>>Of course it makes a difference who says the words.
>
>I'm saying that it should not. The act of discrimination, at least if you want to convict someone for it, you should have a rational definition rather than an vague and emotional one. This because then much depends, on how the words were said, the context of the event, the group of minorities (Skin colour, ethnic group, religion, country, etc) which were 'generalised', etc.

Walter, the context IS important! Always. If you deny that, then you are much too rationalistic. A good judge will indeed always look in what context things were said or done. Remember Janmaat? Yes, of course. Certain things he said, are also said these days by sensible people like Leon de Winter and Paul Scheffer. But there is a huge difference between Janmaat and those people. The difference has to do with context. Janmaat's background and purpose was clearly racism.

Don't make the mistake to think that racists never have a good argument. Out-of-context an argument could still simply be the truth, like "we have here far too many fugitives already". It is the context that an argument is made part of, that makes it a racist's argument or not.