An Attack on Free Speech: Scottish university student expelled for criticizing Israel

[Mazdak]

you cant do that here:


The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report was published in February 1999, and defined a racist incident as:

˜... any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."

We accept this definition.

We define a religious incident as:

"Any incident which is believed to be motivated because of a person's religion or perceived religion, by the victim or any other person".

Both definitions help us to identify all racist or religious incidents on our case files to make sure we take the racist or religious element into account when we make decisions about prosecuting.


The CPS : Racist and religious crime ? CPS prosecution policy

"perceived to be racist"?

On Paper, I'm sure it sounds wonderful. In America, the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law makes it legal to punish anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin". Black-on-white crime is never regarded as a hate crime though, while white-on-black crime is nearly always regarded as such.

 

[kai]

"perceived to be racist"?

On Paper, I'm sure it sounds wonderful. In America, the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law makes it legal to punish anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin". Black-on-white crime is never regarded as a hate crime though, while white-on-black crime is nearly always regarded as such.

well the Crown Prosecution Service has to weigh up the evidence before a prosecution.

Then if they decide there is enough evidence to prosecute, it goes to court where a Magistrate weighs up the evidence, or it goes to crown court where a Jury weighs up the evidence.

Then there's The option of Appeal.

 

[HonestJoe]

That's a mighty big window you guys have there.
If the US adopted that, half of the country would have to become lawyers (if we haven't already) just to defend the other half.

Maybe there are a lot more racist idiots in America then.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

well the Crown Prosecution Service has to weigh up the evidence before a prosecution.

Then if they decide there is enough evidence to prosecute, it goes to court where a Magistrate weighs up the evidence, or it goes to crown court where a Jury weighs up the evidence.

Then there's The option of Appeal.

You have stated the English system.The Scottish law is rather different and is far more difficult for a mere Englishman like me to understand.
I suspect the University student rule book had some part to play in the University part of the decision.

 

[kai]

You have stated the English system.The Scottish law is rather different and is far more difficult for a mere Englishman like me to understand.
I suspect the University student rule book had some part to play in the University part of the decision.

You are of course right, thanks.


This might help;

Scots Law defines a Hate Crime as a crime committed
against a person or property that is motivated by
‘malice or ill-will towards an identifiable social group’.
If you have been the victim of a crime and you believe
you have been targeted because of the perception that
you belong to one of the ‘social groups’ listed below,
then it is likely you have been the victim of a Hate
Crime.
The ‘social groups’, or categories, to which thterm ‘Hate Crime’ can be applied in the Courts
are:
• race
• religion
• sexual orientation
• transgender identity
• disability

http://www.equalitiesinhealth.org/documents/HateCrimeLeaflet_001.pdf

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe there are a lot more racist idiots in America then.

That could be, but we have a far worse problem....we're lawsuit happy, & thrive upon perceived victimhood.

As a landlord, I've run into professional suers who will actually put the job "attorney in pro per" on an application. I've been
sued a couple times for over $1M for fair housing violations. The suits were bogus, but courts are lenient about the form,
costs & merits of such actions. I've never lost, but the costs of fighting them are high, both in dollars & grief.
A sample:
One guy sued me under federal fair housing law for $1,000,000 for discriminating against him because of (unspecified) mental disability,
& also for denial of quiet enjoyment (a legal term for denial of service while a tenant). The first charge was empty....I turned him down
because he had no income. The second wasn't even possible, since he never lived in the apartment, which was in a building I managed for
a client. His suit took 2 years just for him to finish the filing process, during which the court coached him & waived filing fees (cuz of no
regular income). Then I had to hire an additional attorney, one who practiced in fed court. I spent about $10,000 of my client's money in
legal fees (his responsibility under our contract) before we settled out of court by paying him $400 to go away. And yes, there are others
in the same business. America is going down the tubes.

 

[irishwarlord]

The flags he is talking about some of them are flags taken down from flag poles not owned by the ones who set them on fire. This is a case of protect the jew just because he is a jew. I dont understand how it is raceist to speak the truth about the jew. A 100% welfare and a 100% llegal state.Who produces 2 things only WAR and HATE.

 

[Revoltingest]

The flags he is talking about some of them are flags taken down from flag poles not owned by the ones who set them on fire. This is a case of protect the jew just because he is a jew. I dont understand how it is raceist to speak the truth about the jew. A 100% welfare and a 100% llegal state.Who produces 2 things only WAR and HATE.

Welcome, Irishwarlord.
Speaking one's truth is a freedom which is sometimes dependent upon it being an acceptable truth.
Prosecutor's are human, & will have bias. Enforcement will be be discriminatory.

 

[Father Heathen]

BBC News - St Andrews student guilty of Israel flag racism



I've been called a Kraut on more than one occasion because of my German surname, and nothing happened. I've seen American, Chinese, and British flags burned in protest of American, Chinese, and British policies, and those incidents were regarded as free speech.

Why should a student be expelled just because a someone else was "violated and devastated"? If drawing pictures of Mohammed is fine, or soaking crucifixes in urine is free speech, then why not criticism of a foreign state?

It's not free speech because 1.) the flag wasn't his property 2.) he was directly harassing another student. Also this was a school setting, not a public forum, so speech can be controlled if it's disruptive.

 

[sandandfoam]

Why should a student be expelled just because a someone else was "violated and devastated"?

Erm,maybe because it is wrong to make others feel violated and devestated.
The response seems correct to me.

 

[Oneatatime]

The behaviour of the student appears to have been malicious in nature and therefore I believe that he deserved to be punished although expulsion was excessive. An apology to the Jewish student would have sufficed.

 

[Mazdak]

Erm,maybe because it is wrong to make others feel violated and devestated.
The response seems correct to me.

So any time someone makes fun of me for my last name and calls me a kraut I could claim to feel "violated and devastated" and try to get someone expelled?

Sure, what this guy did maybe was rude, just as calling me a kraut would be rude. But somehow I don't see people getting as worked up about people being anti-German, anti-Scottish, anti-French, or anti-whatever.

 

[sandandfoam]

So any time someone makes fun of me for my last name and calls me a kraut I could claim to feel "violated and devastated" and try to get someone expelled?

If you were violated and devastated, yes.

 

[Levite]

I kind of can't believe this discussion is happening. This exchange student was from Yeshivah University, an Orthodox college. That means that for this kid, the flag was almost certainly symbolic not merely of the nation-state Israel but of pride in the homecoming of the Jewish people. It is something that transcends politics into the realm of religion.

I am not at all fazed or displeased that a student was expelled for going over to another student's Israeli flag, rubbing his genitals, and then swiping his hands on the flag.

Let's put it this way: would anyone be shocked if the offended kid had been Saudi Arabian, and someone had taken his Saudi flag to wipe their butt, and the offender was expelled? I presume not, and not only out of respect for the kid's national flag, but because the Saudi flag has the text of the Shahadah on it, which may not be a Quran verse, but it is sacred from the hadith, and is arguably the most potent symbol of Islamic identity. I would presume, and hope, in such a situation, that the offending student would be kicked out of the university, and I imagine there would be no subsequent discussion of the unfairness of the punishment.

If some kid wants to go out and purchase an Israeli flag to publicly desecrate as part of a demonstration, I may think that's hateful and ignorant, but it is certainly free speech. But going to someone's room, desecrating that person's Israeli flag as a personal attack on someone's Jewish beliefs-- even if some of those beliefs are political-- is in no way, shape, or form free speech. It's bigoted and abusive, and the kid should be ashamed of himself.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I kind of can't believe this discussion is happening. This exchange student was from Yeshivah University, an Orthodox college. That means that for this kid, the flag was almost certainly symbolic not merely of the nation-state Israel but of pride in the homecoming of the Jewish people. It is something that transcends politics into the realm of religion.

I am not at all fazed or displeased that a student was expelled for going over to another student's Israeli flag, rubbing his genitals, and then swiping his hands on the flag.

Let's put it this way: would anyone be shocked if the offended kid had been Saudi Arabian, and someone had taken his Saudi flag to wipe their butt, and the offender was expelled? I presume not, and not only out of respect for the kid's national flag, but because the Saudi flag has the text of the Shahadah on it, which may not be a Quran verse, but it is sacred from the hadith, and is arguably the most potent symbol of Islamic identity. I would presume, and hope, in such a situation, that the offending student would be kicked out of the university, and I imagine there would be no subsequent discussion of the unfairness of the punishment.

If some kid wants to go out and purchase an Israeli flag to publicly desecrate as part of a demonstration, I may think that's hateful and ignorant, but it is certainly free speech. But going to someone's room, desecrating that person's Israeli flag as a personal attack on someone's Jewish beliefs-- even if some of those beliefs are political-- is in no way, shape, or form free speech. It's bigoted and abusive, and the kid should be ashamed of himself.

Whilst I agree it was ignorant and certainly was some kind of attack. he would have been surprised that the Jewish boy took it so seriously. The UK national flags are rarely held in any sort of personal affection or require any sort of defence from us, so we do find flag fetish some what strange and very "Foreign". It is only in Battle that we take such things seriously.

 

[Levite]

Whilst I agree it was ignorant and certainly was some kind of attack. he would have been surprised that the Jewish boy took it so seriously. The UK national flags are rarely held in any sort of personal affection or require any sort of defence from us, so we do find flag fetish some what strange and very "Foreign". It is only in Battle that we take such things seriously.

Well, I expect it's something of a shame, for him, that he decided to insult someone else's symbol in an extremely grave fashion before finding out just what it meant to them.

Again, what I want to stress is not that the flag was Israeli and thus somehow ought to be more "inviolable" than other flags, but that the flag belonged to the Jewish kid, it was apparently in his room, and it did not belong to the offending student: that student had no right to do what he did. And the fact that he did it to the possession of a foreign kid, whom he ought have expected to have cultural differences that might attach to the things he owned or valued, simply demonstrates to my mind that it was a knee-jerk act of intolerance.

It's interesting to me to hear that British people apparently don't feel attached to or overly respectful to their national symbols of cultural heritage and identity. But even if I did not know this, and I were a visitor to Britain, my presumption would be that such things were respected, and that it would be taken amiss for me to walk into someone's space, take their flag, and use it as a hanky for my junk. Call me old-fashioned, if you will, but it seems to me that it is safer to presume that something that someone owns and displays, which reflects some element of their culture and national identity, is likely to be valued-- perhaps even significantly so.

How is it not natural, especially when dealing with people from other cultures, to presume that respectfulness is a good place to start from, until one has a better sense of where their values and beliefs fall out?

I don't mean to suggest we all ought to walk on eggshells around one another. But there has to be such a thing as basic respect and cultural courtesy. And this isn't a case of someone speaking a little too frankly, or making some similarly small faux pas. He walked into the guy's room, reached into his own pants, felt up his own meat and two veg, and rubbed his hands on the guy's flag. Short of actually taking a whiz or a crap on the guy's flag, it's hard to think of anything more likely to be offensive to the guy's flag, and clearly, the flag means something to the guy, because it's on display in his room. Precisely what gap of cultural knowledge would make it surprising that, if he did something incredibly offensive to another person's displayed flag , that might be taken as unacceptable?

 

[kai]

Well, I expect it's something of a shame, for him, that he decided to insult someone else's symbol in an extremely grave fashion before finding out just what it meant to them.

Again, what I want to stress is not that the flag was Israeli and thus somehow ought to be more "inviolable" than other flags, but that the flag belonged to the Jewish kid, it was apparently in his room, and it did not belong to the offending student: that student had no right to do what he did. And the fact that he did it to the possession of a foreign kid, whom he ought have expected to have cultural differences that might attach to the things he owned or valued, simply demonstrates to my mind that it was a knee-jerk act of intolerance.

It's interesting to me to hear that British people apparently don't feel attached to or overly respectful to their national symbols of cultural heritage and identity.

But even if I did not know this, and I were a visitor to Britain, my presumption would be that such things were respected, and that it would be taken amiss for me to walk into someone's space, take their flag, and use it as a hanky for my junk. Call me old-fashioned, if you will, but it seems to me that it is safer to presume that something that someone owns and displays, which reflects some element of their culture and national identity, is likely to be valued-- perhaps even significantly so.

How is it not natural, especially when dealing with people from other cultures, to presume that respectfulness is a good place to start from, until one has a better sense of where their values and beliefs fall out?

I don't mean to suggest we all ought to walk on eggshells around one another. But there has to be such a thing as basic respect and cultural courtesy. And this isn't a case of someone speaking a little too frankly, or making some similarly small faux pas. He walked into the guy's room, reached into his own pants, felt up his own meat and two veg, and rubbed his hands on the guy's flag. Short of actually taking a whiz or a crap on the guy's flag, it's hard to think of anything more likely to be offensive to the guy's flag, and clearly, the flag means something to the guy, because it's on display in his room. Precisely what gap of cultural knowledge would make it surprising that, if he did something incredibly offensive to another person's displayed flag , that might be taken as unacceptable?

At home we dont take much interest and its generalizing somewhat, i do see people flying them on occasion, Over the last few decades the English in particular have been given somehow the feeling its wrong to take national pride. but expats do, so if i was in say the US and had a Union flag on my wall and someone done the same to it. lets just say i wouldn't be very happy about it. And i dread to think of the outcome if someone did it to a Scot or an Irishmen or Welshmen.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Well, I expect it's something of a shame, for him, that he decided to insult someone else's symbol in an extremely grave fashion before finding out just what it meant to them.

Again, what I want to stress is not that the flag was Israeli and thus somehow ought to be more "inviolable" than other flags, but that the flag belonged to the Jewish kid, it was apparently in his room, and it did not belong to the offending student: that student had no right to do what he did. And the fact that he did it to the possession of a foreign kid, whom he ought have expected to have cultural differences that might attach to the things he owned or valued, simply demonstrates to my mind that it was a knee-jerk act of intolerance.

It's interesting to me to hear that British people apparently don't feel attached to or overly respectful to their national symbols of cultural heritage and identity. But even if I did not know this, and I were a visitor to Britain, my presumption would be that such things were respected, and that it would be taken amiss for me to walk into someone's space, take their flag, and use it as a hanky for my junk. Call me old-fashioned, if you will, but it seems to me that it is safer to presume that something that someone owns and displays, which reflects some element of their culture and national identity, is likely to be valued-- perhaps even significantly so.

How is it not natural, especially when dealing with people from other cultures, to presume that respectfulness is a good place to start from, until one has a better sense of where their values and beliefs fall out?

I don't mean to suggest we all ought to walk on eggshells around one another. But there has to be such a thing as basic respect and cultural courtesy. And this isn't a case of someone speaking a little too frankly, or making some similarly small faux pas. He walked into the guy's room, reached into his own pants, felt up his own meat and two veg, and rubbed his hands on the guy's flag. Short of actually taking a whiz or a crap on the guy's flag, it's hard to think of anything more likely to be offensive to the guy's flag, and clearly, the flag means something to the guy, because it's on display in his room. Precisely what gap of cultural knowledge would make it surprising that, if he did something incredibly offensive to another person's displayed flag , that might be taken as unacceptable?

I am not sure I see anything in it being an Israeli flag, that gives it any special status , one way or the other. The British tend to be much more respectful of their history institutions and traditions... which would include regimental standards, than they are their national flag which is only a cobbled together version of our individual nations flags. That said, it is nice seeing it going up the pole when we win something. But it has never bothered me to see it burnt spat at or stamped on by some halfwit abroad. That only demonstrates their own status not that of the flag.

 

[kai]

I am not sure I see anything in it being an Israeli flag, that gives it any special status , one way or the other. The British tend to be much more respectful of their history institutions and traditions... which would include regimental standards, than they are their national flag which is only a cobbled together version of our individual nations flags. That said, it is nice seeing it going up the pole when we win something. But it has never bothered me to see it burnt spat at or stamped on by some halfwit abroad. That only demonstrates their own status not that of the flag.

I have to disagree a little Terry, some nations are very proud of their flags and take them very seriously Israelis are in my experience, so are Arabs especially if it has Quranic verses on them.I think the English are the least in according any staus to their national flag. IMHO of course

 

[Levite]

I am not sure I see anything in it being an Israeli flag, that gives it any special status , one way or the other. The British tend to be much more respectful of their history institutions and traditions... which would include regimental standards, than they are their national flag which is only a cobbled together version of our individual nations flags. That said, it is nice seeing it going up the pole when we win something. But it has never bothered me to see it burnt spat at or stamped on by some halfwit abroad. That only demonstrates their own status not that of the flag.

You might not see the Israeli flag so. Others might not either. But that's not the point: the flag didn't belong to someone else, it belonged to that Orthodox boy. It wasn't the offender's property to do with as he liked.

And if his claim is that he had no idea how the Orthodox boy felt about the flag, because he isn't familiar with such kinds of symbols holding such deep national and cultural value, then to me that speaks all the more of the fact that, not knowing how someone else's culture would hold such symbols, he ought to have been more respectful.

In any case, I don't think that the Orthodox boy's problem was that the offender's act devalued the flag itself, but that it was a direct attack on something that was representative of his identity.

Even if one presumes that flags themselves are not sacred in some way, everyone knows that they are symbols. Perhaps the offender is of the opinion that they are extremely superficial symbols, not particularly connected to anything deep. But I think anyone with even a modicum of empathy would suppose that other people, from different cultures, might interpret symbols differently, and perhaps might feel otherwise. Not to recognize that, and to proceed as if everyone, everywhere sees things the same way one does oneself-- to the point of using someone else's property as a wipe for one's private parts, right in front of their face-- is both dangerously incorrect and horrifyingly self-centered.