action wrote:you don't have to discriminate to be a racist, and racism goes above and beyond the mere act of discrimination under the anti discrimination legislation.
"discrimination" implies a positive action; the refusal of granting certains rights to people of a certain race.
for example, if you refuse to rent your apartment to someone of a particular race, you deny that person the right to rent an apartment. Under the anti-discrimination legislation, that is discrimination (note: the law doesn't call it "racism", but rather "discrimination" on certain grounds)
to know what racism is, you have to look further than what is written In the law.
no law forbids "being" a racist, "thinking" as a racist. for example if you are an ass in traffic towards drivers of a certain race, anti discrimination law can't do much about it. But you're still a racist.
Racism is illegal under certain conditions. To know if you show "illegal" racism, refer to the law.
"Racism" should be defined as an irrational dislike of people with a certain skin colour, which can or can not manifest itself in positive actions, and which under certain conditions is illegal.
I agree, you can be racist without exhibiting any racist behaviour. I think your final definition sums it up. I particularly like the word 'irrational'. However, as per my previous post, nationality and religion has also entered the definition lately, not just skin colour (or as I'd prefer to say, ethnicity).
I'm not a big fan of religion (any religion) and when prompted, I would be happy to say so. I'd like to think that my views are not irrational (I think religion is irrational) but if you start to lump religion and ethnicity together and brand an anti-religionist racist, then it stifles the religion debate. Obviously, the law states you must not discriminate on the basis of religion, which I agree with, but this doesn't mean that I must agree with religion and all its traditions. As long as those traditions and practices abide by the law, fine with me. But I do have friends, and family, that are very religious and I sometimes find their views (if not behaviours) unacceptable. Some are anti gay, others feel that their religion should be given priority over other religions when laws are made. In these cases, it is based on their 'religious' beliefs. Whereas I can 'park' this aspect of their views for friendships sake, it does also cloud my acceptance of them.
So, to a degree, someone's use of religion to justify their behaviour can influence my opinion of them. And I'd like to think this isn't irrational. So if a devout Catholic tells me that practicing homosexuals are committing a sin, I like to think that I can call them out on the issue. And dependant on how hard they push the point, actually dislike them because of it. In the same way, if someone tells me their religion and customs discriminate against women, I should also be allowed to call them out for it, and, if they push the point, dislike them for it.
I have to say, all my religious friends, of all religions, do not 'push' these views and if they believe them, certainly do not practice them in public. This has allowed us to 'park' this issue and celebrate what we do agree with, not what we disagree with.