Common Sense at last.

[sodthisforfun]

Please quote the insult.

Apart from that, it was Noseall, for goodness' sake.

Grow up before you melt.

I never had you down as a person for cheap insults. Thought you were better than that. Ha ha, how wrong.

 

[EFLImpudence]

What bothers me about that poster is that it says "it is hate crime" rather than "it is a hate crime".

I can see legitimate arguments for a crime being decribed as a hate crime, i.e. a familiar crime such as an assualt, but which is motivated by hate or even by a particular sort of hate, if you wish to drill down that far. It can be put in the same conceptual category as 'a crime of passion' or 'a crime of desperation'.

But to conjure a new sort of crime called 'hate crime' is deeply sinister and tendencious because it is saying that hate itself is the crime. And hate is a feeling or thought, so 'hate crime' as a concept is different from 'thought crime' only in name. And so it follows with the sentencing disparity: By having a longer sentence available for the hate-criminal than for the common-criminal you are, by definition, giving the extra months in jail as punishment for the hate (i.e. the thought) and not for the assault (or whatever it is). Hate itself is now a crime. And from there, gulags follow close behind.

Exactly.

Also, thanks to some sensible contributions, we seem to have come to the conclusion that anyone, i.e. everyone, can be a victim of 'hate crime'.

Therefore there is no need for any designated groups nor perceived characteristics.

.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I never had you down as a person for cheap insults. Thought you were better than that. Ha ha, how wrong.

Put it down to exasperation.
I hope you confront others should they insult anyone on here.

Would you like insult to be a crime as well?



Do I take it you can't quote where I insulted Noseall, then?

 

[sodthisforfun]

Quote about sitting on fence and telling him off for not answering. Then of course, telling me I've been brainwashed and that I should grow up.
As I said, you can't bully people, exasperated or otherwise, it doesn't work.. and sarcasm, such as above, while rather funny at times, rarely warms a person into answering your questions or seeing your point of view.

Yes, I've confronted others, quite a few times. Luckily for now the worst person for it (Himmy/wanna/whatever) seems to have gone, for now.

Shall we get this thread back on track now?

 

[Brigadier]

I agree somewhat - it does seem unfair on the face of it and everyone should be treated equally.
However, if everyone was treated equal in the first place then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That's a pretty redundant statement though as, by definition, the crims / perps are not interested in treating their victims fairly.
The State however, should absolutely be doing so.

 

[SirGalahad]

What bothers me about that poster is that it says "it is hate crime" rather than "it is a hate crime".

I can see legitimate arguments for a crime being decribed as a hate crime, i.e. a familiar crime such as an assualt, but which is motivated by hate or even by a particular sort of hate, if you wish to drill down that far. It can be put in the same conceptual category as 'a crime of passion' or 'a crime of desperation'.

But to conjure a new sort of crime called 'hate crime' is deeply sinister and tendencious because it is saying that hate itself is the crime. And hate is a feeling or thought, so 'hate crime' as a concept is different from 'thought crime' only in name. And so it follows with the sentencing disparity: By having a longer sentence available for the hate-criminal than for the common-criminal you are, by definition, giving the extra months in jail as punishment for the hate (i.e. the thought) and not for the assault (or whatever it is). Hate itself is now a crime. And from there, gulags follow close behind.

You can be convicted under the terrorism laws currently for so called thought crimes - so do you object to that legislation as well?

"Anti-terrorism proposals have been unveiled by the UK government that would make it an offence for people to publicly support a banned group even if they did not encourage others to do so (...)

 

[Gerrydelasel]

You can be convicted under the terrorism laws currently for so called thought crimes - so do you object to that legislation as well?
"Anti-terrorism proposals have been unveiled by the UK government that would make it an offence for people to publicly support a banned group even if they did not encourage others to do so (...)

If that is what it says, yes I would object to that. (What is a banned group? Who decides when it should be banned? What qualifies as 'public support'? Such a law sounds ambiguous and ripe for manipulation)

 

[sodthisforfun]

That's a pretty redundant statement though as, by definition, the crims / perps are not interested in treating their victims fairly.
The State however, should absolutely be doing so.

And that is the crux of the matter. There would be no crime if people weren't driven by the hate of something different to themselves.

 

[sodthisforfun]

If that is what it says, yes I would object to that. (What is a banned group? Who decides when it should be banned? What qualifies as 'public support'? Such a law sounds ambiguous and ripe for manipulation)

I would expect that it qualifies for protection when it's become a huge problem.

 

[motorbiking]

@Gerrydelasel - Anti terror legislation is a bit dodgy, that is true.. A lot of the things defined are done in very broad terms, giving police all sorts of catch all powers which might be abused.

@EFLImpudence - The groups and characteristics issue exists, because contrary to common misunderstanding, there isn't one hate crime act, there are different rules for different types of crime, they are not all the same. Its just how the rules came in to effect. But yes anyone can be a victim of hate crime. Attacked for being white, christian, etc.. But there needs to be both the crime and the aggravating factor.

Not helped by the fact that police and shadow home secs (among others) are still highly confusing (or confused) about the differences between hate incidents and hate crime.

 

[Ian H]

You can be convicted under the terrorism laws currently for so called thought crimes - so do you object to that legislation as well?

"Anti-terrorism proposals have been unveiled by the UK government that would make it an offence for people to publicly support a banned group even if they did not encourage others to do so (...)

It’s gone beyond thought if your out on the streets waving your isis flag.

 

[SirGalahad]

It’s gone beyond thought if your out on the streets waving your isis flag.

No one is arguing about those, they are clear cases. It's the broad terms the law has been written.

Look at the way those who fail their citizenship applications say due to a tax error are then declined stay under legislation to combat terrorists. Once declined under section 322 they would find it impossible to get a Visa from any other country.

 

[Notch7]

Luckily for now the worst person for it (Himmy/wanna/whatever) seems to have gone, for now

What happened to him?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Unfortunately it is far worse than I thought:

 

[noseall]

Oh God, even EFLI has taken to crummy vids to get a point across. (groan)