Racist Tube rant woman Jacqueline Woodhouse jailed

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

A London Underground passenger has been jailed for 21 weeks after she admitted hurling racist abuse at fellow passengers.
Jacqueline Woodhouse, 42, of Romford, east London, directed an expletive-ridden rant at Tube passengers on the Central line on 23 January.
A seven-minute video of the verbal assault was uploaded to YouTube.
She received a 21-week prison sentence and a five-year Asbo at Westminster Magistrates' Court.
Woodhouse admitted racially aggravated intentional harassment, at the court, earlier in May.
The prosecution offered no evidence on a separate charge of racially aggravated common assault.
'Sense of shame'
The court heard she stumbled over a black woman named Judy Russell as she boarded the carriage and proceeded to hurl insults, shouting: "You Africans take our council flats."
The video shows Galbant Juttla, who filmed the incident on his mobile phone, telling Woodhouse to keep her mouth shut and that she had had too much to drink.
"It's not your country anyway so what's your problem?" she said.
"It's been overtaken by people like you."
In further remarks, on a packed train between St Paul's and Mile End stations, she told passengers: "I'll have you arrested because you don't live here" and "I hope you are not claiming benefits."
The video of the verbal assault was viewed on YouTube more than 200,000 times.

(More at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18251807)

[Terminator X]

This woman is vile. Would have preferred that one of those female passengers had fucked her up.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I think it's quite comical when British people are so mad because of all the Indians, Pakistanis etc. settle into their country, after Britain occupied these lands for a hundred years.

[Niall]

Good enough for her

[Zav]

This woman is vile. Would have preferred that one of those female passengers had fucked her up.
Because if a male did it, it would be sexist. *insert rant*

I don't understand how people can think like that. Some psychologists need to do some studies on their thought processes.

[Terminator X]

Because if a male did it, it would be sexist. *insert rant*

I don't understand how people can think like that. Some psychologists need to do some studies on their thought processes.

Um, you're reading too much into my comment. I said "female" because they were the most vocal in the video in shouting her down and were most likely to give her a smack.

[#FF0000]

i dunno about jailtime tbh

[Robocommie]

I do think it's rather ironic and funny in a fucked up kind of way, that this woman is ranting and raving about how awful and uncivilized non-whites are, and yet she's the one incapable of being civil to a bunch of strangers on a train.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Lets be honest here, a lot of high-profile, "respectable", people have said something similar to her, she just happens to be less educated and consequently less "eloquent" in her choice of words. Whilst I agree that what she said was disgusting I can't help but feel that the judge was only so harsh because his attitude is that he's a respectable member of the middle class and she's a disgusting fat Chav on benefits etc

[Princess Luna]

21 weeks in jail is way to harsh, they should have just given her a large fine and made her do some community service.

[Igor]

I fail to see how 21 weeks in jail is going to fix anything. I don't necessarily think it's overly harsh or anything, just pointless. That jailtime is going to change her as a person and teach her some respect of other cultures? Please.

Fines would've been as pointless, that too stems from the idea that when something bad happens, it should be punished first, fixed second. There was no damage to be paid for, so the only purpose of fining would be to punish her, without trying to actually encourage change in attitudes. I'm fine with stuff like community service, because that at least has some potential for positive change in the future.

[Vanguard1917]

Not sure why anyone on here would support any kind of criminal sentence against this woman.

[scarletghoul]

couldnt care less about the woman tbh, but i'd find this sentence a bit less hypocritical if the justice system wasn't highly racist itself

[Luc]

i think she'll come out of jail even more racist given the jail... "environment" :unsure:

she just needs education thats all; not all the horrid shit in jail

[RadioRaheem84]

Jail time is ridiculous for racist rants. That will not change her attitude nor will her sentence act as a deterrent against future racist rants in public places. Higher up MPs have said stuff like her in a more eloquent manner and none of them are being hauled off, but because she is working class and under-educated, she gets hauled to the slammer.

There is a huge portion of the working class that are buying into the propaganda of racist right wing populism. They do not understand what's happening to their country so they believe the drivel about immigrants being the prime cause. These people should not be tossed in jail but taught why immigrants come to England (colonization) and why wages are lowered as a result.

[rednordman]

Jail term was probably right only because of immense sense of pride that the exposure of this video WILL have given to the far-right. At least it sends out the message that even our own capitalist government isn't going to put up with these scumbags anymore. I think one of the main reasons why opinions like hers are spreading/growing within the UK is because of an enormous lack of critical refuting.

At least in this case, the courts highlighted and refuted this whole "I am racist and every British person secretly agrees with my opinions" bullshit that these people are thriving off.

[Os Cangaceiros]

edit: nevermind, misread article.

[Goblin]

She said some horrible shit, but putting her in jail is just silly.

[Vanguard1917]

Jail term was probably right only because of immense sense of pride that the exposure of this video WILL have given to the far-right. At least it sends out the message that even our own capitalist government isn't going to put up with these scumbags anymore. I think one of the main reasons why opinions like hers are spreading/growing within the UK is because of an enormous lack of critical refuting.

And throwing someone in prison because of a silly outburst in public is 'critical refuting'?

Criminal punishment against speech is not something we should be celebrating.

[Mindtoaster]

That jail time is fucking ridiculous and is only going to serve to make her a rallying point for the far-right

Condescending Tory toffs throwing people in prison for a stupid rant? Fucking hell.

[Invader Zim]

I think it's quite comical when British people are so mad because of all the Indians, Pakistanis etc. settle into their country, after Britain occupied these lands for a hundred years.

I can assure you that we don't all share that view. I for one believe in no borders or states. I would also like to point out that this woman wasn't even born when Britain withdrew from the Indian sub-continent. While I take your point, it does seem a little anarchronistic.

Incidentally, I don't think she should have been jailed for this. It seems a waste of money. Better, in my view, if there were to be legal action, that she do a thousand hours of community service in areas with large migrant community. She, and the community, would be get something from it. While nobody will get anything positive from her serving jail time.

[Vanguard1917]

Incidentally, I don't think she should have been jailed for this. It seems a waste of money. Better, in my view, if there were to be legal action, that she do a thousand hours of community service in areas with large migrant community. She, and the community, would be get something from it. While nobody will get anything positive from her serving jail time.

Nothing positive about forcing people into unpaid labour for speech crimes.

But i think it's sweet that "community service" seems to have so many devotees on revleft.

[NewLeft]

i think she'll come out of jail even more racist given the jail... "environment" :unsure:

she just needs education thats all; not all the horrid shit in jail
Education makes bigots!

[rednordman]

You all say that jail time is awful for this awful person, yet at the same time most of you believe in a 'no-platform' approach to racism and fascism. what's the happy medium? and yes, by someone videoing what she said and posting it up on you-tube, she very much had a platform, whether she wanted it or not.

[ComradeOm]

And throwing someone in prison because of a silly outburst in public is 'critical refuting'?Whether 'critical' or not, it certainly rams home that such racist abuse has no place in the public sphere. Which is a sentiment that I can wholly agree with

[SHORAS]

Should the working classes be informing on each other? We're seeing it more and more. People going to the police about racist Facebook comments. Handing over mobile phone footage of rants. Or videos of rioters.

[NewLeft]

You all say that jail time is awful for this awful person, yet at the same time most of you believe in a 'no-platform' approach to racism and fascism. what's the happy medium? and yes, by someone videoing what she said and posting it up on you-tube, she very much had a platform, whether she wanted it or not.
There's a difference between some unknown on a subway and a bourgeois politician on TV..

[Vanguard1917]

Whether 'critical' or not, it certainly rams home that such racist abuse has no place in the public sphere. Which is a sentiment that I can wholly agree with

Why just the public sphere? Perhaps we should be encouraging children to secretly video-tape their parents' conversations as well. Greater state policing of what people can and cannot say in public should be seen as a cause for concern by socialists and categorically opposed, not endorsed.

As a side note, i don't think anyone could honestly say that they felt "abused" or threatened by that lone drunk woman. If you watch the video, it's clear that people were more amused than abused.

[Luc]

You all say that jail time is awful for this awful person, yet at the same time most of you believe in a 'no-platform' approach to racism and fascism. what's the happy medium? and yes, by someone videoing what she said and posting it up on you-tube, she very much had a platform, whether she wanted it or not.

punch her in the face :ninja:

now for something serious; you know just ignore her or call her on her shit

[ComradeOm]

Why just the public sphere? Perhaps we should be encouraging children to secretly video-tape their parents' conversations as wellWho cares what people say in private or amongst themselves? Only some fictional Orwellian state that tries to control what its citizens think, perhaps. That is not the purpose of anti-racism laws

The idea, or at least the ideal, is to make it clear that such racist language is beyond the pale (no pun intended) and unacceptable in modern society. (That is, in social interactions.) It is, in short, wrong. This applies to a single woman on the train or massed terraces giving Nazi salutes. The message is simple: such behaviour is not tolerable


Greater state policing of what people can and cannot say in public should be seen as a cause for concern by socialists and categorically opposed, not endorsed. Greater intolerance of racism, whether backed by the state apparatus or not, is something that should be welcomed by all socialists. It's not something I'm going to object to in the name of some abstract concept of 'free speech'

And since moving to London I've been quite impressed how much this message has sunk in. You still get racists, of course, but racism is something treated quite seriously by most people

[Vanguard1917]

Greater intolerance of racism, whether backed by the state apparatus or not, is something that should be welcomed by all socialists. It's not something I'm going to object to in the name of some abstract concept of 'free speech'

So you have no problem with granting the bourgeois state greater powers to act as a mediator of social interactions? I thought socialists were supposed to oppose greater policing of working-class life.

[Hit The North]

You all say that jail time is awful for this awful person, yet at the same time most of you believe in a 'no-platform' approach to racism and fascism.

No platform is about organising politicly and physically against attempts by organised fascists to claim a platform in our communities and workplaces, not calling the cops on some individual who makes racist speech.

I agree with Vanguard. We shouldn't support the bourgeois state punishing people for expressing their opinion, no matter how reactionary, offensive or pathetic it may be.

[rednordman]

So you have no problem with granting the bourgeois state greater powers to act as a mediator of social interactions? I thought socialists were supposed to oppose greater policing of working-class life.If its to stop something like racism, than i don't give a dam where it comes from to be honest. heck, this is probably one of the only positive things to happen under this conservative government. Quite literally the only thing.

I mean someone said that this will act as a call to arms for the far-right against the 'oppressive' state - well how is it going to make things any worse than they already are?

Sometimes in life it really does take drastic action to stop things getting nasty. People don't say racist things to express their free will, they say it because they know that they can get away with it because of blaze soft approaches and the fact that think it has become acceptable within modern society.

What is the point to having an anti-racism law in the first place if people think that they can just ignore it and cause hurt to people who they don't like just because of the color of their skin/ethnic background.

And lets all agree on one thing, there really is no room for any forms of racism in the modern world.

The only reason why i do feel that the sentence was harsh was because she was supposed to be drunk at the time. But to be fair, if you commit assault, you don't get away with it just because you where drunk do you?

Also it isn't like it was something that she said by accident or just a misunderstanding. When people use racist language the know they are using it. Most racists are in the least smart enough to understand that. I think its right that when they say something racist that they know straight away what they say is unacceptable.

The problem that i have is that now things have gotten so bad, that if I told someone off for being racist OR even just politely disagreed with them, than I would be the one to look bad!!! and that bothers me, it really does.

What good is 'freedom of speech' when its primary usage is preaching hate.

[Vanguard1917]

If its to stop something like racism, than i don't give a dam where it comes from to be honest.

But you should. Never a good idea to arm your number one enemy (the capitalist state, that is - not rambling drunkards on the public transport) with greater powers to police working-class life.

[rednordman]

But you should. Never a good idea to arm your number one enemy (the capitalist state, that is - not rambling drunkards on the public transport) with greater powers to police working-class life.Don't get me wrong here. I do understand and agree with where you are coming from, but its becoming a very difficult problem to deal with imo.

We are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. If we do not go very hard on racism, than it seems to get worse as people say what they like without thinking about logic or consequence. If we do go hard, than you have them harking on about the whole 'oppressive' leftists taking away their freedoms and rubbish like that (basically trying to play the victims - well tbh they do this already anyway, against the law or not)

[Invader Zim]

Nothing positive about forcing people into unpaid labour for speech crimes.

But i think it's sweet that "community service" seems to have so many devotees on revleft.

I think it far less sweet that we have an apologist for racial harrassment on this board. or are you suggesting that there should be no legal recourse for people who harrass, intimidate and assault others, just because you lack the vision to understand that speech can be an extremely hurtful weapon?

And, the positive will be that she committed a crime and had to pay a penalty - because, like it or not, verbal abuse with the intention of harrassing another individual is not only an attack but also crime. In this instance it was a racially motivated crime. And in my view giving something back to the community would be far more positive than a custodial setence. A shocking view, I know.

[Vanguard1917]

I think it far less sweet that we have an apologist for racial harrassment on this board.

Don't be ridiculous.

[Invader Zim]

Don't be ridiculous.


It is no more ridiculous that your moronic aspersions.

[Robocommie]

I want to point out that this woman was not just making racist hate speech. She was making racist hate speech and being inflammatory and provocative in an extremely claustrophobic space, to a captive audience who had no choice but to sit there and endure her atrocious behavior.

Isn't it a little fucked up to be so concerned about the rights to free speech of this single drunk racist woman, and not pay any mind to the rights of everyone around her to be able to ride on a public train without being racially harassed?

I think some folks could benefit from some perspective, here.

[Robocommie]

But you should. Never a good idea to arm your number one enemy (the capitalist state, that is - not rambling drunkards on the public transport) with greater powers to police working-class life.

Undoubtedly this precedent of punishing drunken harassment in public (never before seen in the history of man) will lead to the total enslavement of civil society. It's political correctness run amok I tell you!

:rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

Thus, she's charged with a crime - and rightfully so. Harassment should be unacceptable.

She was imprisoned due to the content of her language- i.e. because what she was saying was thought to be so inappropriate as to deserve jail time. In other words, she is in prison due to a speech crime.

[Robocommie]

She was imprisoned due to the content of her language- i.e. because what she was saying was thought to be so inappropriate as to deserve jail time. In other words, she is in prison due to a speech crime.

And what a valiant Marxist you are, fighting for the proletariat's right to go on racist rants.

Here's the problem with abstract ideals like free speech at all costs - they have no relation whatsoever to reality and what actually happens in the real world. Kind of how Ron Paul would rather gut the Civil Rights Movement because it tramples all over the rights of the individual states to govern themselves.

[Agathor]

21 weeks in jail is way to harsh, they should have just given her a large fine and made her do some community service.

In Brixton.

I don't think screaming racist abuse on a tram filled with children is covered by the conventional understanding of free speech, but at most it should be a misdemeanor.

[Vanguard1917]

And what a valiant Marxist you are, fighting for the proletariat's right to go on racist rants.

It's not about defending "racist rants", but about opposing the bourgeois state locking people up for speech crimes. You should know that opposition to such police powers is part of the ABC of Marxism.

[ComradeOm]

So you have no problem with granting the bourgeois state greater powers to act as a mediator of social interactions?What an odd question. That's what the state does; 'mediating social interactions' is inherent in the very presence of a state (or ruling class). That's true of all states in the past and in the future. The argument could indeed be made that this is actually the primary task of the state

So the question is not whether the state should be seeking to shape public discourse - because that is like asking whether night follows day - but whether this instance is one of those odd occasions when the bourgeoisie get it right and pursue a progressive line. We're talking anti-racism laws here, nuff said

[Vanguard1917]

So the question is not whether the state should be seeking to shape public discourse - because that is like asking whether night follows day - but whether this instance is one of those odd occasions when the bourgeoisie get it right and pursue a progressive line. We're talking anti-racism laws here, nuff said

The issue here is a woman being locked up by the capitalist state for what she said in public - i.e. for a speech crime. Marxists historically opposed such attacks on freedoms by the ruling class. Though do let me know if you have examples indicating otherwise.

[ComradeOm]

*Shrugs* I can find plenty of examples of Marxists locking people up for "speech crimes". I'm not so sure that you'll find many examples of Marxists defending racial harassment...

[rednordman]

I think it far less sweet that we have an apologist for racial harrassment on this board. or are you suggesting that there should be no legal recourse for people who harrass, intimidate and assault others, just because you lack the vision to understand that speech can be an extremely hurtful weapon?

And, the positive will be that she committed a crime and had to pay a penalty - because, like it or not, verbal abuse with the intention of harrassing another individual is not only an attack but also crime. In this instance it was a racially motivated crime. And in my view giving something back to the community would be far more positive than a custodial setence. A shocking view, I know.But "like it or not" community service, wouldn't change this woman's views in the slightest either. She knew even when pissed that what she said was wrong, and frankly probably said it because she thought that the worst she would get was some easy community service sentence. I bet she, just like the rest of these racists would have, shat herself when hearing the verdict and sentence.

All I say is good. I do not see why she deserves some soft special treatment, just because she felt like she could (or had the right more like) to express views in an area where people couldn't realistically left without it being a bit of a big issue. Fuck her.

[Vanguard1917]

*Shrugs* I can find plenty of examples of Marxists locking people up for "speech crimes". I'm not so sure that you'll find many examples of Marxists defending racial harassment...

That's not what i asked for. I asked for examples of Marxists supporting the bourgeois state locking people up for speech crimes.

[ComradeOm]

Have you been reading the posts in this thread?

But then I really don't see what you're looking to achieve with this appeal to historical authority. Does it suddenly become more acceptable if Marxists - not traditionally big on 'free speech', it has to be said - have previously argued the case? I don't know, maybe you can point out such past cases where Marxists have stood up and defended racist tirades

Or you can discuss the point at hand without resorting to "Marxists historically opposed" X, Y or Z

[Robocommie]

That's not what i asked for. I asked for examples of Marxists supporting the bourgeois state locking people up for speech crimes.

That is absolutely ridiculous. You keep using the term "speech crimes" which makes it sound like you're talking about sedition laws for things like organizing a draft resistance or protesting big business, when in actuality what you're talking about is a woman using her position as member of the dominant ethnicity, the position of social power to bully, ostracize and harass people from ethnic minority groups, for the crime of having dark skin on the same train as her. This is a woman who was using speech to promote white supremacy and British xenophobia, not to liberate or fight injustice.

Your blind devotion to abstract ideals of "freedom" are incredibly short-sighted. Honestly, we all have to have our freedom curtailed at some point or another in the interest of living in society with other people. There's an old legal aphorism that I think applies here, "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

It would be perfectly reasonable to ask whether the sentence was too harsh or too severe, but it's absolutely ridiculous for you to insist that Communists should have anything to do with protecting the rights of idiot racist drunks to harass minorities.

[Kenco Smooth]

i think she'll come out of jail even more racist given the jail... "environment" :unsure:

she just needs education thats all; not all the horrid shit in jail

Whilst I agree absolutely that the sentence isn't appropriate I'm not entirely clear what you mean by 'education'? It quite often gets suggested in threads like these but I've never seen someone actually explain what it would entail. Sitting them down with demographic figures to reassure them the country is still largely white? Giving them a crash course in anti-racist criminology? A two hour seminar on the nature of class and race in late capitalist society?

Not to mention the most vicious (in terms of ideology, not necessarily action) racists are very often well educated people.


what you're talking about is a woman using her position as member of the dominant ethnicity, the position of social power to bully, ostracize and harass people for the crime of having dark skin while on the same train as her.

I think this is the essential point. She was racially harassing and acting threateningly towards people in public. I think in such cases of direct harrasment legal action is justified but of course it's a very blurry demarcation between what constitutes 'speech' and 'harassment'.

[Vanguard1917]

That is absolutely ridiculous. You keep using the term "speech crimes" which makes it sound like you're talking about sedition laws for things like organizing a draft resistance or protesting big business, when in actuality what you're talking about is a woman using her position as member of the dominant ethnicity, the position of social power to bully, ostracize and harass people from ethnic minority groups, for the crime of having dark skin on the same train as her. This is a woman who was using speech to promote white supremacy and British xenophobia, not to liberate or fight injustice.

Your blind devotion to abstract ideals of "freedom" are incredibly short-sighted. Honestly, we all have to have our freedom curtailed at some point or another in the interest of living in society with other people. There's an old legal aphorism that I think applies here, "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

It would be perfectly reasonable to ask whether the sentence was too harsh or too severe, but it's absolutely ridiculous for you to insist that Communists should have anything to do with protecting the rights of idiot racist drunks to harass minorities.

In other words, you have no examples. That's because Marxists - at least Marxists from traditions with which i am happy to associate myself - never supported the bourgeois state locking people up for their political or personal views.

Your position is an innovation to Marxism, if i may put it politely.

[Vanguard1917]

I think this is the essential point. She was racially harassing and acting threateningly towards people in public. I think in such cases of direct harrasment legal action is justified but of course it's a very blurry demarcation between what constitutes 'speech' and 'harassment'.

Watch the video. No one looked like they felt threatened. There were Asian guys sitting either side of her laughing and singing. A Sikh chap sitting in front of her was filming her on his mobile phone. People seemed to see her for what she was: a drunk, somewhat amusing individual running her mouth. The hysteria present here seemed absent on the tube carriage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZK5ooA1uiI

[ComradeOm]

Your position is an innovation to Marxism, if i may put it politely.If you're going to talk about Marxism then by all means talk about Marxism. Let's have that discussion on Marxism and 'free speech'. But don't hide behind appeals to precedent


Watch the video. No one looked like they felt threatenedReally? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgrXBQQ_BKY&feature=related) What a disgrace

I find it hard to believe that you are actually defending a racist tirade and criticising those who believe that people should not be subjected to such. You think it's fun or enjoyable to face that sort of bigoted abuse? You think that's something that those on the receiving end should just shrug off as harmless or "amusing"? I can only wonder what it's like to be so comfortable with overt displays of racism

Edit: And the idea that the guy who was filming this was comfortable? You're having a laugh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZK5ooA1uiI#t=02m15s). Nobody should have to defend themselves like that (having to protest that "I'm British, I'm British") on their way home. Discussions of 'speech crime' (or whatever) is one thing but you're well out of line on this one

[Manic Impressive]

I think Revleft should lock up people who support prisons. Put them all in OI and throw away the key. Fucking capitalist lap dogs

[Vanguard1917]

If you're going to talk about Marxism then by all means talk about Marxism. Let's have that discussion on Marxism and 'free speech'. But don't hide behind appeals to precedent

But there is a reason why you can't provide a single example where Marx, Engels, Lenin or anyone else within the Marxist tradition supported anyone being locked up in bourgeois prisons for the nature of their opinions.

You cannot, simply because doing such a thing would have been unthinkable for them - utterly antithetical to everything that they stood for. As Trotsky put it, "it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class." (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm))

[Robocommie]

In other words, you have no examples. That's because Marxists - at least Marxists from traditions with which i am happy to associate myself - never supported the bourgeois state locking people up for their political or personal views.

Why don't you dig up the Marxist precedent for their position on harassment? Because in the end, this is what she was actually locked up for. She was arrested for hurling abuse, including racist abuse. Furthermore, any research into the situation shows that this woman, Jacqueline Woodhouse, had already been fined for similar behavior in 2008. This was not an isolated incident, it was a string of public harassments of ethnic minorities. The issue you keep dodging, is that you have all this concern about this woman's right to hurl abuse at strangers in a confined, captive location, like a subway train, but no concern at all for the other passengers and their rights.

Furthermore, your insistence that "nobody was bothered and everybody was amused" is completely false. The man who filmed the incident was a Sikh, named Galbant Singh Juttla, who later told reporters he was shocked by the woman's behavior, and would not want to have to go through that kind of thing again. The judge presiding over the case specifically said that anyone watching the film would be ashamed that British citizens could be subject to that kind of behavior.

What you are doing is literally saying that people should be free to verbally harass and threaten ethnic minorities (because she did threaten violence) at any time and in any place they would like, and turning it into some kind of bold stand for freedom and the working class, and hiding it behind Marxist dogma. It's pathetic and revolting, and the whole thing makes you pretty suspect, frankly.


Your position is an innovation to Marxism, if i may put it politely.

What are you, some kind of Marxist Wahabi?

[Ocean Seal]

I think Revleft should lock up people who support prisons. Put them all in OI and throw away the key. Fucking capitalist lap dogs
I'm all for taking out the large number of prisoners who committed a non-violent crime, but its pretty ridiculous to say that supporting having a prison for say son of Sam is being a capitalist lap dog.

[Robocommie]

You cannot, simply because doing such a thing would have been unthinkable for them - utterly antithetical to everything that they stood for. As Trotsky put it, "it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class." (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm))

Yeah, and I'm sure this is exactly the kind of situation that Trotsky had in mind when he said that. Jacqueline Woodhouse and people like her must be allowed to harass people in public and call them Pakis, for the good of the proletariat.

Your position is absurd and indefensible.

[Vanguard1917]

Why don't you dig up the Marxist precedent for their position on harassment? Because in the end, this is what she was actually locked up for. She was arrested for hurling abuse, including racist abuse. Furthermore, any research into the situation shows that this woman, Jacqueline Woodhouse, had already been fined for similar behavior in 2008. This was not an isolated incident, it was a string of public harassments of ethnic minorities. The issue you keep dodging, is that you have all this concern about this woman's right to hurl abuse at strangers in a confined, captive location, like a subway train, but no concern at all for the other passengers and their rights.

She was locked up for racist verbal abuse. If the content of her words was devoid of racism, she would not have been given the sentence that she received. I.e. she was imprisoned for a speech crime.

If she had simply shouted non-racist abusive stuff at fellow passengers, as i'm sure dozens of drunk people do every weekend in Britain, would you have supported her imprisonment?


Yeah, and I'm sure this is exactly the kind of situation that Trotsky had in mind when he said that. Jacqueline Woodhouse and people like her must be allowed to harass people in public and call them Pakis, for the good of the proletariat.


So you support racists being allowed to publish and disseminate racist propaganda free from bourgeois state censorship?

[Robocommie]

For fuck's sake, I've had enough of you and your childish liberalism.

ComradeOm is more than capable of continuing this argument, not that you'll actually give his posts the weight they deserve.

[Vanguard1917]

For fuck's sake, I've had enough of you and your childish liberalism.

ComradeOm is more than capable of continuing this argument, not that you'll actually give his posts the weight they deserve.

I think you're the one guilty of liberalism, at least on this issue. I take the position shared by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, like the good Marxist-Wahabiist that i am.

[Deicide]

I think Revleft should lock up people who support prisons. Put them all in OI and throw away the key. Fucking capitalist lap dogs

What about Jeffrey Dahmer et al? Should they be allowed to go on their merry way?

[ed miliband]

For fuck's sake, I've had enough of you and your childish liberalism.

ComradeOm is more than capable of continuing this argument, not that you'll actually give his posts the weight they deserve.

huh? if your position is that jacqueline woodhouse should have been jailed then it is your position that is most consistent with modern liberalism.

[rednordman]

huh? if your position is that jacqueline woodhouse should have been jailed then it is your position that is most consistent with modern liberalism.:confused:

[ed miliband]

lol, what's so confusing? the idea that freedom of speech is acceptable to the extent that it doesn't infringe on other rights, or negate liberal-democratic values (eg tolerance), or damage relations between communties, etc. is central to modern liberalism. i'm not saying this in a polemic anti-liberal manner - it's something i thought was common knowledge. haven't you heard that common thought excercise, "should freedom of speech extend to the right of shouting 'bomb' on a crowed train/bus/plane?"?

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I think you're the one guilty of liberalism, at least on this issue. I take the position shared by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, like the good Marxist-Wahabiist that i am.

Let me first clarify, that I think the sentence she recieved was harsh, to put it mildly.
But! Free Speech does have it's boundaries. We can't have people going around and verbally abusing people because of their skin color, sexual orientation etc.

Such verbal abuse which Ms.Woods showed, is an intrusion of people's private space. When I'm sitting on a train, I don't want to listen to a drunken racist rant directed at me. That would be an intrusion of my personal space on the bus.

So some action had to be taken against this, let's say, uninformed individual.

[ed miliband]

Let me first clarify, that I think the sentence she recieved was harsh, to put it mildly.
But! Free Speech does have it's boundaries. We can't have people going around and verbally abusing people because of their skin color, sexual orientation etc.

Such verbal abuse which Ms.Woods showed, is an intrusion of people's private space. When I'm sitting on a train, I don't want to listen to a drunken racist rant directed at me. That would be an intrusion of my personal space on the bus.

So some action had to be taken against this, let's say, uninformed individual.

and that's all fine, and beyond the point.

the point is whether you think the state, a state guilty of far worse than any aggressive, drunken rant, has a role in policing such a situation? more than that, whether that role is one you actively support.

[rednordman]

lol, what's so confusing? the idea that freedom of speech is acceptable to the extent that it doesn't infringe on other rights, or negate liberal-democratic values (eg tolerance), or damage relations between communties, etc. is central to modern liberalism.no that's just basic common sense...yeah yeah you may bemoan political correctness gone mad and all that, but its there for a reason.

[ed miliband]

no that's just basic common sense...yeah yeah you may bemoan political correctness gone mad and all that, but its there for a reason.

it's not "basic common sense" to imagine this must be policed by the state. do you think it is? says a lot about your politics.

[rednordman]

and that's all fine, and beyond the point.

the point is whether you think the state, a state guilty of far worse than any aggressive, drunken rant, has a role in policing such a situation? more than that, whether that role is one you actively support. I think that when it comes to passing laws and such, 'the state' doesn't completely consist of ultra conservative haters of the working class. For every 50 right wing bills passed, there may well be 1 left-wing one. This case is an example of one of them.

[ed miliband]

I think that when it comes to passing laws and such, 'the state' doesn't completely consist of ultra conservative haters of the working class. For every 50 right wing bills passed, there may well be 1 left-wing one. This case is an example of one of them.

get in the labour party if you aren't there already, i'm sure they'd love to have you.

[rednordman]

get in the labour party if you aren't there already, i'm sure they'd love to have you.Don't get me wrong, jail time is harsh BUT the condemnation of what she did is a good thing. How would you feel if no one did anything, and all of a sudden racist crime increased dramatically because people thought what she did was acceptable.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

What would be a proper response against someone who verbally abuses co-passengers on the train?

[Vanguard1917]

What would be a proper response against someone who verbally abuses co-passengers on the train?

Tell her to be quiet.

[#FF0000]

You all say that jail time is awful for this awful person, yet at the same time most of you believe in a 'no-platform' approach to racism and fascism. what's the happy medium? and yes, by someone videoing what she said and posting it up on you-tube, she very much had a platform, whether she wanted it or not.

'no-platform' doesn't mean 'supporting the state when it suppresses the speech of fascists'

[#FF0000]

(is this sort of punishment the norm for verbal abuse things in england?)

[Vanguard1917]

(is this sort of punishment the norm for verbal abuse things in england?)

No. The sentence was based on the content of what she said. (A person also got time in prison recently for writing racist garbage on twitter while drunk.)

[#FF0000]

lol i am all for arresting people too cowardly to say dumb shit without the veil of anonymity to be honest.

but either way i don't think the uh "IF THEY DO IT TO THEM THEY CAN DO IT TO US" line of reasoning works here.

no matter what i don't think anyone will ever be arrested for saying "FUCK RICH PEOPLE RICH PPL ARE RUININ THE COUNTRY".

I just think it's a bad idea because dummies will look @ this and say "PLITICAL CRECTNESS GONE MADE"

[Manic Impressive]

I'm all for taking out the large number of prisoners who committed a non-violent crime, but its pretty ridiculous to say that supporting having a prison for say son of Sam is being a capitalist lap dog.


What about Jeffrey Dahmer et al? Should they be allowed to go on their merry way?

These comments are both strawmen in that they are suggesting examples of instances where people who are sick would be allowed to walk around free, the crime we are talking about in this case is a scenario which itself has been created by capitalism. If people are sick then they should be under the care of a doctor. Not kept in solitary confinement as I'm sure these two were. The comments are both disingenuous by the fact that you have to pull extremely rare cases out to try to prove that my point is not an absolute. No one should be comparing a drunk woman on a train to mass murderers. Get a grip.

Anyone who supports THE FUCKING CAPITALIST STATE locking people up for crimes that they are compelled to commit due to living in capitalism is a fucking lapdog of capitalism and does not belong on a socialist forum.

[rednordman]

These comments are both strawmen in that they are suggesting examples of instances where people who are sick would be allowed to walk around free, the crime we are talking about in this case is a scenario which itself has been created by capitalism. If people are sick then they should be under the care of a doctor. Not kept in solitary confinement as I'm sure these two were. The comments are both disingenuous by the fact that you have to pull extremely rare cases out to try to prove that my point is not an absolute. No one should be comparing a drunk woman on a train to mass murderers. Get a grip.

Anyone who supports THE FUCKING CAPITALIST STATE locking people up for crimes that they are compelled to commit due to living in capitalism is a fucking lapdog of capitalism and does not belong on a socialist forum.leftists defending racists now? who would have seen this coming:rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

leftists defending racists now? who would have seen this coming:rolleyes:

don't be a disingenuous dummy.

edited because your dumb shit isn't worth the infraction lol

Working class people organizing against and fighting fascism is one thing. Supporting the state in suppressing people is an entirely different one.

[Deicide]

I'm going to douse several bricks in petrol, light them, and then dash them through my noisy neighbours front window. Nothing should happen to me. Capitalism made me do it.

[rednordman]

don't be a disingenuous dummy.

edited because your dumb shit isn't worth the infraction lol:laugh:Yes but i saw the original slur. How fucking Valiant of you;)

[Manic Impressive]

I'm going to douse several bricks in petrol, light them, and then dash them through my noisy neighbours front window. Nothing should happen to me. Capitalism made me do it.
Except you're not actually going to do that are you? Because capitalism has not effected you in such a way that would compel you to fire bomb someone for being annoying. Can we stick to reality.

[Robocommie]

The bottom line is, that every news article that discusses the reactions of the passengers on the train, the reaction was unanimously one of discomfort. The black and Asian passengers on the train were not amused, on the contrary, they were made to feel welcome, like foreigners in their own country. Some of them expressed a wish that they could afford a car so they wouldn't have to take the train because that's the kind of abuse they have to put up with.

If you consider the fact that she was asked, repeatedly, to be quiet (and then refused) and in fact threatened violence against the people sitting near her, then this whole, "oh well, she has her rights" seems to frankly amount to a case of bending over backwards to forgive this woman for her anti-social behavior.

Listen, I oppose capitalism and bourgeois rule, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to the cops responding to domestic disputes or batteries or sexual assaults. I mean come the fuck on, until the day we can overthrow capitalism and replace it with something better, we all have to live in this fucking society, don't we?

The non-whites on that train have every right to use the trains which their tax money has provided for, without being subjected to racial abuse, demeaning behavior, and abuse.

[rednordman]

If you consider the fact that she was asked, repeatedly, to be quiet (and then refused) and in fact threatened violence against the people sitting near her, then this whole, "oh well, she has her rights" seems to frankly amount to a case of bending over backwards to forgive this woman for her anti-social behavior.

Listen, I oppose capitalism and bourgeois rule, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to the cops responding to domestic disputes or batteries or sexual assaults. I mean come the fuck on, until the day we can overthrow capitalism and replace it with something better, we all have to live in this fucking society, don't we?

The non-whites on that train have every right to use the trains which their tax money has provided for, without being subjected to racial abuse, demeaning behavior, and abuse. Couldn't agree more. Virtually everything in our society is a result of the constrains of capitalism. Why should we put up with everything this throws at us.

[ed miliband]

What would be a proper response against someone who verbally abuses co-passengers on the train?

is this meant to be a stunningly difficult question or something?

i've actually been on a tube journey - on the very same line in fact! - when some drunken idiot started ranting about the way "pakis smell". you know what happened? someone told him to fuck off quite aggressively and he got off at the next stop. maybe that's not perfect, but it shut him up and frightened him and everyone was quite content with the result.

[rednordman]

is this meant to be a stunningly difficult question or something?

i've actually been on a tube journey - on the very same line in fact! - when some drunken idiot started ranting about the way "pakis smell". you know what happened? someone told him to fuck off quite aggressively and he got off at the next stop. maybe that's not perfect, but it shut him up and frightened him and everyone was quite content with the result.Ah! I live in the midlands, here people seem to think that they can say what they want, and get applause as a result. especially if its hard-line reactionary shit.

[ed miliband]

Ah! I live in the midlands, here people seem to think that they can say what they want, and get applause as a result. especially if its hard-line reactionary shit.

yeah, but that's a problem that isn't going to be sorted out by throwing a few people in jail. if anything that'll make it worse, with those in jail becoming martyrs for "standing up for england" or whatever.

[Vanguard1917]

The bottom line is, that every news article that discusses the reactions of the passengers on the train, the reaction was unanimously one of discomfort.

You call the police when someone causes you "discomfort" by expressing opinions contrary to yours? Seeing as you've seemingly made your peace with the establishment, i guess it's not suprising that your attitude towards the state is so cavalier.

[#FF0000]

You call the police when someone causes you "discomfort" by expressing opinions contrary to yours?

that isn't what this was and you know it.

I agree with you, mostly, and I still have to call you out on your dumb, condescending tone and disingenuous bullshit.

[Robocommie]

that isn't what this was and you know it.

I agree with you, mostly, and I still have to call you out on your dumb, condescending tone and disingenuous bullshit.

<3

[#FF0000]

words

That's a p. good point, I think -- the people were pretty much stuck there to endure that shit and couldn't just leave.

But again I don't think the jailtime's gonna help much. Again it pretty much just makes her a martyr and serves as a rallying point for racist dummies.

[Vanguard1917]

that isn't what this was and you know it.

It is. He's not opposed to the yelling and the screaming and the annoying the shit out of passengers as such. He thinks she deserves prison because of her supposed politics. Therefore, he is the kind of person that would call the police on political opponents, or would condone such an action. He hasn't, after all, answered my question as to whether the bourgeois state should be allowed to censor and ban racist political propaganda. My hunch would be that we would very much be in favour of granting the ruling class such powers, seeing as he can't even stomach a drunk eccentric on the tube without dialling 999.

[rednordman]

yeah, but that's a problem that isn't going to be sorted out by throwing a few people in jail. if anything that'll make it worse, with those in jail becoming martyrs for "standing up for england" or whatever.while i accept that, people said stuff like that long before this happened. Like on skynews a few minutes ago: they highlighted one persons comment on the monarchy "the queen is one of the last true british things we can be proud of"....yes because everything else about our country is ruled by foreigners right?:rolleyes:give me strength:cursing:

[ed miliband]

lol i am all for arresting people too cowardly to say dumb shit without the veil of anonymity to be honest.

but either way i don't think the uh "IF THEY DO IT TO THEM THEY CAN DO IT TO US" line of reasoning works here.

no matter what i don't think anyone will ever be arrested for saying "FUCK RICH PEOPLE RICH PPL ARE RUININ THE COUNTRY".

I just think it's a bad idea because dummies will look @ this and say "PLITICAL CRECTNESS GONE MADE"

idk about this too much.

(sorry i've had a few anecdotes on this thread, here's another...) i met a friend-of-a-friend, an anarchist, at a party last week, and she was arrested for a joke she made on twitter. a joke that implied she'd be doing something bad later on, or was doing something bad at the time, i can't quite remember. but as i understand it, when people are arrested on the grounds of say, saying something racist, it isn't simply because it's offensive (like, who judges that?), but also because it's a threat to public order, or may cause racial tension. she was arrested under similar terms (without the racial bit ofc).

while i agree laws against hate speech aren't necessarily written in such a way that mean "they can get us too" or whatever, i think they can be used in such a way.

[Robocommie]

That's a p. good point, I think -- the people were pretty much stuck there to endure that shit and couldn't just leave.

But again I don't think the jailtime's gonna help much. Again it pretty much just makes her a martyr and serves as a rallying point for racist dummies.

Well, I want to go on record to say that I don't necessarily think jail was the answer here, and even if it was, probably not so long as five months. I object though to the idea that this was just a victimless "thought crime" or that in fact Marxists should be going to the mat for this woman's right to be an ignorant nuisance.

[Vanguard1917]

idk about this too much.

(sorry i've had a few anecdotes on this thread, here's another...) i met a friend-of-a-friend, an anarchist, at a party last week, and she was arrested for a joke she made on twitter. a joke that implied she'd be doing something bad later on, or was doing something bad at the time, i can't quite remember. but as i understand it, when people are arrested on the grounds of say, saying something racist, it isn't simply because it's offensive (like, who judges that?), but also because it's a threat to public order, or may cause racial tension. she was arrested under similar terms (without the racial bit ofc).

while i agree laws against hate speech aren't necessarily written in such a way that mean "they can get us too" or whatever, i think they can be used in such a way.

All laws which limit the freedom of expression and which allow the state to dictate public discourse will inevitably be used against socialists, since it is socialists who, in times of heightened class struggle, pose the biggest threat to the current order.

Trotsky put it in very unambigious terms:

'Theory, as well as historic experience, testify that any restriction to democracy in bourgeois society, is eventually directed against the proletariat, just as taxes eventually fall on the shoulders of the proletariat. Bourgeois democracy is usable by the proletariat only insofar as it opens the way for the development of the class struggle. Consequently, any workers “leader” who arms the bourgeois state with special means to control public opinion in general, and the press in particular, is a traitor. In the last analysis, the accentuation of class struggle will force bourgeois of all shades, to conclude a pact: to accept special legislation, and every kind of restrictive measures, and measures of “democratic” censorship against the working class. Those who have not yet realised this, should leave the ranks of the working class.'

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm

[#FF0000]

It is.

No it isn't.


He's not opposed to the yelling and the screaming and the annoying the shit out of passengers as such. He thinks she deserves prison because of her supposed politics.

Nah it's because calling people niggers on a train isn't the same as calmly expressing an opinion on race and race relations-- it's racial harassment.



seeing as he can't even stomach a drunk eccentric on the tube without dialling 999.

lol you are so obtuse it physically hurts

[Vanguard1917]

Nah it's because calling people niggers on a train isn't the same as calmly expressing an opinion on race and race relations-- it's racial harassment.

So if opinions are "calmly explained", you're ok, but if they're not, then off to Her Majesty's prison - courtesy of the learned ruling of My Lord the judge, who is perfectly fit to decide on such delicate matters.

[#FF0000]

So if opinions are "calmly explained", you're ok, but if they're not...

Shit, someone could be rude as fuck while they try to explain why skull measurements prove white people own and how baller the bell curve is but expressing an opinion and racial harassment are distinct things.


then off to Her Majesty's prison - courtesy of the learned ruling of My Lord the judge, who is perfectly fit to decide on such delicate matters.Nope! I already explained that I don't think jailtime is the right thing for this! I'm just saying you're either profoundly dishonest in how you present the situation as well as other people's arguments.

Or stupid. Can't rule that out.

[Vanguard1917]

Shit, someone could be rude as fuck while they try to explain why skull measurements prove white people own and how baller the bell curve is but expressing an opinion and racial harassment are distinct things.


The point is that those who would happily send this working-class woman to prison for some drunken nonsense, probably have a soft spot, if not downright support, for state censorship against political opponents in general. Hence why Robocommie won't clarify his position on that matter.

[Vanguard1917]

Or stupid. Can't rule that out.

No need to get too excited. Take deep breaths.

[#FF0000]

The point is that those who would happily send this working-class woman to prison for some drunken nonsense, probably have a soft spot, if not downright support, for state censorship against political opponents in general. Hence why Robocommie won't clarify his position on that matter.

you are saying a lot based on your 'hunches' and 'probably' without having any substance behind the dumb things you are saying so you should stop.

ps he already said jail probs isn't a good idea so


No need to get too excited. Take deep breaths.

nope

[Vanguard1917]

you are saying a lot based on your 'hunches' and 'probably' without having any substance behind the dumb shit you are staying so you should stop.

Then perhaps he should come on here and state that he is fully opposed to political censorship by the capitalist state, since comments like the ones below would perhaps suggest otherwise.


Here's the problem with abstract ideals like free (http://www.revleft.com/vb/racist-tube-rant-t172168/index3.html#) speech at all costs - they have no relation whatsoever to reality and what actually happens in the real world. Kind of how Ron Paul would rather gut the Civil Rights Movement because it tramples all over the rights of the individual states to govern themselves.


This is a woman who was using speech to promote white supremacy and British xenophobia, not to liberate or fight injustice.

Your blind devotion to abstract ideals of "freedom" are incredibly short-sighted. Honestly, we all have to have our freedom curtailed at some point or another in the interest of living in society with other people.

[Manic Impressive]

this woman's right to be an ignorant nuisance.
If she is ignorant then she knows no alternative and thus cannot make an informed choice. Which in my book absolves her of guilt.

[Robocommie]

Hah, this knucklehead has set up a straw man and now he wants me to disavow it!

Vanguard1917 not only will I not play your sick mind games, I will in fact confirm that I am the Devil himself and tell you that I would like to see you in GULAG.

NOW GOOD DAY SIR.

[Robocommie]

If she is ignorant then she knows no alternative and thus cannot make an informed choice. Which in my book absolves her of guilt.

Oh give me a fucking break.

[Invader Zim]

I am troubled by the view that this woman was exersising her freedom of speech and that leftists should, therefore, unconditonally defend that. I disagree, I think that what this woman did went beyond an expression of speech and did, in fact, constitue an act of assault. Allow me to explain:

Manifestly, as Vanguard continues to make clear, he believes that this woman's right to vocally, loudly and in an entirely hasassing and abusive manner is greater than the people on that train not to be racially harassed and verbally assaulted. He is defending her, and defending her right to racially attack people in public under the belief that people should be able to say whatever they like in whatever manner they like, because the freedom of expression is sacred. I agree with the sentiment in principal but not always in practise. At some point we consider other people's rights. Such as the right of people not to harassed, abused, intimidated, made to feal threatened because of the colour of their skin in their own fucking community, and ultimately be assaulted (and yes this was a racially motivated act of assault).

Let me put it to you all this way, how far should we go before the right to freedom of speech and expression is outweighed by other's rights? A group of people to be racially abused and verbally assaulted while on public transport? Apparently not. A couple of racists to get drunk and hurl abuse at people and intimidate them in a public place? A group of white nationalists to group in public places hurling abuse at passing individuals? A group of white nationalists to begin burning crosses outside of the homes of people whom they wish to drive from the community? These are all acts of expression and the exersise of the right to 'free speech'.

Now, I for one do not agree with the capitalist state's penal system. And nor do I think this woman should be imprisoned for what she did. It won't help her and it won't help the people she harassed, abused and assaulted. But the idea that she should have the right to behave in this fashion is, in my view, entirely wrong. And I don't think leftists should defend her on the basis that all she was doing was exersising her right to express her opinion. She wasn't. She was committing an act of assault.

[Manic Impressive]

Oh give me a fucking break.
Got no answer, huh?

You said it your self she's ignorant and I agree. She's ignorant, she knows only the lies that she's been told and is put in jail for repeating them. Is it her fault? No she is a product of her environment, a product of a capitalist society which pits workers against each other.

[Invader Zim]

If she is ignorant then she knows no alternative and thus cannot make an informed choice. Which in my book absolves her of guilt.

There is ignorance, as in being a moron who believes that people who are not white have no right to be in the UK, and then there is having too much to drink and intimidating, and threatening violence, to other people because of a cocktail (no pun intended) comprising of that ignorance and lowered inhibitions. The former is clearly not something that can or should be illegal - in any society - because that would be legislating against thought, the latter is something far more than that. And I do not believe for a second that, unless an individual has become mentally and intellectually unhinged, an individual is unaware that such behaviour is socially, culturally or legally acceptable. They may wish it were, but it is not. And, of course, if they are unhinged then yes you would be right, they are not responcible for their actions. But, I think it plainly obvious that this woman was not unhinged. She was just pissed. And being pissed is not licence to do whatever the fuck comes into your head.

[Invader Zim]

Got no answer, huh?

You said it your self she's ignorant and I agree. She's ignorant, she knows only the lies that she's been told and is put in jail for repeating them. Is it her fault? No she is a product of her environment, a product of a capitalist society which pits workers against each other.

yes, she is a product of her environment, and her environment - in this case British society - has long since dictated that this form of behaviour is intolerable, socially, culturally and, as it happens, legally.

[Manic Impressive]

yes, she is a product of her environment, and her environment - in this case British society - has long since dictated that this form of behaviour is intolerable, socially, culturally and, as it happens, legally.
So you're saying that Britain is not a racist society :lol:

[Invader Zim]

So you're saying that Britain is not a racist society :lol:

I didn't suggest that at all. Like any society it contains elements of racism, in relative terms a highly significant problem. So in as much that then yes, it is a racist society. And it would be preposterous to argue otherwise. The significant gains over the last two decades for parties like the BNP and UKIP are well documented, and are a significant indicator of how widespread racist and/or anti-migrant sentiment is in this country. But denying that isn't what I argued or said.

However, it is also an objective fact that overt racist behaviour is deemed socially and culturally unacceptable - which is precisely why the form of behaviour we are discussing is demonstrably considered socially unaccaptable and is, in fact, illegal. And that is the environment in which this woman lives, and she breached its social and legal etiquettes. So suggesting that her environment made her behave in this fashion, which goes entirely against what is acceptable in that environment, is simply nonsense. These kinds of outbust are not common. The are, in fact, rare enough to be highly remarkable (in the figurative and literal). Which is what I said, no more and no less. It is not a commentary on whether racism exists within British society or whether it is pervasive. It is a comment on the acceptability of this woman's behaviour, not the extent of racist sentiment in Britain. I'm sorry that you missed the point. I would take responsibility and offer to try to elucidate my points in a fashion that you would more readily comprehend, but I don't think that what I wrote is the problem.

[Hit The North]

Should communists support the bourgeois state's ability to lock up this woman? Definitely not!

Should communists support this woman's right to racially harangue her fellow citizens? No, she is a disgrace and needs to sort herself out.

Isn't it the point that while we strongly condemn racism, and any other attempt to pit worker against worker, we have an alternative set of solutions to these problems that places us in opposition to the bourgeois state: the abolition of all material inequalities.

[ed miliband]

Should communists support the bourgeois state's ability to lock up this woman? Definitely not!

Should communists support this woman's right to racially harangue her fellow citizens? No, she is a disgrace and needs to sort herself out.

Isn't it the point that while we strongly condemn racism, and any other attempt to pit worker against worker, we have an alternative set of solutions to these problems that places us in opposition to the bourgeois state: the abolition of all material inequalities.

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/2634771/2/stock-photo-2634771-hitting-a-nail-on-the-head.jpg

[Ocean Seal]

What I think?
No she shouldn't have been locked up. Fuck the prisons especially for this kind of stupid shit. People shouldn't be that sensitive to this dumb racist kay. But fuck freedom of speech apologists. No leftists shouldn't defend the freedom of speech. That would be extremely inconsistent, and I sure don't defend it on principle. She doesn't have the right to do what she did, but it shouldn't mean a prison sentence.
Whatevs I'm out.

[Vanguard1917]

Should communists support this woman's right to racially harangue her fellow citizens? No, she is a disgrace and needs to sort herself out.

And she was drunk. No one's presented any evidence that she actually holds racist political opinions. Saying out-of-character things while rat-arsed is hardly unheard of.

But a sense of context and nuance seems alien to some here.

[#FF0000]

And she was drunk. No one's presented any evidence that she actually holds racist political opinions. Saying out-of-character things while rat-arsed is hardly unheard of.

Impairment like that isn't necessarily a mitigating circumstance -- because the person chose to drink so much that they couldn't help but throw racist slurs at people on a train.

EDIT: or to take it out of legalese, only total dicks blame the alcohol they chose to take for the dumb shit they said or did and it isn't a good excuse.


But a sense of context and nuance seems alien to some here.Oh, shut the fuck up hahahah

[Vanguard1917]

Oh, shut the fuck up hahahah

Breathing exercises not going well? Try some fresh air, internet tough guy.

[#FF0000]

Breathing exercises not going well? Try some fresh air, internet tough guy.

who is mad lol

[ComradeOm]

And she was drunk. No one's presented any evidence that she actually holds racist political opinions. Saying out-of-character things while rat-arsed is hardly unheard ofOh get lost. You can play your little Voltaire1917 routine or quote Trotsky all you want but this is just insulting. You and Manic are not only willing to defend this woman's 'right' to shout racist abuse but are bending over to provide her with excuses. Let's see a few:


It's okay to harass someone using racist slurs... if some of the victims don't seem that threatened by it
It's okay to harass someone using racist slurs... if you're somehow ignorant as to what these mean
It's okay to harass someone using racist slurs... if you're drunk
It's okay to harass someone using racist slurs... if you don't hold "racist political opinions" (really)

What's next? 'Paki' is an acceptable term of endearment in some parts of London?

What bullshit. This has nothing to do with 'free speech' or the bourgeois state. You simply don't have a problem with this woman's behaviour. At least not to the degree that you're unwilling to play apologist. Defending racism in the name of Marxism, quality

[Robocommie]

It got pretty fucking suspicious the moment someone started suggesting that she has all the moral culpability of a puppy that piddled on the carpet.

I mean, at that point it becomes not only degrading to our standards of publically acceptable behavior, but also to Jacqueline Woodhouse's agency as a human being.

[Vanguard1917]

Oh get lost. You can play your little Voltaire1917 routine or quote Trotsky all you want but this is just insulting. You and Manic are not only willing to defend this woman's 'right' to shout racist abuse but are bending over to provide her with excuses.

Everything needs to be judged in context. Hyperbole and hysteria help nothing, and, as we have seen, can even lead otherwise sound leftists (well, in your case anyway) to some totally incorrect, knee-jerk positions.

[Hiero]

It got pretty fucking suspicious the moment someone started suggesting that she has all the moral culpability of a puppy that piddled on the carpet.

I mean, at that point it becomes not only degrading to our standards of publically acceptable behavior, but also to Jacqueline Woodhouse's agency as a human being.

White working class people are the grossest type, especially from council estates.

I think we need more attacks on the working class in the UK, if Thatcher didn't do enough to them and industrial decline hasn't cornered them all off to commision homes then prison will have to do. Any means to keep them off public transport.

[Hiero]

Now, away from my sacastic tone.

Do people not see the underlying social conflict that has emerged in this particular social tension? Are the so called "communists" and working class "lefties" so blind?

She states "You Africans take our council flats." Are people not interested in the ways the failures of the bourgeois state manifest into localised conflicts that take on ethnic and race discourses? This is a working class women's rage about her lived stituation, and she understands it in the discourse of ethnic politics. While attacks on working class through the punitive welfare state increase, the social tensions are localised and class is misrecognized in forms of ethnic tensions. This is not an ideological arguement more akin to the EDL and other racist organisations, this is not a bourgeious politicians fantasy for ethnic and cultural homogeniety, rather it is an working class outburst, it is aggresivitiy (an uncontrole outburst at something that one does not understand, it is rather structural/unconcious). It is the accumulation of working class rage misdirected at other people based on ethnic and racial discourse.

Of course she is racist, but there is a underlying working class rage that people have completly ignored to deal with. It is much easy for her to be simply a racist than a working class women with real class problems.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Of course she is racist, but there is a underlying working class rage that people have completly ignored to deal with. It is much easy for her to be simply a racist than a working class women with real class problems.Why would her rage be "working class" but the anger of working class immigrants at such outbursts is dismissive of "working class" experiences.

Her rage may come from her situation, but so is the rage of right-wing workers who blame "entitled" public sector workers or "greedy" unionized workers.

And this woman's outburst is exactly like the ways fascists try and appeal to sections of the working class. Blame jews, blame radicals, blame whoever for messing up what would be a utopia without them.

[ComradeOm]

Are people not interested in the ways the failures of the bourgeois state manifest into localised conflicts that take on ethnic and race discourses?I am and I'm opposed to it. There is nothing natural or inevitable about racism however. Believe it or not, it is perfectly possible to be white working class and dissatisfied with your conditions without blaming your non-white neighbours

This racism is unacceptable. Period. From the "lefty" perspective it is an incredibly divisive and destructive attitude that is antithetical to communism. Be aware of its roots, sure, but the notion that we should be accepting, or even excusing, this behaviour is absurd. The sooner that it is driven out of public life, and the last two decades have seen real progress in this area, the better. I don't see how anyone can remain opposed to the likes of the EDL and then blithely accept this sort of abuse. Does she have to be carrying a placard for it to be racist?

Ironically, with regards the council flats, this woman is from Romford which in my experience is almost exclusively a white community. And hey, the figures (http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,5812,1395103,00.html) back that up

[Vanguard1917]

This racism is unacceptable. Period. From the "lefty" perspective it is an incredibly divisive and destructive attitude that is antithetical to communism. Be aware of its roots, sure, but the notion that we should be accepting, or even excusing, this behaviour is absurd. The sooner that it is driven out of public life, and the last two decades have seen real progress in this area, the better. I don't see how anyone can remain opposed to the likes of the EDL and then blithely accept this sort of abuse. Does she have to be carrying a placard for it to be racist?

But surely you can see the difference between "accepting" something and thinking that it's not a good idea to get the bourgeois state (the capitalists' armed body of men) involved in such matters?

I don't accept the racist propaganda of the BNP. But i also fully oppose the capitalist state's restrictions on free speech. If the ruling class is passing laws to restrict such political freedoms, it's the duty of socialists to fully oppose them - not because we are apologists for the BNP, but because we don't like shooting ourselves in the foot.

The same logic goes for the particular scenario in question.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But surely you can see the difference between "accepting" something and thinking that it's not a good idea to get the bourgeois state (the capitalists' armed body of men) involved in such matters?

I don't accept the racist propaganda of the BNP. But i also fully oppose the capitalist state's restrictions on free speech. If the ruling class is passing laws to restrict such political freedoms, it's the duty of socialists to fully oppose them - not because we are apologists for the BNP, but because we don't like shooting ourselves in the foot.

The same logic goes for the particular scenario in question.Well first of all, radicals didn't put her under citizens arrest and call for the cops.

I'd hope that if a couple of us were there at that time we would have handled it by simply calling out her shit and isolating her. That would have been the best way to send a message that regular folks won't let this kind of thing go unopposed.

But given the social context and the fact that the police did arrest her, having the book thrown at her would be the exception to the rule and send a message that the public outrage around this made it too hot for the state to sweep under the rug.

I'm against prisons and cops, but if fascists or police themselves are caught doing something and people make a stink, then I fully support them getting as much punishment as possible - for a change.

And I don't think we can abstractly talk about "free speech" in this context of polarization and the legitimization of anti-immigrant and nationalist politics in Europe. She was sitting on the train speaking about immigrants and deportation in a mixed car! That's not free-speech that's an implied threat. If it hadden't been for the video and the public outrage (and the riots probably) then fuck-all would have happened to her, so it's not a case of the state increasing it's power, it's a case of them bowing to pressure.

[Vanguard1917]

And I don't think we can abstractly talk about "free speech" in this context of polarization and the legitimization of anti-immigrant and nationalist politics in Europe. She was sitting on the train speaking about immigrants and deportation in a mixed car! That's not free-speech that's an implied threat. If it hadden't been for the video and the public outrage (and the riots probably) then fuck-all would have happened to her, so it's not a case of the state increasing it's power, it's a case of them bowing to pressure.

That's your interpretation, and i think it's a wrong one. But even if it were a case of the state "bowing to pressure" from below, that does not mean that it would be fine. Marxists take principled stands, and one of those is that we oppose all restrictions by the capitalist state to freedom of expression - even those used against reactionaries or people with views with which we do not agree. (Trotsky, you may be aware, did not mince his words on this matter: "any workers 'leader' who arms the bourgeois state with special means to control public opinion in general, and the press in particular, is a traitor." He was referring to labour leaders in Mexico who were calling for censorship against the reactionary press by the Mexican state. "In fact, it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class", Trotsky added. Full article: "Freedom of the Press and the Working Class" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm))

You are free, of course, to make the argument that Marxists should not be in the business of opposing such restrictions, and that it is sometimes permissible for the ruling class to lock people up based on their opinions. But you would need to accept that you are diverging from Marxism, and then explain why this divergence is for the best.

[Hiero]

Her rage may come from her situation, but so is the rage of right-wing workers who blame "entitled" public sector workers or "greedy" unionized workers.

And this woman's outburst is exactly like the ways fascists try and appeal to sections of the working class. Blame jews, blame radicals, blame whoever for messing up what would be a utopia without them.
Believe it or not, it is perfectly possible to be white working class and dissatisfied with your conditions without blaming your non-white neighbours
Where was the memo that all workers were going to get along? Things are messy in the working class. This is a problem for the left; they are not all coming to your sing along if you are not addressing their root problems.



From the "lefty" perspective it is an incredibly divisive and destructive attitude that is antithetical to communism. Be aware of its roots, sure, but the notion that we should be accepting, or even excusing, this behaviour is absurdYou're comments are absolutely absurd and insidious. I never accepted or excused this behaviour, nor did I dismiss it as racism ( I actually said it is racism). I merely had the stomach to be able to interpret her statements and behaviour through a critical left perspective.

Working class racism is always misrecognition. The failures of and distance and alienation created by the bourgeois state and economy creates a yearning for community. The barrier to this is often seen in the Other; the Jew with his foreign capital displacing primitive capital (Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew) in anti-Semitism and the migrant worker who takes resources from rightful owners.
White working class people in western countries have a sense of national belonging and governmental belonging. By this I mean in the former that they belong to the nation through heredity and illustrated in their whiteness (Britishness, Aussie, American) and the later that they have an actual say in policy and running of the nation.

In Australia Pauline Hanson best personified this form of white nationalism. It was the belief of Pauline Hanson and shared amongst her white supporters that left-wing governments, single issue organisations and other interest groups have swayed power of governments towards minority politics. This tipped the balance away from those who in their opinion belonged and had inherent right to control the nation*.
The interesting thing about Hanson was while she wanted to reduce government spending on Indigenous welfare and reduce immigration from Asia, she was not a typical racist (in the sense she did not believe Asians were natural/biological inferior). Her problem was with governments who had misplaced interest, they had been compromised to the power of interest groups who's interest she believed fell to migrants and indigenous and not the wider nation (White people). In her opinion she believed Asians did not integrate into The Community, and this was government failure. It is back to this sense that power had been taken away from white Australians and given to those who did not 'belong' and made no effort to 'belong'.

A lot of the issues underlying all this racism and nationalism are working class distress. While there are social tensions around community and fitting in (belonging) it comes down to distribution. In the example of Jacqueline Woodhouse is a concern around working class distribution with the example around housing. This common distress is that rightfully deserved white working class welfare is being prioritised to migrants (in the UK and Australia) and indigenous (in Australia, maybe the USA). One would have to look at overall distribution. What one may argue is that distribution is fair, or migrants and indigenous receive more welfare for reasons (structural racism, historical neglect, larger families etc). But a larger left-wing critique explores what welfare and state intervention does to people and how people survive poverty.
There is a real working class suffering in neo-liberalism. Working class people in the lowest tiers have suffered de-industrialisation. In that process the neo-liberal form of welfare replaced real jobs. Working class people in the lowest tiers face punitive measures through the welfare system (something unique to neo-liberalism) and a high level of surveillance. Poor and unemployed working class are told to look inward for solutions, when they do look outward they find the Other, stealing their welfare. If no one is distressed that working class people fight (an imaginary fight of course) of welfare for survival then you’re not doing your best to critique the system.


Some of these theses issues are discussed in such books as:



Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism by Benedict Anderson (http://www.amazon.com/Imagined-Communities-Reflections-Origin-Nationalism/dp/0860915468)


(http://books.google.com.au/books/about/White_Nation.html?id=t6SqxrAZp_IC)
White Nation: (http://books.google.com.au/books/about/White_Nation.html?id=t6SqxrAZp_IC)Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society by Ghassan Hage (http://books.google.com.au/books/about/White_Nation.html?id=t6SqxrAZp_IC)



A Phenomenology of Working Class Experience By Simon J. Charlesworth (http://books.google.com.au/books/about/A_Phenomenology_of_Working_Class_Experie.html?id=k Ezd17tauZQC&redir_esc=y)

I would conclude that my whole point here is that by discusing this purely as a racist outburst and an issue over free speech, the incident is de-contextualised and a whole story about working class experience is ignored.

* John Howard best utilised this white nationalism through saying “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” and “What I am asserting is the right of this country to decide who comes here.” It appeals to White people’s sense of belonging and government right, that by voting Howard they will have through representation control of their nation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's your interpretation, and i think it's a wrong one.

But even if it were a case of the state "bowing to pressure" from below, that does not mean that it would be fine.[/quote]Yes it does. I'm against prisons and execution, but if people riot because a cop shot someone and the courts are forced to arrest the cop, that's not increasing the power of the repressive apparatus of the state. It's a rare exception and the result of popular anger.

What about George Zimmerman, are protesters demanding his arrest helping or hurting the repressive capabilities of the state? Or is he the rare exception where the underlying bias and racism that the ruling class cultivates trips over the contradictions of the system and the bias is exposed for all to see?


demand Marxists take principled stands, and one of those is that we oppose all restrictions by the capitalist state to freedom of expression - even those used against reactionaries or people with views with which we do not agree.She wasn't making an argument about voting Tory, she was intimidating other people on the train. In the context of the legitimization of these ideas and the mainstreaming of the BNP, it would be idiotic to see this as some abstract free speech issue. Like I said, the way Radicals should have handled it would be different. No one should have called the cops on her, it would have been better to confront her and call out her racism to show that this isn't the "natural" view of working folks and show solidarity with immigrants.

However given that she was arrested, what is the preferable outcome - that this is excused and deemed acceptable despite public outrage? That it's permissible as free speech for a racist to threaten immigrants with arrest, but if public outrage demands the same thing it's an "attack on free speech"?


(Trotsky, you may be aware, did not mince his words on this matter: "any workers 'leader' who arms the bourgeois state with special means to control public opinion in general, and the press in particular, is a traitor." He was referring to labour leaders in Mexico who were calling for censorship against the reactionary press by the Mexican state. "In fact, it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class", Trotsky added. Full article: "Freedom of the Press and the Working Class" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm))What revolutionaries are suing for extra laws for this woman - the prosecutor (certainty not a revolutionary) didn't even go for adding charges of "hate-speech" and so she was sentenced for abusive speech - a law that I assume already exists.

Again you are treating this very abstractly. And again, I am merely commenting on the situation of this case, not advocating a course of action, especially not some method of hoping the state "protects us".

Did this woman own a press? Was she making persuasive arguments or trying to make African and immigrant passengers afraid and remind them of the "Natural order" of UK society?

Within the narrow circumstance of the legal case itself, guilty is a better outcome than acquittal. Ideally what would be best - an independent anti-racist movement based in class politics that point to the system as the real source of racism. We can build that eventually and having a good take on the smaller things like this, can help us build that. I'm not convinced that defending racist threats as "free speech" will help the left make a clear case against nativism and racism.


You are free, of course, to make the argument that Marxists should not be in the business of opposing such restrictions, and that it is sometimes permissible for the ruling class to lock people up based on their opinions. But you would need to accept that you are diverging from Marxism, and then explain why this divergence is for the best.

LOL. You really have to reach to defend your position. I'm diverging from a "marxism" that sees an abstract bourgeois right for our enemies as more important than solidarity with an extra-oppressed section of workers.

But again, this is apples and oranges. I'm not saying that laws are the way for workers to fight racism or fascism (in fact I'm saying the opposite: this specific case is an exception to the rule for the working class where laws usually used against us have been forced to apply equally to someone with anti-working class views). I'm also against the porn industry but the best strategy is NOT a moral campaign to restrict pron.

But this is not a case of abstract "free speech" - it's one thing if someone says "send them all back where they come from" in a discussion on nazi internet forums, it's another for people to go into an immigrant community and shout threats and boast about how the whole system backs these threats.

Sometimes people joke about crashing fascist websites. Why, what good would it do, how would that help arm workers to defend themselves from racism and fascism? But if someone said, "hey in my immigrant neighborhood, somone posted a bunch of fascist fliers, wanna go pull them down?" then I'd be all for it, better yet let's organize a community rally in opposition.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes it does. I'm against prisons and execution, but if people riot because a cop shot someone and the courts are forced to arrest the cop, that's not increasing the power of the repressive apparatus of the state. It's a rare exception and the result of popular anger.

What about George Zimmerman, are protesters demanding his arrest helping or hurting the repressive capabilities of the state? Or is he the rare exception where the underlying bias and racism that the ruling class cultivates trips over the contradictions of the system and the bias is exposed for all to see?

George Zimmerman shot someone dead. There is no similarity with the case of this woman, which is a free-speech issue. You are making the argument that what people can and cannot say in public should be policed by the bourgeois state - that police should have powers to arrest workers based on their speech. That is ultimately and essentially what your position amounts to. It is a position which is irreconcilable with Marxism.



She wasn't making an argument about voting Tory, she was intimidating other people on the train.


But you are not supporting her imprisonment because she was intimidating other people - you are supporting it because of the content of her language. If she had shouted at people on the train using words that were not racist but just as intimidating, your view of the situation would presumably be different.


LOL. You really have to reach to defend your position. I'm diverging from a "marxism" that sees an abstract bourgeois right for our enemies as more important than solidarity with an extra-oppressed section of workers.


You certainly are diverging from Marxism if you believe that police should be allowed to arrest people simply because of what they said in public, however "intimidating" it was. If causing intimidation through speech is grounds for arrest in your ideal bourgeois society, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that such codes of law-keeping would be to the detriment of leftwing radicals.

[SirBrendan]

I'm surprised that people are aghast that this resulted in jail time. I'm not sure about good 'ol Britain, but here in Canada she would have been brought up on assualt charges. It's not even about the hilariously racist cause for it. It's that, at least in Canada, any present threat to the security of another consititutes assualt. You can not scream in someones face. You can not get directly into someones personal space and then begin jabbing your fingers at them. It is assualt.

Rightfully so, to boot. As funny as it is to watch on video, in reality she was threatening anyone she was yelling at. The potential for a situation such as that to escalate into something more is far too large a risk for any society to permit. Even in an anarchism you can't have twits going about scaring the hell out of strangers every time they get in the wrong mood with too much to drink.

[roy]

^awful as this woman may be, we should be aghast at prison in general. somehow i don't think the sentence will turn her into a more tolerant, well-mannered human being.

[Igor]

Imo, a bit too much focus is being targeted at the whole being racist thing, because racism wasn't the real crime she committed. Her real crime was pretty much verbal assault of everyone around him, even if we took the racist aspect out of it's pretty fucked up. Capitalist justice system serves capitalist interests, but it also keeps some kind of basic order in society. It does good things, too. One of them is prevention of getting shouted at your face in a tram with no provocation. Her abrasive behaviour is causing an actual disturbance and something has to be done about it, really.

But yeah, to the other points, prisons are fucked up and I disagree with any speech crime legislation. This wasn't speech crime though, this was verbal violence targeted at random passengers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

George Zimmerman shot someone dead. There is no similarity with the case of this woman, which is a free-speech issue.No, my point was about public pressure and the way the law is generally unevenly applied.


You are making the argument that what people can and cannot say in public should be policed by the bourgeois state - that police should have powers to arrest workers based on their speech. That is ultimately and essentially what your position amounts to. It is a position which is irreconcilable with Marxism.Should they,no. They shouldn't be in power at all. But I am not even saying they SHOULD I'm saying the ALREADY DO, and usually we are arrested and the nazis go free. In that context, if there is popular outrage to force the state to apply laws evenly then it's better in that circumstance for popular outrage to win.

If a black woman had done the same thing on the train, or a Muslim, the right wouldn't have had to demand anything because the cops would have hauled her off the train and beat her for being drunk in public and if the video got any attention it would be by the right saying, "Dear, see how these immigrants are drunkards and hate the true English, see how they teach their kids to hate England? Deport them all."


But you are not supporting her imprisonment because she was intimidating other people - you are supporting it because of the content of her language.Yes her language which was RACIAL and XENOPHOBIC INTIMIDATION! She literally threatened people and said that the law was on HER SIDE. You wanna prove her right?


If she had shouted at people on the train using words that were not racist but just as intimidating, your view of the situation would presumably be different. Yes, who'd give a fuck. As much as I disagree with the abstract "free speech" argument, I also disagree with the moral take that it was a case of rudeness and child neglect.


You certainly are diverging from Marxism if you believe that police should be allowed to arrest people simply because of what they said in public, I don't believe they should be allowed - BUT THEY DO AS IT IS.


If causing intimidation through speech is grounds for arrest in your ideal bourgeois society, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that such codes of law-keeping would be to the detriment of leftwing radicals.It is, try joking about killing some officials - then set up the Lazy-Boy next to the door and wait for the Feds. NAZI graffitti, most fascist rallies, and public hate speech like this are not an "exchange of ideas" -- she wasn't saying "hey, what about them immigration policies" she was threatening people and saying the cops would have her back and the "natural order" of society has her back.

Considering that this law already exists, what does it mean to advocate this woman not being convicted: we should argue for a racist to get special, less severe treatment by the court and legal system?

[Vanguard1917]

No, my point was about public pressure and the way the law is generally unevenly applied.

What public pressure? Not that it makes much difference to my argument (throughout history there has been "public pressure" for all kinds of backward measures), but if you could provide evidence for this claim - on which much of your argument seems to be based - i would be grateful. From my experience of speaking to people about cases such as these, imprisonment is opposed almost universally.

In reality, of course, it was a judge who was responsible for this verdict. No "public pressure" i'm aware of.



Should they,no. They shouldn't be in power at all. But I am not even saying they SHOULD I'm saying the ALREADY DO


Well, that's the point. That's why Marxists oppose ALL of their laws against freedom of expression. What's the good in saying: "Oh well, they already do, so let them arrest the kinds of working-class people whose opinions we don't much like"? That line of reasoning will not help us remove bourgeois-state interference in working-class politics and opinion. It will reinforce and further legitimise it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What public pressure? Not that it makes much difference to my argument (throughout history there has been "public pressure" for all kinds of backward measures), but if you could provide evidence for this claim - on which much of your argument seems to be based - i would be grateful.Oh I was under the impression that this was a high-profile case with thousands of internet views and blogs and shit. Why are we talking about this if it's a case without any public profile?


From my experience of speaking to people about cases such as these, imprisonment is opposed almost universally. People can support all sorts of backwards ideas such as supporting a drunk racist not being punished while not blinking an eye when the same thing happens with a drunk homeless people multiple times a day in the Tube alone.


altho her comments were obviously racist and stupid.i dont think she was 'threatening', she was a joke.She threatened to punch people in the face and she was implying she'd have people deported.


In reality, of course, it was a judge who was responsible for this verdict. No "public pressure" i'm aware of. Again, why are we discussing this? Why was it a big story in the media - if it's just a drunk tirade, what does it matter?


Well, that's the point. That's why Marxists oppose ALL of their laws against freedom of expression. What's the good in saying: "Oh well, they already do, so let them arrest the kinds of working-class people whose opinions we don't much like"? That line of reasoning will not help us remove bourgeois-state interference in working-class politics and opinion. It will reinforce and further legitimise it.If these laws ALREADY exist and homeless people or drunk immigrants are targeted with them, what's being actions are being legitimized by defending a racist from getting the same treatment?

Again, I am not making the case that this is how the left should strategize, I'm not arguing for increase laws, I am simply stating that under the circumstances, a conviction would be a better result. In addition I think if this wasn't high-profile and if there was no public outrage, then she would have got a warning and that's it whereas an "undesirable" who was an immigrant or on the dole instead of a secretary would get the book thrown at them. That would be the case in the US at any rate.

[Vanguard1917]

Oh I was under the impression that this was a high-profile case with thousands of internet views and blogs and shit. Why are we talking about this if it's a case without any public profile?

...

Again, why are we discussing this? Why was it a big story in the media - if it's just a drunk tirade, what does it matter?


That's not the issue. You argued that she was sentenced to imprisonment due to public pressure for her imprisonment. I'm asking for evidence of this.


People can support all sorts of backwards ideas such as supporting a drunk racist not being punished while not blinking an eye when the same thing happens with a drunk homeless people multiple times a day in the Tube alone.

Multiple drunk homeless people in Britain are daily given months in prison because of their speech? Where?

And this is not a case of a drunk vagrant being harrassed by police for being a drunk vagrant. It's a case of a working-class woman being put in prison for the nature of her language. If you can't see why this is a more serious situation for Marxists - from a political perspective - than the former scenario, you need to do more thinking on the matter.



If these laws ALREADY exist and homeless people or drunk immigrants are targeted with them, what's being actions are being legitimized by defending a racist from getting the same treatment?



Just so that we can compare cases, can you please provide examples of "drunk immigrants" being imprisoned in Britain simply for the content of their language?

And the flaw in your reasoning is obvious. It's like saying, if anti-immigration laws already exist, why shouldn't socialists use such laws to keep out or deport immigrant workers with dodgy politics?

Why? Because, yes, doing so would further legitimise such laws, when, in fact, we should be focusing our energies on categorically opposing them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Multiple drunk homeless people in Britain are daily given months in prison because of their speech? Where?You want me to fly to London and look up police records? Please! London and US cities aren't that different and I saw a drunk rambling guy get picked up by police on my way to work tonight. I commute on BART and harassing gate-jumpers and drunk passengers is mostly what they seem to do.

So again I ask, why, considering that she was only convicted of being drunk, is being a drunk racist something to defend?


And this is not a case of a drunk vagrant being harrassed by police for being a drunk vagrant. It's a case of a working-class woman being put in prison for the nature of her language. If you can't see why this is a more serious situation for Marxists - from a political perspective - than the former scenario, you need to do more thinking on the matter.

"I'll have you arrested because you don't live here" is just one quote - she also threatened to punch someone in the face. If she was Pakistani and the other passengers were anglo Brits... what do you think would have happened? Advocating a state which is spying on immigrants and in which both main parties are cozying to nationalists, this is not "just some drunk" and it's not ABSTRACT freedom of speech. If she were standing on a corner trying to get people to joing the BNP, that would be disgusting, but it would also be more like free-speech.


Just so that we can compare cases, can you please provide examples of "drunk immigrants" being imprisoned in Britain simply for the content of their language?What kind of bullshit are these arguments - can you provide counter-evidence? If a drunk immigrant threatened to punch people on a train and said that England should only be for Muslims, what the fuck do you think would happen?

Incidentally, this woman already got arrested for this a received a fine - again, it was public pressure that made the court actually apply this ruling and backing up my case that these laws are probably not applied to all people equally. I don't have documentation, but I'd guess it doesn't take such extraordinary circumstances for the poor or immigrants to get that same ruling.


And the flaw in your reasoning is obvious. It's like saying, if anti-immigration laws already exist, why shouldn't socialists use such laws to keep out or deport immigrant workers with dodgy politics?It was a socialist cop who arrested her? A socialist Judge who imprisoned her? This is not what I'm arguing - I said a couple of times that the way radicals or effective reformist activists even should deal with these things is by building an anti-racist movement so that it doesn't take public pressure and youtube videos to expose the common everyday racism in society.


Why? Because, yes, doing so would further legitimise such laws, when, in fact, we should be focusing our energies on categorically opposing them.But you're not categorically opposing this law, you are defending threatening immigrants with deportation and white-vigilantism as "free speech".

Short of a movement, short of people having any subjective impact on this case, and given that she was arrested and charged, applying a drunk and disorderly law which EXISTS ANYWAY and is APPLIED ANYWAY all the time, a not-guilty verdict would say to the BNP and fascists that you are protected to go into immigrant areas and threaten deportation and physical violence.

What her defenders not on the Left are saying is instructive. In the media they have been BLAMING the immigrants on the tube for her outburst. Her lawyer defended her by saying she was set off because immigrants were speaking another language and she thought she might have been threatened by them in a language they understand.

So in that defense, we see the hypocrisy of bourgeois "free-speech" - speaking in another language is not "free speech" but threatening state action against people, demanding to know if strangers have their legal papers IS FREE SPEECH?!

Since this law already exists, since she wasn't even convicted on "speech" grounds, but on drunkenness grounds, this is hardly creating new laws which will hurt our organizing efforts - unless most of our agitation comes by boarding trains full of industrialists and bankers and threatening them with "class war".

Earlier you claimed that I "diverged from Marxism" - well what is it that Marxists have traditionally said about bourgeois-rights? They are only as good as workers defend them - but in concrete terms, what are we defending when we ask that this person not be found guilty? What's being legitimized? Not "free speech" but the "right" to harass immigrants in public.

Comrade, leave the defense of abstract bourgeois rights for the ACLU. We have more to gain by organizing people who were angry and outraged by this video that appealing to people who have sympathies with a racists rant.

Honestly, my view of this court case is: "Meh, so what". Like I said, the best thing to come out of this video from a radical perspective would be people in the community organizing something to make a (multi-racial) statement about not putting up with threats like this. What bothers me though is that people on this website are echoing the "PC gone mad" and "it's free speech" rhetoric of conservatives and liberals.

[Vanguard1917]

You want me to fly to London and look up police records? Please! London and US cities aren't that different and I saw a drunk rambling guy get picked up by police on my way to work tonight. I commute on BART and harassing gate-jumpers and drunk passengers is mostly what they seem to do.

No, i just want you to back up your claims. You can't just make claims and back them up with nothing more than your personal anecdotes.



"I'll have you arrested because you don't live here" is just one quote - she also threatened to punch someone in the face. If she was Pakistani and the other passengers were anglo Brits... what do you think would have happened?

...

What kind of bullshit are these arguments - can you provide counter-evidence? If a drunk immigrant threatened to punch people on a train and said that England should only be for Muslims, what the fuck do you think would happen?

What would have happened?

Are you telling me that you would support an immigrant woman going to prison for three months for saying that England should be for Muslims and threathing to punch a man?


It was a socialist cop who arrested her? A socialist Judge who imprisoned her? This is not what I'm arguing - I said a couple of times that the way radicals or effective reformist activists even should deal with these things is by building an anti-racist movement so that it doesn't take public pressure and youtube videos to expose the common everyday racism in society.


So you would support the bourgeoisie's anti-immigration laws being used against racist immigrant workers? What if there was "public pressure" for it?



But you're not categorically opposing this law, you are defending threatening immigrants with deportation and white-vigilantism as "free speech".


I'm not sure what you're saying. I categorically oppose all anti-immigration laws. And i categorically oppose all political censorship by the bourgeoisie. There is no contradiction there for Marxists. On the contrary, there is a consistent opposition to the bourgeois state extending its political influence over the working class - an extention of influence which you seem to support.


Since this law already exists, since she wasn't even convicted on "speech" grounds, but on drunkenness grounds

No. She was convicted on the grounds of what she said. Do you have no knowledge of this case whatsoever?


it was public pressure that made the court actually apply (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2461794#) this ruling

Why do you keep repeating this claim? Where is this public pressure you're talking about? Where is your evidence that the public were calling on this woman to be sent to prison?


Earlier you claimed that I "diverged from Marxism" - well what is it that Marxists have traditionally said about bourgeois-rights? They are only as good as workers defend them - but in concrete terms, what are we defending when we ask that this person not be found guilty? What's being legitimized? Not "free speech" but the "right" to harass immigrants in public.

You're confused about what a "bourgeois right" is. The bourgeoisie is no friend of free speech - its track record is riddled with censorship, political repression of opponents and an attempt to dictate public opinion.

The only political tradition in modern history that has consitently opposed political censorship by the capitalist state is Marxism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Are you telling me that you would support an immigrant woman going to prison for three months for saying that England should be for Muslims and threathing to punch a man?NOOOOO! I'm saying if that had happened she would have had the book thrown at her and no one would have batted an eye. I am saying that by defending this woman for receiving 1/2 of her jail term after pleading guilty, is actually demanding special treatment for a RACIST on the grounds of abstract "free speech" moralism.

My example is not about ACTION FOR US TO TAKE. Again, as I have said repeatedly, the best response from radicals and the general left would be to organize our own movement that could use this public example of racism to talk about the bigger issues and create a sense of solidarity and self-empowerment. But that didn't happen. So out of two possibilities A) a Racist gets a less than normal treatment after making very public and threatening statements on a train B) She is found guilty, the one that's better for the class struggle is the second one because it is more neutral... getting a lesser sentance would signal a green-light for racists and the BNP to actually go around and demand people's ID and citizenship papers. A green light that threatening minorities was "free speech" in a country where 1 out of 3 in a recent poll said they have racist views!


I'm not sure what you're saying. I categorically oppose all anti-immigration laws. And i categorically oppose all political censorship by the bourgeoisie. There is no contradiction there for Marxists. On the contrary, there is a consistent opposition to the bourgeois state extending its political influence over the working class - an extention of influence which you seem to support.What extension? What fucking new law was applied? Don't give me that shit.

You keep arguing this bullshit straw-man about radicals demanding that some new law be created to stop racists.


You're confused about what a "bourgeois right" is. The bourgeoisie is no friend of free speech - its track record is riddled with censorship, political repression of opponents and an attempt to dictate public opinion.
Yes, because free speech doesn't exist in ABSTRACT! If this kind of harassment is free-speech, then we would be restricting people's "free speech" if someone hangs a noose somewhere or burns a cross or NAZIs rally in an immigrant area. Free speech is a battle - a class battle and it does us no good to demand preferential treatment for people who want nothing more than to end our ability to speak-out and organize, or if we are immigrants live without fear.

[Vanguard1917]

She is found guilty, the one that's better for the class struggle is the second one because it is more neutral... getting a lesser sentance would signal a green-light for racists and the BNP to actually go around and demand people's ID and citizenship papers. A green light that threatening minorities was "free speech" in a country where 1 out of 3 in a recent poll said they have racist views!

By such logic we would support bourgeois-state suppression of far-right propaganda, because, if such groups went unchallenged by the bourgeois state, they would be given a "green light".

Would i be right in assuming that you would not necessarily oppose all bourgeois state censorship of the far-right?


NOOOOO! I'm saying if that had happened she would have had the book thrown at her and no one would have batted an eye.

Yet you have no evidence that this has actually happened. You're attempting to trivialise the ruling in this case by saying "this sort of stuff happens all the time to immigrants".


Yes, because free speech doesn't exist in ABSTRACT!

She was charged for a "racially aggravated" offence, which hasn't been on the law books for that long (a bit over a decade).



Yes, because free speech doesn't exist in ABSTRACT!


And Marxists - from Karl Marx to Leon Trotsky - insist that it must be fought for in full in capitalist society.

[Invader Zim]

By such logic we would support bourgeois-state suppression of far-right propaganda, because, if such groups went unchallenged by the bourgeois state, they would be given a "green light".

Would i be right in assuming that you would not necessarily oppose all bourgeois state censorship of the far-right?

This is, of course, a red herring. This issue is not, contrary to what you believe, anything to do with freedom of speech, freedom of thought or freedom of expression. She was not prosecuted because she expressed racist views, she was prosecuted because she was harassing, racially abusing, and threatening people on a train. Surely you must be able to tell the difference.

[#FF0000]

the worst part about vanguard is how he takes people who are undeniable assholes and acts like they are saints

[Vanguard1917]

This is, of course, a red herring. This issue is not, contrary to what you believe, anything to do with freedom of speech, freedom of thought or freedom of expression.

Then Jimmie would be more than happy to answer the question.

[Invader Zim]

Then Jimmie would be more than happy to answer the question.

The question is an off-topic red herring on a barely tangential issue. Why would s/he bother to answer it, except out of indulgence?

And the issue is, of course, a very clouded one. Does the leftist anti-Nazi individual who holds a 'no platform' position object when it is the capitalist state forms a similar policy?

[Vanguard1917]

The question is an off-topic red herring on a barely tangential issue. Why would s/he bother to answer it, except out of indulgence?

To clarify his position. I'm hardly asking for a kidney donation here.



And the issue is, of course, a very clouded one. Does the leftist anti-Nazi individual who holds a 'no platform' position object when it is the capitalist state forms a similar policy?


Yes, of course - if that "no platform position" involves laws against free speech and other such political freedoms.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Then Jimmie would be more than happy to answer the question.The question of if I support crackdowns on free-speech by the government:

I've answered this straw-man many times in this thread already: no I don't. I don't think threatening and harassing people counts as "free speech" even in bourgeois legalistic terms. To want this person to be let off in this stand-alone case is the demand special treatment for a white-supremacist. If this had been a leftist harassing rich people, I'd be more sympathetic, but other than raise some solidarity money for bail and a lawyer, we wouldn't have much of a case for someone getting off and "free-speech" would be weak grounds to base the case on.

So when we counter-protest NAZIs or the Minutemen are we hindering free-speech? I mean if someone stood outside a Mosque with a Nazi flag and and shouted "go home" to people coming in and out, if we did a counter-demo wouldn't we be stopping free-speech by your definition?

[Hiero]

This is, of course, a red herring. This issue is not, contrary to what you believe, anything to do with freedom of speech, freedom of thought or freedom of expression. She was not prosecuted because she expressed racist views, she was prosecuted because she was harassing, racially abusing, and threatening people on a train. Surely you must be able to tell the difference.

And the punishment does not fit the crime, she does not deserve to be jailed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And the punishment does not fit the crime, she does not deserve to be jailed.She deserves to be kicked out the country after being paraded around London on the back of a donkey whilst wearing a dunce cap - but in terms of this case what do you think would be appropriate?

She plead guilty to a second offense, got sentenced to 1/2 of the possible time and will most likely only serve 1/2 of that.

[Vanguard1917]

I've answered this straw-man many times in this thread already: no I don't. I don't think threatening and harassing people counts as "free speech" even in bourgeois legalistic terms.

Would you support the state censoring far-right propaganda if it could be interpreted as 'threatening'?



I mean if someone stood outside a Mosque with a Nazi flag and and shouted "go home" to people coming in and out, if we did a counter-demo wouldn't we be stopping free-speech by your definition?


As i have made clear a number of times in this thread, i oppose all restrictions to free speech by the bourgeois state. The fact that you so casually conflate counter-demonstrations and ruling-class suppression, reveals the un-Marxist nature of your approach to this issue.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Would you support the state censoring far-right propaganda if it could be interpreted as 'threatening'?No not in the abstract. But in this concrete situation of the two outcomes: one in which she is treated according to the laws as they exist now, or if she is given tacit approval by the state at a time of increased hostility and scapegoating of immigrants, this is the better outcome for the class struggle. Her arrest certainty does nothing to help people defend themselves better, but at least it doesn't give approval that threatening immigrants in public is protected by "free speech".


As i have made clear a number of times in this thread, i oppose all restrictions to free speech by the bourgeois state. The fact that you so casually conflate counter-demonstrations and ruling-class suppression, reveals the un-Marxist nature of your approach to this issue.:rolleyes: I wasn't arguing that they were the same, my point was that racist threats and fascist flags are not merely expressions of "speech" they aren't some abstract argument. Do we counter-demonstrate the NAZI in this example just be cause we don't like the ideas, the expression? No, we fight it because they are trying, through their presence and symbolism and theatrics, to intimidate people and remind them of the "proper social order".

My approach is Marxist because it is based in theory, but acknowledges the concrete reality of this situation. At best your position is un-marxist because it is ridged idealism. Abstract free-speech doesn't exist. If you don't want the state to continue the crack down on rights, then build a movement against it, but for god sakes don't ignore it and then get on a high-horse to then defend a racist harassing immigrants. Yes workers need to defend their rights in bourgeois society and I'm all for that and fighting for free speech, but I'm not going to blindly defend a manifestation of a different attack on rights (the right not to be fucking harassed and threatened with violence and arrest for having olive or brown skin or an accent) that is being promoted by the ruling class.

[Hiero]

She deserves to be kicked out the country after being paraded around London on the back of a donkey whilst wearing a dunce cap - but in terms of this case what do you think would be appropriate?

She plead guilty to a second offense, got sentenced to 1/2 of the possible time and will most likely only serve 1/2 of that.

Glad to see you so approve of the legal systems, least it makes it clear what side you are on.



but acknowledges the concrete reality of this situation.


No you don't. The concrete reality was a working mother from a marganised class was sent to prison, removing her her children and further abilitiy to protect her and her family from effects povety. She is not a perpetrator of the system but a victim of it. In the scape goating of immigrants, both the lowest tiers of working class and working migrants are victims.

You're approach is not Marxist, as it fails completly when facing a challenging situation. You are an opurtunist choosing a easy response to a difficult situation. I get the feeling you have never been around working people in your live.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Glad to see you so approve of the legal systems, least it makes it clear what side you are on.Excuse me, do you have any friends who spent years rotting in a California prison?

You're demanding special treatment for a anti-immigrant racist you're and asking me which side I'm on?


No you don't. The concrete reality was a working mother from a marganised class was sent to prison, removing her her children and further abilitiy to protect her and her family from effects povety.Yeah and millions of others, but they aren't racists wanting to deport non-whites.


She is not a perpetrator of the system but a victim of it.No she's supporting reactionary ideas and anti-immigrant scapegoating. Tea Party people and Nazis can be workers and can be victims of the system, dosn't mean we should support them just because some of their members might work for a wage.


You're approach is not Marxist, as it fails completly when facing a challenging situation. You are an opurtunist choosing a easy response to a difficult situation. I get the feeling you have never been around working people in your live.Come out to East Oakland or visit me on the graveyard shift motherfucker. Fuck your smarmy comments, you don't know shit.

[Hiero]

Excuse me, do you have any friends who spent years rotting in a California prison?

You're demanding special treatment for a anti-immigrant racist you're and asking me which side I'm on? Fuck you, you don't know shit.

Special treament? I demand fairness, compassion and understanding. I don't see how criticising the class nature of the law has anything to do with demanding special treament. The women was an easy target for the police to reassure public opinion that the subway is safe and the police department is anit-racist. It was a public scam and you bought it.

And I don't care who you know or who your friends are, your line is wrong and pro-establishment. It ignores how racism works, and who are the victims. Do you honestly think the best way to fix racism is arrest everyone? I live in Australia, it would be one huge gulag here.

[Hiero]

Tea Party people and Nazis can be workers


She is neither. She is the underclass who misrecongises her class position as the result of immigration, the result of ruling class ideology.


Come out to East Oakland or visit me on the graveyard shift motherfucker. Fuck your smarmy comments, you don't know shit.


Took a few edits to get that one out. You do a grave yard shift at East Oaklan Penitentiary? Are you sure your friends aren't really inmates you supervise?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Special treament? I demand fairness, compassion and understanding. I don't see how criticising the class nature of the law has anything to do with demanding special treament.Why is she more deserving of understanding than immigrants?


The women was an easy target for the police to reassure public opinion that the subway is safe and the police department is anit-racist. It was a public scam and you bought it.That would imply that I think that the police are anti-racist or that the courts care about the well being and rights of immigrants. I don't.

So according to your own characterization above, it would have been better if she had been let off so that people wouldn't be duped and consaquentally every BNP member and anti-immigrant ultra or nazi group could know that the police have their backs when they want to threaten and intimidate people?


And I don't care who you know or who your friends are, your line is wrong and pro-establishment. It ignores how racism works, and who are the victims. Who are the real victims? Not people demanding restrictions on immigrants

Do you honestly think the best way to fix racism is arrest everyone? I live in Australia, it would be one huge gulag here.[/QUOTE]Do you honestly think that straw-man can walk? No. I've said a half dozen times at this point that THIS IS NOT THE WAY WE CAN WIN JUSTICE, IT'S JUST A BETTER OUTCOME THAN TACIT APPROVAL OF RACIST VIGILANTE THREATS!

7 million people in the US jails - 40% African American (who are like 12% of the population); the rise of anti-immigrant fascism, stoked by the ruling class and championed by a new wave of European fascist movements; Restrictions on immigrant rights and demonetization of Muslims in Europe, the UK and the US... and suddenly this one case is "an attack on free-speech"!?

[Jimmie Higgins]

She is neither. She is the underclass who misrecongises her class position as the result of immigration, the result of ruling class ideology.From those articles about this case, she's an assistant to some professional of some kind. I don't know where you are getting "underclass" from unless you are stereotyping her based on her accent.

At any rate, some workers who are attracted to Nazi-ism... what is that a case of if not one who: "mis-recongises her class position as the result of immigration (other races, nationalityis, religions), the result of ruling class ideology."

1. If her mis-recognition of her class position and social hardships is a reflection of ruling class ideology, what do you think it would mean if the system also allowed anyone reflecting that ideology a free-pass and a slap on the wrist? Would that help or hurt the ruling class in making the scapegoated groups feel like second class citizens?

2. So that Scandinavian anti-immigrant mass-shooter. You think he should have been released too? He was obviously mis-recognizing things. Or do you support the cops and prison system?


Took a few edits to get that one out. You do a grave yard shift at East Oaklan Penitentiary? Are you sure your friends aren't really inmates you supervise?Are you drunk? What the fuck are you talking about?

[Hiero]

Are you drunk? What the fuck are you talking about? I am talking about you acting all ghetto.


HIS IS NOT THE WAY WE CAN WIN JUSTICE, IT'S JUST A BETTER OUTCOME THAN TACIT APPROVAL OF RACIST VIGILANTE THREATS!

Yes I support racists vigilantes. Your caplocks forced that statement out of me, you must be a lawyer.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am talking about you acting all ghetto.Because I swore, that's "ghetto"? Or because I live in a working class area and am actually a low-paid worker?

I wasn't swearing to "act ghetto" I swore because you were being personally insulting and claiming that I've never met a working class person. I countered with the facts of my life, here's some more: come visit the town I grew up in which is one of the Meth capitals of the state and also one of the leading counties for foreclosures in the US. Come visit my apartment in Oakland if you really think I'm some kind of elite who never interacts with regular people:rolleyes:.

If you do visit, I wouldn't go around saying people "act ghetto" if I were you - folks kinda take that to be patronizing and elitist.


Yes I support racists vigilantes. Your caplocks forced that statement out of me, you must be a lawyer (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#). Well you seemed to have some trouble understanding what I've written so I thought caplocks might make it easier. Apparently it didn't because I wasn't arguing that you are tacitly racist, I was arguing that if the courts dismissed this case then that would be tacit approval by the courts for people harassing immigrants.

[Hiero]

Because I swore, that's "ghetto"? Or because I live in a working class area and am actually a low-paid worker?

I wasn't swearing to "act ghetto" I swore because you were being personally insulting and claiming that I've never met a working class person. I countered with the facts of my life, here's some more: come visit the town I grew up in which is one of the Meth capitals of the state and also one of the leading counties for foreclosures in the US. Come visit my apartment in Oakland if you really think I'm some kind of elite who never interacts with regular people:rolleyes:.

If you do visit, I wouldn't go around saying people "act ghetto" if I were you - folks kinda take that to be patronizing and elitist.

Well you seemed to have some trouble understanding what I've written so I thought caplocks might make it easier. Apparently it didn't because I wasn't arguing that you are tacitly racist, I was arguing that if the courts dismissed this case then that would be tacit approval by the courts for people harassing immigrants.

I stoped caring once you started acting like an arse towards me.

You made a statement that uncritically supported a prison sentance, I get that, lets just leave it at that.

[Hiero]

My problem with you Jimmie Higgins, is you lack the creative and sociological imagination to try and understand how a women came to the point in her life where she would publicly abuse a migrant. You can't for a moment conjure the intellect to work through the possibilities of this women's situation, the situation of inter ethnic conflict in the working class and the negative effects of policing (which is a band aid problem for social causes). For you she is merely a racist white and a conduit of ruling class ideology. In that case, an addict is just a junkie, a thug is just a violent person, a poor person is just someone who lacks success and drive. Your lack of sociological imagination if applied to different fields repeates ruling class ideas, your whole arguement is a hegemonic one, predominantly the poorly planned multicultural discourse.

In fact you revert to a reactionary stance. You sling sensationalist claims that are insidious, that by criticising the modern legal system that I am somehow defending this women and demand special treatment. You claim that I want to let her have a free pass and by doing so would become an commencement for more racial violence in an organised sense.

How would your statements look if this was in regards to drugs, or crime in ethnic or indigenous communities. If I was to say that by trying to comprehend how people come to be dependent on drugs, looking at the wider discourses or that looking at the barriers to work and wider cultural acceptance for migrants as a cause for crime that I was given them a free pass and that would instigate further drug use or crime I would be seen as a conservative by left wing and liberal political standards.

What you have done is taken a very conservative stance under the guise of protecting migrants and anti-racist politics. It is quite frustrating that you would then further your conservative streak under such sensationalist bullshit, by making unfunded and hysterical claims that any ‘light treatment’ would give free pass to NAZIS and Tea Part racism. As if the whole social order of multiculturalism depended on policing the rage of white working people.


What I have done is try to provide a clear sociological perspective on this incident, what you have done is try to drag that down into claims of "tacit support” for Nazis and the tea party.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My problem with you Jimmie Higgins, is you lack the creative and sociological imagination to try and understand how a women came to the point in her life where she would publicly abuse a migrant. You can't for a moment conjure the intellect to work through the possibilities of this women's situation, the situation of inter ethnic conflict in the working class and the negative effects of policing (which is a band aid problem for social causes).Well first of all this woman no doubt had a better job and made more money that me, Second, so what, it's mixed consciousness. I grew up where Rush Limbaugh first became popular and the street-gangs where I lived were white-power gangs. It's mixed consciousness and most of us are surrounded by it.


For you she is merely a racist white and a conduit of ruling class ideology. In that case, an addict is just a junkie, a thug is just a violent person, a poor person is just someone who lacks success and drive. Your lack of sociological imagination if applied to different fields repeates ruling class ideas, your whole arguement is a hegemonic one, predominantly the poorly planned multicultural discourse.What are you on about? Multicultural discourse?


In fact you revert to a reactionary stance. You sling sensationalist claims that are insidious, that by criticising the modern legal system that I am somehow defending this women and demand special treatment. You claim that I want to let her have a free pass and by doing so would become an commencement for more racial violence in an organised sense.What are you arguing for specifically then? In the abstract should there be the capitalist police or courts or bourgeois society at all - no, of course not. But, given the narrow possible outcomes here, what do you think would have been the best outcome for this case?


How would your statements look if this was in regards to drugs, or crime in ethnic or indigenous communities.These behaviors are a natural consequence of inequality as is fighting over crumbs, but drug-use and petty theft are a world away from being a scab or supporting the deportation or oppression of a portion of the working class. Serious drug or alcohol addiction probably doesn't help an individual be a good militant or radical, but it doesn't actively undermine and hurt our classes ability to fight back in general.


If I was to say that by trying to comprehend how people come to be dependent on drugs, looking at the wider discourses or that looking at the barriers to work and wider cultural acceptance for migrants as a cause for crime that I was given them a free pass and that would instigate further drug use or crime I would be seen as a conservative by left wing and liberal political standards.This analogy doesn't work. If you write a paper about mixed consciousness, specifically racism, it doesn't make more people racist. If a judge ruled it was OK to smoke weed on the train, then yes, people who liked to smoke weed would feel more emboldened and entitled to do so themselves. But I don't care if people smoke weed or shoot heroin, I do care if people are conscientiously trying to intimidate sections of the working class with the support of the ruling class.


What you have done is taken a very conservative stance under the guise of protecting migrants and anti-racist politics. It is quite frustrating that you would then further your conservative streak under such sensationalist bullshit, by making unfunded and hysterical claims that any ‘light treatment’ would give free pass to NAZIS and Tea Part racism. As if the whole social order of multiculturalism depended on policing the rage of white working people.I'm not sure what you mean by multiculturalism, but I think organizing a multi-racial movement that builds solidarity and shows the power of workers to stand up to racists and the system as a whole is the way to fight racism and build for the class struggle. Worrying about the "free-speech" of people who are trying to intimidate people in harmony with the demonization and oppression of specific groups of workers, won't help us build that movement. It will help us build an elite liberal organization like the ACLU.

Court-cases in general won't help us build that movement, but it's better in this specific case that the court didn't rule that "free speech" includes intimidating people.


What I have done is try to provide a clear sociological perspective on this incident, what you have done is try to drag that down into claims of "tacit support” for Nazis and the tea party.The sociological perspective of this incident is that anti-immigrant fascism is trying to present itself as mainstream: the BNP, the Le Pen-ites, the Golden Dawn, etc. The ruling class is helping to fan this and is even flirting with some of these fringe-elements while distancing themselves from it because they want to push austerity down on the entire class. In order to do this they need to divide us and scapegoat some of the population for the effects of this austerity. In this context, to condone people taking it apon themselves to be border-patrol and to remind people "of their place" helps the ruling class to legitimize this process.

[Hiero]

Well first of all this woman no doubt had a better job and made more money that me, Second, so what, it's mixed consciousness. I grew up where Rush Limbaugh first became popular and the street-gangs where I lived were white-power gangs. It's mixed consciousness and most of us are surrounded by it.I don't know what mixed consciousness is. And I don't know what the rest has to do with it.



What are you on about? Multicultural discourse?
You lack context or don't care for it. Also what don't you understand by multicultural discourse.


What are you arguing for specifically then? In the abstract should there be the capitalist police or courts or bourgeois society at all - no, of course not. But, given the narrow possible outcomes here, what do you think would have been the best outcome for this case?Do I have to be arguing for something?


These behaviors are a natural consequence of inequality as is fighting over crumbs, but drug-use and petty theft are a world away from being a scab or supporting the deportation or oppression of a portion of the working class. Serious drug or alcohol addiction probably doesn't help an individual be a good militant or radical, but it doesn't actively undermine and hurt our classes ability to fight back in general. You are going off into a tangent, the point was you don't look at the drug user in its singularity, you look at him/her in a wider context.

And also, drug addiction and alcohol addiction does undermine and hurt working class ability to fight back. I thought that would be obvious.



I do care if people are conscientiously trying to intimidate sections of the working class with the support of the ruling class.This was a single outburst, this was not marching up and down the street buring and looting. And the support of the ruling class? The police and courts send her to prison. If anything the ruling class punished her.



but I think organizing a multi-racial movement that builds solidarity and shows the power of workers to stand up to racists and the system as a whole is the way to fight racism and build for the class struggle. And who do you think are going to organise with? If you are Marxist you understand ruling class ideology to permeate the working class. You abadon sections of the white working classes to fascism because you don't have the guts to deal with them. Whats next, do you want the working class to march in pre indoctrinated, save you the work of idoctrinating them yourself? That is why your movement is so small.


Worrying about the "free-speech" of people who are trying to intimidate people in harmony with the demonization and oppression of specific groups of workers, won't help us build that movement. It will help us build an elite liberal organization like the ACLU.

Court-cases in general won't help us build that movement, but it's better in this specific case that the court didn't rule that "free speech" includes intimidating people.You need to go back and read my posts, I have not been talking about 'free speach'. I don't care about free speech. You keep attributing it to me, but I never brought in the topic of free speech.



The sociological perspective of this incident is that anti-immigrant fascism is trying to present itself as mainstream: the BNP, the Le Pen-ites, the Golden Dawn, etc. The ruling class is helping to fan this and is even flirting with some of these fringe-elements while distancing themselves from it because they want to push austerity down on the entire class. In order to do this they need to divide us and scapegoat some of the population for the effects of this austerity. In this context, to condone people taking it apon themselves to be border-patrol and to remind people "of their place" helps the ruling class to legitimize this process. This women isn't a fascist and the ruling class is not synonymous. You are transfusing a global macro context in localised contexts.

Also fascism is actually a petty-bourgeois and middle class political ideology. It is alot more complex then you have imagined, where in reality the ruling classes actually support some form of immigration. To garner support the ruling parties promote that they actually control the borders and the nation. That "yes there are immigrants but we control them" under multicultural discourse, that people will have their own cultures but we will maintian control and everyone will play along. Mainstream parties are now are criticising muliticultural discourses.

In the lower level people will 'police' the nation, based on their opinion of birth right (their whiteness and claim to goverance over the nation). Ruling class ideology at the moment is multicultural discourse, not fascism. I have covered all this in an earlier post and referenced some great sources. Go back and have a look.

What you are not able to confeses to is that the working class you rely so heavily on in your Marxist inspired idea of working class solidarity, is thoroughly fragemented with racist ideas. I mean you have made it theoritical easy, if you dismiss working class people who are racists (place them in the same catergory as staunch fascists), what are you really left with? What your marxists fail to understand is how ideas can actually be created by working class people, and thoose ideas may be thoroughly racists.

[Vanguard1917]

From those articles about this case, she's an assistant to some professional of some kind. I don't know where you are getting "underclass" from unless you are stereotyping her based on her accent.

She was an office secretary. I say "was" because she has been sacked for this incident and will be unemployed when she leaves prison.

So i guess it's not just the bourgeois state which sometimes "gets it right", it's employers too... ;)

[Jimmie Higgins]

She was an office secretary. I say "was" because she has been sacked for this incident and will be unemployed when she leaves prison.

So i guess it's not just the bourgeois state which sometimes "gets it right", it's employers too... ;)

The ministry of justice stated in a report last year that non-whites are 38 percent more likely to be imprisoned for public disorder than whites in the UK.

And yet this case of a 2 time offender who pleaded guilty getting 1/2 of the sentence is a rising threat to the class?

Get some perspective.

This case is the exception to the rule (see the 38% above) and allowing a precedent to be set that it's "free speech" for people to harass migrants would be more dangerous than the current status-quo of legal repression because then EDL could go on trains and do the same as "free speech" and BNP could go into Muslim areas and demand papers from people and intimidate all protected under "free speech".

If marxists were arguing for a strategy against racists which meant creating new restrictive laws or using the courts to fight the fight, then you would be correct in saying that we are undermining ourselves: I think the bigger problem than "arming the state" is that it would not help people organize themselves against racism and just wouldn't be effective because the system wants to maintain racism. But this is not the case here and so your whole argument is flawed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

She is the underclass who misrecongises her class position as the result of immigration, the result of ruling class ideology.
So I replied...

From those articles about this case, she's an assistant to some professional of some kind. I don't know where you are getting "underclass" from unless you are stereotyping her based on her accent.
But then you defended Hiero's statement...

She was an office secretary. I say "was" because she has been sacked for this incident and will be unemployed when she leaves prison.So she blames immigrants because they caused her to loose her job (in the future) because she blamed immigrants?

Hmm, someone missed their daily logic-pill.

No she's not "underclass" she's a worker with anti-worker views. But her personally is not the point. The point is what is a better outcome for the class: if the law is upheld and applied, or if harassing immigrants is given a pass by the system?

[Vanguard1917]

The point is what is a better outcome for the class: if the law is upheld and applied, or if harassing immigrants is given a pass by the system?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Circular_Intersection_sign.svg/220px-Circular_Intersection_sign.svg.png

[Invader Zim]

And the punishment does not fit the crime, she does not deserve to be jailed.

Granted, but that isn't the issue I was talking about. Provided we accept that what she did was criminal and not covered by the right to freedom of speech, then we can have a serious discussion regarding reasonable 'justice', deterrence, rehabilitation and the merits/failings of incarceration in these instances. But first we have to agree that this was a crime.

[Robocommie]

Jacqueline Woodhouse is going to be out of jail before this thread is over.