While flight attendants simply ignored the situation, video posted to social media spurred Essex police to arrest a man thought to have uttered anti-Semitic slogans as an Orthodox Jewish passenger made his way down the aisle on a Ryanair flight to Belgium.
Police Arrest Passenger After Anti-Semitic Chant on Ryanair
The incident took place on a Ryanair flight from London Stansted to Brussels on Thursday. The flight was full of football fans, as West Ham was playing Genk in a Europa League match outside of the Belgium capital. The chant included:
“We’ve got a foreskin how about you?”
West Ham fans have filmed themselves harassing an Orthodox Jewish man on an away day to Belgium. pic.twitter.com/SL6LMCL8D9
— The Jewish Chronicle (@JewishChron) November 5, 2021
Essex Police, which oversee law enforcement at Stansted Airport, noted the video on social media and began working to identify the men visibly chanting in the video above.
One 55-year-old fan was identified and later arrested when he returned to Stansted after the match. He faces hate crime charges, which could land him in jail for months.
West Ham, the football club, unequivocally condemned the statements made on the Ryanair flight:
“West Ham United is appalled by the contents of the video circulating on social media and condemn the behaviour of the individuals involved. The club is liaising with the airline and relevant authorities to identify the individuals.
“We continue to be unequivocal in our stance – we have a zero-tolerance approach to any form of discrimination. Any individuals identified will be issued with an indefinite ban from the club. Equality, diversity and inclusion are at the heart of the football club and we do not welcome any individuals who do not share those values.”
Meanwhile, Ryanair has refused to comment and it merits mentioning that the none of the flight attendants sought to intervene despite the clear target of the Jewish man and the loud volume of the chants.
Is this business as usual on Ryanair?
CONCLUSION
Police have encouraged other witnesses to step forward. While the punishment for uttering such words is debatable, let us all join in noting that even in drunken banter, there is no excuse and no justification for using such churlish language against another human being.
How disgusting.
As the guys on the return trip from Cancun all chanted “Let us see…let us see”.
I agree that the behaviour is horrible and the club are within their rights to ban people from their ground, but is it really an arrestable offence to express negative sentiment against a group of people? I have to say I am more concerned about the police reaction than the incident itself.
“is it really an arrestable offence to express negative sentiment against a group of people?”
Yes, when it crossed into hate, yes.
This was in England, where there is no 1st amendment, and they do have laws against hate speech.
So yes they can.
I am by no means a lawyer, let alone a specialist one, but the point re US Constitution is moot. The protection afforded to freedom of expression by the European Convention on Human Rights is pretty robust- and it’s not an EU thing so its applicability to the UK remains unaffected by Brexit. I have not heard of any cases involving laws on hate speech, and wouldn’t be surprised to see case law going in any direction (approving hate speech laws, striking them down or adding some asterisks).
But the same Council of Europe would also define what that man said could be classified as Hate Speech.
“According to the Committee of Ministers, hate speech covers all forms of expressions that spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance.”
https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/hate-speech
Correct- that’s why I think outcomes are likely to depend on the specifics of the case(s) ending up in the ECHR and the decisions of the relevant national courts earlier in the process.
Not likely to go to or involve the ECHR at all. If there are laws against it, he will be prosecuted for it in the UK should the authorities decide they want to proceed. End of story.
I would expect that, if he did get convicted, he would be able to appeal to the ECHR against the UK after exhausting the domestic appeals process. My guess is that for this case there will be something like a ‘caution’ as opposed to a full-blown prosecution, but I suspect it is just a matter of time until the hate speech laws of one or more European countries get tested at the ECHR level (probably on the back of a Twitter storm).
Nah, he probably wouldn’t be able to. The ECHR probably would send it back, since, really, hate speech probably isn’t the sword the ECHR wants to fall on when it comes to protecting free speech.
A “sentiment against a group of people” (aka hostility towards people for their belonging to a group) is the very definition of hate. Freedom of expression does not cover hate speech.
Having worked in England for many years I am not surprised with that trashy and deplorable behavior.
Let the punishment fit the crime, Brit Milah, Brit Milah, Brit Milah.
Free speech is a human right. It’s the police who are committing a crime by arresting for speech (mere words) instead of stopping brutal thugs who use violence. The communists won.
Nothing remotely related to communism.
Free speech is a human right until it infringes on the right of others.
Of course I’m sure we’ll be seeing you defending the freedom of speech of peaceful BLM protestors, or athletes who take the knee on the field, right?
Spot on.
Should the government enforce a right to be free from offense? Your speech offends me. Shall I sic the speech police on you? I know that Europe has a very different concept of freedom than America does. That does not make their regulation of speech just. I don’t condone what the football hooligans’ actions, but having the state police private speech is far worse. Soon in the UK one could be prosecuted for “hate speech” one makes in the privacy of one’s home.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/04/uk-lawyers-uneasy-about-plan-to-prosecute-hate-speech-at-home
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hate-crime-bill-hate-talk-in-homes-must-be-prosecuted-6bcthrjdc
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/extending-hate-speech-laws-to-private-homes-crazy-d7k99llrk
BLM protests were legal insofar as they did not degrade into violent riots with destruction of property and injury to folx. Many such protests were far more violent than the 1/6 LARPing incident in which the only homicide was committed by a Capitol police officer. 1/6 could actually be described as “mostly peaceful.” The summer of love in 2020? Not so much.
“I know that Europe has a very different concept of freedom than America does”
How so?
Also, freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right be the racist xenophobic sexist homophobic jerk, it is mainly the right to criticize your government without facing any punishment from that same government.
Also also, most BLM protests were peaceful. Not all, but most.
Actually, it does give you that right, unless you think the state can police people’s thoughts. So long as I don’t injure someone else, I should be free to think and speak horribly bigoted things. “Hate crimes” are nonsensical and discriminatory. We saw just how insidious the techno-fascist propaganda machine could be last year with the silencing of so many who didn’t parrot the incompetent public health establishment’s talking points. But you’re always going to be on the “right side of history.” so you have nothing to fear from the state, right?
Their not policing your thoughts. Think what you want, but calling someone a racial slur is not the reason why free speech exists. You don’t need to injure someone physically to hurt them.
““Hate crimes” are nonsensical and discriminatory.”
Spoken like someone who has never been on the receiving end of one.
You have no idea what I have experienced. Even people who have been on the receiving end of racism can see the progressive push to redefine public discourse on race, gender and state control to be beyond the pale. Keep accusing me of being a KKK supporter. You look just as reasonable as your comrade UA-CCP.
If you think it should be illegal for white folx to say racial epithets, no matter the context, you are an authoritarian.
“Even people who have been on the receiving end of racism can see the progressive push to redefine public discourse on race, gender and state control to be beyond the pale.”
Nah, they just want to live in a fair and equitable world that is just. And free of racism.
“Keep accusing me of being a KKK supporter.”
Well, if the robe fits…
“You look just as reasonable as your comrade UA-CCP.”
Is there supposed to be an insult in there? Because if there was, I missed it.
“If you think it should be illegal for white folx to say racial epithets, no matter the context, you are an authoritarian.”
No, just someone who respects people who are different than me. Which clearly you are nothing like.
Wow, funny how the over the top umbrage shown at this site over the ‘let’s go Brandon’ comment by a pilot gets replaced by ‘freedom of speech rights’ when someone is truly targeted.
Not sure it makes sense to compare the two incidents, although it’s to be expected that people will apply their political filters/biases to things like these. There is a massive difference between a pilot making inappropriate announcements over the PA system and one or more pax saying offensive things in a private capacity. It’s also important to remember we are talking about very different legal and social contexts- Belgium isn’t quite the same as Texas.
Remember, freedom of speech is only for white people to say the N word.
I would venture to say that black folx say the “n” word far more often than white folx. All folx should be free to say it, of course.
I think what the Smithsonian had to say about “whiteness” and “white culture” in the name of anti-racism was far more offensive than uttering the “n” word, or are hard work and rationality absent from black culture?
https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333
Black people saying it usually has a different context than when white people are saying it.
Careful, your robes are starting to show…
Context matters? Is that really how progressives view things? I don’t have to condone racism to think that policing racist or otherwise offensive thoughts and speech is a bad thing. Your idea of what is offensive differs greatly from the next man’s, and simply hearing such words is hardly injurious. You don’t have a right not to have your feelings hurt. Life is not a safe space. I don’t care for your implication that I am a Klansman, but it is typical of your sort to cry “racist” at the drop of a hat (or hood, as you might see it). Shall I cry to the teacher that you’re being a meanie?
https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/usc-professor-slur/
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/06/07/ucla-investigating-poli-sci-professor-for-reading-mlks-letter-from-birmingham-jail-showing-video-about-lynching/
https://www.thefire.org/emory-law-professor-faces-termination-hearing-for-using-n-word-in-discussion-of-civil-rights-case-discussion-with-student/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/05/13/slurs-classrooms-law-school-taboo/
Yes, context matters.
A black person using the N word is clearly not the same as a white person using the N word.
“I don’t have to condone racism”
And I think we all know why.
We all know that you are a deranged, thin-skinned authoritarian. Did you even read the articles I linked to? I guess black folx only say the “n” word (ugh) with love.
Nope, not deranged, nor an authoritarian. I just don’t believe in groups that you support (like the KKK).
I am so glad I don’t live in Europe or that POS England. They would lock me up and throw away the key if they see what I type. Thank God for 1st amendment. On the other hand: LET’S GO BRANDON!
I’m sure they are just as glad a hateful bigot like you doesn’t live there as well.
See what anti-racists describe as “whiteness” (as opposed to blackness) and tell me who the bigots are.
Besides you?
Again:
https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333
If hard work and rational thinking are the province of white culture, is the implication not that it is missing from black culture? How is that not as racist as the worst caricature of “real” white supremacist thinking? Anti-racism is an infantile excuse for thinking.
You really like to keep changing the goal posts, don’t you?
I don’t see bigotry everywhere as deranged progressives do. I am merely interrogating what you consider to be racist. That you can’t address this blatant racism on the left tells me where you stand.
“I don’t see bigotry everywhere”
Racists and bigots usually don’t.
I wonder what happened to you so that you have such a horrible view of life in America. I have no doubt that racism exists, but I don’t for a second believe that Americans as a whole are racist. That you believe the lie that cops are hunting black men down on the streets tells me how out of touch with reality you are. Even the Washington Post doesn’t agree with your fantasies. Need I tell you what the rates of violent crimes committed by race are? Are FBI crime statistics lies? For progressives, any disparity in racial representation must be a product of systemic racism. This is not the product of rational analysis. This is mood affiliation by mentally ill folx. If anything is to blame for the state of black poverty, it is the Great Society. Thank LBJ for destroying black families.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883#refreshed
If I were you, I’d read up on the Fighting Words exception to the First Amendment, lest you end up “directly and personally insulting someone” in a way that is likely to “incite a breach of the peace.” I’d also learn about the constitutional treatment of libel and slander as part of the False Statements of Fact exception to the First Amendment, since you boast of being protected in what you write. You may find out you’re not as protected as you think…
Aaron, are you speaking in behalf of your brother?
It’s almost painful watching you try to be funny.
Even though male genital mutilation is sick and wrong, no one should be taunted because of their religion.
“I wonder what happened to you so that you have such a horrible view of life in America.”
Not horrible. Just realistic.
“I have no doubt that racism exists,”
Yeah right.
“but I don’t for a second believe that Americans as a whole are racist.”
As a whole, no, but between those who are and the systematic racism embedded in the system…
“That you believe the lie that cops are hunting black men down on the streets tells me how out of touch with reality you are. Even the Washington Post doesn’t agree with your fantasies.”
I’m not out of touch with reality. Given the statistics of disproportional treatment of POC by the police that you seem to write off shows that you are the one who is out of touch with reality. I doubt the Washington Post agrees with you more than it does with me.
“Need I tell you what the rates of violent crimes committed by race are? Are FBI crime statistics lies? For progressives, any disparity in racial representation must be a product of systemic racism. This is not the product of rational analysis. This is mood affiliation by mentally ill folx.”
More Whataboutis and Diverionitis.
The only mentally ill person here is you.
“If anything is to blame for the state of black poverty, it is the Great Society. Thank LBJ for destroying black families.”
Nah, it goes longer and further beyond any of that in America’s history.
Are you a young, white liberal female-identifying person?
https://freebeacon.com/politics/white-libs-mental-health/
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/over-50-percent-white-liberal-women-under-30-mental-health-condition
“Are you a young, white liberal female-identifying person?”
Lol. Wrong as always.
Then again, considering the sources you quote, it does explain quite a bit about who are.
I didn’t actually think you were. You just state opinions that could easily have come from one. You don’t really understand or engage with what I write, so I didn’t expect you to get the joke (at your expense, admittedly).