'Cheeky White Slag' comment in news article

[NashvilleQueen]

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bus-driver-sacked-racially-abusing-10058448

Now, I fundamentally despise racism no matter where it comes from and so have no issue with this news story ........ Except, it made me wonder whether anyone would have been bothered had he referred to her as a 'cheeky slag' rather than a 'cheeky white slag'....

I hope he would have been sacked for calling her a 'cheeky slag'. Unacceptable way to speak to a woman.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bus-driver-sacked-racially-abusing-10058448

Link should work now

Thanks for this OP.

I don't think it would even have made the news if she'd been called a 'cheeky slag' without reference to race.

I also think that if it did make the news, it would have been stressed that she is in a long-term relationship, has never been unfaithful etc. in a bid to prove she's not a 'slag' rather than questioning why it's appropriate to (a) assume it a negative thing that a woman sleeps around and (b) use it against her.

It really fucks me off that people get all up-in-arms about racism (rightly so) but don't treat sexism with the same seriousness even though it's similar in it's manifestations (overt and covert, institutional and private) and effects (treating a sub-set of the population like 2nd class citizens based on biology)

I'm not sure what he could have been prosecuted for if he'd just called her a cheeky slag. As we all know, misogynist abuse is perfectly legal.
As for being sacked, hmm, depends on the employer.

This was my point really. Some rights are protected (with good reason) but women are just be expected to put up with offensive terminology based on gender. I don't think he would have lost his job either.

The article came up on my FB feed and all the comments were about the use of the word 'white'. No one mentioned 'slag' at all.

He couldn't have been prosecuted just for "cheeky slag" (a Scottish court might have gone for " breach of the peace" which is a catch all Common Law offence and covers a multitude of things) but verbally or physically attacking a woman just for being a woman isn't an aggravated offence. If he'd said e.g" dumb lezzie" that would be.

We did discuss this recently - the fact that hate crime in the UK does not protect anyone who is attacked because of a particular, personal characteristic or philosophy.

It produces anomalies so for example beating someone up just for being a Goth isn't a hate crime; beating someone up just for wearing the school uniform of a "posh" school isn't ( unless there is a sectarian element ); beating someone up just for being poor or ugly or looking a bit odd isn't;
beating someone up just for following a certain philosphy or life-style (but which isn't a religion ) isn't ; beating someone up just for supporting a different football team isn't (unless there is a sectrarian element)

Belgium seems to have the widest definitions of protected characteristics. Belgian law seems to be the closest to the situation where if 1 person attacks another in an argument or a robbery it is a crime, but if the motivation is, or is aggravated by, almost any suggestion of the victim being different from the attacker, it is an aggravated crime.

Yes I remember that thread.

The disconnect comes of course when you remember that:

• Sexism (& misogyny) is an "ism" as old as the hills, and is very specific and easy to define and common and has done an immeasurable amount of harm over the years
• Sex is a protected characteristic under the equalities act (employment and service of goods type stuff) so therefore our authorities recognise the point above, but then decided to excluded from the hate legislation. I think all of the other protected characteristics are included in hate legislation

Interestingly I was on a thread the other day and had cause to look at the hate crimes bit on the Met, and they included things with pictures of women eg DV, which confused me a bit. I went to look just now but it was changed. Interestingly, the image on the communities - hate crime bit shows an image of a white woman looking a bit sad. Yes of course she might be gay, muslim, trans, etc, but still, why not pick an image which on first glance appears to represent the only group not represented here Is it because "sad looking white woman" is the go-to image for "bad stuff has happened"? Dunno. Weird!