John Galliano, the designer, is currently on trial for racial abusing people in a cafe.
It seems that the details of what occured are not really in doubt, but his defence is that he is not a racist, but that the outbursts are the effects of all the alcohol and drugs that he has taken and as such he cannot remember any of the event.
So, is it a defence?
It is still an offensive action, but is the fact his judgement was impaired a mitigating factor that should be accounted for, or should it be that he is a responsible adult so he shold be responsible for his actiosn regardless of what state he got himself into?
How far can you go in saying you were drunk as your defence before it stops being a defence?