BS: Hate laws

04 Aug 09 - 09:04 AM (#2693452)
Subject: BS: Hate laws
From: beardedbruce

I do not usually agree with this columnist, but in this case I think he makes a valid point. Perhaps this thread might be a discussion of the laws that make specific thoughts a criminal act, and who it is that benefits from those laws.

From the Washington Post:

"The Folly of Hate-Crime Laws

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, August 4, 2009

James von Brunn, who is alleged to have opened fire and killed a guard at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, is apparently a consummate bigot. His former wife said that his hatred of blacks and Jews "ate him alive like a cancer," so it might seem appropriate that in addition to having been indicted last week for murder and gun-law violations, he was also charged with hate crimes. At age 89, he proves that you are never too old to hate.

He also proves the stupidity of hate-crime laws. A prime justification for such laws is that some crimes really affect a class of people. The hate-crimes bill recently passed by the Senate puts it this way: "A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim . . . but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected." No doubt. But how is this crime different from most other crimes?

First, let us consider the question of which "community" von Brunn was allegedly attempting to devastate. He rushed the Holocaust museum, which memorializes the 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis and their enablers. There could be no more poignant symbol for the Jewish community. Yet von Brunn killed not a Jew but an African American -- security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns.

So which community was affected by this weird, virtually suicidal act? Was it the Jewish community or the black community? Since von Brunn hated both, you could argue that it does not matter. But since I would guess that neither community now gives the incident much thought, the answer might well be "neither one." So what is the point of piling on hate crimes to what von Brunn has allegedly done? Beats me. He already faces -- at age 89, remember -- a life sentence and, possibly, the death penalty.

The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to reassure politically significant groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc. -- that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That's nice. It does not change the fact, though, that what's being punished is thought or speech. Johns is dead no matter what von Brunn believes. The penalty for murder is severe, so it's not as if the crime is not being punished. The added "late hit" of a hate crime is without any real consequence, except as a precedent for the punishment of belief or speech. Slippery slopes are supposedly all around us, I know, but this one is the real McCoy.

Let us assume that the "community" is really affected by what we call a hate crime. I am Jewish. But even with von Brunn's attack, I am more affected by a mugging in my neighborhood that might keep me from taking a walk at night than I am by a shooting at the Holocaust museum. If there's a murder in a park, I'll stay out of it for months. If there's a rape, women will stay out of the park. If there's another and another, women will know that a real hater is loose. Rape, though, is not a hate crime. Why not?

I doubt that any group of drunken toughs is going to hesitate in their pummeling of a gay individual or an African American or a Jew on account of it being a hate crime. If they are not already deterred by the conventional penalties -- prison, etc. -- then why would additional penalties deter them? And if, in fact, they kept their mouths shut, refrained from the N-word or the F-word or the K-word, and simply made the beating or the killing seem one triggered by dissing or some other reason, then they would not be accused of hate -- merely of murder or some such trifle. If, though, they gave vent to their thoughts, they would be in for real trouble.

For the most part, hate-crime legislation is just a sop for politically influential interest groups -- yet another area in which liberals, traditionally sensitive to civil liberties issues, have chosen to mollify an entire population at the expense of the individual and endorse discredited reasoning about deterrence.

In von Brunn's case, the hate-crime counts are an obscenity. To suggest that the effects of this attack were felt only by the Jewish or the black communities -- and not, for instance, by your average Washington tourist -- ghettoizes both its real and purported victims. It's a consequence that von Brunn himself might applaud.
"

---

04 Aug 09 - 11:06 AM (#2693507)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Amos

It may have been off the beam to add the hate-crime charges to his bill of particulars, even though he was full of hate. But just for example, there is an order of magnitude difference between spray-painting your gang logo on the side of a building, and spray painting swastikas on the side of a synagogue, wouldn't you say?

While I can appreciate the attempt to make alegal distinction between the two, it is a very sticky pass to cut so close to the core issues of free thought and free speech. Similarly there are marginal laws against "fomenting" a riot or "inciting" which again trim the sheets on free speech. It could be argued that there is a distinction between speech and odious crap. But who's to draw that line?

A

---

04 Aug 09 - 11:08 AM (#2693512)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: beardedbruce

My point, exactly.

" It could be argued that there is a distinction between speech and odious crap. But who's to draw that line?"


I agree entirely

---

04 Aug 09 - 12:50 PM (#2693578)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

I do not agree that "hate crime" is an inappropriate body of law.

The intent behind an unlawful killing affects the category of crime and the range of sentences.

The "mens rea" rules require different kinds of intent for conviction of different types of crimes.

It seems wholly right that an assault effected for hate purposes should be differently treated than one for other purposes.

Incitement to violence is properly criminal - so incitement for hatecrime reasons to violence should be specially treated.

---

04 Aug 09 - 01:19 PM (#2693606)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: 3refs

I'm not disagreeing, I'm suggesting, that motive is not a crime in itself. Some suggest that most crimes are commited without a motive. Not sure about that one either! If I doddle on someones wall, is it because I don't like him, or because I don't like what he's done. Only I know for sure and you can't prosecute me for what I think! Only what I do!

---

04 Aug 09 - 01:20 PM (#2693608)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

Why would it matter what the perpetrator's motive was? He/she should be tried for the crime, not what they were thinking.

---

04 Aug 09 - 04:29 PM (#2693750)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Uncle_DaveO

Many, many of hate crimes are in effect terrorist acts. Or to put it another way, they are advertising of hate.

If they are not stepped on as a class, the advertising of ideological activity which they embody will tend to create copycat activity. Much more so (and intended much more so) than a garden variety murder for other reasons, or garden variety vandalism, or whatever. The society must not only take them seriously as such but be seen as seeing them as such.

It's clear to me, at least, that this raid on the Holocaust Museum was not motivated by black/white racism, but by antisemitism. The race of the guard killed was pure happenstance, regardless of the perpetrator's other attitudes on the race question.

Dave Oesterreich

---

04 Aug 09 - 05:14 PM (#2693779)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

"Why would it matter what the perpetrator's motive was? He/she should be tried for the crime, not what they were thinking."

If I shoot you because your point of view makes me angry that is a much less justifiable than if I shoot you as you attempt to kill my daughter with an axe.

Both premeditated shoot to kill situations but with different intent.

---

04 Aug 09 - 05:28 PM (#2693787)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

Rig, you have not understood the juridical nature of crime. You are as bad as Queen Victoria who refused to accept statute defining "Not guilty by reason of insanity" and insisted on it being re-worded to "Guilty but insane".

---

05 Aug 09 - 07:14 AM (#2694050)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"If I shoot you because your point of view makes me angry that is a much less justifiable than if I shoot you as you attempt to kill my daughter with an axe."

            If you shoot me to take my wallet, or if you shoot me because I'm a member of some ancient religious cult that costs you money on a day-to-day basis, it seems to me you less justified to shoot for the wallet.

---

05 Aug 09 - 09:15 AM (#2694097)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: meself

"some ancient religious cult that costs you money on a day-to-day basis"

Can you give an example? I'm unaware of any ancient religious cult that costs ME money on a day-to-day basis - is there one out there that I should be watching for?

---

05 Aug 09 - 11:37 AM (#2694165)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

Presbyterians, for example!

---

05 Aug 09 - 01:07 PM (#2694222)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: meself

"Presbyterians, for example!"

??

I really have no idea what you're on about - and why do have this feeling that a coherent explanation is not going to be forthcoming?

---

05 Aug 09 - 01:11 PM (#2694227)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

That's nonsense, LH and you should konnw better. A racially aggravated assault is still an assault, but there are things about it that make it worse than one that is not aggravated. Compare a sexual assault, or are you one who thinks that rape is just another assault?

---

05 Aug 09 - 01:13 PM (#2694229)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Uncle_DaveO

An excerpt from the article quoted:

Yet von Brunn killed not a Jew but an African American -- security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns.

So which community was affected by this weird, virtually suicidal act? Was it the Jewish community or the black community?

The community that was the target of Von Brunn was the Jewish community; the race of the guard killed was mere happenstance. To von Brunn, the guard was merely an appendage of the Holocaust Museum. His criminal scenario was to affect the Jewish community, and any felony (including murder) flowing therefrom should (and is, to my understanding) considered under the original attempted felony.

Dave Oesterreich

---

05 Aug 09 - 01:19 PM (#2694231)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Amos

You know, perhaps it is about time as humans that we confront and understand the difference between thought and dramatization. I know this is a tricky wicket, and a difficult issue but it is the hingepoint. If we will not face the fact that psycho "acting out" is not the same as an effort to communicate a viewpoint, we will be hard put to ever address the issue of hate crime, because we value free speech so dearly, and rightly so.

As anyone who has had to deal with a rabid dog knows, thought control becomes necessary when the owner of the thought cannot control it himself, at least if it is precipitating harm to others. The reason we put bullets into German soldiers during WW II was to control thought. For example, the thought that anyone who was Jewish was part of a destructive conspiracy or a subhuman species--a thought well worth controlling, in my opinion.

I am entirely opposed to fascism, and thought-control as it is generally interpreted (see LH's arm-waving screed upthread). But if all thoughts are equal, then survival is no more valuable than destruction, and progress and regression are just one big murky blob of apathetic indifference.

A

---

05 Aug 09 - 07:24 PM (#2694428)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Peace

But a good cigar is a smoke.

---

05 Aug 09 - 08:18 PM (#2694454)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Peace

A face only his mother could love . . . .

---

05 Aug 09 - 10:07 PM (#2694494)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

Who was that masked man?

---

05 Aug 09 - 10:11 PM (#2694496)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Amos

That was no masked man, that was your wife!



A

---

06 Aug 09 - 02:43 AM (#2694536)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

Did I understand that correctly? You say that if a person believes that it is right for men to rape women, his right to live by those ideals must be guarded and protected? Get a grip, fella.

---

06 Aug 09 - 03:11 AM (#2694543)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)

I don't think anyone said anything specifically about "men raping women", just "rape", so I'm sure we must include "men raping men" in the assessment.

I'm sure every fella would feel perfectly equally about being say punched or forcibly sodomised.

---

06 Aug 09 - 03:51 AM (#2694554)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Problem is how do you define a "hate crime", as in the case of the two lesbians who were attacked and one fatally injured in America, were they attacked because they were lesbians or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The media immediately stated that it was the former.

---

06 Aug 09 - 04:43 AM (#2694567)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""An assault is, always has been and always will be about POWER. Sensing a lack of it or a drive to gain it, the perpetrator is somehow motivated all the way from believing in an imbalance of power to ACTING upon their desire to see that power-base shifted. Rape is almost NEVER about sexual fulfillment. The few rare exceptions are likely going to come from people whose views of what constitutes "sexual gratification" are twisted and inherently non-physiological.""


So in YOUR twisted philosophy, rape is an offence on the same level as a punch on the nose outside a bar?

Thanks for your US $0.02 worth. I'm sorry but I don't have change.

Don T.

---

06 Aug 09 - 05:51 AM (#2694598)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

How nice, a constructive GUEST. Do join and stick around.

Crow Sister - I learned my laws of sexual offences when the 1956 Act (as amendd in 1967) was still law, and it said "It is an offence for a man to rape a woman". Under that act no sexual attack by a man upon a man or by a woman upon a man was rape. You are right to point out that it has changed.

---

06 Aug 09 - 06:40 AM (#2694622)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink

Sorry Richard (Bridge) I left my name off as I was busily replying and pressed "submit" too quickly.

I always try to be constructive but, as with most things, opinions is all I can offer. Others opinions may differ but it does not mean they are wrong or right. So many times in life there is no right or wrong: just a persons individual opinion. All I am saying is that if we had a truly tolerent society then equal opportunites acts and hate crimes offences would not be part of our vocabularies. But, for now, I think they are needed to try and steer society and communities to a safer place. Most of the time it works without the laws being invoked but I, for one, feel safer that they are in place.

Folk music is a case in point I guess. Whilst we all have our own likes and dislikes - and opinions as to what even constitutes folk music - seldom do we see people fighting over choice of songs. We merely agree to disagree what is good on individual basis. But if we started hating people because their instrument of choice is not what we would have, or that they sing too 'trad' or not 'trad' enough, and be willing to beat them up just because their choice of instrument/song was not ours, we would all consider that totally unreasonable. I have seen threads on here where people have immediately defended the rights of the individual to do things that were not necessarily their own choice. I cannot think of many who would tolerate someone bullying over choice of song/instrument. We certainly have many a heated debate on Mudcat but I cannot think of any examples of a hate crime (against a folk singer scenario) here despite the arguments/differences of opinion that inevitably happen. Why it should happen in other minority groups and against seems to make no sense at all.

I'll shush again now as this is a area of debate/controversy that can get quite emotive. I would hate to get too emotional on the thread ;-)

mp

---

06 Aug 09 - 07:37 AM (#2694644)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Simon G

I think I've understood from the discussion that in the UK there has to be a criminal offence before it can be a categroised as a hate crime. Which is actually news to me, from the press I had been under the impression there was a whole new set of criminal offences that potentially impacted free speech.

So making a speech saying an influx of martians would be bad for the country could not be construed in itself as a hate crime against martians. Making a speech inciting people to go out and assault martians because they are bad for the country would in the first instance be incitement to commit assault and then further categorised as a hate crime.

Have I got it right? Are other countries laws similar.

The last paragraph of the original article make a good point about hate laws ghettoizing the hated and the perceived hating group, although with no evidence to prove the assertion. If it does have this effect then it will be a bad day for our societies.

---

06 Aug 09 - 10:47 AM (#2694727)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Uncle_DaveO


The last paragraph of the original article make a good point about hate laws ghettoizing the hated and the perceived hating group, although with no evidence to prove the assertion.

First, "ghettoizing" is a judgment one can make, not an objective fact. No evidence that I can imagine could "prove" the assertion, though the statement seems persuasive.

But as to hate crimes, they are often group efforts, and it's worthwhile to look at some various levels of fault and/or guilt involved in a hate crime. This is by no means exhaustive.

Hate in itself is not a crime. To be disapproved of, of course, or at least regretted even if there is objective cause.

Making a speech of hate for a given group and the reasons therefor is not a crime (at least in the US); it's an exercise of free speech--however deplorable we see it as being.

Speaking of hate (as above) with, additionally, advocacy of criminal actions against the hated group is a different thing. Then it may fall into such a category as incitement to riot, a crime, and probably would be a hate crime. May fall into other categories than incitement to riot, too, for the too-literal-minded. And, depending upon circumstances and the details of the speech, it may make the speaker a member of a criminal conspiracy.

If a group is moved by that speech to riot or to some other crime, those who plan it, those who urge it, and obviously those who carry out actual acts toward commission of the crime (however trivial those acts may be) are co-conspirators, whether or not the intended crime ever actually takes place, and even if they do not know all the other conspirators. Thus, if the projected crime is to burn down a building, not only the planner(s) but say someone who buys a gallon of gasoline to be used in the arson, or who buys a package of matches for that purpose, are members of the conspiracy, and deemed guilty of any wrong that eventuates from that conspiracy, even if it's not the crime that was planned. So if the torch-man trips while carrying the can of gas to the building, fractures his skull and dies, every co-conspirator is guilty in his death! Even though no arson ever got carried out.

However, it's not clear whether a co-conspirator is chargeable with a hate crime based on his liability for the death under the conspiracy, where the death, "in the family" as it were, was not an effect to the hated target. I personally think not, and I doubt that a prosecutor would charge it that way even though it grew out of a hate-crime conspiracy.

Dave Oesterreich

---

06 Aug 09 - 11:41 AM (#2694774)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: mauvepink

Just popped back to catch up on the thread and my original post under 'Guest' has vanished. Did I do something worng or say something the wong way? I apologise if that was the case. I was going to refer back to the definiation I put in it but cannot now because it's gone :-(

Sorry once again

mp

---

06 Aug 09 - 11:56 AM (#2694787)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: beardedbruce

mp- if you post as "guest" and forget to put in a name, the post is deleted. I have been told to repost with name. Nothing personnal about it.

---

06 Aug 09 - 11:59 AM (#2694791)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: mauvepink

Thank you :-) I thought I had unwittingly done something wrong. Now I understand... I think!

Not having the best of days so I did wonder...

Thanks for the explanation. An interesting thread to be sure

mp

---

06 Aug 09 - 12:04 PM (#2694795)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

That is rather a shame: MauvePink pretty well immediately re-posted to reclaim the post, and it was a well-put one of medium length and some delicacy of expression. It would be onerous to require her to re-post by hand in the circumstances.

THer are two different kinds of "hate-crime" inthe UK. They are not my field of expertise.

First there are factors that by statute aggravate another crime - for example racially aggravated assault.

Then there are purely speech-crimes - for example "incitement to racial hatred" - and some of the ones dealing with speech about terrorism go quite a bit further than that.


I don't know if it had been repealed but it used to be treason under the Treason Act to "compass the ravishment of the sovereign's daughter" so that saying "Cor I fancy that Princess Anne" would have been a bit risky!

---

06 Aug 09 - 01:11 PM (#2694853)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: mauvepink

Not to worry... I have refound the Home Office definition for those interested:

Hate crime
Hatred is a strong term that goes beyond simply causing offence or hostility. Hate crime is any criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by an offender's hatred of someone because of their:

race, colour, ethnic origin, nationality or national origins
religion
gender identity
sexual orientation
disability

Hate crime can take many forms including:

physical attacks – such as physical assault, damage to property, offensive graffiti, neighbour disputes and arson
threat of attack – including offensive letters, abusive or obscene telephone calls, groups hanging around to intimidate and unfounded, malicious complaints
verbal abuse or insults - offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace
Our definition of a hate crime:

Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

There you go!

I will leave it there for now

Thanks for the kind words Richard

mp

---

06 Aug 09 - 01:21 PM (#2694861)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: mauvepink

A kind Gentleman on here found my piece from this morning in Goiogle cache and has kindly sent it me so here it is as was... (I have left the definition bit out as that is above)..

Thank you SG :-)

It has its grey areas BUT is designed to try and add weight to sentencing when a crime against someone is known to be hate based. Hate crime in the UK, as with some other types of crime, has extra penalties added on if shown to be motivated by hate. Also, I believe that if something is percieved to be hate based then the law can try and intervene earlier to 'nip it in the bud' and stop it being escalated. In short, I do not think our law discriminates against free thought or speech but it does try to stop it going beyond what is reasonable comment and opinion into actions that are
wrong.

Each case is very much looked at on its own merits, as while many hate
crimes have similarities, each has their own particular motivations. If someone gets beaten up, say, as they walk past a night club as it is letting out, then that would clearly be assault or GBH. But if the same person was attacked as they passed and someone shouted hate comments as they carried the attack out, that would suggest they are not being singled out at random but that the attack was hate based.

The victim is still traumatised and injured and that carries a penalty BUT if that person has been singled out just because of various traits then extra offences are committed. The law and sentence reflects that.

Sometimes the difference is so subtle that only the person it is aimed at would know the offence (as some bigots are very subtle how they say and do things: others often hide behind humour or some sort to make a hate comment). The victim can tell you the difference between someone making a comment/expressing a view to someone who is being horrible. Some hate crime is an extension beyond bullying and no-one would have a problem identifying bullying when they saw it. Hate crime can be more subtle and is not always 'in your face'.

People in certain minority groups are more likely to experience hate crimes. Some people in minority groups discriminate against other minoriy groups or people within their own community so no-one suggests that people in minority groups are all innocent. Ultimately all people are individuals, in a minority of one, and individuals are all capable of hate and incitement. The majority never would do so.

Lots of grey areas - as with a lot of law - but certainly required, IMHO, and something people should be more aware of and try to understand. No-one should be singled out and picked on because of differences they have. Ultimately we all have far more in common with each other than we do differences. We are all human. Live and let live. Discuss, comment, opine: but it can never be right to let hate be a good reason to cause someone harm just because they appear different to what is considered normal. When we have a proper definition for 'normal' then mabe we can say what is abnormal
but I doubt 'normal' will ever be satisfactorily defined for all. We are all so different.

I'll shush now

mp

---

If you have a post deleted because it was anonymous, I'm happy to retrieve the deleted text, and it's usually easy for me to find it.
-Joe Offer-

---

06 Aug 09 - 02:31 PM (#2694904)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: dick greenhaus

In the US, at least, Federal laws against "hate crimes" serve mainly to bypass the local authorities, who may or may not wish to pursue perpetrators.

---

06 Aug 09 - 04:40 PM (#2694988)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

A very good idea!

---

06 Aug 09 - 05:06 PM (#2695008)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

I don't know if it had been repealed but it used to be treason under the Treason Act to "compass the ravishment of the sovereign's daughter" so that saying "Cor I fancy that Princess Anne" would have been a bit risky!

Certainly would Richard, unless you fancied a riding crop up your rectum!

---

06 Aug 09 - 06:38 PM (#2695066)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

Er, no, it was the tight riding wellies...
Oh what a giveaway!

Anyway, I had a quick look at the Dachshund thread, and scrolled down - and for a split second read "hate paws"!

---

07 Aug 09 - 02:34 AM (#2695230)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Sometimes the difference is so subtle that only the person it is aimed at would know the offence (as some bigots are very subtle how they say and do things: others often hide behind humour or some sort to make a hate comment). The victim can tell you the difference between someone making a comment/expressing a view to someone who is being horrible. Some hate crime is an extension beyond bullying and no-one would have a problem identifying bullying when they saw it. Hate crime can be more subtle and is not always 'in your face'."

Oh Fuck!!!!    Be afraid.......Be *very* afraid!

---

07 Aug 09 - 06:34 AM (#2695330)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

"The issue of hate crimes is one which reaches down into every community, that effects real lives on a daily basis in a deeply harmful way,"

a quote from Green Party co-leader Patrick Harvie who steered the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill through Holyrood as MSPs voted unanimously to pass the legislation a couple of months ago

In a BBC news report

Dr Paul Iganski, who lectures in criminology at Lancaster University, said the added aggravated element to some crimes reflected the greater harm inflicted by the offender.

Norman McBreen from Paisley was stabbed in a homophobic attack
"Clearly, when a person is targeted because of some aspects of their identity, in this case their disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity, evidence shows that it hurts victims more than identical crimes that are carried out for similar reasons," he said.

"Victims suffer particularly psychological or emotional harm and therefore offenders by getting an extra penalty are simply getting their just deserts - the greater the harm, the greater the penalty."


Scotland already had legislation giving religious-inspired crime the same status as racial crime and thus a longer jail sentence.

The First Minister in 2001, Henry McLeish, after visiting an Edinburgh mosque which had been the subect of fire-bomb attack stated -

"The floor where the children pray was melted. The stench of burnt plastic filled the air........these are hate crimes, by extremists and bigots and those who have no place in a modern Scotland."

---

07 Aug 09 - 08:24 AM (#2695385)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Simon G

No protection for football (soccer) fans then. I would have thought the single most common aggravating factor in assaults - hate the shirt, hate the wearer. Why don't the hate laws protect them or indeed people hated because they live in the wrong street or wrong part of town.

---

07 Aug 09 - 08:09 PM (#2695867)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink

Oops... forgot to sign in again so rteposted...

Good point Simon G.

I suspect there are lots of minorities that are not protected by hate crime legislation. The recent case of a young woman killed because she was a Goth is a case in point here. I do not think any hate contingent was added to sentence and yet she was killed for the way she chose to dress in essence.

I think assaults etc caused in football situations may already be covered by laws that take in the aggravated part of the assault. I am not sure.

mp

---

07 Aug 09 - 08:30 PM (#2695882)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

An interesting point.

For those unfamiliar with the murder of Sophie Lancaster in 2007 referred to by mauvepink Wiki does an adequate summary here

'..discussion of the case has led to an online petition to the Prime Minister "to Widen the definition of 'Hate Crime', to include crimes committed against a person or persons, on the basis of their appearance or subcultural interests" on the 10 Downing Street website.
..
In May 2009 the Justice Minister Jack Straw said while he could not change the law, he could amend the sentencing guidelines to require judges to treat an attack on a member of a subculture as an aggravating factor similar to a racially motivated or homophobic assault when sentencing perpetrators'

---

07 Aug 09 - 09:31 PM (#2695914)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

Yes, hate laws are really, really stupid!

---

09 Aug 09 - 02:34 AM (#2696225)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Yes...I agree with Rig here.

These laws are indeed stupid, I'll give one example, on the West coast of Scotland there is a severe drug problem. I live near one small town with over 200 registered addicts and god knows how many others who are afraid to admit their problem and seek help.
The drug "business" used to be run by gangsters from Glasgow and Dumbarton, but gradulally has been taken over by the "tinkers" who have their own small "town" built at taxpayers expense and virtually beyond the reach of the law, because of stupid anti harassment laws.

The ex-travellers control almost all the drugs and all the illegal money lending which goes on to support the drugs trade....the retribution handed out to anyone who wont or cant pay them is vicious, stabbings and slashings are common.

Most of the local people hate the "tinkers", as they watch more of their kids come under the influence of drugs and to make it worse the police seem unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

Seems to me this sub-culture, rather than being victims, are victimising the rest of the community.

This is all factual,most of the sub-culture are inter related, so it does not mean that one or two bad apples are involved.

Would some of the "liberals" here please explain how they would deal with this problem?.....and I dont just mean, "move to Essex"...Ake

---

09 Aug 09 - 03:50 AM (#2696242)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Joe Offer

That's a problem in any closed community, Ake, not just Tinkers. In the U.S., we've had youth gangs, and Jewish and Italian Mafia organizations. You can't punish every youth or Jew or Italian or whatever for crimes committed by their group. It takes hard work on the part of police agencies, but society has a right to expect police agencies to respect civil rights in spite of the difficulties that causes for police investigations.

I think hate crime laws are a good thing. Once upon a time in the not-too-distant past, crimes that were an expression of hatred from the majority were sometimes not punished at all - because the majority condoned such hate crimes. Blacks and Jews and others lived in fear of lynchings and beatings and firebombings - white people didn't have to put up with that fear. The fear is a secondary effect of a crime, but it can often be as damaging as the direct effect of the primary action.

Ten years ago, two men firebombed all three synagogues in Sacramento, California, where I lived. They were caught a year later, when they murdered a gay couple. Because of these crimes, the gay and Jewish communities of the area lived in fear for a long time, and the effects still linger. Yeah, I think there should be additional punishment for such crimes, because hate crimes cause a terrible additional effect.

-Joe-

---

09 Aug 09 - 06:27 AM (#2696288)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

A report from Shelter (Scotland) states that many Gypsies/Travellers feel that discrimination against their community is considered more acceptable than discrimination against other races, such as black or Jewish people although an employment tribunal judgment in 2008 determined that Scottish Gypsies/Travellers are a distinct ethnic group, and therefore covered by the Race Relations Act.

However ethnic origin does not place anyone outside the law just as it is necessary to challenge the notion that respect for family life in different cultures should deter us from enforcing the law against domestic violence so

to quote one worker with the Gypsy/Traveler* community

"A criminal is a criminal no matter what their beliefs or ethnic background"

That's the view of this 'liberal' anyways Ake

* I use the term Gypsies/Travellers as it is an official term, used by the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government as the term 'tinker', like 'Gypo', is frequently used as a term of abuse.

Scotland's Gypsies/Travellers a resource from the Commission for Racial Equality in Scotland

---

09 Aug 09 - 07:14 AM (#2696298)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink

Emma took the words right out of my mouth almost! Thanks Emma. I would see this as you, and the majority of the traveller and gypsy community would - that being part of a minority does not give you any protection in breaking the law. I know of one gypsy woman - a Romany - who is the Poilce and Community Liaison for her group of folks. None of them travel around. They live on a site in their own caravans, pay council tax and work legitimately in the area.

She has a hard job because many gypsies have, historically, been treated badly by the authorities and there is still a lot of suspicion in some elders as to motives when people treat them 'nice'. Yes. Some gypsy/travellers commit crime but not all. Most are law abiding and accusing all 'tinkers' (which are menders or pots and pans) of being lawbreakers is like calling all men rapists because a man rapes a woman. We ALL have the ability to commit crime but because someone in our community breaks the law does not mean we all will or even want to.

People will often use the word 'liberal' as if it was an insult to hold such beliefs of equal treatment and fairness (though I am not suggesting that was akentons purpose). I believe ALL people should be treated the same, in life and in the law, and would welcome a day to come when we do not need hate laws or equality acts because every is treated and seen as the same. That will call on some minorities also to do some work too as we all need to integrate and respect each other if such laws and acts are to become a thing of the past

I remember being in a diversity training session with someone who had come from the gypsy/traveller community to speak to us. It was an eye opener and I would certainly hate to be treated like some of them get treated daily. I guess unless you have walked a mile in their shoes it can be hard to see sometimes what true discrimination and hate can mean. If I am correct the gypsys and travellers are very different too so do forgive any 'combining of titles' here. I do not mean to imply they are the same. Both have very long histories going back to before Christ.

I'll shush again now ;-)

mp

---

09 Aug 09 - 08:28 AM (#2696317)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

Guest mauvepink, I'm sorry you are not a member and I'm unable to PM you as I'm sure that from, your reasoned posts, you did not mean to imply that all people should be treated exactly the same but please correct me if I misunderstood

The essence of social equality lies not in treating everyone in the same way, as this fails to recognize the differences between people and can itself cause unfairness and inequality, but in treating everyone with equal concern and respect.

---

09 Aug 09 - 08:58 AM (#2696332)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

while serving on a jury recently I heard evidence about a homeless young man with alcohol problems who had twice been badly beaten in the few weeks before his death.

I read the following article earlier today in The New York Times

"Attacks on Homeless Bring Push on Hate Crime Laws"

WASHINGTON — With economic troubles pushing more people onto the streets in the last few years, law enforcement officials and researchers are seeing a surge in unprovoked attacks against the homeless, and a number of states are considering legislation to treat such assaults as hate crimes.

This October, Maryland will become the first state to expand its hate-crime law to add stiffer penalties for attacks on the homeless.

A report due out this weekend from the National Coalition for the Homeless documents a rise in violence over the last decade, with at least 880 unprovoked attacks against the homeless at the hands of nonhomeless people, including 244 fatalities

Sometimes, researchers say, one homeless person attacks another in turf battles or other disputes.
But more often, they say, the assailants are outsiders: men or in most cases teenage boys who punch, kick, shoot or set afire people living on the streets, frequently killing them, simply for the sport of it, their victims all but invisible to society.

Michael Stoops, the group's executive director, said social prejudices were "dehumanizing" the homeless and condoning hostile treatment. He pointed to a blurb titled "Hunt the Homeless" in the current issue of Maxim, a popular men's magazine. It spotlights a coming "hobo convention" in Iowa and says: "Kill one for fun. We're 87 percent sure it's legal."

The push has lacked any organized support by major civil rights groups. In Florida, which leads the country in assaults on homeless people, groups like the Anti-Defamation League have opposed recognizing those attacks as a hate crime. Opponents argue that homelessness, unlike race or ethnicity, is not a permanent condition and that such a broadening of the law would have the effect of diluting it.

"I hear the same rhetoric all the time," Ms. Johnson (Representative Democrat of Texas) said. "They ask, 'Why is their life more important than anyone else's?' "

---

09 Aug 09 - 09:53 AM (#2696356)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: dick greenhaus

To reiterate--the purpose (in the US, at least) of hate crime laws is toput them under national jurisdiction, rather than having them tried by local authorities who often may be overly sympathetic towards the perpetrators.

---

09 Aug 09 - 02:19 PM (#2696460)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

A series of good posts Emma, but I think MauvePink tends correctly too. The concept of the rule of law (or what some might summarise as "justice") is that all are treated equally before the law - are equally restrained by it and equally protected by it.

Some have special needs that the law ought to address but sometimes fails to do: an example is the Romany and associated communities in England who are often refused the consideration that all agrarian users receive, for the grazing that they need for their horses, and are often refused teh liberty to stop and travel on that for centuries they exercised: leaving, as Romany Man's moving words fitted to tune by the Barden of England have it - just "marks in the grass". Some travelling groups do not live up to this standard, but it is in my view hard to excuse penalising those who do.

Ake - I am close to shocked by what appears to be your racism.

---

09 Aug 09 - 03:06 PM (#2696483)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink

Forgive me Emma... I do not always sign in but I am a member...

Any exactness of treatment to our fellow human beings that I imply is with full respect to their differences but within the law. I am sometimes scatterbrained at saying things the right way around but Richard Bridges sums it up well: "The concept of the rule of law (or what some might summarise as "justice") is that all are treated equally before the law - are equally restrained by it and equally protected by it."

That said if we do treat everyone with the same respect and fairness - with due consideration for differences of gender, colour, creed, sexuality, disability etc. etc. - it would be the same of sorts of treating everyone the same, but different! :-)

Where people are directly discriminated against because of difference then I do think we need legislation to correct the imbalance. Most folk in minority groups actually do not like a fuss being made or attention drawn. They merely wish to integrate mostly within the larger community. We are all so different. I maintain we all belong to a minority group of one.. our unique self. The sooner we can all be ourselves - within the law of the land - and have a true mix of all the diversity that exists within people, the sooner I think we will have reached beyond the hate and bigotry that often exists for no other purpose than a person being 'different' in some way.

It is an impossible dream I know. I doubt I could be up to such a task but we can strive to to get there. I once again use folk music as an example. Look at all the differences that constitute folk music: the songs, the instruments, those that sing it. No wrong way, no right way to do folk music. Just all very different and we are richer for those differences I think

I'll shush again now. If I make no answers for a few days it's because I go into hospital tomorrow so will not be ignoring anyone. I'll take a peep when I get back home hopefully by next weekend

Great thread!

mp

---

09 Aug 09 - 03:49 PM (#2696492)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

Get well soon

---

09 Aug 09 - 04:00 PM (#2696501)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

PS. Note the Codnor thread. Use of public resources to restrain peaceful demonstrations against the British Nazi Party and their even less pleasant friends.    No attempt to stop Eastern European Nazis from rallying in England. It'd be different if they were Muslims coming for a quiet barbecue in the Derbyshire countryside, wouldn't it?

Is the Grand Wizard of the KKK coming? Would our plod do anything if he was?

NB - if the US police had had the assistance of our Public order Act, would the great civil rights march have taken place?

Who has a dream?

---

09 Aug 09 - 05:32 PM (#2696557)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Richard ...don't be shocked by what I say.....and don't call it "racism". These people are of the same race as I am, Irish and Scottish extraction, but race doesn't come into this, these are simply a group who are using the protection of their "special status" to terrorise a whole town.
I've always looked on you as a friend here Richard, but please make sure you know what you're talking about before you start throwing words like racist about.

If you want to be shocked come up here and see what these bastards do to kids who can't pay their drug debts or repay loans at massive interest rates.

There is nothing about the drug "business" locally, that I don't know, and these people are the lowest form of life.
Over the last eight years, there have been five separate groups bringing in and distributing heroin, of the five groups only the "tinkers" condone the selling of drugs to under 16year olds, or using knifes to enforce their "business".

The two Glasgow groups and one group from Dumbarton were put out of business by police action, the other Dumbarton group was burnt out by the "tinkers" who now have the operation to themselves.

They are almost untouchable, as they cannot be raided like the other groups, if they are raided and nothing is found the police are accused of "harassing an ethnic minority" or something equally stupid.
The "tinkers encampment" is in fact a small village, purpose built, surrounded by woods and scrub, it is accessible only by a single track road about half a mile long, so the chances of any police raid being successful are virtually nil.
There are about eight families living there permenantly all related and most involved in the drug and money lending "trades"


I dont think Ewan invisaged this scenario when he wrote the famous lines.

"The old ways are changing you cannot deny
The day of the traveler is over
There's nowhere to go and there's nowhere to bide
So farewell to the life of the rover"

---

09 Aug 09 - 06:26 PM (#2696582)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""The drug "business" used to be run by gangsters from Glasgow and Dumbarton, but gradulally has been taken over by the "tinkers" who have their own small "town" built at taxpayers expense and virtually beyond the reach of the law, because of stupid anti harassment laws.""



Well now! Eight families doesn't constitute a small "town", more like a medium sized gang. And on that basis you choose to say that all travellers are somehow tainted.

You DO seem to specialise in sweeping generalisation, based on little or no factual evidence.

You stoutly refute any suggestion of racist ideals, but by your own statements on this forum, you don't like homosexuals, gypsies, travellers, or tinkers. You are not mad keen on Muslims, Palestinians, or immigrants generally. And you absolutely HATE liberals with a passion, and regard them as responsible for all the ills of the world.

You DO, however, seem to quite like the BNP's position on foreigners, of which, I should point out, you are one, in England at least.

Now..........You were saying?......

Don T.

---

09 Aug 09 - 06:47 PM (#2696591)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Don sometimes you can be a real prick!

I hate people who sell heroin to children!

---

09 Aug 09 - 07:03 PM (#2696602)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Peace

I agree with that in part. I too hate people who sell drugs to kids. I think that's a given for most of us. However, I seem to have lost the 'plot' of this thread.

---

09 Aug 09 - 07:52 PM (#2696626)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

I keepreading about witchhunts and about different cards being played.

It strikes me as hypocritical therefore to have to read in the same posts, the "liberals" card being thrown repeatedly and provocatively in peoples faces.

It says that the user of this card has a list of peopls that he considers to be "liberals" (I believe the inverted commas are an essential part of the term) and that he ascribes a world view to them that he fully and thoroughly understands, and which, if they understood it as well as he, they would drop like a hot potato as they might only then be able to look up from their limited perspective to see a wider and more enlightened view.

In fact, everyone on this site has their own point of view, and each is equally valid.

Some are backed up with evidence.

Ake,

You DO generalize about "Liberals"

I read it again and again in your posts.

You do consistently take up a stance that is supportive of views that demonize minorities and you are the only mudcat member apart from the BNP rabble on here who gives the slightest credence to any of their immigration related twaddle.

And the only evidence you ever provide is anecdotal evidence that you've picked up down the pub.

You said in a previous thread that it is obvious that the governments policy on immigration is responsible for the BNP's popularity.

This claim is no different to ay other.

Without evidence it means nothing.

I don't know if you are playing devils advocate or not, but Dons observations are true and can be referenced throghout your posting history.

I am curious now to see if you have a response to this that doesn't involve hurling abuse at me.

In the past it has been your last resort and as you have protested vehemently that you are the furthest thing possible from a reactionary, people have cut you a lot of slack rather than upset you.

In fact, an objective analyisis of your posts compared to most other posts on here shows that there are many other members here who are significantly further from being reactionary's than you are.

Your inverse logic that their distance from such views in fact makes them more reactionary than you because they are the "true fascists" doesn't stand up to sustained scrutiny.

Don has said nothing that isn't true and the fact that you should call him a Prick rather than offer an intelligent and SUPPORTED explanation says more about you than it does about him.

---

10 Aug 09 - 03:42 AM (#2696769)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Looks like you're the one who's been "down the pub" Lox, speaking for myself, I never visit the local and only drink alcohol on very rare occasions.
Basically you are calling me a liar, well, that is your right but I can assure you that I would never waste my valuable time coming here to tell lies.
What do you went me to do?....drag one of these vermin on here and make him confess?
The local police are well aware of what is going on and have said privately how they are frustrated by anti harassment legislation.

As most can surely understand, the point I am making is not a racial one, any more the points I made on the "gay" marriage threads were motivated by hatred of homosexuals....the point I am making here is how it is possible for certain minorities to abuse their "rights" and "special status".
You continually scream for evidence, yet all of your opinions are based not on evidence, but politically correct "liberal" dogma.

Don misrepresents everything I say here.... "You stoutly refute any suggestion of racist ideals, but by your own statements on this forum, you don't like homosexuals, gypsies, travellers, or tinkers. You are not mad keen on Muslims, Palestinians, or immigrants generally. And you absolutely HATE liberals with a passion, and regard them as responsible for all the ills of the world."
None of the above is true, read and understand!

I hate people who sell heroin to children.

I do not hate homosexuals....I think the practice of male homosexuality is extremely dangerous and should not be promoted as a safe and healthy lifestyle.

I don't hate gypsies, travellers, or tinkers in general....I dont know any gypsies and I do hate the particular group of tinkers who are distributing heroin to our kids

I dont hate Muslims or immigrants,..I think that Muslims don't wish to integrate with mainstream UK society, but I can understand why they dont. I dislike our government's policy of encouraging mass economic immigration, as I feel this causes racial tension...I do not dislike the immigrants, who are simply trying to do the best they can for themselves and their families.
I agree with the Palestinian cause.

I love real Liberals, who believe in freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

I think the other Orwellian "Liberals" who live by strict dogma, believe in thought crime and wish to stifle any debate, are misguided and an extreme danger to our society....much more of a danger than a handful of racist lunatics!

I do not "like" the BNPs position on anything, even immigration, as they , just like our government, want to use it as a tool to further their own cause.

Now if you can stick that lot in your memory banks, it will save much repetition.........and try to keep out of the pub Lox....remember every pint kills a thousand brain cells...:0)

---

10 Aug 09 - 04:00 AM (#2696779)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

What you are missing, ake, is that you are linking the behaviour of the individuals or families in question to the fact that they are "tinkers".

---

10 Aug 09 - 07:18 AM (#2696841)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

Can you show me where I said you were a Liar?

There is no evidence of me saying any such thing.

This is a straw man.

The evidence shows quite clearly that I have pointed out, rightly, that your assertions regarding immigration are unsupported.

My consistent point on the subject of scapegoating is that there is no evidence to support the claims being made about minority groups.

I hardly ever drink, much less get to the Pub. I know where the evidence is to support my views and I can provide links or accreditation when I make a factual claim.

On the subject of Moslem immigrants, I am an eye witness with a year and a halfs sustained experience of living amongst "them" so my testimony stands as evidence on that basis.

My considerable varied and comprehensive experience entirely contradicts the brief second hand testimony you have processed via your Goan friend.

"I think that Muslims don't wish to integrate with mainstream UK society, but I can understand why they dont"

This is not a view point, it is a statement of what you believe to be fact.

It is very inflammatory and it is NOT TRUE.

If you wish to assert your claim you must provide evidence.

"I dislike our government's policy of encouraging mass economic immigration"

Again, this is a statement of what you believe to be fact.

Again, you have no evidence to support your claim.

Equally there is no evidence of "Mass" Immigration occurring.

Again, deeply inflammatory claims to make especially without evidence.

"I feel this causes racial tension"

NO!

What causes racial tension is MISINFORMATION such as that which I have quoted in this post.

You are right that if you tell the unemployed and disenfranchised that immigrants are coming her en masse, as a result of a deliberate policy of mass immigration, taking our jobs and refusing to integrate - that tensions could result.

So if you are going to make these claims you must provide evidence.

Otherwise you are stoking up resentment.

And you do not have that right.

On the subject of immigration and employment, I have provided evidence that shows clearly that IF THERE WERE a correlation, it would show that immigration brings unemployment down as when immigration has been at its highest over the last hundred years, unemployment has been at its lowest and most stable.

However, such a facile approach to analyzing evidence would be trite and utter nonsense,as there are so many other influences on unemployment levels that are more significant that the figures don't assist in reaching any other conclusion other than that scapegoating is unsupportable.

You have freedom of speech and noone here is gagging you.

You are free to express any point of view you like.

The points quoted above are not opinions, they are what you believe to be FACT.

And they are not supported by evidence despite continued requests.


I haven't read your comments on homosexuality.

---

10 Aug 09 - 07:32 AM (#2696848)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Paco Rabanne

What Akenaton said.

---

10 Aug 09 - 09:07 AM (#2696920)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

Oh? That the events alleged are true? On what evidence?

That there is a causal link between being a "tinker" (and do please explain what you mean by "tinker") and supplying drugs to others? On what evidence?

---

10 Aug 09 - 12:16 PM (#2697016)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

There you go Ake - look who's jumping to your aid.

How do you feel about that?

---

10 Aug 09 - 12:26 PM (#2697025)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

Yes, at the end of the day, hate laws are pretty pointless alright!

---

10 Aug 09 - 12:40 PM (#2697037)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

pointless? not to the victims I think

Please read the full article in a recent edition of the N Y Times I quoted from earlier

Florida leads American states for the fourth straight year in violence against the homeless in a report released Saturday by the National Coalition for the Homeless.
According to the report, most assaults are committed by teens and young adults and the homeless are usually singled out for attacks because of prejudice.

Homeless advocates have discovered an Internet phenomenon of ``bum fight'' or ``bum hunting'' videos in which young men attack the homeless or pay transients to fight each other.

NCH executive director Michael Stoops said

"If these brutal attacks were committed against any other religious or minority group to the same degree, there would be a national outcry and call for governmental action."

Faced with the onslaught of violence, some states are taking measures.
In October, Maryland is set to expand its hate-crimes law to increase for the first time the penalties for attacks against the homeless

---

10 Aug 09 - 01:08 PM (#2697053)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

From The Council of Europe Commissoner for Human Rights

Hate crimes are a daily reality all over the European continent. Credible recent reports show that people suffer violence because they are black, Jewish, Roma or Muslim or because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. They give examples of how individuals have been physically attacked in the street, had their windows broken or homes put on fire. Government authorities have a responsibility to put an end to these shameful and serious crimes.

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) presents facts and analysis about such crimes in its country reports and recommendations on how to counter them.
All these documents demonstrate the danger of allowing prejudices against others to take root and spread.
Unfortunately, the step from hate speech to hate crime is easily made.

Some of these assaults may have been committed by distorted individual minds but many of them bear the imprints of neo-Nazi groups or other organised, extremist gangs who tend to be at the same time racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Roma, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and homophobic.
They may also target foreigners and persons with disabilities.

The seriousness of such crimes and the duty of governments to take action to stop them have also been underlined by the Court of Human Rights.
In one judgment it underlined the importance of effective investigation in cases of racially motivated violence:

"Racial violence is a particular affront to human dignity and, in view of its perilous consequences, requires from the authorities special vigilance and a vigorous reaction. It is for this reason that the authorities must use all available means to combat racism and racist violence, thereby reinforcing democracy's vision of a society in which diversity is not perceived as a threat but as a source of enrichment'
- The European Court of Human Rights, in its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Nachova and others v Bulgaria (6 July 2005)

---

10 Aug 09 - 02:25 PM (#2697086)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

They're only "hate crimes" because they've been described as such. Assult is assult. Just prosecute the perpetrator for assult and let a bunch of lawyers find something more constructive to do.

---

10 Aug 09 - 04:07 PM (#2697162)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

Hmm. Rig, please accurately describe your race, colour, creed, religion, sexual orientation and societal status. I think I detect the well known if less well liked philosophy "I'm all right Jack".

Next please accuarately describe your ability to read - it is explained above why assault (so spelt) is not simply assault. If assault was simply assault, rape would just be assault. It is also explained above why aggravated assaults are aggravated assaults - they cause more psychological harm to the victim.

---

10 Aug 09 - 05:32 PM (#2697250)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Right so you "liberals" obviously cant read.......I'll say it again
s l o w l y.
I dont think all "tinkers" are drug dealers....doh!!
I am talking about a specific group of "tinkers" who are selling drugs to addicts, selling drugs to children, lending money at extortionate rates of interest; and when the borrowers(usually addicts) refuse to repay the loans, slashing and stabbing them.

These vermin are taking advantage of their special status as a "recognised ethnic group" to evade prosecution.

Had they been ordinary gangsters they would have taken up residence in Barlinnie Hotel years ago.

"tinker" was the Scottish word describing itinerant workers, who travelled round the country assisting with farm work, harvesting etc, they also earned a meagre living selling hardware, bootlaces, buttons and houshold wares...they also used the "knock on the door" (begging)to suppliment their income.
Contrary to popular opinion, the old time "tinkers" were respected by the country folk and I recall that it was considered "bad luck" to turn them away from your door without a bite to eat, or some old clothing, if you could not afford their wares.

One of my earliest memories is of an old tinker couple who used to come round our area every year, they were Gaelic speakers and dressed in the old fashion...Plaid shawl and long skirt for the old lady....Highland bonnet, plaid jacket and trews for the old man.
They never slept indoors always preferring their bow tent(which they carried with them and erected in about ten minutes), even in the widest weather.
Their name was Cameron and had a bad end to their lives, being burned to death in their little tent on a cold December night about 1960.
They were remnants of the old Gaelic culture and Clan system which had all but disappeared by the time I was born

Unfortunately the only similarity between these two old freedom loving individuals and the tinkers of today is the name

---

10 Aug 09 - 05:57 PM (#2697269)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

Just to take one of those little pleasant side roads off a controversial thread for a moment, akenaton's description reminded me I was lucky enough to sit next to Duncan Willianson at a story telling/sharing session

This is a review of his autobiography

The Horsieman: Memories of a Traveller...

With ten books to his name and storytelling visits to far-flung places, Williamson is widely known and much lauded for his storytelling.
This autobiography tells of his life's work as a traveller, hawking his wares, collecting stories, and now as an international storyteller, the mouthpiece for his nomadic forbears. Son, grandson and great-grandson of nomadic tin-smiths, basket-makers, pipers and storytellers, Duncan Williamson describes his travelling life.

The narrative takes him from a childhood on the shores of Loch Fyne, to work on the small hill farms in summer, walking with barrows and prams, and later with horse and cart the length and breadth of Scotland.
He recalls camping with hundreds of traveller families from the 1940s to the 1960s, his marriage to cousin Jeannie Townsley and all the various traditional skills and arts which must be perfected for a man to maintain his family adequately.
The narrative, based on 30 hours of taped recordings, tells of the traveller trades, construction of tents, maps of routes travelled, traditional camping sites, stories, songs, music and cures which have been the express knowledge of the travelling people of Scotland, and a keystone in their survival down through the ages. Local legends, traveller's beliefs and customs are all narrated in a perfectly natural context, within the traveller "horseman's" experiences - portraying the character and strength of Scotland's most distinctive race. Scottish Tinkers

A true gentleman and Traveller of the road

---

10 Aug 09 - 06:18 PM (#2697281)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

Yes, let's stay on the side road. There's not a lot more to say about Hate Laws anyway.

---

10 Aug 09 - 06:52 PM (#2697307)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

Riginslinger, Mark Twain has been quoted on another thread today

May I add to that.....

"If you have nothing to say, say nothing."

---

10 Aug 09 - 07:12 PM (#2697317)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

Mumm's the word, Emma!

---

10 Aug 09 - 07:15 PM (#2697319)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

Thanks :)

---

10 Aug 09 - 09:39 PM (#2697402)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

Your original words, ake: -

"The drug "business" used to be run by gangsters from Glasgow and Dumbarton, but gradulally has been taken over by the "tinkers" who have their own small "town" built at taxpayers expense and virtually beyond the reach of the law, because of stupid anti harassment laws."

You are, condemned out of your own mouth, a racist.

---

10 Aug 09 - 11:22 PM (#2697437)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Joe Offer

Ake, I think I gave you an honest answer, from the point of view of somebody who worked as an investigator for 25 years. Please read it again. Organized crime thrives in closed minority communities (not just among tinkers), where outsiders are easily recognized. It takes very good and very painstaking police work to control it, but it can be done - and must be done.

And to correct Dick Greenhaus, let me say that many states have "hate crime enhancements" to the penalties for criminal offenses. If the crime is deemed a hate crime, a year to several years can be added to the offender's sentence. And yes, as Dick says, there is also a federal law that allows federal prosecution for a "hate crime," even though the state has failed to convict the offender of a crime.

-Joe Offer-

---

11 Aug 09 - 06:17 AM (#2697564)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Richard, the people involved have forfeited all rights by their actions.
As I've said countless times lately, "rights" are not universal but conditional on the behaviour of the individuals concerned.
Thats twice you have called me a racist, if this continues I'm afraid I must start to consider you a "liberal".

---

11 Aug 09 - 12:07 PM (#2697778)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

Ake,

You aren't a racist.

But you do play dangerous games with inflammatory ideas.


An analogy would be:

You aren't an arsenist, but you do drop a lot of lit matches.


The inflammatory ideas you play with don't need to have life breathed back into them.

Human beings are not as evolved as we like to give ourselves credit for.

It is only sixty years since the whole of western Europe was a war zone and one side was fighting for the right to murder millions of people in the most unhuman way possible.

This horrific propensity for humans to turn on each other out of sheer evil intent still exists today. Cambodia, Zimbabwe, East Timor, Rwanda, Uganda, the former Yugoslavia, the miiddle east etc etc


I've said to you before that we live in unique times. The peace that surrounds us in western europe is a striking phenomenon of history and should not be taken for granted. It is very fragile and its integrity depends, not on anything concrete, but on two abstract concepts.

The first, is Money - something which only exists in the abstract and because we all agree it does.

The second, is democracy - a less easily definable concept, but one which still only exists because of popular consent.

Essentially, democracy is about recognition of the rights of the individual within society.

Democracy as we know it has only truly existed in the west since ALL citizens were granted a political voice and that was as recently as the 1960's.

The peace that we live in, flawed as it is, our rights and freedoms and the reassurance given us by our ideology of rule of law as opposed to whim of despot, is only fledgeling and its opponents still live amongst us.

thousands of years of human habit doesn't go away over night and democracy is still struggling out of its coccoon.

We may debate how our democracy is shaped, and whose rights should be given precedence and why, but we must be very careful that we do not allow democracies enemies to chip away at the rights of vulnerable scapegoats, or to undermine it in other ways.

Democracy must be inclusive and it must be allowed grow and spread.

I would add briefly that by its very nature it can't be forced on anyone.

In 20 years zimbabweans may find that they have the freedom and luxury to pontificate about how Tsvangirais economic policy made him the "real" fascist. But those who live under Mugabes Jackboot today are under no illusions about the reality of the state of Zimbabwe.

There are numerous political parties all hoping to shape democracy in the image of their ideals.

The BNP hopes to undermine and destroy democracy and to do so they put false and unsupportable information about.

This involves tapping into peoples thousand year training in scapegoating and warmongering.

The factually unsupported statements that you have lent support to on the subject of immigration, moslems etc are passed around the populace like potentially dangerous flu variants.

One day humanity could be infected by one that does immeasurable harm and our assumed immunities could prove ineffective as they have before in this country and in every other country around the world.


This issue is not the same as other political issues for that reason.

It is about anger, blame, scapegoating and hatred. And we must not let it take hold.

---

11 Aug 09 - 03:21 PM (#2697857)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Joe Offer

So, Ake, did you ever read what I wrote? I think you're advocating that we should shortcut past some basic principles of criminal justice.

In most countries that aren't dictatorships, criminals do NOT forfeit their rights by their actions. They still have a right to humane treatment, and to a fair trial - and it is the duty of the government to gather evidence to provide proof against them in a fair trial. They lose their rights only if they have been proven guilty - and even then, they must be treated fairly and humanely.

If you think criminals should be handled differently, then perhaps your ideal government would be what you'd find in Iran or North Korea.

As for hate laws, I was surprised to see so many people claim that they are a violation of a defendant's free speech, that the criminal should be punished for the crime alone and not for the "hate" aspect of his crime. Hate crimes cause fear. They can terrorize an entire community and restrict their freedom by making them afraid to leave their homes. The hate criminal causes real harm to the community that is affected, and it is right for society to show it's disapproval of such crimes by increasing the punishment for a crime if it is a hate crime.

I know a Rwandan priest who was assigned to a rural area north of Sacramento, an area known to be a "redneck" area. Well, somebody burned a cross on his driveway. One might expect this could happen in the deep south, but not in California. Do you mean to tell me that this cross burning should be a protected experssion of free speech? The cross burners wheren't protected, by the way - they were sent to jail. And the priest seems to have survived the ordeal quite well - he's outspoken, friendly, gentle, and with a crazy sense of humor. It's a shame that such a crime should happen to such a nice man.

-Joe-

---

11 Aug 09 - 04:24 PM (#2697915)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"...they were sent to jail."


                What were they sent to jail for, destruction of property, reckless endangerment because of the fire, trespassing, what?

---

11 Aug 09 - 06:21 PM (#2698004)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

I did read what you wrote Joe but I think we are talking about different things, perhaps I haven't explained myself very well.
I appreciate the principle of hate crime law and the murder or ill treatment of, for example, homosexuals or blacks, just because of their colour or sexual behaviour should be very harshly judged.
Saying that judgement should be less harsh if the victim is white or hetero sexual would seem to go against everything you, Lox, or Richard have said regarding human rights.

My point about the group who are terrorising the addicts and homeless young people in the small town near where I live, is that they are using legislation designed to protect their group from victimisation, to harass, victimise and terrorise another group who have no protection in law what so ever.
Something stinks in our civil rights legislation.

---

11 Aug 09 - 06:22 PM (#2698006)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

---

11 Aug 09 - 06:23 PM (#2698009)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

oops sorry! didn't mean to do that
was just reading and sneezing at the same time :)

---

11 Aug 09 - 06:39 PM (#2698030)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Now there's the real Ake showing just what a manipulative twister of meaning he truly is.

I take issue with your sweeping generalisations about travellers, when in fact you are actually talking about eight criminals, who just HAPPEN to be travellers, and suddenly I am in favour of dealing drugs to children.

And you call me a prick.

I have NO liking for criminals whatever, but I refer to criminals and their crimes without bringing their ethnic origin into the arument. And I certainly do NOT subscribe to your "Tar 'em all with the same brush" approach.

Listen to Ake folks he knows what's what.

All Irish are thick
All Jews are grasping moneylenders
All blacks are muggers
All travellers are theives, vandals, and drug dealers who target children.

Only upright middle class Scotsmen can be trusted, and he isn't so sure about them.

Don T.

---

11 Aug 09 - 06:41 PM (#2698033)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

A likely story!!

Hope its not swine flu.....:0)

---

11 Aug 09 - 06:45 PM (#2698037)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Sorry ...that was for "Em"......Didn't see Don lurking there in the bushes, he's been behaving very oddly lately....don't you think?

---

11 Aug 09 - 06:52 PM (#2698049)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

BTW Don...I don't mind the Racist, Homophobe Bigot shit.....but middle class!! that really hurts!:0(

---

11 Aug 09 - 07:08 PM (#2698065)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

There is no place in the British Isles where the police are turning their backs on serious crime because a minority is involved.

Drug dealing is very difficult to prosecute, whatever the ethnic origin of the dealers. The main problem is that it is only the small fry who are vulnerable to arrest, and the bigger fish ensure that they are too terrified to talk.

I'm damn sure that your local police are pursuing these criminals, and will eventually catch them, and rightly so.

But of course it doesn't suit your shit stirring nature to subscribe to THAT philosophy, so you rather unsubtly remark that "Tinkers" have taken over crime from your home grown nasties (who, if memory serves, were quite a bit nastier than most).

This serves the not so hidden agenda of linking the crimes to a minority, and extrapolating, from there, to a position in which the police are hamstrung by "liberal" ideas.

It won't do Ake. The criminals commit crimes BECAUSE they are criminals, NOT because they are "Tinkers". Neither are the police turning a blind eye to crimes COMMITTED by Tinkers.

Now, before you come back and disagree with that, find some evidence, and I don't mean "My neighbour knows a man, whose sister-in-law knows somebody, whose cousin does the cleaning for the Chief Constables maiden aunt".

EVIDENCE MATE! The same stuff that is hindering the police effort to catch your criminals.

Don T (the prick with a mind of his own---that WORKS!)

---

11 Aug 09 - 07:13 PM (#2698069)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

I think all pricks have a mind of their own Don!

---

11 Aug 09 - 08:01 PM (#2698118)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Peace

The young boy in the bath pointed to his testes and said, "Mommy, are there my brains?"

She replied, "Not yet, son, not yet."

---

14 Aug 09 - 08:21 AM (#2700119)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: mauvepink

Back home from hospital where I discovered all needles have the potential to be pricks and some, indeed, where pushed into my flesh to supply me with various fluids and drugs. I think around 75% of the staff that have treated me have not been of my country origin so I would have been in a mess had I refused to be treated by those who needed to get me better with all their differences of age, colour, creed, race, religion, gender, sexuality, disabilitiy and their drugs! ;-) We are all DIFFERENT

On a more serious note though...

Reading up on the thread since I went last Sunday it seems that it serves as a good example of how people's different way of saying and feeling things can lead to much disruption of thought and resentment of one's fellow humans. We are 'Catters, so will not resort to hating each other for our differences of ideas and ideals, but it looks like it came close once or twice. I think it great when those differences can be aired and talked about without nastiness.

All I can say is that I do disagree with those who think hate crime legislation is not needed as it is covered by other laws. To the individual that suffers the hate contingent of a crime it is far from just like ordinary crime (if ever there could be such a thing). I suppose that most would need to experience it to know it for sure but I do think that the law is trying to address that leap from hate thought to hate crime by making people more aware and giving protections to some who are more vulnerable because of their difference in society (we all know when we are bullied and, subtle though the perpetrator may be to the point others don't see it, WE know). I really do not think the law is being made to give them protection from the law because of any difference and, for sure, for hate law to work it has to be fair on ALL. If you are a criminal, no matter your minority or majority belonging, then you should be prosecuted.

I think some grey areas are still being worked through and sorted but, in the main, it is there for the good of everyone and society, minority or majority, because as individuals we all are a minority of one..

mp

---

14 Aug 09 - 08:25 PM (#2700605)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""I think all pricks have a mind of their own Don!""

Since, unlike you, I at least try to comply with Mudcat policies re personal attack, I will simply say that you are doing a pretty good job of destroying THAT argument.

Don T.

---

15 Aug 09 - 03:28 PM (#2701105)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

I hate laws too!

---

15 Aug 09 - 03:45 PM (#2701120)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

Ake, come down south (in disguise if you like). I will put aside my views of you engendered by this thread and introduce you to some 'catters and non-catters who are wholly or partly Romany (or non-Romany travellers) and are by and large as grand a bunch as you might wish to meet. Some have moved away to Wales, but you can't entirely hold that against them.

Rig - no, I don't think you do. You just wish to pick and choose.

---

15 Aug 09 - 04:54 PM (#2701171)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"...no, I don't think you do. You just wish to pick and choose."


                And you don't, Richard?

---

15 Aug 09 - 06:43 PM (#2701249)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

100

---

17 Aug 09 - 05:06 AM (#2702072)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Thought crime/ hate law, is Orwellian madness.
If I, as a white heterosexual Scot were to be murdered, raped, or assaulted, I would not like to think that my attacker would be more leniently treated by the courts than if he had attacked a member of a racial or sexual minority.

I think most people would agree with that view,.... that is what it boils down to.
The "liberal" viewpoint is another smokescreen.

---

17 Aug 09 - 05:44 AM (#2702088)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

Boot is on the other foot. If being part of a minority contributes to a crime against you, the crime does more harm and deserves a more severe sentence.

---

17 Aug 09 - 07:44 AM (#2702134)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink

There are tariffs for all crimes based on the basic crime committed. So murder carries a mandatory life sentence as the law currentley stands in the UK (I think). The sentencing guidelines however would decide what that sentence would be and for how long life would mean. For you and I then life, I feel, should mean incarcerated for life, but the law does not do that.

So if you were walking down a road and got hit with a car that was speeding it is doubtful he would be charged with murder, or even manslaughter, as there was no premeditation. But if someome deliberately ran you over, meaning to kill you, then murder has to be the charge. That would go for anyone. But if someone decides to kill you deliberately because you are a Scot or a Heterosexual then they are not singling YOU out but what you are. They are killing you for something that happeneed at birth. I think then that the hate crime law is brought in. Your death is somewhat premeditated for what you are and now who you are then that makes a massive differnce in the eyes of the law and they try to reflect that. I believe many people also see that difference, subtle though it is.

Murdering you is reprehensible and is not condoned or allowed without severe sentence but if that is brought about because of you having a defined difference then the sentence is more severe. You are still dead and, in some ways, I agree with you that each should have the same sentence. But in reality one type of crime is more reprehensible than the other.

I struggle to show a definition that would explain it but I hope the above goes some way to show why there is a difference.

pm

---

17 Aug 09 - 07:52 AM (#2702140)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"They are killing you for something that happeneed at birth. I think then that the hate crime law is brought in."

                So if they kill you because you are a Pagan or a Jew, then it is not a hate crime because that is something you decide for yourself to be.

---

17 Aug 09 - 07:59 AM (#2702141)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink

Not at all Rig'... though I take your point as to my example. Basically I am saying that if you are killed for something you are then the law reflects that and I think that is what the hate law is trying to stop happening (and not just murder but any crime against a person for who they are)

I need to watch every word I write in case I miss an example ;-)

Point taken though... sorry for my sloppy English and the use of it

mp

---

17 Aug 09 - 08:06 AM (#2702146)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink

PS... I thought most Jews were born as Jews (though I accept some convert to the faith). I have Jewish friends who have suggested to me that 'once a Jew always a Jew by birth and not just faith' is usual. Of course I could be misinformed and incorrect so apologise in advance if I am wrong. I certainly mean no offence

mp

---

17 Aug 09 - 10:15 AM (#2702198)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

No offence at all. I just think if one is to become a believer in some ancient superstition or another, one would have to become indoctrinated first.

---

17 Aug 09 - 10:22 AM (#2702202)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

Mauvepink - thought you might fnd this interesting:

"So if they kill you because you are a Pagan or a Jew, then it is not a hate crime because that is something you decide for yourself to be."

sloppy indeed ...

A friend of mine recently informed me that he was Jewish, but wasn't a Jew. meaning that he was descended from Jewish heritage but did not practice judaism.

Rig is not offended, he is trying to be clever and in the process indicating how poorly informed he is.

His comments also ignore a fairly memorable event in history, not that long ago, when milions of people were murdered not because of their Jewish beliefs but because of their Jewish heritage, no metter how tenuous their connection to it.

As usual his flippancy leaves him with his foot firmly embedded in his mouth and if anyone has said anything offensive then it certainly isn't you mauvepink.

---

17 Aug 09 - 10:54 AM (#2702227)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"if anyone has said anything offensive then it certainly isn't you mauvepink."

                  Exactly, it's Lox!

---

17 Aug 09 - 11:23 AM (#2702244)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

Indeed rig?

Then you will have no difficulty locating my offensive comment so that we can all see exactly what you are referring to.

Till then my point stands.

---

17 Aug 09 - 11:24 AM (#2702245)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink

Well I certainly want no upsets over my words. choice of them or lack of full meaning :-) Perhaps, like so many when this subject crops up, he was seeking clarity. I forget: I know what I mean and am on about when I am writing but it often does not come out that way when written and read by others.

The law is clearer, and is getting clearer as they tweak what constitutes hate crime to a definition all can work with and understand, but it takes time I suppose for new ideas to become acceptable.

It is a difficult subject to be sure. What is fun to someone may cause instant offence to another. THAT is a very gray area. But I do think most know when something is offensive and crosses lines that years ago would not have raised an eyebrow. I am blonde and there are many blonde jokes 'out there'. I would not dream of shouting 'hate crime against blondes' because someone makes a joke about my hair colour. However, most will know when a joke gets to bullying and when someone is being singled out with full discrimination. It is that kind of thing that puts us in hate crime territory.

I make jokes about men: men makes jokes about women. Heaven forbid that humour between the genders is ever criminalised but I do understand the fears of some who think that, inevitably, that is what will happen if we take these 'liberal and PC ideas' too far. It is true that many people now have to be more careful and think about what comes out of their mouths in a joke. I do not blame the 'PC brigade or liberals' for that though. It has come about because people have not changed with the times and kept taking things too far. I truly wish we lived in a world that did not need such laws but, increasingly we do, as we give equal/fair credence to our fellow humans... ALL of them. Respect and common sense really are good bedfellows it seems.

I suspect the more I try and give explanation then the more I stand to make mistakes and upset others. If being a liberl is the worse I can be called I am happy to wear the label, wrong though it be, as there are worse things to be.

Some laws are daft. Some are stupid. Some are plain non sensical. But I would sooner have law than none at all. My being expected to treat other individuals fairly and with due respect costs me nothing at all. It would cost no-one anything... unless they cross that line that is defined in law. I do not agree with all the laws for certain. But, it is what we have to abide by in a civilised society. I for one would sooner be on this side of that divide than the other.

But then I would also defend the right of anyone who disagrees to be able to say so too :-)

I'll shush once more lol

mp

---

17 Aug 09 - 12:29 PM (#2702294)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

mauvepink - It has nothing to do with anything you wrote, and I shouldn't have jumped in that way. I don't see any place for "Hate Crimes," in that I don't think they should be treated differently than other crimes. That's just my opinion, and not very many other people share it.

---

17 Aug 09 - 01:25 PM (#2702330)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

The arguments for "thought crime" don't hold water. Murder is murder, people in Scotland are murdered for being supporters of the wrong football team, for living in the wrong part of town, for being a communist, for being a wife who talks too much, or hasn't the dinner on the table .....dozens of "reasons" and each time the knife goes in, the fingers go round the throat, or the boot splinters the ribs, hatred drives them.............."liberalism" is still a smokescreen!!

---

17 Aug 09 - 02:09 PM (#2702355)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink

Riginslinger... I think we differ in that I see hate crime as an individual crime itself, which carries a sentence, but one that is usually combined with another crime, i.e. assault, murder, intimidation etc. and so gets extra tariff. I do understand your slant though and can respect that opinion.

akenaton... some of the examples you use I would put under the added hate crime legislation. Others should hold much higher tariffs than they appear to IMHO. Your point is taken. What I have been at pains to point out, as I see, is that whilst murder is indeed murder, the stimuli differ and it seems so therefore is the tariff. Quite often the law in itself is adequate but some of the sentences handed out are rediculously lenient based on tariff allowances that could have been used. The pressure on the Courts now to keep people out of the overcrowded prisons seems to drive sentences down rather than up in the UK. Add to that early realease, good behaviour, etc and we have many victims that appear let down by the law.

Maybe what we could all would support would not be a Hate Crime law but proper sentencing with ALL reasons for the crime taking place being taken into account and holding their own extra penalties?

I am not saying people should be put in shackles for what they think. However, much of what we are all capable of thinking should never ever be put into action. Most have opinions and the majority, thank heavens, are not willing to abuse, assault or kill someone else for having a different opinion, lifestyle, race etc, etc.. I believe the Hate Crime Laws are there to try and quell that kind of action.

If that is liberalism then I plead guilty

Best wishes

mp

---

17 Aug 09 - 03:16 PM (#2702409)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Melissa

If 'hate laws' are designed to show that it's somehow a worse crime when the victim isn't a hetero-white male, I guess I've been understanding the idea backward.

It has always been a Very Bad Crime when the victim was a white male within a certain category and I thought the idea behind the 'hate crime' label was that it's an equally Bad Crime when the victim is gay, black, a woman, etc.

I never even thought of it as something that Takes Away from anybody. I thought it was an attempt to recognize and validate the notion that ALL of us are worth protecting/defending?

It wasn't so long ago that a man accidentally killing his wife while 'disciplining' was accepted as an unfortunate accident..and a wife who killed her husband was seen as unnatural, uppity and dangerous.
Same crime--unbalanced perception and punishment.

If punishment and perception were equal for all of us and if every person was valued, the hate crime label wouldn't have hatched and the crime of actively seeking gay/black/etc people to hurt would be a form of pre-meditation.

It's horrible for us to need these laws.

---

17 Aug 09 - 03:33 PM (#2702425)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

"Maybe what we could all would support would not be a Hate Crime law but proper sentencing with ALL reasons for the crime taking place being taken into account and holding their own extra penalties?"

Our politicians are much more interested in keeping the crazy social/economic system that they are wedded to, on the road, than they are in justice.

Our society is now so corrupt and twisted out of shape, that it has become all but impossible to police. You are correct to say that the punishment no longer fits the crime in many cases, but justice is obviously tempered by what is "affordable"

It makes me sick to see our governments printing hundreds of billions to save a discredited financial system, yet finding it "impossible" to come up with even a few million to alleviate some of our social problems.

The "liberal" smokescreen of concern for racial and behavioural minorities, while the whole fabric of society is in the process of disintegration, verges on lunacy. Rather than ask the relevant questions of our representatives, they promote a nightmare landscape of "thought crime" and "rights for all" regardless of their behaviour; a typical example being the furore exhibited on these threads over the cranks who compose the membership of the BNP....crazies who pose no real danger, while our "democratic liberal" governments attack other nations at will and oversee an economic system which robs us of our savings, our liberty and our childrens future.

---

17 Aug 09 - 04:08 PM (#2702454)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

"If 'hate laws' are designed to show that it's somehow a worse crime when the victim isn't a hetero-white male, I guess I've been understanding the idea backward."

Melissa - you don't have anything backwards.

If somebody commits a crime (not necessarily murder) against a white heterosexual male because they hate white heterosexual males, then that is a hate crime so your understanding is correct.


Here is the crux of the matter.

If I kill one black man based on hatred his colour, what is there to stop me killing another?

If I kill somebody for more specific reasons, like discovering that he shot my best friend, then he will be the only person who falls into that category. My friends killer is dead and that is the end of my madness.

It isn't right to kill my friends killer, but it is a finite crime.

A racist murder is one of potentially millions, is impersonal and, as we saw in WWII, hate crime knows no mercy.


One of the biggest signs that somebody doesn't have a clue what "racism" means is when they start talking about "reverse racism"

The term "reverse racism" comes from the fallacious understanding that racism is somnething done by whites against non whites.

In fact, "racism" means discriminating on grounds of race.

A racist murder is one in which the murderer has discriminated on grounds of his victims race.

It is therefore a hate crime.

---

17 Aug 09 - 04:13 PM (#2702460)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Amos

Hate Groups in the United States, displayable listed state-by-state. It is embarassing that California has over 80 listed, more than Texas!


A

---

17 Aug 09 - 04:18 PM (#2702465)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

Unfortunately, the list was compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is a hate group itself.

---

17 Aug 09 - 04:21 PM (#2702467)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Melissa

Lox:
"One of the biggest signs that somebody doesn't have a clue what "racism" means is when they start talking about "reverse racism"

..and one of the biggest signs that someone is clueless about 'hate crime' means is when they talk about how it makes target groups "above the law" and somehow takes away from the group that is accustomed to fairer treatment?

---

17 Aug 09 - 04:30 PM (#2702476)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Melissa

Amos,
How do I look at the list for my state? I got a yod by hovering the map, but clicking didn't do anything..

---

17 Aug 09 - 05:18 PM (#2702530)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Bearded Bruce printed this in his first post, and I have seen

nothing written here that would make me question it.


"For the most part, hate-crime legislation is just a sop for politically influential interest groups -- yet another area in which liberals, traditionally sensitive to civil liberties issues, have chosen to mollify an entire population at the expense of the individual and endorse discredited reasoning about deterrence."

---

17 Aug 09 - 07:51 PM (#2702667)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

'"One of the biggest signs that somebody doesn't have a clue what "racism" means is when they start talking about "reverse racism"'


                You know what racism is when you've been a victim of affirmative action.

---

17 Aug 09 - 08:12 PM (#2702680)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

The reasoning here is just overwhelming ...

Liberals are the real fascists ... not the ones who round up those they don't like and gas them ...

affirmative action is the true racism ... not lynchings and beatings of people deemed inferior ...


And Ake has finally found support for one of his asertions ... in a carefully selected quote from another mudcatters personal opinion ...

Still no sign of any kind of real evidence whatsoever and total blindness to the evidence that has been provided - gets in the way you know - and besides, it was provided by "liberals".

---

17 Aug 09 - 10:26 PM (#2702767)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

I tried to submit this message a number of times earlier.

               Lox, let me tell you how I was a victim of affirmative action!

               I was in business with a partner in the San Francisco Bay Area when the George H. W. recession hit. The private work dried up completely.
               The state of California let out a freeway project for 80 million dollars--Keiwit Pacific got that one. There was no way we could bond it--let alone do it in any kind of a reasonable fashion.
               Then they put out 3 million dollars worth of small projects, divided into about 16 different jobs. But it turned out all of these projects were minority-set-aside jobs. We couldn't bid on these projects either. The freeway job represented the "white money."
               There was nothing to do, and nothing we could even bid on. We had to lay off all our people and go out of business. A number of the fellows who worked for us lost their homes and everything they'd worked for for years--as did myself and my partner.
               If you were to ask one of those guys today what he thought about affirmative action, he'd probably take your head off. I wouldn't blame him.

               This kind of thing happens all the time!

---

18 Aug 09 - 03:21 AM (#2702874)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Lox,   my quote was not from BB. It was from the article by Richard Cohen in the new York Times, which BB posted.

A great many informed people hold the same opinion as Mr Cohen, that "liberalism" is a distinct threat to individual freedom and is being used to turn many countries into "Orwellian" states.

---

18 Aug 09 - 03:55 AM (#2702890)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

The expression "mollify an entire population" (the centre, if I read it correctly) of the argument cited by Bearded Bruce, seems short of rational meaning.

The freeway construction argument arises, if the facts are accurately stated, out of defective application of "positive discrimination" principles, not the perfectly correct notion that one should seek to alleviate disadvantage.

And positive discrimination is nothing to do with "hate laws" - and "hate laws" are nothing to do with thought crime.

---

18 Aug 09 - 06:31 AM (#2702956)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

"A great many informed people hold the same opinion as Mr Cohen, that "liberalism" is a distinct threat to individual freedom and is being used to turn many countries into "Orwellian" states."

Ok - so you aren't going to provide any information of your own ...

are you at least going to tell us which "informed" people hold the same view?

Or is that to remain yet another baseless assertion.


Rig - it sounds like your situation was a gross distortion of the law and I wonder if you could have taken the matter to court and appealed your effective exclusion on grounds of race.

---

18 Aug 09 - 08:54 AM (#2703037)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"Rig - it sounds like your situation was a gross distortion of the law and I wonder if you could have taken the matter to court and appealed your effective exclusion on grounds of race."

          No, Lox, that's just the way affirmative action works, or doesn't. It must have happened to a lot of people, because they did away with affirmative action in California a few years later.

          What it did, though, was create the mindset in a number of folks that set racial harmony back several generations.

---

18 Aug 09 - 09:31 AM (#2703065)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

I don't understand positive discrimination as necessarily precluding any white candidates from success, merely as requiring allowance for disadvantage in making decisions and sometimes a minimum ratio of former discriminees as appointees.

---

18 Aug 09 - 10:18 AM (#2703096)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

Richard: It's in the 8-17-09 10:26 post.

---

18 Aug 09 - 09:36 PM (#2703457)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

Like Michael Savage, for instance. He was denied an opportunity to pursue a PHD at UC Berkeley. His slot was given to a minority with less qualified credentials. It was a life changing experience for Michael Savage. It changed the way he saw things, and he's gone on to change the thinking of a lot of other people too.

---

18 Aug 09 - 09:42 PM (#2703463)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Peace

Now there's a ticket for 2012: Sarah Palin and Michael Savage.

---

19 Aug 09 - 09:03 AM (#2703764)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

How would they decide who was suppose to head the ticket?

---

05 Sep 09 - 04:18 AM (#2716612)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

As a postscript to the drug dealing tinkers......the council run encampment has now been closed and the entrance gates padlocked.

Officials of the housing association who maintain the site descibe it as a "war zone"...burntout caravans and chalets.... vandalism of council property.....rubbish everywhere ....scrap cars etc.

500 thousand pounds of taxpayers money to be spent on refurbishment.

No prosecutions are to be brought against previous tenants for any crime.

---

05 Sep 09 - 04:25 PM (#2716955)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""No prosecutions are to be brought against previous tenants for any crime.""

Why don't you contact your local police, and tell them your theory on precisely which former resident was responsible for which individual piece of vandalism?

You seem to have great difficulty with the notion that prosecution follows on the acquisition of that inconvenient little stumbling block known as evidence, and that a miscreant can only be prosecuted if said evidence supports the conclusion that HE is responsible for the criminal action.

Unfortunately for you, there is no place in our judicial system for a charge of being in possession of an offensive ethnicity, and lynching gypsies out of hand sort of lost its appeal about May 1945.

I'm afraid you may just have to live with the fact that a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty, and that the police cannot act on YOUR opinion as to guilt.

Don T.

---

05 Sep 09 - 09:43 PM (#2717196)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"...the police cannot act on YOUR opinion as to guilt."

               And that pretty much defines the description of a "hate crime."

---

07 Sep 09 - 02:26 AM (#2717840)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Quite so Rig!

Don the police found it almost impossible to gain the required evidence to charge these people, through their intimidation of police witnesses and the fact that they were using civil Rights legislation to evade prosecution. The encampment had become a virtual fortress.

The fact that the buildings had been badly vandalised, gave the police and the local council the EXCUSE to close it down, thats how justice seems to work these days.

---

07 Sep 09 - 08:03 PM (#2718470)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Don the police found it almost impossible to gain the required evidence to charge these people, through their intimidation of police witnesses and the fact that they were using civil Rights legislation to evade prosecution. The encampment had become a virtual fortress.""

Once again Ake, YOUR biased opinion, presented as FACT. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

Don T

---

07 Sep 09 - 08:09 PM (#2718476)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""...the police cannot act on YOUR opinion as to guilt."

               And that pretty much defines the description of a "hate crime."""

No Rig, it doesn't. Hate crime is defined as inciting others to racial hatred, which Ake is NOT doing.

He is simply expressing an opinion, and wrongly presenting it as fact.

All that means is that he has, as usual, a biased, and prejudiced opinion. He is not suggesting anyone else should act upon it....YET!

Don T.

---

08 Sep 09 - 02:56 AM (#2718606)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Don... I know police officers who deal with these vermin on a daily basis, two of them have young teenage children....they are aware of exactly what is happening in the town,regarding the selling of heroin to kids and the vicious intimidation which accompanies that trade.

I have been told by a high ranking local officer, that the "protected status" of this group puts them above the law.

What "evidence" do you require for the purposes of this discussion? names and addresses?......four bags of "kit"....a facially disfigured addict?......

Come to this town Don......take a day trip into the "real" world.

---

08 Sep 09 - 04:40 AM (#2718639)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

Ake,

it is not us who need the evidence.

It is your high ranking officer friend who needs it.

When he has it and is able to prove who sold the heroin and who did the disfiguring then he will be able to prosecute that person.

There is no-one in this country apart from those with diplomatic immunity who is protected from this process.


If you wish to insist that they are protected then you must provide evidence.



Till then, you are relying agaion on second hand anecdotal evidence to suppport your case.

First you establish a homogenous islamic viewpoint from the second hand testimony of a Goan who is either Catholic or Hindu, then you establish that Gypsies criminal activities are prtected by special status.


Now is the time to provide proof.

---

08 Sep 09 - 08:19 AM (#2718796)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Try this for unbiased reporting from this weeks local paper ("Dunoon Observer").

£250,000 UPGRADE AT TRAVELLERS SITE

SANDBANK'S Torlochan travellers' site will remain closed until next year - but is set to benefit from modernisation costing up to a quarter of a million pounds.

Although there were pitches occupied at the site around four weeks ago, last week the gates were seen to be padlocked, with a notice providing contact numbers should temporary access be required.
The site has been on the receiving end of unwelcome attention over the last few months, with one caravan being completely burnt out and extensive vandalism - the latter cited as a reason for closure by Argyll Community Housing Association chief executive Alastair MacGregor.
ACHA has managed the site - and two others in Argyll - since the transfer of housing stock from Argyll and Bute Council in 2006.
Site residents hit out at ACHA last year, claiming that the facility was in poor condition compared to other similar parks around Scotland.

They alleged that non-residents used the park as a dump, there was flooding and extensive disrepair in the kitchen/bathroom amenity huts on each pitch, and that it was overrun by rats.

In May 2008, following tenants' complaints, ACHA advised that it was taking forward a number of proposals for the improvement of the site.
Now, with its closure, it plans to start work on making improvements at Torlochan.

Mr MacGregor told the Standard: "The site was closed for three reasons; firstly, there has been extensive vandalism; secondly, there are no travellers currently wishing to use the site and thirdly, we plan to modernise the site shortly.
"The site is planned to be closed in order that the modernisation work can be carried out."

He advised that no residents on the site had been given notice to quit and that any personal effects left at Torlochan could be collected by arrangement with ACHA.
He continued: "Our plans are to modernise the pitches and provide improved facilities, following consultation with residents last year.
"The cost will be approximately £250,000; eight pitches will be upgraded and services such as electric and water supplies renewed.
"A grant has been awarded to ACHA by the Scottish government from their gypsy/traveller site grants which were announced last year at £2m for Scotland.
"The grant to ACHA should meet 75 per cent of the costs and ACHA will fund the rest."


The Torlochan closure comes as a study of travellers in Scotland shows that over 50 per cent claim to have been the victims of harassment or discrimination.

The survey, carried out by three local authorities in north-east Scotland, identified that a quarter of travellers had been physically assaulted, including some who had had stones thrown at them.

Others had been verbally abused or called names, while some provided examples of discrimination such as taxis refusing to pick up from travellers' sites.
The local authorities are working together on the accommodation needs of travellers over the coming months.

Argyll and Bute is unique in Scotland in that its three traveller sites are operated by a registered social landlord, ACHA, rather than the local council.
There are 32 sites in Scotland providing 499 individual pitches. In Argyll and Bute last year, 72 per cent of its 32 pitches were let, with 22 per cent available to tenants and six per cent unavailable to maintenance.

Travellers at such sites pay rent, council tax and utility costs and, like housing tenants, can be evicted for arrears.

Meanwhile, at the Torlochan site, five abandoned caravans remain - all damaged or vandalised, and each containing a quantity of personal effects.
A notice on the gate advises arrivals to contact ACHA or its telecare provider, Hanover, out of hours, should access be required.
Asked what provision ACHA was making for travellers who wished to come to the area, Mr MacGregor advised: "We will continue to provide pitches for gypsy/travellers at Duncholgan, Lochgilphead and Ledaig, Oban. Vacancies are available at both of these sites should pitches be required."

Torlochan is expected to reopen in April 2010.""

THAT is what I mean about evidence.

YOUR COMMENTS AKE?

Don T.

---

08 Sep 09 - 08:49 AM (#2718825)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: olddude

Recently in Buffalo a young white man came out of a restaurant with his beautiful black girlfriend. A group of black men attacked him and beat him nearly to death. The response by the black community was immediate and overwhelming. The black leaders and black church leaders asked everyone in the community to help find and punish those who were responsible. On TV they said we will not tolerate hate crimes against anyone no matter what their color or their creed. Called on all people to find these thugs.

It is when all people stand up like this, that a difference is made.

---

08 Sep 09 - 08:50 AM (#2718826)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

From the above article, the following FACTS:-

1. The travellers, or tinkers as you prefer to call them, pay rent, council tax and utility costs and, like housing tenants, can be evicted for arrears.

2. The site in question has for some time been considered sub standard, and was scheduled for a refurb for some time, at a cost of £250,000, not the half million YOU posted as FACT.

3. It appears that the travellers were victims of vandalism by locals, not, as you claimed the instigators.

4. None of the travellers were locked out of the site, which was secured after all had already left, presumably for the sake of self preservation. So would you, if you risked waking in the small hours to find your bed on fire.

These are reported facts, as stated by the responsible authority, and they do rather expose your unsupported opinions to ridicule, Ake.

Don T.

---

08 Sep 09 - 09:29 PM (#2719448)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

At the end of the day, the concept of hate laws seems like a really bad idea.

---

09 Sep 09 - 05:26 AM (#2719607)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

Well that is your 'opinion' ...... defined as 'a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence.
It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.


But let's summarize......

"Every crime they cover is already illegal under existing laws."

Protecting a group under hate crimes legislation will make the public aware that the group is vulnerable, has been extensively victimized in the past, and is in need of protection.
Many victims have been attacked by strangers because of their gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or ability status in the past
Legislation should be expanded to cover them to distinguish as
motivation isn't the issue here – intent is.
Attacking a black person to coerce or intimidate other black people is materially worse than randomly assaulting some unfortunate passerby. The later is aimed at only one person; the former targets a community.


"By granting special consideration to victims of 'politically incorrect' crimes, the legislation denies equal protection under the law."

A hate crime is more serious than a conventional crime because it abuses more than the immediate victim.

When a criminal act is based on a factors such as a victim's race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, it takes on some of the characteristics of a terrorist act.
The victim and the perpetrator are typically strangers.
The crime is not directed simply against one person; it is intended to target and intimidate the victim's entire group.
These acts have been referred to as "message crimes:" violence intended to send a message to a minority group within a community.

"Such legislation should only apply to personal characteristics that are beyond the individual's control, like gender, race, national origin, color, disability. Homosexuality is a chosen and changeable preference for members of the same gender."

Denying sexual orientation as a protected class because it is a chosen behavior cannot be supported because there is growing evidence that sexual orientation is not chosen.

Religion is already a protected class and is clearly chosen and changeable.


- The arguments in quotes are taken from an American para Christian fundamentalist group and issued as a 'CitizenLink Special Alert'
The replies are from a group advocating and promoting tolerance by all world religions

---

09 Sep 09 - 07:57 AM (#2719684)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink

That makes interesting reading Emma and, in my humble opinion, shoots down a lot of the criticism against hate crime law. There does seem to be a divide between its use in the USA and that in the UK but, in principle, the concept I think is sound.

The worrying aspect in the example you quote is about homosexuality. It is correct that there is growing evidence that sexuality may be under some genetic control but, even if it is not, and if it is a choice, I can think of no good reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian people just because of their sexuality. I have never understood why someone else's sexuality should be of interest or intrigue to people who are not looking for that kind of sexual encounter/partner/relationship. Why does it upset people so? They are, choice, nature or nurture, a hate target and it is righful they should be included.

The danger for all of us is that the moment we start accepting that by someone making a choice it makes it okay to bully them or single them out for hate, we are all left with, "Who is next?". What next group will be targeted because of difference or choices? We are all individuals who make choices in our life and I say again...

We all have far more in common with each other than we do not. We are all just a step away from being hated for something we are that we are or do different from others. I cannot speak for the USA interpretation of such a law but I do know that in the UK it necessary just now and the concept seems quite sound. I welcome the day it can be taken off the statute books but I fear that time is some time off :-(

---

09 Sep 09 - 09:00 AM (#2719711)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"When a criminal act is based on a factors such as a victim's race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, it takes on some of the characteristics of a terrorist act."

            If any of these categories make any sense, they all make more sense than religion. One chooses one's religion, so to avoid being singled out all one has to do is drop is. It would be no different than joining the KKK--which is itself is a religious organization. I one joins the KKK and then is sued by Moris Dees, Moris Dees is performing a hateful act.

---

09 Sep 09 - 12:07 PM (#2719868)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""I one joins the KKK and then is sued by Moris Dees, Moris Dees is performing a hateful act.""

That, Rig, is arguably the most asinine comment you have made to date (and you've made more than a few in the past).

For someone to be guilty of hate crime in suing a member of KKK, first, instituting legal proceedings would have to be declared illegal.

Whatever you were on when you typed that is damaging you.

Don T.

---

09 Sep 09 - 12:51 PM (#2719913)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948 (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html), enunciates and enshrines the principles of freedom of religion and freedom of expression

In addition, over the past eleven years, the British government has passed a number of laws that specifically tackle, or include directly in their provisions, protection of the freedom of 'religion or belief'

Under this range of existing human rights and anti-discrimination legislation, everyone has the right to hold their own religious beliefs or to hold other philosophically-based beliefs deemed 'similar to a religion'.

They also have the right to have no religion or no belief at all!

for example, under the Equality Act 2006(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060003_en_1),
it is unlawful for someone to discriminate against another because of his or her religion or belief OR because he/she has no religion or belief.

If someone threatens, abuses or attacks someone because of their religion or belief (or lack thereof), this may amount to what is called a 'hate crime' under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006


The KKK, may indeed use religion as one tool among many to motivate terrorism against outsiders but essentially it is a secret, oath-bound, 'fraternal' organization (or a number of small independent chapters) whose avowed purpose is to protect the rights of and further the interests of white Americans.

In the UK -

In order to be protected under the Equality Act 2006, a religion or belief must be able to be generally recognised as being:

* cogent
* serious
* cohesive
* compatible with human dignity.

what constitutes, affirms or denies 'human dignity' may be subject to disagreement; but I don't think, under any circumstances, it could be said to include the KKK!

---

09 Sep 09 - 01:58 PM (#2719974)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Don....You have copied what was printed in the local newspaper.

You must read between the lines with local newspaper reports, there are no investigative journalists employed by the Dunoon Observer and they are obliged to print what is given to them by the local authority.

They are unable to print what has really been happening at Torlochan, but suffice to say, I have seen the "business" being conducted with my own eyes......and that is a fact.

Although I cannot go into any further detail than I have provided already, everything I have said about the drug dealing, money lending and vicious intimidation is 100% true and has been witnessed at first hand.

The families who were dealing from the site were made aware some time aqo of the Authorities intention to close the site,they are now in private accomodation.....still dealing and hopefully more accessible to police scrutiny.

The closure of the site is certainly a move in the right direction even if the resons had to be disguised.

The ability of some minorities to abuse their "rights" must be scrutinised, regardless of whether this scrutiny meets with the approval Orwellian "liberals" or not!

---

09 Sep 09 - 02:31 PM (#2720004)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Facts!!   "The travellers, or tinkers as you prefer to call them, pay rent, council tax and utility costs and, like housing tenants, can be evicted for arrears."
To the best of my knowledge, the families involved are registered unemployed with children, and are in receipt of full housing benefit.

"The site in question has for some time been considered sub standard, and was scheduled for a refurb for some time, at a cost of £250,000, not the half million YOU posted as FACT."
The £250,000 is an estimate of cost, most local builders, of whom I am one, think that at least double that figure would be more realistic.


3. "It appears that the travellers were victims of vandalism by locals, not, as you claimed the instigators."

You must be fucking joking! The place was a fortress.....no local would want to, or be able to get in to vandalise it. The damage was all done by site residents...two of the families have had a long running feud.
Your "fact" no4 has been dealt with above, you obviously know nothing about this situation and you can take that as fact from someone who does.

---

09 Sep 09 - 02:48 PM (#2720013)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"For someone to be guilty of hate crime in suing a member of KKK... instituting legal proceedings would have to be declared illegal."

               I'm not sure, Don, if you've followed the way he does this. It seems really slimy to me, and a waste of the court's time and an abuse of the legal system.
               I'm not sure who is slimier, Moris Dees or Glenn Beck!

---

09 Sep 09 - 06:09 PM (#2720149)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

I suppose the Dunoon observer could be asked where they got their information from.

then again.

It does cite two sources very clearly and clarifies its sources credibility very clearly.

It also refers to previous public statements made by its first source, ACHA.

ACHA are the sites landlords and they have made clear that they have not evicted their tenants, but are doing up their home and paying 25% of the refurbishment costs to repair damage caused by fire and vandalism.

The article does not express an opinion, but simply reports two pieces of information.

1. ACHA's synopsis of what they are doing with the site nd why..

2. The results of a survey conducted by 3 local authourities into anti traveller violence.


But even though "I cannot go into any further detail than I have provided already" Ake still knows best.



Ake, your loyalty to your opinions in the face of a constant stream of contradictory evidence on numerous subjects shows great determination, but ultimately marks you out for all the wrong reasons.

Apart from a wittier turn of phrase and slightly more complex rationale, your position is no different to that of the BNP.

Your refusal to accept the evidence provided or to provide your own evidence is also consistent with the way they do things.

You might not be a BNP supporter but they love reading your posts here as on other threads and they certainly see you as being on their side because the upshot of your arguments is the same as theirs.

Witch-hunt my arse.

That's just playing the victim.

So you exercise your free speech and blame eastern europeans for unemployment and tell us how Moslems think they're bettter than us and don't want to integrate cos your goan mate thinks so, and tell us that the tinkers down the lane are all criminals and druggies.

And I'l exercise my free speech and point out what a load of utter tripe you talk.

---

10 Sep 09 - 02:29 AM (#2720377)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

I certainly do "know better" than you Lox; and it must be obvious even to you, the reason why the authority cannot give the real reason for closing Torlochan!

It is as you are fond of saying...."lack of evidence required to prosecute". However, in this case, the authorities have used alterative methods to clean out the dealers.

Contrary to your assertion, I do not think that all tinkers are drug dealers or criminals, any more than I think all people who give their vote to the BNP are Nazi's. In this case I have cited a particular group of tinker families who are engaged in supplying drugs to schoolchildren and brutal intimidation.
These people have been using their "special minority status" to evade prosecution.

I keep an open mind on everything Lox....I question every orthodox "belief"; you would do well to examine your attitude to those who do not vote in the way you would like, or adhere to your very limited "principles".

---

10 Sep 09 - 02:41 AM (#2720382)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Just as a postscript.....The Dunoon Observer is an excellent local paper, giving local news and information. They, like the local authority, are constrained by law as to what they are allowed to print.

The editor of the Dunoon Observer and his wife are personal friends of mine.

---

10 Sep 09 - 04:57 AM (#2720432)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

"you would do well to examine your attitude to those who do not vote in the way you would like, or adhere to your very limited "principles"."


My problem Ake is with unsubstantiated claims.

Of which you make many.


I don't care what your view is as long as you can support it with facts.


You claim that Moslems don't want to integrate.


That is an inflammatory claim.


You know this how?


because a man you know who is either caatholic or hindu told you that that is what he thinks they think.



You make numerous "factual" claims about other generalized groups that are equally inflammatory.


You don't back them up with facts and you ignore the evidence that is provided which shows your claims are not true.


If you wish to make inflammatory claims about Moslems, Immigrants, liberals or Travellers then back them up with evidence or shut up.

---

10 Sep 09 - 05:36 AM (#2720451)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

I know what I am talking about in this particular case, you do not!

Regarding what I write here, I will continue to post what I consider to be the truth without seeking permission from you.

You continually post opinion as fact, for example, my Goan friend being "either Catholic or Hindu" how could you possibly present that as "fact"?

Long before you arrived here, we had a thread discussing "facts", in which "facts" and "opinions" became rather blurred.
I have a very healthy distrust of "facts"...... almost as large as my distrust of "liberals" who hate any dissent to their agenda.

---

10 Sep 09 - 05:45 AM (#2720460)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Oh and BTW please try to make some attempt at understanding what I have written.

"Contrary to your assertion, I do not think that all tinkers are drug dealers or criminals, any more than I think all people who give their vote to the BNP are Nazis. In this case I have cited a particular group of tinker families who are engaged in supplying drugs to schoolchildren and brutal intimidation.
These people have been using their "special minority status" to evade prosecution."

Does that statement say that I hate travellers?.....no, it says that oppose laws which give one group the oppertunity to prey upon another without fear of proper police action to protect the group being preyed upon.......is that Liberal enough for you?

---

10 Sep 09 - 06:35 AM (#2720489)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

"Long before you arrived here, we ..." etc

My first post on mudcate is dated 17th july 2000

yours is dated 4th July 2003

That is a fact.


So don't try to patronize me Sonny Jim.


On the subject of your Goan friend, you have made no attempt to correct me.

Furthermore you never described him as your Moslem friend but as your Goan friend.

Considering that you were making a point about Moslems in British society it is easy to deduce that he isn't a moslem or you would have corroborated your case by saying so.

As the overwhelming majority of Goans are either Catholic or Hindu (More than 90%) , it follows that his heritage is probably in either of these two backgrounds.

Simple question - is he Moslem?


What "special minority status" are you talking about? Can you define this as right now it reads as a general sweeping and therefore meaningless term - then can you show me eidence of its existence.

I suspect that if you were able to find the evidence the definition would be contained therein.


"my distrust of "liberals" who hate any dissent to their agenda."


When I disagreewith someone I don't put them in a category.


The term "liberal" is the label you have on your mental waste paper basket into which you toss evidence that doesn't back up your argument.

You are unable to critically evaluate evidence and learn from it.

If the tenants on your site were forcibly evicted then there will be a record of it somewhere.

You claim they were forcibly evicted from their fortress so you provide the evidence.

Until then, the only evidence is the official statement of the landlord.


Evictions of violent people from fortresses don't slip under the radar.

If it happpened there will be a report of some sort that you will be able to apply for.

Till you provide this evidence, Dons evidence stands.

---

10 Sep 09 - 10:50 AM (#2720649)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Don....You have copied what was printed in the local newspaper.

""You must read between the lines with local newspaper reports, there are no investigative journalists employed by the Dunoon Observer and they are obliged to print what is given to them by the local authority.

They are unable to print what has really been happening at Torlochan, but suffice to say, I have seen the "business" being conducted with my own eyes......and that is a fact.

Although I cannot go into any further detail than I have provided already, everything I have said about the drug dealing, money lending and vicious intimidation is 100% true and has been witnessed at first hand.""


You really are a piece of work!

You spout a losd of malicious bile, without a single shred of credible proof, and when evidence is produced of the mendacity of your stance, you come out with the above bilge. There has never been a newspaper which shies away from a really juicy scandal, and I don't expect I shall ever see the day when such exists.

You want me to blindly accept your totally unbiased (YEAH! RIGHT!)narration without question because you claim inside knowledge which you cannot reveal.

NO, MR BOND, the Official Secrets Act only applies to those with access to GENUINE classified or secret information.

PROOF, MY FRIEND! Put up or Shut up.

Don T.

---

10 Sep 09 - 07:23 PM (#2721108)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"...the overwhelming majority of Goans are either Catholic or Hindu..."

          Maybe someone will develope a 12 step program to help them!

---

10 Sep 09 - 07:32 PM (#2721111)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,Helen B.

You are of course correct yet again akenaton. Don't waste your time or energy explaining to a collection of cuckolds,anoraks and a Casting Call Pro drunk.

---

10 Sep 09 - 09:46 PM (#2721202)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

So I look up "anorak" in the dictionary, and it says:
A heavy jacket with a hood--a parka. I think I'm missing something.

---

11 Sep 09 - 03:12 AM (#2721307)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Hi Rig.....a couple of internet definitions

An 'Anorak' is the name given to someone who has an obsession with a particular hobby i.e. football statistics, trainspotting etc. I presume that the word itself derives from the rows of sad looking people standing every weekend and evening in the rain at the train station in their anoraks with their thermos flasks of tea while they tick off the numbers of trains as they go past.

It is a term of mild abuse directed almost exclusively at men. Such men are usually obsessively interested in an obscure subject and/or activity - the archetypal one being trainspotting. Such activities often require the participant to spend hours out of doors doing not much and occasionally writing something in a little book. Hence, such people often wear anorak because they are (a) cheap (b) practical (c) have lots of pockets for flasks, notebooks, pencils, other pencils etc. Obsessive participation in such activities into later life is often regarded with derision by soi-disant normal people, whereas in fact it has actually been linked to a mild form of autism.

I would add that "anorak" has also come to describe people who lack deductive or imaginative powers....who are obsessed with the collection of information for its own sake and are who quite unable to disseminate or put the gathered information to any particular use.

Lox to a tee! wouldn't you say?...... :0)
Don on the other hand, is just acting the goat!

---

11 Sep 09 - 04:41 AM (#2721342)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

I wouldn't be so sure in helens case ...

... she's been waxing lyrical on several repressed sexual fantasies lately on the BNP thread so chances are an anorak is a euphemism for something obscene.



"people who lack deductive or imaginative powers"

In the absence of a response to my "simple question" I must assume that my deductions about your friend were correct ...


... "unable to disseminate or put the gathered information to any particular use"

As opposed to disseminating discredited and unsupported information so that folks like helen can put it to good use.

---

12 Sep 09 - 07:36 AM (#2722190)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Sorry about all the underlines. A glitch in the HTML

DT

---

12 Sep 09 - 07:39 AM (#2722192)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Sense of direction is off too. That should be NORTHWEST.

Thought I'd take away the temptation for Ake to ignore the content and go for the writing.

DT

---

13 Sep 09 - 05:52 AM (#2722768)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

SILENCE!

After whingeing about people trying to shut him up, on several past threads, he NOW decides to shut HIMSELF up.

Very Strange.

Don T.

---

13 Sep 09 - 06:19 AM (#2722778)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Don, you obviously know as much about the 18th dynasty as you do about Torlochan and the vermin who used to inhabit it......and that is exactly fuck all.

Try reading something about Akhenaton, the worlds first documented free thinker and his attempt to bring in a "golden age" of peace, art, and realism regarding humanity's place in the world.

Oh whats the fuckin' point.....people with your conservative background and opinions always see war and organisation as the answer to every problem, in fact there should be a "hate law" to take care of folks like you :0)
Akenaton was a child of "god", a peacemaker, a lover of art and music, a loving husband and father, a philosopher......a pretty evil bastard really.......according to your criteria!

Don't worry about me shutting up, I have absolutely no intention of doing so. I don't believe in "gittering" on when I have nothing constructive to say....unlike yourself.

The thread stands and I stand by every word I have written.

---

15 Sep 09 - 08:27 AM (#2724041)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge

A child of God? Yeah, right.

Interestingly, over on fakebook, Sam Hudson has written on Helen Butcher's wall congratulating her on coming over here and wiping the floor with us in debate. Yeah right!

---

16 Sep 09 - 02:54 AM (#2724598)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton

Interesting point which has a bearing on the subjects we are discussing; and especially Orwell's views on how our society would evolve.

In the US, a Republican senator called Mr Obama a "liar" during debate. The Dems have stated that the word was only used because Mr Obama is "black"
The Republicans have in turn responded that the Dems are play ing the race card by making such a claim.

Who are the racists in American govt?

When you have determined that, try looking back at Mudcat discussion over the past six months.

---

16 Sep 09 - 05:05 AM (#2724645)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

Well I'm not sure I understand the point of the post above as it is very vague, but I'll answer the question.


"Who are the racists in American govt?"


Well they would be the ones (if any) who discriminate on grounds of race.

I suppose it is realistic to expect that some of them may be racist.


I do not know the circumstances of the above case, but I would apply the following test.

I would try to ascertain on what grounds it was concluded that Obama is a Liar.

If there were no grounds that stood the test of scrutiny then I would conclude that some other factor was motivating these accusations.


In this case I suspect that while Obama's accuser may be motivated by racism to some extent, his main driving motivation is more likely to be corporate interest of some sort. The insurance companies stand to lose their control of the health "market" if there is reform of the current system and they don't want to see any threat to their profit margin.

If he is racist then chances are that he also has a poor opinion of any kind of social program, such things being the preserve of socialists and communists and therefore unamerican by nature.


Beyond that, the question is so general, there being so many American government employees with each being driven by so many guiding motivations that it is effectively impossible to answer.

I suspect that you're chomping at the bit to tell us your answer?

---

16 Sep 09 - 08:18 AM (#2724710)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"I would try to ascertain on what grounds it was concluded that Obama is a Liar."

            That's not hard to do. Joe Wilson is not a racist. "Racist" is a word that nonthinking people use to cut off debate because they're lazy.

            When Obama said the healthcare plan he supported would not cover illegal aliens, he knew that there were no enforcement measures in the proposed legislation, so that the minute it was passed illegal aliens could line up for healthcare, like they do for most everything else, and there would be no effort to prevent them from receiving it.

---

16 Sep 09 - 04:29 PM (#2724961)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

>"Racist" is a word that nonthinking people use to cut off debate because they're lazy.


Sometimes ...


And at other times:


Racism is an approach that nonthinking people use to cut off debate because they're lazy.



Sometime, you might find people discussing the price of fish when someone will say, out of the blue, "yeah, but what about illegal immigrants - who's gonna stop them before the price of fish goes up/down"

Or How do we fix the economy? "well lets talk about immigration"

Or how do we turn healthcare from a privilege into a right? "well first things first, what about illegal immigrants"


You know something, Immigration is one issue.

Health is another.


Immigration is a big fat red herring and illegal immigrants can find a way of abusing any health care system.

Likewise, any health care system can find a way of ensuring that those with a right to receive it do and those that don't don't.

(now for my point of view)

Besides which, what the F*** is wrong with helping sick people whoever they are. Not to do so is inhumane.

And listen to this.


How many ollegal immigrants do you think willingly register themselves at government institutions?

the answer is none.

Why?

Because they risk getting deported.


An illegal immigrant goes to see a doctor or goes to hospital in a government hospital and immigration will find out won't they?

Yes.


Obviously.


So the whole issue of illegals abusing the health service is utter tripe.

---

16 Sep 09 - 05:03 PM (#2724978)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"So the whole issue of illegals abusing the health service is utter tripe."

            No, not really. If the percentage of illegal aliens in the US continue to expand at the rate that they have since the disaserous bill passed in 1986, by about 2032 you'd have 140 million of them.

            So the Democrats, trying to court the Hispanic vote, could give lip service to not covering illegal aliens now, get the bill passed, and then agree to cover them later. They could not do that if there were enforcement measures in the bill as it goes through Congress now. And that's the issue.

---

16 Sep 09 - 05:47 PM (#2725001)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

You haven't addressed my point rig.

When an illegal alien turns up a a government institution looking for help, they would have to give their name and social security number.

If they aren't legal immigration will come and get them.

Just as Illegals don't go to the police (thus making them easy to exploit) and just as they don't vote etc etc etc.

If they are so sick that they have to be treated, they will probably get treatment and will definitely get deported.


In order to function in society as an illegal immigrant, you have to avoid detection.

This is easily enugh done when you stay secretly in someone elses home or pay rent to a dodgy landlord and get paid cash in hand for your work at lower rates ...

... but signing in under false pretences at a government institution would effectively be the same as giving your self up.


So it doesn't matter how many come in ...

... if they use a government institution they get sent home.


It is private medicine that serves to protect illegal immigrants as Private institutions serve to make a profit out of the service they provide.

And in particular it is backstreet "private" medicine that is the risk that most illegals are prepared to take.


Do you get it yet?

Illegals don't want to go home.

So they won't hand themselves in.

So they would never go near a national health doctor.

---

16 Sep 09 - 06:19 PM (#2725023)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"When an illegal alien turns up a a government institution looking for help, they would have to give their name and social security number."

             When an illegal alien turns up at a government institution looking for help, they give the authorities someone else's name and social security number.

             That's why e-verify is an essential part of the equation. Without it, the tax-payers get raped.

             Do you get it yet?

---

16 Sep 09 - 08:04 PM (#2725104)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox

"When an illegal alien turns up at a government institution looking for help, they give the authorities someone else's name and social security number."

When an illegal alien turns up at a private institution, they might have to provide fake ID.

They might not.

They might just have to pay the right price.



How does private serve to discourage illegals entering the country more than pulic?

It doesn't.

It's easier with private for illegals to maintain their cover.



So if this issue is all about illegal immigrants then it makes more sense to have a public system public.


But that is only if ...

... the fact remains that illegal immigrants are way down the list of important factors when designing a heaalth service.

Its a big fat red herring.

The only people who disagree with this are people who think immigration is the central issue regardless of what the subject is.


And that is clearly an obsessive and facile approach to political and economic problem solving.

---

16 Sep 09 - 09:37 PM (#2725148)
Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger

"So if this issue is all about illegal immigrants then it makes more sense to have a public system public."

            Well, Lox, if you think a public system is the best way for the US to go, I agree with you. I find myself in a position of continually having to bash the two party system. I think this situation is at the root of the problem. There are millions of people in the middle, but the media only concentrates on the far right and Move-On.Org.

            I think there are solutions out there, but as long as this food fight goes on, it seems impossible to find them, or even hear them.

---