>Hi peter,
>
>>>If you know the person for example? Maybe I've should have said, the "Black guy" on the corner. Anyways the specification of'"Turk" or "Black guy" or "Chinese", or "Old man" or "Red guy" is just to identify who we are talking about, not an act of discrimination. I do remember an incident on the train station in Hoorn (it was in the papers) where one of the NS staff was trying to catch a black guy who did not pay for the train trip. He said "Get over here, you black rat". I wondered why this is discrimination? He was not saying that every black person was a rat, rather that this individual was both black and a rat.
>
>>Yes, that is a clear example of discrimination. It was clear to me within a second. As a judge, I'd not hesitate.
>
>Hmmm, I'm confused? Why is the above discrimination? I don't get it. It is making remarks to an individual not a certain groups with same characteristics.

I'm with Peter on this one. The implication is that Blacks are rats. "You rat" would not be discrimination, but "You black rat" is. Same as if he said, "You Jewish rat" or "You Arab rat".

>Would you have judged the same if the man said "Get over here, you red (haired) rat" ? or "Get over here you small rat" ? If no, why is the fact that someone is black a denominator for discrimination as oposed to who is red haired or small ?

It's more a question of connotation rather than definition. There is a very real implication in calling someone a 'black rat' (whether deliberate or not). Even if the intention is to define the individual as 'black' only for recognition purposes, the statement itself uses 'black' as an adjective to define 'rat'. So the implication is that being a black rat is somehow even worse than just being a rat.

< snip >