melthebell Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 BUT.....if he had not assaulted anyone he would not have been charged. He was prosected for assault, not racism. and you know that because? do you know which is the most severe crime? IF there wasnt an assault then maybe theyd get done for a race related crime, but as he DID assault we'll never know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangolemon Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 He was prosecuted and convicted for threatening behaviour and assault....NOT being racist! It is like trying to educate pork! In your previous post you stated: "I am white,I could get arrested and prosecuted for referring to someones colour or nationality in an offensive manner. This does not apply the other way round. If the coloured people murdered or assaulted me however they would of course get charged. There is a massive difference here. If someone called me a white honkey, they could not be prosecuted, but if I so much as said "****"....well point made." JFKs example clearly shows that an Asian man has been found guilty of referring to someone's colour or nationality in an offensive manner. Such behaviour was proved to be 'racially aggravated threatening behaviour'. Eclips...wrong yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 He was prosecuted and convicted for threatening behaviour and assault....NOT being racist! It is like trying to educate pork! You do know that being racist isn't a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 BUT.....if he had not assaulted anyone he would not have been charged. He was prosected for assault, not racism. If he had let out a stream of anti white abuse and not assaulted anyone he would not have been prosecuted. Yes he would because at the lowest level it would represent at least a breach of the peace, just as it would if a white guy let out a stream of anti black abuse. White English people would be, WITHOUT any assault! You're really highlighting that persecution complex again, it's an unattractive quality amongst nationalists. Just for the record the law says nowhere that it's permissible for black folks to verbally abuse white folks, but I'm sure just like most black people who are on the receiving end of it, most white people don't get aerated about it if it ever happens to them-but they could if they wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-clips Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 In your previous post you stated: "I am white,I could get arrested and prosecuted for referring to someones colour or nationality in an offensive manner. This does not apply the other way round. If the coloured people murdered or assaulted me however they would of course get charged. There is a massive difference here. If someone called me a white honkey, they could not be prosecuted, but if I so much as said "****"....well point made." JFKs example clearly shows that an Asian man has been found guilty of referring to someone's colour or nationality in an offensive manner. Such behaviour was proved to be 'racially aggravated threatening behaviour'. Eclips...wrong yet again. WRONG!.......he assaulted someone! He could have killed them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 if they think people are just gonna lie back and take it, not countering it then theyve got another thing coming. Amen brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 You're really highlighting that persecution complex again, it's an unattractive quality amongst nationalists. you mean theres an attractive quality??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 WRONG!.......he assaulted someone! He could have killed them! :hihi: You started off quite well E-clips, but you can't maintain the discipline to be amongst the alpha group of trolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-clips Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Yes he would because at the lowest level it would represent at least a breach of the peace, just as it would if a white guy let out a stream of anti black abuse. You're really highlighting that persecution complex again, it's an unattractive quality amongst nationalists. Just for the record the law says nowhere that it's permissible for black folks to verbally abuse white folks, but I'm sure just like most black people who are on the receiving end of it, most white people don't get aerated about it if it ever happens to them-but they could if they wanted to. You very probably know how the law works but would prefer to be economical with the truth due to circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangolemon Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 WRONG!.......he assaulted someone! He could have killed them! Doh..as well as the assault he was found guilty of "racially aggravated threatening behaviour. Wrong again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.