Racist verbal attack in public and freedom of speech

MakeEmLaugh

Another vile racist outburst has been caught on film. This time, an Australia woman named Karen Bailey (who had previously said her name was Sue Wilkins) hurled abuse at an Asian female passenger and the white male standing next to her.

Of the aforementioned male, she said:

"He's too lazy to jerk off. He can only get a gook! He can't even get a regular girlfriend! It's so sad. He's got to get a gook!"

She then mimicked the Asian passengers accent, and pulled back the skin around her eyes. She continued, addressing the Asian passenger:

"What's wrong with Hong Kong? What did you come to this country? This is our country!"

The perpetrator has since apologised on TV (with her back to camera, which seems redundant after being caught on film) explaining that she has had a tough year, between separating from her husband and losing her job.

Frankly, while I sympathise with her plight (if she is in fact telling the truth), none of it should be used as a justification for her hateful, offensive speech.

No doubt proponents of freedom of speech will defend Bailey, quoting Chomsky's famous adage that "If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people you despise, then you don't believe in freedom of speech at all".

That may well be true, but Bailey wasn't just using 'freedom of speech', she was in violation of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, amended in 1989, which states that it is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or group on the grounds of race.

Also, while I'm not sure what the differences are between New South Wales and Western Australia, Western Australia Law states the following

Disorderly Behaviour in Public (Disorderly Conduct),
Section 74A: A person who behaves in a disorderly manner in a public place or in the sight or hearing of any person who is in a public place or who behaves in a disorderly manner in a police station or lock-up, is guilty of an offence.

“Disorderly Behaviour” includes:

(1) Using insulting, threatening or offensive language; and
(2) Behaving in an insulting, threatening or offensive manner.

It is lawful for a person, without a warrant, to arrest any person who is, or who the person reasonably suspects, is in the course of committing an offence of disorderly behaviour in public.

The maximum Bailey can be sentenced to is six months. I won't shed any tears if she has to serve every minute of that term.

gctest50

What makes it worse .......

But the 55-year-old is actually Karen Bailey from Buff Point, who previously has worked as a legal secretary at some of Sydney's top law firms.

Her LinkedIn profile says she also spent time working at the Crown Solicitors Office.


http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/racisttiradeontrainwoman-karen-bailey-gave-false-name-on-tv-20140704-zswa4.html

hatrickpatrick

All speech should be protected by free speech laws. However, the manner of delivery doesn't have to be protected. So in this case, I don't agree with her being punished for the content of what she said. It's the harassment of another individual which she should be punished for. Verbally assaulting someone in a closed space like public transport is aggressive behaviour, and should fall under minor assault or harassment laws.

My name is URL

Why can't the outbursts of insane people just be treated as the outbursts of insane people these days? There needs to be a whole fcuking debate about rights and wrongs whenever this stuff happens now!

darkpagandeath

My name is URL wrote: »

Why can't the outbursts of insane people just be treated as the outbursts of insane people these days? There needs to be a whole fcuking debate about rights and wrongs whenever this stuff happens now!

Was going to say that she could prob get some pills to sort them outbursts out

krudler

What is it with Aussies and being racist?

wretcheddomain

I don't really see the need to add 'and freedom of speech' to the thread title - it's quite simply a racist verbal attack in public and that idiot should be locked up as an example to others.

I support freedom of speech but I wouldn't defend a racist piece of **** for that kind of stuff. Seems like an odd false equivalence to draw.

K4t

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I don't really see the need to add 'and freedom of speech' to the thread title - it's quite simply a racist verbal attack in public and that idiot should be locked up as an example to others.

That is freedom of speech.

Until the aggressor invades your space and threatens or attacks you physically, they are entitled to say whatever they like, racist or not. And you have the right to call them a stupid f**king retard or walk away or preferably both.

darkpagandeath

K4t wrote: »

That is freedom of speech.

Until the aggressor invades your space and threatens or attacks you physically, they are entitled to say whatever they like, racist or not. And you have the right to call them a stupid f**king retard or walk away or preferably both.

Exactly we don't need laws to cover peoples offence, As were would it stop. What offends me does not offend you.

Skeleton XIII

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I don't really see the need to add 'and freedom of speech' to the thread title - it's quite simply a racist verbal attack in public and that idiot should be locked up as an example to others.

Nonsense.

Hotfail.com

Well here's what our constitution says...

"The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."

What does the law say out of curiosity? And isn't illegal to be a Nazi-sympathiser in most EU countries? Free speech is free speech, if you can't say you agree with the Nazi's than the fact of the matter is that free speech simply doesn't exist.

K4t

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Exactly we don't need laws to cover peoples offence, As were would it stop. What offends me does not offend you.

Except proponents of laws will argue that all racism is unacceptable and should be punished in the courts. We would agree it is unacceptable but should not be punished by laws but rather by argument and reason, hence the right to say whatever you like back to them and in time change their outlook which is obviously incredibly stupid but in no way illegal, and rightly so.

MakeEmLaugh

K4t wrote: »

That is freedom of speech.

Until the aggressor invades your space and threatens or attacks you physically, they are entitled to say whatever they like, racist or not. And you have the right to call them a stupid f**king retard or walk away or preferably both.

I would class what happened in that video as invading other passengers' space.

Fox_In_Socks

Headcases always unsettle me.

That goes for that woman or the fellow who took a watery **** about 500 yards from where I live about an hour ago.

Clandestine

Hate speech is free speech

Hotfail.com

K4t wrote: »

That is freedom of speech.

Until the aggressor invades your space and threatens or attacks you physically, they are entitled to say whatever they like, racist or not

Just curious, is that the law or just your interpretation of what constitutes verbal assault or whatever it might be?

K4t

Hotfail.com wrote: »

Well here's what our constitution says...

"The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."
.

Our constitution is incredibly stupid in places and the new blasphemy laws continued on this tradition. #Godisachildmolester

Hotfail.com wrote: »

What does the law say out of curiosity? And isn't illegal to be a Nazi-sympathiser in most EU countries? Free speech is free speech, if you can't say you agree with the Nazi's than the fact of the matter is that free speech simply doesn't exist

Free speech is most important in instances like this because it allows us to clearly recognise and identify stupid (and dangerous) individuals. It would be a lot worse if they weren't allowed to say it and we didn't know who they were.

Annasopra

Clandestine wrote: »

Hate speech is free speech

No its not.

Hate speech is illegal under the Prohibition of incitement to hatred act 1989 and as well as that the European Convention on Human Rights limits freedom of expression.

K4t

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I would class what happened in that video as invading other passengers' space.

I disagree but they are certainly entitled to make that argument to the relevant authorities. And if the accused is charged, it should be solely for threatening another human being and not classified as a 'racial attack'.

Hotfail.com

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No its not.

Hate speech is illegal under the Prohibition of incitement to hatred act 1989 and as well as that the European Convention on Human Rights limits freedom of expression.

So free speech doesn't exist. Thanks for clearing that up

K4t

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No its not.

Hate speech is illegal under the Prohibition of incitement to hatred act 1989 and as well as that the European Convention on Human Rights limits freedom of expression.

Then freedom of speech is meaningless.

J_E

Hotfail.com wrote: »

So free speech doesn't exist. Thanks for clearing that up

Rights and responsibilities. Having the right to say things also means having the responsibility to be held accountable.

Hotfail.com

Cydoniac wrote: »

Rights and responsibilities. Having the right to say things also means having the responsibility to be held accountable.

Freedom of speech with conditions attached isn't the same as freedom of speech. I agree with what you're saying but I just find if strange that freedom of speech doesn't exist when everyone likes to say it does.

K4t

Cydoniac wrote: »

Rights and responsibilities. Having the right to say things also means having the responsibility to be held accountable.

Yeah..but not in a court of law.

gctest50

She seems to see herself above everyone and like intimidating kids too

matter of time before she goes on one and stabs someone

Ms Marr said her mother was sitting with three of the children on one seat in the packed carriage when Wilkins approached.

‘‘She walked straight on the train, looked at my mum and said ‘get your f...ing bogan children off the seat’,’’ Ms Marr said. ‘‘Then she said ‘there are people here that need to sit down, I want to sit down’.’’

Ms Marr said Wilkins began swearing and responded to her request to stop by ‘‘screaming the f-word in my son’s face 10 times. She said ‘you need to learn this word kid’.’’

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/train-racist-targeted-kids-get-your-fing-bogan-children-off-the-seat-20140704-zsvee.html#ixzz36ogRszgd

Ditch

Is that loon had come at my and / or my wifes face, like that? I'd have dropped her. Capisce? You want " Freedom of Speech " Accept " Freedom of Consequence ".

Cantremember

What about boards.AU?

Shakespeare's Sister

K4t wrote: »

That is freedom of speech.

Until the aggressor invades your space and threatens or attacks you physically, they are entitled to say whatever they like, racist or not. And you have the right to call them a stupid f**king retard or walk away or preferably both.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Exactly we don't need laws to cover peoples offence, As were would it stop. What offends me does not offend you.

Clandestine wrote: »

Hate speech is free speech

Must make sure to say that to people who are being bullied/harassed verbally in their day-to-day lives - shur the bullies are only exercising free speech. You are saying people should be able to say whatever they want to people, which means you are also saying the above.
And no, offence isn't always subjective - e.g. when a person is being bullied.

K4t

Magaggie wrote: »

Must make sure to say that to people who are being bullied/harassed verbally in their day-to-day lives - shur the bullies are only exercising free speech. You are saying people should be able to say whatever they want to people, which means you are also saying the above.
And no, offence isn't always subjective - e.g. when a person is being bullied.

We've moved off topic here from the main discussion which was concerning racist comments and free speech.

Of course verbal bullying should not be condoned and should be quickly punished whether it be in schools or the workplace, just not in the courts.. unless it can be proved to be a case of employee discrimination which is a different matter. I was verbally bullied myself in secondary school which left me with a lot of problems as a young adult but I do not deny the fact that the bullies had the right to say whatever they liked about/towards me. As had I the right to do likewise. In an ideal world, all parties would be educated so as the situation would never arise in the first place.

Shakespeare's Sister

K4t wrote: »

We've moved off topic here from the main discussion which was concerning racist comments and free speech.

We haven't. You and others are saying people should be able to say what they like to anyone.

Of course verbal bullying should not be condoned and should be quickly punished whether it be in schools or the workplace, just not in the courts.. unless it can be proved to be a case of employee discrimination which is a different matter. I was verbally bullied myself in secondary school which left me with a lot of problems as a young adult but I do not deny the fact that the bullies had the right to say whatever they liked about/towards me.

First bolded bit contradicts second bolded bits.
No, bullies *don't* have the right to verbally harass people.

MakeEmLaugh

K4t wrote: »

We've moved off topic here from the main discussion which was concerning racist comments and free speech.

Of course verbal bullying should not be condoned and should be quickly punished whether it be in schools or the workplace, just not in the courts.. unless it can be proved to be a case of employee discrimination which is a different matter. I was verbally bullied myself in secondary school which left me with a lot of problems as a young adult but I do not deny the fact that the bullies had the right to say whatever they liked about/towards me. As had I the right to do likewise. In an ideal world, all parties would be educated so as the situation would never arise in the first place.

There's a massive difference between freedom to publish or broadcast whatever you want, and verbally attacking someone.

It's gracious of you to say those bullies had the right to speak to you like that, but I have to say, as someone who works in education with children, our school's policy, which abides by the legal standard, is that they do not have the right to bully.

Perhaps you think the laws are too strict, but I don't.

No Pants

Is it still incitement to hatred if any hatred generated is directed at yourself?

Frank Lee Midere

Verbal harassment is verbal harassment. I am all for the laws on that being enforced, regardless of whether the harassment is racist or not, so people can walk down the inner city being black, brown, gay, in purple jeans, culchie looking or any way different.

Enforce those laws here and we would get rid of a lot of problems.

Hotfail.com

No Pants wrote: »

Is it still incitement to hatred if any hatred generated is directed at yourself?

Christ those emos are in deep shít if it is :pac:

Manach

Whilst deplorable this sort of speech does not reach the limits imposed for freedom of speech which gave the analogy of "Shouting fire in a darkened cinema". In other words were there is an immediate and actual treat to life. Without the ability to express views in public without being taken to task, then certain verbal patterns become excepted as orthodoxy and are beyond criticism. Then this type of ossified society is no longer a free and open one, instead a republic of fear dominated by those who would impose their judgement on what is or is not acceptable to say.

Shakespeare's Sister

Manach wrote: »

Whilst deplorable this sort of speech does not reach the limits imposed for freedom of speech which gave the analogy of "Shouting fire in a darkened cinema". In other words were there is an immediate and actual treat to life. Without the ability to express views in public without being taken to task, then certain verbal patterns become excepted as orthodoxy and are beyond criticism. Then this type of ossified society is no longer a free and open one, instead a republic of fear dominated by those who would impose their judgement on what is or is not acceptable to say.

Um... can't really follow that, but no... verbally abusing someone shouldn't be allowed. If someone gave you abuse for being catholic, you wouldn't deem it just their free speech - and you'd be right too.

K4t

Magaggie wrote: »

First bolded bit contradicts second bolded bits.
No, bullies *don't* have the right to verbally harass people.

They don't contradict each other. It should not be condoned but it also should not be a crime or an arrestable offence. Bullies can and should be allowed say what they like and victims can say what they like back, and if you feel you are being harassed then walk away from them or move job, we live in a free and open capitalist economy.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

There's a massive difference between freedom to publish or broadcast whatever you want, and verbally attacking someone.

There's not, except that words are written in the paper and spoken in the attack.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

It's gracious of you to say those bullies had the right to speak to you like that, but I have to say, as someone who works in education with children, our school's policy, which abides by the legal standard, is that they do not have the right to bully.

Perhaps you think the laws are too strict, but I don't.

There should be no mention of laws is my argument. Your school is right to implement anti bullying policies and aim to prevent bullying though I agree, but through education and reason, and if that fails you can always use suspension and expulsion.

Annasopra

Hotfail.com wrote: »

So free speech doesn't exist. Thanks for clearing that up

It exists within limits

Custardpi

Magaggie wrote: »

Um... can't really follow that, but no... verbally abusing someone shouldn't be allowed. If someone gave you abuse for being catholic, you wouldn't deem it just their free speech - and you'd be right too.

Surely that would depend on the nature of the "abuse", something which is often defined quite loosely by those who go out of their way to be offended. Would saying to a Catholic in the context of a bar conversation "listen mate I don't care what your faith tells you, it's biologically impossible for Mary to be a virgin & give birth to Jesus & you're an idiot if you believe otherwise" be considered abuse/hate speech?

Shakespeare's Sister

K4t wrote: »

They don't contradict each other. It should not be condoned but it also should not be a crime or an arrestable offence.

It isn't.

Bullies can and should be allowed say what they like

No they shouldn't. They should be punished, as you said.

if you feel you are being harassed then walk away from them or move job, we live in a free and open capitalist economy.

Victim-blaming ahoy. So, the person on the receiving end should be the one who takes responsibility for being bullied, rather than, y'know, the bully not bullying.
What the hell causes these mental gymnastics?

Shakespeare's Sister

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It exists within limits

It doesn't exist at all. Once it only exists in certain circumstances, it's not free.

Shakespeare's Sister

Custardpi wrote: »

Surely that would depend on the nature of the "abuse", something which is often defined quite loosely by those who go out of their way to be offended. Would saying to a Catholic in the context of a bar conversation "listen mate I don't care what your faith tells you, it's biologically impossible for Mary to be a virgin & give birth to Jesus & you're an idiot if you believe otherwise" be considered abuse/hate speech?

No. "****ing catholic, paedo/rapist-supporting ****" would be.

Hotfail.com

K4t wrote: »

They don't contradict each other. It should not be condoned but it also should not be a crime or an arrestable offence. Bullies can and should be allowed say what they like and victims can say what they like back, and if you feel you are being harassed then walk away from them or move job, we live in a free and open capitalist economy.

Why should bullies be allowed say what they want to vulnerable people? I think our laws should be more concerned with protecting people who are being harassed than allowing narrow-minded pricks spread their ignorant bullshít.

diveout

Magaggie wrote: »

Um... can't really follow that, but no... verbally abusing someone shouldn't be allowed. If someone gave you abuse for being catholic, you wouldn't deem it just their free speech - and you'd be right too.

You have a responsibility for what you let under your skin.

Sensitivity can be as much of a tyranny as censorship.

I think people have seriously lost the distinction between hearing things you don't like and abuse.

Shakespeare's Sister

Hotfail.com wrote: »

Why should bullies be allowed say what they want to vulnerable people? I think our laws should be more concerned with protecting people who are being harassed than allowing narrow-minded pricks spread their ignorant bullshít.

This is the exasperating thing about the "I support free speech no matter what" crowd (and I don't think they actually do, because they'd sing a different tune if it was visited on them) - they seem to think the rights of someone to be verbally abusive to others with little to no provocation, trump the rights of people not to be verbally abused.

Shakespeare's Sister

diveout wrote: »

You have a responsibility for what you let under your skin.

Nope. Someone screaming at someone that they're a ****ing **** unprovoked is 100 per cent the one responsible.

I think people have seriously lost the distinction between hearing things you don't like and abuse.

And while I agree that can be true, it doesn't change the fact that there is objective blatant abuse thrown at people too.
And it's weird that people deflect it on to the person who is on the receiving end. Really weird.

Hotfail.com

Magaggie wrote: »

This is the exasperating thing about the "I support free speech no matter what" crowd (and I don't think actually do, because they'd sing a different tune if it was visited on them) - they seem to think the rights of some **** to be verbally abusive to others trump the rights of people not to be verbally abused.

I agree with you, but I also think this whole "incitement of hatred" shít goes to far a lot of the time. I don't see why some 20 year old making a joke about Jews (not a specific one) on twitter deserves a jail sentence. If he attacked a specific person for being Jewish I'd say fair enough but if something isn't specifically directed at you (or someone close to you) and you get offended by it I'd just say tough luck.

K4t

Magaggie wrote: »

No they shouldn't. They should be punished, as you said.

Victim-blaming ahoy. So, the person on the receiving end should be the one who takes responsibility for being bullied, rather than, y'know, the bully not bullying.
What the hell causes these mental gymnastics?

Yes, bullies should be punished accordingly in work places and schools if it is harassment I agree. But they still have a right to believe racist ideologies or whatever the hell else they want, and I'd prefer if they were open about it than forced to keep it to themselves.

Hotfail.com wrote: »

Why should bullies be allowed say what they want to vulnerable people? I think our laws should be more concerned with protecting people who are being harassed than allowing narrow-minded pricks spread their ignorant bullshít.

Everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want to people. And everyone has the right to ignore what people say to them, walk away, or say something back. Words are powerful but don't be afraid of them either.

Shakespeare's Sister

Hotfail.com wrote: »

I agree with you, but I also think this whole "incitement of hatred" shít goes to far a lot of the time. I don't see why some 20 year old making a joke about Jews (not a specific one) on twitter deserves a jail sentence. If he attacked a specific person for being Jewish I'd say fair enough but if something isn't specifically directed at you (or someone close to you) and you get offended by it I'd just say tough luck.

Totally agree with that too. Sending someone to jail for a tweet (no matter how abusive) is bollocks. But they should be banned from Twitter if they're abusing people.

Custardpi

Yes, the over reaction to anything slightly "abusive" on Twitter is just ridiculous & rarely serves any useful purpose. There's some nasty stuff on there alright but invariably when those responsible are exposed they turn out to be pathetic, lonely individuals with no other outlet than typing mean things on the internet. More to be pitied than despised in most cases.