It isn't the police's job to stop people being offended

I’d add the example of an attack on a trans ”sex worker” given on this thread only highlights how these laws create unequal treatment. Men attack female prostitutes all the time, it doesn’t become a national news story. There are many contributing factors to trans victims being seen as more important than female victims, but one of them is that attacks on the former are a “hate crime” while attacks on the latter are just a day ending in y.

I find it quite chilling that someone can "report" me to the police for a non-crime, and it's recorded. Police records should be removed if no caution issued/charges brought, surely? (or, at the very least, held in a secure, separate file)

Hasn’t the hate crime law been used to silence and even prosecute grooming gang victims? I can’t remember details because it’s such a horrible situation that like many people I don’t like to pay attention to it.

But I think that alone is reason enough to abolish these laws. They can be weaponised by violent perpetrators in protected groups against victims who are not members of protected groups. And the most vulnerable victims are often not members of protected classes, so it’s making people unequal before the law.

I’d also point out that when hate crime laws were first introduced, the people who opposed them said it was “criminalising thoughts” and suggested it was a slippery slope. At that point nobody was suggesting “non-crime hate incidents” be recorded, so that seemed to many people like a silly thing to say. But the slippery slope argument was clearly correct. Is it possible to have hate crime laws on the books without sliding down the slippery slope? I don’t know the answer to that, but given what has already happened I find it unlikely that any positive outcomes from having these laws on the books outweigh the slippery slope risk.

Whatever the good intentions behind hate incidents it's clearly been hijacked by people who weaponise their "special" status to shut women up.
Quite. It makes no sense not to include mysogyny as a hate crime because this obviously leads to mysogynists having free rein if they identify as someone who is part of group that is counted among hate crime victims. And yes, hate incidents don't make sense at all. Surely there are enough crimes for the police to investigate without them arresting people for thought crimes too!

And I hate the very thought of thought crimes, but if the judge has to take motivation into account when sentencing, then motivation has to be recorded by the plod.

The problem then is the law is discriminatory - hatred towards certain groups is considered worse than hatred towards other groups.

I love the way the Police wanted to 'check someone's thinking'. I mean WTF? Furthermore, I can think lots of things in one day, sometimes I have different thoughts about the same subject so are they going to constantly check my thought processes? Ultimately there are lots of issues where an individual can think differently but do no harm to anyone. What is so hard to understand about that?

And I hate the very thought of thought crimes, but if the judge has to take motivation into account when sentencing, then motivation has to be recorded by the plod.

Perhaps these issues would be better dealt with by a revised Bench Treatment book - which. let's face it, seems to need rewriting from the ground up, with less wriggle room for individual misogynistic judges to let entitled men off the hook..

Please could you explain how it is transphobic?

Strange that the news reports notes the victim was a transwoman rather than stating they are a woman as they do when the perpetrator is a transwoman.....

Regardless of the motivation, a crime is a crime. The issue here is the recording of non crime incidents.

What do we think about this story?

www.blackenterprise.com/virginia-tech-football-player-charged-with-second-degree-murder-for-killing-trans-woman-he-claims-catfished-him-on-tinder/

This person pretended to be a woman to the killer. Is it a transphobic hate crime or is it someone tricked into a sexual act by deception?

@OldCrone X-posted hahaha

If this is the trans woman case you’re referring to

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/transgender-escort-stabbed-schizophrenic-after-21622944.amp

He was a paranoid schizophrenic and stabbed the escort within seconds of meeting. They haven’t provided any more info to show whether he knew she was trans and went there with intention…or not!

There doesn't seem to be much detail about what happened - whether it was pre-meditated because he knew the victim was transgender or if he was surprised when a male person opened the door. But he obviously did take a knife to the victim's house which suggests pre-meditation. He also called 999 himself to report the attack immediately afterwards.

The Pink News article about this says that the perpetrator was given an indefinite hospital order and that he is now 'receiving the help he needs'. So obviously someone who is mentally unwell. I'm not sure that this person is the best example to use of someone who commits a hate crime.

If we set aside the assault (always terrible) and the whole buying sex from vulnerable people thing (personally I’m not punter-positive), then we have a situation analogous to the whole ‘cotton ceiling’ bullshit (except where it’s a man being expected to want to have sex with someone with a penis). Sure it’s a purposefully unsympathetic example (no one is feeling bad for the violent punter).

Seriously, people not being interested in your genitals is not transphobic. No one has a right to sex. It’s plain alarming how often examples given of transphobia revolve around an expectation that other people should not be allowed to set their own sexual boundaries (in whatever basis they like). Even violent arseholes who buy sex are allowed to determine they don’t want to have sex with someone of male sex (however they present/see themselves or whatever they want). Everyone is. The unsavoury character in the example is intended to be a red herring.

In Mexico where femicide is a specific crime, it has actually made it harder to prosecute men for murdering women because you don’t only have to prove guilt you have to prove motive.

Saw this in an article in the Guardian about 6 months ago, sorry can’t be more specific…

The biggest problem with 'hate crimes' is it only protects specific groups. A crime committed due to 'hatred' of black people is given extra weight to one committed due to hatred of women, of ginger haired people, of people from a specific part of the city. It also starts down that slupper slope of deciding what thoughts constitute hate - like the poster displayed outside Newcastle Football Club objecting to the behaviour of the new owners (specifically links to the murder of a journalist). It was recorded as hate (but not slander).

The transwoman who was stabbed recently having opened the door to a man who'd booked her for sex was stabbed specifically because she was trans. That particular man would not have done that particular crime to a woman, or to a man in a pub. I hope it is recognised as a transphobic hate crime as well as a stabbing.

In this hypothetical example was the transwoman stabbed because they were trans or because they had been deceitful and the man thought he had been cheated? Obviously the stabbing is totally unjustified but the motivation would not then be transphobia.

This is the Met Police take on it..

*A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offences, but it is equally important that these are reported and recorded by the police.

Evidence of the hate element is not a requirement. You do not need to personally perceive the incident to be hate related. It would be enough if another person, a witness or even a police officer thought that the incident was hate related.*

A hate incident is any incident that
www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/hco/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/?cf_chl_captcha_tk=pmd_u7xdG9_cjdlmzSWCntnt34Al2jkiO4NBsVyNwwzXw2A-1635758910-0-gqNtZGzNA3ujcnBszQh9

So a hate incident is one if someone says it is, no evidence of hate is required and the person involved does not need to perceive it as hate.

The origins of hate crime were in part due to terrorism and the inability of the existing legislation to bring the power of the law upon the practice of incitement of hatred. Specifically, but not limited to, Muslim clerics who were grooming terrorists but not guilty of any crimes themselves. This was deemed a necessary introduction into English Law.

I also question the narrative that a racially motivated crime is the same as a drunken motivated one.

The problem here is that stating biological facts, that TWATW falls clearly into the definition of a hate incident as defined by the Met and other police forces.

Should black and asian people be protected from having racial abuse shouted at them.... absolutely!!

Should homesexuals be protected from verbal abuse because of their sexuality.. absolutely!!

Should trans people be protected from abuse because of their gender expression, absolutely!!

Should people be able to express their opinions about biological facts without risk of having a hate crime recorded against them... again.. absolutely!!

I would love to know what portion of the 120,000 non crime hate incidents are related to statements of biological facts.

It also comes down to whether society accepts that it is OK to defend the rights of women to retain the protections associated with their sex class or if those rights are no longer seen to be relevant in a world where gender identity takes precedent.

I know where I stand on this but I also see much evidence that the establishment does not agree and that is terrifying!!

I'd agree that recognition of the extra element hate adds is important. The transwoman who was stabbed recently having opened the door to a man who'd booked her for sex was stabbed specifically because she was trans. That particular man would not have done that particular crime to a woman, or to a man in a pub. I hope it is recognised as a transphobic hate crime as well as a stabbing.

Difficult to assess without knowing the details about the crime you're referring to. Did the attacker seek out a transwoman to attack because he hated trans people? Or did he book to have sex with a woman and attacked the transwoman because they had advertised their services under false pretences?

Obviously I'm not in any way defending the attacker (either for buying sex in the first place or for his vicious attack). But unless he knew the person was a TW when he made the arrangement, isn't it possible his reaction was due to the attempt to trick him into sex with a biological male, rather than that he had any hatred towards trans people in general? In which case recording it as a hate crime would not make sense.