Opinions/advice on our bands confederate flags please

[fftc]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1503320590' post='3357160']
Nooses and pillow cases!

I missed that bit. I think you really need to rethink your band's image.
[/quote]

Les hasn't said anything about pillow cases yet. I threw those in for a bit of humour. Sorry!

[Les]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1503320226' post='3357155']
I think you probably hoped the majority would support the continuing use of the flag at your shows.
No offence - but that is as naive as using it.

Why on earth would you want to be associated with it anymore?

Why would you want to have to explain "context" every time? Or more to the point, not have the opportunity to explain context because the venue just won't book you, or a punter won't buy a ticket or T-shirt?

[/quote]
To be honest I din't really expect anyone to support our use of the flag or condemn us, I posted cos' I really wanted to see if I was thinking along the right lines of dropping the flag by asking my peers or I was just having a knee jerk reaction and fixing a problem that may not have existed.

We don't explain context at all, have never needed to, in fact the only time I've needed to mention it is on here.

Take your points entirely though and thank you.

[fretmeister]

[b] [size=4][color="#000000"]No doubt it would be difficult to prove INTENT on your behalf - but do you want the hassle of defending this sort of thing? Do you want that in the local press? Mud like that sticks forever [/color]The flag is one thing - the nooses would probably tip a jury over the edge.[/size][/b]



[b] [color=#EA6C26][size=1]I[/size][/color]Incitement to Racial Hatred - Part III Public Order Act 1986[/b]
[color=#333333][size=3]
For an offence to be committed under any of these sections of the Public Order Act 1986, there has to be one of the acts described therein: it has to be "threatening, abusive or insulting", and it has to be intended to or likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred.[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
The words "threatening, abusive or insulting" are to be given their ordinary meaning and case law dealing with other provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 can assist with this.[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
Racial hatred is defined in section 17 of the Act. The prosecution must prove that hatred was intended to be stirred up or that it was likely to be stirred up. "Likely" does not mean that racial hatred was simply possible. We therefore have to examine the context of any behaviour very carefully, in particular the likely audience, as this will be highly relevant.[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] allows freedom of expression save in certain limited circumstances. These circumstances include the offences contained within Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 (ss18-23).[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
Additionally, Article 17 of the Convention states: "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention." Relevant case law includes [i]Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v Netherlands[/i] 18 DR [1987] and [i]Kuhnen v Germany[/i] 56 DR [1988].[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
In deciding upon the public interest of charging these offences it is essential that prosecutors keep in mind that in a free, democratic and tolerant society people are able to robustly exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, the rights of the individual to freedom of expression must be balanced against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
All such allegations are by their very nature highly sensitive. For that reason, and to ensure a consistent approach, any allegation under this legislation, must be referred by the relevant CPS Area to the Special Crime & Counter Terrorism Division (SCCTD). Referral means the submission of a report by the Area to enable SCCTD and the Area to have an informed discussion about where the responsibility for the case should lie.[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
When an Area becomes aware of such a case, it should be referred to SCCTD within seven days. If it is decided that the case should be prosecuted as an offence of incitement to racial hatred, SCCTD will take over the conduct of the case from the Area. If SCCTD considers that it is clearly a case where incitement to racial hatred does not apply, the case should be returned to the Area within seven days of that decision being made.[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
If SCCTD decides to deal with a case, the file is held there and dealt with there. Thereafter, cases can only proceed with the consent of the Attorney General.[/size][/color]

[Les]

[quote name='fftc' timestamp='1503320915' post='3357168']
Les hasn't said anything about pillow cases yet. I threw those in for a bit of humour. Sorry!
[/quote]

I'm building up to that, just waiting for the admods to relax their trigger fingers on the "ban" button.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='DJpullchord' timestamp='1503318068' post='3357115']
Sadly the flag has been hi jacked by nasty people. You probably don't want to attract nasty people. I'd lose the flag.

Crazy how symbolism has such power.

Good luck!
[/quote]

Same as our own union flag then really

[fretmeister]

[quote name='Les' timestamp='1503321075' post='3357172']
To be honest I din't really expect anyone to support our use of the flag or condemn us, I posted cos' I really wanted to see if I was thinking along the right lines of dropping the flag by asking my peers or I was just having a knee jerk reaction and fixing a problem that may not have existed.

We don't explain context at all, have never needed to, in fact the only time I've needed to mention it is on here.

Take your points entirely though and thank you.
[/quote]

Drop the flags and use that as a way to educate then. If you are playing University places and the like, taking a public stand gets you a lot more fans.

[TimR]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1503320502' post='3357159']


I think quite a lot would. The confederate army was fighting to keep slavery. That's what the civil war was about. My knowledge of American history is scant, but I do know that at least.
[/quote]

No. In the US upto about a year ago it was just seen by the majority of Americans as a symbol of southern American pride. It's only in the last few weeks it's become more than that by a larger proportion.

The war wasn't about Slavery as such but the right to keep their lives the same, which included keeping slaves.

Looks like an awful lot of big, long established American institutions are now hurriedly removing the flag from their premises, ensignia and regalia and distancing themselves from it.

That's very sad.

[TimR]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1503321144' post='3357173']
[b] [size=4][color="#000000"]No doubt it would be difficult to prove INTENT on your behalf - but do you want the hassle of defending this sort of thing? Do you want that in the local press? Mud like that sticks forever [/color]The flag is one thing - the nooses would probably tip a jury over the edge.[/size][/b]



[b] [color=#EA6C26][size=1]I[/size][/color]Incitement to Racial Hatred - Part III Public Order Act 1986[/b]
[color=#333333][size=3]
For an offence to be committed under any of these sections of the Public Order Act 1986, there has to be one of the acts described therein: it has to be "threatening, abusive or insulting", and it has to be intended to or likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred.[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
The words "threatening, abusive or insulting" are to be given their ordinary meaning and case law dealing with other provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 can assist with this.[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
Racial hatred is defined in section 17 of the Act. The prosecution must prove that hatred was intended to be stirred up or that it was likely to be stirred up. "Likely" does not mean that racial hatred was simply possible. We therefore have to examine the context of any behaviour very carefully, in particular the likely audience, as this will be highly relevant.[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] allows freedom of expression save in certain limited circumstances. These circumstances include the offences contained within Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 (ss18-23).[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
Additionally, Article 17 of the Convention states: "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention." Relevant case law includes [i]Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v Netherlands[/i] 18 DR [1987] and [i]Kuhnen v Germany[/i] 56 DR [1988].[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
In deciding upon the public interest of charging these offences it is essential that prosecutors keep in mind that in a free, democratic and tolerant society people are able to robustly exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, the rights of the individual to freedom of expression must be balanced against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
All such allegations are by their very nature highly sensitive. For that reason, and to ensure a consistent approach, any allegation under this legislation, must be referred by the relevant CPS Area to the Special Crime & Counter Terrorism Division (SCCTD). Referral means the submission of a report by the Area to enable SCCTD and the Area to have an informed discussion about where the responsibility for the case should lie.[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
When an Area becomes aware of such a case, it should be referred to SCCTD within seven days. If it is decided that the case should be prosecuted as an offence of incitement to racial hatred, SCCTD will take over the conduct of the case from the Area. If SCCTD considers that it is clearly a case where incitement to racial hatred does not apply, the case should be returned to the Area within seven days of that decision being made.[/size][/color][color=#333333][size=3]
If SCCTD decides to deal with a case, the file is held there and dealt with there. Thereafter, cases can only proceed with the consent of the Attorney General.[/size][/color]
[/quote]

Relax. It's just a flag. They're not holding a rally and making hate speeches.

What a load of nonsense.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='Les' timestamp='1503321197' post='3357175']


I'm building up to that, just waiting for the admods to relax their trigger fingers on the "ban" button.
[/quote]

Tbh when we came to see you at that outdoor gig the burning cross you lit really kept us warm all evening, it was a great gig

[fretmeister]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1503321388' post='3357178']
No. In the US upto about a year ago it was just seen by the majority of Americans as a symbol of southern American pride. It's only in the last few weeks it's become more than that by a larger proportion.

The war wasn't about Slavery as such but the right to keep their lives the same, which included keeping slaves.

Looks like an awful lot of big, long established American institutions are now hurriedly removing the flag from their premises, ensignia and regalia and distancing themselves from it.

That's very sad.
[/quote]
You'e just said you know nothing about the subject and now you preach about it?

It started when the first anti-slavery President was elected. Not anti-potnoodle, or anti-sheep farming or anything else.

The slaves had to be freed by force.

I will bet you a shiny pound you would change your opinion after you've read a book or 2 on the subject.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1503321650' post='3357183']

You'e just said you know nothing about the subject and now you preach about it?

It started when the first anti-slavery President was elected. Not anti-potnoodle, or anti-sheep farming or anything else.

The slaves had to be freed by force.

I will bet you a shiny pound you would change your opinion after you've read a book or 2 on the subject.
[/quote]

Tim 'googled it' R

[Les]

Just before the quicksand reaches my neck I'm going to have one last attempt at context and try to save my sorry ass.

There's a member on here who saw us in all our regalia a good while back and was very complimentary in his review on another site, wish I could remember his board name.

Hobby horse waiting patiently in his noose.




Hobby horse relishing his time in the spotlight.

[fretmeister]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1503321508' post='3357180']
Relax. It's just a flag. They're not holding a rally and making hate speeches.

What a load of nonsense.
[/quote]

Nonsense?

Like this, that was only dropped because plod couldn't prove who put it in the window?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-15429369

[Beer of the Bass]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1503321650' post='3357183']

You'e just said you know nothing about the subject and now you preach about it?
[/quote]

It wouldn't be a basschat thread without TimR popping up to "explain".

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1503321388' post='3357178']


No. In the US upto about a year ago it was just seen by the majority of Americans as a symbol of southern American pride. It's only in the last few weeks it's become more than that by a larger proportion.

The war wasn't about Slavery as such but the right to keep their lives the same, which included keeping slaves.

Looks like an awful lot of big, long established American institutions are now hurriedly removing the flag from their premises, ensignia and regalia and distancing themselves from it.

That's very sad.
[/quote]

You're just making this up, aren't you?

[fretmeister]

[quote name='Les' timestamp='1503321822' post='3357188']
Just before the quicksand reaches my neck I'm going to have one last attempt at context and try to save my sorry ass.

There's a member on here who saw us in all our regalia a good while back and was very complimentary in his review on another site, wish I could remember his board name.

Hobby horse waiting patiently in his noose.




Hobby horse relishing his time in the spotlight.


[/quote]


So you're an Adam and the Ants tribute with hats?

[ambient]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1503321388' post='3357178']

The war wasn't about Slavery as such but the right to keep their lives the same, which included keeping slaves.


[/quote]

[url="https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-facts"]https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-facts[/url]

Q. What caused the Civil War?
While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."

[Monkey Steve]

[quote name='fftc' timestamp='1503320305' post='3357157']
I'm not sure context will help!

I think the main point is you can do the whole Americana thing without anything that could be interpreted the wrong way, so just drop the confederate flags, nooses and the pillow cases and you'll be fine.
[/quote]

This.

Nobody is going to stay away because you have swapped the confederate flags for something less controversial. Seems like a very easy decision to remove all risk to the band of being labelled as something you didn't intend

[fretmeister]

I've just noticed this in Les's sig

"[color=#00FF00][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I play in a cover band for money, so anything I post about bands is coming from the viewpoint of a cover band that plays for money."[/font][/color]

Seems like he is risking that income.

I hate to say this - but I'm going to anyway.

Doing something silly is not a problem. Using a symbol of something when the impact / meaning of that symbol is not fully understood is not a problem. We all make mistakes and we all need educating about all manner of things.

Continuing to use such a symbol after being educated as to the true meaning is a problem. Whether the person using it supports the true meaning of the symbol or not is irrelevant. People will assume it, because they know the user of the symbol is now fully aware.

I drew swastikas on my maths book at school. (I was not aware of the Hindu use at the time)

I thought it was an interesting design. I stopped when my Grandfather (and WW2 soldier) informed me what it meant.

[TimR]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1503321760' post='3357184']


Tim 'googled it' R
[/quote]

Indeed. It doesn't take long to type confederate flag into Google and the first few hits are all from the last few days about various people taking down or refusing to take down the flags. Which don't seem to have been an issue up to now.

[TimR]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1503321832' post='3357189']


Nonsense?

Like this, that was only dropped because plod couldn't prove who put it in the window?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-15429369
[/quote]

Why was it bought to the police's attention?

Who complained?

And Why?

The article is very scant on details of the neighbours relationship leading up to the event.

[dlloyd]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1503321388' post='3357178']The war wasn't about Slavery as such but the right to keep their lives the same, which included keeping slaves.
[/quote]

Tim, the flag represents the government founded by, amongst others, this guy...

"[font=sans-serif][i]Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth[/i]."[/font]

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1503323173' post='3357207']
Indeed. It doesn't take long to type confederate flag into Google and the first few hits are all from the last few days about various people taking down or refusing to take down the flags. Which don't seem to have been an issue up to now.
[/quote]

Ha ha ha. You dafty.

[fftc]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1503323173' post='3357207']
Indeed. It doesn't take long to type confederate flag into Google and the first few hits are all from the last few days about various people taking down or refusing to take down the flags.
[/quote]

Of course they are. That's how google works. And the confederate flag has been a hot topic recently.

That doesn't mean for one second that the flag has only represented racism, slavery, subjugation, segregation etc for the last couple of weeks. It has represented that since the civil war!

[fretmeister]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1503323250' post='3357209']
Why was it bought to the police's attention?

Who complained?

And Why?

The article is very scant on details of the neighbours relationship leading up to the event.
[/quote]

Ah

I didn't realise that something isn't a crime unless someone complains, and that there should be a reason for reporting crime, other than it being a crime.

you should write a book on jurisprudence.