So Solid Corbs - 21 Deselections To Go

[Zetetic]

There's an important distinction between 'hate crimes' (which are a qualification of a crime whose existence is determined by some other standard) and various offences (e.g. public order offences) whose definition involve concepts like 'racial hatred'.

The standards involved differ.

[Replies From View]

If I were gay, someone could call be a 'gay cunt' - it might not hurt my feelings, but it would be a hate crime.

DON'T BRING IT UP IF IT ISN'T TRUE

[Dr Rock]

If you love Julia 'Enoch Was Right' Hartly (Hately)-Brewer so much Zetetic, why don't you marry her?

He argued that journalists who urged the government to pass anti-discrimination laws were "of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it". Powell described what he perceived to be the evolving position of the indigenous population:

''For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated''

The Times newspaper declared it "an evil speech", stating "This is the first time that a serious British politician has appealed to racial hatred in this direct way in our postwar history."[19] The Times went on to record incidents of racial attacks in the immediate aftermath of Powell's speech. One such incident, reported under the headline "Coloured family attacked", took place on 30 April 1968 in Wolverhampton itself: it involved a slashing incident with 14 white youths chanting "Powell" and "Why don't you go back to your own country?" at patrons of a West Indian christening party. One of the West Indian victims, Wade Crooks of Lower Villiers Street, was the child's grandfather. He had to have eight stitches over his left eye. He was reported as saying, "I have been here since 1955 and nothing like this has happened before.

The number of hate crimes in England and Wales has increased by 29%, according to Home Office statistics.

There were 80,393 offences in 2016-17, compared with 62,518 in 2015-16 - the largest increase since the Home Office began recording figures in 2011-12.

The biggest rise was in disability and transgender hate crimes, but this was due to better crime recording and more people coming forward, the report said.

It also noted a spike in hate crime around the time of the EU referendum.

Any public figure going around saying 'Enoch was right' in the current febrile atmosphere has blood on their hands, and should be arrested and then thrown in prison. Freedom of speech ends when you shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

What about if you shout "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country... I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas." "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."?

_{sorry I know there's a new thread now}

[Zetetic]

If you love Julia 'Enoch Was Right' Hartly (Hately)-Brewer so much Zetetic, why don't you marry her?

What?

[Dr Rock]

Just kidding around with you.

Ok, if the current hate crimes laws would not be sufficient to get JH-B arrested then I am in favour of strengthening such laws so she would be. And I definitely think her regular appearances on Question Time are an affront.

[Zetetic]

I should probably have been clearer that my post was in response the whole trail starting from this:

Hate crimes are defined by the hurt feelings of the other side

My point was that there are crimes - like public order offences relating to stirring up racial hatred - which have a standard distinct from how an act's motivation was "perceived by the victim, or anybody else". Perhaps Hartly-Brewer's comments qualify - I'm not sure.

Edit, a starting place:

"Racial hatred is defined in section 17 of the Act. The prosecution must prove that hatred was intended to be stirred up or that it was likely to be stirred up. "Likely" does not mean that racial hatred was simply possible. We therefore have to examine the context of any behaviour very carefully, in particular the likely audience, as this will be highly relevant." from the CPS Guidance.





biggy's statement is misleading because it suggests that an offence may be committed simply due to the "hurt feelings of the other side".

This isn't the case - a crime (by some other standard) may be reported as a "hate crime" due to the perceived motivation behind it but that's to do with police reporting (as far as I can tell) and not, directly, much else. It's a 'flag' to support monitoring of outcomes and to highlight to the police and CPS that they might want to consider motivations for a crime.

(Although there's another issue of aggravating factors for some offences, but that's not the same standard either. As the CPS say "For a conviction to receive enhanced sentencing in court the police need to provide sufficient evidence to prove the hostility element, however this is not required for flagging [as a 'hate crime'] purposes.")

I thought that was important, because the aim of this wanging on about the police's use of the term 'hate crimes' seemed to be aimed at discrediting the broader concept of hate speech altogether.

(I appreciate that you, Dr Rock introduced the term 'hate crime' into this discussion but my guess is that you were intending it in a broader sense - rather than specifically picking out this police reporting mechanism and its particular definition.)