Again with the preferential treatment of Muslims. All because one crazy muslim (Osama) started causing the world to discriminate against muslims. Is the government afraid of reprisals? HAve some balls and tackle all problems equally. Not by coddling them.

marcfrans,

No point in wasting time with invincible ignorance. Some are determined to stay that way.

@ voyager

I promised that you could have the 'last word', but it has to be at least an 'honest' one.   Intellectual dishonesty I cannot abide and a correction is in order. 

You are the one who INTRODUCED here a comparison with the USA, not me!   In response to your comment on America I have explained in which sense 'racism' can be a crime in the US.  The difference with Europe (sorry, the 'continent') is that in the US it requires specific (forbidden) DEEDS or ACTIONS, not mere (subjective) SPEECH or words. 

If you want to highlight differences between Britain (with its 'traditions') and the 'continent' in Europe (with its legalisms) that is fine.  I am always willing to learn, for I am sure that Britain has been changing since the time, long ago, when I was quite familiar with it.   But, do not make misrepresentations of 'America' or anyone else.  

Unless you are in a foreign language class, English should be required at all times. I can understand this child's frustration with some of her other classmates in her group chattering in a foreign tongue. They were being RUDE to her and Britain is an English speaking nation so speak English or get out.

How is complaining about others not speaking in English be racist considering the circumstances?

One should not even be allowed citizenship until they KNEW english.

It is so sad that free speech and free press in Great Britain is being so eroded.

Let me exercise my free speech by saying that all Muslims and non-English speaking people in England and the U.S. should be booted out.

@ Voyager

I do not wish to engage in silly semantic arguments for arguments' sake, and I do not want to answer silly questions either.  I am well aware of Europe's 'diversity' and trust that you are about American diversity.  If it eases your British sensibilities, I will replace the word "European" by "continental" in my expression of "European-style laws that curtail free speech".

You have nowhere been able to show that there are such laws in the US, and indeed free speech is guaranteed there by the Constitution and enforced by the courts.  In a narrow sense there are 'litteral' exceptions which have to do with 'slander' and the like, and with harrasment etc.... In a fundamental sense there is freedom of speech, often in legal discussions  referred to as "political speech", to imply that the speech has to take place in 'reasonable' circumstances.  Hence, my earlier reference to "shouting obscenities in front of your door at breakfast time" as NOT being included under free speech.   But it is obvious that you are not interested in such distinctions, since you are now veering awfully close to intellectual dishonesty.  You may have the 'last word'.    

@ Voyager

Why do you force me to repeat myself?  You continue to be "too superficial and too quick in your judgements" (cf. my previous post).  The latest illustration of that can be found in your latest question.  You ask me where in English law one could find criminalisation of speech.  My answer is that I do not know.  And I do not really care.  Since I never made any such assertion I do not understand why you ask me such a silly question in response to my assertion that there is nothing in US law that criminalises mere speech.

I have juxtaposed the freedom of political speech in the USA with "European-style laws that criminalise certain speech".   The latter are real, i.e. they do exist.  How could you deny that? The latest example is the French parliament just passing a law that criminalises denial of the Armenian 'holocaust'.  By contrast, any attempt to suggest that such 'things' exist in the US would be false.  You do not seem to know that there is a First Amendment to the Constitution in the USA which guarantees free political speech and which is EFFECTIVELY enforced by US courts.   All your material about British "orders" and "acts" is totally besides the point I made.

Please, read more carefully before commenting on anything. 

@ Voyager

I may well be "didactic", but you continue to be way too superficial and too quick in your judgements.  Whether that is a "character trait" I don't know, but it certainly is stupid.

The point I made was that there is nothing in US law that criminalises political speech.  The crime of 'racism' in US law is not based on WORDS but on DEEDS ("doing bodily harm, etc..." as it states in the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999). There is simply no comparison with some European-style laws that criminalise SPEECH.  

I grant you that many naive-left american politicians would like to follow on the terrible European road of curtailing freedom of speech, but so far they have not yet succeeded in that.  They have succeeded, however, in getting the concept of "hate crime" accepted in law as an amplifying factor, in other words as a consideration in judging underlying 'motivation' for criminal acts.  And that is a terrible idea, but the criminal ACTION or DEED is still needed before a 'hate crime' can become a crime!

I hope that this distinction is not too subtle for you, because I fear that it is (based on your supporting 'references', which I advise you to read more carefully).

And it is disappointing that you cannot even make the distinction between (1) criminal law and (2) someone "loosing a job". How do you know what the real 'real' reason was why that person lost his job? And, what has that got to do with whether one can be convicted in court for speech?

If hate SPEECH were illegal in America, there would be no television and publications left.  They are full of potential "hate speech".  Did you ever listen to a speech by Farrakhan, for instance?     

@ Voyager

You seem to need a lot of 'correcting' lately.  There is nothing in US law that criminalises political SPEECH.   You are free to express any opinions, including 'racist' ones or any other '-ist' ones.  This includes the so-called 'civil rights' legislation, which only criminalises certain ACTIONS or 'deeds', not expression of OPINIONS.

Just in case you need further elaboration, or to forstall silly responses, "freedom of speech" does NOT mean that I can come every morning at breakfast time to your front door and shout obscenities, 'racist' or other garbage at your door.  That would be unlawful harrassment.  It simply means that I can express my opinion about you ("racist" or otherwise) in more civilised ways, for instance in a publication, or in a debate, etc...

Bob Doney:

"It wouldn't be irrelevant if she committed a crime."

Do you consider racism to be crime?

... and probably the policeman too.

Schoolchildren have the right to study with people they can communicate with.

If the four new pupils don't speak English, they need to study separately till they can keep up with the other class members.

If they do speak English, but were communicating in a language they understood, but Codie Stott didn't, they they are the ones who need to be castigated, for deliberately excluding her from the study group. What do we reckon to three hours in a police cell?

And the class teacher and headteacher need to be disciplined for their bizarre reactions to Codie's predicament, and for using her as a scapegoat to justify their own bad planning.

Do we know why the third member of staff put Miss Stott in isolation?

Bravo  FAB and Vinny Vidivici!

As to 'what she said and how she said it' is totally irrelevant.

And you can bet that if a student from an politically-fashionable victim or grievance group complained about being unable to understand classmates -- or more predictably, felt 'intimidated' or 'alienated' by being surrounded by others speaking a language she could not understand -- the teacher and administrators would fall all over themselves attempting to accommodate this child.

Indeed, it's more likely her classmates would be subjected to some form of homily or admonishment about 'tolerance' and 'acceptance.'

Bob:

All due respect to you for being cool-headed, but regular Brussels Journal readers would see this incident as part of a pattern, a progression in a direction we do not wish to go. 

It's been a while since I set foot in a classroom, but I have trouble getting my head around the idea that a 14-year-old was reported to the police for what she said in a classroom, and was subsequently arrested.

What could a 14-year-old possibly say -- or say in such a way -- as to warrant a call to the police, much less an arrest?

The tendency to deliver more and more of the conflict resulting from everyday human interaction into the hands of mediative authorities is alarming enough evidence of our laziness and our diminished capability for making common sense judgements on the basis of sound standards. 

Bland acceptance of such a bizzare incident 'until things are sorted out' -- by the appropriate authorities, of course -- sounds a bit frog-in-the-slowly-boiling-water to me.

We don't actually know what she said and how she said it.

It might be wise to wait to find out before deciding that Western civilisation has come to an end.

Bob Doney

I'll add that the political calculation includes a desire among some to wield the Orwellian power to define criminality and apply such definitions to their political enemies.

Nothing new here, as anyone who lived through or studied closely China's Cultural Revolution -- with its score-settling 'struggle sessions,' arbitrary applications of 'Mao Zedong thought' by one faction in its accusations against another, and its atmosphere of tattle-tale pandering to authority -- can attest.

Not much actually, for it doesn't mention the story but focuses on one where a Muslim instructor was dismissed from a school for wearing a veil. And it has a story on Respect's upcoming rally, providing the whole program - talk about bias.

It's becoming increasingly clear that, with few exceptions, our flaccid elites are unwilling -- for various reasons, including naivete, fear and political calculation -- to mount a serious defense of Western civilization, or come to the aid of those who do not belong to a politically-fashionable victim or grievance groups.  This despite the trillions in tax dollars we hand over to those who insist, as the challenge mounts, that they are capable of leading us.

And who can blame the police for failing to go after genuine criminality, when they face career-destroying accusations of brutality and 'racism,' amplified by an ideologically-corrupt media, and the repeated failure of their superiors to stand behind them?

People the world over -- as reflected in commentary such as can be found at this blog -- are beginning to make their own calculations about what the future holds.

On the other hand, this nonsense will end if we all dared to call things by their name, and I don't mean call people names just because. Simply, lifting the PC veil from our gaze. Being aware what islam is all about. Keep in mind that MSM and politicians always swing to the tune when the tune changes. 20 million britons could not be arrested for disliking their muslim "gatecrashers".

We just need to wake up from the lies of multiculturality...

Anglistan is going fast the route to Civil War. I have always admired the courage and the strength of the British. But to end like this? I am sure they will overcome this when the time is due and no one can take it any longer. Next global economic crisis we'll see. In the meantime, I recommend everybody go see that film, "Children of Men". The main story is not relevant here, but the background, the settings of the story paint a perfectly clear image of the shape of things to come: a civil war torn UK with hundreds of thousand of refugees and a violent climate all over the place.

I don't know, maybe it would have been better to end up speaking German rather than Arabic.

Don't lose sight of the big picture here.  No one should be arrested for racist remarks.  Should they be rebuked?  Yes.

Even Anjem Choudary should be allowed to say what he wants...as disqusting as he is.

This girl did nothing wrong, but because of the idiotic misperceptions of her teacher she is labeled a racist.  She should be fired. 

The English people need to come to the defense of this girl, for in doing so they will ultimately be standing up for themselves.

We need a form of civic defense against this sort of abuse. I think a letter/mail campaign asking both teacher and head-teacher to step down would be appropriate as this sort of abuse is absolutely unacceptable.

In the meantime I have checked the link provided by Voyager. I think a police investigation should be launched against head-teacher to ascertain whether his vile attack on that young lady was racially motivated.

1.I think real Asians should object the use of the newspeak term asian in stead of muslim. But maybe they will be considered racists if they do?

2.Two things speak to the advantage of the 14 yo girl: she has no blue eyes and she is not blonde. I do not doubt that our judges will take that into account to mitigate her punishment.

And for the umpteenth time, a glimpse into the future ...

I hate it when brits refer to Pakistanis as Asians.  They are about as "Asian" as Egyptians.  C'mon guys, English is your language use it!  Even sub-(continental)asians is better.

Kids are likely to say or do anything. That's why they can't vote, drink or drive cars. They're not in control of themselves. To take a 14 year old for a talk with Mr. Policeman because of something she said is nothing more than child abuse.

Firstly, we do not know if the accused student made any derogatory race-related remarks to the Asian students in question. Secondly, we do not know if the accused made such comments to the teacher in question.

Thirdly, police involvement is not surprising, considering that Western public education overreacts at what was once considered "normal" behaviour. F.e. several years ago I witnessed a policeman cordoning off a classroom after hours and questioning witnesses because one kid punched another. He used a tape-measure to re-create the "crime" scene and the pattern of events. Thus, I am not surprised that this alleged remark would require C.S.I.

However, it seems that the accused did the "right thing" by consulting the teacher first, instead of humiliating the Asians, and that the teacher over-reacted for any number of reasons.* New Labour and its minions must realize that going StaSi on a 14 year-old girl will not end English xenophobia and/or Islamophobia.

*The teacher was non-White or an "anti-racist" crusader. Certainly the headmaster's comments are biased against the accused, and does not deserve the distinction of a doctorate, which usually signifies above-average intelligence.