This is in reply to the following post on the A/W '11 Dior thread, in the Designers and Collections SF (due to the fact that we're not allowed to discuss it, there, anymore
Being drunk is no excuse for uttering hateful speech. Just as committing murder while intoxicated is still considered manslaughter.
Just because something, currently, is the case, doesn't mean it, necessarily, should be, though, does it?
I would imagine that your analogy is, perhaps, a little shaky, as well? As I would imagine that it is more likely that a person, who was drunk, rather than sober, when they committed the crime, would be convicted of manslaughter, rather than murder? As they would be more likely to be viewed as not having been in full control of their faculties, at the time.
So, the law does take intoxication into account.
Also, how many people drink-drive per year? Millions, probably? Yet, ask people, when they're sober, what they think about drink-driving and most will say they find it appalling.
So, they say that, despite the fact that, statistically, many (most?) of them will have done it themselves, at some stage!
That just goes to show you how heavy drinking can make you do things you don't even agree with, yourself, when sober.
Also, I've noticed that people, who do bad things, when drunk, like drink-drive, will also, often, condemn others who are convicted of drink-driving.
So, it would appear, with things involving alchohol, that there is very often a heavy dose of hypocrisy involved and that it is often the 'getting caught' that is more frowned-upon than the crime itself?
However, I digress...
But the comparison isn't apt because hateful speech has intent. You don't walk around with antisemitic vitriol 'accidentally' spewing from your mouth.
Well, I happen to think that he may well have been provoked, so that wouldn't make it accidental, so much as a response to provocation.
Still doesn't make it right, of course (just in case I have to say that, once again, to avoid being wrongly labelled as uncaring?).
His depression, his alcoholism is not a justification for his behavior. It explains what he did, but it does not and it should not be a token for sympathy.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? To me, a 'token of sympathy' is merely a gift you give someone you feel sorry for?
If you mean that depression and alcoholism aren't just cause for sympathy, then I most certainly disagree.
Racists are among the most vile people on earth. To unequivocally hate a person because of their ethnic-religious background is ugly. I cannot understand how some people have the moral courage to say 'oh what a poor, unfortunate man'.
I think the point is, that it has yet to be proven that the sober, sane, JG
does hate people on the basis of their ethnic/religious background?
If a person is an alchoholic and/or is suffering from depression, or some other type of mental issue, they cannot and should not be held as responsible for their actions/words as sober, sane people are.
Clearly, you don't believe this - you, apparently, would blame a schizophrenic, for example, for his rantings, as much as you would a non-schizophrenic? But I think it's fair to say that most of us would not.
Perhaps some people have forgotten what Hitler did. I'd recommend grabbing a history book, going to a holocaust museum or even renting a WWII movie to understand a sliver of the pain felt by the Jewish community.
I don't need to, thanks - my (much older than average, obviously) father was a (very) young pilot, in the RAF, during the war and my (again, older than average) mother was a child during the war and her/my family were forced to move-out of London, to avoid The Blitz.
OK, neither were Jewish, in Nazi Germany, very fortunately for them (and for me), but I heard all about the horrors that went on there, repeatedly, growing up.
Also, being British, we are constantly shown TV documentaries about the war and the atrocities that went on in the concentration camps.
As a teenager, I remember watching the TV, in my room, when I should have been sleeping and seeing the sickening, heart-wrenching images of the Belsen victims, at the end of the war.
So, please don't assume I'm unaware of the history of WWII, or that I'm some sort of ignorant, uncaring person.
Please, please explain to me how his behavior can be justified?
No one is justifying it, we are just choosing not to judge it.
There is a big difference.
Giving possible/probable reasons for someone's bizarrely unacceptable behaviour is not the same as justifying it.
And also, "who are we to judge?". We are members of polite society. When someone has the audacity (in the 21st century) to utter hateful speech, we have the moral obligation to criticize them. We have the democratic duty to condemn them and their reprehensible behavior.
I think we've all condemned (either here, or elsewhere) the words he said and quite frankly, it should not even need to be said that what was said was wrong; as that should (and does, IMO) go without saying.
Additionally, just so people understand by "living death" I did not mean that Galliano should be killed or anything barbaric like that. I (using creative expression) merely meant that he will, and should never have the capacity, to design again. Since creative expression is the raison d'etre of a desginer and he would not have the capacity, he'd be a living corpse. A shadow of the man he formerly was. I hope people did not misunderstand that portion of my argument.
I think we all knew what you meant.
However, if you truly believe that his only raison d'etre is his creativity (and let's hope it's not?!), saying that he should be condemned, for the rest of his life, to some sort of 'living death', without an outlet for that creativity, is still a pretty harsh thing to say, IMO.
