Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok so a mate (not too bright a chap, but a nice enough fella) posted this on his facebook status today.

"In May 2010 Tohseef Shah spray painted a British War Memorial with "islam will dominate osama is coming" he was fined £75 & walked free from court. In November 2010, Emdadur Choudhury burned a Poppy during the 2mins silence. He too was given a £50 fine and walked free from court. Today, 2 men have been sentenced to 12 months in prison for spray painting a Poppy on a mosque. Welcome to the Great British justice system. F***ing Disgusting"

Now, despite what I may come across as, I'm merely slightly right wing. I have no interest in reading the Daily Mail, and I instantly presume that "storys" as above, are almost fiction. The right wing press do indeed "spin" stories, or tell half truths, just to get people outraged.

Anyway, i presumed this was the case, so i did a quick google so that I might post a rebuttal on his status and inform him and others that, well, it was only half the story and he shouldn't start going on about how great the EDL is and we should all vote BNP.

Sadly however, after some searching it must be said.. I found this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15156946

Hartlepool mosque graffiti trio sentenced

EDL trio on mosque attack charges

Two men who carried out a graffiti attack on a Teesside mosque have each been sentenced a year in prison.

Anthony Smith, 24, and Steven Vasey, 32, of County Durham, had previously admitted conspiracy to commit racially-aggravated criminal damage.

Charlotte Davies, 19, of Buckinghamshire, who also pleaded guilty to the same charge, was given a 12-week suspended sentence.

They attacked the Nasir Mosque, Hartlepool, in November last year.

Smith, of Neptune Way, Easington Colliery, and Vasey, of Prior's Grange, High Pittington, pleaded guilty during a hearing at Durham Crown Court in August.

And this

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2955095/Islamic-graffiti-charge-dropped.html

The graffiti attack by the Muslim was apparently "nothing at all" to do with his Religious beliefs.

Seriously. Read that again slowly.

He sprayed "ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD, OSAMA IS COMING" and it was "nothing at all to do with his Religious beliefs"

Which begs the question, if Islam is a Religion and not a race, (there are white Muslims) how can they hit with racially aggravated charges, but Shah was not?

If a graffiti attack on a war memorial by an Asian is merely "graffiti" (the overwhelming majority of British veterans are white) and warrants a £75 fine, how can a graffiti attack on a mosque (majority of "users" are Asian) be worth 12 months jail?

I am alarmed by these double standards. That these two idiots are in prison for 12 months and people like Shah are given two figure fines , baffles me completely.

Can one of you eternally merry, Labour voting, human rights law "my cat will starve so you cant deport me" advocating (which the Tory's are after getting shot of, securing my vote next election!) liberals please make me feel better by making sense of all this? Maybe.. explain how it is fair, and what the BBC/Sun are leaving out of this story?

It makes me FURIOUS!

I have a simple solution. Join us Mattie as we conquer Canada, antarctica, and Greenland. Join us and through ownership of cold regions, massive greenhouse gases, and the Power of the Darkside, together we can rule the galaxy!

That's out country completely gak. They just bend over for anyone i'm glad i'm not the only person seeing this!!!

black templar wrote:That's out country completely gak. They just bend over for anyone i'm glad i'm not the only person seeing this!!!

Thanks to people voting Labour and Lib Dem! Have you seen they are opposing the reqorking of the human rights laws that EVERYONE HATES!?

Its alright hating rich people and Thatcher (I am working class) but unfortunately you cant get Labour without getting hippy, pinko, save the whales human rights activists and softy softy goodie two shoes in charge.

I would rather give up my freedom, money, and happiness, just to see an ultra right wing justice system in this country.

The sight of fethers like Shah getting the electric chair would keep me far happier and warmer than any fairer working practices, human rights laws or higher minimum wage ever could. I would gaily clean toilets for 100 pounds a week, whislting all the while as I begged for scraps off the rich, if only I got to watch the scum that waltz out of court on suspended sentences in this bloody country fry in an electric chair!

I don't vote Labour, nor am I eternally merry, but I can certainly explain what the BBC have left out of the story.

First up, it's a religious or racial offence if a religious or racial group are targeted. Offensively delivering the message 'my faith/race is the best of all' is not viewed by the law in the same way as offensively delivering the message 'this particular faith/race is the worst of all'.

Secondly, the mosque attackers did not just vandalise the mosque - they had also trespassed and also attacked two shops.

http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/9285271.Former_English_Defence_League_members_jailed_over_mosque_and_shop_attack/

You can now correct your friend and point out that even if one does not agree with how the law defines religious hatred, it is a fact that the mosque attackers committed more crimes.

Though it does seem odd on the face of it that a hatecrime attack on a faith building was treated as a racially motivated one, it has to be borne in mind that the EDL have a track record of using Islamophobia as a less illegal, more acceptable substitute for general racism towards Asian people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: I would rather give up my freedom, money, and happiness, just to see an ultra right wing justice system in this country.

The sight of fethers like Shah getting the electric chair would keep me far happier and warmer than any fairer working practices, human rights laws or higher minimum wage ever could. I would gaily clean toilets for 100 pounds a week, whislting all the while as I begged for scraps off the rich, if only I got to watch the scum that waltz out of court on suspended sentences in this bloody country fry in an electric chair!

Just out of interest, how would you like this hypothetical draconian system handle miscarriages of justice?

I've always thought that the fairest possible system of capital punishment would be that every time an execution is found to have been the wrong person, hold a snap referendum on keeping the death penalty, with those voting in favour going into a lottery to be automatically found guilty of murder by proxy with a compulsory death sentence. That seems to be the most likely way of driving home to the public and juries of twelve angry (wo)men the point that modern forensics are not a magic bullet.

lindsay40k wrote:I don't vote Labour, nor am I eternally merry, but I can certainly explain what the BBC have left out of the story.

First up, it's a religious or racial offence if a religious or racial group are targeted. Offensively delivering the message 'my faith/race is the best of all' is not viewed by the law in the same way as offensively delivering the message 'this particular faith/race is the worst of all'.

Secondly, the mosque attackers did not just vandalise the mosque - they had also trespassed and also attacked two shops.

http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/9285271.Former_English_Defence_League_members_jailed_over_mosque_and_shop_attack/

You can now correct your friend and point out that even if one does not agree with how the law defines religious hatred, it is a fact that the mosque attackers committed more crimes.

Though it does seem odd on the face of it that a hatecrime attack on a faith building was treated as a racially motivated one, it has to be borne in mind that the EDL have a track record of using Islamophobia as a less illegal, more acceptable substitute for general racism towards Asian people.

Ok so granted they did commit more crimes, that takes the sting out a bit. It still smack of double standards though surely? How can Shahs graffiti possibly be found to be "not Religiously motivated" when it said "ISLAM WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD"

Do you think then, that this is a paragon of British justice and that the sentences for all are right and correct?

I'm curious, can you ever assault someone who is a Muslim and have it found NOT to be a hate crime?

If I get filled in when I'm down the town by a gang of Muslim lads, it WILL be classed as a mere "assault"

If i happen to do the filling in (far more likely because I am hard as nails) and my victim happens to be a Pakistani, I WILL get done for "racially aggravated assault" its pretty much par for the course these days, this isn't just fantasy, that's what generally happens.

And I'm not happy about it. If some bloke grabs my missus arse in the pub, and I give him a entirely deserved pasting outside, sadly its not 1950 and I wouldn't get a round of applause, but I want a nice sensible caution/suspended sentence, not a 2 year stretch because I'm unlucky enough to be white, and my victim is fortunate enough to be Asian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lindsay40k wrote:
Just out of interest, how would you like this hypothetical draconian system handle miscarriages of justice?.

Ive thought about this.

If the evidence is merely 100%, we give people life in prison. And the prison is a huge unpleasant one, where you break rocks 12 hours a day, eat slop, and share a 50 man dorm room.

If we have you on camera, or DNA (semen in a dead kid or something) then Matty shoots you, stabs you, smashes your face in with a hammer/dildo on TV and all the relatives get to watch. Viewers can text in their choice of weapon used and the money made goes to a charity of the victims families choice.

All animals are equal
...but some animals are more equal than others.

Some animals bark up the wrong tree but some animals are just barking.

biccat wrote:All animals are equal
...but some animals are more equal than others.

In the United States of Antarctica, penguins are the MOST equal.

Repugnant though it may be, War Memorials are neither a religion nor an ethnic group, therefore are not protected by racial and religious discrimination laws.

mattyrm wrote: Ok so a mate (not too bright a chap, but a nice enough fella) posted this on his facebook status today.

"In May 2010 Tohseef Shah spray painted a British War Memorial with "islam will dominate osama is coming" he was fined £75 & walked free from court. In November 2010, Emdadur Choudhury burned a Poppy during the 2mins silence. He too was given a £50 fine and walked free from court. Today, 2 men have been sentenced to 12 months in prison for spray painting a Poppy on a mosque. Welcome to the Great British justice system. F***ing Disgusting"

Now, despite what I may come across as, I'm merely slightly right wing. I have no interest in reading the Daily Mail, and I instantly presume that "storys" as above, are almost fiction. The right wing press do indeed "spin" stories, or tell half truths, just to get people outraged.

Anyway, i presumed this was the case, so i did a quick google so that I might post a rebuttal on his status and inform him and others that, well, it was only half the story and he shouldn't start going on about how great the EDL is and we should all vote BNP.

Sadly however, after some searching it must be said.. I found this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15156946

Hartlepool mosque graffiti trio sentenced

EDL trio on mosque attack charges

Two men who carried out a graffiti attack on a Teesside mosque have each been sentenced a year in prison.

Anthony Smith, 24, and Steven Vasey, 32, of County Durham, had previously admitted conspiracy to commit racially-aggravated criminal damage.

Charlotte Davies, 19, of Buckinghamshire, who also pleaded guilty to the same charge, was given a 12-week suspended sentence.

They attacked the Nasir Mosque, Hartlepool, in November last year.

Smith, of Neptune Way, Easington Colliery, and Vasey, of Prior's Grange, High Pittington, pleaded guilty during a hearing at Durham Crown Court in August.

And this

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2955095/Islamic-graffiti-charge-dropped.html

The graffiti attack by the Muslim was apparently "nothing at all" to do with his Religious beliefs.

Seriously. Read that again slowly.

He sprayed "ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD, OSAMA IS COMING" and it was "nothing at all to do with his Religious beliefs"

Which begs the question, if Islam is a Religion and not a race, (there are white Muslims) how can they hit with racially aggravated charges, but Shah was not?

If a graffiti attack on a war memorial by an Asian is merely "graffiti" (the overwhelming majority of British veterans are white) and warrants a £75 fine, how can a graffiti attack on a mosque (majority of "users" are Asian) be worth 12 months jail?

I am alarmed by these double standards. That these two idiots are in prison for 12 months and people like Shah are given two figure fines , baffles me completely.

Can one of you eternally merry, Labour voting, human rights law "my cat will starve so you cant deport me" advocating (which the Tory's are after getting shot of, securing my vote next election!) liberals please make me feel better by making sense of all this? Maybe.. explain how it is fair, and what the BBC/Sun are leaving out of this story?

It makes me FURIOUS!

While i understand vandalizing a religious building may seem more serious than a war memorial (in my mind it isn't) this still seems over the top. First shah says islam will rule and that is somehow not religious? of course it is.
Second, i'd say the spray painting of the mosque is less about the religion and more about the group of people it was meant for. I bet its safe to say some other nonreligious group carried on with burning flags and poppies they way the extremists do you'd find similar vandalism on their buildings as well.
Call me crazy but i bet if it were the other way around and it was a church targeted by a muslim the sentence wouldn't be is high.

How can Shahs graffiti possibly be found to be "not Religiously motivated" when it said "ISLAM WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD"

If it were on a church, it probably would open up that charge as a faith group would be targeted. Especially if there were a text conversation about 'going Christ bashing'.

Do you think then, that this is a paragon of British justice and that the sentences for all are right and correct?

I don't know. The full extent of the damage done by the vandals, and the extent to which it was planned, is not clear to me. I don't know the faith of the shopkeeper whose premises were targeted. Was he singled out for being Muslim, or Asian? I don't know.

I'm curious, can you ever assault someone who is a Muslim and have it found NOT to be a hate crime?

I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion on how to minimise legal exposure when assaulting someone.

lindsay40k wrote:Just out of interest, how would you like this hypothetical draconian system handle miscarriages of justice?.

Ive thought about this.

If the evidence is merely 100%, we give people life in prison. And the prison is a huge unpleasant one, where you break rocks 12 hours a day, eat slop, and share a 50 man dorm room.

If we have you on camera, or DNA (semen in a dead kid or something) then Matty shoots you, stabs you, smashes your face in with a hammer/dildo on TV and all the relatives get to watch. Viewers can text in their choice of weapon used and the money made goes to a charity of the victims families choice.

Aha, so for an innocent person to be tortured to death, there first has to be tampering or mixups with video or DNA evidence. Gotcha.

I was hoping a sensible discussion on the facts could go without rambling revenge fantasies, but there you go.

mattyrm wrote:
If we have you on camera, or DNA (semen in a dead kid or something) then Matty shoots you, stabs you, smashes your face in with a hammer/dildo on TV and all the relatives get to watch. Viewers can text in their choice of weapon used and the money made goes to a charity of the victims families choice.

I'd pay to watch you do that.

Try a staplegun.

biccat wrote:All animals are equal
...but some animals are more equal than others.

That was such an odd book.

Moral arguments about "hate crime" legislation aside, this is most likely a pretty proper application of the legislation that's on the books.

Hate Crimes usually involve attacks against a protected class, which vandalising a religious building would qualify as. Vandalism promoting a religion is not a hate crime, despite being religiously motivated. (you can go down an interesting rabbit hole by analyzing the political nature of the statement "islam will dominate", which makes the vandalism likely far less religious and more political)

LIkewise, burning a poppy is just... well, I dont' even know what all that means (I know the signifigance, but absent far more facts and an understanding of British free speech laws I can't really comment.)

Additionally, and this is the tricky thing for non-lawyers to understand... the key word here is "conspiracy."

One nutjob doing something stupid is one thing. A conspiracy, even if it's just two nutjobs and a breif discussion, is always punished to a greater extent.

This is one reason why Michael Vick spent more time in prison for dogfighting than what's-his-name did for vehicular manslaughter.

lindsay40k wrote:
Aha, so for an innocent person to be tortured to death, there first has to be tampering or mixups with video or DNA evidence. Gotcha.

I was hoping a sensible discussion on the facts could go without rambling revenge fantasies, but there you go.

Yeah cos the "text in for death via dildo" line sounded mega serious.

There are spankers(thanks for that one Britain) in every country, and holes in nearly every legal system. On the surface it appears as though Shah was given a ridiculous pass, his actions were clearly religiously motivated. Being fined for burning a poppy seems oppressive to some non-commonwealthers if they don't understand the symbolism of the poppy. Americans might remember that church that protests at military members funeral hasn't had any legal ramifications.
Had the EDL guys just painted a poppy on a mosque they probably would have walked away with a similar fine, but they targeted several locations and I can only imagine they were not all poppies.

Kilkrazy wrote:Repugnant though it may be, War Memorials are neither a religion nor an ethnic group, therefore are not protected by racial and religious discrimination laws.

That kind of depends on your countries laws I guess, most of us practice ancestor worship to a greater or lesser extent. So you might make the legal argument that a war memorial IS a religious building. Especially in a nation with a state religion. While improbable I imagine if someone vandalized the statue of Lord Nelson in Trafalgar they would probably find themselves in prison for a significant portion of their life.
Just throwing that out there KilKrazy

In the end I'm an American conservative, and I don't understand the British legal system. But it seems justice was not served, in total absence of the EDL wackos. One man vandalized a national monument with racial and/or religious vandalism. His fine should have at least covered the cost of removing the grafitti and community payback. Possibly some prison time as a reminder that actions have consequences. The other mans fine was a good start, again community payback; preferably in or around veterans centers. Symbolically speaking he burned the blood of Commonwealth veterans. He should have been reminded that blood is precious to the Crown.

Using some of my super secret lawyer research tools (AKA five second wikipedia search), I found this:

For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.[34] For Northern Ireland, Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/463 (N.I. 7)) serves the same purpose.[35] A “racial group” is a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. A “religious group” is a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. The specified crimes are assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a court to consider whether a crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is racially or religiously aggravated. The Act requires a court also to consider whether the following circumstances were pertinent to the crime:

(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—
(i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or
(ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or
(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)—
(i) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or
(ii) by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability.

It seems to me, as a non-commonwealth lawyer, that the law considers hatred of a person's religion to be aggravating. You could make the argument, I suppose, that Shah's vanadlism was based on a hatred of non-muslims, and I'd imagine the prosecutor did. The problem is, the law reads that the crime must be motivated in party by the victims membership in a group. To say that the war memorial, or veterans, or the Crown, are members of the "not-Muslim" group is stretching the law quite a bit.

Myself personally, I don't like hate crimes laws, as they do what governments should not do: punish a person for their beliefs and opinions, not their actions. But like any other law that I inherently disagree with, it can still be applied properly.

The British Army has often employed muslims as well as men of various other religions (and races).

I think this goes back to fact that maybe pissing off a certain radical religion will have more consequences then pissing off one with even less common sense. Guess which one is which.

I'm also not overmuch fond of hates-crime legislation, or at least, I don't understand it well.

A.) A man runs down the street, and smashes a man of the same ethnicity in the head with a brick while screaming obscenities. The victim is paralyzed.

B.) A man runs down the street, and smashes a man of a different ethnicity in the head with a brick while screaming racial slurs. The victim is paralyzed.

All things being equal, why has the man in example B treated more harshly? Why is the victim from example A entitled to less justice? It does doesn't make sense to me. Crime is crime and it should be punished regardless of the motivation. But perhaps someone like Polonius can explain it to me, as I have an open mind on this.

Amen ouze!


However the level of double standards is disgraceful in the OP's case.

Phototoxin wrote:Amen ouze!


However the level of double standards is disgraceful in the OP's case.

Double standards why?

Have you actually read the thread?

I agree with Ouze.

Like many things you have written, your post makes no sense at all.

Explain it to me.

Ouze wrote:I'm also not overmuch fond of hates-crime legislation, or at least, I don't understand it well.

A.) A man runs down the street, and smashes a man of the same ethnicity in the head with a brick while screaming obscenities. The victim is paralyzed.

B.) A man runs down the street, and smashes a man of a different ethnicity in the head with a brick while screaming racial slurs. The victim is paralyzed.

All things being equal, why has the man in example B treated more harshly? Why is the victim from example A entitled to less justice? It does doesn't make sense to me. Crime is crime and it should be punished regardless of the motivation. But perhaps someone like Polonius can explain it to me, as I have an open mind on this.

The theory is that if a minority group suffers a higher rate of attacks because it is a minority group, it needs a greater level of protection than a non-minority group suffering an average rate of attacks.

In short, all things aren't equal.

Ouze wrote:I'm also not overmuch fond of hates-crime legislation, or at least, I don't understand it well.

A.) A man runs down the street, and smashes a man of the same ethnicity in the head with a brick while screaming obscenities. The victim is paralyzed.

B.) A man runs down the street, and smashes a man of a different ethnicity in the head with a brick while screaming racial slurs. The victim is paralyzed.

All things being equal, why has the man in example B treated more harshly? Why is the victim from example A entitled to less justice? It does doesn't make sense to me. Crime is crime and it should be punished regardless of the motivation. But perhaps someone like Polonius can explain it to me, as I have an open mind on this.

I disagree with hate crimes legislation, as they punish thought. Now, technically all criminal laws have a thought element, but hate crimes punish opinions.

The rationale is thus: crimes all have two components. The first is the act: Bob shooting Jim. The second is the intent: Bob wanted to shot Jim and hurt him.

Crimes, in general, are punished at a higher level (either in sentencing or in the actual crime the person is charged with) when the intent is more malevolent. This is why a person that kills another in a bar fight faces far less jail time than a person that plans out a murder.

Hate Crimes laws generally allow a persons intent to commit the crime, because of the victims race/religious/etc, as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Basically, the law says that a crime commited over bigotry is more heinous than a crime committed over money, sex, or just idiocy.

It's not a terrible rule, as judges have always looked at why a person commits a crime just as much as what they actually did. So, a person that kills for money would be punished more than a person that kills out of passion.

The problem is that there are reasons to punish professional criminals more. Why punish bigots more? Professional criminals are, well, pretty likley to commit crimes. Bigots are just bigots. I'm uncomfortable with governments punished people for beliefs, no matter how awful.

I agree. Hate crimes edge into thoughtcrimes territory too much for comfort.

The basic idea is fine, but in execution I am not really ok with it.

Kilkrazy wrote:The theory is that if a minority group suffers a higher rate of attacks because it is a minority group, it needs a greater level of protection than a non-minority group suffering an average rate of attacks.

In short, all things aren't equal.

Well, minorities tend to (at least in the US) suffer a higher rate of attacks. A lot of that is due to poverty, not hatred, though.

The homicide rate, especially among young men, is much higher for black people. Half of all murder victims are black, despite being ~14% of the popularion. Interestingly, while most homicides in the US are within a race (white on white, or black on black), it's far more common for a white person to be killed by a black person than the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

In short, very, very little of the reason minorities suffer higher crime rates is due to hatred.

Referring back to the original story, it's interesting that a lot of people would like to see a special punlishment for a minority person making an attack on a symbol of the power elite.

It kind of turns the whole hate crime idea on its head.

Are war memorial's consecrated? If not, then in the eyes of the law they aren't a religious place. Whether that needs to be changed or not is another argument, however in the meantime if not, then a Judge can't treat it as one.

Kilkrazy wrote:Referring back to the original story, it's interesting that a lot of people would like to see a special punlishment for a minority person making an attack on a symbol of the power elite.

It kind of turns the whole hate crime idea on its head.

I don't want to see a "special punishment", I want equal punishment.

I also point out that it is utterly ludicrous that a man can daub "ISLAM IS COMING" on a war memorial and then successfully argue that it had "nothing at all to do with his Religious beliefs"

No matter how much of save the whales, holistic healing, jumper knitting, tree hugging socialist somebody is, can any of them actually read that and say with a straight face that it is a correct judgement? Religiously motivated graffiti isnt Religiously motivated? How do you possibly square that circle?

Lastly, I am truly stunned that liberal people are so self loathing that they seem to side with the slime that attack war memorials.

It strikes a chord in me, you know.. like if a grown man cries in front of you? I find it truly distasteful.

And I hope that the Conservatives win the next election.

mattyrm wrote:Lastly, I am truly stunned that liberal people are so self loathing that they seem to side with the slime that attack war memorials.

I am also stunned in that you are able to label the innermost emotions of a whole range of people by how they vote. I'm further stunned that you appear to believe what you posted actually happened in this thread, that someone sided with people who attack war memorials.

However, I won't assume every conservative thinks the way you do, because that would be a simplistic and naive way of viewing the world.