Hate-crime = Thought crime?

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"

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"

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"

I've also pointed that out a dozen times or more on this thread to both Straggler and Rrhain. They just totally ignore it and move on as if it just doesn't invalidate a major part of their argument.

---

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

---

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

So, do you think that someone who breaks a house window because he doesn't like the race of the family inside should be punished more than someone who breaks a house window for other reasons? If yes, why? [sigh].....[bangs head against wall]......for the 10th time on this thread- they're *both* the same violent act with the same Intent: to murder. The only difference is that they have different Motives. The question is: Why do you think we should start punishing people for their motive? Should we also have "Actual Bodily Harm because of a spilled pint"? What about "vandalism due to boredom?" You've already asked me and I've already replied at least twice to you alone. 1) Intent is treated differently to Motive. Hate crimes are the only crimes where Motive gets punished. 2) I oppose all legislation which criminalises or otherwise inhibits/prohibits peoples' thoughts, opinions and feelings.It seems as you've lost your reading/comprehension ability. Is it the beer? Of course they do. Does it mean that the motive makes the crime worse than it already is? Does someone who got beaten up feel better if their attacker's motive wasn't "subjugation" ? As someone who's been beaten up twice I can tell you that they don't. Show me how hate crime laws actually benefit anyone. No I'm not. What's this got to do with punisihing motive? or anything else? It's a horrific misnomer but that's only a small part of my objection to these laws. It would as long as there also was "targeting with intent to rob", "targeting with intent to intimidate", "targeting just for the hell of it", etc.Also, do you think it would cover school bullying? Because bullies are "targeting with intent to to subjugate" you know! Unlike you, I have been. Multiple times. Now can you show me how hate-crime laws make anything better?

---

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

Someone who is persistently committting such crimes will be convicted on multiple counts of that crime.
Why do you think there should be extra punishment on top of the existing one? I hate to break this to you but a significant percentage of crime among youths is caused by boredom. Start getting out your sentencing book my friend. Ill informed drivel ?! What, like "Motive and Intent are treated differently by law" ? Or that "there is more harm than benefit in having hate-crime laws" ?Listen, just because you are unable to justify your support of totalitarian legislation -even to yourself- don't take it out on me!

---

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

Who's arguing that intent needs to be removed? The only person here who's even mentioned it is YOU! On the contrary, I have been condemning the punishment of Motive, in addition to Intent, that hate-crime laws impose.Once again, you've set yourself a nice little strawman to attack. Thank you for finally admitting it! So far you've been implying that Motive is being punished as standard. I'm glad you finally caught up with the facts.Now please tell me: What causes a crime to be tagged as a 'hate'-crime? Is it the Intent or is it the Motive? To make it easier for you (as you seem to get easily confused) here's a definition and example of Intent and Motive

quote:

---

Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act. For example, suppose Billy calls Amy names and Amy throws a snowball at him. Amy's intent is to hit Billy with a snowball. Her motive may be to stop Billy's taunts.

---

If Amy threw snowballs at Billy because Billy was the wrong race/gender/etc that would be classed as a hate-crime. Why would that be? Is it because of Amy's *Intent* or is it because of Amy's *Motive* ?

---

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

Once more: SHOW ME how this implies advocating terrorism. Once more: SHOW ME how this implies advocating terrorism. Once more: SHOW ME how this implies advocating terrorism.So, because I claim that hate-crime laws detract from the severity of the crime, increase racial tensions and condemn "evil" thoughts........you've concluded that I'm advocating terrorism ??!?* BLINK *Have you heard of Propositional and Predicate Logic Well, you've just raped them both. Both ways. And then took a dump on their broken bodies as they lied motionless on the floor.And this is putting it mildly. You keep bringing up this red herring despite my showing you that intent to terrorise is not necessary for a crime to be classes as a 'hate'-crime. All it takes is a racially/etc aggravated motive. If you have a nightclub fight with someone and you call them a paki/black/etc bitch instead of just a 'bitch', hey presto, you're charged with a 'hate-crime'. Oh, but I forget, you assume that this is a proxy attack on the whole community, Because you can naturally read the perpetrator's thoughts. But, hey, no you're not supporting Thought Control at all now, are you? SHOW ME where I've "disimissed attempts to prosecute the people who commit them"! On the contrary, I've fully supported punishing people for what they've done. Instead of why they've done it ! You're just pulling things out of your arse now! You can call it what you like! That's the rub: calling it something else DOESN'T BENEFIT ANYONE. What's important is the ACT they've committed. Calling it this or that won't undo the act, won't make the victims feel better and won't deter the perpetrators. Oh, but I forget: it will make people like you able to sleep better at night, knowing that you've done your bit to fight bigotry. Oh well, it must all be worth it then! No. Read again. I said that punishing people extra for 'hate'-crimes increases racial tensions. Because it gives the impression that one race's life is valued more than another race's life. Just like any other measure ever invented that appeared to treat people differently depending on their race/gender/etc. Surely, even you can understand that "increases racial tensions" is not the same as "causes terrorism" ! But yeah, keep pulling things out of your arse, it really helps to support your position. Not.Gotta go for now. There's only so much violations of reason and distortions of facts I can cope with at any one time.Edited by Legend, : spelling

---

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

...??? WTF are you on about? *I am* the one who's advocating that whoever murders shoud get done for murder, regardless of their race, gender or beliefs, remember? err...let me think.......NO.....*I'm* the one who suggested trying him on 3000 counts of first-degree murder, remember?I mean, FFS you even quoted me stating this in your reply. TWICE. What's the matter, don't you even remember what you've been quoting ?! NO they aren't!. I've already shown you the official definition of a hate-crime and it says nothing of the sort. What's the matter, can't you read? And that's why you're shown up LYING. FABRICATING STUFF. MAKING THINGS UP. Unfortunately for you that's not what the law sees. All the law sees is someone commiting a crime against X because he hates X . That's a hate-crime. Indeed it isn't terrorism. But guess what? The thug WILL be charged with a hate-crime. And you know why? Because the police will prosecute as hate-crime "any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate" (Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)So yes, you don't know what you're talking about: the thug WILL get done for hate-crime even if the attack is totally random. Why? Because he thinks 'bad' thoughts about certain races and his thoughts can be tied (even falsely) to a crime.Get your facts straight before talking shite. I already have. What's the matter, can't you read? * BLINK *I can't believe you even said that! Are you serious? An elderly woman was reprimanded by the council, investigated by the police (can't you read?) and had her name mentioned on national news alongside murderers just because she expressed an opinion and you claim that nothing happened ?!?You think that this is an example that......"falls apart upon examination" ?!FFS, what are you on ? I've already shown the letter of the law which clearly says nothing about intent to terrorise or intimidate as necessary to class a crime as a hate-crime. What's the matter? Don't you believe the links I provided? Do you think I faked government web-sites and then pointed you to them?
Or is it that you just refuse to read anything that destroys your point?Whatever it is, the *FACT* remains: All it takes to classify a hate-crime as such is a racially/gender/etc-based Motive, as perceived by the victim or anyone else!In other words your pathetic attempt to associate rejecting hate-crime legislation with advocating terrorism is simply FALSE. A LIE. TOTAL BOLLOCKS.Now this normally would be the point where a courteous and honest person would admit the under-handedness of their approach,apologise and move on with the debate. A less honest person would just stop posting and keep a low profile. However, I strongly suspect that you fall in neither of those categories so I expect you to find invent some other fabrication to pursue, some other strawman to attack. Suit yourself. My point is already made and proven. All you have is your baseless self-gratifying illusion that hate-crime laws are 'good' and that whoever opposes them supports 'terrorism'. Which is essentially the same vacuous argumentation used by countless neo-con, right-wingers and fascists in general, to push their own totalitarian ideologies upon the masses.

---

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

Really? So the perpetrators will be charged with simple harassment, will they now? Because if they are then you'll have a point. But we both know that the perps will be charged with a 'hate'-crime. Because their feelings towards the victims will be taken into account and punished. So yes, the thoughts of the perpetrators before the act *are* relevant and *will* be punished. You are simply wrong. .....WTF....??! YOU give a fuck why !!!!!! YOU are the one supporting hate-crime laws, remember?! YOU are the one wanting to judge and punish motive, remember?! I'm the one who's been claiming for the last thousand posts that the motive shouldn't matter, remember ?! YOU ARE the one who's been opposing my position! I AM the one who said "No crime should be punished for its motive." ( Message 128). Now YOU are suddenly pretending that we shouldn't care about the motive and that I 'm imposing ridiculous terms.I mean......FFS.....have you been smoking the same shit as Rrhain?!In any case, I'm glad you now saw the light and accepted my position that it's the act that matters, not the motive. Now let's move on: Failed to address what exactly..? "Targeted Subjugation"?? This is just a fantasy term that exists only in your head. The law is clear on what a hate-crime is: any individual crime that the victim or anyone else deems to be racially/etc motivated. That's the REALITY. I thought you wanted to deal with REALITY, didn't you? Nobody's suggesting that they're isolated incidents. There are already anti-harassment laws that deal with targeted and repeated aggression, as well as laws that deal with individual crimes. I'm objecting to the fact that -dependent on the victim's race/religion/etc- some cases are selectively lifted above the other harassment cases and given special treatment. The reasons for my objection have already been stated many times in this thread If you don't know by now then you should start smoking less of what Rrhain's been giving you. YES, YES - THANK YOU! This is exactly it! 'Hate'-crime laws don't deter criminals from committing crimes, they just deter ordinary people from expressing their thoughts and opinions! This is why 'hate'-crime laws are so terribly counter-productive and should be abolished. Well done, You finally got it!
{applause} {crowd goes wild}There, that wasn't so hard to understand now, was it?

---

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

........[sigh].........ok.......I will once more quote you the definition of a hate crime, as presented in both the Home Office and FBI web-sites. I've already linked to them in previous posts, so I'm not going to link them again just because you've not been paying attention.Make sure you read it this time. The clue is in the wording.

quote:

---

A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.

---

I hope you didn't miss it this time. What did it say? M-o-t-i-v-a-t-e-d.That's right, it said that hate-crimes are motivated by bias.Repeat after me once more: M-o-t-i-v-a-t-e-d, yeah that's it, you got it, atta boy!

quote:

---

Motivate
Function: transitive verb
: to provide with a motive

---

So what differentiates a 'hate'-crime from an 'ordinary' crime?.........[drumroll]......that's right......the MOTIVE!So what do hate-crimes target?............[drumroll]......that's right......they target MOTIVE!So who's been talking complete and utter bullcrap about what hate-crimes really are for the last 180 posts or so?...........that's right......Rrhain!

---

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

Sorry if I went a bit mad there. You have to admit though, you did spew some self-contradicting drivel on that post. Whoaah, easy now with the big words Straggler. First off, harassment is what the perps are actually doing until they physically attack the victims. There's also the offence of "putting people in fear of violence" and other related offences. Second, "eradicate an entire group of people from the local community"? unless the gas chambers and concentration camps have been discovered that's a pretty strong phrase for shouting abuse at someone, don't you think?The ACT that you're describing is essentially harassment and intimidation. If violence is involved then there are other criminal offences to deal with that. You want to call it something else and treat it differently! Why is that? Don't you think the existing laws are adequate? If you don't, then you're doing a massive injustice to all the other victims of harassment and intimidation who are not victimised because of their race/religion/etc. Because they suffer just as much as the rest. Does it matter? As long as the law is applied to punish the aggressors each time they commit an offence, then what's your problem? You simply punish the perpetrators for the offences they've commited. What's wrong with that? In practice, yes it is. What do you think passes for "evidenced intent" most of the time? Unless you have a confession by the accused then the only way to show that they intended to intimidate an entire community, incite racial hatred and other similar offences, is by judging their beliefs and opinions regarding that community. That's why people as diverse as that are charged and prosecuted *solely because they expressed their opinions*. Of course there are. But here's the rub: most crimes have an intimidatory effect far more reaching than the actual victims. If someone is robbed or beaten up, the whole street/village is afraid and initimidated, as well as the victim, their family and their friends. This happens regardless of the attack being racially motivated or not. By you saying that only special kinds of motive have far reaching effects not only are you mis-representing reality, you're also displaying a condescending attitude to other victims of crime who suffer just as much. LOL you're having a laugh, are you? I went to pains to explain to you the difference between intent and motive. YOU're the one who's constantly ignored it and conflated the terms. If I was just a bored teenager then no, I probably wouldn't vandalise the church knowing the extended penalties that hate-crimes incur.But then again if I vandalised the church out of boredom I shouldn't be expected to be charged with a hate-crime, should I now?You do realise that you've just indirectly admitted that hate-crime laws are only there to deter people from doing their ordinary activities lest they be mis-interpreted as 'hate'-crimes? If "evidenced intent" can be factually and objectively demonstrated then maybe it should. If, on the other hand, "evidenced intent" is just a tautology for "Motive" and is soley surmised based on the accused's beliefs and opinions the no it shouldn't.But that's besides the point really, as the law says nothing about "evidenced intent" and such like. All the law says is that if anyone at all says your offence was racially/etc motivated, then it's a hate-crime. The laws seeks to punish the Motive , often on no evidence other than someone's saying so. It's as simple as that.

---

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

.....huh??...I pointed you the the official Home Office (UK's Dept of Justice equivalent) and FBI web sites! *Not* some newspaper or other popular press web sites. Are you saying that what the Home Office / FBI put on their web sites is inaccurate or distorted? Are you really saying that you know better? ...huh?!...can't you read?!... You missed the part where the MOTIVE is described. I took the liberty of emphasizing it for you. The "because of ..." bit should have been a bit of a clue really!What drives someone to commit a criminal act is called......a MOTIVE. We've been through this so many times, you've forgotten already?You really have to do something about that selective vision of yours. LOL! oh, I see you did a google search on "hatred intent -motive", did you? How very not-intellectually-dishonest of you.So you quoted an instance of an act defined as intended to stir up hatred (instead of the definition of a hate-crime, like I did) and latched on the use of the word 'intends' to make a point. Unfortunately for you, the word 'intends' here doesn't show Intent in the legal sense of the word, i.e. intent of wrongful purpose, i.e. mens rea as you well know. This is how criminal law says about intent/mens rea

quote:

---

If a person innocently causes harm, then she or he lacks mens rea and, under this concept, should not be criminally prosecuted.

---

In this instance threatening behaviour or material are -by definition- proof of mens rea, i.e. harmful intent. You don't accidentally or innocently threaten someone. So the ACT of threatening behaviour is being punished (as indeed it was long before hate-crime laws). But what this law punishes *on top of* the threatening behaviour is the religious hatred that caused it! This is a classic example of legislation that punishes MOTIVE as well as the criminal act that ensues.Really Rrhain, I thought you were against playing semantic games, changed your mind did you?

---

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

Nah, it's not coz you're English, it's coz you talk shite.Seriously now, as an Englishman you should be well used to oppressing minorities so I can't quite understand why you're supporting hate-crime laws. Are you feeling guilty or something? I wasn't expressing an opinion, I was stating a fact: There are already laws -and have been for ages- that punish threatening behaviour without punishing motive.If you threaten or intimidate someone you'll get done. You now want to punish people for the thought process that caused them to commit the crime. Why is that? Lighten up, I was only being facetious. I thought you English lads had a sense of humour. You selectively apply this "targeted subjugation" term to suit you. Can you please define it for us? Is a school bully guilty of "targeted subjugation" ? If not why not? My objection is that you're supporting a totalitarian, socially and individually harmful legislation just so that you can deter some opportunistic bullies! Really? In 'any other crime' Intent is defined as the design or purpose to commit a criminal or wrongful act. The difference between Murder and Manslaughter is Intent, i.e. that the perpetrator purposefully -not accidentally or negligently- killed the victim. Now let's suppose that someone kills a member of race X because he hates X then please SHOW ME:1) what is the ACT in question?
2) how do we determine the INTENT behind the Act and what is its significance?
3) how do we determine the MOTIVE behind the Act and what is its significance?
4) which of the above do hate-crimes punish?Feel free to elaborate but please stick to the legal/formal definitions of terms, not the fantasy terms you have in your head. Reality, remember?

---

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