Hate-crime = Thought crime?

Funny you should mention thatI would say the last two, in general. What is your point? Doesn't really require extra punishment for his beliefs about women does it, when all that fucking matters is he's brutally murdering them? Oh, gosh. Wait just a minute. Couldn't the same thing be said of someone who was, say, murdering people due racially charged motives?Now you're starting to get it. All that is pertinent is that a psychopath is out there targeting homosexuals, or in the case of the serial killer, young women. Does special legislation really need to be passed?Straggler, the motherfucker is going to prison for murder. What good will the bill do? It won't! All it does is threaten speech. Think about it.For a serious crime like murder or aggravated battery, the offender is going to go to prison for a long time because of what they did, not why they did it. So since the serious offenders are going to put away on the severity of the crime, who is this bill really for?It's for people who commit lesser offenses who may or may not have racial hatred. It doesn't really matter because in the free world, you can hate whomever you want for any reason you want. But now, you spray paint a swastika on the side of a road you could be going to prison for a long time.In contrast, if someone spray paints a swastika on a Temple and writes "I'm going to kill all the Jews," well now we are in the realm of threats, which is not covered by free speech.This bill makes the simple affiliation or affinity with swastikas a crime based on the perception of threat. That is jeopardizing the freedom of speech/thought. You're targeting me because my views are in the minority.I have addressed it specifically, to tenth power. But it is just not sinking in because everyone seems to be motivated by their hatred for racist ideologues. So perhaps by showing how other crimes who target specific victims should be tried on their actions and not their beliefs it may just sink in how silly the whole hate crime bill really is.You know, people have been held in custody without a trial for simply being under "suspicion" of terrorism. It doesn't matter how vacuous the allegations are, suspending habeus corpus is often the government's modus operandi.This bill and the suspension of habeus corpus boils down to punishing people for unpopular beliefs, when it should be about punishing people for their crimes.The only thing you have in your defense is that they are trying intimidate a greater audience. First of all, that's pretty hard to prove in court which is why Bush signed in to law things like the Patriot Act which legally (mind you) holds people under the suspicion of terrorism. Their reason? Terrorists are trying to intimidate a greater audience. Give me a fucking break.Look if you are cool with pissing on the Constitution of the United Kingdom, by all means continue on with this charade. If you aren't, then you really need to examine not only what we're dealing with but also the implications. You keep talking about committing crimes with intent beyond that of the immediate act, without noticing what very well is on the way beyond the intentions of the lawmakers of just such a bill.Do you have any idea how easily this can be manipulated? Legend has unequivocally shown it by posting numerous instances where free speech was not merely threatened, but completely denied. That's fucking scary in this day and age, mate. We're nearly in 2010 and we're going backwards!No one likes terrorism. No one likes terrorists. No one likes being intimidated by terrorists. So therefore it is easy to pass legislation that implicates people under vague suspicion. But at what cost? No one likes hate groups for the same reasons, but at what cost will you trade civil liberty for security.

---

"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

That made me laugh!! But it still misses the point. Who is in a minority? It totally depends on localised context. We are all potential minorities. The law protects us all.But seriously where there is intent evidenced "beyond all reasonable doubt" to have a wider and socially destructive effect that lies beyond the immediate crime (i.e. to drive people out of the community, to close a social establishment of some kind etc. etc.) what is your problem with taking that evidenced intent into account?And (**sigh**) yes I agree that in the case of seriel killers such intent is frankly neither here nor there as either deterrent or extra punishment. But (**sigh**) again seriel killers are not really my main concern here. Alas we don't have one as such. Our shame. I have been a keen advocate of such a thing for some time. And no I really don't see how this pisses on any such thing. If it existed in the first place. No. Please do tell. Or will you rely on Legend's examples for that? Oh now that is well funny!! So far Legend has posted the following examples:

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.

​

Hyro writes:

​

But at what cost? No one likes hate groups for the same reasons, but at what cost will you trade civil liberty for security.

​

Look dude if on the basis of Legend's lame-ass examples you want to hide quivering under your duvet with an aluminium saucepan on your head terrified that those thought police might detect your hateful brainwaves then you do that.

​

In the meantime those of us that live in the real world, and the most socially diverse parts of the real world at that I might add, will continue on our merry way unconcerned by your ridiculous fears and assertions as we go about our business thinking whatever we damn well please unhindered by insane notions of "thought crimes".

​

Go figure.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Is that really what you see as the redeeming feature in this case? that the punishment she was given for uttering the wrong word happens to have no practical effect?! The fact that she *was punished* in the first place for being incorrectly and unfairly assumed to be a racist doesn't bother you at all!? The fact that she's now has a 'racist' tag on her record because of a stupid, drunken tantrum doesn't bother you at all!? FFS Straggs, talk about having blinkered vision, eh?! You have your rose-tinted glasses on mate! My story so far is:# A woman who was intimidated (i.e. home-interviewed) by the police for expressing an opinion about homosexuality.
# A woman who was charged and tried with a racially-aggravated crime because her opponent belatedly alleged to have been called a racial epithet.
# A woman sho was charged, tried and convicted with a racially-aggravated crime because her drunken stupidity was deemed to be racist, or deemed to "try to subjugate the community" as you put it, or "attempt to terrorism" as Rrhain puts it. I already have! At least two (2)! Can't you read?The last case on the list above is of a woman who was convicted of a hate-crime because she drunkenly, mid-fight uttered an 'inappropriate' word. Haven't you been reading?I'be also previously linked to the mugger who was convicted of a hate-crime because he was targeting elderly women. The authorities decided -without any evidence- that he was targeting them because he hated old people, instead of the obvious reason of them being an easy target. Haven't you been reading?But if that's not enough for you, here's another example of people terrorised by police about their moral views.But, no, you're going to dismiss this as another isolated incident, aren't you?What about this one?Oh no, I hear you calling this "just another isolated misapplication of the law", right ?Oops, here's another one .Gosh Straggler, these "isolated incidents" are getting pretty numerous, don't you reckon?One would almost think that the police are targeting people who express 'incorrect thoughts', wouldn't you say so?But no, as you say, all these are "isolated incidents" which I'm picking on because I'm paranoid, right?The law doesn't punish thought, it just so happens that there's lot of police going round 'interviewing' people who express 'bad' thoughts, right?No, nothing to do with 'hate'-crime laws, nothing to see here, move on, right?......RIIGGHHHHTT!

---

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

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

What I've been saying all along is that these laws server as a a weapon against free speech and expression of ideas.

---

Except you haven't shown a single example of anybody anywhere being tried and convicted simply for speech. The worst that you have is someone receiving a letter with a lot of questionable process regarding the sending of said letter.In fact, the very law you're complaining about specifically talks about the need to keep free speech alive: You did read the law you're complaining about before complaining about it, yes?Heck, your own source told you that the House of Lords specifically worked to ensure that free speech would be retained: You did read your own source, yes?

quote:

---

The fact that a run-of-the-mill club fight ended up with the attacker prosecuted for a racially-motivated crime based on the (alleged and unsupported) utterance of *one word* shows exactly that.

---

Huh? She was found not guilty.By your logic, we need to do away with the murder statute because there are people who have been found not guilty of it.By your logic, there isn't a single white supremacist group anywhere to be found in the UK because their speech gets them hauled into court every 20 minutes.What got her prosecuted for a racially-based crime was the fact that she committed a crime and in the process made comments that indicated it may have been racially-based and thus required a jury to determine what happened.You seem to be forgetting: She not only claimed that she didn't engage in a racially-motivated crime, she also claimed that she didn't commit any crime at all. She claimed self-defense for her attack.But she was convicted.Strange how you're not complaining about the fact that she was hauled into court on an assault charge to begin with.If it isn't an attack upon of her rights to be subjected to the horror of a trial for assault, then it isn't an attack upon her rights to be subjected to the horror of a trial for a hate crime.

quote:

---

The message is clear: "watch what you're saying, if your beliefs,opinions,thoughts on race/religion/etc can be associated with a criminal offence -even remotely and without supporting evidence- then we'll make sure you get punished far more than your original offence requires or deserves"

---

Huh? You still haven't shown anybody anywhere being charged with a criminal offense for speaking.In fact, the law you're complaining about specifically denies such.You have to commit an actual crime before you get charged with a hate crime. And there needs to be evidence that your crime was racially-based in order to sustain a charge of a hate crime.It then goes to trial just like any other crime. By your logic, being charged with assault is such a threat to a person's existence that the message is clear: "What what you're doing for if you defend yourself from an attack, no matter what evidence there is, then we'll make sure you get punished for protected yourself."If being found not guilty of assault because you didn't actually commit assault doesn't send the population into paroxysms of fear over self-defense, then being found not guilty of a hate crime because you didn't commit a hate crime doesn't cause any trouble for free speech.

quote:

---

That the attacker was eventually found not guilty of a hate crime just makes what would have been a truly horrendous punishment, simply appalling.

---

Then why aren't you complaining about her having been charged with assault in the first place since she was claiming self-defense? It's the exact same concept: If she had been found not guilty of assault, that just makes what would have been a truly horrendous punishment simply appalling.The fact that you aren't is indicative that the problem isn't the crime but rather the people being protected by the criminal statute.

quote:

---

Even more so for a pop singer who makes a living out of popular appeal, suddenly seeing her name on the papers next to a "racially-aggravated assualt" headline.

---

Right, because popular people are never guilty of serious offenses.

quote:

---

Just like false-rape-allegataions no court verdict can ever take the slur on the accused's name away, that stays with them for a very long time.

---

So we should do away with the laws criminalizing rape?By your logic, we need to do away with the entire criminal enforcement out of fear that an innocent person will be charged with a crime.

quote:

---

The trial is also a punishment in its own right, without even having to prove your innocence against an unsupported allegation.

---

Yep. We should never, ever charge anybody with murder lest the verdict come back as "not guilty." Nobody should have to defend themselves against such a heinous charge.

quote:

---

If that was any other crime other than an alleged 'hate'-crime no added charges would have ever been brought against her.

---

Right. Because there is no difference among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder. There certainly aren't various degrees of such.

quote:

---

If someone simply accused her of stealing or assault the police/Crown Prosecution Service would have done nothing until there was some *evidence* of theft or assault.

---

Right, because there wasn't any evidence of a hate crime. The judge certainly didn't instruct the jury about how to determine if there was one.

quote:

---

But no, because this is an alleged 'hate'-crime then the rules are different.

---

Yep. They just hauled her into court without any indication of anything happening at all. No presentation of evidence was brought at all.And her attorney was a completely nincompoop who completely missed the fact that the prosecution didn't provide any evidence to justify the charge. No, the defense simply let the prosecution make the charge and hoped that the jury wouldn't agree.

quote:

---

Just like the APCO (Police) guidelines say (and I've quoted them at least three times on this thread)

---

Yes, but you have failed to understand them.Hint: What is the difference between a hate "incident" and a hate "crime"?

quote:

---

So yes, there you have it

---

Yep. There we have it: Proof positive that you don't even read your own sources. We've been through this before.Hint: What is the difference between a hate "incident" and a hate "crime"?You did read your own source before quoting it, yes?

quote:

---

if you see someone you dislike having a fight, just tell the police he called the other person an offensive epithet and -hey presto- your enemy will have their name on the papers tagged as a racist/homophobe/whatever and they'll be looking at a few more years added onto their sentence!

---

Huh? I'm confused. First you were talking about incidents, and now you seemingly have moved onto a crime. Make up your mind. Are we talking about incidents or crimes?But assuming we're talking about crimes, your scenario fails due to the lack of evidence. You're assuming the police won't engage in any actual investigation, that the defense will not do any investigation, and that the prosecution will attempt to bring forth a charge without any evidence to justify it.So far, you have been unable to provide any evidence of this ever happening. The only example you've managed to find of anybody being charged with a hate crime resulted in the person being found not guilty. This you take to be proof that we need to get rid of the law before anybody has to suffer the horror of being charged with a crime they weren't guilty of...completely ignoring the fact that this sentiment applies to every single crime out there.

quote:

---

No, I'm saying that because many people are charged with 'hate'-crimes simply because they've been alleged to utter *one wrong word*, that makes the entire law a sinister, totalitarian tool of oppression that has no place in free and fair society.

---

Because they were found not guilty?By your logic, any crappily applied prosecution is justification for getting rid of the law that criminalized the act. Well, every single law has had an overzealous prosecutor charge somebody with it. And we don't find you complaining about the murder statute.You really think the McMartins are ever going to have a normal life after undergoing a six year (yes...six year) trial for child molestation? The evidence against them couldn't withstand the onslaught of a mosquito's fart, and yet they had to withstand the pain of a trial. The longest and most expensive trial in history.By your logic, we need to do away with the laws against child abuse because all it takes is one distraught parent to toss out a claim and suddenly we're in trial and someone's life now has a charge against him. After all, divorce attorneys routinely tell husbands to prepare for the wife to accuse them of sexually molesting their children.By your logic, this is an atrocity and we need to do away with laws against child sexual absue.

quote:

---

Is that finally clear now?

---

Oh, it's been clear for quite some time.You don't really care about the crime. You are upset that certain people are protected against crime.That's why you don't read your own sources before you post them.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

Do you really think that these guys murdered Shepard in an attempt to effect the entire gay community?

---

Considering that one of them admitted to as much, I'd have to say, yes. Yes, I do think that they murdered Shepard as a way to attack the entire gay community.

quote:

---

What positive effects do you think would have resulted if these guys were punished for a hate crime instead?

---

(*sigh*)You act as if the only way a hate crime can manifest is with murder.You're absolutely right: The dial doesn't go to 11. When you've already hit the maximum by engaging in murder, it really doesn't matter what else is involved. But by this logic, we should never try anybody for multiple homicide because "what positive effects could result if the suspect is punished for four counts of murder in the first instead of only one?"Here's a thought: Justice. Justice would be the positive effect of these people being charged with the complete set of crimes they actually committed.Or is justice a fool's errand?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

She was charged and convicted of "racially aggravated criminal damage". Didn't you read the source?

---

Yes. Did you?She pled guilty.Therefore, even she thinks she did it. Are we now about to say that people who admit their crimes didn't actually commit the crime?

quote:

---

She wasn't just convicted of "criminal damage", the "racially aggravated" bit was added on to it because she called him a racial epithet.

---

Which she admitted to. Are we not to take her at her own word?

quote:

---

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?

---

Indeed. But as we've already been through every time you bring it up, it doesn't actually say what you think it says.Hint: What is the difference between a hate "crime" and a hate "incident"?You are confusing the standard for a hate "incident" and reacting as if it were a hate "crime."

quote:

---

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

---

You did read your own source, didn't you? They tell you precisely why they keep track of these things.Hint: If there is a rash of "incidents" in an area, what might be a reasonable prediction? Why would this be of interest to a law enforcement agency?

quote:

---

unlike their response to non-hate-crime incidents

---

Huh? What on earth makes you think the police don't record other incidents? The police force in England and Wales now have cameras in their helmets to document incidents. The recordings are not to be used as evidence and are destroyed after 31 days.Where on earth do you get this fantasy that hate crimes are handled in a completely different manner than any other crime?

quote:

---

but I won't.

---

Go with that feeling. Your understanding of your own country's laws and procedures is not serving you well.You need to start reading your sources before you post them.

quote:

---

The point is that a Hate-Crime is tagged as such based soley on the perception of the victim or any other person.

---

And? You don't get to be convicted of it unless you can prove it.That's why Tweedy was found not guilty, as you'll recall. There was sufficient evidence to justify a charge, but the jury did not think it was sufficient to sustain it.All crimes carry that risk. All crimes run the risk of having enough evidence to bring a person to trial but that the jury will determine that the person didn't do it.The fact that you don't complain about this basic truth of a trial system indicates that it isn't the crime that is your source of discomfort but the people being protected.

quote:

---

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.

---

Right, because the police certainly won't do any investigation to determine if the charges are legitimate, the defense certainly won't try to impeach any evidence brought forward, and the prosecution won't even bother to provide any evidence but will simply insist that the jury find a defendant guilty.And, of course, the judge will sit blithely by while all of this takes place, never commenting that no evidence to justify the charge was ever put forward.That must be why you've been able to show myriad people being convicted off of no evidence.No, wait...all you've been able to show is somebody receiving a letter, somebody being found not guilty, and somebody pleading guilty.We're still waiting for the example of anybody anywhere being convicted for speech. Now, I understand if it will take you some time to do so since the very law you're complaining about specifically denies the law's ability to convict anybody for speech, but I'm sure you've got an example of the law being misapplied which is proof positive that the law needs to be abolished.Which is why you are championing the abolution of child sexual abuse laws. The McMartins were put on trial for six years, the longest and most expensive trial in history, over the flimsiest of evidence. The prosecution was outrageously bad regarding this case and thus makes it clear that child sexual abuse laws don't actually do any good but simply make life hell for innocent people.If a law is ever misapplied, that means it's a bad law and should be tossed.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yeah. That's why they never investigate. That's why they don't have cameras on their helmets to record such incidents. That's why they don't record any incidents.Oh, wait. They do. They do all those things. Since you seem to like the Guardian: It would seem that you simply aren't telling the truth about what the police do.Wow. What happened to your argument?

quote:

---

Their standard response is "call us when an offence is committed".

---

Strange how your own country's press seems to be of the opinion that the police actually investigate things rather than your fantasy of waiting for stuff to land in their laps. Heck, the Greater Manchester Police Department has a whole section about their "Neighbourhood Policing" program. It details how the police are going to be out in force to reduce anti-social behaviour. There's even a publication about how they found that about 10% of reported burglaries are false reports and how they trained the police to identify such false reports and provide a way for the people making such false reports to fess up without fear of prosecution.Did you bother to do any research at all regarding the function of your local constabulary?

quote:

---

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.

---

Hmmm...that must be why I can't find any statistical breakdown of crime.No, wait...I can.Wow. What happened to your argument?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

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'.

---

And? She pled guilty.

quote:

---

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?

---

Not every single one, no. Just as I don't think that every single killing of one human being by another is murder. Sometimes, it isn't even a crime.But I'm hardly going to do away with the murder statutes just because some people are charged with murder but didn't actually do it.

quote:

---

You don't seriously believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out was an incident of 'terrorism', do you?

---

Not every single one, no. Just as I don't think that every single physical attack upon one human being by another is assault. Sometimes it isn't even a crime.But I'm hardly going to do away with the assault statutes just because some people are charged with assault but didn't actually do it.

quote:

---

OMG!!! You *actually* believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out is an 'attack on the whole community' !!!

---

Sometimes, yes. Surely you aren't saying that only crime that happens on the grandest of scales has any real meaning, are you?

quote:

---

OMG!!! You *actually* believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out is 'terrorism' !!!

---

Sometimes, yes. Surely you aren't saying that only if people die is it worth anything, are you?You seem to be suffering from what I call the "doesn't kick puppies syndrome." It's the idea that something is only bad if it rises to some truly horrendous level. So long as we can prove that the person "doesn't kick puppies," then what happened wasn't really that bad and certainly we shouldn't consider the person to be a bad person.Being a bigot does not mean that the person lies in wait to kill people nor does the fact that bigotry can happen at a lesser level make it innocuous and of no concern.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Taz writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

It's hard to know if you were being sarcastic or not.But just so you know, in case you weren't, this claim isn't true. They were, indeed, trying to send a message to the whole gay community.One of them (Henderson, if I recall correctly), has admitted to such. They went out to specifically bash gay people. They picked up Shepard specifically because he was gay. They plotted their actions specifically to get a gay person to "jack" (their words). This was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. It did not "get out of hand." They knew exactly what they were doing.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

I agree with you on this one Rrhain.So basically nearly a week prior to his murder, Aaron McKinney and Russell Arthur Henderson knew he was gay (he may or may not have hit on them at a local bar in town the previous week, which really is irrelevant to the case).So yes, they specifically targeted him being gay, knowing that he was gay and premeditatedly knew they would (a) severely beat him up or (b) kill him outright, because he was gay. This act in itself is a message to the entire gay community of there hatred for this 'type' of people.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I agree with you. Don't get me wrong, I realized they were out specifically to pick up a gay person for their thing. What I was responding to was that they didn't specifically say to themselves "let's terrorize the gay community by..." That's how I interpret legend's posts. They seem to be making the argument that people who are charged with hate crimes didn't specifically think to themselves "let's terrorize such and such community..." But the fact that they specifically went out to get certain members of said community delivers the same message as if they were to post a big poster saying they intended to terrorize that community.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Simply for speech? No I haven't. Though here's one if you wamt one.Tried and convicted for speech tagged on to another crime? Yes, I already have.Besides why is it that you need for someone to be convicted for speech to concede that certain speech is persecuted?Don't the numerous cases of people receiving official police visits *just because they expressed an opinion* suffice?What's the matter, do you need to see barbed-wire fences, guard-dogs and dawn raids before you accept that free speech is being suppressed?
You may well do one day but, by then, it will be too late for us to be talking about it on an internet forum. No, I've already shown you several cases of people receiving an official police visit because they voiced some 'incorrect' thought or cracked an 'incorrect' joke. I see you missed the immediately following clause. Here it is:

quote:

---

29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation) The Waddington Amendment
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.

---

Two interesting points related to this:1) If the law feels the need to clarify that the discussion or criticism of *only* sexual conduct is not "intended to stir up hatred", then this implies that the discussion or criticism of racial/other conduct *IS* "intended to stir up hatred" and is therefore criminal!2) The government is currently battling to repeal this particular clause which ensures that people can criticise homosexual behaviour without fear of prosecution. This is a clear message of the government's intentions to suppress free speech and legitimise 'Thought-crimes'! Of course! Hurray for the Lords, eh? Isn't ironic that our elected representatives are trying to suppress our freedom of speech while a bunch of un-elected toffs are trying to protect it?! ugh...?...Why....? I don't know of anyone who's been charged and prosecuted (let alone convicted) of murder just because someone said they're murderers! Do you?I fail to see any legal definitions, court cases or even police guidelines where murder is defined simply as the "perception of the victim or anyone else" that murder happened! Can you?No, I didn't think so. So your insistence to equate hate-crime laws with traditional criminal law is at best ignorant, at worst a disingenuous attempt to derail the topic.See, unlike hate/thought crimes, murder is judged and punished on the accused's actions and deliberation to act, *NOT* on their thoughts/feelings and their ulterior intents and motives.Have to go, but I'll come back to the rest of your post when I get more time.Edited by Legend, : No reason given.Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

---

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

So she committed a crime but her comments turned it into a racially-motivated crime. Two problems here:
1) the alleged comments were denied by the accused and only belatedly made by the victim with no supporting witnesses. Still, the accused was prosecuted for a racially-motivated assault instead of just assault. This wouldn't happen with most other offences.
2) You, Straggler and others are claiming that we need hate-crime laws in order to punish targeting and initimidation of whole communities. In this particular incident there is no evidence that a whole community was targeted or even attempted to be targeted and lots of evidence that it wasn't. So, how can you/anyone justify a racially-aggravated charge in this case? So? What's this got to do with anything? Because she was charged with assault presumably on the basis of some evidence. Also, because I have no objections to people being prosecuted for what they do. I have major objections to people being prosecuted for what they say! I'm not, because there was some evidence of an assault, other than just the victim saying "I perceive to have been hit!". Heck, she even admitted she hit the victim herself! Just because she claimed it was self-defence doesn't mean it was. Unlike the other party where she was taken at her word when she claimed it was a racist epithet. Talk about double-standards, eh!? I didn't claim it was her right NOT to be subjected to a trial, I pointed out that the trial is punishing in its own right and having to go through it solely because of someone's allegation negates the purpose of the law and ensures people can inflict personal begrudging punishments on the back of the law. ...ugh?...for the last few paragraphs we've been discussing a case where the accused was charged with a racially-aggravated crime exactly exactly for (allegedly) speaking. Ok, so that makes it slightly better than being charged purely for speaking. Is that really your saving grace? But the standard of evidence is so much flimsier for hate-crimes. I've already quoted you what it takes: A Perception by the Victim Or Anyone Else! That's all! Hate-crime are crimes of Perception FFS! It won't get much more Thought-Crimey than that until they can read our thoughts! Being charged and prosecuted for a hate-crime simply because someone alleged that you uttered an 'inappropriate' word causes a Huge Heap of Trouble for free speech. If you seriously can't see how then let me know and I'll elaborate. ahhh....yes...the last resort of the literalist mind when confronted by reality: "anyone who denies or disagrees with my obviously Correct position must be inherently racist or bigot". Ok, whatever rocks your boat, now straighten your knickers and try to counter what I'm saying instead of what you think I'm saying.

---

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

Thought I'd share a brief story from here in Sydney Australia, a few years ago, about how such issues might be manipulated.Me and a friend were at his house, watching the news, and a story came on, the police had raided about 200 houses of suspected paedophiles, finding incriminating evidence in 37 residences (all videos d/l from internet etc). I have no problem with that. But the story went on : they didn't have warrants for any of the searches, so it looked like they'd have to let them go! Oh no! Never fear, the story went on, the state government had passed emergency legislation which made warrantless searches legal!Me and my friend found this whole story all a bit dubious to say the least, after all they knew they didn't have warrants before the whole thing occured, but this other guy in my friends house, a bit dopey, was cheering it on all like "Yay! they dun gut thum dar peddos! Yay!"We tried to explain to him that these "warrantless searches" meant ANYONE could have their door kicked in without a warrant, but he didn't seem get it.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it! It's just that famous people are even more vulnerable to defamation than you or I as they make their living out of their popularity. That wasn't so so difficult now, was it? The 'evidence' was that the victim (belatedly) said so. Which is why the jury didn't convict her of a hate-crime! Why are you sounding incredulous about the bleedin' obvious? No, the attorney must have surely pointed out that his client never called the victim a racial epithet, that she had no reason for doing so and that there was no evidence that she did. Which is why the jury found her not guilty of racially aggravated assault. Why on earth are you trying to elicit incredulity out of the obvious? That's *your logic*, not mine! I'm just asking that the same standard of evidence and investigative standards are applied across the board of criminal cases. If no-one is charged with murder, manslaughter, robbery, assault, etc purely on someone's word then neither should they be charged with hate-crimes based on someone's word. If no-one is charged with murder unless there is evidence that they planned to kill, then neither should anyone be charged with hate-crimes unless there is the same standard of evidence that they planned to "terrorise" or "subjugate" the whole community, instead of just uterring a stupid, hurtful epithet during a drunken fight. For you, this is evidently too much to ask. BZZZTT!! RED HERRING ALERT #1 I never suggested or implied that we shouldn't. BZZZTT!! RED HERRING ALERT #2 I never suggested or implied that there aren't. What does it matter? The point is that they are both based on what is "perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by
prejudice or hate." (quoting from source).Why are you even asking? I sense a {BZZZTT!! RED HERRING ALTER #3} coming up! Unlike hate crimes, murder is judged and punished on the accused's actions and deliberation to act, *NOT* on their thoughts/feelings/words and their ulterior intents and motives. Hence, I'm not complaining about the murder statute. Is this finally clear? And that's yet another reason why we should be campaigning for equal standard of evidence across the criminal board and *against* moral-crusade legislation like hate-crime and sex-offence laws which justify some sinister and dubious means towards a well-intended end.Just because someone has a black cat doesn't mean that they're a witch.Just because someone has painful bowel movements doesn't mean that they've been sexually abused.Just because someone drunkenly and mid-fight calls a cab driver a 'Paki' doesn't mean that they're a racist, out to subgugate the whole community.QED. I don't know the precise wording of the child abuse laws or guidance but if they're anything like hate-crime laws whereby anyone can be culpable based merely on the "perception of the victim or any other person", then yes, damn right we need to do away with them. After all, your good self brought up an excellent example (McMartins) of what can happen when all it takes to charge and prosecute is someone's 'perception'! What does it matter? What matters is that all you have to do to get even with your enemies is to report to police that they did something "motivated by
prejudice or hate." If it's a non-criminal incident then they're going to get a police record with the tag "POTENTIAL HATE CRIMINAL" on it! If it's a criminal offence then they're going to get a few more months/years added onto their sentence. It's a win-win situation, don't you agree?Ahhh, but I forget: You refuse to accept that hate-crimes punish perceived motive. Despite what the Police says. Despite what the Home Office says. Despite what the FBI says. Despite what most legal web-sites and dictionaries say. Riigghhhhht.... I've already brought up several cases where this has happened. Cheryl Tweddy's case was prosecuted merely on hearsay. The NY mugger was convicted of a hate-crime on purely circumstantial evidence. Oops, there goes your argument! I've already linked to two serious cases, as above, which went to trial. Without even mentioning the numerous other cases of police 'having a word' with people who expressed an 'incorrect' opinion. So once again you're totally wrong: I've provided plenty of evidence. But then again, you're the person who refuses to believe what the Police, Home Office and FBI are saying, so I understand if mere news articles don't hold much sway for you.Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

---

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

Many people who are charged with hate crimes are being so because they uttered one 'inappropriate' word which someone perceived as 'motivated by hate' (as per ACPO guidelines). Undoubtedly, some people will indeed try to terrorise a whole community. But assuming that every person who says "fucking paki" during a drunken fight is a racist out to get the whole community is just zealotry, political fundamentalism, legalistic literalism. By the same token, we should also be assuming that every driver involved in a fatal car crash really intended to kill the victim and have them charged with murder. So you think that a drunken idiot who called a cab driver a racial epithet after being asked to leave his cab, specifically went out to get members of a certain community, do you?

---

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