Hate crime

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Apologies for putting this in here, but it is tangentially related, and I know there are lots of people who know things in here

A hate crime (in Scotland, not checked rUK) is

Crime motivated by malice or ill will towards a social group by:

Race.
Sexual orientation.
Religion/faith.
Disability.
Transgender/gender identity

The protected characteristics are

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation

Why are age / marital status / pregnancy / or sex not covered by hate crimes? Admittedly I don't think many people get abused for being married, but people definitely get abuse for being old, or a woman.

Wasn't there an admission recently that they would be swamped by complaints? Hopefully someone can rustle up some facts.

I’m becoming more and more uncertain about hate crime, it is such a subjective thing and I’m really not sure of the good of it.

Pregnancy might be covered by sex.

A hate crime used to be defined as something the average person would find offensive, its been changed to whatever the victim decides is offensive, which can be subjective.
If hate crimes are going to exist, they should at least be the same as the protected characteristics.

Time to grow a backbone, this pandering to hurt feelings is frankly ridiculous

This is not what the hate crime laws were designed to do. This is exactly what the government were warned would happen if they didn't formulate and specify that law better to avoid mission creep and abuse of it.

Badly planned, badly thought out, feelings and gesture based political law is behind this mess and a lot of other messes originating in Tony Blair's utter fuck up of a government.

its been changed to whatever the victim decides is offensive

But only if the victim falls under the:

Race.
Sexual orientation.
Religion/faith.
Disability.
Transgender/gender identity

Categories. Not if someone is getting dogs abuse for being old or female. I dont understand why that is.

It's because if you are a woman, or old, or worse an old woman, you become less than human, worthless and deserving of hate.

I've come to the conclusion that there shouldn't be such a thing as hate crime.

If an actual criminal offence is committed and hate is proven to be a factor and the perpetrator of said crime is convicted then the hate element against those with a protected characteristic should be taken into account during sentencing, otherwise as pps have said we have a subjective nebulous^ thing called hate crime^ that could encompass such things as being offended/hurt feelings.

I'd agree though, that if you have such a thing as hate crime it should cover all protected characteristics...although I suspect the hate crime of misogyny would somehow get twisted and used against women by they who must be obeyed.

There are two sets of laws

(1) Equality Act
It's a civil law and defines the nine characteristics protected from discrimination in employment, service provision etc. The cases are heard in tribunals. Nothing to do with the police
(2) Crimes
Investigated by the police and heard in a magistrates court/crown court. Where it can be proved that the crime was motivated by hate
(racism, homophobia, transphobia etc), then the CPS applies for an 'uplift' in the sentence (eg a longer sentence)

It is confusing because both the criminal law and the civil law talk about 'protected characterstics", but they don't share the same ones.

Hope that helps

Time to grow a backbone, this pandering to hurt feelings is frankly ridiculous

Said no feminist ever prior to the transgender lobby hijacking the feelz bandwagon.

It is confusing because both the criminal law and the civil law talk about 'protected characterstics", but they don't share the same ones

That is what I am really interested in. How are "protected characteristics" decided, and by whom? Why does civil law think that women need protection, and criminal law doesn't?

The Criminal Justice System has a strategy for Violence Against Women:

^The Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy is an overarching framework to address crimes that have been identified as being committed primarily but not exclusively by men against women.

These crimes include domestic abuse, rape, sexual offences, stalking, harassment, so-called ‘honour-based’ violence including forced marriage, female genital mutilation, child abuse, human trafficking focusing on sexual exploitation, prostitution, pornography and obscenity^

I prefer this approach to the 'hate crime'/'protected characteristic' approach because it recognises the root cause of crimes - ie male violence, and it recognises the target of male violence - ie women and girls.

That is what I am really interested in. How are "protected characteristics" decided, and by whom? Why does civil law think that women need protection, and criminal law doesn't?

The civil law is intended to cover things like not being offered a job because the applicanr is female; being paid less etc.

The hate crime element is intended to cover being attacked just because the victim is black or gay or disabled or whatever characteristic applies.

Time to grow a backbone, this pandering to hurt feelings is frankly ridiculous

Said no feminist ever prior to the transgender lobby hijacking the feelz bandwagon

Yes. I recall a thread where posters were calling for rape and attacks on women to be made a hate crime. I didn't agree as it would be meaningless. They already are "hate" crimes.

°The hate crime element is intended to cover being attacked just because the victim is black or gay or disabled or whatever characteristic applies^

So it's not ok to not employ a woman because they are a woman, but it's ok to attack a woman because they are a woman...

Attacking a woman is a crime. The law is not saying it is ok to attack a woman.

But if someone is beaten in a racist attack, the racism is seen as an aggravating factor that can increase punishment.

If a women is beaten in a misogynistic attack the misogyny is not seen as an aggravating factor.

Are you suggesting that if a woman is attacked one has to distinguish an attack which is motivated by misogyny and one which isn't? That seems peculiar.

Or are you saying all attacks on women are motivated by misogyny , in which case if they are all hate crimes they are basically just crimes

This is what I said in a thread a couple of years ago. The point of the designation of a crime as a hate crime is to make an act which is already a crime a more serious crime.

This leads , as has been discussed before here, to inconsistencies and illogical application in certain cases. A very simple one being a violent assault by one football supporter on another just for supporting a particular club where neither team has a sectarian following isn't, but a Rangers fan committing a minor assault on a Celtic fan may well be.

In the awful case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter the bullying of her disabled daughter was, but not that of Fiona for being a bit odd. Likewise beating up Goths just for looking like Goths or other people who look "odd" , or as happened to one of my son's friends, being beaten up just for being a posh boy in the wrong school uniform, is not an official hate crime although some police forces are recording such crimes as a special category in their own records.

I will probably be called a rape apologist for this but I don't see what the point is of naming all rapes of women as hate crimes. What in law does that achieve? An already very serious crime is more serious?

I think campaigning for better prosecution results, stiffer sentences and a better understanding of issues of consent is the correct approach. And as for "the menz" should the anal rape of a 16 year old boy be a less serious crime because he is a boy?

On the issue of lesser crimes such as cat calling if the law were properly applied such harassment could be dealt with. Belgium has the approach that, for simplicity on here I'll sum up as, any nasty or threatening behaviour towards another person is a crime, and it is compounded if at least part of motivation is that that person is different from you.

But if someone is beaten in a racist attack, the racism is seen as an aggravating factor that can increase punishment.

If a women is beaten in a misogynistic attack the misogyny is not seen as an aggravating factor.

Yes, that's exactly it. So, you could have a man who posts endless racist screeds on social media who then goes out and attacks a bunch of the people he blames for his woes and he would be tried for the assault plus the aggravating factor of racism, but if he posts endless MRA bollocks and batters fuck out of his wife, statistically he'll get away with it anyway, but even if tried, there would be no aggravating factors due to her membership of a protected group.

Having said that, I'm not terribly sold on the idea that how someone feels about a thing should contribute an aggravating factor, but in the examples I gave, that's not the issue.

Here is a useful link to the CPS guidance on 'hate crime':

www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime

It's interesting to see that a crime's categorization as 'hate crime' can be based not only on the perception of the victim, but also on the perception of 'any other person'.

Belgium has the approach that, for simplicity on here I'll sum up as, any nasty or threatening behaviour towards another person is a crime, and it is compounded if at least part of motivation is that that person is different from you.

That sounds like a sensible approach. The current law seems unworkable because there's no way it can cover all the groups that should be protected. For example, homeless people are victims of horrendous "hate crimes" all the time - pure malice, directed at the person because of their homeless status and for no other reason.

And I was also thinking of the case of that family that was persecuted and hounded for having red hair - it doesn't really make sense to add redheads to the protected groups list, but at the same time there was some weird fashion for anti-ginger rhetoric at the time which made them easy targets.

I don't see what the point is of naming all rapes of women as hate crimes. What in law does that achieve? An already very serious crime is more serious?

Is it really seen as a serious crime though? Sentences for rapists mostly seem pretty light, and rapists get away without being convicted for unbelievable reasons - the guys in Leeds who kidnapped a teacher and raped her "because they thought she was a prostitute" spring to mind, but there are too many examples to list without being depressed. Maybe designating rape a hate crime would force people to think about rape cases as a man physically dominating and hurting a woman because he thinks he has a right to, instead of as a misunderstanding that's perfectly excusable really because she got his penis a little bit over-excited, bless him.

Investigated by the police and heard in a magistrates court/crown court. Where it can be proved that the crime was motivated by hate
(racism, homophobia, transphobia etc), then the CPS applies for an 'uplift' in the sentence (eg a longer sentence)

My knowledge of sentencing goes back 10 years now, but certainly then it was the case that the CPS advocate did NOT address the court about the sentencing exercise. The CPS did get to decide charge and so could elected for an aggravated offence, which would attract a heavier sentence. But nothing from them after conviction. I don't think anything has changed to procedure during those 10 years.

Time to grow a backbone, this pandering to hurt feelings is frankly ridiculous

Said no feminist ever prior to the transgender lobby hijacking the feelz bandwagon

This is a brilliant point, and it's got me thinking. Since the whole trans argument has kicked off, many women, certainly on mumsnet, have had their interest in feminism kick started into action. Due to an increasingly diverse interest in this, Is feminism likely to go through a mini revolution or at least an attitude shift due to the TRA movement?

It's clear that the TRA's have aped a lot of feminist tactics (no platforming, attempts to get people sacked for things they've said or opinions they hold, the concept of hate crimes and incidents etc, pretty much the entire social marxist playbook) Will feminists here want to continue these methods in the future having had the tables turned and being the target of this type of "activism"? Or do you think after this has all blown over there will be a regression in attitudes?