Jail Threat for Using Racist Word - Word="Paki", as used by Cheney...

[Pert_UK]

Am I imagining it, or did Cheney refer to the people of Pakistan as "Pakis" during an interview? (Edited to say "Cheney" as it was him, not Bush as I originally thought).

"A man could be the first in the UK to be jailed for using a specific term of abuse after a court banned him for life from using it.

Michael Guilfoyle faces being imprisoned for using the word "Paki" in public, under the terms of an anti-social behaviour order, imposed by magistrates in Manchester....

The order, imposed last Thursday, came less than a month after a football fan was banned from all Premiership and Nationwide League grounds for three years after using the word "Paki" in racist chants. "

Full story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3145081.stm

[rooboy]

1. But here in Australia...

we refer to the 'Pakis' when talking about their cricket team all the time. It's got the same ring as "Aussies" and has no racist import at all...

So I guess it depends either on where you say it or how you say it.

[Pert_UK]

6. In the UK it always has racial overtones.....

Although "Paki" is one of those words that slips through the net sometimes. For example, I have some good friends who are not racist but who would refer to the local shop as "The Paki Shop", because local shops are often run by people from Pakistan/India (the only people prepared to work such long hours for such little pay).

The problem with it is that it's a) very often used on its own to be derogatory, in the same way that "Chink" might be used and b) it's used indiscrimately to refer to anyone from Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka etc.

"Paki" would NEVER be used in polite/formal circumstances in the UK. I'm not being over-sensitive on this one.

Anyway, you bloody Aussies get away with it because you shorten EVERYTHING and add an "ee" sound on the end!!!

:evilgrin:

P.

[rooboy]

8. I would take issue with one thing you wrote...

"Paki" would NEVER be used in polite/formal circumstances in the UK

Whilst Prince Philip is still alive, it's dangerous to assert that an offensive statement would never be made in formal circumstances.
:) :)

[Pert_UK]

10. ROFL!!! I remember seeing a cartoon about him....

Prince Phillip being briefed prior to a visit to a disabled African support centre.....

Hilarious, if you have a dark sense of humour.....

Of course the Duke himself brings nothing but shame, humiliation and taramasalata to the UK.

:evilgrin:

P.

[Sapphocrat]

11. Rooboy...

Honest to goodness, I thought "Paki" in Australia carried the equivalent weight as "Abbo" -- i.e., not exactly the "N-word" Down Under, but borderline-questionable; i.e., not really derogatory, but you wouldn't want to risk saying "Paki" to a Pakistani or "Abbo" to an Aborginal person just in case.

Am I wrong? Educate me, mate!

Sign me,
Yank Who KNOWS Not to Use "Boonga"!

[Pert_UK]

12. Good point.........

This shouldn't be taken out of context. There's a lot of racism here......

A HUGE number of people refer to Aborigines as "Abbos" and it's usually in a derogatory way. I reckon that Paki falls into the same bracket.

P.

[Mal]

23. Nah, you're wrong

To us, 'Paki' is on par with 'Aussie', 'Pom', and even a trifle cleaner than the practically-socially-acceptable 'Wog'.
So it was a bit of a suprise when a Pakistani (years ago on telly, think it was cricket-related) said that they found it offensive, that it was derogatory in Pakistan. It was "Yeah? Shit, mate, sorry. Didn't know. Glad ya told us"
Still a bit stuck on what else to call 'em; I mean, to the average cricket yobbo, "Pakistani" has FAR too many syllables.
Maybe the "Stani's"? (said Starnees)

[Pert_UK]

52. Well.....

IMHO (for what it's worth) if the Aussies (which has NO negative connotations) stopped refer to the Pakistani team as Pakis once they knew it was offensive then fair enough.

The trouble is, it's not really what YOU think, it's what the person being referred to thinks. Whilst there are too many "thin skinned" people in this world who cannot take a joke or fair criticism, I think that if someone finds the terms you use to describe them as being genuinely offensive then you should stop using those terms out of respect for the individual.

The Australians have a wonderful and amusing habit of abbreviating BLOODY EVERYTHING as far as I can tell. I don't imagine that referring to the Pakistan team as "Stanis" would cause too much offence, it's just unfortunate that the original abbreviation coincided with a racist term.

However, it's up to the Pakistan team / people to determine what is / isn't an acceptable way to refer to them.

P.

[bluestateguy]

2. Censorship of "hate speech" is as bad as censorship of criticism of govt.

There is no constitutional right to not be offended in the United States.

[Pert_UK]

5. Errrr..........what?

I'm probably misunderstanding, but as far as I can tell your phrase equates to "People should be able to say racist things".

This guy was verbally abusive two council workers using racist and homophobic language.......and you think he should be allowed to do that?

In the UK you are not allowed to racially abuse people, which is what he did.

I agree that one should be able to use the words in context. For example, I can say "He called them 'Pakis', and 'Paki' is an offensive term in the UK", but if I stood there shouting "You f*cking Paki!" at someone from Asia I would be arrested. Rightfully so, IMHO.

"Paki" is not just shorthand for "Pakistani" in the UK, it has racist connotations in the same way that Chink for Chinese does.

P.

[BiggJawn]

7. That's right Pert, in the US people have the right to say stupid stuff.

Like John Rocker, and that rap-dude named after the candy (M and M), your average saturday morning marching in the town square Klansman...

The downside for them is that if the rest of us choose to shun the blithering idiots and not contribute to their income anymore, we have THAT right, too.

You can be ARRESTED for calling someone a "Paki" in the UK?

Interesting. Pretty stringent consequence compared to us...

[Pert_UK]

9. You can be arrested for threatening or abusive behaviour in the UK...

And calling someone "a fucking Paki" could be regarded like that - it would certainly be regarded as racist, and racist abuse must be regarded as threatening...

However, you wouldn't always get arrested for it - this guy had a history of racially abusing people and they'd tried to stop him from doing it. Now they've told him that if he does it again, using "Paki" specifically, then he'll go to jail.

Regarding the football "fan", IIRC a group of visiting fans had chanted "You're just a town of Pakis" during a match against a town that had previously had serious racial tensions between "locals" and Asian immigrants in the town. The Football Association is trying really hard to get racism out of football, as there are still instances of black players being abused on the pitch....of course there are hardly ANY Asian players to abuse....

P.

[Ozirus]

14. Racist slurs threatening?

You guys in the UK are whack. Haven't you guys ever heard

Sticks and stones may break bones but WORDS will never hurt you?

Geez, we learn that when we are kids.

- Ozirus -

[Pert_UK]

15. So......you'd feel comfortable with people shouting abuse at you?

Sorry, but f*ck that. This guy has made repeated threats and used racist and offensive language.

I have no trouble with it being used in drama, academia and possibly (given "freedom of speech") private conversation, but I am happy that in my country it is illegal to shout racist abuse at a person of any race, purely based on that race.

You will note that he was also banned from making homophobic remarks.

Sorry, I know that there will always be arseholes who are racist and homophobic, but their freedom to speak stops when their foul and threatening words reach the ear of someone who is affected by it.

You cannot be suggesting that there should be no sanctions in place to restrain the racial abuse of people, surely?

P.

[BiggJawn]

22. Well, with all our faults, I'm glad I'm HERE, then...

"... but their freedom to speak stops when their foul and threatening words reach the ear of someone who is affected by it."

Interesting play on the opinion "The right to swing one's fists ends at the tip of another's nose..." Not the same thing, I'm afraid.

As thin-skinned as your typical Murkan Lim-bot Sheeple is, Arschloch's agents would be scooping up Democrats like that scene out of "Soylent Green"

Now I see where this concept of "Hate Speech" came from. It's a UK import, right?

Well, take it back. Send more Raliegh bicycles instead.

[Spentastic]

24. I'm glad you are there too then

Try coming to the U.K and calling someone a Paki.

What does that freedom fo speech afford you other than the right to incite? There are limits to your speech already. Try threatening the life of the President in public see what happens, don't get all high and mighty.

[BiggJawn]

31. Spen, I wouldn't call someone a "Paki" HERE...

what makes you think I want to go to the UK and do it?

BTW, your comparison to "threatening the life of the President" is the WORST form of debate argument I've seen in a while, as is your inference that the Holocaust was caused by "name calling".
I think it's called "Apples and Oranges".

As for your suggestion that we shout "Bomb" in an airport, one of our past SCOTUM justices opined that "Free Speech does not include the right to yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre."

I still stand by my original opinion: Threatening arrest for calling someone a pejorative name is ludicrous.

Talk about getting "all high and mighty"....

[Spentastic]

90. Absolute bollocks

"BTW, your comparison to "threatening the life of the President" is the WORST form of debate argument I've seen in a while, as is your inference that the Holocaust was caused by "name calling".
I think it's called "Apples and Oranges"."

Not at all Mr debating expert. It's the opposite of reducto ad absurdum, but some people seem to require big print arguments in order to aid comprehension. As for apples and oranges I believe the terms of reference are free speech / hate speech and it's impact. Are you are willing to state Nazi demonisation of Jews didn't to some extent include use of language? How did I infer cause? Are you really going to argue that initially the vilification of Jews was not primarily based on propaganda? So would it be fair to say that the Nazis started using language to dehumanise Jews and ended up killing lots of them? You've already admitted that there are limits to your "free speech". I'd say it's pretty much apples and apples. Just seems you don't want it to be.

The man involved has a history of using this pejorative to threaten people. He is using his "freedom of speech" to threaten and demean people due to their race. I'm afraid I don't support his right do that at all.

[demdave]

25. So they can tell you what you can and can't say? Bullshit.....

Can the government REALLY restrict the free speech of its citizens in that way? REALLY? Unbelievable. That's insane.


He was also banned from making homophobic remarks. Was he also forced to call his mother and write a nice thank you note to his Aunt for that birthday gift?



No free speech for fascists. /sacrasm/

[Spentastic]

28. So can yours

Go shout "bomb" in an airport.

[Spentastic]

17. 6000000

people died about 50 years ago,

It all started with name calling.

[demdave]

26. And milk drinking

every one of those Nazis drank milk as a child.


Stop it before it is too late.

[Spentastic]

89. Well

Personal attacks are banned in this forum unfortunately.

However, I think I'm within the rules to say that anyone posting such facile twaddle is likely to be intellectually and emotionally stunted. They may even appear to their fellow human beings to be complete imbeciles.

[GCP]

21. re "Racist slurs threatening"

So you're thinking of exercising your rights of free speech and going up to Harlem and shouting "You're all a bunch of niggers"?

Can we see tape of it at 11?

[demdave]

27. Yes, we will all see the tape of the dead idot racist on TV.

But legally, are you ALLOWED to do this. Yes.

Just give me time to set up the camera so I get a good angle.

[zizzer]

92. Um...

Didn't the British Advertising Board OK the use of "Kraut" in TV cmmercials in reference to Germans? This was a ruling from maybe two years ago.

So, tell us...what is it like to live without the freedom of speach?

Zizzer

[Democat]

13. Free speech is sometimes attacked by the far left

Some on the far left don't think that racist or sexist speech should be protected by the constitution because it is offensive, just like some of the far right don't think that speech that offends them should be legal.

As you say, no one has a right to not be offended.

[Orangepeel]

3. I think it was Cheney. n/t

[NYC]

4. Cheney definitely said it.

.

[muffit]

16. I agree, Stick and Stone may Break my Bones, but names will .....

Yeah, maybe we Aussies are more relaxed down here, or perhaps were just a bit slower at adopting this "political correctness"

I have always wondered with these why they are offensive. If you are proud of your heritage, why would some one calling you a Paki, when after all your heritage is from that part of the world be considered an offense ? Shoud I be offended when some calls me an Aussie ? Or tells me that I live Down Under ? Or says something about convicts ?Gee, you'll have to do better than that to offend me.

Can I get thrown in Jail in the US for calling you guys Yanks ? Is that the same thing ? What about the Washington Redskins, surely this is offensive if calling someone a Paki can get you into jail ? Gee, I'd better be careful if I ever travel, in my opinion this political ocrrectness has gone too far, they are only names, if I am being called some name by someone I will either ignore them, or try to come back with some witty comment, but giving them some sort of negative reaction, is exactly the worse thing you can do, especially if they ment it in a derogitory way.

Be proud of your heritage, not ashamed of it. This just makes no sense to me, it is as if these people are ashamed to be who they are.

We had a funny one (well I found it funny because of the stupidity of it) in our football last year. While playing Football it was alleged that one of the players said a racist comment to an Aboriginal player. I was alledged that he called him a Dark C*nt. The player in question said, no I didn't, I called him a Dumb C*nt, and that was ok, so you can call some one a dumb so and so and thats fine, but if you call them a dark so and so, well that is wrong.

Now that is just crazy !!!!!! But it is a true story.

Anyway, we should all learn to get along better with each other, after all we do have to share this planet together regardless of where we start. At least the Irish have a sense of humor when it comes to laughing at themselves, perhaps we could all learn a bit from them. (though I have been told that us Aussies are pretty good at it as well).

[short bus president]

40. Bush definitely did, too

http://monkeyfist.com/articles/804

[Kamika]

18. So what should we call them?

Indians???

[Spentastic]

19. How about

Pakistanis? Or is that too difficult for lazy Yanks ;)

[bicentennial_baby]

29. You're joking right?

How about....Pakistanis?

[Kamika]

88. but what does it matter

i mean whats the difference between pakis and pakistanians except the latter is difficult to say..

yes i am lazy

[Karenina]

38. People. Men. Women. Children.

Does that work for you?

[GregW]

20. Oh, puhlease! It's no more offensive than Yanks, Kiwis, Aussies, or Poms

On second thoughts, make that whinging pommy bastards.

(just kidding boys, just kidding ;-))

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

34. Pakistanis consider use in Great Britain, to be offensive

excerpt -

Both AP and Reuters wire reports of the incident include curious characterizations -- respectively: "The term 'Pakis' is considered by many Pakistanis, particularly in Great Britain, to be offensive"; and "Most Americans are unaware of the sensitivity of the term. In Britain, however, it is considered an ethnic slur toward Pakistanis who emigrated there in large numbers in the 1960s and '70s" -- of the provenance and history of the term, as if the harm were to be mitigated by claims about linguistic obscurity.

And, generally, supporters of the president have defended his use of the slur by the same tactic: it's not problematic because most Americans are unaware that "Paki" is offensive.

This defense is wholly inadequate: it misleads and is irrelevant. First, the term is not new, and while its origin is British, that is a local usage of rather universal reach -- the British media's global spread is second only to that of US media. And, as Bush likes to say, when it suits him and his interests, the US and UK are culturally very close. One of the earliest examples occurred in the Guardian, in 1964, and continually in British media throughout the 60s and 70s. It occurred in US media very early as well, specifically in a racist context -- Charlottesville, Virginia's Daily Progress reported, in 1972 (!), on racial violence against Asian immigrants, which was (and is still) termed "Paki-bashing". Anti-immigrant violence has been reported in the US regularly since that time, and the terms "Paki" and "Paki-bashing" are not as obscure as Bush's erstwhile defenders suggest.

more.............

http://monkeyfist.com/articles/804

[waggawagga]

37. Hahaha

"This defense is wholly inadequate: it misleads and is irrelevant."

You're sounding like that lawyer in the show "Seinfeld".


"First, the term is not new, and while its origin is British, that is a local usage of rather universal reach".

Most people in the US have never heard of the words, "Pakis", "Wogs", "Pommes", etc. This is all Brit slang. If you called someone a "wog" most Americans would probably think you were insulting the French.

[diamond14]

39. educate yourself, waggawagga...link to an American Dictionary

the term is clearly OFFENSIVE here in America...and just because you don't read the dictionary, and make assumptions about 'most people in the US'...such glorious speaking for all Americans is usually not acceptable here at DU...if you can justify that these ethnic insults are acceptable to "most people in the US', please post a link....because IMHO, such insults are only acceptable to a very narrow-minded group of low intelligence here in America....it might really suprise you that there are people living in America who have ancestors from Pakistan, who grew up in Pakistan, who have friends from Pakistan, who know all about England, who grew up in England, or even who just plain don't like ethnic insults and will STAND UP against your ethnic hatred whenever you spew it...


language advisory here for your ethnic insults, waggawagga...if you look at a dictionary, you could educate yourself....
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=561506117

[Pert_UK]

53. I'm afraid it is......

Although it may not be regarded as such in Australia.

However, I think a few Pakistani immigrants to Australia should be asked about whether they're happy to be referred to as "Pakis" before we decide on that.

In the UK, "paki" would be placed in the same box as "Chink" or "Coon" - racist and unacceptable.

P.

[Undemcided]

30. Hardly offensive

It all depends on context.

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

32. Bush used the racist term - "Pakis" on Monday JAN 7, 2002

http://monkeyfist.com/articles/804

Fresh from yet another multiweek vacation, President Bush turned his attention to the very dangerous India-Pakistan conflict (news - web sites). Speaking to reporters about the deteriorating regional conflict on Monday, 7 January, President Bush said --


I don't believe the situation is defused yet, but I do believe there is a way to do so, and we are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis there's a way to deal with their problems without going to war.

-

The obvious and immediate response is to wonder how much worse he wants the situation to become. Using a well-known ethnic slur to describe one side of the conflict is unlikely to defuse anything. Surely any other modern American president, each one of whom has been very less verbally inept than Bush, would have been taken, had he said the same or similar, to be signaling an American preference for the side not slurred. Given the boundless, miasmic fog of verbal expression which Bush inhabits, one might conclude that it was merely a slip, of tongue or brain, and not worth further thought.

Both AP and Reuters wire reports of the incident include curious characterizations -- respectively: "The term 'Pakis' is considered by many Pakistanis, particularly in Great Britain, to be offensive"; and "Most Americans are unaware of the sensitivity of the term. In Britain, however, it is considered an ethnic slur toward Pakistanis who emigrated there in large numbers in the 1960s and '70s" -- of the provenance and history of the term, as if the harm were to be mitigated by claims about linguistic obscurity.

more...........

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

33. Cheney on MTP 16 Sept 2001 used "Paks"

excerpt -

Especially if among any of the president's staff can be counted even one careful reader of the New York Times or anyone who listens to or reads the public remarks of VP Cheney, who referred to Pakistanis as -- in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press on 16 September -- "Paks".

The Times ran in response two William Safire columns and an editorial "chiding", as Safire put it, Cheney for such usage and instructing accurately on the use of "Pak" and "Paki" as insulting racial slurs. And, while Bush can hardly be faulted for paying little attention to his VP, Safire clearly and, to the point, recently made it abundantly clear, for whomever in Bush's administration was listening, that "Paki" is unacceptable. Now Bush may not be faulted for not reading the New York Times; he has, as they say, people to do that for him. But the recent discussion of this issue in the Times clearly establishes that referring to Pakistanis as "Pakis" is unacceptable.

more...........

http://monkeyfist.com/articles/804

[susu369]

47. Yes, old news - Cheney saying "Paks" on MTP

In fact, he used the remark more than once. You'd think he would have learned by now!

[Karenina]

35. The "dominant culture"

assumptions of superiority on this thread, with the exception of P_UK are absolutely NAUSEATING. :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[muffit]

42. Pleqase explain what you mean

Hmmm, as far as I am concerned it is not about thinking myself to be superior, but more a lack of understanding of why someone would be offended by this. I have had a look at www.dictionary.com and the word Paki does not have any definition there.

At Askoxford.com it offers the definition - Paki

• noun (pl. Pakis) Brit. informal, offensive, a Pakistani.

But if I look up Yank, the definition is

• noun informal, often derogatory an American.

So is this the same thing is it not, I am an Aussie (I looked that one up and apparently it is not offensive or derogatary, just slang for an Australian). So if I travel over to the US and call you guys Yanks can I get locked up for that ?

Remember, you should be proud of where you come from ?

If you want to refer to us Aussies in a derogatory fashion, what do you call us ? Or is it just that we are we hard to offend ? Water of a ducks back etc...

Someone said earlier that Paki was derogatory bacause large numbers of Pakastaini's came top England in the 1960's-70's. I still don't understand why this would be derogatory. Can someone elabotrate for me.

[diamond14]

43. here's a definition from an american dictionary (link) OFFENSIVE

so please stop claiming that it not offensive...your attitude reflects the hatred and narrow-mindedness that goes with those using ethnic slurs and promulgating racial hatred...

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=paki

[diamond14]

36. bush*: "I'll be doing a little SPADE WORK for the '04 campaign..."

President Meets with Economic Team
Prairie Chapel Ranch
Crawford, Texas
August 13, 2003

-snips- right at end of press conference.....emphasis added....

"And then, of course, I'll be doing a little SPADE WORK for the '04 campaign. (Laughter.) One of the most important political -- (laughter.)

Have a great day. Thank you all."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030813-2.html

[MiltonLeBerle]

41. I haven't heard the term before-

but the picture that first comes into my head is one of a bunch of suits with hardhats and gold-tipped shovels posing for photographers at a ground-breaking ceremony.

is there a history behind the phrase?

[diamond14]

45. yes, a history of racism in America...here is a link to OFFENSIVE

use of the word 'spade', especially in this context....it can be used in other contexts, for example, if one were gardening or playing cards...but the context here is an election campaign, so there is only use applicable...

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=561599742

President Meets with Economic Team
Prairie Chapel Ranch
Crawford, Texas
August 13, 2003

-snips- right at end of press conference.....emphasis added....

"And then, of course, I'll be doing a little SPADE WORK for the '04 campaign. (Laughter.) One of the most important political -- (laughter.)

Have a great day. Thank you all."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030813-2.html

shrub does NOT refer to use of a spade in a garden or use of the spades in playing cards...shrub refers to his political campaign, which is to get certain groups of people to vote for him...and one group is the DEROGATORY and OFFENSIVE 'spade'....examples "I'll be doing a little bob-jones-university work" or "I'll be doing a little ',,,,,' work" or "I'll be doing a little 'pioneer' work".....

the phrase is extremely offensive...like shrub's recent use TWICE of "slavery set us free" in speeches....you would have heard the term if you ever lived in a multi-racial neighborhood during the 50's, 60's or 70's, when finally the use was stopped, just like the use of the "n" word...because good people stood up to racism....we must stand up to RACISM and ETHNIC HATRED whenever it rears it's ugly head again...

[shanti]

70. i'm with you

his racist quotes need to be addressed.

[arikara]

76. Do you remember a couple of years ago

When Mrs. King presented the moran chimp with a portrait of Martin Luther King and he smirked and said "I can't wait to hang it." Of course in print it could be taken both ways, but not if you saw the clip and the way he delivered the line. It was sick.

[demdave]

44. An insult to all selfrespecting shovels.

If the term "spade" used in this context offends you then there is no satisfying yor sensitivities. I would immagine you are just LIVID during a game of SPADES.

[diamond14]

46. 10 ways to fight this hatred and Promote Tolerance at DU (link)

FIGHT HATE AND PROMOTE TOLERANCE from Jimmy Carter Center

http://www.tolerance.org/10_ways/index.html


sign the pledge to fight against this garbage being spewed out on DU

-snips-

"Tolerance is a personal decision that comes from a belief that every person is a treasure. I believe that America's diversity is its strength. I also recognize that ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry can turn that diversity into a source of prejudice and discrimination.

To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."

http://www.tolerance.org/101_tools/declaration.html

[shanti]

72. thank you for that link!

i respect and admire jimmy carter. he is a true compassionate humanitarian.

[DeathvadeR]

48. So whats next? Thinking bad thoughts a crime?

Sounds like the future is bright.....

[shanti]

73. i assume

you've seen "vanilla sky"?

[Pert_UK]

82. Minority Report, Shirley?

Different film, same geezer.

:-)

P.

[Pert_UK]

49. SOME FOLLOW UP INFORMATION.....

I am absolutely stunned by the reaction to this story, but just for your information, here's some errr......information.

As far as I can tell it is not actually illegal to use a word like "Paki" in the UK. However, it is illegal to harass / threaten someone, and if that harrassment has a racial element, then it becomes a racially aggravated crime.

The Crime & Disorder Act 1998

This Act is the one which covers the Racial aspect of crime. S.28 provides a definition of "racially aggravated" crime thus;

"28. - (1) An offence is racially aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if-

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group; or

(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group."

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 states that:

"a person must not pursue a course of conduct-
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other

The law states that " the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other".

In general, as we believe it, you will need to show at least two instances of conduct which constitutes a harassment. " Crown Copyright 1998

http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/georgia/160/archive/9655.htm

Basically, this guy had repeatedly abused council workers using racist terms. Therefore he was guilty of racially aggravated harassment.

In order to stop him harassing people because of their race, they specifically ordered this guy to refrain from using the word "Paki".

I'm happy with this. In fact, I'm over the moon.

P.

[Pert_UK]

50. I cannot believe that NOBODY is supporting this.....

Well OK, maybe there are one or two in there, but basically there seems to be massive support for people being allowed to racially abuse people.....which I find odd.

Here's how it goes.

1. Use of the word "Paki" is offensive in England - it is not an "affectionate abbreviation". It is almost exclusively used in a pejorative way as a term of abuse. In addition, it is used to refer to anyone from Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh - basically, someone using the word won't care where you're from, if you're brown-skinned and look like you're ancestry may lie within 1000 miles of the Indian sub-continent, you're a Paki. This can cause tremendous offence, not least because if you're Indian then you may wholeheartedly object to the behaviour and religion of the Pakistani government.

2. Despite what you may have assumed, it is not (as far as I can tell) illegal to use the word "Paki" in the UK. The Police in the UK regularly protect British Nationalist Party marches from attacks from anti-racist protesters. (The BNP being a "send 'em back where they came from" party with neo-Nazi and deeply racist associations, not to mention several seats on councils, much to my shame). It is not, as far as I can tell, illegal to be a racist in the UK - they cannot pass laws regarding what you believe. It is also not necessarily a crime to express your racist opinions, or use racist language in conversation.

3. It is, however, illegal to harass someone or threaten them. If your harassment is based on the victims race, and if the harassment is couched in racist terminology, then the original crime of harassment becomes a "racially aggravated" crime.

4. The subject of this court order, banning him from using the word "Paki" had repeatedly threatened and harassed Asian council staff, partly due to their race. He had used racist language that caused them offence in the course of his harassment.

5. Harassment itself is a crime, therefore he is not allowed to do it. The racist element isn't itself a crime, but adds an additional factor into the crime - you couldn't be arrested (I think) for just saying "Apu from the Simpsons is a Paki". You could be charged with threatening behaviour for saying "I'm going to kick your head in", and you could be charged with making racially aggravated threats for saying "I'm going to kick your head in you fucking Paki, get back to where you came from".

6. As the harassment itself is illegal, the guy is obviously not allowed to do it. However, as he could conceivably make racist comments without necessarily threatening or breaking another law, the judge in this instance decided to ban him from using specific racist terms that he had used in the past. This is to enable people to work with him without fear of being subjected to racist abuse.

It's not like the whole country has been told we can't use certain words. In essence, the judge has told one horrible little man that he is not allowed to continue subjecting people who are just doing their job to racist abuse.

I CANNOT BELIEVE that the people on DU are screaming "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" and suggesting that everyone somehow has the right to subject others to racist language.

Article 5 of the UN Convention on human rights says:

"No one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading treatment", and I would suggest that being subjected to racial abuse falls under this heading.

Article 19 says, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression", but expressing an opinion is not the same as racially abusing someone.

P.

[diamond14]

51. I STAND UP to racially abusive people...I tried...but

there are SO MANY racial and bigotted remarks on this thread that it's hard to get anyone to stop them....I feel very harrassed by many of these remarks...sadly, it seems that DUers somehow believe they have the right to subject others to racist language

and there seems to a joking, laughing to it...as they make racially insensitive, and abusive remarks and LAUGH....sort of a Clockwork Orange mass-attack-kicking going on...


there are SO MANY remarks in this thread that reflect racial prejudice...it's very hard to fight these trash remarks...

thank you for your post..maybe some here at DU will look at their posts again...and realize that they are harrassing people and subjecting others to their racist speech..it's just unacceptable for this to be allowed in the name of 'freedom of speech', which is the typical bigot attitude...it is used against Jewish people, Black people, and now, people from Pakistan and others, including Muslims, Arabs, it's the newest group for the 'superiors' to degrade...

those who watch this in SILENCE are accepting it...and I am saddened by those who believe that racially abusive and bigotted remarks are now acceptable here at DU...and as you so poignantly note, DUers on this thread clearly feel that they have a right to subject others to their racially abusive language...

[Pert_UK]

54. I take your point and welcome support but I don't think...

that people are intending to be racist here.

The trouble is, people are effectively saying, "I use the word Paki without any racist connotation. It's an abbreviation for 'Pakistani', I'm not racist, and would never intend to cause any racial offensive by it. Therefore, it's not racist."

This argument doesn't work. "Paki" is a loaded term that is generally regarded as having negative, racist connotations. IIRC it has NEVER been an acceptable abbreviation in the UK, for the reasons I've given.

I am unable to speak for the Pakistani immigrant population of the US and Australia, but my suspicion is that they would generally be unhappy to be referred to using that term, even if the person using it was unaware of the connotations.

What I don't understand is why people on here are saying "I use the word Paki without meaning to be racist, so it's not racist" rather than "I didn't realise that the word had racist connotations, and will stop using it".

I genuinely believe that the posters on here are NOT racist and I would not accuse them of being racist. But I am also very puzzled as to why there's such a backlash against a judge taking a firm anti-racist stance....

[diamond14]

55. its a VERY offensive term, according to an american dictionary

these DUers arguments remind me of the same arguments that I heard as a child to justify racially offensive terms for Black people (like the 'n' word)...I remember when Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture once spoke on an airplane to somebody (maybe Pat Boone??)...anyhow, what he said was "those n***ers only want three thinks...loose shoes, a ***** woman, and a warm place to ****" and for that remark...he had to resign (essentially fired)...but under this new shrub regime...even DUers feel free to speak in racially offensive terms here...which is sad....

the reality for many people with biggoted attitudes is that they have a RIGHT to speak so crudely and abrasively, and a RIGHT to abuse others with their racist remarks...you can only tell what is in their minds by the racist words they speak...

I fully agree that the word PAKI is offensive...one fellow that I work with broke down in tears upon hearing the pResident say it...

Here is dictionary PROOF that the term PAKI is offensive in America...yet, even here, DUers try to justify such abusive language in abhorent ways...and is is precisely this kind of abuse that leads to violence against people from Pakistan, as noted on my posted site from Jimmy Carter's FIGHT HATE and PROMOTE TOLERANCE...it must be stopped before it goes further...because in America, such promotion of nasty ethnic slurs by anyone (especially publically by DUers all over America) leads to other types of abuse...the DUers are attempting to make it sound OK, and it is NEVER OK to promulgate hate and intolerance for other peoples...in America, degradation of others has actually encouraged killing of gays, Black people, and poor people...just like in German, the degradation led to the killing of Jews...it must be stopped....

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=paki

yes, sadly, as you note, DUers are saying "I use the word Paki without meaning to be racist, so it's not racist" same as "I use the word "n**ger" without meaning to be racist, so it's not racist"....or "I use the word "hy***own" without meaning to be racist, so it's not racist"....sorry...it's still racist and they mean it, if they didn't mean it, they would get on there and APPOLOGIZE....as you also noted, they could say "gee, I didn't know, and I'm sorry that I spewed out hateful racist remarks, and I am sorry"...but you haven't seen a one do that...so take them at their words for what they are...

[Pert_UK]

56. Good points, well made...but overly behaviourist?

Yes, definitely good points and I agree with the overwhelming majority.

However, I hesitate to condemn all DUers who are using the word "paki" as being racist. To do so would be overly behaviouristic. To you and me, "paki" is a racist term, therefore anyone using it without acknowledging its racist connotations must also be racist.

Right?

Not necessarily so. The people on here have beliefs and opinions, and the meaning of their language lies in its usage/context, rather than the face value of the words themselves.

You seem to be saying "They are using a racist term, therefore they are racist", whereas I am saying "They are using a racist term but I believe that they're not racist. Therefore there is a major misunderstanding and failure to appreciate the significance of the term".

I believe that in their haste and understandable passion for defending freedom of speech and criticising over-sensitive political correctness (both of which I would be happy to back), people have failed to grasp the core of this argument.

People are failing to spot that just because they believe it's not a racist term that doesn't make it so.

Peace.

P.

[muffit]

59. Sorry, pressed the post button too early

Anyway, I was going to say. The point of the arguements that I wanted to respond to above were that if you say something that you do not consider rascist, then yes, I do think you are not being rascist, the above look at the law basically says that, it is a crime of you use it along with negative conotations, but that doesn't have to be the way.

I find it strange that I have never heard of it being offensive, Australia is a fairly multicultural place and I have a few friend from the sub continent, so I will have to ask them, though I don't confuse a Sri Lankan with a Pakistani with an Indian, as I would typically actually talk to them and ask them at some point where they were originally from before calling them a Paki (If they were from Pakistain). I would have thought, if it was seen this way, then I wouldn't have to consult a dictionary to know it was offensive, some person from Pakistain would have actually been offended at some point and it would have come to my attention, maybe this is a cultural difference in Australia, as I have never noticed.

Either way, no offense to anyone intended, just trying to understand why people had such a problem with this. To those who responded that by using the term I must be a rascist bigot, well, I care not what you think, perhaps you should have a look at your own posts, and assumptions of how the world works. I was seeking an understanding of why it was considered offensive, which as far as I can tell is because it is used in England as a blanket term for people from the sub continent, not specifically people from Pakistain. So it is offensive because it shows a wide generalisation and basically contampt for where the person actually comes from. Each country has it's own slang terms, if I called you a wanker in the US, you probably wouldn't be too offended (well that's what my US friends tell me anyway), but it is an offensive term in Australia.

No one answered my question before, but how is this different from your Fottball team called the "Washington Redskins", you do know the history of where the term Redskin comes from ? I assume you do.

[Umbram]

60. Hmm, tough issue.

The term "Paki" here in the US, like it's been pointed out has no negative connotation that i'm aware of, so it would seem to me that in an American context it shouldn't be considered racist at all, where it's been shown that that is quite different in the UK.

That having been said, as far as some DU'rs being insensitive...i'm not sure that that is necessarily so, or at least i don't think it's intentional. Saying someone has the right to use the 'N' word at someone (in the US), in no way implies that the individual would ever use it, support the use of it, or encourage the use of it. It is an error to attribute one's belief towards limiting a given "liberty" to that same person's morality.

My girlfriend can be pro-choice (and is), but would never have an abortion.

In that light, i don't think anyone was trying to be offensive.

[diamond14]

62. open-minded people would look the word up in a dictionary

and then NOT use, when it is OFFENSIVE...DUer's attitudes to continue using OFFENSIVE terms, and then justify such use based on THEIR right to speak offensively against others...and here in America, it's narrow-minded people with little tolerance that use such words even in the face of KNOWLEDGE, such as shown in Dictionaries here on this thread....there was a time in America, when SOME said it was OK to abuse Black people, or to abuse Jewish people, and NOW, it seems to be OK to abuse people from Pakistan, or others....well, it's NOT OK...even if these DUers argue that it's OK...racist remarks are NEVER OK...

that's what horrifies me....and they laugh about it here on DU...LAUGH about racially offending others...

you are too kind to suggest that the use of racially abusive words doesn't constitute a racist...I simply say that you can tell a person's thoughts by the words that they use (which is not the same as calling them racist, but it is their own racist self-identification, by the words they use)...there are numerous posts on this thread that specifically point out the ABUSIVE, INSENSITIVE and RACIALLY threatening tone of the word PAKI...so anyone here who is NOT racist, and accidentially used such an unaccpetable and ABUSIVE OFFENSIVE WORD will certainly come forward and apologize under the excuse that they didn't know any better...

If no one comes forward...then you have your answer about whether they are racists...here in America, when it's defined in the dictionary as OFFENSIVE, it's OFFENSIVE...

[muffit]

66. Please discuss without abusing people

So to paraphrase you Amen, are saying. "I am right and you are wrong, unless you apologies, you must be a rascist bigot". Very liberal thinking you have there, not much point duscissing it, if that is your view, oh well.

I think "Geek" is probably a good example of a non rascist word that was initially intended to be an offensive term, but I take no offense when someone calls me a geek, as I know that in todays world, a good understanding of computers helps me out and they will suffer for their lack of understanding in the long run. It just makes me smile.

But as I said in my first post, I was brought up to believe "Stock and Stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me" and live by that, it is a fundamental principle behind free speech, I may not agree with what you say, but I agree that you have a right to say it.

[diamond14]

67. read this article (link)...it's about people who insist on using PAKI

Published on Saturday, January 12, 2002 in the Toronto Globe & Mail

Read My Lips. Not Even Stupidity Excuses Bush's 'Pakis' Slur
by Heather Mallick

-snips-

But it's not all right, not under any circumstances. Racism is a rebarbative sin, one of those for which you go straight to the bonfire eternal, no waiting.

The worst thing was that my protest aroused not the slightest reaction, these being people who, Bush-like, have no notion that racism is profoundly unacceptable. It's like explaining to a two-year-old why one eats on the table, as opposed to under it. Floor dining is a faux pas of the highest order.

And I have to keep telling myself, it doesn't matter what monsters, or indeed their scattered ashes, would have thought. What matters is that people who refer to "ugly Jews" or "Pakis" are hateful. I detach from you, I really do.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0112-03.htm

[muffit]

57. Can't Agree, but that's what makes the world go round

[Pert_UK]

58. EVERY dictionary entry I can find says it's racist....Explain why it isn't

"chiefly British, usually disparaging : a Pakistani immigrant " from Merriam Webster (an AMERICAN English dictionary)

". Chiefly British Offensive Slang pl. Pak·is
Used as a disparaging term for a person from Pakistan or neighboring countries or for the descendant of such a person." from dictionary.com

"Paki noun OFFENSIVE
a person from Pakistan " - Cambridge Dictionaries

[muffit]

61. The Autralian Macquarie Dictionary

Here is our dictionary most well known Australian Dictionary http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/

And it says "You have searched for paki.

Sorry, no results were returned for your search. Please try again (don't forget to check your spelling)."

So there is at least one, Dictionary.com gave the same result, it was only when I looked in the Oxford Online that i actually found a definition, so certainly not everyone.

[diamond14]

63. here's an American Dictionary: OFFENSIVE, and it's nice that

YOUR dictionary won't include OFFENSIVE words...that general idea is that you're not suppose to use the word, so it's NOT put in the dictionary...

as shown in this American Dictionary, it's blocked with the OFFENSIVE cover page...and you must go beyond that to get to the definition...that's because if people block OFFENSIVE terms, like your dictionary, they'll never see it...

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=paki

here is America, it is assumed that people have low educational level if they use OFFENSIVE terms...and in most workplaces, you can generally count on being fired if you speak in OFFENSIVE words, like the word PAKI...I'll guarantee you that a person would be FIRED for using that word where I work...

on edit: you may find OFFENSIVE words if you change your settings so that you will see them (but you then might also get a lot of OFFENSIVE site when you use search engines)....

[Pert_UK]

64. Errrr........not providing a definition doensn't = not offensive

That doesn't make any sense and you know it. There are lots of words that are commonly used which aren't featured in a dictionary, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a meaning or aren't offensive.

FYI, dictionary.com does provide a definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Paki

"n. Chiefly British Offensive Slang pl. Pak·is
Used as a disparaging term for a person from Pakistan or neighboring countries or for the descendant of such a person.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary"

Also, regarding your earlier argument that "Paki" is referring to someone's heritage and country of origin, and that they should be proud of it.....that doesn't work. The trouble is that "Paki" is often used to describe anyone from the Indian sub-continent by people who couldn't give 2 shits whether the person concerned is from Pakistan or not (this is true at least in the UK). If you were to call a Canadian a "Yank", then he'd probably be pissed off, although in that case it would be an accidental mistake (usually).

[diamond14]

65. from your link: Not Even Stupidity Excuses Bush's 'Pakis' Slur

-snips-

But it's not all right, not under any circumstances. Racism is a rebarbative sin, one of those for which you go straight to the bonfire eternal, no waiting.

Some people believe in honesty and "the personal is political" moral confrontation that cleanses the Earth of these foul racist humours. Others just kill.

The worst thing was that my protest aroused not the slightest reaction, these being people who, Bush-like, have no notion that racism is profoundly unacceptable. It's like explaining to a two-year-old why one eats on the table, as opposed to under it. Floor dining is a faux pas of the highest order.

And I have to keep telling myself, it doesn't matter what monsters, or indeed their scattered ashes, would have thought. What matters is that people who refer to "ugly Jews" or "Pakis" are hateful. I detach from you, I really do.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0112-03.htm

Note: this article says it much better than I can...thanks for your link....and as I have said...it saddens me that DUers do not feel that their hateful racist words are 'profoundly unacceptable'...IMO, it is difficult to change people who use racist words...as the article notes, it's like explaining to a 'TWO YEAR OLD why one eats on the table, as opposed to unter it.'

[muffit]

71. Hmmm, a capital mistake

Ahhh, I had to search with a Capital P, well there you go, didn't realise it was a proper noun, but all of the ones you have quoted say "British slang" anyway, so perhaps if I lived over there and thought like I did then I could accept being called a rascist for it, but I do not.

Look I thought that you were very fair and open minded in your previous post (not the last one but the one before that) so I don't want to get into a flame war with you, as I do see where you are coming from, and respect your point of view. But if I hear something that I do, is thought to be wrong or inconsiderate, I like to understand why that is so. That way I may actually change my behaviour next time.

And yes I have called a Canadian an American before and yes they do get upset, though after they explain why, you understand, and try to be more careful with their accents next time.

[Pert_UK]

81. Don't worry, I try to keep it reasonable and flame-free.....

Look - I'm not calling anyone here a racist. Far from it. That's why I'm still going with this topic.

The people of DU are, in my experience, very much anti-discrimination of all types. I've not come across any racism on here.

I'm not trying to say "You're using the word, therefore you're racist", I'm trying to say "I know you're not racist, so please understand that the word you're using has racist connotations."

Yep, I know that the dictionary references are generally to British refs, but that doesn't weaken my point (much).

The dictionaries suggest that the term is GENERALLY used in British English and is USUALLY CONSIDERED offensive. So in other words, it can be used elsewhere and still, usually be considered offensive. If the word has come from British English then it carries with it the racist baggage. If people are unaware of that, then I'm trying to let them know here.

"But if I hear something that I do, is thought to be wrong or inconsiderate, I like to understand why that is so. " - that's my aim here. I'm clearly not doing a very good job....

Peace.

P.

[muffit]

83. Nah, You've done OK Pert_UK

Acttually, I thought you did a fair job of explaining why thought this was not till later messages, I wasn't actually aiming my later responnses at you, it was just by the time I had really understood why it was considered offensive, I was being told I was a rascist bigot, and by people who had never had a conversation with me, or had any real idea what I actually thought. Not something I expected to encounter here.

Oh well, I am wiser for the experience.

Cheers

[Pert_UK]

84. Yeah.....my apologies for the unwarranted attacks that my post generated

All a bit weird, really....

I should have explained things more clearly earlier on, it's just that I'd kinda assumed (dangerous) that people would understand where I was coming from, and would also already know (more or less) that "Paki" was a dodgy term to use. Apparently this was not the case!

I'm afraid that emotive topics such as this one will often cause passionate responses which aren't always as fair or well-reasoned as they should be....I think that you have taken quite a battering, but fought with honour!

It's amazing that a group of people who are so intelligent, well-informed and so strongly anti-racist can end up misunderstanding each other and launching such vicious attacks.

Anyway......thanks for the kind and intelligent comments. Welcome to DU, and I'm glad that somewhere in this thread there was a semblance of intelligent debate!

:hi:

By the way - are you in Australia yourself? If so, which State?

P.

[Umbram]

68. I feel like i'm in a bad sci fi movie.

Words are not evil. They can be used in THREATENING manners however.

The idea that markings in dictionaries next to certain words should dictate whether or not they should be used at all doesn't hold up to much logic.

I guess we'll have to round up some of the greatest works of literature and music (including a great deal of rap), and simply make it illegal to be purchased. Tell Snoop Dog, Dr. Dre, etc. that they are no longer allowed to use the "N" word.

Perhaps we shouldn't even talk about racial oppression, as it might be offensive.

I could vote for a law saying that using hate language with the attempt to threaten or intimidate should be illegal, but policing the use of words outside of context...that's completely absurd.

[diamond14]

69. read this article (link)...it's about people who insist on using PAKI

Published on Saturday, January 12, 2002 in the Toronto Globe & Mail

Read My Lips. Not Even Stupidity Excuses Bush's 'Pakis' Slur
by Heather Mallick

-snips-

But it's not all right, not under any circumstances. Racism is a rebarbative sin, one of those for which you go straight to the bonfire eternal, no waiting.

The worst thing was that my protest aroused not the slightest reaction, these being people who, Bush-like, have no notion that racism is profoundly unacceptable. It's like explaining to a two-year-old why one eats on the table, as opposed to under it. Floor dining is a faux pas of the highest order.

And I have to keep telling myself, it doesn't matter what monsters, or indeed their scattered ashes, would have thought. What matters is that people who refer to "ugly Jews" or "Pakis" are hateful. I detach from you, I really do.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0112-03.htm

[Umbram]

74. Umm, yes.

I read it; good article.

But I've only used the term in the quoted form, and have typed it less times than you, and only in order to explore a very difficult subject.

I don't find your posting the same link and text over and over to be very helpful.

Clearly from your high horse you are unable to discuss this with even those of us who AGREE with the point of the article that the man SHOULD be thrown in jail.

You are committing a GREAT deal of stereotyping here yourself, just assuming everyone around you is a racist.

[Pert_UK]

78. I actually disagree with some of this...

Suggesting (from the article) that some people "have no notion that racism is profoundly unacceptable" is an unacceptable conclusion.

Nobody in this thread has suggested that racism is in any way acceptable. People seem to be arguing for 2 different things:

1. There should be freedom of speech i.e. words themselves should not be banned.

This seems fair enough to me, as if we couldn't use the word "Paki" then we wouldn't be having this debate.

2. That the word "Paki" does not have racist overtones.

I'm confused as to why people wish to defend this second point so vehemently. Aside from my own opinion and experience, all of the definitions I've found (US and UK) say that it is an offensive term.

However, people who genuinely believe that "Paki" is not racist are not necessarily racist themselves - they just don't accept that the word is anything more than an acceptable abbreviation for "Pakistani".

[muffit]

80. Yes, I have read the article

But can't you see that it is the Ugly but that is really offensive, not the Jew bit.

You are an Aussie - Not offensive

You are an Ugly Aussie - Offensive.
(though I would certainly agree that you have an Ugly Aussie Face, has negative racial connotations as it inplies it is normal for Aussies to have ugly faces)

It's not the Jew bit that is offensive, it's the Ugly bit, there is a difference.

As far as "Racism is a rebarbative sin, one of those for which you go straight to the bonfire eternal, no waiting."

Aren't all sins repellant ? But it all depends upon what religion you have to what you consider a sin.

[Pert_UK]

75. You've missed my point...

I'm not saying any word should be banned. I AM saying that the word "Paki", according to any sensible measure or definition, has racist baggage.

It is NOT an acceptable shortening of "Pakistani" in the same way as "nigger" is not an acceptable shortening of "negro" or "chink" is an acceptable shortening of "Chinese", nor is it an acceptable abbreviation of Pakistani nationality, for the many reasons listed. Many words can be racist, non-racist or neutral depending on their context. Of course "Paki" can be used in a non-racist way, e.g. in the sentence "I would never call someone a Paki".

All I'm trying to do is explain that if you use the word "Paki" (which you are free to do) then you understand what it means. You'd never dream of casually dropping the word "nigger" into a conversation - if you were to use it at all then you would use it carefully and in an appropriate context. The same should apply to "Paki".

I'm not on a crusade here - I am genuinely shocked that people are reacting so vehemently against me, when all I'm trying to do is illustrate the meaning of word.

Peace.

P.

[Umbram]

77. No, i agree with you.

Sorry Pert_UK, i agree with 99.9% of what you've said.

As you can see here i'm rather new at posting and replied to the wrong leg of the thread.

My point was directed towards Amen, but i clearly misplaced it.

Apologies.

[Pert_UK]

79. Still not good enough - I want the 0.1% too!

:-)

Thanks.

P.

[Pert_UK]

85. And I meant to add, Welcome to DU!

:hi:

P.

[Umbram]

86. Thanks!!!

:)

I'm from a small town out in the middle of no place.

It's great to get to interact with such intelligent and diverse people and somewhat civily expand my horizons.

Were it not for this thread, I wouldn't have known that the term mentioned a billion times in this thread is offensive, infact i'd never HEARD/READ it before this.

For having read and engaged (in both agreement and disagreement) with others concerning this topic (not whether it's offensive, I was fully willing to take someone from UK's word on what's offensive in UK, but the underlying politics of civil liberties), I've been able to make up my own mind on the issue.

I'll never use the word. It's offensive.

If some (not you Pert_UK) think i'm a racist for not sharing their inability to view things in different contexts, well, i think it's unforunate that they feel that way.

[Pert_UK]

87. I can post this again, as it's still relevant!

Posted this earlier on to say hello to someone else! It still applies to you as well though....Basically, don't get disheartened. Sometimes someone's passionate beliefs will make them go off the deep end and say innappropriate things, as well as ignoring the rules of logical debate.

We're all on the same side (as far as I can tell) although there will, of course, be strong debate and disagreements from time to time.

If it's any consolation, I'm currently in smalltown Australia and am not given any chance for a decent, well-informed, reasonable argument about US politics.

I look forward to having further interesting debates with you!

All the best.

P.

Posted earlier:

I should have explained things more clearly earlier on, it's just that I'd kinda assumed (dangerous) that people would understand where I was coming from, and would also already know (more or less) that "Paki" was a dodgy term to use. Apparently this was not the case!

I'm afraid that emotive topics such as this one will often cause passionate responses which aren't always as fair or well-reasoned as they should be....I think that you have taken quite a battering, but fought with honour!

It's amazing that a group of people who are so intelligent, well-informed and so strongly anti-racist can end up misunderstanding each other and launching such vicious attacks.

Anyway......thanks for the kind and intelligent comments.

[piece sine]

91. OK....Yanks! Yankees!

Now is that offensive to Americans or not?! I was born in NY and, believe me, Yankees is not a dirty word. Now, take someone screaming in front on our Embassy somewhere and Yankee has a much different connotation. I think the Brits are simply applying censorship when it suits their purposes. More speech is better than less speech.

[Pert_UK]

93. No. The Brits aren't applying censorship when it suits their purposes...

They are using the law to prevent someone from threatening and intimidating one of their public workers using racist language.

For the love of all things holy, what's wrong with that?

You are SERIOUSLY telling me that you would go out and protest that racist bigots have the right to intimidate and threaten someone who is just doing their job? Exactly what rights does the victim have? Shouldn't they have the right to be able to work and live without fear of legally sanctioned abuse?

Madness....

P.