Hate-crime = Thought crime?

Obviously. Well that is not exactly what I said now is it? Like I did say I think people are basically innately moral. I don't think that a recinding of murder laws would result in a everyone killing each other willy nilly. Nor a recinding of rape laws result in women everywhere having to flee the country for safety. For example. But that doesn't mean that we don't need murder laws or rape laws now does it?Why do you pay your taxes in full and on time? Social obligation? A personal devotion to paying your way in society? Or punitive measures taken against tax evaders? If you were offered a million dollars to transport a suitcase of drugs to Europe would you do it? No? Why? Because you are morally opposed to drug use? Don't make me chuckle! You wouldn't do it because you would be royally screwed if caught. Why do you not smoke in public places? Why do you obey speed limits, not drive when drunk and wear a seatbelt? Your inherent internal morality saying "No Oni that would be soooo wrong"? Let's get real here.Do those intent on genuine hate crimes think that what they are doing is wrong and morally unjustifiable? No. They think they are righteous and justified in their actions. That is the problem. That is why the laws are needed. To impose the moral standards of society on those who are not going to adhere to them of their own accord. Well something is being done. But that is not the same as solving the underlying problems. Nor should it ever be viewed as such. On that at least we wholeheartedly agree.But is this the fault of the laws under discussion? Or the short sighted and lazy nature of politicians and self anointed "community leaders"? Anyone genuinely informed of the real issues and who genuinely cares would know better than to stop at the point of implementing a few laws. That is the same for any complex social issue. Not just hate crimes. But do you really think if we get rid of hate laws those same short sighted and lazy administrators will suddenly sit up and start tackling the real issues? You are too cynical to be that naive. Hate laws are a tool in the eternal fight against prejudice. Not the final solution to anything at all. I just spat my beer across the desk. Note to self - Never read an Oni post with a mouth full of beer. Hate based hilarity may ensue.Be good Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But who here is claiming that?What if rather than an individual rapist it is a loose contingent of rapists whose ultimate aim is not rape per se? What if the evidenced aim of these bigots is to intimidate and subjugate local women into not leaving the house because they believe all women are sluts who need to be socially controlled? What if this intimidatory tactic is successful in it's intended effects? Effects that lie well beyond the crime against any one individual woman. Effects that intimidate and subjugate all the women in that community. I am desperately stretching the anolgy here to fit your example but surely you get the point? Punish the crime as if it were an isolated individual event between two random individuals. Yes. Punish the actual crime being committed with subjugating intent and wider effects taken into account? No. Perhaps it is the name you object to? How about "With intent to subjugate"? Does that make a difference? Badly applied laws will be bad laws. But are you really disagreeing with hate laws in principle as I have described them? Or with (your perception of) current application? Are you saying localised subjugating situations do not exist? That such intent cannot be evidenced? Or that wider community context should have no bearing on such issues? Is intent to subjugate important in terms of practical difference to the society and communities that laws are supposed to protect? Or not?What exactly is your objection here? I think laws are part of the solution. Not THE solution. I don't think a few laws will solve any complex social problem. But nor do I think those who should be tackling complex social problems are going to suddenly start doing so because band-aid laws don't exist. A band-aid is a poor solution. But better than ignoring an infected wound and letting it go gangrenous.And this argument applies to ALL laws (supposedly) dealing with complex social environments. Not just hate laws. I disagree but see where you are coming from. But is that now your only objection? That such laws allow stupid and lazy administrators to devolve responsibility? Because if so I think there are better ways of tackling that particular problem than just recinding hate laws that are having some deterring effect in the meantime. I don't believe the world is so filled with genuine haters. Some. But not many. Most "haters" are just opportunists and weak willed bullies who target the vulnerable in their localised communities. I believe that they can be deterred by the seriousness of crime, related social stigma, and harshness of punishment that hate laws facilitate. But those determined to commit genuine crimes of hate will do so. And, if evidenced as such, the should be punitively dealt with to protect society.As much as anything else I think hate laws help seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms of true bigotry and casual opportunists. True. True. I don't disagree with much of your analysis. Just your eventual conclusion regarding the need (or otherwise) for the laws in question.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and stuff

If it can be evidenced that they are persistently committting such crimes with the wider intent of intimidating a sub section of society rather than just the directly affected individuals - Then yes. Well if the persecution of localised communities of self declared bored people becomes a common and identifiable social phenomenon then maybe we should consider legislating against that actuality. But as things stand I hardly think this is a justifiable or necessary legislative course of action. Do you?Grow up Legend. If you wanna know what I think read my posts to Oni and stop spouting ill informed drivel.

Which part of this are you too stupid to understand?If Catholics (for example) are being targeted with the intent to remove them from the local community or restrict their rights in any way then the exact thought processes of the perpetrators are irrelevant. Your whole "thought crime" paradigm is just wrong headed drivel.Are Catholics being targeted because those targeting them hate Catholics? Or because they were bored and specifically decided to target the Catholics in the community for no other reason than boredom? Or because Puff the magic dragon appeared in a vision and told them that they had to target Catholics to get to Puffy Paradise? Who gives a fuck why in the ridiculous terms you are trying to impose on this issue?The point is that a sub-section of the local community are being intentionally targeted and intimidated in a manner that is not reflected by the indivudual crimes being committed against individual members of that sub-community. "Targeted Subjugation" as I have called it throughout this thread. And as you have repeatedly failed to address.Beating up Catholics and vandalising their houses with anti-Catholic slogans and propaganda are NOT just acts of random assault and vandalism. How the fuck does it help anyone to ignore this fact and carry on as if these were isolated incidents committed by one random individual on another?What is your actual poistion here? Because in one post you are arguing that hate laws are completely ineffective as a deterrent and yet in the next you are making the media led assertion that people are being deterred even from thinking and speaking freely because they are terrified of committing hate crimes. Can you not see the blatant contradiction in these two positions?Do you actually have a coherent argument? Or are you just grasping at random and contradictory post-hoc rationalisations of an ill considered preconcieved position?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You are. My entire argument can be summed as "Evidenced intent to subjugate". Yet you reject it on ideological grounds. Do a search on this thread for posts with the word "intent" in them and I think you will find that you are indisputably wrong. Regardless of motive for doing so (Mommy didnt love me, they get all the jobs, Puff the magic dragon told me to do it) do you recognise that committing a crime against an individual with the wider intent to intimidate a sub-community can both exist and be evidenced?If not why not?Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

Which races are being more valued in terms of the law?Be specific.

Yes let's keep thinking. Which are the "protected classes"?Be specific.

I am not gonna disagree with you on that in the most generic of senses.But how do you think "hate laws" specifically benefit these people over any other? Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

One of the things with really malevolent bigotry is that it's meaning and intent needs to be known to be effective. If burning crosses didn't have the desired effect of making an intimidating point to a wider community then why bother even do it? Such an act would be reduced to a sort of calling card that does nothing but help the police identify and track down the perpetrators in question.It's about intent. And I would say the intimidating effect of acts of targeted subjugation are well evidenced. Historically, culturally and psychologically.No crime operates in a vacuum of all objective evidence

Again you seem to be thinking about this in very defininte historical and national terms with very definite predefined ideas about who is the aggressor and who is the victim on that same historical basis. Partly because of the example in question admittedly. But I cannot help thinking partly because you just cannot get over a certain idea of what this is "really" about.I think we may have two opposing and irreconcilable views of what this is actually about. You seem intent (correct me if I am wrong) on seeing this as white well meaning but misguided middle class liberals patronisingly labelling specific sections of current society as victims. I on the other hand see this as the pragmatic and necessary confrontation of timeless and universal yet unsavoury aspects of human nature. Namely the fact that we as a species have a proclivity to gang up on each other on the basis of certain very predictable criteria. Indeed.But these things change all the time. Social demographics change. Social attitudes change. The law needs to be blind to the specifics of who is attempting to subjugate who at any given time and simply deal with the fact that people will keep subjugating each other on the same old criteria. I am not just talking about the 50s. I am talking about the entirety of human history.Now where have I heard that before......?

If a criminal act is committed with the evidenced intent of intimidating or restricting the rights of a group of people within society do you think that the law should take this context into account?I am not talking about your perception of the application of current laws. I am asking you whether in principle it is possible and effective to to treat crimes that have an intended and actual intimidatory effect on a community beyond the individual target of the crime in question.And while I am here can I ask what you think differentiates a "terrorist attack" from just "an attack"? What exactly is the difference between the two?Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

Calm down Legend. You appear to be very full of hate. I'll have to send the thought-police round if you carry on like this. There is evidenced intent to intimidate and eradicate an entire group of people from the local community and you want to convict for harrassment? If a different member of the local Catholic community is beaten up each time who is being harrassed? In the terms of the laws you are advocating as adequate to deal with this situation. Tell me Legend how do you deal with this situation? Do you really think that evidenced intent to intimidate an entire community and the specific reason that you don't like somebody are the same thing? Can you really not see the difference? Are they really identical in Legend's fantasy land?Did you read the section of the post you are replying to? Have you read any of that which has been said to you previously? Are you being willfully ignorant? Do you know what intent is? Er no. Wider intent to intimidate. You are obviously still very confused by your conflation of concepts.Do you really think that evidenced intent to intimidate an entire community and the specific reason that you don't like somebody are the same thing? Indeed. The reality that there are crimes commited that have an intended and actual intimidatory effect more far reaching than the crime against the individual in question. I have called it "targeted subjugation" in this thread. Are you saying that such situations do not occur in reality?If a criminal act is committed with the evidenced intent of intimidating or restricting the rights of a group of people within society do you think that the law should take this context into account? If not why not? Your warped perception of how hate laws have been applied is not the underlying issue here. But let's consider your contradictory views on detterent a bit further.If you were a bored teenager with a spraycan would you go and vandalise the local church that has been the repeated target of real bigots? Or would you think that being convicted of a hate crime just isn't worth it and choose somewhere else. Leaving the targeting to those who really mean it?If hate crimes didn't exist do you think bored teenagers might just be tempted to join in with the persecution of a localised minority?Do hate laws have any effect on restricting hate crimes to those who are genuinely involved in targeted subjugation? Or is your view so warped that you think everyone who would never commit any such crimes lives in terror of thinking whilst all those who might will just carry on regardless?

I draw it at evidenced intent to intimidate those beyond the direct attack.You?

Motive? Or intent?Do you see any difference at all?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think you have it the wrong way round.My intent may be to to eradicate Catholics from my local community. Whilst my motive may be that Puff the Magic Dragon told me that I would only go to Puffy Land if I met his wishes to subjugate and eradicate Catholics in my community.To put it bluntly you have your definitions arse over tit.