Hate-crime = Thought crime?

I really thought twice before entering this debate as I can genuinely see some merit in both points of view being expressed. But the following I am not at all sure is true: Where the attack in question is intended to intimidate a minority group with less social power within a limited community this just isn't true. I am thinking of KKK attacks on a prominent black individual or family to make a point and subjugate a whole racial community in the proces. Or a similar style attack on a mixed race marriage to deter further such "abhorrant" occurrances. etc. etc. You know the very real and still all too prevalent kind of thing I am talking about.Similar situations could (and indeed do) arise when known gay pubs (for example) are repeatedly targetted by those who wish to eliminate such "offensive" establishments and practises from their small minded communities.In an ideal world there would be no crimes. In a not-very-but-slightly-more-ideal world crimes would never be motivated by such irrational prejudiced hatreds of minority social groupings.But in reality such occurrances do take place. And I don't see how the law can just ignore that fact if it wishes to deter such practises from taking place.Surely recognition of hate crimes is as much of a necessity as hate crimes are a fact of reality?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hey Oni
I am addressing this to you only because you seem up for the debate. It is a general statement of my position on this issue having thought about it a bit.A main point of disagreement here seems to be the application of the law as much as the law itself. To be convicted of a hate crime merely for getting into a fight with a guy who happens to be gay (for example) is patently ridiculous. But that is not what this is about. What this is about is the evidenced targeting of vulnerable minorities for the purposes of intimidation and subjugation.There was a special needs school down the road from my school when I was a kid. This school was the focus of much ire and prejudice. The kids were considered fair game by many. Yelled taunts and threats were an everyday occurrence. The school itself had broken windows from thrown stones and the walls and gates were covered with graffiti expressing such erudite witticisms as "Fuck Off Spaccers" and the like. Pupils, mentally and physically disabled kids, were regularly tormented and physically abused on their way to and from the school. It was all pretty nasty.Now we could have the law view this situation as a series of disparate offences. We could treat each incident as if it were a separate and random occurrence that just happens to have the same broad target. We could have the law treat each occurrence as an isolated event that is judged on it's own merits with no wider context involved. A bit of petty bullying here. A broken window there. No big deal.But from the perspective of the victims this was a relentless, systematic and concerted campaign of abuse and intimidation. A never ending attack borne of prejudice and the rule of mob law in which no one individual was wholly culpable or punishable. A situation in which the whole added up to something far more sinister and undesirable than the sum of the individual parts.So what do we do? Well we could require that the law reflect reality. We could require that the law see such attacks from the view of the victims who are not, in fact, subject to a string of random and unfortunate unrelated occurrences. But who are in fact being specifically targeted by the bigoted majority for being different in some way.Now my example involves a school and particularly vulnerable kids who blatantly need protecting from such bigotry. But I suspect we can all think of vaguely comparable potential examples pertaining to other social groupings. Social groupings who might be considered better able to defend themselves. But that just isn't the point. The same sort of treatment could be dished out to any minority social grouping by a large enough majority. And it isn't just about individuals. It is also about places of social gathering and the right to attend such places freely and safely under the law. A mosque. A gay bar. A wedding ceremony. An ethnic community. Whatever.The law has to reflect reality. If there is DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE that a minority or social grouping is being systematically targeted then as a society we have to stand up and say that this is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The laws must reflect this stance. And the punishments served out to those that infringe these laws must reflect this stance.I'll now get off my soapbox and leave others to ponder the merits or otherwise or my little rant.

Fear as much as actual violence is what we are talking about here. Subjugation and intimidation. This is the most important point. And you managed to entirely miss it. Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law needs to deal with reality. True. But being hounded for what you are is to be hounded for something that neither you nor anyone else can change. Living in fear of hatred is what we are trying to avoid here. Allowing people the freedom to be who and what they are, or choose to be, free from fear. Is that not a basic human right? Hate crimes infringe this basic human right. Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law needs to deal with reality. No. But A) This doesn't happen in reality. B) If it did happen in reality there are other practical measures that can be taken to resolve the underlying issue and change the situation. But disabled kids being abused because they are disabled cannot be made un-disabled. Living in fear of hatred because you are disabled is unjustifaible in a civilised society. Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law needs to deal with reality. Again this doesn't happen in reality. But whatever the social grouping being attacked and intimidated should be protected in my view. People should not have to live in fear. Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law needs to deal with reality. But being a member of a targeted group will inevitably affect your life in ways that don't even require you to experience abuse first hand. Fear of coming out regarding your sexuality. Knowing that you will be hated for the colour of your skin before you even step outside your front door. Knowing that you cannot congregate with those who are of the same religion or culture as you for fear of provoking attack. Being unable to practise the religion of your choice without facing intimidation. Living a double life or restricted life out of fear of violence. Etc. etc.The end point, the actual physical abuse suffered, is just the final and obvious part of the hatred in question. It is living under a cloud of fear and intimidation that we are ultimately trying to stop by implementing appropriate laws here. That is, if anything, more important. Giving people the freedom to be who and what they are or choose to be. Is that not a basic human right? But the threat of violence and abuse is equally, maybe even more so, important in these situations. It is about the human right to live your life as you choose within the law without fear and intimidation for being who and what you are. Giving people the freedom to do this. Is that not a basic human right? The elephant in your room is your complete unwillingness to deal with the main effect, and indeed aim, of hate crimes. Namely intimidation and subjegation.I think the teachers and pupils at that school I mentioned would disagree. I do too. Giving people the freedom to be who and what they are or choose to be free from fear. Is that not a basic human right? Did you read my post? Did I propose anything that would have restricted any thoughts you might wish to have or any words that you might wish to say? If so can you tell me where I said that specifically?Any laws applied badly will be bad laws. Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law needs to deal with reality.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think you are being melodramatic. I find it very hard to identify this poor terrorised majority that you refer to. This majority too terrorised to think or speak.I think badly applied laws will be bad laws. Always. The question is can laws against hate be applied such that they have the desired effect of protecting communities from fear without resulting in the sort of practical problems that you are suggesting. I think they can.Where there is clear evidence of a sustained campaign of hatred, where the crime in question is demonstrably part of a systematic targeting of a community to intimidate or change the bahaviour of that community then do you really think appropriate laws should not be applied? Are such cases not all too prevalent? Should we not accept this reality and set the law accordingly?When that known gay pub is vandalised for the upteenth time in succession, when the mosque is repeatedly plastered with anti-islamic graffiti before eventually being fire-bombed, when the kids at the special needs school are under blatant siege from local bigots.......Etc. etc. etc.In such circumstances the law needs to make it known that the clearly present bigoted prejudicial element to such crimes is abhorrant and that it will not be tolerated. Perpetrators should be deterred from such campaigns of hatred by the imposition of punishments that take this full context into account. And if the aim of imprisonment is to protect society then there is a far stronger basis for increased custodial sentances for those convicted of hate crimes than many of the other things we lock people up for. It isn't just a case of one-off bullying or a broken window and general vandalism. It isn't just a random act of violence. It is part of something wider. Something intolerable. And it should be treated as such.I am not talking about anyone being tried for a hate crime on the basis of a one off incident that has no context or history to clearly suggest it is a crime of hate. I am not talking about wild accusations and the assumption that every claim of hate is treated as true until proven otherwise. I am not talking about political correctness or any of your other personal bugbears.I am talking about situations where there is clear evidence of prejudice, intimidation and the desire to subjugate. How the hell is this going to condemn anyone for a "THOUGHT CRIME"? How the hell does this relate to you being "AFRAID" to express you opinion?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do you actually have any issue with hate laws in principle? Or is your opposition based solely on your media driven perception of how existing laws are being mis-applied in practise? You seem to be very much conflating the two. I don't recognise this bizzarre world you are describing. A bizzarre world in which the silenced majority are cowering in terror, unable to speak or think without fear of retribution from some sort of fascist-liberal elite. This is just hyperbolic drivel straight off the pages of the Daily Mail or the screens of Fox news. Of course you should be free to hate whoever you want. Of course I am talking about actions. But are you seriously denying that there are situations where campaigns of hatred are blatantly being waged in order to change the behaviour of, and thus restrict the freedoms of certain social groupings on the basis of deepseated irrational prejudice? Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality. If we already have de-facto hate laws in place that you accept then I fail to see what principled objection you might have to the laws under discussion. We can all agree that, if what you say is true, duplication is inefficient. But this hardly seems worth debating about. I thought your objections were more concrete? I think it would and should be very difficult to convict someone of a hate crime on the basis of a one-off incident if the law were as I am sugesting it should be. The evidence that it was in fact a hate crime would need to be very compelling indeed to even get to court under the sort of application of hate laws I am advocating here. If your only reason to oppose hate laws is paper inefficiency then I am not sure why you are bothering to debate about them. Are you making an ecological point about saving trees? I am saying that a sustained attack on a sub-community in order to intimidate and subjugate affects people well beyond an indiscriminate act of violence inflicted by one random individual on another. That such crimes are commited in a wider and more sinister context that has consequences and effects far more wide reaching than an isolated incident. I am saying that this context, if evidenced, must be recognised by the law. Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality.This is not just about an individual randomly robbing people. This is about living in fear. It is about the human right to live your life as you choose within the law without fear and intimidation for being who and what you are. Giving people the freedom to do this. Is that not a basic human right? Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality. But badly applied laws will be bad laws. So the question remains: Can hate laws be applied in such a way as to protect the basic human rights of everyone to be who and what they are or choose to be without also infringing on the rights of those who are not participating in discriminatory acts of intimidation and subjugation? I think they can. What do you think? You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Do you actually have any issue with hate laws in principle? Or is your opposition based solely on your media driven perception of how existing laws are being mis-applied in practise? You seem to be very much conflating the two.Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality. But badly applied laws will be bad laws. So the question remains: Can hate laws be applied in such a way as to protect the basic human rights of everyone to be who and what they are or choose to be without also infringing on the rights of those who are not participating in discriminatory acts of intimidation and subjugation?I think they can. What do you think?Edited by Straggler, : SpellingEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then you have misunderstood. Minority is a contextual and relative term. I would expect the same legal protection for a white family living in a black neighbourhood being demonstrably victimised on the basis of race as I would any other. I would expect the "hetero bar" persistently vandalised by rampant hetero-hating homosexuals to be equally as protected under the law as the more familiar opposite situation.The aim is not to identify specific social groupings and arrogantly prescribe that they are victims who require protection. The aim is to identify the fucked-up criteria upon which bigotry is commonly applied and then protect everyone from such bigotry. Thus we don't pass laws that protect blacks or hispanics. Instead we pass laws that protect people from being victimised on the basis of race. Thus we don't pass laws protecting homosexuals. We pass that laws that protect people from being terrorised because of their sexuality. If the blue-eyed are living in fear because of ocular hatred then we pass laws that protect people from eye-colour related hate crimes. You get the idea. If we could pass a single law that protected the rights of people to live without fear of being intimidated and victimised on the basis of all such irrational prejudices then we would. But alas that isn't how it works in practise.Instead we have to deal with reality. And the reality is that there are common bases for prejudice that people seem intent on comiting hate crimes in the name of. Race, religion, sexuality etc. etc. The law needs to reflect that reality. I think you are viewing this whole subject through the historical eyes of "minorities" who have been subjugated in the past but who (arguably) no longer are. You are looking at this from the point of view of those who would resent being considered as "victims" because they have fought long and hard to vanquish that reality. And I think I agree with you. But like I said this isn't about naming and shaming specific groupings. It is about protecting people within restricted communities. It is about acknowledging the reality of hate crimes and acting accordingly.Persistent vandalism of a mosque, relentless abuse and physical violence towards patrons of a gay bar etc. etc. In such situations the law should recognise that these are not isolated dispirate attacks. The law should acknowledge that there is a motive beyond a simple act of violence inflicted by one random individual on an establishment or other individual. The law should acknowledge that the whole is greater and more sinister than the sum of the parts. The law should acknowledge that those communities who wish to frequent these places of social congregation are having their freedoms denied through intimidation and subjugation.I am not saying that the Moslem world will be cowering in fear because one mosque persistently gets attacked. But the Moslem community in that neighbourhood is indisputably being targeted in a way that the law needs to be able to deal with. For example. You and I seem to mean completely different things by the term "minority". I mean the term entirely in the context of the crime. You seem to mean the term in a wider historical context that I don't see as particularly relevant (esp in relation to race) to modern laws. I think they were doing it because the kids were different in that they wre disabled and because they could get away with it. It certainly did send a message to the community that was that special needs school. The wider disabled community of Britain? I have no idea. I suspect most were blissfully unaware of the situation. But does that mean that hate rimes were not being comited? Does that mean that the disabled kids in that local community were not being intimidated and subjugated on the basis of a common prejudicail criteria? A criteria that the law chould reflect?I think once again we are talking in different contexts about what we mean by "minority" and what we mean by intimidating a sub-comunity. Bigots sieging a special needs school were subjugating the community that make up that school on the basis of a common prejudice. Attempts to close a mosque down by repeated attacks on it are an attack against the Islamic community in that neighbourhood. Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality. I have no idea what the true motivation for implementing hate laws is in the US nor how practically effective or otherwise they are. But as long as people are engaged in sustained campaigns to intimidate sub-sections of the community on the basis of common prejudicial grounds (race, sexuality, religion, whatever) the law needs to reflect that reality and deal with it accordingly.A sustained attack on a sub-community in order to intimidate and subjugate affects people well beyond an indiscriminate act of violence inflicted by one random individual on another. Such crimes are commited in a wider and more sinister context that has consequences and effects far more wide reaching than an isolated incident. I am saying that this context, if evidenced, must be recognised by the law. Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality.

Indeed. That is why it was called a terrorist attack. It was pretty effective at causing fear, changing behaviour and restricting people's freedoms as a result. In fact many of those restrictions on freedom are still arguably in place. Indeed. Because in the wider context the US is hardly a "minority" in the contextual sense I mean it. In fact Osama supporters would say that the West was the bully on the block and that it was the Islamic world that was fighting back rather than the other way round. I wouldn't agree with that assessment but that is another conversation. But my point is that this example hardly exemplifies the sort of situation that I think we require hate laws for. If you try to subjugate a section of society that has the where-withall to fight back you are more likely to start a never ending vendetta between two relatively equal "tribes".But the fag hating majority in a small community forcing the local gay bar to close, the local mosque being the persistent target for vandalism or the local special needs school being under siege from local bigots are hardly comparable to this situation.Once again I think we mean different things by "minority". I mean it entirely context based. You seem to mean it in some sort of historical racial sense. I am seeking generic but common causes of prejudice. You seem to be thinking of very specific past violations.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If the laws are the same I don't see your objection beyond inefficiency and paper waste. If the laws do have different efects then there is arguably a need for different laws. So which is it? Are they identical or are they different? I fail to see how taking motive into consideration is equivalent to convicting people of thought crimes? Motive is a key component in numerous criminal convictions for a wide range of offences. Are you saying that we should entirely remove motive from the legal landscape? If I alone start attacking people with long fingernails out of some irrational personal hatred then that is hardly recourse to create a hate law based on fingernail length. If said prejudice becomes a widespread social phenomenon then arguably such laws should apply. However I think this particular prejudice of mine is unlikely to catch on. The law needs to deal with reaity. Which is why I am asking you about the principle rather than the actuality (as you perceive it to be). Badly applied laws will be bad laws. That doesn't mean that hate laws in principle are wrong or unnecessary. You are conflating the principle with the (possible) poor application. Well what are they? Because you seem to be clutching at a rather random and dispirate selection of arguments that superficially support a preconceived opinion rather than having any coherent and principled objection. So you accept that hate crimes are a reality yet you seem reluctant for the law to reflect this reality. Even in principle. Why?Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality. But badly applied laws will be bad laws. So the question remains: Can hate laws be applied in such a way as to protect the basic human rights of everyone to be who and what they are or choose to be without also infringing on the rights of those who are not participating in discriminatory acts of intimidation and subjugation?You still have not answered this. Instead you have simply conflated the principle with your perception of bad application.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

But one individual attacking another individual is everything that I am NOT talking about here. A series of incidents against a localised sub-group in society is what I am talking about. If many Hispanics in a predominantly **insert race of choice here** neighbourhood are being blatantly targeted by the wider community in an effort to remove them are you seriously saying that the law should just treat each incident as a dispirate and unrelated isolated event? A piece of vandalism here. A random act of violence there. No big deal as far as the law is concerned? That the obvious pattern and targeting to inflict fear and subjugation should be ignored? That there is no wider context for the law to take into account? I am not just talking about the "weak". Who is weak and who is strong entirely depends on context and situation. Those who are prdominantly weak today may be the strong tomorrow. But acts of prejudice on common prejudicial grounds will remain a reality no matter who holds the upper hand at any given time. I am talking about confronting the reality that people are actively prejudiced on certain criteria that are demonstrably widespread in society. Race, sexuality, religion, etc. etc. I am talking about the need for the law to acknowledge that reality and deal with it. The specifics will change but the principles do not. Yet that mosque has been vandalised for the 3rd time this month and the 12th time this year. Yet the person caught this particular time pissing in the font and scrawling "Fuck Off Pakis" is just the latest to commit sucha crime. One of numerous incidents in a campaign of terror. So what do we do? Treat him as if he has just pissed and graffitied up any other random brickwall? Or treat his crime for what it actually is? Part of a sustained attack on a vulnerable localised sub group in society. Part of a sustained effort to subjugate on the basis of a socially common and easily identifiable prejudice?I am not advocating the laws as they (apparently - according to you and Legend) are being applied. I am asking if hate crimes are a reality in society. And if they are a reality I am asking why we would possibly not want the law to recognise this fact.A sustained attack on a sub-community in order to intimidate and subjugate affects people well beyond an indiscriminate act of violence inflicted by one random individual on another. Such crimes are committed in a wider and more sinister context that has consequences and effects far more wide reaching than an isolated incident. I am saying that this context, if evidenced, must be recognised by the law. Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality.

Then we are talking about an entirely different mentality as to what we mean by hate crimes. You seem to mean specifically **insert race here** requires protection. For example.I mean - Subjugation of a localised sub-group of a community on the basis of race (for example) will not be tolerated. But this doesn't reflect reality. Where there are campaigns of hate conducted by a localised majority in order to subjugate a localised sub-group this needs to be recognised.The guys who trash the local gay bar, the bar that has been the subject of vandalism and intimidation for many months in a persistent campaign of abuse and intimidation. The campaign that has the expressed intention of ridding the community of that "abhorrant" facility. This should not just be treated the same as random vandals doing random things.They are not random vandals. They are not comitting acts of random vandalism. Why would the law not acknowledge that simple evidenced fact?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do you consider all crimes that incorporate intent and motive as key components to be "thought crimes"? Do you oppose all such legislation on the same grounds? I am not claiming that my proposal as to how hate laws could be effectively implemented does reflect the current situation. Nor am I attempting to defend that current situation. I am not even claiming to hold any opinion at all on the current situation. I am asking the question as to whether such laws are necessary and can be made to work in practise. I think they are and that they can. What do you think? Really? How do you know this? Badly applied laws will be bad laws. Your perception is obviously that current laws are being applied badly. I don't claim to know whether this is true or not but frankly your black and white attitude doesn't fill me with much confidence that you do either. You continue to sound like a Daily Mail columnist or a Fox news presenter. Well do we already have laws that deal with genuine hate crimes of the sort I have given examples of? If we do why do hate laws exist all around the world? I would suggest that it is because hate crimes are a reality and the law needs to deal with reality. I would suggest that it is exactly because other laws do not deal with the reality of the situation sufficiantly. Why do you think there are seperate laws? You seem to be under the bewildering misapprehension that the term "hate crime" literally means that if it were possible to read the minds of people and find that they hate others that they would be automatically breaking the law. Can I just reassure you that this is not at all what is meant.As much as anything else you seem to have a problem with the actual use of the term "hate crime". If it were translated to the less snappy but more accurate (as I am proposing things anyway) "targeting with intent to to subjugate" would that help matters at all? People seem to have a deep inclination to violently discriminate against, and subjugate, each other on the basis of some near universal criteria. Race, sexuality, nationality and religion are probably the most obvious examples. These commonly identifiable criteria are the cause of widespread social disharmony and all too often the subjugation of localised minority populations.As long as there are common widespread and identifiable criteria upon which hate crimes are committed, laws that deal with such crimes specifically arguably have a role to play. Are other laws acknowledging the scenario as I described it? And NO I am not suggesting that the nation will erupt into a surge of hate related crimes if hate laws are removed. My view is that hate crimes exist and that they should be dealt with in the full context in which they are committed. I think such crimes would be rare but serious incidents. Incidents which should be punitively dealt with if sufficient evidence is available to demonstrate malevolent intimidatory intent beyond all reasonable doubt. Which part of that do you actually disagree with?Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality. But badly applied laws will be bad laws. So the question remains: Can hate laws be applied in such a way as to protect the basic human rights of everyone to be who and what they are or choose to be without also infringing on the rights of those who are not participating in discriminatory acts of intimidation and subjugation?You still have not answered this. Instead you have simply conflated the principle with your perception of bad application.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think we are still talking at contextual cross purposes. Before I begin let me say that your points about community leaders and solving problems outside of the law are good ones. But I don't think this negates the need for the laws in question. I will make my points in my usual forthright manner and then see where we get to. Some bigoted members of the wider localised community. If we are talking about national scale persecution of a national minority then you are dead right. But that is not what I am talking about. You seem determined to consider this in terms that relate to an entire specific race being persecuted on a national scale. I can understand why you are taking this historical view. But I am not sure how relevant it is in modern society. Bigotry seems much more localised. In such cases "minority" is a contextual relative term. A localised minority experiencing the very real threat of hate crimes may have no national relevance at all. Does it make the crimes in question any less hateful, malevolent or founded in bigotry? More importantly does it have any less intimidatory effect on the localised minority community in question? Is forcing the closure of a community place of social gathering (for example) any less an infringemnt of basic human rights than if it were a national scale "minority" facing a national civil rights scale problem? Not to the members of that community it isn't. Again you seem to be thinking in terms of historic large scale specifics whilst I am thinking in terms of localised generics. I am not viewing any one group as necessarily any more victimised or minoritised than any other. I am simply accepting the fact that people seem to have an inclination to violently discriminate against, and subjugate, each other on the basis of some near universal criteria. Race, sexuality, nationality and religion are probably the most obvious examples. These commonly identifiable criteria are all too often the attempted basis for subjugation of localised minority populations.The local mosque. The local gay bar. The local Catholic church. The local special needs school. The local refugee community. Whatever. There may be a wider national issue to address. Or there may not. I don't see that it should matter. If there is a campaign of hatred being waged on a localised sub-community on common prejudicial and identifiable grounds then the law should take that context into account. I think that is a very difficult situation in which to demonstrate clear intent. Possible. But it should need to be very well evidenced to secure a hate crime conviction in my view. This is not the clear attempt to subjugate a localised minority that I had in mind. It is the individual that goes to trial but it should be the full context of the situation that is bought to bear in my opinion. If the Mosque has been the focus of a clear and evidenced campaign by the wider local community to close that Mosque through intimidation, violence and vandalism then I think the law should take that into account. As a deterrent and statement of unacceptability in the first instance. And as a reflection of the true and more malevolent nature of the crime in the second instance. If such intent is sufficiantly evidenced. Ideally definitely. In the longer term - Yes I agree entirely. In the meantime unfortunately I think such laws are necessary. I think it acknowledges the reality of the actual situation at hand. It isn't a random isolated incident inflicted by one random on another. Why treat it as if it is? Motive is a key component in numerous criminal convictions for a wide range of offences. Are you saying that we should entirely remove motive from the legal landscape? Do you consider all crimes that incorporate intent and motive as key components to be unnecessary? Why is this different? Ideally yes. In reality I suspect the mosque in question is terrorised to the point of closure and the freedoms of the localised Muslim population compromised severely as a result. A handful of individuals are convicted for a few minor offences none of which reflect the true context or reality of the situation. Do you consider all crimes that incorporate intent and motive as key components to be wrong headed? That is exactly what I am not doing. Vulnerable is a contextual relative term in the same way that minority is. Hate laws are required because people seem to have a demonstrable inclination to violently discriminate against, and subjugate, each other on the basis of some readily identifiable near universal criteria. But who is "vulnerable" and who is the "minority" entirely depends on localised context. It doesn't? An attack in the wider context of a campaign of intimidation doesn't have a wider effect on the sub-community in question than a simple and isolated random act inflicted by one random individual on another? Really? I don't think that is an honest assessment of the full situation. Even if hateful intent and wider context are demonstrably evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt? I don't think so. Do you consider all crimes that incorporate intent and motive as key components to be unnecessary? Why is this different? Ideally it would help deter it from happening in the first place. And it may make society safer if those demonstrably determined to engage in intimidation and subjugation are recognised as having such inclinations through more severe sentencing. With this in mind I would definitely propose longer custodial sentences for those who commit crimes of violence that have a demonstrably evidenced hate crime elements to them. But only if intent is sufficiently evidenced.Motive is a key component in numerous criminal convictions for a wide range of offences. Are you saying that we should entirely remove motive from the legal landscape? Do you consider all crimes that incorporate intent and motive as key components to be unnecessary? Why is this different?Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and clarity

You seem very determined to view this debate in terms of predefined aggressors and victims. But that is not what this should be about. This should be about identifying those widespread and identifiable criteria upon which people seem predisposed to fuck each other up (yes that is the technical term for what I have thus far been referring to as "targeted subjugation"). Common identifiable criteria such as race, nationality, sexuality, religion etc. etc.Imagine a scenario where the actions of the US government result in widespread anti-Americanism amongst certain sections of British society. Imagine that a militant section of a local community take it upon themselves to vent this ire and hostility towards a particular American style diner run by a Yank and regularly frequented by many US ex-pats. Through simple word of mouth this establishment becomes the focal point of local tension and the subject of repeated vandalism and intimidation towards the owner and patrons. Acts of violence ensue, customers stop attending and if the situation continues the venue will go out of business and close down for good.Should these crimes be covered by hate crime laws? Yes. Does it matter here that the victims are predominantly white in a predominantly white nation? No. Does it matter that in global terms the victims are from the most powerful country in the world? No. Do we give a babboons ballsack that this is not the most common of racist or anti-nationalist scenarios? No. This is a susained attack on a localised sub-community on the basis of nationality. The criminal acts are NOT dispirate events that happen to have a common and unfortunate link between victims. They are NOT random isolated acts of violence between random individuals. There is a wider context. There is a wider motive. There is both intended effect and actual effect beyond that which is covered by standard laws. I am not going to get into a battle of dictionary definitions with you. But you are quite possibly right in your assessment. I have never met a bigot who didn't think they had a justifiable reason for their bigotry. I guess it broadly comes down to how rational the stated reason for hatred is. And that can be a very grey area.But there seem to be some near universal criteria upon which such bigotry is most commonly and universally derived. These are social phenomenon that arguably require legislation. Common identifiable criteria for hate related crimes such as race, nationality, sexuality, religion etc. etc. etc. This is what I have been arguing on the basis of. I am not interested in predefining victims. Why won't you believe that? I also gave the example of hetero-hating homosexuals. Why didn't you cite that one? Then I feel that I have been sucked into arguing in terms of your preconceived notions of what this is all about. Because that is seriously never what I intended here. You seem to be picking out certain examples when I have given numerous others and have explicitly stated that this is not about predefining who is the aggressor and who is the victim. Why are you so determined to view this in these terms? Again you seem resolutely determined to view this in terms of predefined aggressors and victims. Why? But to answer your question as honestly as I can in the spirit you intended it - In Britain in 2009 there are sections of society that are more often going to be the subject of hate crimes than others. Based on current racial demographics for example. Give it ten years and the situation will doubtless have changed. But you can pretty much guarantee that whilst the specifics of who is subjugating who will have changed people will still be fucking each other up ate the community level on the basis of race. The laws need to take that reality into account.By virtue of pure biological statistics gay communities are more likely to be the victims than the aggressors indefinitely. But as previously stated a contingent of marauding hetero-hating homosexuals should be subject to the same laws as the reverse. This is about identifying the common causes of bigotry not naming and shaming victims and agressors. Of course! And yet despite the complex cocktail of factors that undeniably underpin current social tensions the same old timeless criteria for bigotry will rear their ugly heads. Race. Religion. Nationality. Sexuality. Etc. These will remain largely constant. Hate laws should recognise the fact that subjugation occurs on identifiable common criteria but be blind to the temporal specifics. You continue to predefine who is "in" and who is "out". I am not interested in predefining aggressors and victims. Why are you? According to you hate laws are so ineffective as a deterrent as to be entirely redundant. According to Legend hate crimes are such a powerful deterrent that huge swathes of the population are living in terror of committting thought crimes as they innocently go about their daily lives. I lie somewhere in between the two of you. But I think a case can be argued in their favour and I don't see how we can know how effective or not they are until implemented adequately.At the end of the day I am a legal pragmatist. If laws don't have the desired effect then they should be changed or abandoned. But badly applied laws will be bad laws. My argument here is that hate laws have a role to play and can be implemented effectively. Au contrare. I am very intersted in resoving it. You seem to be assuming that the subjugating effects of violent discrimination operate only at the national level (i.e. at a level that requires a civil rights movement to fight for for an entire racial group). You seem to be assuming that there is no middle ground between this and acts of personal violence. But in todays society it is at the local community level that hate laws are most relevant. And it is at that level that the terms "minority" and "vulnerable" are entirely relative and contextual in meaning. Badly applied laws will be bad laws. I am talking about targeted subjugation. I am talking about wider context. I am talking about the reality of the situation. I am talking about intent evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt. Badly applied laws will be bad laws. I have no idea whether or not the US hate laws have been well implemented or not. But I agree with you that the situation you have described sounds wholly undesirable. But this is not what I am talking about. Is there a role for hate laws? Can they be effectively applied? I say yes and yes. You seem to disagree as much in principle as on the basis of currently badly applied laws. Is this the case? Oh for heavens sake. I am talking about demonstrable and evidenced intent here. As much as anything else you seem to have a problem with the actual use of the term "hate crime". If it were translated to the less snappy but more accurate (as I am proposing things anyway) "targeting with intent to to subjugate" would that help matters at all? Are you saying that such motived crimes do not occur? Or that such intent cannot be evidenced? Badly. But there is a lot of money in drugs and greed overcomes a lot of fear. There are also a lot of people who would sell drugs for the money if they weren't so fearful of the punishment for doing so. In a limited way (to friends and acquintances) I would myself. But as things stand I don't. Largely because of the law. How about you? Increase the sentences for selling and you will arguably scare off all but the most hard core sellers. But in reality the drugs trade is too structured and organised to be tackled that simply. Restricting hate crimes to those that are genuinely hateful rather than casually opportunistic however seems like a potentially viable aim. And then longer custodial sentences for those who persist in violent hateful acts of subjugation with the aim of protecting society. Which is what prison should ultimatley be for IMHO. How is being convicetd with intent to murder different in principle to being convicted for "intent to subjugate" or however you want to phrase what I am arguing for? Of course. A bigger issue that manifests itself as one of the usual criteria for bigotry. Race, religion etc. etc. Criteria that are enough of a social phenomenon at a community level to warrant legislature of the type I am proposing. Obvious differences are what people concentrate on. Not social complexities. Human nature I guess. Nor me. I am talking about rare well evidenced but very serious crimes that take the full context and motive into account. Not sentencing every kid with a spray can and an offensive turn of phrase to a life behind bars. Lets get some perspective here.Are you saying that such motived crimes do not occur? Or that such intent cannot be evidenced? Only a fool would claim anything else. And yet the effects of these social problems manifest themselves in terms of the usual forms of simplistic bigotry. Race, religion....you know the drill by now. Obvious differences are what people concentrate on. Not social complexities. Human nature I guess. Really? Places of worship, gay bars, ethnic communities are never the subject of persistent attack and attempted closure by some bigoted members of the wider community. This never occurs?What I am talking about are rare but serious offences. But to say that they never occur just seems naive. I am rationally agnostic as to how well any existing laws actually have been applied and how effective they have been. I am answering the OP in terms of: Is there a role for hate laws? Can hate laws be effectively implemented. My answers are yes and yes. I am trying to explain why and how I would do that. How are intent to commit murder and "intent to subjugate" (as I have described it) different in principle? If such intent can be evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt?Are you saying that such motived crimes do not occur? Or that such intent cannot be evidenced?

This is what I mean by "hate crimes": What do you mean? Well let me turn your drugs analogy on it's head here. Those who are opportunists but not committed to serious criminal intent will not risk punitive punishments by embroiling themselves in serious crimes. I won't sell drugs to my friends. Primarily because the law treats the selling of drugs as a very serious offence. The bored local kids with spray cans, an inventive turn of phrase and an aggressive demeanour won't target the Mosque that has been the focus of a wider campaign of bigotry. Because the hate law context means these crimes are taken more seriously.If those who are not fuelled by hatred but who might otherwise be tempted to take part in persecuting a localised minority purely because they are an easy target are deterred by the stigma and punishment of hate laws then the laws have succeeded. If those simply inclined to torment an easy taget avoid the focus of a wider campaign of bigotry because they don't want to be mistaken as being part of that then all well and good. Address the wider social issues? No. They need a seperate and more considered approach. Act as a deterrent? I think it does. Certainly in the sense of highlighting the seriousness of a crime to those opportunists who don't have serious criminal intent. As described above. And also below.There are all sorts of things I do, or don't do, because of the law. I wouldn't act as an international drug mule. And that isn't because the money isn't good. I pay my taxes, I wear a seatbelt, I don't drink and drive, I obey the speed limit(ish), etc. etc. etc. etc. Partly out of social conscience. But if I am honest with myself largely because of the law and the fear of the level of punishment imposed.As a counterexample I am quite happy to mountain-bike my way round London like a deranged kamikaze on amphetamines displaying a complete disrespect and total disregard for the rules of the road. Why? Because on the whole the police don't care and when they do decide to tackle my blatant indiscretions the result is an occasional nominal fine and nothing more. If the punishments were harsher and the law actually enforced I would change my behaviour.I believe that people are innately moral in many ways. But I am also of the strong opinion that a society removed of laws and deterring punishments would be a place of complete chaos and bedlam. So to say that laws and punishments have no deterring effect is frankly just silly. And once we have eradicated poverty, solved all of societies ills and removed the need for any laws at all we will live happily every after. Meanwhile over here >>> in the real world: We should try and tackle the realities of socially destructive prejudice operating at the local community level.If community leaders were that effective at preventing crime within their communities we would have little need for many laws. Not just hate laws. The fact is that those who are widely acknowledged as community leaders tend to represent the more moderate elements of their communities. This by definition is not the target group who need to be reached if hate crimes are to be deterred. Also many sub-communities do not have recognised local community leaders who are in a position to fight for their rights at the required social level. Finally, on a purely anecdotal note, I have found those who self appoint themselves as community leaders to be more interested in their own wider political aspirations than the genuine wellbeing of the communities that they proclaim to represent. Wouldn't it be ironic if we ended up hating each other over an argument about hate crimes? Only kidding. Not gonna happen. Pull no punches. As fervent as I get in these debates I participate here primarily for entertainment. A good ding dong is all part of the fun.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Killing? Well take the extreme example why not? Once someone is willing to kill on the basis of irratiobnal hatred they are probably a lost cause to deterrents and the law in general. I am talking largely about lesser crimes here. Vandalism and violence with the intent to intimidate a localised sub-community. "Targeted subjugation" as I have taken to calling it. Why is a violent act with intent to murder any less of a "thought crime" than a violent act with the intent to intimidate those other than the actual individual victim? If intent in both cases is sufficiently evidenced?Do you consider all crimes that incorporate intent and motive as key components to be "thought crimes"? Do you oppose all such legislation on the same grounds? Are you saying that people don't commit crimes that have intended and actual effects that are more far reaching than two random individuals in an isolated event? Are you saying that "targeted subjugation" does not occur. Ever. That it is an unheard of social phenomenon?As much as anything else you seem to have a problem with the actual use of the term "hate crime". If it were translated to the less snappy but more accurate (as I am proposing things anyway) "targeting with intent to to subjugate" would that help matters at all? And by this I mean targeting on the basis of a socially widespread and identifiable prejudicial criteria (race, nationality, sexuality etc.) in order to subjugate a localised sub community.If you are gonna *cough cough* your questions you are gonna need to start answering mine.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and clarity