Gay couple beaten for refusing to kiss for a mob

[Finlandia]

La Liga said:

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....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim...

https://twitter.com/YusufJP_/status/11552051780663...

That, on the face of it, is proving the opposite of what Finlandia has written.

We shall see, once it goes to court. That is, if the woman can be identified.

The police in Sweden investigated the above crime as a hate crime too, the court didn't agree though.

[Hoofy]

Sweden. They have an embarrassing problem with refugees IIRC? Something about them being a little rapey and now they're trying to cover things up because they want to be seen as progressive and having done the right thing?

[Hoofy]

Baby Shark doo doo doo doo said:

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

I guess it’ll be a bit difficult asking people to identify the woman

She should have been arrested for homophobia there and then.

[anonymous-user]

Finlandia said:

La Liga said:

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....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim...

https://twitter.com/YusufJP_/status/11552051780663...

That, on the face of it, is proving the opposite of what Finlandia has written.

We shall see, once it goes to court. That is, if the woman can be identified.

The police in Sweden investigated the above crime as a hate crime too, the court didn't agree though.

Obviously I can only read the bits which are translated, but where does it say it wasn’t a hate crime because they people who committed the offence did it because of religious beliefs etc?

The part that is translated says the motive couldn’t be proven which suggests an evidential issue.

[gregs656]

La Liga said:

bviously I can only read the bits which are translated, but where does it say it wasn’t a hate crime because they people who committed the offence did it because of religious beliefs etc?

The part that is translated says the motive couldn’t be proven which suggests an evidential issue.

Why let the facts get in the way?

[Finlandia]

La Liga said:

Finlandia said:

La Liga said:

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....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim...

https://twitter.com/YusufJP_/status/11552051780663...

That, on the face of it, is proving the opposite of what Finlandia has written.

We shall see, once it goes to court. That is, if the woman can be identified.

The police in Sweden investigated the above crime as a hate crime too, the court didn't agree though.

Obviously I can only read the bits which are translated, but where does it say it wasn’t a hate crime because they people who committed the offence did it because of religious beliefs etc?

The part that is translated says the motive couldn’t be proven which suggests an evidential issue.

It doesn't say that the people who committed the offence did it because of religious beliefs, that would be odd or racist, or something. What it says is that the gay man had been pushed around and screamed at on a daily basis, the assailants had been expressing their hatred for gay people in general and for this gay man in particular. Then finally one day he was beat by the same guys who had been at him everyday before that.

If that is not evidence enough of it being a hate crime, then what is? The main assailant admitted to abusing the victim, but only because of a dispute regarding the seating at the dinner table, the court chose to believe the assailant.



Then again, that's nothing really for the Swedish "justice" system.

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/xR7yBV/solna-...

Solna tingsrätt ansåg att den misshandlade kvinnan inte gick att lita på och friade hennes make för misshandel – eftersom hon kommer från en mindre bra familj.

Mannen och kvinnan gifte sig enligt sharialag för cirka sju år sedan.
”Det normala i ’dessa kretsar’ är vidare att en kvinna berättar för släkten att hon blir misshandlad om hon blir det så att saken kan lösas inom familjen. Det faktum att kvinnan inte sagt till mannens släktingar att han slog henne, utan i stället anmälde det till polisen, minskar hennes trovärdighet ytterligare.”, skriver rätten.

Google translate:
Solna district court found that the abused woman could not be trusted and freed her husband of abuse - because she comes from a less good family.

The man and woman got married under Sharia law about seven years ago.
“The normal thing in 'these circles' is that the woman tells the family if she gets beaten so that the matter can be resolved within the family. The fact that the woman did not tell her husband's relatives that he beat her, but instead reported it to the police, further diminishes her credibility.


Yes, sadly a Swedish court really did come up with that...

[anonymous-user]

Finlandia said:

It doesn't say that the people who committed the offence did it because of religious beliefs, that would be odd or racist, or something. What it says is that the gay man had been pushed around and screamed at on a daily basis, the assailants had been expressing their hatred for gay people in general and for this gay man in particular. Then finally one day he was beat by the same guys who had been at him everyday before that.

If that is not evidence enough of it being a hate crime, then what is? The main assailant admitted to abusing the victim, but only because of a dispute regarding the seating at the dinner table, the court chose to believe the assailant.

Who knows? The evidential threshold is high so somethings may not be proven.

When you wrote this I assumed you knew something more specific and were able to rule out any other possibilities:

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.

[Finlandia]

La Liga said:

Who knows?

The court got it wrong, whether it was a honest mistake or more of the same sort as the Solna district court findings, I guess we will never know.

[anonymous-user]

Without seeing the evidence (or there being an appeal or something else official which states that to be the case) I’m not sure how you can conclude that.

Not that it’s relevant to here in any event.

[wc98]

Davos123 said:

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.

i agree with jcf. no different to someone attacking someone purely because they are bigger than them or in a group and they think they can get away with it. it's scum attacking people they believe to be physically weaker than them. if it was two young lads on the way back from the football or a young couple on the way home from the cinema i think they would have had trouble from that group on the bus.

i've said it many times, when everyone identifies as a human being and we treat every crime against a person the same no matter race,colour,creed,sexuality etc, we will be really getting somewhere.

[RemyMartin81D]

BlackLabel said:

And right on cue....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim...

https://twitter.com/YusufJP_/status/11552051780663...

Adam and Steve....someones clearly an I'm Alan Partridge fan...

[wc98]

La Liga said:

Without seeing the evidence (or there being an appeal or something else official which states that to be the case) I’m not sure how you can conclude that.

Not that it’s relevant to here in any event.

given this posted by finlandia

"The man and woman got married under Sharia law about seven years ago.
“The normal thing in 'these circles' is that the woman tells the family if she gets beaten so that the matter can be resolved within the family. The fact that the woman did not tell her husband's relatives that he beat her, but instead reported it to the police, further diminishes her credibility."

i would be inclined to err on the side of his opinion though it might be wrong.

[anonymous-user]

Alleged perpetrators appeared in court today

Trial to commence end of Nov

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49421...

[Pesty]

bhstewie said:

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.

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.

A black eye is a black eye. The assault has the same result why should the reason make a difference.
The attackers are equally bad violence should never be lessened because he’s x and that’s ones y

[LeoSayer]

Pesty said:

A black eye is a black eye. The assault has the same result why should the reason make a difference.
The attackers are equally bad violence should never be lessened because he’s x and that’s ones y

The penalties for non-hate crime violence aren't lessened.

The penalties for hate crime violence are harsher because the government wants to discourage violence against minority groups on the basis that such crimes, if left unchecked, can lead to persecution.

[Kuji]

Brooking10 said:

Alleged perpetrators appeared in court today

Trial to commence end of Nov

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49421...

We may actually see some facts posted around what DID happen.
Instead of best guesses and opinions.

.

[hyphen]

Kuji said:

We may actually see some facts posted around what DID happen.
Instead of best guesses and opinions.

.

No need, As per her T-shirt, they were clearly Spanish speaking Nazis.

If guilty, hope the judge sets an example.



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/21/fo...

Edited by hyphen on Thursday 22 August 14:33

[anonymous-user]

They've been charged with a non-imprisonable public order offence which will cover the homophobic conduct.

The other offences carry theoretical prison sentences, but there's no way teenagers are getting detained for relatively minor matters.

[hyphen]

They live in central London and were stealing cards and handbags, so social housing types. I imagine at least one will have multiple previous interactions with the police and courts, wouldn't that count?

Edited by hyphen on Thursday 22 August 14:47

[anonymous-user]

hyphen said:

They live in central London and were stealing cards and handbags, so social housing types. I imagine at least one will have multiple previous interactions with the police and courts, wouldn't that count?

Previous certainly counts, but it's rare for youths to be sentenced to custody.