Hate-crime = Thought crime?

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

Right, but how does it differ from any other crime, and how does treating it as simply a 'crime' make the law less effective?Also, who decides the intention behind any single crime before it goes to trail, and how does anyone know for a fact that it is due to "hate" vs any other factor...? (this is a bit rhetorical) My point is, it becomes black and white. Attack a mosque = hate crime - attack a gay bar = hate crime. But my motive and intentions could have nothing to do with my opinion of the people, respectively. So it can get misclassified. However, now there is a divide in the community for no reason other than speculation.It seems pointless to address the motive in these cases when it has no effective results.If I'm being harassed, attacked, property being vandalised, etc., what difference does it make if the person is doing it because I'm hispanic or because they just don't like me? I just want the issue resolved, and establishing the motive seems rather trivial. It should, and in a black and white world this would be easy - someone regularly vandalises a mosque, they automatically "hate" muslims - but it is never that cut and dry. No one from the outside looking in can establish that motive without a doubt, even when viewing the evidence. The motive is still subjective, and given to the case by those who do nothing more than view the evidence in black and white.Perhaps the people who go to the mosque park in my driveway every day. Maybe they act like assholes when they walk by my house and mess with my kids, or approach them and try to preach to them. Maybe I believe Bush an consider all Muslims terrorist. Maybe, maybe, maybe...There are a number of reasons why someone would hate someone else, yet this motive is irrelevant.Someone vandalised the mosque, that is the crime. And that is all the law should address. Trying to establish the "motive" is for public relation purposes only.Like with my example in high school, when we had blacks vs hispanic day; someone looking from the outside in can establish a motive that doesn't reflect the reality of the situation, yet does sound like the right motive.Again, we play a dangerous game when we try to establish motive from the outside in. There could be a number of reasons for someones actions. Fair enough. This is not "hate" ... this is the strong taking advantage of the weak - seniors do this to freshman all the time. But not one of hatred. Wait, they were being intimidated, just as the freshman get intimidated by the seniors in high school - strong dominate the weak, that's just the way it goes. But this is NOT hate, and calling it a "hate" crime is mislabelling it. Kids were taunting and tormenting weaker kids .. c'mon Straggler, this is NOT a "hate" crime.If this is a hate crime, then a wedgie to a freshman is a hate crime. How PC are we gonna get? Here again, you have NO idea what the intentions or reasons behind the attacks are ... it is a subjective interpretation of a situation from the outside in.Attempts to close a mosque down could be to build a movie theater on that real estate - who knows and who cares, it doesn't change anything. Someone commited an act of vandalism, that is what the law should take action against.What is the law supposed to do, let the community of Muslims know, "hey, here's a hate crime and we are doing something extra about it"...? It's a bogus attempt to establish a motive for PR and PC reasons. And, what if they are wrong in their interpretation? That just further raises the tension between the groups that live together. Now the Muslism in that area feel people "hate" them because of their religion, they may attack back. But it had nothing to do with hate, just some real estate douch bags that wanted their property.Do you see my point?It gets pointless and problematic to try and establish these motives. I agree, but the whole "campaign" is viewed subjectively. The fact is, the motive and intentions behind the crime is not known to anyone off-hand, nor does establishing it help in the long run help to deter "hate" crimes. So what's the point?Also, mislabelling it can have unnecessary reprecussions in the community (like claiming that those kids "hate" the disabled - or falsely claiming that a white person "hates" all black people) so it causes more harm than it helps. Pure speculation, Straggler. Yes, but the law can also create a false reality using black and white procedures. Attack a mosque = hate crime - attack a gay bar = hate crime. How does the law know that, maybe I just want their land?Now, here's the question, if my motive was real estate, should I get a lesser punishment because my motive was real estate related?See, it's all inconsistent when you break it down away from the black and white, classical "minority" outlook.If I attack a mosque on a daily basis, with classic "hate" crime actions, however, my motive is to drive them out because I want to put a movie theater in that location - in other words, I don't hate Muslims, you feel the law should be less for me.However, if another person does the exact same thing, but you can't find any other motive other than he may hate Muslims, now you feel the law should be harsher.Why...? It all seems pointless and too far to go to deter nothing in the end.- Oni

Now, was this due to the act itself, or the media-hyped aftermath that took place?People feared Muslims, they feared flying, they feared another terrorist attack - why? Because that's what the TV told them.We created the intimidation factor ourselves. Exactly.Many in the Islamic world saw things differently; many had a different opinion about the motive behind Bin Laden's actions. Yet you do not agree. The motive is subjective, right?Now, whether the motive was how you see it, or how many in the Islamic world see it, does it lessen the actions of 9/11...?Say we found out that the motive behind the attacks is because Bush himslef shot one of Bin Laden's sons ... would you then be OK with the attacks on 9/11?I would guess that you would not be - point is, the motive is irrelevant. Fuck, you almost nailed it. If the MEDIA (and by media I mean any form) can show that a certain group is trying subjugate a section of society (that in todays society has the ability to fight back) you create a never ending vendetta between two relatively equal groups. This is my whole problem with "hate" crimes. The motive is irrelevant, these are crimes and should be treated equally as any other crime regardless of the motive. Just as in my example of 9/11.- Oni

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.

No you haven't. All you've done is to keep asserting your wild inference that people who oppose hate-crime laws must also passively support terrorism. Which is total bollocks based only your own prejudice and nothing else. Of course I did say it, you know I did say it and I will keep saying it. Just because I'm supporting that hate-crime labels detract from the real crime doesn't mean that I'm advocating terrorism, not by any kind of logical inferencing, not by a long shot. Just because YOU are -by sleight of hand- associating hate-crime laws with anti-terrorism laws doesn't mean that MY rejection of one necessitates rejection of the other. YOU are the one making false inferences, YOU are the one who has to deal with YOUR own false conclusions. ...huh?!...errr......no. when I denigrate hate crimes laws I denigrate hate crimes laws. Period. If you really want to connect my rejection of the validity or necessity of hate-crime laws with advocating terrorism, you'll have to show where I said or implied that people who commit crimes in order to intimidate others shouldn't be punished. Post and paragraph please! ...double huh?!....errr... you're forgetting about the 3000 first-degree murders?... surely you must have heard about this 9/11 thing? some people flew planes into a tall building full of people. Which shows that they intended to kill those people. Which makes it first-degree murder. It's simple really, I don't know why you're all confused about that. What's his message got to do with the punishment he should receive? Who the hell cares what his message was? 3000 people died here, surely that's enough to punish anyone many times over. If he was a climate-change activist and his message was a warning to the biggest-polluting nation in the world would it have made anything any better? Would anyone have suffered less, would anyone fear less, would anyone hurt less? He's a mass-murderer, let's try him as one. it's as simple as that. You're falsely trying to associate hate-crimes with terrorism. This is what the UK government defines as hate-crimes:

quote:

---

A hate crime is any criminal offence that is motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victim’s:

​

* disability
* race
* religion or belief
* sexual orientation
* transgender

---

As you can see, you don't have to try to instill terror in order to be accused of a hate crime. Your supposition is just a red herring. The difference is only one of perception. The motive of the attack makes little difference on the victim. A rape victim feels the same regardless of whether they've been raped because they wore the 'wrong' clothes or because they were the 'wrong' race. What is there to gain by calling it a 'hate-crime' other than alluding some extra significance to the race/religion/sexuality of the victim ? 'Terrorism' is a loaded and ambiguous term. If by 'terrorism' you solely mean intending to instill fear in or influence a specific group/community then yes, it is. No. No crime should be punished for its motive. That would be true even if 'terrorism' had clearly defined boundaries and no political connotations. Which it hasn't.

---

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

I'm not following a few things here.... Right, but carried out by who? An individual? An organization? All of the above? No. Not at all. You just described the need for the civil rights movement.What you are talking about is, should we recognize that a portion of "people" are being targeted by a larger postion of "people"... of course we should. If there is blatant racism/bigotry/whatever toward an entire group by another more powerful group, that is discrimination and we should address this with a large campaign to correct that situation.What I am talking about are specific incidents by one person to another person because there is a presumed racism or bigotry on the basis of their skin color, religion, sexual preference, etc.That is what I mean by "hate" crime.Example: Someone is vandalising the local mosque. This individual is caught. This person gets tried with a "hate" crime.It is the individual that goes to trail, period. The law...? That depends on what you mean by "the law"...?Should cops recognize that there is tension between two, or many, groups living together, competing for jobs, apartments, a place in society - that there may be resentment, jealousy, contempt toward individual groups that have had history before? Yes, cops should consider this.Should the judicial system consider this...? NoThey are there to judge the case individually. They are there to see if you broke the law, regardless of motive. Lawyers can address motive to get a guilty verdict if they like, good, that's their job. But the law has no need for motive.What I mean by "law" is the punishment that we give the individuals who have been convicted of the alledged "hate" crime - since this is the only place the "law" is relevant. It is there to give a harsher punishment for the purpose of deterence - which it does not do.What should be done is a campaign by elected officials, community leaders and the community itself, to address and try to resolve the tension before it becomes a bigger problem. That's how you fix things, not by signalling out the crimes as "worse" and inflicting a harsher punishment, nor by giving it the euphamism "hate crime"as though it means something significant.Problem is, these things actually require an investment to the cause, a comitment to fix the situation, instead of just pilling on more prison time. Its easy to pill on the extra prison time and turn our backs on it as though something was accomplished. I'm not saying the law shouldn't address the incident, and pursue those who commited the offence and place them on trail, but don't call it anything different - don't give it a pointless, useless euphemism - it doesn't help - and, mislabelling it can cause more tension. Yes - Treat them as though they pissed and graffitied up a brickwall. How do you think it helps to treat it otherwise?Its as though you want the law to show prejudice on specific walls. That is not the job of "the law," that is up to the people in the community, that is the job of the elected officials of the town. Not the "law". It could be for any reason - it doesn't matter in regards to the law and how punishment should me administered.And again you use the word "vulnerable" as though a specific individual or group in society is any more vulnerable than any other ... this does NOT represent our current society. You introduce that word as though it makes the crime worse. It does not. Because it makes the law itself look prejudice toward any one act -vs- any other. Vandalism is vandalism, the punishment for it should be equal across the board. This is the job of "the law." Now the elected officals, community leaders, etc., should address the issues in their towns. Punishing someone harder doesn't deter it from happening again.- Oni

And your perception of the law doesn't reflect the actual law. As I've already shown you, any crime that's considered racially/etc motivated is tagged as a 'hate' crime. No evidence of 'campaign' or 'subjugation' is needed. All it takes is for the individual to claim that it was racially/etc motivated and you will be charged with a 'hate'-crime. And it's not. There are anti-harassment laws -among others- specifically for such situations. You have to ask yourself: if we already have laws that deal adequately with such incidents, then what's the point of 'hate'-crime laws? They have no practical benefit as far as I can see, they don't alleviate the victim's condition, there's no evidence that they deter the perpetrators, what's the point of having them? They are -at best- an ill-thought out piece of redundant legislation or -at worst- a tool of suppression of the freedom of expression and a weapon against 'incorrect' thinking. If you have other plausible explanations please fee free to put them forward. Current laws are already acknowledging that without the introduction of 'hate'-crime laws. You're making it sound as if without 'hate'-crime laws people would be running riot beating up their gay neighbours and burning down mosques, which is blatantly false.Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

---

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

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

Well let's see : there is an automatic life sentence for murder, minimum three years for third-time burglary, so on so forth. If you think that there is a need for different sentencing for people who commit such crimes motivated by racial or other hatred then you obviously believe that the existing sentences are not enough to deter the perpetrators or future perpetrators.So then please explain:
(i) why do you think that a racist killer needs to punished more than, say, a contract killer? Is killing because of hatred more 'evil' than killing for money?
(ii) if you find current sentencing inadequate and not deterrent enough then why aren't you campaigning for stricter sentencing rather than for introducing 'new' crimes. This way, *everyone* would benefit, not just people who are victimised because of their race or religion. Taking motive into consideration in order to establish guilt is fine and I'm not objecting to it. Punishing people for their motive is quite a different thing, as often the motive is no more than the thought/feelings of the perpetrator towards the victim. Now, someone who commits a crime because of race hatred is being already punished for his act, so surely his thoughts should be left alone, no matter how abhorrent they may be, don't you think? I don't know of any other crimes where the motive is judged and punished, do you? People go down for murder, not for "murder due to jealousy", or "murder due to greed". Punishing the motive, which often consists of the opinion/feelings of the perpetrator towards the victim, is a sinister new step in the history of our judicial and criminal system. [sigh]....no, as I've already mentioned at least three times in my replies to Rrhain: Motive is used to show guilt and is not punishable, Intent is used to classify the severity of the crime and is therefore punishable. 'Hate' crime laws are now punishing Motive, on top of Intent. Yes! You should be free to think whatever you want and express whatever opinion you want without fear that it will be used against you in punishment. You missed the point: the reality is that not so long ago black people were segregated. Many people were publicly claiming that other races and women were inferior. Homosexuality was illegal. What's acceptable in a society keeps changing fairly frequently. While your opinion and principles may today considered to be 'correct' and 'right on', tomorrow could be deemed unacceptable. And as long as your thoughts and opinions don't get punished then that's not a problem. If however the line is crossed whereby we find it ok to punish thought and opinion then not even you, my friend, will be safe for long. We had this discussion on another thread about 'positive action' laws. My position then, as it is now, was that if a law harms more people than it benefits, is redundant and is ambiguous and open to mis-application then it's a bad law and should be abolished. Go to Message 106 and Message 13. I'm tired of repeating myself. But 'hate' crimes arent a reality! They are just labels that you attach to REAL crimes like murder, assault and vandalism in order to make them seem worse than they really are. And guess what? The law *already reflects* this reality: there are already punishments for murderers, vandals and thugs. Does the motive make a murder worse than it already is? Does someone who got beaten up feel worse because his attacker's motive was hatred? You seem to think so, please explain your reasoning as I, for one, find it truly absurd.

---

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

Ok. But it seems like you are using the word "bigot" quite losely. Then choose your words carefully, because that's what it sounds like.You said: "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..."You describe the exact same scenario that lead up to the civil rights movement. Exchange hispanic with 'black' and you're describing America a few years back. Well sure, but lets get real. Except for your special needs school, which I do not consider it a crime motivated by "hate," who are predominantly the "minorities" in question? Right, and I agree.But this is not due to a "hatred" toward these groups, there are many other factors to consider. Immigration problems, lack of work, competion for these jobs, etc. You continue to look at it from the outside in.This is why I say that a harsher punishment does absolutely nothing, all it does is give the false sense that something is being done to deter the actions of these few bigots. Then you are not truly interested in resolving it, and are satified knowing that they're gonna get a harsher punishment. Personally I feel this is a dismisive attitude. Exactly, but yet the "law" takes it upon themselves to try and demonstrate it. You are on trail for a hate crime whether the intent was there or not.This is where there can be repercusions in the community, when crimes get labelled "hate" crimes. If this is an issue in a small town between a black person and a white person, mislabelling it a hate crime can have grave ramifications. In the trail, sure. But how can you ask the law to inflict a harsher punishment on the individual? This is letting your personal emotions get in the way. The person is on trail for what they did, not for what else is happening around them. How well is that war on drugs doing? Since they use this exact same strategy as you propose.Maybe if we increase the jail sentence more for drug offenders it will deter people from selling drugs? ... Bad idea Straggler, both for drugs and to deter crimes motivated by "hate". Thats the point though. With the laws in place, that do nothing other than give more jail time to someone, it gives the false sense that something is being done, so no other action is taken.There is no long term plan. The plan is, increase the sentence and that should resolve the issue. But it doesn't. Right, it is a component when convicting, but it should not weigh in for the punishment. Motive and intent is used by the lawyers to get a conviction. If there is a full scale campaign to intimidate a group of people, the reasons are just "I hate them," there is a bigger issue at hand. You can sentence people to life in prison and you will not resolve the real issue.I'd like to know however where this is taking place? All I ever see are isolated incidents. Maybe repeat incidents in the same places, but its not comparable to what blacks went through, or what gays go through with marriage issues.At least where I live, gay bars are not being burned down everyday, not even once every few months. I don't see churches burned down everyday in a localised area, or a race of people being violently attacked everyday.There is an issue with Musilms in your country, from what I've read, but if you hear the arguments from the side opposed to them being there, it has nothing to do with pure "hate". You must admit, there are other factors involved. It never is, not these days. And if you do successfully prove it, then what? You issue the person a harsher punishment, lock them up, throw away the key and feel as though something was done? That's a dismisive attitude. Can you give me one other example where this was an effective measure to take?My example on the war on drugs shows differently. Intent and motive are key components in convictions, yes, and that is the only place where they are key components.- Oni

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?