Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 331 of 376 (540970)
12-30-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by New Cat's Eye
12-30-2009 11:37 AM


Re: Apparently........
CS writes:
Like in the sentencing portion and not as a way to create a new crime, or not?
I don't see the intent to threaten and intimidate as "new crimes". I see them as evidenced social realities and as the extension of existing laws applied to socially recognisable groups rather than individuals. Does that at least make sense even if you disagree?
CS writes:
But what happened to your point that the intentions of the criminal are important here? Now you seem to be at: 'well, if they didn't intend it but it happened anyways...'
What? I said it seems obvious to me that they did have a wider intent that but that regardless of what is obvious to me it is up to a jury to establish that "beyond reasonable doubt".
CS writes:
Very public?
Strung up like a scarecrow. Hardly seems like trying to hide the evidence to me. But like I said it is up to a jury with access to all the evidence not what is obvious to me based on the limited info you have provided me with.
CS writes:
They both have life in prison. What more do you want?
Like I said once you get to this level of crime and punishment taking anything else into account becomes fairly irrelevant in terms of sentencing and the like. I am not proposing the death penalty if that is what you are thinking. Being the wishy washy liberal that I am I am predictably opposed to such things on principle. But that is another conversation.
CS writes:
On top of that there's the negative aspects that have been brought up by others.
The main problem I see with the laws under discussion seems to be a PR problem. Many people think they are thought crimes, the language used in the (British at least) government public info seems to contradict the actual laws themselves (the home office website talks of "racially motivated" crimes for example whilst the actual wording of the laws never mention motive but repeatedly refers to "intended")
On top of this there is the common misapprehension that some races, religions or whetever are protected whilst others are not. This isn't true but this is obviously what people think.
Poor application of the law? Possibly. But Legend's failure to find an example that doesn't blow up in his own face suggests that it is not as simple as that. People looking at these laws with historical blinkers? I think that has much to do with it. With regard to race at least.
CS writes:
I kinda like it. It makes the discussions more intimate.
What's the weather like where you are? Dull, grey drizzly wet and cold it is here. Grim even by London standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2009 11:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2009 12:38 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 332 of 376 (540975)
12-30-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Straggler
12-30-2009 11:59 AM


Re: Apparently........
I don't see the intent to threaten and intimidate as "new crimes". I see them as evidenced social realities and as the extension of existing laws applied to socially recognisable groups rather than individuals. Does that at least make sense even if you disagree?
I understand. Although, its as if your saying these microevolutions to the law haven't resulted in a macroevolution. (which I find to be a common lefty problem, all these gradual erosions of our rights in good spirits and they don't even realize they're doing it)
The 1969 law criminalized preventing a protected class from engaging in a protected activity. The 2009 law extended the classes and removed the requirement of it being a protected activity. Now I can get charged with a Hate Crime for calling a dude ghey (and not even meaning homosexual) while I beat him up, as opposed to a simple assault. I'm seeing a new crime there. Plus, its been opened up to be able to be taken even farther.
CS writes:
But what happened to your point that the intentions of the criminal are important here? Now you seem to be at: 'well, if they didn't intend it but it happened anyways...'
What?
quote:
CS writes:
Do you really think that these guys murdered Shepard in an attempt to effect the entire gay community?
I don't know the details of that case at all but if you were gay would you go and live in that town?
That seemed to be saying that even if they didn't intend it, the effect is still present so you point still stood, but I suppose I misunderstood.
I said it seems obvious to me that they did have a wider intent that but that regardless of what is obvious to me it is up to a jury to establish that "beyond reasonable doubt".
Well we don't know what their motive was, and the jury didn't consider it, and we disagree on what it probably was so I think we're at an impasse here.
CS writes:
They both have life in prison. What more do you want?
Like I said once you get to this level of crime and punishment taking anything else into account becomes fairly irrelevant in terms of sentencing and the like. I am not proposing the death penalty if that is what you are thinking.
I assumed you didn't support the death penalty. But this is THE hate crime case. They named the legislation after it. If the hate crime laws had been in effect, and they would have been irrelevant, then that only makes them look less necessary.
Its not like these guys got away with anything. I'm not seeing the need.
I'd rather focus on that than the problems.

What's the weather like where you are?
Its snowing!!
And its right at 0C with no wind so its not really even cold I love the snow, especially the way it makes everything look so cool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Straggler, posted 12-30-2009 11:59 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Straggler, posted 12-30-2009 2:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 333 of 376 (540988)
12-30-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Rrhain
12-29-2009 8:25 PM


Rrhain writes:
Huh? She pled guilty and received a suspended sentence. Note, she assaulted the cab driver. She was not charged merely for disliking the driver.
She was charged and convicted of "racially aggravated criminal damage". Didn't you read the source?
She wasn't just convicted of "criminal damage", the "racially aggravated" bit was added on to it because she called him a racial epithet.
Legend writes:
No hard evidence is needed for you to be charged with a hate-crime, just a simple allegation by anyone who's got a stake in seeing your punishment increased, heck they don't even have to be involved in the incident.
Rrhain writes:
Huh? Where on earth do you find that in your source?
...errr...this is the APCO (Police) guidance that I've already linked to at least three times in this thread. Doesn't your browser follow links? Here's what the Police says:
quote:
2.2.1 A Hate Incident is defined as:
Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which
is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by
prejudice or hate.
2.2.2 A Hate Crime is defined as:
Any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the
victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.
So, like I said, *anyone* can simply allege that you used a racial epithet and your common "assault" turns into "racially-aggravated assault", with an increased punishment, your name next to racist headlines, etc.
Rrhain writes:
A hate "incident," as defined by your own sources, is an act that doesn't rise to the level of an actual crime but should be recorded so that police can be aware of the climate in a particular area and not be caught flat-footed should things get out of hand. That's why the guide you referenced was published
I could comment on your sanitised justification of why the Police record and put a 'hate' tag on incidents that aren't criminal offences in the first place (unlike their response to non-hate-crime incidents), but I won't.
The point is that a Hate-Crime is tagged as such based soley on the perception of the victim or any other person. So if you see someone you dislike doing something illegal just tell the police that you perceive his actions to be motivated by prejudice or hate and you'll ruin his reputation, if not add some more time to his sentence.
quote:
It is essential for all police staff to be aware of the potential for hate crime to escalate into a critical incident. Failure to provide an appropriate and professional response to such reports could cause irreparable damage to future community confidence in the police service.
It's funny though how the police are not aware of "the potential to escalate into a critical incident" when you ring to report a crowd of youths hanging on the street corner. Their standard response is "call us when an offence is committed". But I forget, they don't score any PC points for tackling real crime, hate crimes are the flavour of the month, they are the ones to look out for. Pathetic.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2009 8:25 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2010 5:22 AM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 334 of 376 (540994)
12-30-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Rrhain
12-29-2009 8:34 PM


Legend writes:
she was additionally punished because she was assumed to be a racist based on the language she used while under the influence.
Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. She was not "assumed" to be anything. She was proven to have engaged in racial abuse.
But the reason why 'hate'-crimes should be punished, as you and Straggler keep telling me, is because they are an 'attack on the whole community'. You've even called them 'terrorism'.
You don't seriously believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out is an 'attack on the whole community', do you?
You don't seriously believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out was an incident of 'terrorism', do you?
Legend writes:
Surely not even you could think that she was "targeting a whole group" by her behaviour!
Rrhain writes:
Clearly, she was. Her actions indicated such. That's why she was charged for her actions, not thoughts.
OMG!!! You *actually* believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out is an 'attack on the whole community' !!!
Legend writes:
Surely not even you could think that she was trying to "subjugate a community" by her actions!
Rrhain writes:
Clearly, she was or she wouldn't have done what she did.
OMG!!! You *actually* believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out is 'terrorism' !!!
..............................
................................
I admit I was wrong: I initially thought that you just refused to see outside the narrow limits of your self-righteous vision because you'd then have to admit you were wrong. I'm now of the opinion that you're suffering from a fundamental detachment from reality. Just like Bible literalists, your view of the world is based on your pre-determined, strict interpretation of the letter of the law, instead of a reasoned analysis and logical inference based on real-life events in the context in which they happen.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2009 8:34 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Taz, posted 12-30-2009 2:00 PM Legend has replied
 Message 352 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2010 5:36 AM Legend has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 335 of 376 (540996)
12-30-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Legend
12-30-2009 1:51 PM


Legend writes:
You don't seriously believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out is an 'attack on the whole community', do you?
You don't seriously believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out was an incident of 'terrorism', do you?
I'll let Rrhain and Straggler speak for themselves. But for me, yes, I do believe that such behavior is an attack on the whole community. How would you like it if a bunch of drunken muslims seeked out and beat the crap out of a fellow christian in your community, especially if your christian community is in the middle of a muslim majority society? And I know for a fact that you'd be lying if you tell me you would have no concern for your safety and the safety of your family in such a situation.
Being intoxicated is not an excuse for any crime, period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 1:51 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 2:49 PM Taz has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 336 of 376 (540997)
12-30-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by New Cat's Eye
12-30-2009 12:38 PM


Re: Apparently........
CS writes:
I'm not seeing the need.
I think the need is as follows:
1) A deterrent to those who are not ultimately significantly prejudiced or full of hatred but who are tempted to pick on the weakest elements of the local community purely because they are an easy target. The stigma and additional punishment I think makes them think twice.
2) The extra punishment for those who are genuinely acting with wider intent. If evidenced. Even if this is of little consequence in the most extreme of murder cases which seem to be the favoured examples of the anti-law contingent here. I think murder is the extreme case and that the laws apply better to other lesser and more common crimes such as assault and vandalism.
3) As part of a more general move to make it clear that criminal acts based on common forms of prejudice are not socially acceptable and are in fact more socially damaging than random and isolated events.
CS writes:
I understand. Although, its as if your saying these microevolutions to the law haven't resulted in a macroevolution. (which I find to be a common lefty problem, all these gradual erosions of our rights in good spirits and they don't even realize they're doing it)
But what rights are being violated? The right to commit criminal acts with intent wider than that of the immediate act?
CS writes:
Its snowing!!
Cool! I love proper snow too. We had some last week. But it turned to slush in no time. And (like all) "extreme" weather it brought the entire capital city of London to a standstill for a few hours. Great fun.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2009 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2009 2:28 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 337 of 376 (541000)
12-30-2009 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Straggler
12-30-2009 2:02 PM


Re: Apparently........
I think the need is as follows:
1) A deterrent to those who are not ultimately significantly prejudiced or full of hatred but who are tempted to pick on the weakest elements of the local community purely because they are an easy target. The stigma and additional punishment I think makes them think twice.
I don't see what that has to do with Hate Crimes. And criminals typically pick easy targets anyways. I'm not sure how I feel about using additional punishment for one crime to deter another.
2) The extra punishment for those who are genuinely acting with wider intent. If evidenced. Even if this is of little consequence in the most extreme of murder cases which seem to be the favoured examples of the anti-law contingent here. I think murder is the extreme case and that the laws apply better to other lesser and more common crimes such as assault and vandalism.
That could be done without Hate Crime laws with tougher sentancing on extant crimes. Although I see your point with the extreme case(s).
3) As part of a more general move to make it clear that criminal acts based on common forms of prejudice are not socially acceptable and are in fact more socially damaging than random and isolated events.
That's understandable and acceptable. Although, wouldn't positive reinforcement be a more noble method? Maybe the horses need more carrots and less whipping...
But what rights are being violated? The right to commit criminal acts with intent wider than that of the immediate act?
I still don't see Hate Crimes being limited to those with wider intent...
I think I should have the right to not fear my colloquial use of the word "ghey" because it might be seen as a hate incident.
Cool! I love proper snow too. We had some last week. But it turned to slush in no time. And (like all) "extreme" weather it brought the entire capital city of London to a standstill for a few hours. Great fun.
Sadly, it got a little warmer already and its getting awfully soupy out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Straggler, posted 12-30-2009 2:02 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Straggler, posted 12-30-2009 7:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 338 of 376 (541004)
12-30-2009 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Taz
12-30-2009 2:00 PM


Taz writes:
But for me, yes, I do believe that such behavior is an attack on the whole community.
so you don't think that this woman, being in a drunken state, said something to verbally hurt the man she was arguing with, but instead you think she set out to send a message to the whole Pakistani community ?!??
I'm sorry but I think if you really believe that then you have reality-perception issues.
Taz writes:
Being intoxicated is not an excuse for any crime, period.
I'm not using it as an excuse, I'm using it to set the context of this incident. Hell, I know I've called my wife/brother/friends names after I've had a few. It's no excuse for my behaviour but at the same time doesn't mean that I really hate my wife or that I really want my brother dead. It's just a combination of emotional charge and drink. Just like with this woman.
To assume that she was attacking the whole community because she drunkenly called him a racial epithet is -at best- gross overreaction or -at worst- a total reality disconnect.
Taz writes:
How would you like it if a bunch of drunken muslims seeked out and beat the crap out of a fellow christian in your community, especially if your christian community is in the middle of a muslim majority society?
I'd feel sorry for the victim but otherwise I'd be unaffected.
Taz writes:
And I know for a fact that you'd be lying if you tell me you would have no concern for your safety and the safety of your family in such a situation.
....?? Why would I? What makes you think I'm a Christian? You know for a fact that I'd be lying is a sweeping statement! Please explain yourself.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Taz, posted 12-30-2009 2:00 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Taz, posted 12-30-2009 5:44 PM Legend has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 339 of 376 (541013)
12-30-2009 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Legend
12-30-2009 2:49 PM


Legend writes:
so you don't think that this woman, being in a drunken state, said something to verbally hurt the man she was arguing with, but instead you think she set out to send a message to the whole Pakistani community ?!??
Nope, I don't think she set out to send a message to the whole Pakistani community, not intentionally anyway. Just like those men who killed Matthew Sheppard didn't set out to send a message to the whole gay community when they decided on a whim to kidnap Matthew, torture him for hours, and left him to die tied to a fence. But the result was the same. Gay people in that city were terrorized because of the act. Many gay people immediately moved out of that state out of fear for their lives.
I'm not using it as an excuse...
Yes, you are. If you ever intended to even imply that the woman would have done or said something different if she hadn't been drinking, it's an excuse.
Hell, I know I've called my wife/brother/friends names after I've had a few. It's no excuse for my behaviour but at the same time doesn't mean that I really hate my wife or that I really want my brother dead. It's just a combination of emotional charge and drink. Just like with this woman.
You know, speaking as an LEO, it's funny how people who realize they do and say hurtful things when intoxicated continue to get intoxicated. Especially in domestic cases, it's always the booze, and it's always "I really love my wife" after beating the snot out of her. But that's another story.
To assume that she was attacking the whole community because she drunkenly called him a racial epithet is -at best- gross overreaction or -at worst- a total reality disconnect.
It's not an overreaction. Again, how would you react if you find out someone in your christian community has been attacked by, say, someone from the muslim community if your christian community happens to be living smack in the middle of an overwhelming muslim majority country?
I hope you realize this is more than just a hypothetical situation. In countries like Iraq, whole communities have voluntarily relocated simply because they were christian and felt threatened enough by verbal and sometimes physical attacks to some of their members from the muslim majority.
I'd feel sorry for the victim but otherwise I'd be unaffected.
Ding ding ding ding, and thus we have a perfect demonstration of why crimes against humanity have been even allowed to happen at all. I think I understand what's missing here. It is the perceived unempathetic nature that is the difference between us.
Why would I? What makes you think I'm a Christian? You know for a fact that I'd be lying is a sweeping statement! Please explain yourself.
Because it is human nature to identify oneself with a specific group or groups. Suppose Chinese people go on a rampage and begin attacking specifically American citizens abroad. It wouldn't just be crimes against anyone. It would be crimes against AMERICAN CITIZENS. You of all people should realize this because of recent execution of a mentally unstable British citizen by the Chinese. It's not just the execution of anyone. It's the execution of a British citizen who wasn't given a fair trial.
Minority groups are vulnerable. We know this from history. It even went as far as the ovens. Perhaps you have enjoyed being part of the majority all your life that you are delusional enough to think you wouldn't be affected if you were to live as a minority. I don't know. But the fact remains that people belonging to minority groups feel threatened every time members of their community got hurt. It's not just an attack on that person. It's an attack on the whole community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 2:49 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2009 6:16 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 341 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 6:49 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 343 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-30-2009 7:57 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 353 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2010 5:42 AM Taz has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 340 of 376 (541018)
12-30-2009 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Taz
12-30-2009 5:44 PM


Nope, I don't think she set out to send a message to the whole Pakistani community, not intentionally anyway. Just like those men who killed Matthew Sheppard didn't set out to send a message to the whole gay community..
Wow, you're comming at this from a completely different angle than the others. They've been arguing that that intention was why these crimes were worse.
What do YOU think the Hate Crime laws say and do, sepcifically?
Yes, you are. If you ever intended to even imply that the woman would have done or said something different if she hadn't been drinking, it's an excuse.
What do you mean by an excuse? It doesn't excuse the behavior but it was the major reason it happened.
I hope you realize this is more than just a hypothetical situation. In countries like Iraq, whole communities have voluntarily relocated simply because they were christian and felt threatened enough by verbal and sometimes physical attacks to some of their members from the muslim majority.
Are those the kind of behaviors you think our hate crime laws are targeting? And do you think they'll succeed?
Minority groups are vulnerable. We know this from history. It even went as far as the ovens. Perhaps you have enjoyed being part of the majority all your life that you are delusional enough to think you wouldn't be affected if you were to live as a minority. I don't know.
Others have also insisted that this is not about protecting minorities. You have a strange perspective.
But the fact remains that people belonging to minority groups feel threatened every time members of their community got hurt. It's not just an attack on that person. It's an attack on the whole community.
You're a white guy, right?
Have you read Onifre's posts on how he feels, as a minority, that they don't all feel threatened like that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Taz, posted 12-30-2009 5:44 PM Taz has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 341 of 376 (541026)
12-30-2009 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Taz
12-30-2009 5:44 PM


Taz writes:
Nope, I don't think she set out to send a message to the whole Pakistani community, not intentionally anyway. Just like those men who killed Matthew Sheppard didn't set out to send a message to the whole gay community when they decided on a whim to kidnap Matthew, torture him for hours, and left him to die tied to a fence. But the result was the same. Gay people in that city were terrorized because of the act. Many gay people immediately moved out of that state out of fear for their lives.
Ok, so you accept that she didn't intend to target a whole community. So why should she receive extra punishment and be branded a racist then? I mean, besides this absurd notion you have that the Pakistani community will be terrified because a drunken woman who assaulted a Pakistani cab driver called him an abusive epithet!
I don't know much about the Sheppard case but from what I quickly read his attackers targeted him because he was gay or decided to hurt him because he was gay. Do you think this woman went out targeting Pakistani cab drivers? Do you think she wouldn't have called him a hurtful name if he was white? Please explain why you think she should get extra punishment for that specific word she said during the assault.
Legend writes:
I'm not using it as an excuse...
Taz writes:
Yes, you are. If you ever intended to even imply that the woman would have done or said something different if she hadn't been drinking, it's an excuse.
Pay attention: I'm saying that when people experience anger they tend to call the target of their aggression hurtful names. This is especially so when they're also under the influence. For instance, you often hear women fighting in night clubs calling each other a 'fat slag' and such like. That's not necessarily because they think their opponent is fat, nor that they have anything against fat people. It's simply because they know this is an epithet that's going to hurt their opponent.
So when I'm emphasising the fact that she was drunk, I'm making a point about the causality of her behaviour, I'm not saying that she should be forgiven or treated leniently just because she was drunk. Is that clear?
Taz writes:
how would you react if you find out someone in your christian community has been attacked by, say, someone from the muslim community if your christian community happens to be living smack in the middle of an overwhelming muslim majority country?
Legend writes:
I'd feel sorry for the victim but otherwise I'd be unaffected.
Taz writes:
Ding ding ding ding, and thus we have a perfect demonstration of why crimes against humanity have been even allowed to happen at all. I think I understand what's missing here. It is the perceived unempathetic nature that is the difference between us.
......uhu??? so...because I said I'd feel sorry for the victim you've concluded that I lack empathy!? You haven't been attending the 'Rrhain's School of Reasoning and Logical Inference' by any chance, have you?
Please explain the reasoning behind this absurd statement.
Taz writes:
I hope you realize this is more than just a hypothetical situation. In countries like Iraq, whole communities have voluntarily relocated simply because they were christian and felt threatened enough by verbal and sometimes physical attacks to some of their members from the muslim majority.
I realise that, but what's this got to do with the case of a drunken woman on a saturday night calling the cab driver a racial epithet??
Legend writes:
Why would I? What makes you think I'm a Christian? You know for a fact that I'd be lying is a sweeping statement! Please explain yourself.
Taz writes:
Because it is human nature to identify oneself with a specific group or groups.
My ethnicity is Welsh. I'm a minority in the UK. Do you really think that if a drunken English woman assaulted a Welsh cab driver calling him a 'Taffy bastard' the Welsh community would be shitting their pants? As a matter of fact this sort of thing happens regularly. Some people are mildly annoyed, most people just laugh it off and continue merrily with their lives.
If you really think that any minority would be terrorised by a drunken woman calling a minority cab driver an offensive name while assaulting him in a "pathetic, drunken tantrum" (quoting from source) then I'm sorry but I have to call *BZZZTTT!!----Reality Disconnect Alert!!!* , once more.
Taz writes:
Minority groups are vulnerable. We know this from history. It even went as far as the ovens. Perhaps you have enjoyed being part of the majority all your life that you are delusional enough to think you wouldn't be affected if you were to live as a minority. I don't know.
No, you don't.
Taz writes:
But the fact remains that people belonging to minority groups feel threatened every time members of their community got hurt. It's not just an attack on that person. It's an attack on the whole community.
So you really believe that the Pakistani community was terrified because a drunken woman who assaulted a Pakistani cab driver after he asked her out of his taxi, called him an abusive racial epithet!
So you really believe that this was an attack on the whole Pakistani community and NOT, I repeat NOT an individual, pathetic tantrum of a drunken woman who got pissed off when the cab driver asked her to leave?
.....Riggghhhhht!

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Taz, posted 12-30-2009 5:44 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Straggler, posted 12-30-2009 9:03 PM Legend has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 342 of 376 (541034)
12-30-2009 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by New Cat's Eye
12-30-2009 2:28 PM


Re: Apparently........
CS writes:
I don't see what that has to do with Hate Crimes. And criminals typically pick easy targets anyways.
I think it has everything to do with it. Localised minority groupings are always going to be the target of bullying and intimidation above any other. But if hate laws are in place do you think a bunch of bored teenagers (for example) will go and graffiti up the Mosque that has been the target of a more genuinely malevolent campaign of abuse? Or will they avoid being caught up in that particular situation because it isn't worth the risk of extra punishment and stigma associated with hate crimes? If the hate crimes weren't there is it likely that the easy target everybody else seems to be picking on seems kind of attractive and even socially acceptable in some sense. I think once a target is established in a local comunity a sort of mob mentality can take hold with the devolved responsibility that can result in. I think that was what was happening with my special needs school example when I started in this thread. I also think the application of hate laws would have helped that example.
Very few people are genuinely prejudiced to the point of serious law breaking IMHO. Those that are are will probably be beyond deterring significantly simply by such laws. But if hate laws help restrict hate crimes to genuine bigots by deterring opportunistic bullies then all well and good as far as I am concerned. And if the genuine bigots with actual wider intent get stronger punishments for their actions then society is safer.
CS writes:
Although, wouldn't positive reinforcement be a more noble method? Maybe the horses need more carrots and less whipping...
Of course. Nobody here is suggesting such laws are the answer to anything. Only part of it. Ideally of course we would all love one another and get on peacefully. But until that day the law should deal with reality.
Straggler writes:
But what rights are being violated? The right to commit criminal acts with intent wider than that of the immediate act?
I still don't see Hate Crimes being limited to those with wider intent...
I think I should have the right to not fear my colloquial use of the word "ghey" because it might be seen as a hate incident.
I get what you are saying and that does seem to be a fairly common perception. But is it justified? I am not sure it is. And even if it is true is that the fault of the laws themselves or the poor application of the law? Do we abandon every single law that has been applied badly? would we have any laws left if we did? If it is a question of application then let's tackle that. But I am not sure it is anything more than a PR problem personally.
Do you really watch what you say all the time for fear of being accused of hate crimes? I know I don't. At all. Honestly.
CS writes:
Sadly, it got a little warmer already and its getting awfully soupy out there.
Well that's Christmas over then..........
Happy New Year if I don't hear from/get back to you before then.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2009 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 343 of 376 (541035)
12-30-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Taz
12-30-2009 5:44 PM


You of all people should realize this because of recent execution of a mentally unstable British citizen by the Chinese. It's not just the execution of anyone. It's the execution of a British citizen who wasn't given a fair trial.
This straw man that you erected is like comparing apples to oranges. This literally has nothing to do with the topic.
Minority groups are vulnerable. We know this from history. It even went as far as the ovens. Perhaps you have enjoyed being part of the majority all your life that you are delusional enough to think you wouldn't be affected if you were to live as a minority. I don't know. But the fact remains that people belonging to minority groups feel threatened every time members of their community got hurt. It's not just an attack on that person. It's an attack on the whole community.
Every sane person in the world is sympathetic to this. No one is saying that minorities should not be protected. No one is saying that groups who target minorities aren't trying to send a message. No one is espousing that hurting minorities for any unjust cause is acceptable.
What we are pointing out is that it already is illegal to harm another person for ethnic reasons or for whatever other reason.
Making it a worse crime to murder someone over an anti-gay motive versus murdering someone over a motive of robbing them is still the same if their intent was to methodically assassinate someone.
If we give special status to victims of hate-crime versus giving them the same justice as someone assaulted for other motives is not in keeping with equal protection laws that govern western societies. That's not justice. Justice is holding offenders accountable for their actions.
You say people are being specifically targeted and for the sake of that group, they need to have special protection. But when a serial killer targets young females, do we pass a legislation to make it specifically illegal to murder young women? No. Why? Because murdering women is already illegal...

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Taz, posted 12-30-2009 5:44 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Straggler, posted 12-30-2009 8:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 344 of 376 (541037)
12-30-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Hyroglyphx
12-30-2009 7:57 PM


FFS - Seriel Killers - AGAIN!!!!
Hyro writes:
You say people are being specifically targeted and for the sake of that group, they need to have special protection.
If there is evidenced wider intimidatory intent yes.
Hyro writes:
But when a serial killer targets young females, do we pass a legislation to make it specifically illegal to murder young women?
FFS there you go with your seriel killer scenario again. How many goddamn seriel killers are there where you live?
Is the seriel killer specifically setting out to drive young women out of the community? Is he (I assume it is a he) intent on subjugating young women in general? Or is he a sicko who has a prediliction for butchering young women for more personal sexual reasons?
And in the case of seriel killers who the fuck cares what wider intent he has in terms of extra punishment because he obviously needs to be locked away for public safety reasons regardless. FFS stop seeing this in terms of valuing some life above others (esp as you are unable to say whose life is more valued in terms of the law) and start seeing this in terms of committing crimes with intent beyond that of the immediate act.
FFS - Hyro - HATE LAWS ARE NOT IN PLACE TO DETER OR PUNISH SERIEL KILLERS.
These seriel killer examples of yours are frankly just silly. Why not address the situations that the laws are there to confront? If you mention seriel killers again I will get very hateful.
(**I place aluminium foil on head in case Legend's thought police are patrolling my area**)
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-30-2009 7:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-30-2009 9:45 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 345 of 376 (541046)
12-30-2009 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Legend
12-30-2009 6:49 PM


FFS - Is This Your Best Example Of A "Thought Police" State?
Leg writes:
I mean, besides this absurd notion you have that the Pakistani community will be terrified because a drunken woman who assaulted a Pakistani cab driver called him an abusive epithet!
Qauking in their boots because she called people names? Ooh! No. Shivering under their duvets (no aluminium hats in this case) at the thought of her violent outbursts? No. In danger of having their businesses (Asian taxi driver, Indian restaurant - her two targets so far) disrupted by this stupid woman assaulting people on the basis of race? Well this was enough of a potential annoyance for the judge to give her a suspended and concurrent sentence that only kicks in if she commits another such crime but which has no practical effect at all if she does not.
FFS Legend - Is this your best example of the "thought police" British state you keep complaining about? A woman who pleaded guilty and who got a sentence that has no practical effect unless she commits another crime?
Jesus - I reckon I could find better examples to support your argument than you can. Do you actually read your examples all the way through? Let's just remind ourselves of your story so far:
  • A policeman who applied the laws so badly that it was suggested that he be disciplined for his stupidity.
  • A woman who was found not guilty.
  • A woman who pleaded guilty and was given a sentence that only had any practical effect if she persisted in committing such crimes.
    Even if the laws under discussion are the best laws ever construed there must be one example of them being applied badly all the way through conviction to sentencing? Let us know when you find that example. Don't bother replying until you do.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 341 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 6:49 PM Legend has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 348 by Legend, posted 12-31-2009 12:36 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024