Hate-crime = Thought crime?

Oh, so that makes it all right, does it? If you think so then you're totally missing the point: she was additionally punished because she was assumed to be a racist based on the language she used while under the influence. Her (assumed) opinions on race were punished on top of the actual assault.Surely even you can see how fucked up and sinister this is.Surely not even you could think that she was "targeting a whole group" by her behaviour!Surely not even you could think that she was trying to "subjugate a community" by her actions! *Eminently sensible?!* Let's get this straight: the fact that an intoxicated woman was punished and branded a racist because she called someone a racially-abusive epithet during a drunken incident is "eminently sensible" to you ?The fact that this woman was assumed to have 'bad thoughts' based on her drunken words and was punished for it is perfectly ok to you ?!If you really believe that then I can only say may Crom save us from people like you.

---

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

As the real-life cases I've brought-up clearly demonstrate, you're absolutely right.

---

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

I didn't say the above, Catholic Scientist did. What I've been saying all along is that these laws server as a a weapon against free speech and expression of ideas. The fact that a run-of-the-mill club fight ended up with the attacker prosecuted for a racially-motivated crime based on the (alleged and unsupported) utterance of *one word* shows exactly that.The message is clear: "watch what you're saying, if your beliefs,opinions,thoughts on race/religion/etc can be associated with a criminal offence -even remotely and without supporting evidence- then we'll make sure you get punished far more than your original offence requires or deserves"That the attacker was eventually found not guilty of a hate crime just makes what would have been a truly horrendous punishment, simply appalling. Even more so for a pop singer who makes a living out of popular appeal, suddenly seeing her name on the papers next to a "racially-aggravated assualt" headline. Just like false-rape-allegataions no court verdict can ever take the slur on the accused's name away, that stays with them for a very long time. The trial is also a punishment in its own right, without even having to prove your innocence against an unsupported allegation.If that was any other crime other than an alleged 'hate'-crime no added charges would have ever been brought against her. If someone simply accused her of stealing or assault the police/Crown Prosecution Service would have done nothing until there was some *evidence* of theft or assault. But no, because this is an alleged 'hate'-crime then the rules are different. Just like the APCO (Police) guidelines say (and I've quoted them at least three times on this thread) :

quote:

---

Any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

---

(emphasis is mine)So yes, there you have it, if you see someone you dislike having a fight, just tell the police he called the other person an offensive epithet and -hey presto- your enemy will have their name on the papers tagged as a racist/homophobe/whatever and they'll be looking at a few more years added onto their sentence!

quote:

---

Surely you aren't saying that because somebody was charged with a crime and then found not guilty of it, that makes the entire law that was the basis for the charge illegitimate, are you?

---

No, I'm saying that because many people are charged with 'hate'-crimes simply because they've been alleged to utter *one wrong word*, that makes the entire law a sinister, totalitarian tool of oppression that has no place in free and fair society.Is that finally clear now?

---

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

She was charged and convicted of "racially aggravated criminal damage". Didn't you read the source?She wasn't just convicted of "criminal damage", the "racially aggravated" bit was added on to it because she called him a racial epithet. ...errr...this is the APCO (Police) guidance that I've already linked to at least three times in this thread. Doesn't your browser follow links? Here's what the Police says:

quote:

---

2.2.1 A Hate Incident is defined as:
Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which
is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by
prejudice or hate.
2.2.2 A Hate Crime is defined as:
Any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the
victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

---

So, like I said, *anyone* can simply allege that you used a racial epithet and your common "assault" turns into "racially-aggravated assault", with an increased punishment, your name next to racist headlines, etc. I could comment on your sanitised justification of why the Police record and put a 'hate' tag on incidents that aren't criminal offences in the first place (unlike their response to non-hate-crime incidents), but I won't.The point is that a Hate-Crime is tagged as such based soley on the perception of the victim or any other person. So if you see someone you dislike doing something illegal just tell the police that you perceive his actions to be motivated by prejudice or hate and you'll ruin his reputation, if not add some more time to his sentence.

quote:

---

It is essential for all police staff to be aware of the potential for hate crime to escalate into a critical incident. Failure to provide an appropriate and professional response to such reports could cause irreparable damage to future community confidence in the police service.

---

It's funny though how the police are not aware of "the potential to escalate into a critical incident" when you ring to report a crowd of youths hanging on the street corner. Their standard response is "call us when an offence is committed". But I forget, they don't score any PC points for tackling real crime, hate crimes are the flavour of the month, they are the ones to look out for. Pathetic.

---

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

But the reason why 'hate'-crimes should be punished, as you and Straggler keep telling me, is because they are an 'attack on the whole community'. You've even called them 'terrorism'.You don't seriously believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out is an 'attack on the whole community', do you?You don't seriously believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out was an incident of 'terrorism', do you? OMG!!! You *actually* believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out is an 'attack on the whole community' !!! OMG!!! You *actually* believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out is 'terrorism' !!!..............................................................I admit I was wrong: I initially thought that you just refused to see outside the narrow limits of your self-righteous vision because you'd then have to admit you were wrong. I'm now of the opinion that you're suffering from a fundamental detachment from reality. Just like Bible literalists, your view of the world is based on your pre-determined, strict interpretation of the letter of the law, instead of a reasoned analysis and logical inference based on real-life events in the context in which they happen.

---

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

so you don't think that this woman, being in a drunken state, said something to verbally hurt the man she was arguing with, but instead you think she set out to send a message to the whole Pakistani community ?!??I'm sorry but I think if you really believe that then you have reality-perception issues. I'm not using it as an excuse, I'm using it to set the context of this incident. Hell, I know I've called my wife/brother/friends names after I've had a few. It's no excuse for my behaviour but at the same time doesn't mean that I really hate my wife or that I really want my brother dead. It's just a combination of emotional charge and drink. Just like with this woman.To assume that she was attacking the whole community because she drunkenly called him a racial epithet is -at best- gross overreaction or -at worst- a total reality disconnect. I'd feel sorry for the victim but otherwise I'd be unaffected. ....?? Why would I? What makes you think I'm a Christian? You know for a fact that I'd be lying is a sweeping statement! Please explain yourself.

---

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

Ok, so you accept that she didn't intend to target a whole community. So why should she receive extra punishment and be branded a racist then? I mean, besides this absurd notion you have that the Pakistani community will be terrified because a drunken woman who assaulted a Pakistani cab driver called him an abusive epithet!I don't know much about the Sheppard case but from what I quickly read his attackers targeted him because he was gay or decided to hurt him because he was gay. Do you think this woman went out targeting Pakistani cab drivers? Do you think she wouldn't have called him a hurtful name if he was white? Please explain why you think she should get extra punishment for that specific word she said during the assault. Pay attention: I'm saying that when people experience anger they tend to call the target of their aggression hurtful names. This is especially so when they're also under the influence. For instance, you often hear women fighting in night clubs calling each other a 'fat slag' and such like. That's not necessarily because they think their opponent is fat, nor that they have anything against fat people. It's simply because they know this is an epithet that's going to hurt their opponent.So when I'm emphasising the fact that she was drunk, I'm making a point about the causality of her behaviour, I'm not saying that she should be forgiven or treated leniently just because she was drunk. Is that clear? ......uhu??? so...because I said I'd feel sorry for the victim you've concluded that I lack empathy!? You haven't been attending the 'Rrhain's School of Reasoning and Logical Inference' by any chance, have you?Please explain the reasoning behind this absurd statement. I realise that, but what's this got to do with the case of a drunken woman on a saturday night calling the cab driver a racial epithet?? My ethnicity is Welsh. I'm a minority in the UK. Do you really think that if a drunken English woman assaulted a Welsh cab driver calling him a 'Taffy bastard' the Welsh community would be shitting their pants? As a matter of fact this sort of thing happens regularly. Some people are mildly annoyed, most people just laugh it off and continue merrily with their lives.If you really think that any minority would be terrorised by a drunken woman calling a minority cab driver an offensive name while assaulting him in a "pathetic, drunken tantrum" (quoting from source) then I'm sorry but I have to call *BZZZTTT!!----Reality Disconnect Alert!!!* , once more. No, you don't. So you really believe that the Pakistani community was terrified because a drunken woman who assaulted a Pakistani cab driver after he asked her out of his taxi, called him an abusive racial epithet!So you really believe that this was an attack on the whole Pakistani community and NOT, I repeat NOT an individual, pathetic tantrum of a drunken woman who got pissed off when the cab driver asked her to leave?.....Riggghhhhht!

---

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

Is that really what you see as the redeeming feature in this case? that the punishment she was given for uttering the wrong word happens to have no practical effect?! The fact that she *was punished* in the first place for being incorrectly and unfairly assumed to be a racist doesn't bother you at all!? The fact that she's now has a 'racist' tag on her record because of a stupid, drunken tantrum doesn't bother you at all!? FFS Straggs, talk about having blinkered vision, eh?! You have your rose-tinted glasses on mate! My story so far is:# A woman who was intimidated (i.e. home-interviewed) by the police for expressing an opinion about homosexuality.
# A woman who was charged and tried with a racially-aggravated crime because her opponent belatedly alleged to have been called a racial epithet.
# A woman sho was charged, tried and convicted with a racially-aggravated crime because her drunken stupidity was deemed to be racist, or deemed to "try to subjugate the community" as you put it, or "attempt to terrorism" as Rrhain puts it. I already have! At least two (2)! Can't you read?The last case on the list above is of a woman who was convicted of a hate-crime because she drunkenly, mid-fight uttered an 'inappropriate' word. Haven't you been reading?I'be also previously linked to the mugger who was convicted of a hate-crime because he was targeting elderly women. The authorities decided -without any evidence- that he was targeting them because he hated old people, instead of the obvious reason of them being an easy target. Haven't you been reading?But if that's not enough for you, here's another example of people terrorised by police about their moral views.But, no, you're going to dismiss this as another isolated incident, aren't you?What about this one?Oh no, I hear you calling this "just another isolated misapplication of the law", right ?Oops, here's another one .Gosh Straggler, these "isolated incidents" are getting pretty numerous, don't you reckon?One would almost think that the police are targeting people who express 'incorrect thoughts', wouldn't you say so?But no, as you say, all these are "isolated incidents" which I'm picking on because I'm paranoid, right?The law doesn't punish thought, it just so happens that there's lot of police going round 'interviewing' people who express 'bad' thoughts, right?No, nothing to do with 'hate'-crime laws, nothing to see here, move on, right?......RIIGGHHHHTT!

---

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

Simply for speech? No I haven't. Though here's one if you wamt one.Tried and convicted for speech tagged on to another crime? Yes, I already have.Besides why is it that you need for someone to be convicted for speech to concede that certain speech is persecuted?Don't the numerous cases of people receiving official police visits *just because they expressed an opinion* suffice?What's the matter, do you need to see barbed-wire fences, guard-dogs and dawn raids before you accept that free speech is being suppressed?
You may well do one day but, by then, it will be too late for us to be talking about it on an internet forum. No, I've already shown you several cases of people receiving an official police visit because they voiced some 'incorrect' thought or cracked an 'incorrect' joke. I see you missed the immediately following clause. Here it is:

quote:

---

29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation) The Waddington Amendment
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.

---

Two interesting points related to this:1) If the law feels the need to clarify that the discussion or criticism of *only* sexual conduct is not "intended to stir up hatred", then this implies that the discussion or criticism of racial/other conduct *IS* "intended to stir up hatred" and is therefore criminal!2) The government is currently battling to repeal this particular clause which ensures that people can criticise homosexual behaviour without fear of prosecution. This is a clear message of the government's intentions to suppress free speech and legitimise 'Thought-crimes'! Of course! Hurray for the Lords, eh? Isn't ironic that our elected representatives are trying to suppress our freedom of speech while a bunch of un-elected toffs are trying to protect it?! ugh...?...Why....? I don't know of anyone who's been charged and prosecuted (let alone convicted) of murder just because someone said they're murderers! Do you?I fail to see any legal definitions, court cases or even police guidelines where murder is defined simply as the "perception of the victim or anyone else" that murder happened! Can you?No, I didn't think so. So your insistence to equate hate-crime laws with traditional criminal law is at best ignorant, at worst a disingenuous attempt to derail the topic.See, unlike hate/thought crimes, murder is judged and punished on the accused's actions and deliberation to act, *NOT* on their thoughts/feelings and their ulterior intents and motives.Have to go, but I'll come back to the rest of your post when I get more time.Edited by Legend, : No reason given.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"

So she committed a crime but her comments turned it into a racially-motivated crime. Two problems here:
1) the alleged comments were denied by the accused and only belatedly made by the victim with no supporting witnesses. Still, the accused was prosecuted for a racially-motivated assault instead of just assault. This wouldn't happen with most other offences.
2) You, Straggler and others are claiming that we need hate-crime laws in order to punish targeting and initimidation of whole communities. In this particular incident there is no evidence that a whole community was targeted or even attempted to be targeted and lots of evidence that it wasn't. So, how can you/anyone justify a racially-aggravated charge in this case? So? What's this got to do with anything? Because she was charged with assault presumably on the basis of some evidence. Also, because I have no objections to people being prosecuted for what they do. I have major objections to people being prosecuted for what they say! I'm not, because there was some evidence of an assault, other than just the victim saying "I perceive to have been hit!". Heck, she even admitted she hit the victim herself! Just because she claimed it was self-defence doesn't mean it was. Unlike the other party where she was taken at her word when she claimed it was a racist epithet. Talk about double-standards, eh!? I didn't claim it was her right NOT to be subjected to a trial, I pointed out that the trial is punishing in its own right and having to go through it solely because of someone's allegation negates the purpose of the law and ensures people can inflict personal begrudging punishments on the back of the law. ...ugh?...for the last few paragraphs we've been discussing a case where the accused was charged with a racially-aggravated crime exactly exactly for (allegedly) speaking. Ok, so that makes it slightly better than being charged purely for speaking. Is that really your saving grace? But the standard of evidence is so much flimsier for hate-crimes. I've already quoted you what it takes: A Perception by the Victim Or Anyone Else! That's all! Hate-crime are crimes of Perception FFS! It won't get much more Thought-Crimey than that until they can read our thoughts! Being charged and prosecuted for a hate-crime simply because someone alleged that you uttered an 'inappropriate' word causes a Huge Heap of Trouble for free speech. If you seriously can't see how then let me know and I'll elaborate. ahhh....yes...the last resort of the literalist mind when confronted by reality: "anyone who denies or disagrees with my obviously Correct position must be inherently racist or bigot". Ok, whatever rocks your boat, now straighten your knickers and try to counter what I'm saying instead of what you think I'm saying.

---

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

That's not what I'm saying and you know it! It's just that famous people are even more vulnerable to defamation than you or I as they make their living out of their popularity. That wasn't so so difficult now, was it? The 'evidence' was that the victim (belatedly) said so. Which is why the jury didn't convict her of a hate-crime! Why are you sounding incredulous about the bleedin' obvious? No, the attorney must have surely pointed out that his client never called the victim a racial epithet, that she had no reason for doing so and that there was no evidence that she did. Which is why the jury found her not guilty of racially aggravated assault. Why on earth are you trying to elicit incredulity out of the obvious? That's *your logic*, not mine! I'm just asking that the same standard of evidence and investigative standards are applied across the board of criminal cases. If no-one is charged with murder, manslaughter, robbery, assault, etc purely on someone's word then neither should they be charged with hate-crimes based on someone's word. If no-one is charged with murder unless there is evidence that they planned to kill, then neither should anyone be charged with hate-crimes unless there is the same standard of evidence that they planned to "terrorise" or "subjugate" the whole community, instead of just uterring a stupid, hurtful epithet during a drunken fight. For you, this is evidently too much to ask. BZZZTT!! RED HERRING ALERT #1 I never suggested or implied that we shouldn't. BZZZTT!! RED HERRING ALERT #2 I never suggested or implied that there aren't. What does it matter? The point is that they are both based on what is "perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by
prejudice or hate." (quoting from source).Why are you even asking? I sense a {BZZZTT!! RED HERRING ALTER #3} coming up! Unlike hate crimes, murder is judged and punished on the accused's actions and deliberation to act, *NOT* on their thoughts/feelings/words and their ulterior intents and motives. Hence, I'm not complaining about the murder statute. Is this finally clear? And that's yet another reason why we should be campaigning for equal standard of evidence across the criminal board and *against* moral-crusade legislation like hate-crime and sex-offence laws which justify some sinister and dubious means towards a well-intended end.Just because someone has a black cat doesn't mean that they're a witch.Just because someone has painful bowel movements doesn't mean that they've been sexually abused.Just because someone drunkenly and mid-fight calls a cab driver a 'Paki' doesn't mean that they're a racist, out to subgugate the whole community.QED. I don't know the precise wording of the child abuse laws or guidance but if they're anything like hate-crime laws whereby anyone can be culpable based merely on the "perception of the victim or any other person", then yes, damn right we need to do away with them. After all, your good self brought up an excellent example (McMartins) of what can happen when all it takes to charge and prosecute is someone's 'perception'! What does it matter? What matters is that all you have to do to get even with your enemies is to report to police that they did something "motivated by
prejudice or hate." If it's a non-criminal incident then they're going to get a police record with the tag "POTENTIAL HATE CRIMINAL" on it! If it's a criminal offence then they're going to get a few more months/years added onto their sentence. It's a win-win situation, don't you agree?Ahhh, but I forget: You refuse to accept that hate-crimes punish perceived motive. Despite what the Police says. Despite what the Home Office says. Despite what the FBI says. Despite what most legal web-sites and dictionaries say. Riigghhhhht.... I've already brought up several cases where this has happened. Cheryl Tweddy's case was prosecuted merely on hearsay. The NY mugger was convicted of a hate-crime on purely circumstantial evidence. Oops, there goes your argument! I've already linked to two serious cases, as above, which went to trial. Without even mentioning the numerous other cases of police 'having a word' with people who expressed an 'incorrect' opinion. So once again you're totally wrong: I've provided plenty of evidence. But then again, you're the person who refuses to believe what the Police, Home Office and FBI are saying, so I understand if mere news articles don't hold much sway for you.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"

Many people who are charged with hate crimes are being so because they uttered one 'inappropriate' word which someone perceived as 'motivated by hate' (as per ACPO guidelines). Undoubtedly, some people will indeed try to terrorise a whole community. But assuming that every person who says "fucking paki" during a drunken fight is a racist out to get the whole community is just zealotry, political fundamentalism, legalistic literalism. By the same token, we should also be assuming that every driver involved in a fatal car crash really intended to kill the victim and have them charged with murder. So you think that a drunken idiot who called a cab driver a racial epithet after being asked to leave his cab, specifically went out to get members of a certain community, do you?

---

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

No, I just wanted to confirm that you weren't having a drunken moment yourself when you said you really believed that a lout calling someone a racial epithet during a drunken fight specifically went out to get members of that certain community.Unfortunately, it seems you were sober.

---

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

Gosh Straggs, there's an awful lot of cases of police "misapplying the law", don't you reckon? You obviously see no connection with the police guidelines & definition of a hate-crime/incident as something "perceived by the victim or anyone else to be motivated by hate". Nope, that's just a coincidence according to you. Nothing to do with the police 'having a word' with people they (or anyone else) perceives to be motivated by hate. It just so happens by a diabolical twist of fate, according to you,.....riggghhhhtt! Blimey Straggler, why didn't I think of this before?! I'm now writing a letter to my council complaining about the Mardi Gras celebrations. I'm looking forward to my visit by the police and consequently, to my damages compensation award. Hurray!! The trouble for you here is that the police didn't misapply anything, they followed their own guidelines to the letter.While we're on the subject, have you got any examples of anyone benefiting from hate-crime laws?
Any racist attacks stopped because of hate-crime legislation?
Any victims stopped suffering because of hate-crime laws?
Any other actual benefit achieved by hate-crime legislation?....anything good at all? (other than you sleeping better at night because you're 'doing the Right Thing')

---

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

Scenario #1 is indeed a cause of alarm to the community.Scenario #2 is not as sinister as #1 but I can understand some people in the community getting alarmed by it.Of course what we've been talking about in the last few posts is Scenario #3: A woman goes out to celebrate, gets hopelessly drunk, gets a taxi home, the taxi driver asks her to get out because she's loud and drunk and she hits him while shouting "fucking paki".Now, I posit that this scenario wouldn't cause any alarm or fear to the community as a whole. Despite what you may think, people in the community have the ability to see this incident for what it is: a drunken, idiotic lout trying to verbally and physically hurt the driver who caused her 'offence'. Your assumption that the community will be cowering in fear after this incident is presumptuous and patronising and has been eloquently addressed by Onifre in Message 72

quote:

---

This is exactly my point - "others" speaking up for people who they are out of touch with. Have you asked the black community if they feel "terrorized"...?
....
Everyone tries to speak up for everyone else. They try to establish what should and shouldn't be considered "funny," and claim that people got "offended" ... Who, who are these people? Who the fuck got offended? You know who, white liberals, that's who got offended. And, since their politically correct asses or on TV, they try to speak for everyone else.

​

Its the same as you or anyone else claiming that certain crimes make people "feel" like victims. That is PC bullshit.

---

Enough said already.

---

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