A New Racists' Charter in the making?

[Calladan]

what's so stupid about ableism? it's just another way of saying discrimination against the disabled, which does exist. like. i don't even see hows someone could possibly contest it. even without the long long history, hate crimes against the disabled have been rising while the government have been pushing through a generally catastrophic reform of disability benefits that has been done so badly that the UN have slammed it as a systemic violation of disabled people's rights. it's not something people just made up.

No. No it's not the same at all.

Let me put it this way. Racism. Discrimination based upon race. There is no real reason to do this, at all. Ever.

Ableism. Discrimination based upon Ability(Or Disability.) There is EVERY reason for this attitude. You don't hire someone in a wheelchair as a professional runner. You don't hire someone who's blind to drive a car.

Attempting to conflate the two vastly simplifies the issues into some trite bullshit in an attempt to make apples out of oranges.

How many buildings have ramps vs stairs? How many have lifts vs stairs ways or escalators? How many public buildings have signs in braille? How many public buildings have T-Loops and so on to aid deaf people?

In short, how many public buildings are easily accessible to people with various disabilities vs people with no disaibilties? And when you can't walk, hear, see - when you have only one arm instead of two, when you are partially sighted, when you have a myriad of other physical problems (without even getting into mental disabilities and so forth) - how do you deal with the day to day problems of accessing buidlings?

When you consider all of that, do you STILL think ableism is an invention and doesn't exist except in the mind of a few malcontents?

[Aellex]

How many buildings have ramps vs stairs? How many have lifts vs stairs ways or escalators? How many public buildings have signs in braille? How many public buildings have T-Loops and so on to aid deaf people?

In short, how many public buildings are easily accessible to people with various disabilities vs people with no disaibilties? And when you can't walk, hear, see - when you have only one arm instead of two, when you are partially sighted, when you have a myriad of other physical problems (without even getting into mental disabilities and so forth) - how do you deal with the day to day problems of accessing buidlings?

When you consider all of that, do you STILL think ableism is an invention and doesn't exist except in the mind of a few malcontents?

You just described the problems that come with having disabilities, that's all. You haven't proven in any way the existence of "ableism".

[Vassenor]

How many buildings have ramps vs stairs? How many have lifts vs stairs ways or escalators? How many public buildings have signs in braille? How many public buildings have T-Loops and so on to aid deaf people?

In short, how many public buildings are easily accessible to people with various disabilities vs people with no disaibilties? And when you can't walk, hear, see - when you have only one arm instead of two, when you are partially sighted, when you have a myriad of other physical problems (without even getting into mental disabilities and so forth) - how do you deal with the day to day problems of accessing buidlings?

When you consider all of that, do you STILL think ableism is an invention and doesn't exist except in the mind of a few malcontents?

You just described the problems that come with having disabilities, that's all. You haven't proven in any way the existence of "ableism".

If it's not a thing why did the government have to legislate against it?

[Souseiseki]

You just described the problems that come with having disabilities, that's all. You haven't proven in any way the existence of "ableism".

If it's not a thing why did the government have to legislate against it?

let's be honest the government legislates against bullshit problems that don't exist all the time, so the governments actions don't mean much

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I am far more concerned over the fact that, in the U.S., African Americans and members of other minority groups are over-represented in the penal system. Law enforcement officers, on the other hand, are rarely convicted even in the sparse number of cases in which charges are filed against them.

[Minoa]

I am just going to say. The Ableism thing? Drop it. It makes your entire position look stupid by association.

It's almost to the point where I'm seriously considering Ableism to be something introduced by the right wing SPECIFICALLY to make Social Justice as an ideology look stupid.

The rest of it, while opening a can of worms I believe is best left shut, actually has some legitimate questions to be asked and answered. There is a logic behind it.

Ableism has no such justification for it's existence.

what's so stupid about ableism? it's just another way of saying discrimination against the disabled, which does exist. like. i don't even see hows someone could possibly contest it. even without the long long history, hate crimes against the disabled have been rising while the government have been pushing through a generally catastrophic reform of disability benefits that has been done so badly that the UN have slammed it as a systemic violation of disabled people's rights. it's not something people just made up.

To add on to this post from my point of view, it is only fortunate that I do not have to rely on the food banks, but my patience in the country has run out of steam to a point that I consider myself de facto stateless. I have also considered assisted suicide in Switzerland many times.

I don't call ableism as such for nothing.

Quotes expanded for greater detail.

[Calladan]

How many buildings have ramps vs stairs? How many have lifts vs stairs ways or escalators? How many public buildings have signs in braille? How many public buildings have T-Loops and so on to aid deaf people?

In short, how many public buildings are easily accessible to people with various disabilities vs people with no disaibilties? And when you can't walk, hear, see - when you have only one arm instead of two, when you are partially sighted, when you have a myriad of other physical problems (without even getting into mental disabilities and so forth) - how do you deal with the day to day problems of accessing buidlings?

When you consider all of that, do you STILL think ableism is an invention and doesn't exist except in the mind of a few malcontents?

You just described the problems that come with having disabilities, that's all. You haven't proven in any way the existence of "ableism".

There is a term - institutionalised racism - that suggests a problem with racism so deep, so ingrained that no one really realises it is there. It is second nature, so built into the system, that people just accept it.

I'll just leave that thought with you.

[Aellex]

There is a term - institutionalised racism - that suggests a problem with racism so deep, so ingrained that no one really realises it is there. It is second nature, so built into the system, that people just accept it.

I'll just leave that thought with you.

More made-up bullshit by people who're so desperate to find things to bitch and moan about they'll grasp at the smallest thing that come across them and even invent some if they find none so they can get a reason to "fight", then? Well, thanks for leaving that thought, it's only confirming even more the justness of The Emerald Legion's observation.

Honestly, ableism was already bullshit but institutionalized racism just takes the palm.

[Geilinor]

How many buildings have ramps vs stairs? How many have lifts vs stairs ways or escalators? How many public buildings have signs in braille? How many public buildings have T-Loops and so on to aid deaf people?

In short, how many public buildings are easily accessible to people with various disabilities vs people with no disaibilties? And when you can't walk, hear, see - when you have only one arm instead of two, when you are partially sighted, when you have a myriad of other physical problems (without even getting into mental disabilities and so forth) - how do you deal with the day to day problems of accessing buidlings?

When you consider all of that, do you STILL think ableism is an invention and doesn't exist except in the mind of a few malcontents?

You just described the problems that come with having disabilities, that's all. You haven't proven in any way the existence of "ableism".

Ableism is when nothing is done to address those problems but people with disabilities get blamed when they experience them.

[Aellex]

Ableism is when nothing is done to address those problems but people get blamed for not being more successful.

Who exactly blame disabled people for not being more successful? This whole argument of your isn't making much sense.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Ableism (called disablism in Europe) appears differently to people, like myself, who have been victimized by it.

[Geilinor]

Ableism is when nothing is done to address those problems but people get blamed for not being more successful.

Who exactly blame disabled people for not being more successful? This whole argument of your isn't making much sense.

https://stv.tv/news/features/1373605-disability-discrimination-is-stigma-to-blame-for-employment-drop/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/murder-victims-disabilities-mercy-killings_us_58bd5abfe4b05cf0f401b603
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/02/students-disabilities-frustrated-ignorance-and-lack-services
http://agerrtc.washington.edu/info/factsheets/stigma

It sure seems to exist.

[Vassenor]

There is a term - institutionalised racism - that suggests a problem with racism so deep, so ingrained that no one really realises it is there. It is second nature, so built into the system, that people just accept it.

I'll just leave that thought with you.

More made-up bullshit by people who're so desperate to find things to bitch and moan about they'll grasp at the smallest thing that come across them and even invent some if they find none so they can get a reason to "fight", then? Well, thanks for leaving that thought, it's only confirming even more the justness of The Emerald Legion's observation.

Honestly, ableism was already bullshit but institutionalized racism just takes the palm.

So made up that it totally didn't exist within the police service despite what the Macpherson inquiry would claim.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Just to put this in context, Since the Manchester Arena Bombing children received a 300% increase in calls from Muslim children saying they are afraid to go to school because they are verbally and physically bullied, being called names like "suicide bomber" and "terrorist kid", and being hit and spat at.

So yeah - I can see how people would HATE a law that gives them the chance to fuck over what they perceive as Muslim terrorists. Clearly it's going to be very unpopular.

To add on, I am right now genuinely worried about whether racism, ableism and LGBT-phobia in the UK is going to get worse, because of the Brexit and the recent terror attacks.

I am not a qualified lawyer, so do not know if the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme applies to hate crimes against ethnic minorities or the LGBT community.

What does race and LGBT have to do with recent terror attacks and Brexit?

[Calladan]

Ableism is when nothing is done to address those problems but people get blamed for not being more successful.

Who exactly blame disabled people for not being more successful? This whole argument of your isn't making much sense.

Oh - I'm sorry I couldn't get into the building that has no ramp when I am in a wheelchair. I do apologise for having my legs crushed in that accident, I promise I will be more careful next time I try to come into your building for an interview.

FFS.

[Demetland]

It might be useful to know more about how this mechanism actually works with its present scope. OP is naturally justified to be concerned about the consequences of expansion but it's difficult to see how the unrestrained hysterics in this thread are.

This isn't an automatic complaints process that will be guaranteed to lead to longer sentences. The public already express dissatisfaction with things they don't like in the usual extra-parliamentary way: lobbying, campaigning, protesting, and sometimes blatant criminal acts and rioting. If enough random members of the public, many of whom inevitably are not experts, complain for long enough they already can influence or even overturn legal decisions. The Alexander Blackman / Marine A case is probably an example of this. Maybe introducing a formal mechanism would make things better and lead to 'more just' outcomes. Maybe opposite mechanisms to appeal sentences that are felt to be too severe would also be logical. Though I don't think things like this are a good idea, even if there are some arguments in favour.

I also don't think it's reasonable to describe this bill as a 'racist's charter.' Not only is there no suggestion whatsoever that this is aimed against certain ethnic groups or other demographics, it's not clear that it will have unforeseen disproportionate effects on any specific group in any way that might constitute racism. Completely decouple intention from racism, etc. if you want but you could easily conclude that nature is ableist/sexist/racist. It's probably not very useful. This expansion involves far more than terror cases so the majority of the sentences opened up for this sort of appeal will likely not be for terrorism-related offences or even involving racially- or religiously-motivated offences involving Asians or Muslims.

There's still the simple objection to popular influence. I should think it highly unlikely that the Attorney-General would lose his seat because of public dissatisfaction. It's theoretically possible, yes. But if you object to this one legally-qualified MP having a role in the judiciary, why aren't you concerned at the fact that the supreme authority in the UK is the Queen-in-Parliament, whose most powerful part is the House of Commons consisting entirely of people whose job as representatives involves 'pandering' to their voters and always will because they are elected, and who are not required to be more legally-qualified than the constituents they represent, and yet they have almost unlimited right to make the law whatever they vote it to be?

[Calladan]

It might be useful to know more about how this mechanism actually works with its present scope. OP is naturally justified to be concerned about the consequences of expansion but it's difficult to see how the unrestrained hysterics in this thread are.

This isn't an automatic complaints process that will be guaranteed to lead to longer sentences. The public already express dissatisfaction with things they don't like in the usual extra-parliamentary way: lobbying, campaigning, protesting, and sometimes blatant criminal acts and rioting. If enough random members of the public, many of whom inevitably are not experts, complain for long enough they already can influence or even overturn legal decisions. The Alexander Blackman / Marine A case is probably an example of this. Maybe introducing a formal mechanism would make things better and lead to 'more just' outcomes. Maybe opposite mechanisms to appeal sentences that are felt to be too severe would also be logical. Though I don't think things like this are a good idea, even if there are some arguments in favour.

I also don't think it's reasonable to describe this bill as a 'racist's charter.' Not only is there no suggestio whatsoever that this is aimed against certain ethnic groups or other demographics, it's not clear that it will have unforeseen disproportionate effects on any specific group in any way that might constitute racism. Completely decouple intention from racism, etc. if you want but you could easily conclude that nature is ableist/sexist/racist. It's probably not very useful. This expansion involves far more than terror cases so the majority of the sentences opened up for this sort of appeal will likely not be for terrorism-related offences or even involving racially- or religiously-motivated offences involving Asians or Muslims.

There's still the simple objection to popular influence. I should think it highly unlikely that the Attorny-General would lose his seat because of public dissatisfaction. It's theoretically possible, yes. But if you object to this one legally-qualified MP having a role in the judiciary, why aren't you concerned at the fact that the supreme authority in the UK is the Queen-in-Parliament, whose most powerful part is the House of Commons consisting entirely of people whose job as representatives involves 'pandering' to their voters and always will because they are elected, and who are not required to be more legally-qualified than the constituents they represent, and yet they have almost unlimited right to make the law whatever they vote it to be?

1. I am aware of that. However, it is an automatic process that every request for a sentence to be reviewed has to be reviewed by the AGs office as to whether it should be handed to the Court of Appeal for actual review. So if more classifications of crimes are included, it is not unreasonable to suggest more crimes might end up being reviewed by the AGs office (a very small department to start with) and so it might get overloaded and the quality of reviews might go down.

2. I am not suggesting it is specifically aimed at one group. HOWEVER it is aimed at "terrorist offences", and every single piece of evidence, right across the spectrum of the press, the news, social media, NSG and every other piece of logic and reason, suggests that - in the UK, since 7/7 and more recent times, there is a large portion of the population that thinks the word "terrorist" is synonymous with the word "Muslim" and the word "Muslim" is synonymous with "immigrant" and the word "immigrant" is synonymous with the words "people with brown skin". And so when you tell this portion of the population they will now get a chance to appeal against the leniency of a sentence given to one of these Muslims...... sorry - these terrorists (aka these "brown skinned people") what do you think they will do? Say "No - I think that sentence was perfectly fair and balanced and we should respect the legal system that produced it" or "FUCK IT - LETS STICK IT TO THE BROWN ONES!!!! YEAH!!!"

If you think that there is no possibility of that, you have more faith in humanity than I do, and you have not been watching the news. Or reading the papers. Or reading NSG. (No offence to the non-racist members).

3. *shrug* A government has to be run by the people's representatives. Even if they pander. I have no issue with that. They make the laws, and I am quite happy with that. But once the laws are made, once they are debated, discussed and enacted, they should be handed over to a non-political wing of government - the judiciary. A judiciary should be unelected, independent and unbiased. They should not pander to anyone - not to the racists, not to the liberals. They should be able to do their job without fear or favour. And, quite frankly, they should be the ultimate authority in the country, to whom even Parliament should answer when Parliament breaks the law.

And I am not directly worried about the AG being voted out for not changing a sentence, but I am worried about a long term effect - that if the AG (and the government) doesn't had enough sentences over for review (once the change kicks in) then the right wing press will mount a campaign attacking them (or the judiciary - which it has already re:Brexit) and suddenly sentences or terror offences will be reviewed more easily, get increased more easily and then this country will go to hell.

[Aellex]

Oh - I'm sorry I couldn't get into the building that has no ramp when I am in a wheelchair. I do apologise for having my legs crushed in that accident, I promise I will be more careful next time I try to come into your building for an interview.

FFS.

Still talking about the problems that come with disabilities rather than any "ableism" nor even people blaming people with disabilities for not being successful enough.
Your argument is sounding worse and worse with every of your posts.

[Socialist Federative Slavia]

All this elitism sickens me.
Giving justice back to the people is AWESOME!

[Minzerland II]

Who exactly blame disabled people for not being more successful? This whole argument of your isn't making much sense.

Oh - I'm sorry I couldn't get into the building that has no ramp when I am in a wheelchair. I do apologise for having my legs crushed in that accident, I promise I will be more careful next time I try to come into your building for an interview.

FFS.

If you're disabled, then why're you applying to a job that may require you to have function in your legs?

[Vedastia]

I understand that the British government feels a need to look like it's doing something about terrorism and other crime without saying that mass immigration didn't work out as planned, but this just seems like it's going to go very wrong very fast.

[Calladan]

Oh - I'm sorry I couldn't get into the building that has no ramp when I am in a wheelchair. I do apologise for having my legs crushed in that accident, I promise I will be more careful next time I try to come into your building for an interview.

FFS.

Still talking about the problems that come with disabilities rather than any "ableism" nor even people blaming people with disabilities for not being successful enough.
Your argument is sounding worse and worse with every of your posts.

Yes. You are totally right. I don't know WHAT I was thinking. The fact my legs were crushed in an accident was TOTALLY my fault - I was clearly asking for it. And the fact I can't walk, and can't get into the building that you run, you are in charge of and you TOTALLY failed to make wheelchair accessible was ALSO my fault for not having a FLYING FUCKING WHEELCHAIR.

I am clearly in the wrong, and should be so totally ashamed of myself. I hang my head, and beg your forgiveness for suggesting that I should expect any help from society. What the fuck was I thinking?

Please, tell me more about how this is my fault and I should be doing everything to fix it, oh wise purveyor of knowledge.

[Vassenor]

I understand that the British government feels a need to look like it's doing something about terrorism and other crime without saying that mass immigration didn't work out as planned, but this just seems like it's going to go very wrong very fast.

Never mind that none of the people who have actually committed terrorist offences over the last half-century have been immigrants.

[Aellex]

Yes. You are totally right. I don't know WHAT I was thinking. The fact my legs were crushed in an accident was TOTALLY my fault - I was clearly asking for it. And the fact I can't walk, and can't get into the building that you run, you are in charge of and you TOTALLY failed to make wheelchair accessible was ALSO my fault for not having a FLYING FUCKING WHEELCHAIR.

I am clearly in the wrong, and should be so totally ashamed of myself. I hang my head, and beg your forgiveness for suggesting that I should expect any help from society. What the fuck was I thinking?

Please, tell me more about how this is my fault and I should be doing everything to fix it, oh wise purveyor of knowledge.

Still talking about the obvious fact that disabilities make people's life more difficult, still not proven in any way that ableism is a thing nor that people are blaming people with disabilities for not being successful enough. I honestly don't know if you seriously believe that by repeating the same thing enough time, you'll magically make arguments appear but it seems it isn't working so far. :^)

[Aellex]

Never mind that none of the people who have actually committed terrorist offences over the last half-century have been immigrants.

Children of immigrants are as much of a result of mass immigration as their parents.