Hate-crime = Thought crime?

I don't know the details of that case at all but if you were gay would you go and live in that town? If you already lived there would you come out? I know let's open a gay bar there and see how that goes down? I dare ya!! Do you really think that the very public nature of this display had no intent beyond simply torturing this individual for being gay? You don't think there was a "we don't want no fags round these parts" element to it?Like I say I don't know the case. At face value the message seems pretty fucking clear to me. But I don't know the details and I am only going on what you have told me. A jury could make a more informed decision. And if they concluded that there was such intent "beyond all reasonable doubt" then I have little doubt that this wider intent should be taken into account by the law. Once people are so full of prejudice that they are willing to conduct acts as abhorrant as this they are probably beyond much deterrent in truth. This barbaric act should result in very severe punishment regardless of any wider intent as these guys are frankly dangerous. But if the sentence of those who were involved in this is increased because of wider intent and they are kept out of harms way for longer then I personally have little problem with that.But ultimately I think laws and social attitudes go hand in hand. The message that it is not socially acceptable to criminally target people because of their sexuality (in this case) goes hand in hand with the stigma of discriminating against people on this basis more generally. But now I am waffling nearly as much as you were at the end of your post.

I don't see the intent to threaten and intimidate as "new crimes". I see them as evidenced social realities and as the extension of existing laws applied to socially recognisable groups rather than individuals. Does that at least make sense even if you disagree? What? I said it seems obvious to me that they did have a wider intent that but that regardless of what is obvious to me it is up to a jury to establish that "beyond reasonable doubt". Strung up like a scarecrow. Hardly seems like trying to hide the evidence to me. But like I said it is up to a jury with access to all the evidence not what is obvious to me based on the limited info you have provided me with. Like I said once you get to this level of crime and punishment taking anything else into account becomes fairly irrelevant in terms of sentencing and the like. I am not proposing the death penalty if that is what you are thinking. Being the wishy washy liberal that I am I am predictably opposed to such things on principle. But that is another conversation. The main problem I see with the laws under discussion seems to be a PR problem. Many people think they are thought crimes, the language used in the (British at least) government public info seems to contradict the actual laws themselves (the home office website talks of "racially motivated" crimes for example whilst the actual wording of the laws never mention motive but repeatedly refers to "intended")On top of this there is the common misapprehension that some races, religions or whetever are protected whilst others are not. This isn't true but this is obviously what people think.Poor application of the law? Possibly. But Legend's failure to find an example that doesn't blow up in his own face suggests that it is not as simple as that. People looking at these laws with historical blinkers? I think that has much to do with it. With regard to race at least. What's the weather like where you are? Dull, grey drizzly wet and cold it is here. Grim even by London standards.

I think the need is as follows:1) A deterrent to those who are not ultimately significantly prejudiced or full of hatred but who are tempted to pick on the weakest elements of the local community purely because they are an easy target. The stigma and additional punishment I think makes them think twice.2) The extra punishment for those who are genuinely acting with wider intent. If evidenced. Even if this is of little consequence in the most extreme of murder cases which seem to be the favoured examples of the anti-law contingent here. I think murder is the extreme case and that the laws apply better to other lesser and more common crimes such as assault and vandalism.3) As part of a more general move to make it clear that criminal acts based on common forms of prejudice are not socially acceptable and are in fact more socially damaging than random and isolated events. But what rights are being violated? The right to commit criminal acts with intent wider than that of the immediate act? Cool! I love proper snow too. We had some last week. But it turned to slush in no time. And (like all) "extreme" weather it brought the entire capital city of London to a standstill for a few hours. Great fun.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think it has everything to do with it. Localised minority groupings are always going to be the target of bullying and intimidation above any other. But if hate laws are in place do you think a bunch of bored teenagers (for example) will go and graffiti up the Mosque that has been the target of a more genuinely malevolent campaign of abuse? Or will they avoid being caught up in that particular situation because it isn't worth the risk of extra punishment and stigma associated with hate crimes? If the hate crimes weren't there is it likely that the easy target everybody else seems to be picking on seems kind of attractive and even socially acceptable in some sense. I think once a target is established in a local comunity a sort of mob mentality can take hold with the devolved responsibility that can result in. I think that was what was happening with my special needs school example when I started in this thread. I also think the application of hate laws would have helped that example.Very few people are genuinely prejudiced to the point of serious law breaking IMHO. Those that are are will probably be beyond deterring significantly simply by such laws. But if hate laws help restrict hate crimes to genuine bigots by deterring opportunistic bullies then all well and good as far as I am concerned. And if the genuine bigots with actual wider intent get stronger punishments for their actions then society is safer. Of course. Nobody here is suggesting such laws are the answer to anything. Only part of it. Ideally of course we would all love one another and get on peacefully. But until that day the law should deal with reality. I get what you are saying and that does seem to be a fairly common perception. But is it justified? I am not sure it is. And even if it is true is that the fault of the laws themselves or the poor application of the law? Do we abandon every single law that has been applied badly? would we have any laws left if we did? If it is a question of application then let's tackle that. But I am not sure it is anything more than a PR problem personally.Do you really watch what you say all the time for fear of being accused of hate crimes? I know I don't. At all. Honestly. Well that's Christmas over then..........Happy New Year if I don't hear from/get back to you before then.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If there is evidenced wider intimidatory intent yes. FFS there you go with your seriel killer scenario again. How many goddamn seriel killers are there where you live?Is the seriel killer specifically setting out to drive young women out of the community? Is he (I assume it is a he) intent on subjugating young women in general? Or is he a sicko who has a prediliction for butchering young women for more personal sexual reasons?And in the case of seriel killers who the fuck cares what wider intent he has in terms of extra punishment because he obviously needs to be locked away for public safety reasons regardless. FFS stop seeing this in terms of valuing some life above others (esp as you are unable to say whose life is more valued in terms of the law) and start seeing this in terms of committing crimes with intent beyond that of the immediate act.FFS - Hyro - HATE LAWS ARE NOT IN PLACE TO DETER OR PUNISH SERIEL KILLERS.These seriel killer examples of yours are frankly just silly. Why not address the situations that the laws are there to confront? If you mention seriel killers again I will get very hateful.(**I place aluminium foil on head in case Legend's thought police are patrolling my area**)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Qauking in their boots because she called people names? Ooh! No. Shivering under their duvets (no aluminium hats in this case) at the thought of her violent outbursts? No. In danger of having their businesses (Asian taxi driver, Indian restaurant - her two targets so far) disrupted by this stupid woman assaulting people on the basis of race? Well this was enough of a potential annoyance for the judge to give her a suspended and concurrent sentence that only kicks in if she commits another such crime but which has no practical effect at all if she does not.FFS Legend - Is this your best example of the "thought police" British state you keep complaining about? A woman who pleaded guilty and who got a sentence that has no practical effect unless she commits another crime?Jesus - I reckon I could find better examples to support your argument than you can. Do you actually read your examples all the way through? Let's just remind ourselves of your story so far:

A policeman who applied the laws so badly that it was suggested that he be disciplined for his stupidity.

A woman who was found not guilty.

A woman who pleaded guilty and was given a sentence that only had any practical effect if she persisted in committing such crimes.

​

Even if the laws under discussion are the best laws ever construed there must be one example of them being applied badly all the way through conviction to sentencing? Let us know when you find that example. Don't bother replying until you do.

That made me laugh!! But it still misses the point. Who is in a minority? It totally depends on localised context. We are all potential minorities. The law protects us all.But seriously where there is intent evidenced "beyond all reasonable doubt" to have a wider and socially destructive effect that lies beyond the immediate crime (i.e. to drive people out of the community, to close a social establishment of some kind etc. etc.) what is your problem with taking that evidenced intent into account?And (**sigh**) yes I agree that in the case of seriel killers such intent is frankly neither here nor there as either deterrent or extra punishment. But (**sigh**) again seriel killers are not really my main concern here. Alas we don't have one as such. Our shame. I have been a keen advocate of such a thing for some time. And no I really don't see how this pisses on any such thing. If it existed in the first place. No. Please do tell. Or will you rely on Legend's examples for that? Oh now that is well funny!! So far Legend has posted the following examples:

A policeman who applied the laws so badly that it was suggested that he be disciplined for his stupidity.

A woman who was found not guilty.

A woman who pleaded guilty and was given a sentence that only had any practical effect if she persisted in committing such crimes.

​

Hyro writes:

​

But at what cost? No one likes hate groups for the same reasons, but at what cost will you trade civil liberty for security.

​

Look dude if on the basis of Legend's lame-ass examples you want to hide quivering under your duvet with an aluminium saucepan on your head terrified that those thought police might detect your hateful brainwaves then you do that.

​

In the meantime those of us that live in the real world, and the most socially diverse parts of the real world at that I might add, will continue on our merry way unconcerned by your ridiculous fears and assertions as we go about our business thinking whatever we damn well please unhindered by insane notions of "thought crimes".

​

Go figure.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So your latest example of thought crimes is of individual police officers misapplying the law and the people in question receiving considerable damages for them having done so? Well done Legend. Well done.What does this example tell us? That if you get wrongly accused of hate crimes you will not only not be convicted but that you may well receive considerable damages if the police act inappropriately. This is yet another fine example of everything you are saying about the legal system as a whole being completely untrue. Another example blowing up in your face.Would you abandon every law that the police have misapplied? Would we have any laws left if we did?Your position here is unteneble. How can you possibly think your examples support your position?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Really? Shall we examine your latest example? Let's see if anyone is convicted of hate crimes for speech alone in your latest link. OK. There is a "speech" (in written form - but fair enough same difference) component. Could this finally be the example Legend has been searching for to support his hate crimes = thought crimes argument? Was she convicted of hate crimes for her poems? So was she convicted of hate crimes for her poems? No.So she wasn't actually convicted of anything that relates to any of the crimes under discussion and she wasn't convicted of anything that had to do with her poems or speech at all. Whatever anyones views on anti-terror laws what we have here is not relevant to the laws under discussion and not even an example of someone being convicted of speech. Do you even read your own examples? It really doesn't seem like it.

Is there? Any more so than any other law?Gosh Leg shall we look at all of the cases of all laws, rather than just the laws under discussion, to see how many failed convictions there are? How many cases of all laws where damages are paid out? How many where it is thought the police officer responsible should face disciplinary action? Do hate crimes have a disproprtionate rate of such occurrances? Or are you cherry picking? And even cherry picking your examples you can't make a case for your own argument. How can you find your own examples convincing? Have you actually read them? Wrong. According to your own examples. In one of your examples it was stated that the police officer responsible should face disciplinary action. In another considerable damages were paid out. So these examples obviously are misapplications of the law by any standard. Unless you are saying that police guidelines applied to the letter will result in disciplinary action and damages being paid out?In another of your examples the woman pleaded guilty. So no that wasn't a misapplication of the law. On that we can hopefully both agree. Finally we have an example of a failed conviction. Are all failed convictions misaplications of the law in your eyes? Would you abandon every law that has ever resulted in a failed conviction? Would you abandon every law that the police have ever misapplied? Would we have any laws left if we did? A "diabolical twist of fate" that the misapplication of the law resulted in failed convictions, damages being paid out and possible disciplinary action for the police officer responsible? No that isn't a "twist of fate". It is the legal system operating as it supposed to. The same as with the misapplication of any law. Would you abandon every law that the police have ever misapplied?You obviously feel that the examples you have provided somehow justify your claim that we should all live in perpetual terror of committing thought crimes as we go about our daily business. You are welcome to this insane opinion. You are welcome to hide quaking under your duvet with an aluminium saucepan planted firmly on your head as you seek to evade hateful brain waves being detected by the thought police if you so wish.Personally I think your numerous examples of failed convictions, police officers facing disciplinary action, damages being paid out for misapplication of the law, your reliance on examples of people being convicted of crimes that are neither hate crimes nor based upon anything said and your example of someone who admitted to being guilty of an actual hate crime still getting sentanced in such a way as to have no practical effect unless further such crimes are committed - All show that the legal system is operating in such a way as to completely contradict your claims.The bottom line here is that I will continue to live utterly untroubled by the worry of committing "thought crimes" despite living in one of the most multi-cultural and socially diverse parts of the world. Unconcerned and untroubled because I genuinely find your notions of "thought crimes" truly ridiculous.Go figure.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It still seems like you haven't actually read any of the examples that you have cited all the way through.And can you name a law that we couldn't cite exampless of being misapplied? A friend of mine recently got caught by the police and spent the night in a cell for breaking into his parents house at their behest while they were away. According to your thinking we should throw "breaking and entering" out of the statute books because of such examples. Ignorance? Taking reality over your cherry picked assertions that don't even successfully support your own argument? Are you mad?Seriously I have more than the occasional altercation with people (usually drivers as I ride my bike around London) and the chances of them being a different colour, race, religion or whatever are exceptionally high. I can seriously say that hate laws are not, never have been, and will not be at any point in the near future, a factor or even a consideration in my behaviour during these heated moments. Honestly and unequivocally. But that is the entire point. I do enjoy my freedom. And I have every intention of continuing to do so. Because your arguments, and the deeply skewed conclusions that you have drawn from the examples you have cited, bear no relation to any reality I have ever seen or experienced. Nor do they bear any relation to the reality that the examples themselves support.You carry on living in fear with that metaphorical saucepan on your head if you want to. But there really is no need and I pity you for what seems to be your heartfelt belief to the contrary.