Monday, 23 February 2015

Has Nigel Farage defamed Rozanne Duncan by calling her racist?

Ex-UKIP councillor Rozanne Duncan: 'No regrets' over comments
Watch Ukip councillor's vile racist rant that lead to her sacking

Meet the Ukippers on BBC2

Morrissey's NME libel case: judge to decide on jury trial

Morrissey’s Defamation claim settles.

Supreme Court should give us a definition of racism NOW

Rozanne Duncan and Nigel Farage in happier times


BH said...

The powers that be will not provide an accurate definition of what racism means. To do so would hand power to the people.

Many years ago in Missouri USA, a group of parents who were having problems with social services attempted to get a legal definition of "child abuse" They were not successful.

Today the family courts make decisions based on "the best interests of the child" and to make this decision, judges and social workers refer to the child welfare checklist. It is littered with nebulous phrases that are interpreted by the "professionals" - on the day in court.

Considerations are made for example, if the child has suffered "significant harm" or "emotional abuse"

There is no definition as to what these terms actually mean. The social worker or other court appointed person decides if significant harm has occurred and the judge follows the advice of the so called "professionals"

The point is, that the powers that be are using LANGUAGE to defeat us.

Woolly words are inserted into legal guidelines and legislation which enables an army of legal professionals to shaft us any which way they feel like, remove children from mothers and fathers, break up families and suck up family wealth that has taken decades to accumulate.

The legal machine may be run by humans but it has turned into beast. It is comprised of lying, cheating, stinking rotten, child abusing scumbags who not give a fuck about you or your children.


Claire Khaw said...

All Rozanne Duncan has to do is sue.

BH said...

In the absence of a legal definition of "racism," Rozanne will find it very difficult to defend herself The system was built that way.

Claire Khaw said...

You don't understand. If she claims she has been defamed, the court would have to decide and define racism.

BH said...

So you are hoping that the court will come up with a legal definition of what racism means, so that this definition can be applied to her case, and all futures cases? Good luck with that. I don't believe that will happen for the reasons I outlined previously.

Claire Khaw said...

The defendant would want to push his definition, wouldn't he?

He would say racism is anything found to be offensive by another race and she would say it is something else.

If his version wins, it would be ridiculed and she should appeal, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

BH said...

Yes of course the defendant would want to push his/her definition. Just like a parent would want to push their definition of child abuse in order to defeat their accusers.

I'm saying that a legal definition will not come out of this because the corrupt system will fight like hell to prevent it. Even if a definition is drawn up, it will contain more woolly words that have to be interpreted.

In any case, the notion of racism is just an extension of political correctness. The goal of PC is to eventually SILENCE THE MASSES to the point when they are frightened to say anything.

After listening again to what she said, my view is that Rozane has admitted to a personal phobia about negroes, but she did not say anything bad about them. While I don't think it was a racist comment, her phobia makes her unsuitable as an MP or political representative.

Claire Khaw said...

I agree that having mental health issues such as negrophobia makes her unsuitable to be a politician, but she is not racist as I would define it.

A racist is someone who believes that any race is inherently superior or inferior to another and examples of racist policies would be apartheid or any policy that directly discriminates against or in favour of someone on racial grounds alone.

Libertarian said...

I think you've made a good point here.

If Farage cannot prove Rozanne Duncan is a 'racist' or that she has discriminated against someone, or prove that she has brought the party into disrepute, then surely not only has he defamed her but is he denying her human rights to freedom of opinion and expression and to participate in democracy?

The label of 'racist' could be pretty detrimental to a political career or whatever career Rozanne Duncan might what to pursue, plus I am sure there will be trauma associated with being so labelled.

This seems so clear cut that I guess Farage would be advised to pay out before this even got to a court?

Farage's defence presumably will be that she has already been tried by the media?

Claire Khaw said...

To see whether she has brought the party into disrepute, we would have to see if the other UKIP councillors keep their seats after 7 May 2015.

If Rozanne Duncan and the other two keep their seats then she has clearly not brought the party into disrepute.

If Nigel Farage becomes MP for Thanet South then it would be even more abundantly clear that she has not brought the party into disrepute.

Independently of the above, she could also sue him for defamation since by calling her remarks racist he was by implication calling her a racist and that is the worst thing in the world to be.

The court would then have to decide on the definition of racist and decide if what she said falls within that definition.

Knowing what the legal and official definition of racist would obviously help UKIP supporters deal with accusations of racism as well as avoid saying things that are obviously racist. It is so obviously useful that UKIP should be inviting Rozanne Duncan to sue Nigel Farage!