Hate crimes. Why the definition?

[wonderstuff]

So after seeing a Twitter picture of Wirral police #TeamBeb would like to thank @MerseysidePCC @MsOHara71 @TeamHugeMedia @asda @Stophateuk and @mrisyed for their support at our #hatecrime awareness event.

Lots of positive discussion was had with the essential shoppers and together we will defeat hate in our community. #LGBTHM21 t.co/snGic9HhbB

I wondered what actually is a hate crime. Race, religion, sexuality, transgender identity and disability are protected, but sex and maternity are not. Seems odd. Gets stranger when I read that Greater Manchester police will investigate hate crime directed at sub cultures such as goths and emos. www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/hate-crime/what-are-hate-incidents-and-hate-crime/
I mean I'd not hold out much hope of anyone being prosecuted for misogyny but still.

I wondered what actually is a hate crime.

Indeed. Was the act a crime or not? If it is a crime, why does the severity depend on the victim?

If it's not a crime, then why are the police involved?

I think this is now just institutionalised to the point many people aren't stopping to ask themselves those basic questions - it's like a grain of sand in the system accumulating more and more layers. (But it's not going to be a beautiful pearl).

I think the original point was that the police+courts were seen to not be taking some crimes seriously enough? They needed to be incentivised to deal with racist/whatever attacks, maybe to help community relations with certain groups?

But that's just putting your thumb on the scales, equity-style, to try to force particular outcomes.

And once people see that you're apparently allowed to put your thumb on the scales, every interest group under the sun comes out and demands that the thumb be put on the scales for them. Any group not getting special favour is obviously going to feel discriminated against. (Because they are being discriminated against).

And talking about "hate" is a lot easier for the police than dealing with real crime. A fight against an abstract emotion - while far harder to win - is also far harder to actually lose at in a measurable way than, say, actual crime, which has statistics. You can always claim you've achieved something, and people can't disprove it. (See also the "war on terror"). Don't look over there - look over here. Shiny thing.

This whole mess - particularly the "hate non-crimes" - are the reason FairCop came into being. Harry's appeal is next month, I think?

I've written to my MP about this issue, no reply as yet.

If we can't can't get the hate Crime laws repealed, we can't campaign to keep women's spaces/sports for women. Because even speaking out is a hate Crime.

Can we ALL email our MPs? Mine is a conservative, so I was able to point out that the ridiculous law was drawn up by labour (I hope I'm right there, I got that from this board)

I referenced the lady in her 70s whom the cops were after the other day, for saying that we die the same sex that we are born.

Currently there is no hate crime law as such: it is just to do with sentencing. Where a crime has been committed, such as assault, murder, harassment, then if that crime was motivated by hate of a few protected characteristicd (not including sex) there may be a harsher penalty. So of you beat someone up because they were deaf you get a harsher penalty than if you beat them up because they were a red head, if you harassed someone because they were tranagender you get a harsher penalty than if you did so because they are a woman.

The Equality Act deals with civil law, while legislation related to Hate Crime is part of criminal law.
Both areas have evolved independently of each other, hence the two different lists of protected characteristics in Equality Act vs Hate Crime.

It is parliament that decides the characteristics in each legislature, so if we want to get other characteristics in Hate Crime law like sex, then we need to build support among MPs / MSPs for this.

There are various police forces that are including other types of characteristics as a form of a trial. Some are looking at misogyny, others at subcultures. I don't know how this decision is made. I'd like to think it is based on the types of crimes reported in those particular areas. It might be a combination of consultation with local community groups and maybe some lobby groups. This is just my guess though.

The full report and/or summary paper published by the Law Commission as part of their recent consultation makes for interesting reading.
www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/hate-crime/

There have also been calls for hate crime laws to be expanded to include new protected characteristics to tackle hatred such as misogyny and ageism, and hostility towards other groups such as homeless people, sex workers, people who hold non-religious philosophical beliefs (for example, humanists) and alternative subcultures (for example goths or punks).

as an aside, Helena Kennedy says there are 'no limits on the types of women that should be protected from hate crime' when looking at including misogyny as a standalone offence.

Kennedy is immediately clear on how she would define the scope of specific protection she is charged with: “This is about hatred. Trans women, gay women, journalists, parliamentarians, all women get a whole lot of horrible stuff slung at them – disproportionately – and I’m not narrowing down those who receive it.”

How would a person go about proving that a transwoman has suffered a misogynistic hate crime? It relies on someone 'passing' really well. Nice that trans people get not only their own category but are top of the list on the women's category as well. Belt and braces.

www.theguardian.com/law/2021/feb/22/ill-set-no-limits-on-which-women-to-protect-from-hate-says-helena-kennedy

Só Helena isn’t going to narrow down misogyny to ensure it only applies to women....right 🙄🙄

But then HK is in the Lords where they only meet the naice TW who are friends with ppl in the House of Lords

so she didn't bump into Karen Jones then.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5440153/Trans-convict-invited-speak-House-Lords.html

Currently there is no hate crime law as such: it is just to do with sentencing.

Quite, which is why the police are overstepping the mark by their "hate crime: non-crime" records.

Nice that trans people get not only their own category but are top of the list on the women's category as well

Would they be able to self-ID into this misogyny, or would they require a GRC?

This might as well be an answer to the question - "can we come up with even more incentives for men to claim to be women?"

As long as self-ID is permitted, every single action taken to benefit women just adds to the incentives for males to trans-identify, and the situation gets even more ridiculous.

What's worse than a society as a caste system? A caste system where you choose your own castes. (Although maybe not everyone can - as Owen Jones firmly told Janice Turner, IIRC - "no you're not non-binary").

Helena Kennedy’s team have all been ‘handpicked’ by her too which probably means they’re all firmly in the TWAW camp.

Misogyny is being carefully defined to mostly apply to and protect less than 1% of women, mostly from the other 99% being able to note any differences between them to protect themselves from disadvantage. I'll open the book now on the first people prosecuted for misogyny being women, and it will be a re run of the Miranda Yardley case.

Gynephobia needs to be the focus, which is specific to a fear and prejudice against someone on the grounds of their female biology.

Currently there is no hate crime law as such: it is just to do with sentencing.

Thx for the correction @Tibtom, but can someone with more legal training than me (i did do a basic law course, but a long time ago) tell us which law they were using, then, to force Posie Parker to take down her nice billboard? Which law did they use to interview her for her tweets relating to the Mermaid founder? They must have a law they are operating under, and a nice list of Points To Prove.

Can any Legal person help us out here please?

I’m afraid I’m with Gene Hunt (Life on Mars) on the subject of hate crimes:
“Hate crimes? Hate crimes? What - as opposed to all those ‘love you to bits’ crimes?!”
If someone punches you in the face because they are obnoxious and in a temper, or punches you in the face because you are black and they are racist, the crime is assault and the level of injury is the same.
Why does the court need to employ a mind reader to try and determine whether the assailant was feeling hateful or not? What does it matter what their thoughts or motivation were - they have clearly briken the law.

It was interesting to see the following in www.theguardian.com/law/2021/feb/22/ill-set-no-limits-on-which-women-to-protect-from-hate-says-helena-kennedy

referred to above:

"The Scottish government’s own hate crime bill has attracted a huge amount of controversy and, while it was always the intention to examine this standalone option, the timing is far from ideal. As it stands, a bill is passing through Holyrood that criminalises the stirring up of hatred against men who dress as women but not the stirring up of hatred against women, while the decision of protections for women won’t be made until Kennedy’s working group reports back in 12 months’ time."

Very much not TWAW.

Was the act a crime or not? If it is a crime, why does the severity depend on the victim? If it's not a crime, then why are the police involved?
and
A fight against an abstract emotion - while far harder to win - is also far harder to actually lose at in a measurable way than, say, actual crime, which has statistics. You can always claim you've achieved something, and people can't disprove it.
and
As long as self-ID is permitted, every single action taken to benefit women just adds to the incentives for males to trans-identify

Nail hit on head.

One of the things I love about Mumsnet FWR is that there’s always someone who expresses what I want to say, but more briefly and clearly than I could.

“Hate crimes? Hate crimes? What - as opposed to all those ‘love you to bits’ crimes?!”

Yes, precisely.

the 'hate crime' thing is a huge threat to our democratic rights and freedoms and I wish the police would get their size 12s out of our civil liberties. It's hugely concerning.

Is this the 'being offensive is an offence' thing, OP? Because as far as I'm aware, although IANAL, it's definitely NOT an offence to be offensive. Otherwise we, as a society, are really on a very slippery slope, indeed.

@NecessaryScene1
Was the act a crime or not? If it is a crime, why does the severity depend on the victim?

Exactly. Hate crime legislation creates a hierarchy of victims.
In addition, it’s not automatically a hate crime if say a white person beats up a minority person, the police have to determine whether the white persons motivation was racial hate or not. This delves into the perpetrator having to prove what their thoughts were when they did the crime. If they were thinking racist things as opposed to this person just catcalled my girlfriend, so I’m going to get revenge (or whatever), then it’s a hate crime. Hate crime depends on thought crime.
They even apply it to bullying in schools.....they investigate the bully to determine if there is any “hate” aspect to why they picked a certain person as their victim.

It’s almost medieval in the victim hierarchy and Orwellian on the thought police! What a world.
This cannot be sustained and will fall on its head soon!

twitter.com/MerPolWirral/status/1363802799054684164?s=19
"We would like to clarify 'being offensive' is not in itself an offence."
Like the responses. There really need to be some disciplinary proceedings, bringing the police service into disrepute.

The poster - realised there isn't a link.

Hate crime now means hurting a man's feelings

"We would like to clarify 'being offensive' is not in itself an offence."

And the none of the police involved in making a huge poster saying "being offensive is an offence" and sticking it on a van and then doing a photo op in front of it and sending it out were able to point this out during the process?

Do the police get any sort of training in the law at all?

'although well intentioned was incorrect'

Well, fuck me. Just as well, eh?! Because imagine if the actual police had driven around with a massive fucking billboard stating the law categorically incorrectly had been badly intentioned then we'd be in big fucking trouble, eh?! Just as well everyone can now magically understand that even though the police said 2+2=5, they meant well, so all is fine. But when a woman says 2+2=4, she is obviously guilty of a hate crime, and must be visited at home, possibly charged.

They also produced this incoherent bollocks.

Steve Hughes covered this six years ago with his "offended" skit

Since they're correcting things, isn't it also technically incorrect to say that "hate crime is an offence"?

As I understand it 'hate crime' is an aggravating factor of an independent criminal offence, to be taken into account on sentencing. I'm not aware that 'hate crime' is an offence in itself at all.

If they're confusing it with a 'non-crime hate incident', it's even more wrong as no offence (by which I mean 'crime', not offended feelings) is involved at all.

Happy to be corrected but if my understanding is correct, it's pretty unforgivable that their 'correction', over which care and consideration was presumably taken, is also wrong.