Gay couple beaten for refusing to kiss for a mob
Discussion
Finlandia said:
I would assume the Swedish law being more or less equal to the UK law.
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.
One can always cherry pick. Not all cases of straight men [insert your group of choice] attacking gay men [insert your own group of choice] are hate crimes. 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.
Do you have details of why it wasn’t classed as a hate crime, ie,some detailed comments of the judgement?
R Mutt said:
That's a relief. The goths do deserve protection. It's tragic really they don't feel comfortable being able to fully express themselves in public.
well funny you should say that but there was that poor girl a few years ago who was murdered precisely BECAUSE she was a goth....b
hstewie 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.
I don't see why one is more wrong than the other. In both cases an innocent person is assaulted for no other reason than the violent stupidity of the attacker.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.
irocfan said:
R Mutt said:
That's a relief. The goths do deserve protection. It's tragic really they don't feel comfortable being able to fully express themselves in public.
well funny you should say that but there was that poor girl a few years ago who was murdered precisely BECAUSE she was a goth....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sophie_Lan...
Wikipedia said:
In May 2009, the Justice Minister, Jack Straw, said that while he could not change the law, he could amend the sentencing guidelines to require judges to treat an attack on a member of a subculture as an aggravating factor similar to a racially motivated or homophobic assault when sentencing perpetrators.
In April 2013, the Greater Manchester Police announced they would officially begin to record offences committed against goths and other alternative groups as hate crimes; as they do with offences specifically aimed at someone's race, disability or sexual orientation.
In April 2013, the Greater Manchester Police announced they would officially begin to record offences committed against goths and other alternative groups as hate crimes; as they do with offences specifically aimed at someone's race, disability or sexual orientation.
Finlandia said:
I would assume the Swedish law being more or less equal to the UK law.
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.
Regardless, if you commit a hate crime it's irrelevant if you do it because of your beliefs / because you're also have a 'protected characteristic'. 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.
JuanCarlosFandango 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.
I don't see why one is more wrong than the other. In both cases an innocent person is assaulted for no other reason than the violent stupidity of the attacker.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.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I don't see why one is more wrong than the other. In both cases an innocent person is assaulted for no other reason than the violent stupidity of the attacker.
That's not true, though. In the case of a hate crime it's less to do with stupidity and more to do with centuries of treating minority groups as inferior. I actually think of hate crimes as having more collective responsibility than random acts of violence. That person didn't become hateful in a vacuum.JuanCarlosFandango said:
I don't see why one is more wrong than the other. In both cases an innocent person is assaulted for no other reason than the violent stupidity of the attacker.
This is an outcome vs intention point. The law generally uses both to pass judgement, which seems correct to me. It is why we have manslaughter and murder, for example, even though in both cases result in a death.
Escy said:
It's interesting how none have been charged with assault. I think that backs up my original assessment that the women initiated the physical altercation (after being provoked).
They were all charged with aggravated grievous bodily harm, three of them were also charged for other offences of handling stolen goods and cannabis possession.8.4L 154 said:
Escy said:
It's interesting how none have been charged with assault. I think that backs up my original assessment that the women initiated the physical altercation (after being provoked).
They were all charged with aggravated grievous bodily harm, three of them were also charged for other offences of handling stolen goods and cannabis possession.Escy said:
It's interesting how none have been charged with assault. I think that backs up my original assessment that the women initiated the physical altercation (after being provoked).
So four teenagers have been charged with a crime, the two people who they are alleged to have committed the crime against have been charged with nothing, and your reaction to reading that is that you think it backs up your original assessment that they were the instigators? 
That's really quite remarkable.
8.4L 154 said:
Escy said:
It's interesting how none have been charged with assault. I think that backs up my original assessment that the women initiated the physical altercation (after being provoked).
They were all charged with aggravated grievous bodily harm, three of them were also charged for other offences of handling stolen goods and cannabis possession.I'd be surprised if it was GBH. The injuries don't seem anywhere near serious enough.
The Guardian states, 'The boys have been charged with an aggravated hate crime under the Public Order Act'.
There are no aggravated hate crimes under the POA, but something like affray would likely cover the conduct.
The Guardian states, 'The boys have been charged with an aggravated hate crime under the Public Order Act'.
There are no aggravated hate crimes under the POA, but something like affray would likely cover the conduct.
gregs656 said:
This is an outcome vs intention point.
The law generally uses both to pass judgement, which seems correct to me. It is why we have manslaughter and murder, for example, even though in both cases result in a death.
As I see it that relates to different levels of intended harm. Planning to kill someone is more malicious than planning to give them a bloody nose and not accounting for them whacking their head on a curb when they fall.The law generally uses both to pass judgement, which seems correct to me. It is why we have manslaughter and murder, for example, even though in both cases result in a death.
Thumping someone with the intent to give them a bloody nose because they are black/gay/Muslim is abhorrent but not necessarily more so than because they are fat/goth/posh, apparently looked at your bird or any other silly pretext.
Or perhaps a better way to put it is that being the victim of an unprovoked violent attack is no less serious for someone who doesn't happen to be from certain groups.
It seems to me that once you introduce this whole element of group identity into the picture then you necessarily politicise justice by creating a hierarchy of victimhood.
I much preferred the idea of blind justice where an unprovoked attack was an unprovoked attack whatever the apparent motive
You’re still making a similar point, we do take intention into account when we judge crimes.
Could argue that it is attackers who politicise their attacks if they do it based on a perceived characteristic, and the law is a response to that.
Justice has never been blind in the sense you suggest. Motive is taken into account. You give an example of this your self.
Could argue that it is attackers who politicise their attacks if they do it based on a perceived characteristic, and the law is a response to that.
Justice has never been blind in the sense you suggest. Motive is taken into account. You give an example of this your self.
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.
And right on cue....Gay asylum seeker threatened and attacked by religious asylum seekers in Swedish asylum centre, court says it's not a hate crime.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim...
https://twitter.com/YusufJP_/status/11552051780663...
BlackLabel 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.
And right on cue....Gay asylum seeker threatened and attacked by religious asylum seekers in Swedish asylum centre, court says it's not a hate crime.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim...
https://twitter.com/YusufJP_/status/11552051780663...
BlackLabel said:
And right on cue....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim...
https://twitter.com/YusufJP_/status/11552051780663...
I was wondering why a Muslim lady would be talking about Adam and Eve, bit of research shows they agree with Christianity on that part https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim...
https://twitter.com/YusufJP_/status/11552051780663...
I guess it’ll be a bit difficult asking people to identify the woman
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff