Racism - whats the actual law?
Discussion
I was discussing this with a friend, because with immigration control being a hot topic in the past couple of years and it will probably spike again after we actually leave the EU, there is likely to be a lot of people talking about the topic in pubs, etc. and, in our opinion, it doesn't seem to be clear cut if people can legally talk about/criticise other specific racial groups of people (well, its muddy to us anyway - neither of us are well versed in law by any means)
So I'm talking about if someone were having a discussion in public (i.e. not electronic or written communication) and something like this came up:
"You know mate, all these f
king [insert racial slur] get on me nerves, all they do is come over here and [insert negative racial stereotype based on racial slur]"
and it either turns out that either a) a member of that racial group associated (or partly associated, i.e. mixed heritage) with that racial slur overheard it, or b) it turns out that the person you're saying it to just so happens to partially be part of that racial group (mixed heritage) that was criticised (but the person saying it didn't know that beforehand).
Provided that nothing else happened (i.e. there was no direct verbal abuse, and no physical violence), what is the actual law surrounding it? Would it make a difference if a racial slur was used or not? I've looked up the public order act 1986 and it seems that - again, from the way we've read it - that you need to do a non-racist offence in addition to the racial bit, for it to be treated as a racist crime.
(Also, before anyone accuses me of deliberately looking for a way to be racist, or accuses me of walking around with a race card looking to be the victim, I am neither. This is a genuine question about the law)
So I'm talking about if someone were having a discussion in public (i.e. not electronic or written communication) and something like this came up:
"You know mate, all these f
king [insert racial slur] get on me nerves, all they do is come over here and [insert negative racial stereotype based on racial slur]"and it either turns out that either a) a member of that racial group associated (or partly associated, i.e. mixed heritage) with that racial slur overheard it, or b) it turns out that the person you're saying it to just so happens to partially be part of that racial group (mixed heritage) that was criticised (but the person saying it didn't know that beforehand).
Provided that nothing else happened (i.e. there was no direct verbal abuse, and no physical violence), what is the actual law surrounding it? Would it make a difference if a racial slur was used or not? I've looked up the public order act 1986 and it seems that - again, from the way we've read it - that you need to do a non-racist offence in addition to the racial bit, for it to be treated as a racist crime.
(Also, before anyone accuses me of deliberately looking for a way to be racist, or accuses me of walking around with a race card looking to be the victim, I am neither. This is a genuine question about the law)
You need a primary offence to be made out before it can be racially or religiously aggravated.
This needs to be damage, assault, harassment or certain public order offences.
Once you have one of those, you need one of the below for the offence to be aggravated:
My view is that your example would amount to an offence. The person overhearing it doesn't need to belong to the group being spoken of.
It's worth nothing there are other racial offences within the public order act, football chanting etc but these are rarely if ever used.
This needs to be damage, assault, harassment or certain public order offences.
Once you have one of those, you need one of the below for the offence to be aggravated:
CADA 1998 said:
(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 or religious group]; or
(b) The offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a [racial or religious group] based on their membership of that group.
So in terms of your example, if it was judged to be a public order offence (S5 or 4A in these circumstances), then you have to ask whether (a) or (b) above were made out. (b) The offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a [racial or religious group] based on their membership of that group.
My view is that your example would amount to an offence. The person overhearing it doesn't need to belong to the group being spoken of.
It's worth nothing there are other racial offences within the public order act, football chanting etc but these are rarely if ever used.
La Liga said:
So in terms of your example, if it was judged to be a public order offence (S5 or 4A in these circumstances), then you have to ask whether (a) or (b) above were made out.
My view is that your example would amount to an offence. The person overhearing it doesn't need to belong to the group being spoken of.
It's worth nothing there are other racial offences within the public order act, football chanting etc but these are rarely if ever used.
Thank you for your reply.My view is that your example would amount to an offence. The person overhearing it doesn't need to belong to the group being spoken of.
It's worth nothing there are other racial offences within the public order act, football chanting etc but these are rarely if ever used.
In my example, what would the primary offence be?
Section 5 of the Public Order Act.
Unless the person saying it had intended to cause harassment, alarm and distress then it'd be 4A.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_of...
Unless the person saying it had intended to cause harassment, alarm and distress then it'd be 4A.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_of...
AIUI, there are two ways 'racism' can be criminal. One, not relevant to your example but offered for completeness; is racism as motivation for a committing another crime, e.g. Assault, were the racist is considered an aggravation.
The second, relevant to your example is inciting racial hatred, the comments themselves may be racist, but that alone doesn't make them a crime. It is incitement that matters, they need to be abusive or threatening with the intent to increase racial hatred.
The second, relevant to your example is inciting racial hatred, the comments themselves may be racist, but that alone doesn't make them a crime. It is incitement that matters, they need to be abusive or threatening with the intent to increase racial hatred.
La Liga said:
Section 5 of the Public Order Act.
Unless the person saying it had intended to cause harassment, alarm and distress then it'd be 4A.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_of...
and this on incitement offences.Unless the person saying it had intended to cause harassment, alarm and distress then it'd be 4A.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_of...
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/rr...
4x4Tyke said:
CPS said:
This offence is committed when the accused person says or does something which is threatening, abusive or insulting and, by doing so, either intends to stir up racial hatred, or makes it likely that racial hatred will be stirred up. This can include such things as making a speech, displaying a racist poster, publishing written material, performing a play or broadcasting something in the media.
That doesn't sound as applicable to two blokes having a chat in a pub though? From the way its written, it seems more to do with e.g. the bloke picking up the pub quiz microphone and preaching racial hate to everyone in there?sonnenschein3000 said:
That doesn't sound as applicable to two blokes having a chat in a pub though? From the way its written, it seems more to do with e.g. the bloke picking up the pub quiz microphone and preaching racial hate to everyone in there?
Yes I think that suggests it requires being public to some degree, however I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to assert that, which is why I linked rather than express that position. I deleted a half written sentence on that because of uncertainty.4x4Tyke said:
Yes I think that suggests it requires being public to some degree, however I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to assert that, which is why I linked rather than express that position. I deleted a half written sentence on that because of uncertainty.
This is what I mean. It does all seem quite muddy and vague, which is why I started the topic lolThe example given by the OP would be recorded as a Race / Religious aggravated S5 POA offence. Its occured in a public place i.e. the pub and has either caused some alarm or distress or would have been likely to have caused some person alarm or distress.
Not a problem within a dwelling where the public order act generally doesnt apply.
Had the person making comments merely moaned about foreigners coming into the country nicking jobs - with no specific abuse or specific racist references - then there would be no public order offence to record - and therefore no crime to record. The racist aspect would be the listeners perception that his comments were racist. However if reported then Police would record a racist incident
Not a problem within a dwelling where the public order act generally doesnt apply.
Had the person making comments merely moaned about foreigners coming into the country nicking jobs - with no specific abuse or specific racist references - then there would be no public order offence to record - and therefore no crime to record. The racist aspect would be the listeners perception that his comments were racist. However if reported then Police would record a racist incident
Edited by Bigends on Monday 27th November 12:33
sonnenschein3000 said:
4x4Tyke said:
Yes I think that suggests it requires being public to some degree, however I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to assert that, which is why I linked rather than express that position. I deleted a half written sentence on that because of uncertainty.
This is what I mean. It does all seem quite muddy and vague, which is why I started the topic lolSee the explanations offered by Bigends and I.
As I said in my first post, other racial offences within the Public Order Act (like inciting etc) are rarely, if ever used.
sonnenschein3000 said:
I was discussing this with a friend, because with immigration control being a hot topic in the past couple of years and it will probably spike again after we actually leave the EU, there is likely to be a lot of people talking about the topic in pubs, etc. and, in our opinion, it doesn't seem to be clear cut if people can legally talk about/criticise other specific racial groups of people (well, its muddy to us anyway - neither of us are well versed in law by any means)
So I'm talking about if someone were having a discussion in public (i.e. not electronic or written communication) and something like this came up:
"You know mate, all these fking [insert racial slur] get on me nerves, all they do is come over here and [insert negative racial stereotype based on racial slur]"
and it either turns out that either a) a member of that racial group associated (or partly associated, i.e. mixed heritage) with that racial slur overheard it, or b) it turns out that the person you're saying it to just so happens to partially be part of that racial group (mixed heritage) that was criticised (but the person saying it didn't know that beforehand).
Provided that nothing else happened (i.e. there was no direct verbal abuse, and no physical violence), what is the actual law surrounding it? Would it make a difference if a racial slur was used or not? I've looked up the public order act 1986 and it seems that - again, from the way we've read it - that you need to do a non-racist offence in addition to the racial bit, for it to be treated as a racist crime.
(Also, before anyone accuses me of deliberately looking for a way to be racist, or accuses me of walking around with a race card looking to be the victim, I am neither. This is a genuine question about the law)
You’re telling me that you don’t know if saying either of the following is racist and an offence?So I'm talking about if someone were having a discussion in public (i.e. not electronic or written communication) and something like this came up:
"You know mate, all these f
king [insert racial slur] get on me nerves, all they do is come over here and [insert negative racial stereotype based on racial slur]"and it either turns out that either a) a member of that racial group associated (or partly associated, i.e. mixed heritage) with that racial slur overheard it, or b) it turns out that the person you're saying it to just so happens to partially be part of that racial group (mixed heritage) that was criticised (but the person saying it didn't know that beforehand).
Provided that nothing else happened (i.e. there was no direct verbal abuse, and no physical violence), what is the actual law surrounding it? Would it make a difference if a racial slur was used or not? I've looked up the public order act 1986 and it seems that - again, from the way we've read it - that you need to do a non-racist offence in addition to the racial bit, for it to be treated as a racist crime.
(Also, before anyone accuses me of deliberately looking for a way to be racist, or accuses me of walking around with a race card looking to be the victim, I am neither. This is a genuine question about the law)
“You know mate, all these f
king s get on me nerves, all they do is come over here and dance around like gollywogs”Or how about
“you know what mate, all these f
king s get on me nerves, all they do is come over here and stink the place out with curries”Both of the above are highly offensive and if said in public would undoubtedly be considered offences.
For info, all I have done is fill in the blanks in his quoted statement to highlight how ridiculous the question is. Neither of the above represent my views, but they may well represent many from NP&E
Bigends said:
The racist aspect would be the listeners perception that his comments were racist.
Okay, this bit is quite interesting then. So in effect the powers lie within the person hearing it to decide whether or not racist, and then the police have to treat it as racist if it has been complained of as racist?Edited by Bigends on Monday 27th November 12:33
sonnenschein3000 said:
Bigends said:
The racist aspect would be the listeners perception that his comments were racist.
Okay, this bit is quite interesting then. So in effect the powers lie within the person hearing it to decide whether or not racist, and then the police have to treat it as racist if it has been complained of as racist?Edited by Bigends on Monday 27th November 12:33
Bigends said:
Had the person making comments merely moaned about foreigners coming into the country nicking jobs - with no specific abuse or specific racist references - then there would be no public order offence to record - and therefore no crime to record. The racist aspect would be the listeners perception that his comments were racist. However if reported then Police would record a racist incident
Here Bigends is talking about a racist incident, not a racist crime. A racist incident is an incident which a person perceives as racist. It doesn't have to have anything to do with a crime but the police will record it as a racist incident.
The media, organisations involved with race / hate and sometimes even the police aren't consistent with using crime / incident correctly so it makes it harder to understand.
It's quite normal for some people to make 'wise cracks' amongst themselves about other nationals. I don't think there is always hostility or intent behind it.
If my builder mate had a grumble about the polish he wouldn't actually mean any harm to them. He's just commenting that people from Poland may steal his work. It's a fact they're from Poland. Would that really be an offence?
I have noticed that the Scotsman, Englishmen and Irishmen jokes seem to have stopped but I bet they joke about us. No more Ba Ba Black sheep at schools etc.
If my builder mate had a grumble about the polish he wouldn't actually mean any harm to them. He's just commenting that people from Poland may steal his work. It's a fact they're from Poland. Would that really be an offence?
I have noticed that the Scotsman, Englishmen and Irishmen jokes seem to have stopped but I bet they joke about us. No more Ba Ba Black sheep at schools etc.
Boosted LS1 said:
It's quite normal for some people to make 'wise cracks' amongst themselves about other nationals. I don't think there is always hostility or intent behind it.
If my builder mate had a grumble about the polish he wouldn't actually mean any harm to them. He's just commenting that people from Poland may steal his work. It's a fact they're from Poland. Would that really be an offence?
I have noticed that the Scotsman, Englishmen and Irishmen jokes seem to have stopped but I bet they joke about us. No more Ba Ba Black sheep at schools etc.
Context and circumstances are essential. If my builder mate had a grumble about the polish he wouldn't actually mean any harm to them. He's just commenting that people from Poland may steal his work. It's a fact they're from Poland. Would that really be an offence?
I have noticed that the Scotsman, Englishmen and Irishmen jokes seem to have stopped but I bet they joke about us. No more Ba Ba Black sheep at schools etc.
If I say, in a pub, "We need to reduce north African immigration due to the heightened risk of AIDS those immigrants bring".
It's a little different from saying, "We need to stop those N-word coming over here and spreading AIDS".
There's context in this post. Imagine PH would allow me to write the N-word, then it's being used in an illustrative and explanatory manner as opposed to an offensive one.
La Liga said:
ontext and circumstances are essential.
If I say, in a pub, "We need to reduce north African immigration due to the heightened risk of AIDS those immigrants bring".
It's a little different from saying, "We need to stop those N-word coming over here and spreading AIDS".
So, in a pub, the 1st line would be a racist incident at the most, but the 2nd line would be a section 5 (public order act) offence?If I say, in a pub, "We need to reduce north African immigration due to the heightened risk of AIDS those immigrants bring".
It's a little different from saying, "We need to stop those N-word coming over here and spreading AIDS".
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff