John Galliano to stand trial for antisemitic rant
 

This is different than the other Galliano topic we have. Do you think people should be prosecuted for racial or bigoted speech?

I'm for free speech completely. Charges like this are what's killing Europe, IMHO. People should be able to say what they want.

...

Disgraced fashion designer John Galliano, will face trial over an incident at a Paris caf during which he allegedly hurled anti-Semitic and racist abuse at Graldine Bloch, 35, and her companion Philippe Virgiti, 41.

The Paris Prosecutors Office has issued a statement saying it has decided to put John Galliano on trial following a police investigation. The proceedings could take place in the second quarter of this year, and Galliano could face up to six months in prison, and up to 22,500 in fines, if convicted.

Earlier today, Galliano, who was fired from his role as creative director of Christian Dior over the allegations, issued a personal statement completely denying the claims made against him, renouncing anti-Semitism and racism, and apologising unreservedly for any offence his behaviour has caused.

It is believed Galliano has now left France and he is reported to be attending a rehabilitation facility, most likely The Meadows in Arizona.

Christian Dior intend to go ahead with their autumn/winter 2011 show this Friday at Paris Fashion Week, but whether Galliano will show his eponymous line on Sunday is unconfirmed.

http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/colum...and-trial.html

I'm not sure. I think education is the way to defeat racism and bigotry.

Jailing people for their words and thoughts might not change anything.

I think the whole point of insulting somebody is to say something that hurts them. Sometimes you don't even have to mean it.

But all this PC crap is ridiculous. Countries like France get them selves in a muddle with it because they tread all over the right to free speech in the process.

uber poop

If anyone still believes in free speech in this country they are seriously deluded. Our thoughts, words and opinions have been monitored for the past decade by the PC brigade, especially on television, radio and the printed media, and anyone who has not noticed must be living in cloud cuckoo land. However, there is a difference between "expressing an opinion" and downright gratuitous confrontational, vile, nasty, racist anti-semetic, abuse directed at a Jewish person with the intention of deeply offending, upsetting and insulting that person.

Galliano is gay - how would he like it if someone had confronted him with a vile, homophobic rant -I bet he'd be the first one to make an official complaint.

Lucky for him he wasn't around in his beloved Hitler's era - he would have been banged up in the concentration camps with the Jews, Gypsies, Disabled and all the other folk that Hitler deemed unfit to live.

He shouldnt be prosecuted for it no, although I think it's understandable that he was sacked

I think it should be case by case really. I mean his right to free speech is one thing but what about those womens right to not be abused?

Freedom of speech? Bollocks!

OP do you really think it's acceptable for every one of us to go around telling people what we think of them, and in doing so insulting and hurting them?

We may have a right to freedom of speech, but that does not automatically give anybody the right to abuse people.

Galliano, in my opinion has absolutely NO right whatsoever to voice his feelings towards Jews and/or Hitler!

I am in fact astounded that there are people here who are trying to justify what he said!

And yes I do think he should be prosecuted.. inciting hate is a crime.

Of course he should be prosecuted. It has been alleged that he broke the law, the only way he can clear his name if he is indeed innocent is by a prosecution.

Prosecution does not automatically equal punishment, it means investigation and determination of guilt or innocence. I wish people would understand that simple fact.

If he did commit the offences he has been accused of then he may have extenuating circumstances which may mitigate his level of guilt. It also allows the law to decide a suitable way to deal with the offender, punishment rehabilitation or warning.

If he didnt commit the offences as alleged it allows him a public platform on which to clear his name.

I think at the moment he has been treated slightly unfairly in that Dior sacked him, when he hasnt been found guilty of anything, they could have just suspended him without pay (he also has his own company so wont be short of a few bob coming in) till the outcome of the court case. Obviously though they have their own interests to protect. If he is cleared of the charges no doubt they will kiss and make up.

Incidentally to those that think these laws are petty and simply Europe interfering in our lives, think why they are there.

To prevent not only incidents of this type but also ideally to prevent some stirrers inciting a mob to go out and burn the houses of immigrants and asylum seekers down around their ears. The French laws were brought in after some disgusting racial incidents.

Even if he hadnt been charged with an offence against racial hatred laws, he would probably have still have charged with a public order offence.

If he had simply have been let off after a chat with the gendarme wouldnt the cry have been "one law for the rich......"?

It's amazing how Europe simply does not get this Freedom of Speech thing. Quite scary. No wonder why so many atrocities were able to occur. Government has no business dictating what people can think, say, or feel. He has every right to say that he loves Hitler. People in Europe are a bunch of whiny babies, who need Nanny to step in and protect them. You got your feelings hurt? So what? Suck it up! Not everyone is going to like you, or agree with you. America truly is the only one who have gotten this right, even with its long list of faults. Too many people are OK with the government infiltrating every aspect of their lives. No wonder the place is crawling with religious fanatics, who can get away with whatever they want, due to the fact that no one can say anything against them for fear of insulting, or being cited with hate speech. Give me a break. A person should be able to have whatever opinion they want, and let it be known. No one had a gun pointed to these people's heads, making them have to sit there and talk to him. And BTW, they weren't even Jewish. Europe needs a crash course in reality.

Morally acceptable? No. Legally acceptable? Yes.

Abuse? Please. Get some balls.

He has every right to, just as you have the right to call him a knob head!

We're not justifying what he said. We're defending his right to say it, and stopping the allowance of the government to control us. I'm not interested in living under a Communist regime.

Letmein, you can harp on about freedom of speech as much as you want, I'm afraid I'm not buying it in this case.

There is a big difference between having the right to say what you want and having the right to incite hatred of any sort!

You said I have a right to call Galliano a knobhead? Yes I do, but if I called him a dirty ****** spic knobhead, then in my opinion, I would have crossed the line into what I regard as unnaceptable!

Edit.. the blanked out word is the offensive term beginning with F that means gay

absolutely agree.

he was in a private "conversation"(drunken ramble) with a couple of people. How exactly was he inciting anything?

If it hadnt been filmed it would be a non incident only known about by a few people.

are we not allowed to say whatever we like in private conversations? What about internet message boards? because Im damn sure Ive seen all kinds of extreme views and sick opinions expressed on forums. yes, even on TiBB.

I don't care if he was drunk or sober, in private or in public or filmed or not.. tha fact of the matter is he said to a woman "I love Hitler" and "People like you would be dead. Your mothers, your forefathers, would all be f---ing gassed."
He also called another woman "dirty jew face" and an "ugly disgusting *****"

Justbecause he didn't know his vileness was being filmed, does not make it any better!

well it's all about context. Being secretly filmed and splashed all over the worlds media gives it much greater gravitas. In itself it was a minor incident. No, really. I doubt those women even took him seriously judging by their reaction.

and he wasn't inciting. Insulting, yes. Drunks often do.

You honestly don't think his comments were inciting??

he wasn't encouraging anybody to do or think anything. So no.

he was insulting a couple of women.

So if they had been Pakistani women or black women and he had called them "dirty **** face" or "dirty ****** face" would that be "just insulting a couple of women"?

well I didnt use the word just

but yes

And that's ok in your eyes?

:rolleyes:

yeah I think insulting people is really really good

:conf: So you agree it's wrong?

I agree with what letmein said.

Freedom of speech cant have any restrictions or limitations otherwise it isnt free. Like letmein said, that doesnt mean what he said or did was right, but there is a big difference between the immoral and the illegal. You see people insulted all the time, you cant legislate to stop people feeling offended. Admittedly the severity of the insult was greater than normal but where do you the draw the line? You shouldnt have a line in the first place imo.

I can completely understand why he lost his job, but he should not be jailed or anything like that for expressing an opinion or insulting someone, no matter how disgusting we feel that opinion is.

Over the last 50 years, I think our society has moved on so far when it comes to racism, gay rights, womens rights etc.

Recent generations are just brought up being taught that prejudice and hatred is wrong (before anyone jumps in, I know it still happens, however things are better than they were yesteryear)

I obviously think this is a good thing and there is no way I am now going to tell my kids that they have a right to say whatever the feck they want to people. They will be brought up as I was knowing right from wrong and knowing when NOT to say something!

But allowing a racist his right to free speech doesnt suddenly mean it'll be condoned. By all means condemn it, point out the flaws in the argument and it is likely they will be widely discredited, but do not criminalise someone for holding a view that we don't approve of. If we wish to live in a free society I think we have to allow everyone the right to speak their mind, because I dont feel we can go around picking and choosing who can have free speech and who cant, and starting to censor any views we dont like, that's been done far too much throughout history

I'm not saying I'm completely against freddom of speech, I'm saying there has to be a line somewhere which deems hatred through racism/anti-semitism/homophobia as wrong or illegal. If this means that it is no longer freedom of speech then so be it.

I just don't think people should think it their right to say whatever they want to a fellow human being even if it means insulting them in the very worst way

the line is when somebody preaches hatred or incites a mass audience. Not when they just voice their opinion in private incidences like this.

following your logic our police and judicial system would be crippled under the weight of cases. Do you know how many people suffer insults day in day out? Gays, blacks, midgets...whoever, whatever. Millions. They suck it up.

Humans insult each other. Always have always will. And you seem to have a very PC list of insults you find intolerable.

what if somebody insults my dear Mother? should they be arrested too?

Well I don't know about what goes down in France, but it is a criminal offence in the UK to racially or religiously verbally abuse another person, so I am pleased that he is being prosecuted.

Where's my PC list of intolerable insults?

people can hate on each other for all kinds of wrong and stupid reasons. I really don't see why these should get special treatment by law.

hate is hate

There is a difference between generally insulting someone to get a rise out of them, and using their race, religion or sexual orientation to harrass, insult and abuse them. It's totally irrelevant whether anyone on here thinks Galliano is hard done by - the fact is that he committed a prosecutable offence, end of.

I could say that I don't think it should be a criminal offence to drink alcohol in Saudi Arabia for example, but their laws say otherwise. Doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Do the crime, do the time.

Yes.. exactly this.

Insulting someone and inticing hate are two very different things, the latter being (and quite rightly so) a crime.

And how people keep thinking that by not knowing he was being filmed, exonerates Galliano is beyond me!

LOL now you suddenly get it?

and this isn't an all or nothing issue. Just because Im somewhat defending him it doesn't mean I dont think he hasn't done wrong. But it really needs putting in perspective.

the point about it being filmed is that the incident has now taken on a whole new life. Millions have now seen it. Without the camera just 3 people would have seen it. He did not intend it for a mass audience and therefore was NOT inciting anything. Jesus, Im just repeating myself at this point...

It doesn't matter whether he was being filmed or not - it seems some on here don't get that he actually committed a prosecutable offence, with or without a global audience. Just because he was drunk does not exonerate him or mitigate the offence.

I get that, under our current legal system, it may well have been a prosecutable offence, I'm just saying that I dont think it should be

Happyland, you are completely right. If we lived in a society peopled exclusively by logical individuals capable of independent judgement - universal freedom of speech would be a great idea. But we don't. We live in the kind of society where hundreds of thousands of people wait with bated breath on the proclamations of utter idiots - because they're 'famous'. These malleable masses need protecting from dangerous, hateful ideologies.
Here in Ireland there's an offence, under Section 6 of the Public Order Act, that you did "use or engage in abusive, insulting or threatening words or behaviour" which would happily accommodate Galliano's actions. Of course this kind of nastiness should be illegal.

deleted double post

meanwhile...

people are being mugged, raped, burgled and murdered and there are no police officers available. Because theyre too busy dealing with a drunk who slurred pro Hitler insults.

I think one officer, maybe two, could have managed. Are you suggesting we do away with prosecuting 'lesser' crimes altogether, to economise on manpower?