Library’s promotion of “hate crime”

Based on my understanding of the law (which is, admittedly, not comprehensive), it's only possible to bring a prosecution based upon direct threats against a group or individual (e.g. all x's should be harmed) rather than saying nasty things about them (e.g. all x's smell funny and listen to silly music). If you're aware of a prosecution based upon the latter, could you please give some details?

I thought that, but it seems not. My (doubtless going to be corrected by an actual lawyer) understanding is that (usually under the public order act) arguments or jokes which are not ordinarily crimes become crimes when certain groups are one half of the dispute.

The most famous example is the Nazi Pug case but it's the same rationale that has been used (by the police without judicial/CPS oversight) to question several feminists and caution a famous sit com writer.

Police couldn't log all this 'hate incident' stuff unless there was some link to a legal basis. That's why they don't log misogyny as hate incidents.

Hiptightonions just checked my local Thin Blue Line too and there are Hate Crime Reporting Centres everywhere!!

When did these things appear? There are so many of them and based in an extraordinarily wide variety of organisations.

I would not have much confidence using them as I doubt any of them receive many reports, so are unlikely to be very clued up.

The usual error of "Gender Identity" being a protected characteristic - I bet most people would assume that means "hate based on your sex" rather than anything to do with the most vulnerable and oppressed minority.

Looks like a massive amount of money has gone into this from the quality of the media and materials on my force's website.

Extraordinary!! Police so strapped for cash. Yet so much money sloshing around for tackling "Non-crime"!

that's why it's supposed to be up to judges, and not the police, to determine what speech reaches the threshold

I believe it is, in terms of bringing a conviction. The issue is the grey zone in which someone says something that isn't in itself actionable but may form part of a later case. I think it's a rather unusually difficult problem for the justice system to effectively grasp hold of in terms of responsibility for making decisions at initial stages.

Interestingly, do you know what the police don't regard as hate speech? Misogyny. It's not counted, tracked or recorded as a hate crime.

I believe that there are currently attempts in the works to define misogyny as a hate crime. Equally interestingly, around 10k of the 67k reported 'gender hate incidents' in 2018 were against men, for comparison, there were 16k reports of 'race hate incidents'.

Personally, I disagree with the notion that hate crime should be contingent on the identity of the aggressor (the proposed legislation would limit misogyny to that perpetrated by men), it's entirely possible for someone with a specific protected characteristic to attack others on the basis of the same characteristic and, in some ways, it's more hurtful.

Good grief. Just looked up my local force. They are encouraging people to report hate non-crime incidents to Hate Crime Officers or via Hate Crime Reporting Centres - there are loads of them!

Gronky, that's why it's supposed to be up to judges, and not the police, to determine what speech reaches the threshold. And apologies, we don't have freedom of speech but freedom of expression, which can only be curtailed in the public interest. Be interesting to see what the judgement here holds on whether it's up to the police to decide that.

The judge at the Judicial review hearing said: “We live in a pluralistic society where none of us have a right to be offended by something that they hear. Freedom of expression laws are not there to protect statements such as ‘kittens are cute’ - but they are there to protect unpleasant things. Its utility lies in exposing people to things that they do not want to hear.”

Hate speech is the line, @WotchaTalkinBoutWillis, but one of the tweets just said, "Huh?" That was cited as evidence of hatred, despite not giving context in any way. It's Owellian. I understand why this seems hard to believe. I can only suggest that you watch the video - the man seeking Judicial Review is an ex policeman himself. He's fairly clear on the difficulties in what the police have chosen to do.

Interestingly, do you know what the police don't regard as hate speech? Misogyny. It's not counted, tracked or recorded as a hate crime.

This. Oh, and this. And then there's this. And this. I could go on.

This seems to be a similar scheme in Solihull in the West Midlands but the information is hopelessly confused! As others have already pointed out a "Hate Crime" is a crime that is prosecuted as more serious because aggravated by "hate" under either a nationally "monitored strand" or Equality Act Protected Characteristic or a local initiative, e.g. Hate of Goths (true, there are other examples but I can't remember them off hand).

By contrast, a "Hate Incident" is not a crime.

I find it hard to believe that the police would want anyone to report actual crimes to a Library or any of the other organisations listed here but that is what it says. The types of crime include a new category that I have never heard of before, Mate Crime! Seriously, if someone you know beats you up rather than a stranger then the police don't necessarily want to know about it? Does that apply to Domestic Violence and "Date Rape"??

It seems from this as if West Midlands Police have provided staff training for a whole variety of organisations to act as "triage points" but I am not 100% certain as there is so much chopping and changing between "Hate Crime" and "Hate Incident" as if they mean the same thing.

Some questions that spring immediately to mind:

How would this system help with apprehending offenders?

What would the impact be on taking statements and the likelihood of CPS taking prosecutions?

What information is taken and held, how securely, and what is passed on to the police?

How does this system impact on the accused, who might be the subject of a malicious complaint? It is clear from this information that an incident need not relate in any way to the premises or other services offered at the "reporting point".

If the police want to farm out policing to voluntary organisations like this, why not train and deploy Special Constabulary (do they still exist??) rather than train-up people who have no accountability to the police?

In terms of the OP comment about "feeling safe", if this is the level of transparency and organisation of the scheme, why would anyone feel safe having random voluntary organisations collecting information on people "reported" for committing Hate Crimes and/or Hate Incidents?

It's bad enough the actual Police visiting people to "check their thinking" (see thread on Triggenometry interview with @HarryTheOwl )

This scheme reeks of Stasi type monitoring of Wrongthink at the same time as compromising investigation and prosecution of real crimes, i.e. Things that are actually against the law, aka criminal offences!

You have to read this to believe the complete dog's breakfast that this is! The page title is "Report a Crime" - it does give contact details for the West Midlands Police but then says (copy and paste but my bolding):

"We've set up independent reporting centres for anyone to come forward and report incidents of hate crime. The centres help victims and witnesses of crime to talk to someone in a safe place.

What you say in the centres are strictly confidential and you can report an incident without speaking to the police. Trainer members of staff are hand to provide you with advice and can refer you to support services if you need any extra help."

Then it lists all the "Hate Crime Reporting Centres" - note, "Hate Crime" not "Hate Incident".

www.solihull.gov.uk/hatecrime

"Policing by consent" contracted out to . . . your local library, Age UK, etc.

Libraries are not on the Solihull list but with the growing list of books being branded as "hateful" and "transphobic", how safe would someone feel asking a "Hate Reporting Centre Library" to order a copy of "Inventing Transgender Children and Young People"?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3799536-Tavistock-face-backlash-over-removing-book-from-library

Libraries and other community centres are used by people who do not have internet access, to job search, log in to report job searches to DWP, children to do their homework. Would a Library dealing with a "Hate Report" ban someone in case they made it an "unsafe place" for staff, other users, volunteers?

We have seen what happens in Universities - and that kid in Scotland was suspended just before final exams for insisting that there are only two genders.

If "Hate Reporting" gets delegated like this, everyone is fair game and the people with most to lose would be those who already have next to nothing because they are out of work.

We have the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the HRA.

Compare:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

to:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"protection of... ...morals" alone is essentially a carte blanche for restriction of speech, just as "distress or anxiety" in the communications act is wide open (e.g. a religious fundamentalist might find the concept of a woman being free to hold a job distressing).

We have the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the HRA.

We are supposed to have free speech in this country

It's a common misconception. Britain has no free speech provisions in its legal code or political conventions. The American First Amendment is something of an oddity in global legal/constitutional terms.

Agreed, but does that and should that stretch to any perceived hate speech?

It's not free speech without hate speech being permitted. The difficulty comes down to where the line is drawn, it's perfectly possible to have free speech and limit hate speech by legislating against specific, direct threats against individuals or groups but, as soon as you cross the threshold of preventing people from saying unpleasant things (no matter how historically or currently oppressed the targeted individual has been) you completely depart from having free speech.

We are supposed to have free speech in this country
Agreed, but does that and should that stretch to any perceived hate speech?
I don't think so anyway, that's never been OK even though we have free speech

@WotchaTalkinBoutWillis nope. That's exactly what the recent Judicial Review was about.

The police are lodging 'non-crime hate crimes' against people's names, based solely on the report of a person who subjectively felt it was hateful, without any necessary evidence. That's exactly why there has been a judicial review, because while there's no prosecution, that also means no evidence tested and no acquittal. And an enhanced DBS check could well have the claimed incident show up.

I don't think it matters what your views are on this specific debate, to be honest. I think it's horrifying that police can create their own rules on what people are and are not allowed to say in public, based solely on policy developed by a lobby group, with no legislative oversight at all. We are supposed to have free speech in this country, and the police are not meant to take any side in a discussion over legislation not yet passed, either - the GRA reform consultation invited discussion. Yet trans rights groups persuaded the police that any opposition was transphobic. That's police overreach on a grand, and scary scale. It's a threat to democracy, and it was when they were oppressing environmentalists in the past, too. The police are not supposed to decide what we can and can't say. The courts, applying law passed by Parliament, are.

Ok. How seriously do you think it would be taken? Really?

And I can very much complain when I see the energy invested in Harry the Owl for liking a tweet.

Wotcha I think in this case the police were informed by an individual who wasn't offended/affected personally but rather was acting in case others were. There wasn't a victim.

Don't you think that's wrong?
Yes, I do, but the recipient of harassment must have felt harassed/abused in the first place in order or they wouldn't have reported - surely it gets logged, police look into it and see if it's a crime or not, if it's not it wouldn't go anywhere?

Thank you for clarifying. I'm not sure how you can complain about something not being taken seriously if it wasn't reported (unless it's based upon previous reports of the same incident type also not being taken seriously).

I'm assuming you're not taking the piss but no, i didn't report it. Because there's no bloody point. Nothing would have happened.

If I'd reported this I would probably have been laughed out of the station.
Why is shit like this not taken seriously?

I'm confused. Did you not report it or was it not taken seriously?

Next time it happens I'll toddle in to the library in question where I'm sure a member of staff will help me report it.

Perhaps a police station might be better, given that it's not a hate crime, since it's already a crime based upon discrimination, the hate crime label would be redundant.

Next time it happens I'll toddle in to the library in question where I'm sure a member of staff will help me report it.

Whilst out running once I was going past slow moving traffic I had a rude comment shouted at me by a bunch of men in a van. I told them to bugger off. When the traffic moved on and the van next went past one shouted he'd like to stick a part of himself in my dirty mouth.

If I'd reported this I would probably have been laughed out of the station.

Why is shit like this not taken seriously?

I was referring to people who report non crimes which the police then obligingly put on people’s records, Wotcha. And sometimes call or visit them about (See Harry and Glinner).
You should not be able to have something which can be shown up on a dbs check entered on someone else’s record if the incident is classed as a non crime ; just for the asking.
Don’t you think that’s wrong?

Yes, I agree with to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's etc.....
We agree completely on the meaning, even if I said crime instead of incident.
My point was, because the poster said they should be escorted off the premises and told to find something better to do with their time instead, who is that referring to?
You said it's motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards... etc but trans people are protected under there too whether a person wants them to be or not.
Or was it referring to sexual orientation?
It wasn't clear.

74new is correct. Hate incidents are non crimes per U.K. police:

“The definition of a hate incident is: Any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's...etc”

. We’re talking about “incidents” which are non crimes, yet given as much importance as actual crimes.

Yes, it's an example of a hate crime. Which is what they're saying you can feel safe to report to the library.

I don’t understand your point, I thought racial harassment was a crime?

Why would it be a "non crime" though?
It says you can report a hate incident if it happens to you in the library -, so someone reporting they felt racially harassed in there for example should get "escorted off the premises and told to find something useful to do with their time" instead?