Hate crime law could be extended to cover misogyny, misandry, ageism, etc.

[dylanredefined]

Because it’s an injury to society not just an individual

How? Hate and intolerance are nasty things, but, unless backed by action only harm the individual whose wasting their time hating whoever it is they hate. If I go and punch spymaster because I'm drunk. Or I punch them after telling everyone how much I detest spymaster and his type. What is the difference I'm still an arsehole in either case?

Not that I want to punch spymaster for any reason.

 

[kabbes]

How? Hate and intolerance are nasty things, but, unless backed by action only harm the individual whose wasting their time hating whoever it is they hate. If I go and punch spymaster because I'm drunk. Or I punch them after telling everyone how much I detest spymaster and his type. What is the difference I'm still an arsehole in either case?

Not that I want to punch spymaster for any reason.

In the former case, other people have no reason to fear, other than staying out of your way when you are drunk. In the latter case, you are acting to create a more systemic terror amongst entire groups of people.

This isn’t my reasoning, by the way. It is the actual justification given for the harsher sentencing for hate crimes. You asked why they are considered worse; this is why.

 

[dylanredefined]

In the former case, other people have no reason to fear, other than staying out of your way when you are drunk. In the latter case, you are acting to create a more systemic terror amongst entire groups of people.

This isn’t my reasoning, by the way. It is the actual justification given for the harsher sentencing for hate crimes. You asked why they are considered worse; this is why.

That makes sense, thank you.

 

[8ball]

No

 

[8ball]

OK how about maths is a language that we humans have devised to describe the physical world of science in an attempt to predict outcomes and ensure a desired one. Maths is man made, nothing in nature does it or (bar us) understands it and like all human inventions it's tainted by our biology and our human experiences and not totally at one with nature.

I think you peaked with the first one.

 

[MickiQ]

I think you peaked with the first one.

fair enough but thought I would give it a shot

 

[8ball]

fair enough but thought I would give it a shot

It's a tricky one, to be fair.

edit: I quite like the Encyclopaedia Brittanica one:

"The science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects."

And Darwin's feelings on the matter:

"A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there."

 

[Athos]

In the former case, other people have no reason to fear, other than staying out of your way when you are drunk. In the latter case, you are acting to create a more systemic terror amongst entire groups of people.

This isn’t my reasoning, by the way. It is the actual justification given for the harsher sentencing for hate crimes. You asked why they are considered worse; this is why.

But if he's punching people at random, then everyone is at risk (rather than just those within a particular group), which, by that reasoning, ought to be considered worse than an attack that's e.g. racially motivated because it creates a terror amongst everyone!

 

[8ball]

There might well be very good arguments for this special construction of "hate crime" vs. crime in general, but the concept seems a bit incoherent to me.

I'm also unsure about the nature of the consequences always being good. These additions have stirred up a fair bit of controversy, and I think that highlights some of the problems with it.

 

[kabbes]

But if he's punching people at random, then everyone is at risk (rather than just those within a particular group), which, by that reasoning, ought to be considered worse than an attack that's e.g. racially motivated because it creates a terror amongst everyone!

No. He’s just one random puncher. He’s not creating fear of widespread and systematic attacks.

 

[8ball]

It’s madness. Soon we won’t be allowed to hate anyone.

But you will be treated more gently by the law for assaults not involving any hatred.

 

[8ball]

No. He’s just one random puncher. He’s not creating fear of widespread and systematic attacks.

So if it was, say 95% women being attacked that would be a systematic pattern of hate crime, whereas if there was no obvious gender bias, then women need not be particularly concerned, regardless of the frequency of attacks?

 

[Athos]

No. He’s just one random puncher. He’s not creating fear of widespread and systematic attacks.

If anyone could be attacked, then everyone has cause for fear. If only people in a partiular group are could be attacked, then only members of that group have cause for fear.

 

[kabbes]

So if it was, say 95% women being attacked that would be a systematic pattern of hate crime, whereas if there was no obvious gender bias, then women need not be particularly concerned, regardless of the frequency of attacks?

I don’t think you quite understand the point. It’s not about the puncher. It’s about what the puncher might be encouraging in other potential punchers.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Could have stemmed from that horrible case a few years back where a goth couple were set upon and one of them was murdered, iirc

Sophie Lancaster

Here’s Robert Maltby’s(her boyfriend who was also attacked) take on it, just for info not making a point either way...
Robert Maltby on the murder of his girlfriend Sophie Lancaster: ‘The goth thing was an oversimplification'

But for Maltby, struggling alone in Bacup, the “goth murder” narrative widened the gap between his and the public understanding of what had happened, and who Lancaster was. “I have never seen it as a hate crime,” he says. “It was always like: ‘Sophie Lancaster was killed because she was a goth.’ No she wasn’t: she was killed because some arseholes killed her. Why can’t we ask what it is about them that made them want to murder someone? Not what it is about someone that made them be murdered.”

Today, Maltby wears tracksuit bottoms, Converse trainers and a black T-shirt. He would not stand out as “different” in any town, and says that on the night of the attack he wore blue jeans and a green hoodie. Among several dramatic changes taken by the new film, the cost of the leather clothes worn by the actor playing Maltby struck him as a bit far-fetched. Only the couple’s piercings and Lancaster’s braided hair set them apart that night.

 

[8ball]

I don’t think you quite understand the point. It’s not about the puncher. It’s about what the puncher might be encouraging in other potential punchers.

So “hate crime” penalties will deter potential punchers, where “crime” penalties would not?

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

But if he's punching people at random, then everyone is at risk (rather than just those within a particular group), which, by that reasoning, ought to be considered worse than an attack that's e.g. racially motivated because it creates a terror amongst everyone!

Yeah to be fair I reckon those twins in Luther were the scariest villains of the whole series.

Should I come back when my brain is in gear? Yes!

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I’ve actually been the victim of a random punching in broad daylight in Glasgow by someone who was either high or hypomanic, she seemed to have a lot of joviality on the go.
I laughed, then later had a delayed reaction and cried!

 

[8ball]

I’ve actually been the victim of a random punching in broad daylight in Glasgow by someone who was either high or hypomanic, she seemed to have a lot of joviality on the go.
I laughed, then later had a delayed reaction and cried!

I’m not sure it’s a hate crime above a certain threshold of joviality.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I’m not sure it’s a hate crime above a certain threshold of joviality.

My thoughts exactly ha

 

[kabbes]

So “hate crime” penalties will deter potential punchers, where “crime” penalties would not?

Punishment is not necessarily about (just) deterrence. It reflects the severity of the crime.

Again, I remind you that these are not my criteria. It’s the logic of the legislators and judiciary, not me.

 

[8ball]

Again, I remind you that these are not my criteria. It’s the logic of the legislators and judiciary, not me.

Yeah, hmm.
What’s your logic on this?

I think using the law as an instrument of enforcing a dominant paradigm based on identity politics is a double-edged sword that it’s easy to find ourselves on the wrong side of.

I’d sooer agree on what a crime is, establish equality before the law, and we can work out the nuances in an open exchange of gunfire.

Ideas. Open exchange of ideas is what I meant.

(hic)

 

[LiamO]

You know, it’s not that straightforward in all seriousness. Madness as a concept has been with us for millennia and viewed in different ways over that time. But the much more recent application of the word “illness” to certain mental states has some controversy attached, because it implies a state of inappropriateness of some ways of being human. It also implies the appropriateness of diagnostic criteria and categorisation of mental processes, which are things that have been at the very least repeatedly highly contested for many decades now.

So yeah, watch your hate speech with this talk of “mental illness”

STFU - UC

 

[mojo pixy]

I’d disagree that religion is necessarily a choice given the sanctions sometimes used against those who seek to leave them.

Fair point, all the more reason not to offer human rights protection for religion. Like, do it if you want but it's not special and you're not special for doing it.

 

[Ann Tigonie]

"MickiQ,
I don't think sexual inequality is a hate crime, it's wrong and there is still much to do yet but I don't think any of the many reasons that women have got the short end of the stick throughout history is hate.

That's an interesting perspective MickiQ. So in your opinion misogyny is not the main reason why women have had the short end of the stick, as you put it? I wonder what you would put it down to MickiQ? Could it be that males benefit from female subjugation and always have. You only have to look to other parts of the world where females are routinely subjugated as "part of the culture" and in many places murdered or sexually abused, as are females still in the UK.

It's all about power & control. Who has it and what are they doing with it.

 

[MickiQ]

"MickiQ,
I don't think sexual inequality is a hate crime, it's wrong and there is still much to do yet but I don't think any of the many reasons that women have got the short end of the stick throughout history is hate.

That's an interesting perspective MickiQ. So in your opinion misogyny is not the main reason why women have had the short end of the stick, as you put it? I wonder what you would put it down to MickiQ? Could it be that males benefit from female subjugation and always have. You only have to look to other parts of the world where females are routinely subjugated as "part of the culture" and in many places murdered or sexually abused, as are females still in the UK.

It's all about power & control. Who has it and what are they doing with it.

I believe I've already said all that, Yes men have benefitted from keeping women in their place and still do in much of the world and will do so for a few generations more come to that. The point I was making is not that it is down to hatred but a belief that such is the natural order of things and that such a belief has become engrained in the human pysche over tens of thousands of years because for most of that time (except possibly for a smalll elite at the top) the physical advantages that human males have over human females such as being larger and not gettng pregnant have been more useful in day to day survival than the fact women are equally intelligent and creative.
I am sure that in most of the Islamic world for example you'll find a great many men who consider themselves loving husbands and fathers and still view themselves as superior to their wives because it's Allah's will.
We males have justified this behaviour using all sorts of spurious reasons like women need protecting, the importance of motherhood or the ever reliable will of God (because women will buy that one as well)
Here in our society women are more equal than they have ever been (though still not totally equal) because the things we need to survive and prosper now can be done equally well by both sexes (and there are some men who don't like that wouldn't argue there)

 

[8ball]

If you really, really think about it, everything is a hate crime.

 

[Ann Tigonie]

I believe I've already said all that, Yes men have benefitted from keeping women in their place and still do in much of the world and will do so for a few generations more come to that. The point I was making is not that it is down to hatred but a belief that such is the natural order of things and that such a belief has become engrained in the human pysche over tens of thousands of years because for most of that time (except possibly for a smalll elite at the top) the physical advantages that human males have over human females such as being larger and not gettng pregnant have been more useful in day to day survival than the fact women are equally intelligent and creative.
I am sure that in most of the Islamic world for example you'll find a great many men who consider themselves loving husbands and fathers and still view themselves as superior to their wives because it's Allah's will.
We males have justified this behaviour using all sorts of spurious reasons like women need protecting, the importance of motherhood or the ever reliable will of God (because women will buy that one as well)
Here in our society women are more equal than they have ever been (though still not totally equal) because the things we need to survive and prosper now can be done equally well by both sexes (and there are some men who don't like that wouldn't argue there)

 

[Saul Goodman]

Yes, if an element of racism, homophobia etc. can be shown to have been present as part or all of the motivation for the offence then it is an aggravating factor.

But this new development is being reported that should some doddery old fucker be barring your way and you mutter to yourself* "out the way you silly old cunt", then you could go down. Not sure if that is the case or not.


*Did just this, muttered in my own mind in Sainsbury's, only it somehow escaped my mind and came out of my mouth, loudly

A cunt pushed in front of me at the supermarket last week. They'd just opened another checkout, and I got there before anyone else, and started unloading my trolley, then this cunt moved from the back of the queue at the adjacent checkout, walked in front of me and started unloading his shit! It was a fairly old man, probably in his 70s, and I wasn't in the mood for an argument with an old guy, so I just muttered under my breath "I hope your next shit is a hedgehog, you fucking cunt!", but apparently not everyone's hearing is as bad as mine, because he came up to me in the car park and said "I hope you don't think I was pushing in at the checkout?" I said "No, I don't think you were. I know you were, but it doesn't matter, I'll be at the front of plenty of queues when you're dead"
#checkoutrage

 

[Ann Tigonie]

Yes, I agree with what you are saying - up to a point - but what you can't or don't want to acknowledge, is that male behaviour towards females stems from misogyny.

The latest research shows that 70% of males hold an "unconscious" bias against females, but get this, 80% of females also hold an "unconscious" bias against other females.