Gay couple beaten for refusing to kiss for a mob
Discussion
Davos123 said:
La Liga said:
The crime itself isn't an aggravated crime (as in they'd be convicted of assault, not 'homophobically aggravated' assault).The aggravation is covered in the sentencing.
I thought that's what my post said... It's an aggravating factor (to the crime) which can lead to an increased sentence. La Liga said:
t did, I just expanded a little.
To add a little more it is not gay people per se but crimes where the persons sexuality (or perceived sexuality) is a motivating factor. Applies to all the protected categories: sex, gender identity, sexuality, religion, disability, nationality, physical appearance, ethnicity and language.
So entirely possible these individuals will get a heavier sentence than if they hadn’t committed a crime motivated by someone’s sexuality.
gregs656 said:
La Liga said:
t did, I just expanded a little.
To add a little more it is not gay people per se but crimes where the persons sexuality (or perceived sexuality) is a motivating factor. Applies to all the protected categories: sex, gender identity, sexuality, religion, disability, nationality, physical appearance, ethnicity and language.
So entirely possible these individuals will get a heavier sentence than if they hadn’t committed a crime motivated by someone’s sexuality.
I've been assaulted several times in my life. Once for being "a long haired
" and once for "looking at my bird in the wrong way". On each occasion, I never did anything to provoke the assault.Why should the perpetrators of the crimes against me expect a lighter sentence than if they had assaulted someone from a protected category?
Rollin said:
gregs656 said:
La Liga said:
t did, I just expanded a little.
To add a little more it is not gay people per se but crimes where the persons sexuality (or perceived sexuality) is a motivating factor. Applies to all the protected categories: sex, gender identity, sexuality, religion, disability, nationality, physical appearance, ethnicity and language.
So entirely possible these individuals will get a heavier sentence than if they hadn’t committed a crime motivated by someone’s sexuality.
I've been assaulted several times in my life. Once for being "a long haired
" and once for "looking at my bird in the wrong way". On each occasion, I never did anything to provoke the assault.Why should the perpetrators of the crimes against me expect a lighter sentence than if they had assaulted someone from a protected category?
The scope of hate crime has increased a lot over the years, but it still generally reflects minority groups. History has shown us that the targeting minority groups is rather undesirable so adding an extra prohibitive element reflects that.
Also we can't know for certain, it sounds as if in this case that the incident wouldn't have occurred had victims not been gay. The victims shouldn't face an increased probability (than anyone else) or being assaulted due to the specific bigotry and prejudice of other people.
I think this also needs to be seen in the bigger picture of aggravating factors. There are lots of factors which can aggravate an offence beyond any 'hate' element - see the picture I posted above.
Rollin said:
Can you give me a reason why?
I've been assaulted several times in my life. Once for being "a long haired" and once for "looking at my bird in the wrong way". On each occasion, I never did anything to provoke the assault.
Why should the perpetrators of the crimes against me expect a lighter sentence than if they had assaulted someone from a protected category?
I see it really simply.I've been assaulted several times in my life. Once for being "a long haired
" and once for "looking at my bird in the wrong way". On each occasion, I never did anything to provoke the assault.Why should the perpetrators of the crimes against me expect a lighter sentence than if they had assaulted someone from a protected category?
If I beat you up because you were "looking at my bird in the wrong way" that's bad.
If I beat you up solely because you're black, gay, of a certain religion etc. that's worse.
The law recognises this.
Rollin said:
Can you give me a reason why?
The debate over hate crime legislation is well established, not difficult to find, and not particularly complex. Probably worth you doing some research on it and save us all a bit of time. R Mutt said:
What about long hair?
How unsurprising you are playing the ‘what about’ game and not putting forward a coherent point. I was wrong last night when I posted I thought it applied to all the protected characteristics but it’s race, gender identity, disability, religion and sexuality that are explicitly covered. Apologies.
Manchester police also recognise it in relation to being a member of a subculture.
Interesting things start to happen when an individual from a protected category attacks another individual from another protected category, because of the reason they are protected.
Gay asylum seeker threatened and attacked by religious asylum seekers in Swedish asylum centre, court says it's not a hate crime.
Gay asylum seeker threatened and attacked by religious asylum seekers in Swedish asylum centre, court says it's not a hate crime.
Finlandia said:
Interesting things start to happen when an individual from a protected category attacks another individual from another protected category, because of the reason they are protected.
Gay asylum seeker threatened and attacked by religious asylum seekers in Swedish asylum centre, court says it's not a hate crime.
You have a link to the case details?Gay asylum seeker threatened and attacked by religious asylum seekers in Swedish asylum centre, court says it's not a hate crime.
I don't think it is interesting at all. Your sexuality is as protected as mine, for example, your race is as protected as mine - that is to say - in all cases of a hate crime the perpetrator has characteristics protected as well as the victim.
gregs656 said:
Finlandia said:
Interesting things start to happen when an individual from a protected category attacks another individual from another protected category, because of the reason they are protected.
Gay asylum seeker threatened and attacked by religious asylum seekers in Swedish asylum centre, court says it's not a hate crime.
You have a link to the case details?Gay asylum seeker threatened and attacked by religious asylum seekers in Swedish asylum centre, court says it's not a hate crime.
I don't think it is interesting at all. Your sexuality is as protected as mine, for example, your race is as protected as mine - that is to say - in all cases of a hate crime the perpetrator has characteristics protected as well as the victim.
Gruppmisshandel mot en homosexuell man på asylboendet Westsura herrgård i Surahammar har bedömts som grov misshandel, utan hatbrottsmotiv.
Google translate:
Group abuse against a gay man at the Westsura asylum residence in Surahammar has been assessed as gross abuse, with no hate crime motives.
https://www.vlt.se/artikel/misshandlad-pa-asylboen...
Enligt vittnen som VLT talat med ska mannen ha attackerats i matsalen. Både vittnen och offret själv uppger att de tror att han misshandlades på grund av att han är gay.
De hatar alla homosexuella. De skriker åt oss och utrycker sitt hat mot oss varje dag.
Google translate:
According to witnesses VLT spoke to, the man must have been attacked in the dining room. Both witnesses and the victim themselves state that they believe he was abused because he is gay.
They hate all gays. They scream at us and express their hatred towards us every day.
gregs656 said:
Finlandia said:
Interesting things start to happen when an individual from a protected category attacks another individual from another protected category, because of the reason they are protected.
Gay asylum seeker threatened and attacked by religious asylum seekers in Swedish asylum centre, court says it's not a hate crime.
You have a link to the case details?Gay asylum seeker threatened and attacked by religious asylum seekers in Swedish asylum centre, court says it's not a hate crime.
I don't think it is interesting at all. Your sexuality is as protected as mine, for example, your race is as protected as mine - that is to say - in all cases of a hate crime the perpetrator has characteristics protected as well as the victim.
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Deuteronomy 13:1-18 ESV / 58 helpful votes
“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. ...
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I see it really simply.
If I beat you up because you were "looking at my bird in the wrong way" that's bad.
If I beat you up solely because you're black, gay, of a certain religion etc. that's worse.
The law recognises this.
It's illogical, assault is assault no matter the initial motivation, no assault is worse than the other.If I beat you up because you were "looking at my bird in the wrong way" that's bad.
If I beat you up solely because you're black, gay, of a certain religion etc. that's worse.
The law recognises this.
That way is inequality.
voyds9 said:
So if my protected characteristics says its OK to hate another then its not a hate crime?
No idea in Sweeden or whatever that case is from. Over here it wouldn't be the case.
Cantaloupe said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I see it really simply.
If I beat you up because you were "looking at my bird in the wrong way" that's bad.
If I beat you up solely because you're black, gay, of a certain religion etc. that's worse.
The law recognises this.
It's illogical, assault is assault no matter the initial motivation, no assault is worse than the other.If I beat you up because you were "looking at my bird in the wrong way" that's bad.
If I beat you up solely because you're black, gay, of a certain religion etc. that's worse.
The law recognises this.
That way is inequality.
Cantaloupe said:
It's illogical, assault is assault no matter the initial motivation, no assault is worse than the other.
That way is inequality.
Being targeted solely because of your race or sexuality or religion seems pretty unequal.That way is inequality.
I'm comfortable that the law sees it as a factor when considering sentencing/charging.
There isn't a perfect solution so long as some people keep being scum.
voyds9 said:
So if my protected characteristics says its OK to hate another then its not a hate crime?
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Where did I say that? Where is that suggested in any of the legislation or guidelines?Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
You may want to look up the historic translations of that verse. That particular translation is quite young.
La Liga said:
voyds9 said:
So if my protected characteristics says its OK to hate another then its not a hate crime?
No idea in Sweeden or whatever that case is from. Over here it wouldn't be the case.
Definition of the crime
Hate crime is a collective name for several crimes committed as a result of the offender's attitude towards certain characteristics of a person. Hate crime legislation is founded on:
• Skin colour
• National or ethnic origin
• Religion or other belief
• Sexual orientation
You do not have to fit in any of these descriptions in order to be a victim of a hate crime. It is enough that the offender thinks that you have some of these characteristics, for example, that he or she thinks that you are a homosexual.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff