Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 241 of 376 (539929)
12-20-2009 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Nuggin
12-20-2009 4:06 PM


Re: This particular intent is NOT illegal
My point is convicting someone for owning fertilizer and diesel fuel and a truck and having a blueprint of a federal building and having posted hateful messages to the internet is still convicting them of thought crime not actual action. At no step in the process have they actually taken an illegal action.
I understand your point, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding. It is not really a thought crime since they were taking actions (drawing blueprints, purchasing fertilizer and diesel, making threatening speech which is not covered under free speech, etc).
Still, I doubt you would suggest that we have to wait until they have detonated the bomb before we take action.
That is based upon the categorically different intent versus motive.
Now you are talking about the concept of determent. That's a whole different discussion. I don't have any statistics on determent of hate crime as a result of legislation. I doubt you have any either. These laws have not been in place long enough to get a sufficient sampling to really determine effectiveness.
The only thing that has ever been effective is the increasing popularity of individual rights, and that is is good thing! Legislation doesn't do anything. It's just blustering and campaign promises.
Because the swastika in and of itself is not a uniquely Nazi symbol. A Hindu kid could be drawing one based on symbols from pre-WWII religious iconography.
That is your reason? How about the freedom of expression?
50 years earlier, gay men were being beaten and killed for petitioning to have a gay pride parade. Which is worse?
Comparing what is worse doesn't nullify that petitioning is supposed to be protected speech.
She is, for all intents and purposes, defending the position which for decades, if not centuries, was behind brutal murders which went completely unpunished.
She's afforded that right to petition, just as homosexuals of all stripes are afforded the right to petition the right to march.
Now the pendulum has swung back 1 percent over the line and people are having a fit about how unfair it is.
Where was your outrage when the pendulum was 99% in your favor? Why are you so offended now that's it barely crossed back over?
It's not about being offensive, it's about what is Constitutional. All people should have equal protection under the law.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Nuggin, posted 12-20-2009 4:06 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Nuggin, posted 12-20-2009 10:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 242 of 376 (539932)
12-20-2009 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Rrhain
12-19-2009 8:19 PM


Legend writes:
First off, you quoted *one* particular instance of *one* particular Act
Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. I quoted one specific phrase but then wrote on to notice that the law goes on and on in the same vein, using the same words to describe different specific acts. I didn't want to have to waste a bunch of space on repetitious phrasing. Is your argument seriously that there's only one place in the Religious and Racial Hatred Act that uses "intent"?
You quoted *one* instance of an act defined in the document as "intended to stir up religious hatred". This terms comes up often indeed but as the very title of the document is "Racial and Religious Hatred Act" this comes as no surprise. The word "Intent" appears exactly 0 times!
Rrhain writes:
I see we're repeating the "intend" doesn't actually mean "intend" argument.
No, we're repeating that "usage of the word 'intends' here doesn't show Intent in the legal sense of the word".
Can't you read?
Rrhain writes:
How is that not precisely what I said? "Doesn't show 'intent' in the legal sense" ... "the word 'intend' is not supposed to be interpreted in a legal context."
No. YOU claimed that I said: "intend" doesn't really mean "intend."
I actually said: "the word 'intends' here doesn't show Intent in the legal sense of the word"
If you can't tell the difference between the two then you probably shouldn't be on this forum.
Rrhain writes:
Why does everyone in the legal profession know this but you don't?
....huh??!.. what does whether everyone in the legal profession believe that such laws punish motive instead of intent have to do with it? The legal prefession is there to interpret and apply the law, not to make judgements on its moral, ethical or political value. Stop throwing red herrings into the arena!
Rrhain writes:
Your argument is that the word "intend" is not supposed to be interpreted in a legal context.
.........
At any rate, you haven't responded to the fundamental point: The text reads "intend," not "motive." Therefore, what is your justification that the law refers to "motive," not "intent"?
Your whole argument revolves around the presence of the verb "intends" in that clause, totally disregarding any grammatical or other rules which defines the meaning that the word takes in the context where it's used.
For you, the "intends to cause religious hatred" clause is enough to convince you that it defines a crime which punishes Intent.
Ok, let's see, shall we? Consider the following description of a crime:
quote:
He killed his wife because he wanted to cash in on her life insurance
.
You'll surely agree that the Act in question here is the killing of his wife. You'll also surely agree that the Motive here is the appropriation of the insurance money. Ok so far? Now let's have the same description worded differently:
quote:
He killed his wife as he intended to cash in on her life insurance.
This is the very same crime. The Act is the same. The Motive is the same. The only difference is that I've now used the phrase "intended to" in order to describe the Motive.
But NO WAIT! According to *YOU* the ACT now becomes "cashing in on her life insurance" and the Intent during this act is shown because the husband "intended to cash in" and the Motive is unknown.
According to *YOU* the intent to cash in on her life insurance is now what defines the crime and the "killing" bit becomes irrelevant.
Semantical rape is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
This is what the law in question says: Using threatening words or behaviour is a hate-crime if the accused intends to stir up religious hatred.
It's the same as saying: If you use threatening words or behaviour because you want to stir up religious hatred , then it's a hate-crime.
The ACT here is using threatening words or behaviour. The MOTIVE can be determined by asking the question "WHY did the accused commit the ACT?" There are many reasons (i.e. Motives) why someone would use threats: to extort money or favours, to intimidate witnesses, or -in this case- "to incite religious hatred". This is the MOTIVE that this law criminalises
But no, according to *YOU*, the Motive in this case is indeterminate, because look it doesn't say "motive" anywhere it only says "intends to" ! "
Many Fundamentalists I've debated, tend to latch on to certain words in the Bible in order to support their dogma, despite the actual context not supporting or even contradicting them. "Ah look", they say, "it says here 'ransom' therefore Jesus was a sacrifice for our sins". Of course the actual biblical context and the etymology of the word don't support that but these people are so desparate to validate their beliefs that they'll ignore any such objections.
You very much remind me of them.
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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2009 8:19 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Nuggin, posted 12-20-2009 10:44 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 254 by Straggler, posted 12-21-2009 6:55 PM Legend has replied
 Message 306 by Rrhain, posted 12-26-2009 1:05 AM Legend has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 243 of 376 (539948)
12-20-2009 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Hyroglyphx
12-20-2009 4:59 PM


Re: This particular intent is NOT illegal
Comparing what is worse doesn't nullify that petitioning is supposed to be protected speech.
No. It isn't. This woman's petition is in no way protected by the first amendment. Nothing that this woman did was protected by the first amendment in any way whatsoever.
Further, being "investigated" by the police is not the same thing has being charged with a crime.
If I call the police and say "Hyrog is keeping a pet panda in his basement" they may investigate you. That's _NOT_ punishment. It's their job to receive notifications and examine their validity.
In this case, her speech was judged to be unsuitable. Neither you nor I have read the letter, so neither of us can say what was in it.
What I can say, however, is that it was sufficiently hateful to warrant a police warning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-20-2009 4:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 244 of 376 (539949)
12-20-2009 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Legend
12-20-2009 6:13 PM


Ok, let's see, shall we? Consider the following description of a crime:
quote:He killed his wife because he wanted to cash in on her life insurance
.
You'll surely agree that the Act in question here is the killing of his wife. You'll also surely agree that the Motive here is the appropriation of the insurance money. Ok so far? Now let's have the same description worded differently:
quote:He killed his wife as he intended to cash in on her life insurance.
This is the very same crime. The Act is the same. The Motive is the same. The only difference is that I've now used the phrase "intended to" in order to describe the Motive.
But NO WAIT! According to *YOU* the ACT now becomes "cashing in on her life insurance" and the Intent during this act is shown because the husband "intended to cash in" and the Motive is unknown.
According to *YOU* the intent to cash in on her life insurance is now what defines the crime and the "killing" bit becomes irrelevant.
Actually, I would say that in the 2nd description there are two crimes:
1) Murder.
2) Intent to defraud.
Now, obviously crime #2 kinda takes a back seat to crime #1, however you have to admit that given two criminals:
A) A murderer
and
B) A murderer who also commits fraud
the 2nd one is committing MORE crime than the first and can be punished accordingly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Legend, posted 12-20-2009 6:13 PM Legend has not replied

  
RCS
Member (Idle past 2608 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 245 of 376 (539957)
12-21-2009 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Hyroglyphx
12-20-2009 3:31 PM


Re: This particular intent is NOT illegal
Why not go ahead and go a step further like Germany did to rectify the sins of their past? Why not make it a capital offense to draw a swastika in class and send that kid to jail? Cut it off where it grows before it can balloon out of control.
Maybe you do not know. Swastika is the holiest symbol of Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, and has been used since time immemorial. How can you suddenly criminalise its drawing, particularly when it is drawn daily? You may not know, but it is the most printed symbol in the world.
How many people in the world would you jail for revering it? A billion plus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-20-2009 3:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-21-2009 8:50 PM RCS has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 246 of 376 (539976)
12-21-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by onifre
12-20-2009 12:03 PM


What Am I Missing Here?
Oni writes:
But is this particular intent "wanting to rid your city of [insert group here]" illegal?
Well nor is it illegal for you to intend to sleep with someone elses wife or to intend to relieve them of the cash in their bank account. Whether your intentions are illegal or not (regardless of success - e.g. intent to defraud) very much depends on how you are intending to go about achieving those aims.
Oni writes:
Like I wrote in the post to Nuggin, if I wrote it on a sign and demonstrated for this purpose, I would be doing nothing illegal. I'd be expressing free speech.
Doesn't this rather prove the very point you are opposing? Doesn't this demonstrate that the crimes you are opposing on the basis of them being "thought crimes" can in fact be no such thing? Because as you have pointed out it is perfectly legal to express personal prejudices and even campaign on the basis of ones prejudices as long as you are not actively engaging in criminal activities to do so.
Oni writes:
If I vandalize a mosque, repeatedly, are you saying the law could then try to prove that my large scale intent was to intimidate the entire Islamic community?
Oni writes:
But it's not illegal to say, the only illegal part is vandalising someone's property while expressing this message.
And you just happen to be repeatedly trashing Mosques. Isn't that part of the contextual evidence really rather crucial?
Oni writes:
Ok. But now lets say I had the exact same intent, but instead of vandalising the mosque I organized a protest. I obviously have the same wide scale intent, but this time I am breaking no laws, right?
Well nor is it illegal for you to intend to sleep with someone elses wife or to intend to relieve them of the cash in their bank account. Whether your intentions are illegal or not (regardless of success) very much depends on how you are intending to go about achieving those aims.
There may in some cases be a fine line between expressing oneself and intentionally intimidating others but surely that is why we have judges, juries and an entire legal system to differentiate between such legalistic subtleties. I don't see this as a weakness of any particular set of laws. But as an inevitable fact of almost any law.
Oni writes:
So in the previous case the only law broken was vandalism, yet in both cases the wide scale intent to rid the community of muslims was there.
It should not be illegal to want your community to be Muslim free and to express that desire. It should be illegal to seek to achieve that wider intent through individual acts of intimidation, threat or violence that have that intent as their basis. And I still fail to see why exactly you want to ignore the reality of that wider intent in the law?. If sufficiently evidenced. Why Oni? I am really struggling to understand your objection to taking wider evidenced intent into account here. Why pretend that these crimes are identical to isolated random incidents when they blatantly are not the same in terms of actual or intended effect? Is it a principled objection? A practical one? I don't understand your position here at all.
Oni writes:
Therefore the only thing punishable is vandalism, since the wide scale intent to rid a community of a certain group/race/relgious/class of people is not illegal and protected under free speech.
You are conflating the perfectly legal intent to express your desires and act upon them within the law with the illegal intent of achieving these desires through illegal means.
Seriously - Now that we have definitively established that the laws under consideration are based on intent I don't see how anyone can meaningfully argue that they are "thought crimes". Any more so than any other crime in which intent is a significant component. So surely the answer to the main question posed in the OP has to be - "NO".
Or am I missing something here?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by onifre, posted 12-20-2009 12:03 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by onifre, posted 12-21-2009 2:17 PM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 247 of 376 (540000)
12-21-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Nuggin
12-20-2009 3:55 PM


Re: This particular intent is NOT illegal
These two white men deliberately targeted a black man for being black and dragged him to death behind their truck as a means of ridding the world of a black man.
Ok, but will you also add to this case that their wider intent was to rid the entire community of black people?
Because if you can't evidence that their intent was to rid the entire community of black people, then how is this different from other people who are targeted because they happen to be alone, or small and (perceived) weak, females, fat and slow, walking through a dark alley, etc.?
Do you think the color of the victim being dragged made him special?
However, a swaztica on a temple is clearly meant to convey a more offensive message.
Now you are going to dictate what should be considered more offensive to people? Do you really want to open that door into censorship of (perceived) offensive material?
Since there is a base crime in spray painting the wall, there is a punishment. Given that there is a range of punishment to be assessed for any crime, I see no problem to allowing intent to inform which end of the spectrum the criminal faces.
But we established that the intent was ok under the right circumstances, so the only thing the punishment should be in reference to is the only illegal act - which was vandalism. Any other way, and the law is showing a bias.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Nuggin, posted 12-20-2009 3:55 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 3:06 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 248 of 376 (540001)
12-21-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Straggler
12-21-2009 8:32 AM


Re: What Am I Missing Here?
Well nor is it illegal for you to intend to sleep with someone elses wife or to intend to relieve them of the cash in their bank account. Whether your intentions are illegal or not (regardless of success - e.g. intent to defraud) very much depends on how you are intending to go about achieving those aims.
You're missing the point - achieving those aims you mention above (adultery and steal from their bank) are also illegal. Where as acheiving your aim of riding your city of [group] is not illegal.
I agree with you that very much depends on how you go about acheiving those aims. Thus it is only how you went about acheiving this aim that should be punished in cases when the "wide scale aim" is not illegal.
If your wide scale aim was to rob with intent to kill, or assault with intent to rape, then yes, the wide scale aim should be part of the punishment. But when the wide scale aim is "rid my city of [group]," since that is totally legal to do under the right circumstances, how can you punish for that?
Doesn't this rather prove the very point you are opposing? Doesn't this demonstrate that the crimes you are opposing on the basis of them being "thought crimes" can in fact be no such thing?
I don't think this was ever my position. I think you confused me for Hyro and Legend.
It should not be illegal to want your community to be Muslim free and to express that desire. It should be illegal to seek to achieve that wider intent through individual acts of intimidation, threat or violence that have that intent as their basis.
I agree. And that's why I say that the only thing that should be punished is the individual acts that break the law. There should be no increase in sentencing since the wide scale aim is not illegal.
It should be illegal to seek to achieve that wider intent through individual acts of intimidation, threat or violence that have that intent as their basis. And I still fail to see why exactly you want to ignore the reality of that wider intent in the law?. If sufficiently evidenced. Why Oni? I am really struggling to understand your objection to taking wider evidenced intent into account here.
I thought I made my reasons for disliking hate crimes law clear?
They do nothing. They are superficial laws. They ignore the actual problems, and are used as a tool to not have to actually tackle the real problems. They make victims out of people who are NOT victims. They set to dictate what should and should not be deemed offensive. They pretend to know the feelings of a community they are not in touch with (this is relevant with the common white/black/hispanic issues).
Furthermore, they are bias and punish for an intent and wide scale aim that is NOT illegal on its own.
You are conflating the perfectly legal intent to express your desires and act upon them within the law with the illegal intent of achieving these desires through illegal means.
Huh?
The way I'm reading this, its the "illegal means" that is the crime, right?
Isn't that the only thing that is punishable?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Straggler, posted 12-21-2009 8:32 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 3:15 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 251 by Straggler, posted 12-21-2009 5:05 PM onifre has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 249 of 376 (540008)
12-21-2009 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by onifre
12-21-2009 1:55 PM


Re: This particular intent is NOT illegal
Ok, but will you also add to this case that their wider intent was to rid the entire community of black people?
Because if you can't evidence that their intent was to rid the entire community of black people, then how is this different from other people who are targeted because they happen to be alone, or small and (perceived) weak, females, fat and slow, walking through a dark alley, etc.?
Do you think the color of the victim being dragged made him special?
Because there has never been a movement by a collection of people to target "alone" people.
Yes, rapists target women and muggers target the rich. And, those crimes are punished according to how the society feels about both the crime and the targets.
As unfair as it is, a rapist of prostitutes is a lot less likely to be convicted or if convicted will serve less time than a rapist of nuns. That's because we judge not only the action, but the target of the action, in determining if a punishment is assessed and how much of a punishment.
We, as a society, have deemed that killing a person because of his race or sexual orientation, is a more severe crime than killing a person because of his brand of car or sneakers.
Hate Crime legislation allows for those people who are committing crimes which we deem to be more serious to be subject to harsher punishment.
Often these people are insulated by living in the South. We as a collective whole can not continue to allow a subset of the nation to continue to flaunt the law simply because they live in an area where it's deemed fun to be racist/homophobic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by onifre, posted 12-21-2009 1:55 PM onifre has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 250 of 376 (540010)
12-21-2009 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by onifre
12-21-2009 2:17 PM


Re: What Am I Missing Here?
You're missing the point - achieving those aims you mention above (adultery and steal from their bank) are also illegal. Where as acheiving your aim of riding your city of [group] is not illegal.
Actually, no one's "aim" is "steal from the bank". Their "aim" is obtain money from the bank.
Obtaining money from the bank is not illegal.
Their METHOD of obtaining money from the bank could be either legal or illegal.
It is the method which we prosecute.
You are perfectly welcome to WANT to rid your city of the Irish. However, you will have to choose a method which in no way infringes on the rights of the Irish through which to do that.
You could, for example, offer each Irish person $1,000,000 to move to San Diego. If you did, you would not be committing a hate crime in any way.
However, if you choose a method such as "burn down every Irish person's house", you would be subject to arson charges. AND, because of the systematic targeting of that specific group, you would be subject to hate crime legislation as well.
You keep falling back to this position of "I wanna get rid of the Irish and that's not illegal", but the fact of the matter is the position really should be: "I want to get rid of the Irish through illegal means" - which, obviously, is illegal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by onifre, posted 12-21-2009 2:17 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Straggler, posted 12-21-2009 5:45 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 251 of 376 (540024)
12-21-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by onifre
12-21-2009 2:17 PM


Re: What Am I Missing Here?
Do you agree that the "thought crime" premise of the OP is false? In light of us having definitively differentiated between intent and motive?
Oni writes:
You're missing the point - achieving those aims you mention above (adultery and steal from their bank) are also illegal. Where as acheiving your aim of riding your city of [group] is not illegal.
I think you are the one missing the point here.
Is adultery illegal? I didn't think it was. But fooling said wife into sleeping with you because she thinks you are her husband (no - don't ask me how this works in practise either) is illegal. So intended method, not actual aim, is important here. And when I said "relieve them of the cash in their bank account" I wasn't thinking of stealing or fraud necessarily. It is possible to just persuade people in a wholly legal way to give you their money. How was it intended to relieve them of their money? That is the question. In short the difference between legality and illegaility is very much determined by how you intend to acheive your aims. No?
Oni writes:
I don't think this was ever my position. I think you confused me for Hyro and Legend.
Oh fair play. That makes you more interesting then. But I still maintain that the "thought crime" premise of the OP has been refuted. Do you agree? If not why not?
Oni writes:
I agree. And that's why I say that the only thing that should be punished is the individual acts that break the law. There should be no increase in sentencing since the wide scale aim is not illegal.
Well we have covered the fact that the "how" matters above. But if that wider intent is both evidenced and more socially destructive than the same crime without the wider intent why would the law not seek to recognise and tackle the reality of that situation?
Oni writes:
I agree. And that's why I say that the only thing that should be punished is the individual acts that break the law. There should be no increase in sentencing since the wide scale aim is not illegal.
If it was called vandalism with intent to intimidate/subjugate/whatever the legal phraseology here is - Would that make things clearer?
Oni writes:
The way I'm reading this, its the "illegal means" that is the crime, right? Isn't that the only thing that is punishable?
Well should it be the only thing punishable regardless of wider intent? that is the question here is it not?
How is vandalism (or assault) with intent to intimidate/subjugate/whatever the legal phraseology here is different conceptually to, for example, arson with the intent to defraud? Here arson is the primary crime. But intent to defraud the insurance company was the wider aim of the crime.
How are they conceptually different in your view?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling grammar clarity..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by onifre, posted 12-21-2009 2:17 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by onifre, posted 12-21-2009 10:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 252 of 376 (540029)
12-21-2009 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Hyroglyphx
12-20-2009 9:55 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Hyro writes:
Those are based on feelings in tandem with actions.
I thought we were talking about wider evidenced intent? I.e. intent to have a criminal effect that lies beyond the specific crime if viewed only as an isolated incident randomly committed. If such intent is evidenced where is the problem exactly?
Hyro writes:
Aside from which motives are examined already in a court room, so there is no need for special legislation.
But there is that conflation again. This is intent. Not motive. They are different. Legally. And actually.
Hyro writes:
The danger, again, is if such a precedence like this is law, it leaves open the possibility to limit the freedom of speech and of thought.
No it doesn't. It makes criminal acts with a wider intent more serious. How are the intent based laws under discussion in principle different from convicting someone who has committed arson with the intent to defraud an insurance company of arson with intent to defraud?
If you think of a violent hate crime as being assault (for example) with intent to intimidate a wider community how exactly is this different to the example above?
The whole "thought crime" ting is just a straw man once we differentiate intent from motive. No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-20-2009 9:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-21-2009 9:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 253 of 376 (540032)
12-21-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Nuggin
12-21-2009 3:15 PM


Re: What Am I Missing Here?
Nuggin writes:
It is the method which we prosecute.
Precisely.
Oni writes:
You are perfectly welcome to WANT to rid your city of the Irish. However, you will have to choose a method which in no way infringes on the rights of the Irish through which to do that.
You could, for example, offer each Irish person $1,000,000 to move to San Diego. If you did, you would not be committing a hate crime in any way.
Good example!!
Oni writes:
However, if you choose a method such as "burn down every Irish person's house", you would be subject to arson charges. AND, because of the systematic targeting of that specific group, you would be subject to hate crime legislation as well.
You keep falling back to this position of "I wanna get rid of the Irish and that's not illegal", but the fact of the matter is the position really should be: "I want to get rid of the Irish through illegal means" - which, obviously, is illegal.
Well said. Your example is much better than mine. I wish I had read it before I had posted my replies to Oni and Hyro.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 3:15 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 254 of 376 (540043)
12-21-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Legend
12-20-2009 6:13 PM


Refuted
Leg writes:
This terms comes up often indeed but as the very title of the document is "Racial and Religious Hatred Act" this comes as no surprise. The word "Intent" appears exactly 0 times!
Here is the legal document in question. Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
What are you talking about? Are you really splitting hairs between "intent", "intends" and "intended". Because I count six instances of "intends", one of "intended" and exactly none of "motive", "motives" or "motivated".
Thus refuting the entire basis of your "thought crimes" argument.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Legend, posted 12-20-2009 6:13 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Legend, posted 12-22-2009 3:44 AM Straggler has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 376 (540058)
12-21-2009 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by RCS
12-21-2009 1:02 AM


Re: This particular intent is NOT illegal
Maybe you do not know. Swastika is the holiest symbol of Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, and has been used since time immemorial.
I did know that actually.
How can you suddenly criminalise its drawing, particularly when it is drawn daily? You may not know, but it is the most printed symbol in the world.
I was being sarcastic to prove a point. I don't actually want anything of the sort.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by RCS, posted 12-21-2009 1:02 AM RCS has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024