skirtcafe.org

I thought the folks here might be interested in this article... particularly in light of Freedomforall's link the other day
https://www.the-pool.com/news-views/lat ... es-racists

Nice Article

It would be nice to see that here in the USA. I think they have it right and the police there will uphold the law there too.

Nice post! We need to send this to the head tyrant in charge of the Metropolitan Nashville police department. They used to call him the axe man. Oh the stories and skeletons in the closet!!

Well done Police Scotland.
Let's hope that other police authorities pick up this campaign.

Freedomforall wrote:Nice post! We need to send this to the head tyrant in charge of the Metropolitan Nashville police department. They used to call him the axe man. Oh the stories and skeletons in the closet!!

Tell us more about this "AXE" man!!

Ralph wrote:I thought the folks here might be interested in this article... particularly in light of Freedomforall's link the other day
https://www.the-pool.com/news-views/lat ... es-racists

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in practise. "Hate crime" is a very, very slippery slope, and pretty soon it becomes impossible to articulate a dissenting thought without the possibility of prosecution.

I still vividly recall a conversation in an elevator back in the 1980s from an Israeli family about the "Final Solution to the Palestinian problem"; I was aghast at that comment because I have studied some history -- and if I'd called them out on it [1] I'd have gone to jail. So I clammed up in the face of needing to point something out. What sort of "freedom" is that? Is this the sort of world we desire to create?

Note that I am not condoning idiot behaviour here -- and that's what these laws are supposedly designed to curb, justifiably so; where they go horribly wrong is when they criminalise legitimate dissent, conversation, and debate.


[1] Even if I'd just mentioned, "Do you have any idea what you just said and who you were channelling?" I had relatives who fought wars against that insanity; it pains me that it's still going on.

The comment you didn't make would not have landed you in jail anywhere in the US.

Hyperbolizing that way puts you in the company of Trump & Friends.

I KNOW that's not the company you want to keep.

I am afraid my Christmas Message is

Peace on Earth , Good Will to Nearly All Men.....

So Look Before You Leap..... Seasons Greetings from Roderick

https://youtu.be/aL0MuT0v6ds

Yep....

I don't agree with victimising, harassing or bigotry against people for their disabilities, sexuality or because they are trans. That is deplorable and, if manifest by criminal behaviour, it is rightly punishable.

However, I really dislike the creepy and beligerent notices issued by Police Scotland. Crimes are crimes and anyone of us can be a victim. Smashing someone in the face because they are gay or train should be neither more nor less serious than because you dislike their hairstyle or because they support the wrong football team. I know that is an unfashionable view, but I detest identity politics with a passion. Everyone should be protected equally by the police, but these notices seem to be suggesting that people are not individuals, but part of some minority group which warrants special protection, and that hostility towards these people should be regarded by law as peculiarly iniquitous.

Or, we can recognize that bigotry adds a layer of intentionality and viciousness that wouldn't otherwise be there.

Most homicides are crimes of passion, your spouse, your ex-, lover, brother, someone you care about, gets far enough under your skin, you lose it and kill them. Similarly, most assaults are situations where two or more get into some kind of disagreement and someone loses control and lashes out physically.

Hate crimes on the other hand, are the result of the attacker being on the hunt for someone of the despised category and the predator attacks without any provocation other than you happened to fit that profile and be in range.

Can you see the difference?

I'd agree with PDX. The Scottish Government is currently looking at how the law deals with "hate crime". [1] Currently, crimes committed with racial, religious and various other motivations are deemed to be "aggravated", which doesn't change the crime but gives an opportunity for stiffer penalties. There were moves to create a specific offence of hate crime, but Lord Bracadale believes that extending the concept of aggravation to all "protected characteristics" within equality legislation would be perfectly adequate, and reduce the danger of malicious accusations.

[1] For those who were interested, I was going to post a link to the consultation, but the site is down for maintenance!

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:Or, we can recognize that bigotry adds a layer of intentionality and viciousness that wouldn't otherwise be there.

Intentionality is needed for any crime, otherwise it's not a crime. In law, that's called the mens rea. However, that intentionality relates to the intention to do something which is a crime. The idea that it is worse to assault someone because you dislike the colour of their skin than because you dislike the colour of their tie seems absurd. I can see no rational justification for that. The viciousness is identical.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:Hate crimes on the other hand, are the result of the attacker being on the hunt for someone of the despised category and the predator attacks without any provocation other than you happened to fit that profile and be in range.

First, so-called "hate crimes" do not involve "hunting". Rather, they involve encountering. Secondly, and back to my example above, it is immaterial whether one hunts for or encounters someone to assault because the assailant dislikes people who wear green neckties or because they have dark skin. What matters is the intention to inflict violence which is acted upon and the resulting injury. Third, provocation is a separate issue. If one uses violence with provocation, then that may be a mitigating factor in an assault and, by dint of that, an absence of provocation is thereby an aggravating factor.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:Can you see the difference?

No, I see no difference whatsoever. The whole notion of a "hate crime" has no rational basis so far as I can tell, other than to attempt to signal that the law sees fit to punish people more severely if they hold views of which society disapproves. That criminalises freedom of thought when we should be punishing only the errant behaviour.

Stu wrote:The whole notion of a "hate crime" has no rational basis so far as I can tell, other than to attempt to signal that the law sees fit to punish people more severely if they hold views of which society disapproves. That criminalises freedom of thought when we should be punishing only the errant behaviour.

Hear, hear!