Nice to know that racism is still alive and well.

[Thadlerian]

Originally posted by Hitro
I don't really see why it should matter if it is their right to do this.
Of course it is their right, but does it make them any less racist?
Definately not.

I agree with this.
I'd also like to add that I believe mobs looting Jewish houses in Germany in the 30s had freshly written laws on their side.
And slavery was perfectly legal in the 18th century.
Law is not an invariable constant. Ethics should be.

Racism is a problem that can't really be solved by law. The state ought to show that it is a civilization, and prevent it, rather than just persecuting it and punishing it where it becomes visible.

Also, using the term 'idiots' about racists is dangerous. Saying that 'there will always be idiots, so why bother?' is even more so.

 

[Hurricane]

Many of you seem to be missing the main point here; that there is a difference between groups and groups, depending on the circumstances. For example, it is ok to have a "single mothers' discussion group", or why not the "party only for those graduating from this school this year", also called prom. Greadius can invite his friends to his house, but if he changed the invitation to "my firends, expect those who are black", it sure would be racist, just like a prom for everyobody except black people is racist.

 

[allhailIndia]

What next, the KKK will come back legally as a "Special Interest Group" which does not have an affinity for blacks.:roleyes:

 

[Groovin']

The 'Black only' proms would've occurred by default wouldn't they? I mean back when segregation was openly practiced, they HAD to have a segregated prom, no choice in the matter. And in this school this happened all the way up to 2001. The first time they had a intergrated prom was last year, and there was no 'black only' prom this year.

These schoolies are just pathetic really.

 

[MrPresident]

How can you expect to fight something if you just sweep it under the rug? This prom is wrong, I think we would all agree with that. However what is at question is whether the school/local government should have allowed it to go ahead. What would be achieved by banning it? Would that have removed racism from society. Would the kids who organised this suddenly realise that black people are just the same as them and that we should all live in a free and equal society? No. They would still be racist and perhaps more so due to the alure of being banned. What I think should have happened was that a debate should have be held in the school arguing for and against this issue. Why do I think this should have happened? I believe that logic and reason will always overcome ignorance and stupidity given the chance.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by knowltok2


Out of curiousity, in The Netherlands, can you have exclusive, private clubs? A woman's only gym, or a men's only golf club?

On the belief bit, does a church have to accept me as a member if I actively preach subservience to the devil during their prayer gatherings?

I just want some clarification on this system of 'Dutch Freedom'.

A men's only golf club would be out of the question here. Though I think it would be legal. A white men only golf club would be absolutely illegal here. Are there any in the US? I fofficially no, are there 'unofficial' ones?

I do not know of any women's only gym or so. Can't think of it. Though gyms, saunas etc. do have women only hours.

I don't know a thing about devil preachers. Such a thing is not likely at all in Holland I guess.

We have had two lawsuits on this subject (freedom of speech / opinion vs. freedom of 'lifestyle' last year:

1. A member of the christian RPF (reformed politics fedaration) told in an interview he thought a homosexual is as bad as a thief is. He used a letter from Paul to iirc Corinthians for this. A judge said the man had the right to conduct his religion and thus have and ventilate this opinion. As he did not set up people against gays, allw as ok.

2. An imam (from egypt....) stated that homosexuality is a dangerous disease and should be extinquished. As this could be explained as setting people up, he was found guilty, but no punishment was given.

The whole point is that our constitution contradicts itself in a way.

In general I think Dutch like freedom off lifestyle more. And americans give more value to freedom of speech / opinion.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Perfection
But Hitro isn't the school at fault for allowing the advertising via posters to take place in school?

That depends on what you mean with "at fault".
If it is not illegal to advertise such an event there's no obligation to prohibit it, from a legal point of view.

From a moral point of view that is questionable. I guess it depends on what they allow generally. If everyone can advertise whatever (legal) event he wants to advertise that could count as a reason to allow this as well.

But this can, as I said, only make it worse. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are nice things and I personally think that everyone should have them, as long as he doesn't restrict other people's freedoms by it.
Still this doesn't change a bit about them being major a*sholes in my opinion. And as much as they have the right to segregate themselves from their "racially inferior" co-students others (like us) have the right to hate them for it.

 

[Double Barrel]

Originally posted by test_specimen
Most of those organisations are there to aid people who have been discriminated against because of their colour of skin. Why would you, as a white, want to join a club that makes sure that no one takes you less serious because of the colour of your skin?

Next you will start complaining that toilets are discriminating because you cannot go to a women's toilet. But just remember that they are not allowed in the men's toilet either. Or was that example not obvious enough.

What makes you think I'm white? Don't assume...it doesn't work for you.

Besides, the idea of creating exclusive organizations/clubs based upon skin color becomes a crux in itself. At what point have these entities fulfilled their purpose(s) of existence? People will always have the perception of being discriminated against, so the mere idea of creating skin color based organizations just perpetuates the whole idea of discrimination and bigotry. It becomes one big circular logic just trapping those within it.

If America is one big "melting pot", obviously some people simply do not want to melt. I do not see much difference between these closed-minded students and members of exclusive skin color based organizations. Its a free country, so do what you want. Just don't try to wrap yourself in some self-righteous b.s. and propaganda about imaginary discrimination.

By constantly beating the drum of racism, poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are doing nothing but lining their own pockets and perpetuating a situation that they do not want to go away as it directly relates to their own bank account.

test_specimen, your toilet example is just stupid, but I guess it works for you since whatever logic you are trying to use is crap anyways.

**(edit: spelling)**

 

[thestonesfan]

I find it hard to believe that the black kids didn't get to vote. Who knows...maybe they wanted it as well? If I were a student, I would be against it, but I don't know what it's like down there.

I think this is just one more thing to chalk up to the stupidity of teenagers. In the future, most of them will probably feel ashamed. I would.

 

[Renata]

Let me get this straight: you think the black kids *wanted* the white kids to hold a prom and leave them out? Oooookay.

Renata

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Stapel
A men's only golf club would be out of the question here. Though I think it would be legal. A white men only golf club would be absolutely illegal here. Are there any in the US? I fofficially no, are there 'unofficial' ones?

So doesn't this mean that your Constitution does not in fact forbid all discrimination. Great that you don't have any call for a men's only golf club, but apparently your constitution does not forbid this kind of discrimination.

As for golf clubs in the US, I'm not sure. I don't think there are any white only clubs, but there may still be. IIRC the Supreme Court has ruled that even if distasteful, private clubs can pretty much do what they want about membership.

I do not know of any women's only gym or so. Can't think of it. Though gyms, saunas etc. do have women only hours.

I don't know a thing about devil preachers. Such a thing is not likely at all in Holland I guess.

I don't know much about them either. However I would expect that your churches are free to restrict their membership.

We have had two lawsuits on this subject (freedom of speech / opinion vs. freedom of 'lifestyle' last year:

1. A member of the christian RPF (reformed politics fedaration) told in an interview he thought a homosexual is as bad as a thief is. He used a letter from Paul to iirc Corinthians for this. A judge said the man had the right to conduct his religion and thus have and ventilate this opinion. As he did not set up people against gays, allw as ok.

2. An imam (from egypt....) stated that homosexuality is a dangerous disease and should be extinquished. As this could be explained as setting people up, he was found guilty, but no punishment was given.

The US laws on free speech are similar, but I think more strict on proving that there was an inducement to cause violence. I think in case 2 (I'm no judge though) in the US, it would have been dismissed for lack of specific threats or calls to action. This is of course only based on what you wrote.

Thanks for the clarification.

The whole point is that our constitution contradicts itself in a way.

In general I think Dutch like freedom off lifestyle more. And americans give more value to freedom of speech / opinion.

Some would argue that the freedom to have an exclusive private club is a freedom of lifestyle issue.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
I find it hard to believe that the black kids didn't get to vote. Who knows...maybe they wanted it as well? If I were a student, I would be against it, but I don't know what it's like down there.

I think this is just one more thing to chalk up to the stupidity of teenagers. In the future, most of them will probably feel ashamed. I would.

I am sure they will ditch their views as soon as the hit adult age.

I mean didn't we all?

 

[allhailIndia]

Esp when there are more burning issues like work, family and home

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Renata
I would have expected them to tear down the posters, yes. The school might not have any control over the prom(s) themselves, but neither are they obligated to allow them to be advertised, and refusing to take a stand makes them look as bigoted as their students.

What rule would you use to tear down posters for the white-only prom but leave them up for an equivilent NAACP meeting? Or someone's birthday party? My friends only is exclusionary as well.

Originally posted by Hurricane
Greadius can invite his friends to his house, but if he changed the invitation to "my firends, expect those who are black", it sure would be racist, just like a prom for everyobody except black people is racist.

Racist and wrong, but not illegal. There has to be room for people to conduct their private lives and associate with those they chose for whatever reason, if it is wrong or not, it is still their perogative. Clearly this can't apply to job or educational oppertunities, but a private social gathering, no matter what it is called, will always be exclusionary.

And if I were a racist that didn't want black people there, I think "my friends" would cover the 'no blacks' thing quite sufficiently.

Originally posted by Renata
Let me get this straight: you think the black kids *wanted* the white kids to hold a prom and leave them out? Oooookay.

Probably not, but to be fair, why would they want to hang out with a bunch of bigots who don't want them there? Just hope the same kids skip the real prom and don't drag the level to that event down.

 

[allhailIndia]

I guess what Greadius is trying to say is that it is OK to be a racist as long as you don't start lynching blacks or Asians or any other group

 

[Greadius]

Well, lynch, attack, advocate attacking, or deny them anything... substantitive, yeah. People have the right to be idiots. Freedom doesn't mean freedom to do only things that society, or gov't deem as good and acceptable. There is a gap between preventing damage and protecting people, while at the same time forcing them to be something their not. In this case, fair.

 

[allhailIndia]

Yes, but freedom comes with certain responsibilities to fellow man and one of them is to treat him as one.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Renata
Let me get this straight: you think the black kids *wanted* the white kids to hold a prom and leave them out? Oooookay.

Renata

Why not? Didn't the black kids get a prom as well? Wasn't half the school black? I'm sure those feelings weren't limited to the white kids.