|
Post by brummieboy on Apr 14, 2024 12:21:45 GMT
Jasper Carrot had it right! Which one is you Rog, the passenger or the other?
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Apr 14, 2024 12:25:33 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? Scotlands new law is quite controversial and driven by the Greens. Which definition of Green are you alludung to?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 14, 2024 12:30:04 GMT
What a horrendous story emerging from Australia. A 40 year old guy randomly attacking folks in a shopping mall with a knife. A nine month old baby under going surgery and it's Mother amongst the dead. Takes ones breath away. Rog Why am I not surprised that a topic about a knife wielding psychopath is posted by dogless, or Alice, as he's more aptly known, , . . when he himself spends inordinate amounts of time every day in the on-line trolling of the Thunderboat forum with his on-line stalking buddy, . . who just happens to be knife wielding psychopath, . . by the name of Vince ' Mr Stabby' Coventon. Talk about synchronicity !
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 14, 2024 12:34:54 GMT
Scotlands new law is quite controversial and driven by the Greens. Which definition of Green are you alludung to? The political party known as the Greens, who are in a sort of coalition with the SNP (SNP needed them to have a majority in the Scottish parliament). They are not particularly green but are heavily into trans rights and all that sort of wokery. As well as being even more useless and ridiculous in government than the SNP! They only got a few MSPs because here in Scotland we have a sort of proportional representation thing - no constituency Green MSP got elected, but they got a few in by the “list” system. Unfortunately due to the SNP being in desperate need of being propped up, the very few MSPs the Greens have, have a massively disproportionate influence on policy due to holding the SNP to ransom.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 14, 2024 12:43:34 GMT
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. Well we will just have to disagree on those several points. No-one deserves to be beaten up, but when those beaten up are public service workers (ambulance crew, firefighters etc) and they are beaten up simply because they are going about their work trying to help the public, it makes good sense to give them increased protections because otherwise there is a risk that those people with conclude that it’s too dangerous and scary to be one of those public service workers, and then society has a problem that no-one want to be ambulance crew or a firefighter. And there is of course also the cost to the public purse from such people being off sick with injury, damage to public property (the vehicles) etc. And more basically it sends a message that society considers it particularly socially unacceptable to perpetrate such attacks. Regarding your last point, it seems you still don’t get the concept of the rules vs the outcomes. A disabled person is entitled to benefits (the rules) so they can have roughly the same minimum living standard as an able person (the outcome). Do you consider it unfair that a disabled person gets money from the State whereas hard working people don’t? From your previous arguments it seems to fall out that you consider this to be unfair because the State is treating different categories of citizens differently. It would be interesting to research whether equality law has ever clashed with human rights. The latter simply being an interpretation of natural justice for the individual, overriding state laws, when these are considered to breach the human rights of the individual. If we took the example of 3 people charged with beating people up. One for beating up a fat person, one a ginger haired person, one a black person. Each was convicted and it was established that the motive, in each case, was because the perpetrator didn't like fat/ ginger/ black people, respectively. Natural justice would dictate that each person convicted would receive an equal punishment. In Britain however, equality law and sentencing guidelines would dictate that the person assaulting the black person receive a stiffer punishment. Human rights law could argue this to be an unfair trial, a breach of the perpetrator's human right to be treated equally, in law. Britian is a signatory to human rights legislation. It offers sanctuary to many who are unlikely to receive fair legal treatment in their countries of birth/ residence.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 14, 2024 12:51:30 GMT
Well we will just have to disagree on those several points. No-one deserves to be beaten up, but when those beaten up are public service workers (ambulance crew, firefighters etc) and they are beaten up simply because they are going about their work trying to help the public, it makes good sense to give them increased protections because otherwise there is a risk that those people with conclude that it’s too dangerous and scary to be one of those public service workers, and then society has a problem that no-one want to be ambulance crew or a firefighter. And there is of course also the cost to the public purse from such people being off sick with injury, damage to public property (the vehicles) etc. And more basically it sends a message that society considers it particularly socially unacceptable to perpetrate such attacks. Regarding your last point, it seems you still don’t get the concept of the rules vs the outcomes. A disabled person is entitled to benefits (the rules) so they can have roughly the same minimum living standard as an able person (the outcome). Do you consider it unfair that a disabled person gets money from the State whereas hard working people don’t? From your previous arguments it seems to fall out that you consider this to be unfair because the State is treating different categories of citizens differently. It would be interesting to research whether equality law has ever clashed with human rights. The latter simply being an interpretation of natural justice for the individual, overriding state laws, when these are considered to breach the human rights of the individual. If we took the example of 3 people charged with beating people up. One for beating up a fat person, one a ginger haired person, one a black person. Each was convicted and it was established that the motive, in each case, was because the perpetrator didn't like fat/ ginger/ black people, respectively. Natural justice would dictate that each person convicted would receive an equal punishment. In Britain however, equality law and sentencing guidelines would dictate that the person assaulting the black person receive a stiffer punishment. Human rights law could argue this to be an unfair trial, a breach of the perpetrator's human right to be treated equally, in law. Britian is a signatory to human rights legislation. It offers sanctuary to many who are unlikely to receive fair legal treatment in their countries of birth/ residence. I notice you haven’t responded to my question about whether you agree with the State treating people differently according to their ability to work. I can’t see how you can object in principle to the state treating hate crimes against certain groups of people differently from a crime with the same outcome but not triggered by hate of the protected characteristic, whilst at the same time not objecting to the state treating people differently with regard to benefits according to whether they are disabled or not. It doesn’t seem rational and you have not explained your position on the matter, which leads me to believe that you haven’t fully thought out your opinion on these matters, which go beyond whether or not certain hate crimes should be subject to more severe sentencing than non-hate crimes. Anyway, it seems we are shortly to leave the ECHR so bye bye human rights (and anyway, there is no such thing as “human rights”, it is an invention of wokery!)
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 14, 2024 13:11:39 GMT
Still chundering on this one. Why am I not surprised?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 14, 2024 13:14:11 GMT
Still chundering on this one. Why am I not surprised? I don't know, do tell us why you are not surprised, I'm sure the reason will be fascinating! And whilst you are at it, why not create a thread that stimulates interesting discussions?
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 14, 2024 13:18:55 GMT
I am incapable of dealing with a mighty intellect such as yours, oh great one.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 14, 2024 14:40:32 GMT
Still chundering on this one. Why am I not surprised? You should try having a conversation sometimes. It's a good way of learning.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 14, 2024 14:47:32 GMT
It would be interesting to research whether equality law has ever clashed with human rights. The latter simply being an interpretation of natural justice for the individual, overriding state laws, when these are considered to breach the human rights of the individual. If we took the example of 3 people charged with beating people up. One for beating up a fat person, one a ginger haired person, one a black person. Each was convicted and it was established that the motive, in each case, was because the perpetrator didn't like fat/ ginger/ black people, respectively. Natural justice would dictate that each person convicted would receive an equal punishment. In Britain however, equality law and sentencing guidelines would dictate that the person assaulting the black person receive a stiffer punishment. Human rights law could argue this to be an unfair trial, a breach of the perpetrator's human right to be treated equally, in law. Britian is a signatory to human rights legislation. It offers sanctuary to many who are unlikely to receive fair legal treatment in their countries of birth/ residence. I notice you haven’t responded to my question about whether you agree with the State treating people differently according to their ability to work. I can’t see how you can object in principle to the state treating hate crimes against certain groups of people differently from a crime with the same outcome but not triggered by hate of the protected characteristic, whilst at the same time not objecting to the state treating people differently with regard to benefits according to whether they are disabled or not. It doesn’t seem rational and you have not explained your position on the matter, which leads me to believe that you haven’t fully thought out your opinion on these matters, which go beyond whether or not certain hate crimes should be subject to more severe sentencing than non-hate crimes. Anyway, it seems we are shortly to leave the ECHR so bye bye human rights (and anyway, there is no such thing as “human rights”, it is an invention of wokery!) If someone doesn't receive benefits from government they can continue with their lives. They can continue to live with their partner, or on their own, as they prefer. They can continue to work or carry out their preferred leisure activities. They can get up when they like, go to bed when they like, eat what they like when they like. Their is no tyrannical restriction, ordered by government. The chap who beats up the black guy though, may have all these things decided for him simply because he hates black guys, rather than ginger haired, or fat guys.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 14, 2024 14:49:02 GMT
Still chundering on this one. Why am I not surprised? You should try having a conversation sometimes. It's a good way of learning. I am unworthy of your teachings and cannot hope to ascend to the mighty heights of your magnificence.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 14, 2024 14:50:05 GMT
You should try having a conversation sometimes. It's a good way of learning. I am unworthy of your teachings and cannot hope to ascend to the mighty heights of your magnificence. I was talking generally, rather than specifically.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 14, 2024 15:06:44 GMT
I am unworthy of your teachings and cannot hope to ascend to the mighty heights of your magnificence. I was talking generally, rather than specifically. I am honoured that you continue to bathe me in the light of your excellence.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 14, 2024 15:28:42 GMT
I notice you haven’t responded to my question about whether you agree with the State treating people differently according to their ability to work. I can’t see how you can object in principle to the state treating hate crimes against certain groups of people differently from a crime with the same outcome but not triggered by hate of the protected characteristic, whilst at the same time not objecting to the state treating people differently with regard to benefits according to whether they are disabled or not. It doesn’t seem rational and you have not explained your position on the matter, which leads me to believe that you haven’t fully thought out your opinion on these matters, which go beyond whether or not certain hate crimes should be subject to more severe sentencing than non-hate crimes. Anyway, it seems we are shortly to leave the ECHR so bye bye human rights (and anyway, there is no such thing as “human rights”, it is an invention of wokery!) If someone doesn't receive benefits from government they can continue with their lives. They can continue to live with their partner, or on their own, as they prefer. They can continue to work or carry out their preferred leisure activities. They can get up when they like, go to bed when they like, eat what they like when they like. Their is no tyrannical restriction, ordered by government. This does seem a very odd thing to say, and is certainly incorrect at least in many cases. A severely disabled person who cannot work and who doesn't receive benefits from the government certainly can't continue with their lives unless they are fortunate enough to have someone else to provide for them. How can they continue to live without being able to buy food, electricity etc? And they certainly won't be in a position to eat what they like (unless it is eg dust or soil) nor go do bed when they like (they will be homeless) nor take part in any leisure activities unless they are free and able to be undertaken by a disabled person.
Presumably you would have them eat cake and stop moaning?
|
|