Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Oct '16 19:08
    A woman's hijab was pulled down by two men in the UK ,they both ran off .The police are treating it as a racist incident .
    Why is it a racist incident ?
  2. 09 Oct '16 21:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by phil3000
    A woman's hijab was pulled down by two men in the UK ,they both ran off .The police are treating it as a racist incident .
    Why is it a racist incident ?
    Its not and i have never understood why it is either. Some people like the Jews claim that their religious designation is derived from an ethnicity but I have never bought it. why? because a religious belief is not determined by ethnicity. This was the basis for the claim that Fischer himself was Jewish when in fact Fischer was a Christian by faith and repudiated Judaism. Claiming that someone has a religious designation on the basis of ethnicity is nonsense for it means that you could never repudiate or change that religion, ethnicity being immutable.
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    09 Oct '16 23:27
    It's not racist because "Muslim" isn't a race. It's still a hate crime, because the perpetrators (most likely) knew women practicing hijab believe they are to remain covered; this act was meant to disrespect those beliefs.
  4. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    10 Oct '16 22:26
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Its not and i have never understood why it is either. Some people like the Jews claim that their religious designation is derived from an ethnicity but I have never bought it. why? because a religious belief is not determined by ethnicity. This was the basis for the claim that Fischer himself was Jewish when in fact Fischer was a Christian by fait ...[text shortened]... for it means that you could never repudiate or change that religion, ethnicity being immutable.
    So apparently, you wouldn't have a problem with these men being charged with a hate crime and assault?
  5. 11 Oct '16 09:58
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    So apparently, you wouldn't have a problem with these men being charged with a hate crime and assault?
    I have no problem with anyone being charged with a hate crime or an assault if they committed one. I do have a problem though with people who cannot tell the difference between a racially motivated crime and a religiously motivated crime.
  6. 11 Oct '16 15:45
    Originally posted by vivify
    It's not racist because "Muslim" isn't a race. It's still a hate crime, because the perpetrators (most likely) knew women practicing hijab believe they are to remain covered; this act was meant to disrespect those beliefs.
    Races, like religions, ethnicities and nationalities are social constructs and none of them are inherent to a person. Since races can be arbitrarily defined/categorized there is no a priori reason to include or exclude "Muslim" from being a "race."
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Oct '16 15:51
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I have no problem with anyone being charged with a hate crime or an assault if they committed one. I do have a problem though with people who cannot tell the difference between a racially motivated crime and a religiously motivated crime.
    Either one is a crime.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    11 Oct '16 15:51
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Races, like religions, ethnicities and nationalities are social constructs and none of them are inherent to a person. Since races can be arbitrarily defined/categorized there is no a priori reason to include or exclude "Muslim" from being a "race."
    The traditional manner in which race has been defined includes an element of discreetness. If you can change a status, that status is not race. You can change religions. Ergo, religions are not races.
  9. 11 Oct '16 16:59
    Originally posted by sh76
    The traditional manner in which race has been defined includes an element of discreetness. If you can change a status, that status is not race. You can change religions. Ergo, religions are not races.
    Evidently the police in this case deviate from your tradition.
  10. 11 Oct '16 19:41
    I wonder what would happen if the same thing happened to someone wearing the kippah .
    Absolutely nothing I would guess.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    11 Oct '16 20:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Evidently the police in this case deviate from your tradition.
    Yes, and they're wrong.

    Edit: Well, perhaps they considered it racist because it was targeting Arabs (and I don't know that it did, but it's possible) and not just necessarily Muslims.
  12. 11 Oct '16 20:56
    Originally posted by sh76
    Yes, and they're wrong.

    Edit: Well, perhaps they considered it racist because it was targeting Arabs (and I don't know that it did, but it's possible) and not just necessarily Muslims.
    A police chief in Birmingham ( UK ) said he would be happy if any of his female police officers wore a burka .
  13. Standard member vivify
    rain
    11 Oct '16 21:28
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Races, like religions, ethnicities and nationalities are social constructs and none of them are inherent to a person. Since races can be arbitrarily defined/categorized there is no a priori reason to include or exclude "Muslim" from being a "race."
    Members of different races have biological differences that they're born with. That's not the case with members of a religion; you can't be born Muslim, you become Muslim.
  14. 11 Oct '16 21:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vivify to KazetNagorra
    Members of different races have biological differences that they're born with. That's not the case with members of a religion; you can't be born Muslim, you become Muslim.
    Anyone (including a very pale blue-eyed blond Nordic person) may convert to Islam.
    But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not white Europeans.
    So the "hating Muslims cannot be racist" excuse is used to cover up racism in effect.

    If someone who looks like Anders Breivik (a white Norwegian mass murderer of Muslims)
    were to convert to Islam, then I doubt that he would get 'racially profiled' as a 'Muslim terrorist'.

    "Members of different races have biological differences that they're born with."
    --Vivify

    'Racial' classification according to these 'biological differences' seems largely arbitrary,
    based more upon political or social considerations than upon scientific ones.
    The same person may be perceived as 'black' in the USA and as 'white' in Brazil.

    Tiger Woods is 1/2 East Asian and 1/4 black African by ancestry, but in the USA he's
    almost always perceived and treated as black or African-American, not Asian-American.
    And there are people in Thailand (his mother's native country) whose skin is at least as
    dark as Tiger Woods's, and they would not be perceived as black by most Americans.

    "That's not the case with members of a religion..."
    --Vivify

    Even though he absolutely denied being a Jew and never was a religious Jew, Bobby
    Fischer's still regarded as a Jew--under Jewish law--because his mother was Jewish.

    "You can't be born Muslim, you become Muslim."
    --Vivify

    Many, if not most, Muslim parents regard their children (without asking them) as Muslims at birth.
  15. 11 Oct '16 21:59 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76 to KazetNagorra
    The traditional manner in which race has been defined includes an element of discreetness.
    If you can change a status, that status is not race. You can change religions. Ergo, religions are not races.
    Sh76 apparently believe that it's impossible to change one's 'race'.
    But even in apartheid South Africa, a few people changed their legal status of 'race'.
    And other people know that their 'race'--or the *perception* of their 'race', socially
    or even legally--*does change* according to where they are.

    The same person may be perceived as 'black' in one society and as 'white' in another society.
    Tiger Woods (who's 1/2 East Asian and 1/4 black African ancestry) is almost always
    perceived as black and not Asian in the USA. But in Thailand, he's perceived as Asian.

    Some people have argued that Bobby Fischer cannot have changed being a Jew
    because his mother was Jewish and so Jewish law defined him--forever--as a Jew.
    Would Sh76 accept Bobby Fischer's chosen identity that he's not a Jew in any way?

    "If you can change a status, that status is not race."
    --Sh76

    Given that a person can legally change one's gender status, then does that mean that we should
    stop talking about gender as if it's determined only by biology rather than being a social construct?