anxiety - arrests follow and justice is done (although the victim will probably never forget the abuse).

Compare this to the casual use of nigga in a non-threatening / racist manner - it might not be tasteful but it’s so not the same offence.

The police can and do use discretion about the level of investigation they employ, it’s just common sense.

Meaning what, exactly?

The officer who received the screenshot is the sister of Anthony Walker. Walker had that word screamed at him by the men who then murdered him by striking him in the head with an ice axe. I would imagine that whoever alerted PC Walker to the post did so fully expecting her to take it as seriously as she could. 

What do you have in mind?

No situation is the same as another, but treating white people one way and black people another is discrimination based on race.

So black - reprimand, white - kick off.  Clear discrimination.  I appreciate you think it's justified.

Google reports 53,000,000 hits to the word in its -a incarnation.  That's a hell of a lot of alerting of police that needs doing! 

In a thinking aloud way, isn't the context in which the word came to exist and be used relevant? It's historically a word used by white people as a pejorative term for black people. As a white person, if I went out into the street and called a black person a nigger, I'd expect to be told to eff off or be punched, and pretty reasonably so, I think.

A black person using the word doesn't seem to have quite the same historical baggage or 'sting' to it.

TobyA understands.

Hopefully she never sees any of us with an ice-axe then!  At least the law on offensive weapons allows a defence of 'reasonable excuse'.  In the case of offensive communications you do not even need to be aware that the communication is (or could be) offensive.

I'm very much on the liberal end when it comes to free-speech, but if you are going to criminalise offensive communications, then an intent to offend would seem to be a necessary condition.

'' I didn't mean to cause any offence...''   

The CPS decide whether to prosecute but the police have to first decide if there is a crime. What I thinking the OP is questioning is the use of a screenshot of Instagram as prima facie evidence of a crime. What if instead of typing it she'd shared a photo of album lyrics.

What if she'd put quote marks around it attributed it? That would make her the first person convicted of a grammar crime, or maybe just indicate a lack of GCSE history.

Understanding that certain terms can be “reclaimed” and have different meanings when said by different people, if fairly basic.

I haven’t stated what I think is justified, so I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.

My view is probably that in the context of the way it was said by the female contestant it was an over reaction, but understandable given the sensitivities described above. The later incident wasn’t surrounded by the same sensitivities.

Under the malicious communications act it is an offense to send an offensive communication, whether or not anybody receives it. Which seems bizarre since you could then technically send yourself an email and be caught out.

More serious though is in the recent case with the nazi pug, I understand the judge said context should not be taken into account. When surely context is everything. I believe Jonathan Pie ranted about this and potential consequences to comedians.

Well.  We don't know do we?  Generally we agree that only the court hears all the evidence and so is in a best position to judge.

It's possible that the same court might treat these two instances differently:

1. Someone posts lyrics with a know racist word.  Their broader posting history has strong overtures of racism.

2. Someone else posts the same lyrics.  Their broader posting history is beyond reproach.

or the court and the police may just have made a stupid decision.  Like I say, I don't know.

Except that I always thought that for a person to reclaim something, it had to be his in the first place. I never thought that black people had ownership of the word "nigger"; if anything, it was their masters and detractors who coined the word and put it into currency.

She does realise that doesn't mean she gets to carry out hate crimes as part of the job description?

The sensitivities transferred to these people being based on race, and the consequent discrimination also based on race.  You’ve just said that you think exactly what I thought you thought!

Take context out of it and everyone who’s used the offending word on here, and all the journalists who’ve covered it could be in the dock. 

The police seem to have and use discretion about the investigation of other crimes. This kind of thing is an easy win for them, they don’t risk getting their heads kicked in and it avoids them being accused of racism. 

You've not said whether you think the historical baggage which the word has makes any difference (re it being a pejorative term for black people used by white people). I'd be interested in your thoughts.  

It does, of course, but that doesn’t answer the question as to whether treating people differently based on race is racial discrimination no matter the reason (it is) or whether using certain words should be criminal (it shouldn’t, especially when it’s only criminal depending on your race).

Thanks for your response. If you don't make it an offence for black people to be racially abused online with the use of the word nigger, isn't that also a bad thing? I'm thinking that there might have to be a place in society for grey areas sometimes, because no black person is going to racially abuse another black person with the word, unless they're very damaged perhaps - but the intent would be clear if abuse was the aim, and they'd probably end up being charged too?

 I don't see anything in law which 'excludes' black people from being charge with hate speech or racial abuse from using the word nigger, more a difference in the application of the law depending on the circumstances, which seems to me to be a sensibly nuanced way of going about things. I'm thinking we'd both agree that anybody racially abusing another person online shouldn't be able to. 

The sensitivity was based on the fact that the first incident took place a month after C4 had been seriously reprimanded by OFCOM after the Goody / Shetty incident. The second incident was several years later. As to your second point, you may have thought I thought that, but it certainly wasn’t what you wrote.

It is also worth noting that in the second case the person he was using the term about was himself. C4 objected to him using the term at all, whilst the context was different to the earlier case.

Feel free to argue the semantics of a concept that have been established for half a century, but excuse me if I don’t bother.

He was fined £800 today. Unfortunately for him the EDL travelled all the way to Scotland to attend the court hearing. Must have been the last thing he wanted.

https://gizmodo.com/youtuber-who-trained-a-pug-to-do-nazi-salute-has-been-f...

Still on the C4 entertainment tangent and regarding context, how come there was barely any registered outrage (I don’t remember any and i was looking for it actively) around the Charlie-Brooker-penned , Chris-Morris-directed “Nathan Barley” in which the white title character used “alright m’ni**a” as an everyday greeting? Is it simply because this character was a figure of mockery? Or is it because it was broadcast in 2005, 2 years before the Celeb Big Brother fiasco? Or is it because the target audience was more highbrow?

I remember being a bit surprised that they got away with it, regardless of context

You don't have to travel back in time, the word is a hashtag on Instagram, I didn't do a search but expect there are millions instances of it being used. Similarly the lyrics of the song are published all over the internet.

I'm genuinely puzzled by this case.

Yes but I wanted to clarify and confirm with you, as your comment could have multiple interpretations, many less positive than Toby’s. All good, case closed.

Abuse is abuse, the specific words don’t really matter, do they?  You’re wrong that black people don’t use the word against other black people.

Law is practice.  What matters is what actually happens, and that’s discrimination based on race.  The law is vague, so you get major discrepancies.  One person gets prosecuted, another it’s fine, it’s not clear when you’re breaking the law - it essentially depends on the whim of the judge.  That’s not how law should work.

I don’t follow B.B., I’ll take your word for it that they’re not exactly comparable.  Do you think if she’d been missy Elliot she’d have been booted?  The point is that race makes a difference in how you’re treated, do you actually think it doesn’t?

I didn't at all say that black people don't racially abuse other black people with the word nigger. Originally, this was about the use of the word nigger I thought?

I agree that law is practice, I think (?) I alluded to that by saying that there's nothing to exclude black people from being charged (where as if black people were excluded from being able to be charged, then how it's practiced would only ever be discriminatory), leaving the option for them to be, so that it isn't only white people who are charged in the event of an offence. By discrepancies, do you mean black people not being charged for using the word nigger against other black people?

There's the right to appeal, though, when it comes to judgements by the judges, and they generally sentence after looking at the context involved. If you can show me an example of a black person racially abusing another black person and getting away with it, I'll agree that there's discrimination taking place when the context is the same, except for the race of the person who is being racially abusive.

I'm fair enough with being proven wrong, by the way, it's less a dent to the ego and more a chance to learn something new...

Do I think that using a derogatory term towards a different racial group is different to “reclaiming” the same term within a racial group? Yes I do. Do I think recognising that distinction is discrimination? No.

Funny "song" to use as a "tribute" I will say, the usual mindless crap from Snoopy doggy dog.

Would I be breaking the law to post a link to the lyrics here? 

I agree with you.

Shouldn't the originator the song lyrics be brought up before the courts as well then so the ridiculous vindictive law can be applied to both. 

So you assumed I was a racist? Thanks for closing your investigation.

No, at least in part because you have got the wrong artist completely.

Not a Father Ted fan then Nick? Or does the concept of humour elude you? I'm aware that Snapp Dog and Snoop Dog are different people, but thought I'd still use the Ted quote for fun. (You must remember "fun" surely?) You'd have been better off chiding me for not remembering the proper Ted quote, I should have used "snoopy snoopy dog dog"

If you don't think that treating people differently based on their race is discrimination based on race then I've no idea what you think the word means.  What does it mean to you?

"because no black person is going to racially abuse another black person with the word"

What does that mean then?  Or do you mean that because they're also black (remember that black covers a vast range of people) it's not racist?

That and some people being charged when others aren't, e.g. Blue Straggler's example above.  Some people, like the guy with the dog, still think we have freedom of speech, when actually we don't if a judge feels like we shouldn't.

The whole point is that it wouldn't get to court.  The CPS don't prosecute, the police don't refer.  There's not going to be an example.  Appeals are limited, you can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict if the judge is following the law.  As you said yourself, we're not actually talking about racial abuse anyway, we're talking about the use of a particular word.  Very easy to find an example of that, just use google.

I think it is quite clear what I mean. It’s not difficult to understand surely. We treat people differently for lots of reasons all the time, without it being descrimination.

No, and you are welcome

Do we?  It's pretty difficult to understand what you mean if you insist on being cryptic and won't explain.  If it's that straightforward just clarify...

Cryptic! Are you being serious? Can you really not think of examples where we treat people differently, but equally.

That's not how conversations work, or at least meaningful ones.  As said, I don't know what you mean.  If you want to clarify go ahead, if you don't we'll leave it there.

I think Russell has been extremely hard done by with this judgement, and was probably not helped by having to defend herself against the testimony of a Police officer in a Magistrates courts (Magistrates courts have a history of weighting the testimony of Police officers heavily against defendants).

On the face of it it seems like a massive waste of time and money, and a black mark on the history of a young woman.

Actually, I wrote this. ''I'm thinking that there might have to be a place in society for grey areas sometimes, because no black person is going to racially abuse another black person with the word, unless they're very damaged perhaps...'' 

If you're going to selectively cut things from what I've written to change the meaning, I'm not gong to continue because it's not a straight forward thing for you to be doing. I just wanted to have an interesting discussion but it's not that important in the scheme of things.

I genuinely don’t think I can make it easier to understand, that might be my fault, but I am staggered that you cannot understand.

Assuming the case is as reported; like the OP, I feel that this is not a sensible use of the legislation or the time of the government agencies concerned.

Subverting the meaning of a private Facebook post and prosecuting its author, without so much as a complainant, is at best disproportionate and pointless, at worst, Orwellian.

It also trivialises a serious piece of legislation and undermines the efforts of people who are prosecute the perpertrators hate crime.

I agree, although there are a few things that make me wonder if there is more to the case than has been reported.

I don't see how that changed the meaning, certainly wasn't intended, care to explain?

lol, you haven't explained *at all*.  We'll leave it there then.

We probably should, my head hurts and that brick wall isn’t moving.

Just delete all social media and be done with it. Easy collars + look good for the figures for our very politicized and under funded police forces. Meanwhile robbery and violent crime abound, barely any policen prensence on U.K. streets compared to any of our European neighbours.

Twitter thought crime snouts everywhere. 

Not long before posting  links to videos of your favoutite hip hop artists using the N and or B word gets you a custodial sentence if your not black? 

D

Is there an appeal fund? 

D

Why don't you just give him the simple examples he asked for.  

He hasn’t asked for any. We treat people differently but equality for a whole range of reasons, these reasons might be social or cultural or they might relate to gender, sexuality or disability. A gay man might refer to another gay man using a term that is friendly in that context, but wouldn’t be if used by someone else in a different context.

Your definition is naively (perhaps purposely so) simplistic. For example, white privilege would be racism according to your definition when its clearly the opposite to racism.

Certainly. 

 The above is an 'absolutist' statement you might say, basically saying that no black person will 'ever' racially abuse another black person. 

 ''I'm thinking that there might have to be a place in society for grey areas sometimes, because no black person is going to racially abuse another black person with the word, unless they're very damaged perhaps.

The above here, isn't an 'absolutist' statement, it's not saying that no black person will racially abuse another person, what is being conveyed is that it's unlikely but may still happen in the event of one black person being very damaged (damaged by absorbing racist messages within wider society, in a similar way to how gay people can struggle with self hatred, which can come out as homophobia towards 'fems' or effeminate gay people).

I hope the difference is clearer now?  It's similar to the difference between ''I would never hit another person'' and ''I would never hit another person, unless they did something bad to my child''

Normally I'd agree but recently having read "The Secret Barrister's" book "Stories of The Law and How It’s Broken" and his or her rather withering description of Magistrate's courts and how they operate, I can well believe this young woman has simply been screwed over by the system.

But they don`t investigate ALL offences, do they?
Try phoning the Police about a break in or even an assault if the assailant has fled, you will get a civi phone answerer and a crime number, and maybe, just maybe and officer will show up sometime in the future, or maybe not.

I might occasionally tell my wife to f*ck off.  Jokingly.  There is no offence intended or taken.

I might occasionally tell an ignorant, xenophobic brexiteer to f*ck off.  Seriously.  There will be offence intended and taken.

Hope you are able to draw the direct analogy here and it helps.

For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge - Van Halen album - a wearer of the shortened version on a t-shirt was fined in the US somewhere and the band paid the fine. 

I as asking for example of 'politically correct clap trap' after you said the OP reminded you of such, and I already know about the example in the OP.

Being from 2 minorities myself which have been discriminated against in the past, one of which a significant number of people can still have rather a problem with, when people talk about being 'politically correct' in a tone which suggests it's a bad thing, I always find myself wondering what they mean.

The people from the majority in society generally have a cushier time of things, and can think that other people are 'just making a fuss', without knowing very much about the reality which they can have live. I'm not taking your post personally, mind, I'd just like to know what you'd deem 'politically correct clap trap' since you've used the term on here.

Well, compare this case to any other; the full weight of the law has been applied to someone who posted an offensive song lyric to a private social media account. Despite no body actually making a complaint.

Do you think you'd get a visit from a motorway officer if no one made a complaint about you breaking the speed limit on you're way home from work?

Or a parking find if no one made a complaint when you leave your car on double yellows for 5 mins while you nip into the corner shop for a pint of milk?

What about a fine for public drunkeness if no one made a complaint about you staggering home from the pub, drunk?

Of course not.

So why thr prosecution  in this case? Because there are brownie points to be made by those of use who value political correctness above common sense.

You've talked about politically correct clap trap which gains support on UKC, but not said what you mean?

''Oh, I agree that this does appear to be a sorry tale of politically correct clap-trap, of the type which generally recieves strong support on UKC!''

No worries, though, I was just wondering really...

Vigerously and disproportionately prosecuting this offence, and walking over peoples rights to free speech and privacy, for no reason other than P.C. cudos = politically correct clap trap.

And a worrying development for those, such as yourself, who regularly  post on-line.

I have been waiting to see if any more news came out before weighing in - it hasn’t.

As reported I can’t see this as anything but a case of malicious prosecution.  There are literally hundreds of thousands of instances of use of the music version of the N word, in a music/rap/gangsta context in the UK both online and offline.   To criminalise one teenager out of thousands is neither fair nor justified.

Its notable that this was a magistrates court - I would have liked to see this go to an actual judge and a jury, and I hope to see it go to appeal.

I can’t imagine the scale of self richeous claptrap the officers and prosecutors involved must tell themselves.  I honestly don’t know how they rationalised this to themselves.   Are these cretinous wastes of public funds going to start charging every DJ that plays Oliver’s Army (for race hate crimes that is, not crimes against the ear)?  Is Jay-Z going to be deported the next time he sings at a music festival?  Cretins.

I notice that amazon uk is offering both Huckleberry Finn, and a certain publication by Joseph Conrad as e-books.  It seems ludicrous, but if this teenager was guilty of sending a grossly offensive communication, then amazon must be guilty of the same offence.

As a serious question:  would it be possible to make a complaint against amazon that would lead to a corporate prosecution?  Would that not be a good way of highlighting how ridiculous (and offensive) this law is?

Actually, you wouldn't even need to make a complaint!

Just bring it to the attention of the Merseyside Hate Crime Unit, and you're away.

The same is true of any up-to-the-knuckle posting on this forum, or any other.

I may well post PC Walker a copy of Geoege Orwell's 1984.