Heartland

The concept of hate crime isn't a law per se. It's about the way in which acts are interpreted and punishments handed out.

When thinking about this it's helpful to regard 'the law' as being anything a judge feels can be applied in court. Most of our statutes are surprisingly flexible, but social and political factors mean they can be tweaked to target specific issues.

Where police believe there to be a racist, homophobic, anti-semitic etc etc element to a crime they will make this a prominent part of their report to the CPS. In turn the CPS should use this to push for stiffer sentencing should the defendant be convicted.

Thus if you beat up a white heterosexual Christian man you will probably get a shorter sentence than if you beat up a black man, a homosexual or a person of another recognised faith. Which is arguably unjust.

I've no idea whether Wicca is a religion or not. Definitions of religions are complex. There is a school of thought which holds Buddhism to be a philosophy rather than a religion: I had a fairly involved conversation with a monk at the Vihara in Chiswick who was very clear about this. Apparently it doesn't involve worship per se, and instead of presenting an unattainable and infallible divine ideal tries to regard Buddha as the zenith of humanity.

This was a while ago, though, and the Buddhist temples I visited in Mongolia gave a rather different impression .....

andymackem wrote:Thus if you beat up a white heterosexual Christian man you will probably get a shorter sentence than if you beat up a black man, a homosexual or a person of another recognised faith. Which is arguably unjust.

This is unarguably conjecture.

The word "probably" doesn't belong in sensible debate.

Institutionalised prejudice would "probably" cause the opposite effect.

Motz wrote:As for the War on Terror, I hate the phrase. Calling it a War is like covering it in neon stickers saying "We're Clueless!". You can only declare war on a self governing state, not an abstract concept ¬.¬

Don't get me wrong, I hate it too. It seems to me only a few steps away from "War on General Bad Things We Don't Like". The fact they call it "Terror" instead of "TerrorISM" pisses me right off as well...
...oh no, we don't want to deal in "isms" - then people will start looking for clear definitions of what it is we're fighting - no, we'll just declare war on an unpleasant human emotion that no-one enjoys experiencing, who could fail to go along with that?
It's vague and it's dangerous. Echoes of Oceania vs. Eastasia/Eurasia in 1984... I know I'm not the first to make that comment, but the similarity is alarming.

I was under the impression that only nationals of a given country could commit treason against it? So in theory, two people who say exactly the same thing could be guilty of different crimes depending on where they were born or their passport status...doesn't sound like a plan to me.


As to the religioud hatred issue, if this law is passed then atheists are automatically discriminated against, as we are expected to accept any old tripe chucked at us by any religion you care to name. I could get tired of being told I'm going to hell.

See you in Strasbourg.

andymackem wrote:Thus if you beat up a white heterosexual Christian man you will probably get a shorter sentence than if you beat up a black man, a homosexual or a person of another recognised faith. Which is arguably unjust.

I thought the outcome of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry was that because he was a black man his murder was not investigated properly ("institutional racism" was the phrase which lodged itself into the collective memory, I believe) and so the (white, heterosexual? Christian?) men who killed him therefore got off scott free.

This goes completely against your proposition, and shows that while the criminal justice system is indeed unjust, as you say, it is unjust in a completely opposed manner to how you have indicated it.

straylight wrote:I was under the impression that only nationals of a given country could commit treason against it? So in theory, two people who say exactly the same thing could be guilty of different crimes depending on where they were born or their passport status...doesn't sound like a plan to me.

As I understand it, some of the preachers in question have British citizenship - therein lies the issue.

straylight wrote: As to the religioud hatred issue, if this law is passed then atheists are automatically discriminated against, as we are expected to accept any old tripe chucked at us by any religion you care to name. I could get tired of being told I'm going to hell.

No, it's the agnostics which will suffer. Atheism is, for all practical applications, a religion and this has no doubt been worded into the law*. You don't get separate boxes on a census form asking "Are you an Atheist?" and "What is your Religion?" - you just get questioned about your religion.

*Or maybe that's wishful thinking?

straylight wrote:As to the religioud hatred issue, if this law is passed then atheists are automatically discriminated against, as we are expected to accept any old tripe chucked at us by any religion you care to name. I could get tired of being told I'm going to hell.

Actually no. Clicky

The Home Office wrote:Following the Home Secretary’s announcement in his speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research on 7th July 2004, the Government has introduced protection against extremists who stir up hatred against people because of their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs.

(emphasis mine)

But yeah, I get tired of being told I'll go to hell too. Maybe now we can do them for incitement to religious hatred now?

lazarus corporation wrote:

andymackem wrote:Thus if you beat up a white heterosexual Christian man you will probably get a shorter sentence than if you beat up a black man, a homosexual or a person of another recognised faith. Which is arguably unjust.

I thought the outcome of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry was that because he was a black man his murder was not investigated properly ("institutional racism" was the phrase which lodged itself into the collective memory, I believe) and so the (white, heterosexual? Christian?) men who killed him therefore got off scott free.

This goes completely against your proposition, and shows that while the criminal justice system is indeed unjust, as you say, it is unjust in a completely opposed manner to how you have indicated it.

And the response to institutional racism charge levelled in 1998 was ...?

http://www.online.police.uk/english/des ... _crime.asp
http://www.btp.police.uk/hatecrime/hatecrime.htm

(from a quick google search, rather than exhaustive research)

Why is an 'incident' upgraded to a crime because the victim feels it is down to their race, gender, sexuality, religion etc? Can my feelings not also be hurt by non-criminal 'incidents' involving people who share my background but just happen not to like me very much?

This seems to imply we are moving towards a multi-stream legal system. This is wrong. A crime is a crime, regardless of who commits it and who is the victim. The legal system should respond accordingly. In my opinion.

Motz wrote:Atheism is, for all practical applications, a religion

Bull. Atheism is a lack of religion. From Greek a- without theos god. i.e. without god(s)

Where are the atheist churches? What are atheist religious practices?

Sorry, but it's a real bug-bear of mine. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s).

"for all practical applications"

Sorry if it annoys you, but I'm talking in terms of censuses, legal proceedings, etc. For purposes of data gathering, it makes much more administrative sense to treat religion as an enumerated value (with Atheism among the set), rather than a boolean (Religious vs Not) + enum.

I do however agree that in the sense of belief and conviction, it probably doesn't come under the same banner. Sorry for any confusion or offense caused.

Oh right I see what you mean

No apology necessary

*Edit to add: And I'm sorry for biting your head off about it

markfiend wrote:
Does one have a legal duty to report illegal acts to the police under British Law?

Mark, we'd best get on the first boat outta here.

FFS Dave wrote:

markfiend wrote:
Does one have a legal duty to report illegal acts to the police under British Law?

Mark, we'd best get on the first boat outta here.

Oh fnck yeah!

FFS Dave wrote:

markfiend wrote:
Does one have a legal duty to report illegal acts to the police under British Law?

Mark, we'd best get on the first boat outta here.

Bugger, now I'll have to report you for evading prosecution.

Unless I can come too?

Motz wrote: As I understand it, some of the preachers in question have British citizenship - therein lies the issue.

I know- that's what I meant- surely their crimes, if they are crimes, stand or fall on what they do or say, not their nationality.

Personally I am more concerned about the adverse effects on most Muslim people. They may not share the views of those who claim to represent them but they are the ones to suffer by association.

straylight wrote:Personally I am more concerned about the adverse effects on most Muslim people. They may not share the views of those who claim to represent them but they are the ones to suffer by association.

This is true. Indeed the Mosque nearest to my house issued a statement condemning the London bombings in the strongest possible terms.

Motz wrote:

FFS Dave wrote:

markfiend wrote:
Does one have a legal duty to report illegal acts to the police under British Law?

Mark, we'd best get on the first boat outta here.

Bugger, now I'll have to report you for evading prosecution.

Unless I can come too?

Boat leaves in five minutes Motz. Run!

When you get to the port, look for the 'Thunderchild'.

markfiend wrote:

straylight wrote:Personally I am more concerned about the adverse effects on most Muslim people. They may not share the views of those who claim to represent them but they are the ones to suffer by association.

This is true. Indeed the Mosque nearest to my house issued a statement condemning the London bombings in the strongest possible terms.

And unfortunately, it won't make a blind bit of difference to the type of people who immediately go running to said mosques with a box of matches. The real problem (other than sticking our nose into dodgy business that has bugger-all to do with us - Iraq, as a for-instance), is that racism is generally so deep-rooted in much of the population that any spark is the only spark they need. Most of my neighbours and 'friends' round our way are horrendously racist, without a sensible argument to back their opinions up between them.

@ Boudicca & Motz, on libel / defamation.

It _is_ possible to defame someone by attributing a 'nice thing' to them. What impact might it have on Swampy's eco-warrior credibility if it was alledged that he drove a powerful, gas-guzzling sports car and flew his own private jet wherever possible? In most cases, saying that someone is wealthy and enjoys fast cars and planes isn't defamatory, but when you're an eco-warrior it becomes slightly different. See Jason Donovan, who successfully pursued a malicious falsehood claim against The Face over an article claiming he was gay. Homosexuality is not a 'bad thing', in law; Donovan's case was that he had repeated denied he was gay and the article implied he was a liar. Lying is a 'bad thing', so the case was upheld.

As for defamatory opinions, here's a working example from my office!

I'm doing my annual pre-season comment piece on how a football team is likely to get on. The answer, in short, is 'not very well'. One of my concerns is that their manager has been unable to sign good enough players to improve their squad.

He could argue this is defamatory because it will make it harder for him to carry out his legitimate trade: such opinions will dampen the optimism of supporters and affect the 'super-positive' atmosphere he likes to talk about creating. It will increase pressue on him, and may discourage potential new signings from joining the club. He could also argue that the players he has are more than capable of competing in the Premiership - he has said they can finish 10th next season.

By the time the hypothetical case reached court, the team could have fulfilled my expectations and be bottom of the league, or they could be unbeaten and romping away at the top.

Yet, even if the latter case were true I could still defend myself against a defamation suit.

My opinion has historical precedent - newly promoted teams struggle in higher leagues. Previous opinions I have offered about team and management, have been broadly accurate, suggesting that my judgement is reasonably fair. This opinion is not uniquely my own, making it hard to argue I'm being deliberately malicious. I might be wrong, but that is not in itself a crime.

The final point to consider would be whether my opinion carries sufficient weight to justify a putative legal action. A paper wouldn't wish to go to court and argue that it had limited influence, but in reality it would be hard for a judge to find against us given our circulation and position among the papers covering the club.

And there you have a prima facie defamatory opinion, and some viable defences against the allegation. It can be done. It just doesn't happen very often.

It's all very simple. They should each get themselves one of These

Mrs RicheyJames wrote:It's all very simple. They should each get themselves one of These

Stylish and practical!

FFS Dave wrote:

Motz wrote:

FFS Dave wrote: Mark, we'd best get on the first boat outta here.

Bugger, now I'll have to report you for evading prosecution.

Unless I can come too?

Boat leaves in five minutes Motz. Run!

When you get to the port, look for the 'Thunderchild'.

Oi, wait fer me! Drugs and anime and cats in hats, no way in hell I'm missing this one.

shove over...

andymackem wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:

andymackem wrote:Thus if you beat up a white heterosexual Christian man you will probably get a shorter sentence than if you beat up a black man, a homosexual or a person of another recognised faith. Which is arguably unjust.

I thought the outcome of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry was that because he was a black man his murder was not investigated properly ("institutional racism" was the phrase which lodged itself into the collective memory, I believe) and so the (white, heterosexual? Christian?) men who killed him therefore got off scott free.

This goes completely against your proposition, and shows that while the criminal justice system is indeed unjust, as you say, it is unjust in a completely opposed manner to how you have indicated it.

And the response to institutional racism charge levelled in 1998 was ...?

http://www.online.police.uk/english/des ... _crime.asp
http://www.btp.police.uk/hatecrime/hatecrime.htm

(from a quick google search, rather than exhaustive research)

true, but although this government's response to anything is "don't think - legislate", it doesn't mean that the legislation in question will actually right any of the perceived wrongs.

In other words, despite the legislation, I still think that blacks and gays are discriminated against. I don't believe that racism and homophobia have been eradicated from the criminal justice system.

andymackem wrote:A crime is a crime, regardless of who commits it and who is the victim. The legal system should respond accordingly. In my opinion.

I completely agree with you.

This furthermore raises the question, if he thinks this country is so "decadent and evil" why doesn't he f*ck off somewhere else? We have things like "democracy" here and I, for one, don't appreciate attempts to overthrow it in favour of an Islamist theocracy.

Or am I just indulging in Daily Mail-style reactionary knee-jerk thinking here?

no, you're simply being rational, and actually showing
some concern for the population of your own society.

Since Britain wandered down some kind of spiral of
political correctness at some undefined point afew
years ago, asserting rational thought is now only
allowed when it might not "offend" some minority
groups. Anyone reading this must be able to recognise
that that logic is ridiculous, yet, of course,
British people timidly fall into line in that
benign way that they always do, and put up with it.

Reclaim your country. Be proud to be British,
and a rational, tolerant person. That does not
make you a nutter, or a nazi.
Support (and fight) for your countries values.

And don't read the daily mail, its s**t.
Stick to the Independant, if you must.