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

[refusetobeasheep]

Article in the Times today, we need more saying this loud and clearly

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e6cfb28-3a81-11ec-9bef-aa3112940013?shareToken=72ae1131089923914acaa130b0cfb60b

Glad to see it is being debated in the House of Lords. This is another example of something introduced with good intentions, but so loosely defined that it has been manipulated into a tool for silencing innocent people.

I would like to see the whole concept of hate crimes scrapped, not just “thought crimes”.
Punching someone because he is an African and you are a racist, causes the same injury as punching a white man because you are drunk and looking for a fight.
Both should be prosecuted as common assault - your motive is irrelevant, and it is ridiculous to waste police and court time trying to prove that you were thinking “hateful thoughts” at the time.

Well done Harry 👍

@Babdoc

I would like to see the whole concept of hate crimes scrapped, not just “thought crimes”. Punching someone because he is an African and you are a racist, causes the same injury as punching a white man because you are drunk and looking for a fight. Both should be prosecuted as common assault - your motive is irrelevant, and it is ridiculous to waste police and court time trying to prove that you were thinking “hateful thoughts” at the time.

100% agree. There seems to be a dive to be more oppressed or offended or wronged. Even Mumsnet has hate sublisted on their talk guidelines.

Thanks for share token

#babdoc I completely disagree. Crimes that involve targeting of vulnerable groups add a layer of pain and fear that comes from being picked on for a particular trait. This is why misogyny should be added.
If you are randomly targeted for a crime it is horrible but if it is because you are black or gay it ties into all the other times you have been picked on for that reason. Never has my blood run more cold than when my friends and I where running away from some football hooligans and we heard one shout "get the nigger". We tried to protect my black friend but there was nothing we could do.
It also is so important to record hate crime as it can show changes in societal behaviour and gives an understanding of why a particular crime is rising or not and how to tackle.it..

I would like to see the whole concept of hate crimes scrapped, not just “thought crimes”.
Punching someone because he is an African and you are a racist, causes the same injury as punching a white man because you are drunk and looking for a fight.
Both should be prosecuted as common assault - your motive is irrelevant, and it is ridiculous to waste police and court time trying to prove that you were thinking “hateful thoughts” at the time.

Hear, hear.

Legislation: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill – committee stage (day 4)
www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0f6746fa-3805-478e-bd16-89d7f1d9a225

Whatever the good intentions behind hate incidents it's clearly been hijacked by people who weaponise their "special" status to shut women up. That the police are institutionally misogynistic means that they can't be trusted with these powers. They need to go.

That must have been fucking terrifying Pie. But could it be recorded in another way - eg crime is "assault" and motivation is "hatred based on racism"? Would that work for records and recognition too?

I agree with PieMistee, a crime where someone is deliberately targeted because of their race or sexual orientation is a crime with an aggravating factor. I do think this should be taken into account.

What shouldn't be recorded is non-crime incidents which is just telling on people in a stasi like fashion.

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.

The difficulty is untangling how to draw the line and where nonviolent acts like speech fit in. I am instinctively a heavy regulator of speech- remembering the impact of demagogues and campaigns of hate in the past, eg Rwanda, but I know that's a dangerous impulse too.

@PieMistee

#babdoc I completely disagree. Crimes that involve targeting of vulnerable groups add a layer of pain and fear that comes from being picked on for a particular trait. This is why misogyny should be added. If you are randomly targeted for a crime it is horrible but if it is because you are black or gay it ties into all the other times you have been picked on for that reason. Never has my blood run more cold than when my friends and I where running away from some football hooligans and we heard one shout "get the nigger". We tried to protect my black friend but there was nothing we could do. It also is so important to record hate crime as it can show changes in societal behaviour and gives an understanding of why a particular crime is rising or not and how to tackle.it..

Well said. I agree.

That particular man would not have done that particular crime to a woman, or to a man in a pub.

And you know this because...?

Read the details about it. That person was targeted because they are trans. If you think otherwise say why.

@PermanentTemporary

Read the details about it. That person was targeted because they are trans. If you think otherwise say why.

Can you post a link?

I think the difference is that the crime is the same, but the circumstances of that particular crime must be considered as part of sentencing.

So an assault is still an assault. But it makes a difference for sentencing whether it was motivated by racism or random drunken violence. It’s about weighing up the aggravating and mitigating factors in individual crimes.

In either case, the notion of ‘hate crime’ is not all that helpful.

Hatred might not be nice, but in itself it isn’t criminal. The problem is where that hatred motivates actions and causes effects that hurt and disadvantage people.

We cannot reasonably tell people that they cannot hate (we CAN disapprove and not want to spend time with that person or listen to them). But we can prevent them from causing harm on the basis of that hate.

Frivolous example (purposefully): its fine for someone to hate broccoli. It’s not ok for them to assault someone because they put broccoli on their plate. Nor is it ok for them to try to intimidate broccoli farmers into giving up.

People can think abhorrent things and hold dreadful opinions. Where we intervene is when their actions are problematic, not just their thoughts.

Can I just point out that the article in the OP is about non-crimes.

Why are the police recording non-crimes against specific people?

@PieMistee

#babdoc I completely disagree. Crimes that involve targeting of vulnerable groups add a layer of pain and fear that comes from being picked on for a particular trait. This is why misogyny should be added. If you are randomly targeted for a crime it is horrible but if it is because you are black or gay it ties into all the other times you have been picked on for that reason. Never has my blood run more cold than when my friends and I where running away from some football hooligans and we heard one shout "get the nigger". We tried to protect my black friend but there was nothing we could do. It also is so important to record hate crime as it can show changes in societal behaviour and gives an understanding of why a particular crime is rising or not and how to tackle.it..

I agree, I think the "hate" element when sentencing an actual crime is useful. Hate crimes, like assaulting someone because of their race for example, act beyond that one incident as a threat to others who share the protected characteristic. It's deliberate and is an action against the community as well as the individual. I think misogyny should be included.

Non-crime incidents are a different kettle of fish.

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.

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!!

@TeamRex

Can I just point out that the article in the OP is about non-crimes.

Why are the police recording non-crimes against specific people?

Yes. This is an important question. No one should be recording non-crimes.

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.

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).

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…