Order Malegra Dxt (Sildenafil Fluoxetine) Q Generic Imitrex For Sale Bupropion 150mg Sr Tab Buy Lithium Aa Rechargeable Batteries

Thug tells women “go back to your own country”


3:17 pm - July 31st 2013

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

The Derbyshire Times reports:

A foul-mouthed thug who racially insulted two muslim women in headdresses in Chesterfield town centre has been ordered to pay £1,000 in compensation.

Chesterfield magistrates’ court heard how former Navy serviceman Mark Carr, 41, of Holme Road, Chesterfield, had been drinking at The British Legion and The Victoria pub before unleashing racist abuse at the women, on Cavendish Street.

Prosecuting solicitor Becky Mahon said one of the women had children in a double buggy and said she saw a male who appeared drunk and he was with a second male and the defendant swore.

Miss Mahon told how the woman said she heard the words ‘f*** off, muslim b*****d’ and the defendant was waving his hands and her children were crying and scared.

A second woman heard the words “fuck off back to your own country”, according to Ms Mahon, and a witness saw the women crying. Carr pleaded guilty to using ‘racially aggravated threatening behaviour’ and ‘causing racially aggravated distress’ – admitting he had strong opinions about Muslims not fitting in.

Funny choice of words isn’t it?

I’m sure I heard something similar like that recently, emblazoned on a van by the Home Office.

I’m sure it’s a coincidence that ‘go back‘ and ‘go home‘ are also used by racists when abusing minorities.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Obviously it’s the racist van, since this sort of thing never used to happen.

Carr pleaded guilty to using ‘racially aggravated threatening behaviour’ and ‘causing racially aggravated distress’ – admitting he had strong opinions about Muslims not fitting in.

Funny choice of words isn’t it?

Amazingly so given that you don’t say which race was being distressed Sunny.

Basing your blog’s political commentary on the abusive comments of a drunk in Chesterfield is hardly the epitome of convincing journalism.

Unless you’re about to make a case that “In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest” is specifically an anti-Muslim race slogan.

And incidentally BeautifulBurnout, Comment is Free’s Below the Line barrister considers that were the slogan to be “Here in the UK illegally? Avoid being arrested and forcibly removed by contacting us now.” , she’d have no problem with the campaign.

Obviously it’s the racist van, since this sort of thing never used to happen.

I’m glad you admit that the government is pushing a racist slogan of the past.

Amazingly so given that you don’t say which race was being distressed Sunny.

Abusing someone in a racially inflammatory way (‘fuck off back to your own country’) – is racist even if the people were Muslims. Its obvious they weren’t white.

If you make anti-semitic jokes about Jews that is still racist even though Judaism is a religion and all Jews are not of the same race.

This is basic stuff, but I’m happy to occasionally state the obvious.

[deleted]

5. Derek Hattons Tailor

Islam is not a race, nor is “not white”. Jews are a (self labelled) race, not a religion.

6. Charlieman

@5. Derek Hattons Tailor: “Islam is not a race, nor is “not white”. Jews are a (self labelled) race, not a religion.”

Yawn. This argument has been proffered for 48 years, following the Race Relations Act, 1965.

The intent of the act and its successors is to prevent discrimination on the grounds of *colour, race, or ethnic or national origins*. The really useful word in that list is *ethnic* which extends protection on the basis of identity which may not be clear from skin colour, legal documentation etc. It was a crap name for the act; Community Relations Act might have been better. But it is not difficult to follow that the legal definition of *racial discrimination* is wider than ‘biology’.

The intent of successive acts has been to prevent discrimination against Jews, Moslems, Irish people, Roma and other ethnic/cultural groups. There has been no scope change; laws are being applied according to parliamentary intent; there may be abuses but that does not change the generality.

7. Shatterface

Funny choice of words isn’t it?

A bit like using the racist term ‘thug’ in your headline – unless you have evidence the ‘thug’ in question really does worship Kali?

another recent, under-reported ‘go back to where you came from’ attack – this one on a bus full of Jewish schoolchildren in Kent http://www.kentonline.co.uk/times_guardian/news/jewish-attack-3853/

DH’s Tailor: Islam is not a race, nor is “not white”. Jews are a (self labelled) race, not a religion.

It’s always nice to have an opportunity to inform some of our commenters with some basic knowledge.

Try this: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1349

Sunny, anti-Semitism isn’t racism, it’s similar, but separate. That’s why it’s called anti-Semitism instead of racism. While we’re on the subject are you going to do anything about the massive amount of anti-Semitic commenters currently spewing their filth btl here?

Here meanining this site, not this thread, I mean

@10.
Do you mean the “God = Dog spelt backwards” type rants? They’re really scary.

13. Man on Clapham Omnibus

10. AlexC

‘anti-Semitism isn’t racism, it’s similar, but separate’

Can you elaborate?

14. Churm Rincewind

(3) Sunny: You say that “Judaism is a religion” and that “this is basic stuff”. Yet it seems that many Jews would disagree with you there. This issue was famously explored in the 2009 case where the Jewish Free School denied a place to a boy whose parents were Jewish by religion but not by birth. Where do you stand on that?

A story about an abusive racist drunk in Derbyshire is about as relevant as splashing the story of the somewhat deranged racist woman on the Croydon tram. These kinds of stories are always very popular on this website for some reason.

As for the ”racist van”…. it’s certainly worth discussing, and Sunny’s take on it is just one of many that you could have. It was certainly designed to get into the newspapers and be discussed in the media. Far more people will have heard about it that way that by actually seeing one.
The ”go back home” aspect of it is interesting, and if you wanted, you most certainly COULD link that in to the kinds of things that the NF and the BNP used to say.

That might mean though that you were a bit obsessed with what a sad bunch of racist losers used to do in the past. They were never really powerful on the ground, but like this ad, only really came to public attention when people hyped them up so much.

I think that people on the left who get really offended by ads like this, would object to almost any efforts to remove people who were in the country illegally.
But we never really get to discuss the ”rights and wrongs” of living with hundreds of thousands of people without proper documentation also living amongst us.
Does it matter even? If one has an ”open borders” view of things, you might not think it matters at all.
And that there should be no such thing as being ”illegal” – as we are all just the people of planet earth. One world for all etc.

What is pretty plain though is that Britain is taking it’s cue from President Obama in the USA and deporting ever greater numbers of people. Is this right or wrong?

Maybe it’s just down to the general view you take about these things.
John Pilger had this to say in The Guardian the other day:
Australia’s ‘stop the boats’ policy is cynical and lawless
From Aborigines to refugees, bashing the vulnerable wins votes in what is still a crudely racist country

Personally I don’t really agree with him.
But he makes his case, so fair enough.

16. PottyTraining

[deleted]

17. Mr Turmoil

Yet these people get away with it and are able to openly march anywhere on the streets of England shouting out abuse.

In some parts of London they were recently filmed approaching people in the street telling them what to do and they were not welcome around here as it was their neighbourhood and certain rules applied. In addition to this they said really abusive things.

If my memory serves me correct that video footage was on this website and open to comments. That was the video of Muslim men approaching caucasions in the streets of London going about their own business not bothering anyone during the evenings.

@Man on the Clapham Omnibus.
I’ll try my best. Jews aren’t a race, there are white European, black African Asian and Arabic Jews, so when someone says ‘bloody Jews’ it’s anti-Semitic,not racist, because it targets Jews as Jews, irrespective of race.

It’s similar because it ascribes certain behaviours or attributes to a person based on pre-conceived notions about a group they identify with.

I hope this makes sense.

The worst thing about this whole issue – of the ”racist van” and the stopping of people at railway stations to ask them about their immigration status – is in my opinion, the way that people like Sunny Hundal are steering the discussion. I saw him on Al Jazeera last night on the Inside Story programme. There was another guy on there too called Peter Whittle who writes for Standpoint magazine (and the Daily Mail I think).
Even though it was a half an hour programme, all decent debate was ruined by sloganising and insisting that it was all about racism.

I thought that Peter Whittle was actually looking the more reasonable. He was saying that immigration was a problem and that multi-culturalism was supported by the mainstream media (like by the BBC during the Olympics I think he may have been thinking about) while Sunny disagreed and said no, the government and mainstream media was very much down on our modern multi-cultural society.
What a shame that an opportunity to actually discuss things properly was wasted.
But it always is. It doesn’t really matter what the issue is, Liberal Conspiracy and Sunny are debate wreckers IMO.

He’s on again on SKY News now asking why don’t the Border Agency go to Earls Court and target the Australian overstayers. For God’s sake.
If they only go after black abd Asian people, ”it will inflame racial tensions” he says.
Mostly I’d say, because of the way that the left will spin this – talking about ”National Front slogans”. Dear oh dear.

And by the way, I think the ”racist van” and the stop and search thing is twardry and government grandstanding.
But I wish it just wasn’t just the same old same old response from the left.

This is far better:

Criticism of the ‘go home’ billboards is fuelled by elite contempt towards the allegedly racist masses.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/theres_nothing_to_cheer_in_the_racist_van_backlash/13875

The person deserved to be told-off for his offensive comments, however, if the looney left and liberal party continue to allow muslims,jews and others to have a legal system based on there religion then it is only going to get a whole lot worse.

I expect every single person to follow and respect UK law,when living in the Uk and that includes animal welfare and sexism and abuse,that the above mentioned seem to think is ok because of a non uk religion- it is not and it will never be the case under a sensible thinking government.

21. the a&e charge nurse

‘Go back to your own country’ or ‘burn in hell’ – both pretty nasty but the recent trend on LC seems to be suggesting that only one side of the equation is important
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTl7K47pTcc

22. George King

`Islam is not a race, nor is “not white”.’

Nor is it a country to which its followers can go home to. The thug’s verbal assault was racist. I hope the ladies enjoy their £1,000 compensation with a nice holiday or something like that.

Now if his victims had been Jewish and he’d said fuck of back to Israel that wouldn’t have been racist that would have been anti-semitic not to mention silly.

23. Derek Hattons Tailor

Sunny, my statements are based on personal experience – an Asian friend who rejected the 90s term “Black and Asian” and still sees any implication that “non white” constitutes an ethnic or racial group as itself deeply racist. This works for white people too (Try calling a Canadian, American). A friend of mine also had a Jewish girlfriend who argued (as do most Jews) that Jewish is a race, not a religion.

@ 6 “Race” is a biological classification, ethnicity/culture are social constructions. Usually they overlap, but not always.
The legal system does not work on intent. It was not the intent of legislation to allow surveillance against dog walkers, it was not the intent of the CRB system to prevent people working because of minor misdemeanours decades ago. The law is what lawyers and society make it, not what the legislators intended.

I think some commenters are intentionally missing the point. I think the point is, not that the racist van caused the racist language, but the racist van is using existing language of racism, in order to gather votes for the Lib Dems and Tories.

18. AlexC

Thanks Alex. Why doesn’t saying ‘bloody Christians’ have the same resonance I wonder. Is it because of the development of secularism ?
It is also interesting why the decendents of Ham (the Jews of Africa) suffer racism at the hands of the Jewish state.

26. JimmyRushmore

This is a bit of a stretch, even for you Sunny. Racist idiots have been telling minorities to “go home” since they arrived in this country. The “racist van” has nothing to do with it – I’d be shocked in fact if said racist idiot in this case was even aware of it’s existence.

27. Churm Rincewind

@ (20) Gwynne:

“…if the looney left and liberal party continue to allow muslims, jews and others to have a legal system based on there religion then it is only going to get a whole lot worse. I expect every single person to follow and respect UK law,when living in the Uk.”

I think there’s a misapprehension here. Everyone who lives in the UK is subject to UK law. There are no exceptions.

But what the UK does accept is that if two people decide to reach formal agreement in civil matters (as opposed to criminal matters) through independent arbitration, then UK law will support that agreement if there’s a dispute later. For example, if a divorcing couple willingly submit to independent judgement about, say, how to share the proceeds of the sale of their home, but then one of them doesn’t like the final judgement and tries to repudiate it then basically UK law says “no, you can’t do that, you agreed to abide by an independent decision and you can’t now change your mind”. Which is fair enough in my view.

In the event, many Jews and Muslims choose to submit these kinds of cases to religious tribunals (or courts, call them what you will) and, yes, in those cases UK law will support the tribunal’s decision if there’s a problem later.

This is a principle that’s been in force in the UK for many years and seems to have worked well. It has nothing to do with the “loony left” or the Liberal Party – it’s supported by all political parties including the Conservatives.

28. Derek Hattons Tailor

@ 27 So if I decide to get divorced under, say, Sharia law, which is far less generous with property towards women, and does not embrace the Western liberal notion of “no fault” divorce, then I can do that ?

28.
If you are married and your wife agrees that you have the house, the cars, the second home, and her Barbi doll in a divorce settlement a solicitor will be able to provide a legally binding agreement.
Commenter #27 states a divorce where both parties agree on the matter being decided by a tribunal.

Quite simply the van is not racist because it in no way discriminates or singles out on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity or anything else.

If some thug verbally abused a Muslim woman purely for being a Muslim then that is religious abuse. If police officers are singly out black and Asian people to be harassed by police officers then that is racist.

It’s a simple concept. Let’s use it properly.

31. RL Willott

I expect you are aware of the reason Hitler put forward for invading eastern Europe, leibensraum, living room for the Germans. At that time Britain had a greater density of population than Germany’s. Since WW2 immigrants have been encouraged by governments of any colour to settle here. Whole swathes of our cities have been occupied by them and those hoping to feed the black economy wait in Calais. Others come “legally”. We now have a housing problem and have managed to cultivate those who would bomb their way to power from our own midst. Once I was prominent in the LibDems, but no more. Little attempt has been made to address the problem and those who attempt to bring it up are labelled as “bigots”. Continue to sweep the problem under the carpet and you get no help from me.

32. Charlieman

@23. Derek Hattons Tailor: “‘Race’ is a biological classification, ethnicity/culture are social constructions. Usually they overlap, but not always.”

Which is why the Race Relations Act applies a definition. Here is what the 1976 Act says: ‘“racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, and references to a person’s racial group refer to any racial group into which he falls.’

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74

“The law is what lawyers and society make it, not what the legislators intended.”

See Pepper v Hart which established that in cases of ambiguity about primary legislation, a court may consider the words of parliamentarians. It is a principle which is almost impossible for a lawyer to use, but it exists.

But it is not pertinent regarding the Race Relations Acts which tightly define ‘racial group’.

@15

“As for the ”racist van”…. it’s certainly worth discussing”

Why is it worth “discussing”? Do you honestly think that this van is a means of ‘stimulating’ debate. If that’s your position then you’re either hopelessly naive or trying to tell us something. Now what is it, I wonder?

@23

” “Race” is a biological classification, ethnicity/culture are social constructions. Usually they overlap, but not always”.

Wrong, ‘race’ is socially constructed… unless you’re trying to tell us that eye colour should also be subjected to the same, er, ‘biological classification’.

35. Charlieman

@34. buddyhell: “Wrong, ‘race’ is socially constructed…”

@23 replied to me @6, following my comment:
“Yawn. This argument has been proffered for 48 years, following the Race Relations Act, 1965.

The intent of the act and its successors is to prevent discrimination on the grounds of *colour, race, or ethnic or national origins*.”

It is tiresome to repeat that the definition of ‘race’, with regard to race law in the UK, is not just about skin colour. Two generations have grown up following Race Relations Act, 1965, and thankfully we are in a different place. Different, but not always better.

@35

You’re all over the shop, mate.

But, hello, what’s this?

“Two generations have grown up following Race Relations Act, 1965, and thankfully we are in a different place. Different, but not always better”.

You couldn’t obfuscate more if your tried.

@35

Oops, I may have judged your post too harshly.”Derek Hatton’s Tailor” is clearly of the opinion that ‘race’ is biological, which is the same position adopted by the social Darwinists.

38. Churm Rincewind

@ (28) Derek Hattons Taylor:

Yes that is correct, provided that both parties agree and that there is no conflict with UK law.

You specifically ask whether “…if I decide to get divorced under, say, Sharia law, which is far less generous with property towards women, and does not embrace the Western liberal notion of “no fault” divorce, then I can do that?”

The answer again is yes, provided that your wife formally agrees. But if your analysis is correct, why would she agree to that (other than for reasons of religious conviction, which is her free choice under UK law)?

It’s a pretty silly argument. The fact it has such currency among educated liberal types shows how narrow the ideological blinkers really are.

What it amounts to is the refusal to even accept the principle that the government should attempt to remove illegal immigrants — after all, that would be “racist” — and so even the government’s ineffectual fig leaf is verboeten.

The meaning, of course, is obvious to the little people, who may be less educated than their political elites, but who are not stupid. They understand that we don’t see why we should even have to pretend to account for their desires. Such is the reality of “popular government” in the 21st century.

”Derek Hatton’s Tailor” is clearly of the opinion that ‘race’ is biological, which is the same position adopted by the social Darwinists.

And, indeed, biologists:

“Those who subscribe to the opinion that there are no human races are obviously ignorant of modern biology.”

Ernst Mayr, 2002

41. John@virginmedia.com
42. Terdy Meejah

41.
Are you paid to link Daily Mail fiction?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/katchooo/8108466474/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/katchooo/8108457935/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/katchooo/8108458213/

I was there and funny how it wasn’t even the Muslims pelting them? They weren’t even outside at the time, what rubbish is this DM? It was white british people pelting them also just to let you know. – jackiealonso , london united kingdom, United Kingdom, 06/8/2013 15:22
IS THAT TRUE? Wow that’s pretty terrifying, especially since you’ve been red arrowed several hundred times! I despair of both journalism, and people’s wanton desire to be TOLD what to think by hacks, instead of deciding for themselves. How very, very sad that we’ve got to this state. This is a completely fabricated racism story. How awful. – Sid , London, 06/8/2013 16:31

43. Robin Levett

@vimothy and Derek Hatton’s tailor:

Define biological “race” in a way that is useful in, say, 21st century USA.

Mayr, eminent biologist though he undoubtedly is, is not the only voice of modern biology on this.

Race is more than just a social concept – but less than a biological one. There is a continuum of genetic diversity and physical characteristics such that while there are clusters that could be called races, drawing the line between “races” is essentially arbitrary; and eventually comes down to descent. What biological race is the President of the USA, for example?

In that light, Jewishness – particularly as defined by the Orthodox – qualifies as a racial characteristic, since it is defined by matrilineal descent (which was the point of the Jewish Free School case).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2385392/Brothers-law-wearing-mankinis-charity-walk-abused-Ramandan.html… no dogs no whites and no outrage from the left about this racist attack

45. Legal Flamework
46. CheshireCat

I am a middle aged woman who dresses in a non-provocative manner and who does not attract attention by getting drunk or singing during Ramadam or whatever. And yet male Muslims have spat at me and called me a “Western Whore”…male Muslims have come up to me and made horrible comments…
Do I bother reporting it to the police?
Of course not, because nothing will be done.
I’m not saying that this man was right to be nasty to this woman, but I am saying that far worse things are taking place all the time to white British women, made targets by muslim men, encouraged by lies told about western women in the mosques. Where will it end?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy: Thug tells women “go back to your own country” | moonblogsfromsyb

    […] via Sunny Hundal Liberal Conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/07/31/thug-tells-women-go-back-to-your-own-country/ […]

  2. Thug tells women “go back to your own country” | Attire stuff

    […] Read more… […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.