|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 13, 2024 21:29:58 GMT
It's OK, hating fat people is no worse than hating ginger haired people. There's no special protection for salad dodgers.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 13, 2024 21:31:36 GMT
Yes but how would one actually know that the protected characteristic was in fact the reason for the attack in the first place? How could one prove this? If there is a psycho out looking to attack someone they might be blind to that person's particular characteristic. Well it is usually fairly obvious when they shout “fuck you nigger/paki/queer/jewboy/tranny” etc etc. It is not a hate crime simply because the victim had a protected characteristic, it is only a hate crime if the attack was clearly driven by hatred of the protected characteristic. Obviously!
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 13, 2024 21:37:26 GMT
Yeah I agree with that
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 13, 2024 21:49:12 GMT
The problem with this is that there are numerous reasons why someone might hate someone else enough to commit a crime against them. The selection of a small number of categories has the effect of giving those with these qualities an elevated status whilst those afflicted with 'qualities' not listed must accept the hatred that comes their way. They must accept this with good grace in the knowledge that their suffering isn't as important as the suffering of others, in this society, which wants everyone to be equal. It is important to bear in mind the difference between a personal reason to hate another specific person enough to commit a crime against them, vs a generic reason. If someone has a personal grievance against someone else, it is likely due to the latter actively doing something that is resented, annoying, creates a nuisance etc. That behaviour is ultimately a choice, and violent reaction to it is unlikely to be the first response unless it is obviously and predictably objectionable. In other words, the attack is not random based on generic and intrinsic characteristics , it is a consequence of a specific behavioural choice. Whereas the reason for a generic attack on grounds solely of a protected characteristic, is a random attack not based on any behavioural choice nor something that could be avoided by “being of good behaviour”. So although you are weaponising emotiveness in order to empower your argument, in fact the issue is nothing to do with creating a league table of suffering importance, it is about attempting to even out the rates of occurrence of violent attack by reducing the incidences violent attacks on certain sections of society who have to endure a much higher chance of suffering a random violent attack. So it is about the numbers, not about ranking the importance. I can't question your reasoning. However, I remain uncomfortable about a society that prescribes justice based on a menu of the characteristics of those assailed. Justice should be consistent, I feel. That would be a better system in a society aiming for equality. In addition: While this two tier system is aligned to justice it pervades or at least, infringes on others aspects of life. The best example of this would be the 'blind eyes' turned, for many years, to the activities of taxi drivers and kebab shop workers in towns up and down the land. Not wanting to be seen to be racist, not wanting to rock the boat, with folk who had protected characteristics. By the way how do you feel about Scotland's new 'stirring up hatred' law?
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 13, 2024 21:56:39 GMT
Oh the humanity
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 13, 2024 22:06:23 GMT
I sometimes wonder why people who have nothing to say, just don't say anything.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 13, 2024 22:24:49 GMT
It is important to bear in mind the difference between a personal reason to hate another specific person enough to commit a crime against them, vs a generic reason. If someone has a personal grievance against someone else, it is likely due to the latter actively doing something that is resented, annoying, creates a nuisance etc. That behaviour is ultimately a choice, and violent reaction to it is unlikely to be the first response unless it is obviously and predictably objectionable. In other words, the attack is not random based on generic and intrinsic characteristics , it is a consequence of a specific behavioural choice. Whereas the reason for a generic attack on grounds solely of a protected characteristic, is a random attack not based on any behavioural choice nor something that could be avoided by “being of good behaviour”. So although you are weaponising emotiveness in order to empower your argument, in fact the issue is nothing to do with creating a league table of suffering importance, it is about attempting to even out the rates of occurrence of violent attack by reducing the incidences violent attacks on certain sections of society who have to endure a much higher chance of suffering a random violent attack. So it is about the numbers, not about ranking the importance. I can't question your reasoning. However, I remain uncomfortable about a society that prescribes justice based on a menu of the characteristics of those assailed. Justice should be consistent, I feel. That would be a better system in a society aiming for equality. In addition: While this two tier system is aligned to justice it pervades or at least, infringes on others aspects of life. The best example of this would be the 'blind eyes' turned, for many years, to the activities of taxi drivers and kebab shop workers in towns up and down the land. Not wanting to be seen to be racist, not wanting to rock the boat, with folk who had protected characteristics. By the way how do you feel about Scotland's new 'stirring up hatred' law? I think you therefore have no choice other than to remain uncomfortable. Society tries to aim for equality, but it has to be born in mind that individuals are not equal in their attributes. If you want everything to be equal then clearly you would resent severely disabled people being paid benefits when most other people have to go to work etc etc. Let them be treated exactly the same as everyone else. Work or starve. I don’t think that is actually what you want, you have simply not thought out the consequences of your expressed opinion. Equality lies in the outcome, not in the State’s treatment of individuals. You now add conflation with turning a blind eye to criminal activity based on protected attributes. Clearly this is a bad thing. I know it has happened, but it is not justifiable. It happened because people in authority didn’t think through what they were doing. Scotlands new law is quite controversial and driven by the Greens. I have to declare that I consider anything the Scottish government does to be derisible, that is my prejudice. But even so, it does seem ill thought out and rather unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 13, 2024 23:29:20 GMT
I can't question your reasoning. However, I remain uncomfortable about a society that prescribes justice based on a menu of the characteristics of those assailed. Justice should be consistent, I feel. That would be a better system in a society aiming for equality. In addition: While this two tier system is aligned to justice it pervades or at least, infringes on others aspects of life. The best example of this would be the 'blind eyes' turned, for many years, to the activities of taxi drivers and kebab shop workers in towns up and down the land. Not wanting to be seen to be racist, not wanting to rock the boat, with folk who had protected characteristics. By the way how do you feel about Scotland's new 'stirring up hatred' law? I think you therefore have no choice other than to remain uncomfortable. Society tries to aim for equality, but it has to be born in mind that individuals are not equal in their attributes. If you want everything to be equal then clearly you would resent severely disabled people being paid benefits when most other people have to go to work etc etc. Let them be treated exactly the same as everyone else. Work or starve. I don’t think that is actually what you want, you have simply not thought out the consequences of your expressed opinion. Equality lies in the outcome, not in the State’s treatment of individuals. You now add conflation with turning a blind eye to criminal activity based on protected attributes. Clearly this is a bad thing. I know it has happened, but it is not justifiable. It happened because people in authority didn’t think through what they were doing. Scotlands new law is quite controversial and driven by the Greens. I have to declare that I consider anything the Scottish government does to be derisible, that is my prejudice. But even so, it does seem ill thought out and rather unnecessary. Regarding your first paragraph the state doesn't have exclusive control over the outcome for those less fortunate. OK, I know, it's expected for this to be the case at home. It's been the case for decades. It's limited though. All the state can provide is entitlement and money. Versus denial of entitlement and resultant anger and bitterness. Even the money, unlimited amounts, doesn't come with love.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 14, 2024 6:58:10 GMT
I think you therefore have no choice other than to remain uncomfortable. Society tries to aim for equality, but it has to be born in mind that individuals are not equal in their attributes. If you want everything to be equal then clearly you would resent severely disabled people being paid benefits when most other people have to go to work etc etc. Let them be treated exactly the same as everyone else. Work or starve. I don’t think that is actually what you want, you have simply not thought out the consequences of your expressed opinion. Equality lies in the outcome, not in the State’s treatment of individuals. You now add conflation with turning a blind eye to criminal activity based on protected attributes. Clearly this is a bad thing. I know it has happened, but it is not justifiable. It happened because people in authority didn’t think through what they were doing. Scotlands new law is quite controversial and driven by the Greens. I have to declare that I consider anything the Scottish government does to be derisible, that is my prejudice. But even so, it does seem ill thought out and rather unnecessary. Regarding your first paragraph the state doesn't have exclusive control over the outcome for those less fortunate. OK, I know, it's expected for this to be the case at home. It's been the case for decades. It's limited though. All the state can provide is entitlement and money. Versus denial of entitlement and resultant anger and bitterness. Even the money, unlimited amounts, doesn't come with love. Yes the state can only make policy that makes interventions at the macro level, not the individual level. People often confuse themselves by not understanding this difference. Going back to the core point, do you consider that the law that makes it a more serious offence to violently attack ambulance crew or firefighters at work, is also misguided and unfair?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 14, 2024 7:45:35 GMT
Regarding your first paragraph the state doesn't have exclusive control over the outcome for those less fortunate. OK, I know, it's expected for this to be the case at home. It's been the case for decades. It's limited though. All the state can provide is entitlement and money. Versus denial of entitlement and resultant anger and bitterness. Even the money, unlimited amounts, doesn't come with love. Yes the state can only make policy that makes interventions at the macro level, not the individual level. People often confuse themselves by not understanding this difference. Going back to the core point, do you consider that the law that makes it a more serious offence to violently attack ambulance crew or firefighters at work, is also misguided and unfair? I do. Also the new proposed law for shopworkers. Nobody deserves to be beaten up. Equally. Whatever their job is. It's unjust to vary a punishment tariff based on the job of the victim. Going back to the original point I could concede that a greater deterrent may have some value to society, for a limited term. When the youngsters of today grow up though, no longer beating up homosexuals, any such differentials should be removed. An equal society needs to have the same rules for all. A tiered society, with certain groups having special privileges, isn't an equal society.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 14, 2024 7:46:05 GMT
Yes but how would one actually know that the protected characteristic was in fact the reason for the attack in the first place? How could one prove this? If there is a psycho out looking to attack someone they might be blind to that person's particular characteristic. Well it is usually fairly obvious when they shout “fuck you nigger/paki/queer/jewboy/tranny” etc etc. It is not a hate crime simply because the victim had a protected characteristic, it is only a hate crime if the attack was clearly driven by hatred of the protected characteristic. Obviously! So an attack on someone who does not have a characteristic is not driven by hate ? What is the driver for a violent maniac to attack someone for no reason? It does sometimes happen but you are saying there is no hate involved. Does the attacker in the circumstance in fact like the person they are attacking?
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 14, 2024 7:50:19 GMT
I have a protected characteristic under the equality act (Ass burgers syndrome diagnosed in 2003). If someone beat me up at a bus stop but they happened to be unaware that I had a protected characteristic would it be a hate crime?
Whereas if they initially shouted 'stop talking you irritating aspie' before doing the beating up it would be a hate crime. Not all disabilities are visible. Does a hate crime need to have a prelude of shouting or abusive language indicating the hate?
|
|
|
Post by fi on Apr 14, 2024 7:55:37 GMT
Does a hate crime need to have a prelude of shouting or abusive language indicating the hate? No the motive behind the crime is considered. If a white man attacks a black man it isn't necessarily a hate crime.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 14, 2024 8:01:04 GMT
Assault remains illegal whatever the motivation.
However the law now tries to add additional protection (and deterrent) for some groups who have historically been attacked simply because of their group identification.
Makes absolute sense even if we don't agree doesn't it ?
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 14, 2024 8:01:06 GMT
If a black man attacks a white man it's very unlikely to be considered a hate crime.
|
|