The owner of a Swedish petrol station has been ordered to compensate a Roma woman after an employee asked her to pay for her petrol in advance.
During the incident in October 2009, the woman was told that the garage in Orebro, eastern Sweden, had suffered, “problems with the Roma in the past”.
The Orebro District Court originally ruled against the woman, but the verdict was overturned on Wednesday 5th October by an appeals court. It concluded that the petrol station acted in a discriminatory manner by deviating from the normal payment procedure.
“I am very happy over the verdict. Above all I am grateful that someone was on my side for the first time. As far as I am concerned, it has never been about getting compensation but getting satisfaction,” the woman said in a statement.
Vida Paridad, the woman’s lawyer, added, “Hopefully this verdict might influence how petrol stations across the country are treating their customers. Any businessman who lets their prejudices govern their actions won’t benefit in the long run. Instead they are risking losing both money and reputation.”
The Orebro Centre for Equal Rights says it has received many similar reports of discrimination from the Roma community over the past few years. According to The Local, there are between 40,000 and 120,000 Roma in the country today.
The station will pay the woman SEK 5,000 (EUR 547).
I am with Brumley attiude to this more than you Knowless.
This concept of the ” group identity ” that some do hold same cultural values is fact of life and so must be acknoledged.
it is not that , but the concept of ” group guilt ” that is what demogogues do use as excuse to liquidate whole peoples at its most extreme as we have seen all through history.
On the other end of that is what we do have in this ” political correctness ” that no one is allowed to acknowledge the obvious — that people are members of groups as well as being individuals.
This does lead to divide and conquor with politicans and burcrats sitting in their tax payer funded seats and in quangos making crimes of things like discriminating — in context where that should not be a crime..
Courts is the one place where discrimination based on group identity is not allowed — that is even to the extend that to ensure justice you are not allowed to put in the previous criminial record of some one accused.
Why? because there it is about the evidence that is presented of guilt in the specific case under the judge or investigating magistrate.
But outside in world of private interactions between individual people — who are members of groups — well being a member of a group that is known for criminial actions before. Well that group is and should be discriminated against!
It is so obvious.
Yes each person is an individual but the group you do belong to does unfortunately mean you will be profiled based on recent actions and reputation of that group.
As long as you the one providing a service does not have a monopoly ( like government does have in justice and law enforcement and the monopoloies it does grant to companies under idiot socialist regimes ) then discrimination while some times distatstful is perfectly acceptable.
Why? Because the one discrimiated against can go some where else to buy. If they cant find some one to sell to them under reasonable terms — including shops run by their own members of groups who should there see a profit opportunity — well they had better do some serious work in discuplining other members of same group who does have made the bad reputation.
Brumley wrote :
” I equally can see how frustrating it must be for a small business owner to be confronted by a situation like this. At least a part of the Swedish legal system apparently agrees. ”
Yes unfortunately not that part that usually does correct wrongs — the Apellate court. In this case the Swedish appeals court has affronted justice.
It’s pretty simple Knowless, so I’m sure you do really understand it. Discrimination merely means to treat people differently based on a particular characteristic. That might be ethnic origin, but equally it might be age.
I must admit I didn’t follow your “cop on” sentence, but I suspect it loosely translates as “I’ll not answer your question.”
Regarding my position, my first post said it all – I’m on the fence. Whilst I accept that racial discrimination is an obvious problem, I equally can see how frustrating it must be for a small business owner to be confronted by a situation like this. At least a part of the Swedish legal system apparently agrees.
It seems most of Europe reads articles like this and forgets part of what discrimination is. Discrimination is a method of making better decisions in life. All of human behavioural learning is based on discrimination. For example if most of the people I know who never look before crossing the road have been killed, then I can safely discriminate against that type of behaviour, and become better off. If others follow the example, the problem is eventually cured.
In this case, the man has noticed that Roma people thieve a lot, whereas other types of people don’t. Rationally, he’d be a fool not to take extra precautions with Roma people. Its based on sound logic. Making the rest of his customers pay in advance isn’t needed, and may insult all of them, not just the Roma, which is a far less desirable situation.
So, unfortunate as it may be that it hurt her feelings, she and other people need to become more aware of the logic behind our millenia old ways of thinking, before ‘political correctness’ came along.
The woman has other methods of solving this problem available to her, such as educating fellow Roma about how wrong it is to steal. Her personal feelings are immaterial compared to the very concrete damage caused by crime. In the long term, the stigma would drive enough of them to self correction. This social ‘self regulation’ is how society stopped itself from collapsing before the invention of surveillance and police.
For example, an Indian man chastises his son for stealing because he doesn’t want to bring shame on his community. He doesn’t want to see Indians being labelled as thieves. It is this system of group identity and therefore the potential for stigmas within it that Europe is losing… and crime is getting out of control. Take away group identities, and your left with the failed social experiments of the UK, France, and others. It gets out of control.
Daniel
Bromley, I’m not sure what rational line of inquiry you are using to equate that with racial and ethic discrimination.
Cop on without indulging in flimsy, and work it out for yourself the rationale of the court’s ruling in Sweden and why it was found in the Roma lady’s favour.
If you indeed agree with the right of owners to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnic sort, then please state your argument.
Fisy at least offered a reason, however flawed.
Not sure that kids would agree with you Knowless :) . Your point is presumably that society has decided that it’s acceptable to discriminate against young people but not against Roma. But which way would you jump if you saw a sign saying “Not more than 3 old people in our shop”?
Fisy writes
“This is private company — they are allowed to make procedures to protect them selves from being stolen from.”
As long as their procedures don’t discriminate against racial or ethnic groups. The option is to make everybody pay in advance
We have to have a legal protection from the more prejudiced people in society who discriminate on the basis of racial and ethnic stereotyping.
Bromley86 writes
“Ever been in a sweet shop that has a sign saying “No more that 3 children at a time”?”
That refers to all children with no hint of ethnic or racial discrimination.
‘
No different from ‘No rucksacks allowed in our shop’ – that applies to everybody.
But ‘ no blacks/gypsies/english allowed in our shop with a rucksack’ is discriminatory and offensive.
>If not, why they should act like that with one of their customer?
Per the article?
“the woman was told that the garage in Orebro, eastern Sweden, had suffered, “problems with the Roma in the past”.”
Not that they’d had problems with her.
It’s a difficult call though. Ever been in a sweet shop that has a sign saying “No more that 3 children at a time”? That’s discriminating, but at the end of the day the shopkeeper has to do it to avoid making losses.
>It concluded that the petrol station acted in a discriminatory manner by deviating >from the normal payment procedure.
That should not be a crime.
Yes each is an individual but the group you do belong to does unfortunately mean you will be profiled. It is obvious.
Could it be that other Roma have driven away with petrol without paying perhaps.
This is private company — they are allowed to make procedures to protect them selves from being stolen from.
if you do find that procedures offensive — go to another petrol station.
I would think that a small petrol station has the exact right not to be put out of business by a theft and then the difficultly of getting that person in court and costs of that ( if they can ).
If they are are larger company it is no less theft but the company is more able to absorb the loss from people who drive away without paying.
The bad public relations for the station and its owner from being put in court should have been enough — the appeals court has affronted justice here.
I am not in support of anyone but I must say, that woman may had some issue with the petrol station. If not, why they should act like that with one of their customer?