Because it is an expression of their thoughts.

Non-violent attacks would be yes.

Sorry, Just answered my own questions (via wiki )

........ and I'll give anyone reading this just one guess exactly what racial profile I submit on any official paperwork that stipulates nationality.....!
I am NOT British, nor do I claim to be English & the reason for this is probably obvious.
Any child born in this country irrespective of ethnic parentage - asian, oriental, latino, etc is British/Welsh/Scottish/Manx/English/ Cornish/ etc, can lay claim to one of these 'labels' for nationality. Scots can be highlanders, lowlanders, but mainly Celts.
Our Welsh ( and I have the utmost respect for Welsh people) neighbours can historically claim to be the Genuine ancient Britons of this island nation.
I have a treasured friend ( who, incidentally lives in Wales} who proudly claims he is a Kentishman. Good for him. It's his right to have a cultural ethnic identity.
I have been called English (so what!) but this topic of a racial slur is a pathetic over reaction of the circumstances.
Long live the Red Dragon & Long live the White Dragon.

********************** ANGLO-SAXON ************************

I've always thought that a difference in race depended on the specific evolution of a branch of human that altered their appearance specifically to function better in their specific environment. The common, however disputed classifications being negroid, mongoloid, caucasoid and a few others. This is how I define race, so personally, I can't see how people separated by only a few thousand (if that) years of separation, and only through barriers produced through ancient political motivations.

This wasn't a racial slur. Maybe offensive, crude and xenophobic but not racist.

It was racially aggravated harassment. It was a racial comment. It was also definately, offensive, crude and xenophobic.

But Welsh and English aren't different races. Different nationalities yes, races, no.

Welsh are predominately derived from Celtic stock, whereas most English are either Anglo-Saxon or Danish in Origin.... But, there has been significant mixing going on for the past couple of thousand years that I doubt that there is a significant difference.

reply to post by anglosaxon

---

Anglo-Saxon, don't forget that the Cornish are the same ethnic grouping as the welsh and as such, can claim to be the first Britons too.

(I'm Cornish )

Noone has said otherwise.

Racism encompasses race, colour and nationality.

At the end of the day we are all part of the human race.

I'm pretty certain that racism deals only with racial discrimination and prejudice. This could also be said of color. Nationality is the odd duck that doesn't belong.

That's like saying that if I fear black people I'm homophobic.

I know that according to British law it encompasses nationality too, but it isn't very accurate.

reply to post by Rasobasi420

---

It's is not just the UK. It is part of the UN definition.

Saying racism can be race and colour but not nationality is bizarre. Why not just race?

Race and color are directly related. Someone from African descent would be a different color that someone of European descent. However, if I didn't like people from Connecticut, then all of a sudden Connecticut leaves the union I'm turned into a racist?

Seems extremely flawed to me. Racism deals with race, nationalism deals with nationality (however in a good way. That one confuses me.)

Race is exclusive. Colour is not. Colour is a tendency, not an exclusive.



In law racism covers race, colour and nationality.

Nationality referes to a person's orgin and culture, among other things, and as such somes under the umbrella of racism.

The problem here is the word racism.

People naturally, though wrongly, assume racism = race only. It does not, both legally and morally (certainly in my framework of morality).

[edit on 13/12/2007 by skibtz]

[edit on 13/12/2007 by skibtz]

That's a bit of silly logic if you ask me. If nationality applies, then why not gender or age? Why the need for separate classifications for ageism and sexism?

There needs to be a solid distinction between prejudice based on something as silly as a line down the middle of an island and prejudice based on skin color or race.

You are shooting the messenger

It is not logic. It is law.

According to international law, acts of racism encompass many factors, not just race alone.

Age and sex have absolutely nothing to do with racism. They are shared attributes through the human race. Sexism and ageism are already addressed in law.

I do not see the logic in seperating race, colour and nationality and neither do the powers that be and you have put no valid argument forward why race, colour and nationality should be seperated.

If you have a problen then maybe you should ask the international legal bodies why racism covers nationality aswell.

In the case of murder, for example, there are no sub-laws based upon which area of the body that was shot or stabbed.

If you racially abuse someone, via race, colour or nationality, then you can expect to be dealt with under the laws of racism.

I accepted the internationally agreed legal defination of racism. You do not.

I have no problem with that.

[edit on 14/12/2007 by skibtz]

[edit on 14/12/2007 by skibtz]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<
So! What exact period in history are you refering to?
You must also take into consideration that certain regions - North Wales and South Wales there is a certain cultural rivalry between these regions.
When defining history it is important to state that the TRUE indiginous britons of this land ARE THE WELSH. Yes, the Celtic races did colonise certain regions -Scotland, Wales, Cornwall as did Vikings in the north and the Isle of Man.
The turning point was the Anglo-Saxon influx. History records these colonists outnumbered the Britons and Celtic races by 10 to 1.in a short time. The invasion had begun.
The glowing fact here is that with tribal interbreeding the historic ethnic fact is that we in Britain are a race of mongrels.
To show me a pure Briton you would have to look to Wales and not Scotland or England.
I actually have a great respect for the Welsh people. Their cultural identity is seen everywhere in the Red Dragon.
Sadly, the White Dragon flag of the Anglo-Saxons is no where to be seen which is the true standard of England.
Racial slurs aside. You can call me a Midlander, English, British, or even a patriot. I don't care. What I am is an ANGLO-SAXON.
I rest my case.

Note to our Welsh neighbours: I admire your patriotism, pride and cultural values.
We English are not allowed this privilage courtesy of the politically correct despots.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh, England, my lionheart^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, you are correct. Forgive me for this unintended exclusion.
I love cornwall and your genuine Cornish pasties are my favourite lunch.
To people that do not know.... Cornwall also has it's own language.

"""""""""""""""""""The Dutchy of Cornwall. A jewel in the nation """"""""""""""

reply to post by skibtz

---

I'm not shooting anyone. I'm just saying that this doesn't follow logic, and seems like an attempt to amend a definition to satisfy nationalists egos.

Drawing a line down the middle of an island (which I think was done in an episode of Gilligan's Island BTW) does not make the occupants of the left side any less the same race as on the right side. And the act of doing so shouldn't make the right side racist for insulting the left side for being on the left.

It's about as logical as saying that insults to liberals by conservatives is racism.

I should imagine the real reason is far more mundane and lesss conspiratorial.



It is about interpretation. The law defines nationality as including the qualities of culture and origin. Racism encompasses nationallity.

The simplicity of a 'line down an island' argument seems to trivialise the deaths of millions of people when cultures, nations and land is divided by wars and murder.



You are right . That is illogical. Due to it being incorrectly positioned.

To put political persuasion in the same context as race, colour or nationality is totally absurd and serves no purpose.

I would like to point out that political persuasion is a choice. You should be prepared to defend some of the choices you make in life.

When born, you do not choose your race, colour or nationality. Why should you have to defend these attributes from the attacks of bigots?

You say deal with it. Get tough.

We have laws that punish people who verbally abuse people.

Deal with it. Get tough and move on.

[edit on 14/12/2007 by skibtz] - typos galore!

[edit on 14/12/2007 by skibtz]

The only intention really relevant is the deliberate decision to act a certain way, based on the expected outcomes. Which is where the difference between murder and manslaughter comes in. This man chose his words carefully. We'll reference this later.



Wrong. Nowhere have I said that. I advocate the use of extra charges because extra crimes were committed.



No. I know what I meant and I said it. You misunderstood and then took the usual face-saving routine or refusing to admit your error.



Again, no. Go back and read. Slowly. Put your finger on the lines if it helps.

Remember this the deliberate decision to act a certain way? Well the important words you need to remember while you are re-reading my original post about "thought crimes" are deliberate decision.



Pathetic, attempting to call me on the use of the Holocaust.

Tell me, where do you think equal opportunity and equality laws in the West come from? Only the US is a speical case with a different history, first slavery then segregation. Elsewhere the source is Hitler.

As for this:



Go back and read the article. The truckie didn't say "I hate the English", he called the Welsh woman an "English bitch". To her face. A very different kettle of fish. He didn't dismiss a national group in casual conversation or as an explanation, he verbally insulted someone, using nationality as the tool.



No. You're assuming that people have the right to freely hand out insults. They do not.



No. They are an insult. An insult used as assault. Do get a clue.



That's nice to know. As a white man there aren't actually any racist insults that affect me, the beauty of history. Know any Vietnamese, do you? Are you yourself black? Then it's no problem for white people to address you by the n-word?



Firstly, neither odd nor unlikely. Look it up. Secondly, all you have to do is tell the cops you've seen a war criminal on the street. Current law-abiding activities do not trump previous acts in other jurisdictions. Again, engage brain, then post.



Don't remember saying it was me. But I'll tell you now, I would be the first to wander into the local cop shop and point the finger.



And where do you think they come from? Do keep up with recent developments...



Which come from where?



That are based on the Declaration Human Rights...a UN treaty...based on a document brought forth in which European city?...

I live in Canada where we are nanny-stated and multicultured to death. The offended Welsh dude would fit right in over here.

One point about this whole thing intrigues me though. I am given to understand that the UK is a country by itself, with a parliament, armed services, passport etc. Now there are geographical divisions within the UK which were "kingdoms" of their own at one time. (Fine, I'm the king of my own castle too.) These are somewhat like the old German principalities, are they not? Whatever.

What I am inching toward is why does the UK not have a team in World Cup soccer play? Canada has one. Why no UK team? Doesn't anyone in the UK respect the country? Doesn't anyone in the UK want to win the World Cup? It's a mystery.

I've always said the British were like the Japanese, full of arcane social rituals. Each province has to have it's own football team. How are the mighty fallen!