Most people in the UK will hopefully be aware of the recent event covered by the BBC News, whereby a woman was arrested for having a ‘racist rant’ on a tram in London. Articles by the BBC on this story can be found on the following two links, and the video of the event filmed by a random passenger in the third link.
http://bit.ly/uFyf7E – YouTube link
Now, this video has been watched almost 12 million times on YouTube (the original, that is) which is pretty viral considering it’s only a week and a half old. The responses are largely of the same mind, that the woman is a crazy bitch. Check yourself – they’re coming in thick and fast. The video shows an unprovoked stream of intolerant abuse at people on the tram, with varied responses from the afflicted passengers. The focus of her abusive tirade is aimed at ‘immigrants’. The situation is made all the worse by the fact that the woman has her child sitting on her lap during the entire rant. Following the attention this video has received on YouTube and Twitter, the woman accordingly had been arrested. Since, Emma West, aged 34, has appeared at Croydon Magistrates’ Court, charged with a racially aggravated public order offense, and has yet to plead. She has, however, been denied bail “to protect her safety”. She remains in custody until a further hearing is made on January the third, meaning Christmas behind bars.
None of this is fresh news, so you might be wondering why I’m talking about it. Frankly, I think the woman is a pitiful tool, and makes me feel embarrassed to be British. Despite the misguided bitch having balls, I hope that in the end the punishment she receives fits the crime. The main point I want to convey is that the media latched on to the story, and the public is generally outraged (a minority claim placing her in custody is ‘treason’..). Her partner claims that she has received multiple death threats since that; I don’t agree with this in the slightest, but it is somewhat understandable given the circumstances.
On to the bit that really grinds my gears..
Today, in my local edition of the Metro, the following appeared on page 17: “Gang freed over attack because they were ‘not used to being drunk’”. Here’s the online article:
This story tells how four women pleaded guilty to causing actual bodily harm to a single woman, a charge that typically carries a five-year incarceration sentence. Now, the previous story demonstrates the response when a white woman is verbally racist in public. On the other hand, this story is about physical racism and violence in public, and on a much more severe level.
Four women in their twenties collectively assaulted a single woman, Rhea Page. All four of these women were Somalian Muslims. During the attack, they screamed “’kill the white slag’, while kicking her in the head”. This event took place last year in June in my home city, and has only just made it to court. It took about 48 hours for Emma West to make it court following her rant.
“They were taking turns to kick me. I was lying on the ground the whole time, crying and screaming. It was terrifying. I thought they were going to kill me.”
Compared to the story above, which would you say is worse, both morally and in the eyes of the law? It’s pretty obvious to me. Ms. Page was left with a body covered in bruises, clumps of hair torn out, and the loss of her job due to traumatic stress-related absences. Her life was effectively ruined by this unwarranted violence. In the racist rant, a few people were directly offended by a woman who probably spends a lot of time watching Jeremy Kyle and has the I.Q. of a soggy Weetabix. Sticks and stones..?
The defence for the four Muslim women stated that: “They’re Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn’t something they’re used to”, as well as trying to accuse Ms. Page’s boyfriend of violence when trying to stop the attack. By analogy, someone who isn’t used to driving can get away with running someone down? What if a Christian or Jewish ‘gang’ did the same? Although not as strictly forbidden as in Islam, drinking is frowned upon in the Christian culture. In spite of this, has being drunk ever been a valid excuse for criminality before? “Sorry officer, I didn’t realise I was driving dangerously – I was drunk..”
One of the things I’ve been considering a lot recently, is how people need to start holding themselves accountable for the actions that they perform. This line of thought was stimulated by the many people excusing the London ‘rioters’ recently by saying it was society and the government etc. to blame, and effectively giving the looters a get out of jail free card. Whilst the reason for the rioting/looting may be deeply rooted in this, at the end of the day, each single person involved explicitly made the choice to commit a crime, and are thus accountable for their own actions. Similarly, excusing these women on the basis of their religion is weak, and alleviates them of accountability. These women are responsible for their own actions, in the same way as someone who loots, or someone who makes the choice to commit murder.
So, they aren’t used to alcohol and pretty much got away with ABH. They aren’t used to alcohol because of their religion. They committed a racial crime, far more severe than the ‘racist rant’. Their punishments are delayed by a year, and include curfews, and a six-month sentence for each. Six months? I thought the law stated that ABH typically carried a 5 year sentence. These four girls have been practically excused from a racial crime, because they defied their religion and got pissed. What. The. Fuck. We’ve just seen the response by the public, the law, and the media to verbal racism from a ‘white woman’. The punishment fits the crime? Depends on your religion, or race, it seems. The response to the story in the Metro has been minimal – no additional coverage in the media, and a pathetic 10 ‘tweets’ and 121 Facebook ‘likes’ from their website (at the time of writing this). 12 million people, remember, watched the video of the ‘racist rant’, and there are currently 239,310 comments!! Clearly, the gravity of these events is not reflected in the respective responses.
Just for the record, I do not consider myself a bigot, and I’m not a member of the EDL, a fan of Hitler, or a member of any other racially intolerant groups – I’m just a palaeontologist! But, what I see here is injustice within the justice system based on ethnicity or religion. What are they afraid of? What is the political agenda that has inflicted this incongruence, and why is it reflected in public? We see here two intolerable racist attacks of different magnitudes, but an inversely proportional response from the media and public, and the legal system. The reason? Fear of being considered ‘racist’, ‘intolerant’, and a host of other politically correct terms. Screw political correctness, and restore equality to the justice system, so that the punishment fits the crime. This apparent incompatibility between race/religion and magnitude of crime is pathetic and inexcusable. Neither should form an objective basis for assessment of criminal actions.
As a final thought, anyone who has ever been drunk will tell you that, typically, drinking only amplifies how you feel emotionally. If you’re sad, and you drink, you’ll get more depressed. If you’re happy, and you drink, you’ll get happier. This is what I personally find too. Now, what must these four girls have been feeling, so that when they’re drunk they feel the need to go out and commit an intolerable act of racist hatred..?