Tories and the gays

[Martinus]

As a philosophical point, I tend to agree with you. But I think the increased punishment for hate-crimes is a fairly natural reaction to and attempt to reverse the discrimination these particular groups have experienced.

It's not that long ago that you pretty much couldn't expect to see justice if you were the target of violence because you were gay, transsexual, Black or whatever. Yeah, sure, regular laws would apply but violent attacks would often get off much lighter when they victimized those groups - whether it was due to accepting "moral panic" defences, whether it was due to sympathy on the part of law enforcement and the judicial system towards the violent actors and bias against the outsider victims, whether the victims were blamed, or whether it was due to the victims never reporting it because they didn't expect justice.

So hate crime laws are a way both for the justice system to signal to commonly victimized outsiders and society at large that these crimes are indeed being taken seriously, and to institutionally come to grips with the previous problem of bias.

I expect that in some decades some of the hate crime laws might not be necessary on those grounds, but it's not that long ago that you could go gay-bashing with impunity in most Western countries. Various hate-crime legislation has been part of reversing that trend, and as such it has served a beneficial function IMO, and I don't think "we'll treat it as any other violent crime" would've had as much of an impact.

I think the philosophical problem with that reasoning is that the sense of fairness people have differs. For some people (like you), addressing past inequalities with new inequalities, only aimed in the opposite direction, is an acceptable m.o. from the point of justice and fairness. For others it isn't. I think this is not an argument that can be resolved by logic - it's just something people resolve at the axiom level, based on their concept of fairness and justice.

[Valmy]

Go walking around a poor Asian neighbourhood in Britain after dark and you may be beaten up...not because they especially hate whites but because white folk obviously don't belong in the area and so are targets.

I guess I don't get the distinction.  'I like black people, and do not hate them at all, but I guess we have to beat this dude because he obviously doesn't belong in the white neighborhood after dark?'

[Valmy]

So hate crime laws are a way both for the justice system to signal to commonly victimized outsiders and society at large that these crimes are indeed being taken seriously, and to institutionally come to grips with the previous problem of bias.

So why can't they do that with passing down appropriate sentences?  It just seems like passing actual laws is a sort of a sledgehammer approach that strikes me as loaded with possible unintended consequences and bad precedents.  I just wish there was a less extreme method of handling this problem.  Generally these kinds of things go poorly, like the abuse of the lynching laws and minimum sentence laws.

[Josquius]

Go walking around a poor Asian neighbourhood in Britain after dark and you may be beaten up...not because they especially hate whites but because white folk obviously don't belong in the area and so are targets.

I guess I don't get the distinction.  'I like black people, and do not hate them at all, but I guess we have to beat this dude because he obviously doesn't belong in the white neighborhood after dark?'

"Look! A black person! He doesn't belong! Get him!" could equally just as well be "Look! A buddhist monk!" or "Look! A supporter of another football team!" or "Look! Somebody reading!".

[Valmy]

"Look! A black person! He doesn't belong! Get him!" could equally just as well be "Look! A buddhist monk!" or "Look! A supporter of another football team!" or "Look! Somebody reading!".

So because bigots are violent against lots of different people we shouldn't see them as hateful?

[mongers]

"Look! A black person! He doesn't belong! Get him!" could equally just as well be "Look! A buddhist monk!" or "Look! A supporter of another football team!" or "Look! Somebody reading!".

So because bigots are violent against lots of different people we shouldn't see them as hateful?

I think Tyr in a round about way is say they're 'equal opportunity' haters; they have the hate and a need for an outlet, so it just happens they pick on someone with an obvious attribute to beat up.

So a black guy reading a book whilst passing through such a neighbourhood would get beat up because he was black not because of the reading or at least that's what the accompanying abuse would be about, whereas if it was just a white guy reading passing through the same instance, he'd still probably get beaten up but this would because he was reading a book.

I'm not sure I entirely buy that, I think in my theoretical scenario the black victim is possibly going to end up more severely injured than the white guy reading.

[Josquius]

"Look! A black person! He doesn't belong! Get him!" could equally just as well be "Look! A buddhist monk!" or "Look! A supporter of another football team!" or "Look! Somebody reading!".

So because bigots are violent against lots of different people we shouldn't see them as hateful?

Its not necessarily bigotry. They do it because they think bullying and beating people up is fun and outsiders are better targets than locals who probally know their parents or teachers or whathaveyou.

[Martinus]

So a black guy reading a book whilst passing through such a neighbourhood would get beat up because he was black not because of the reading or at least that's what the accompanying abuse would be about, whereas if it was just a white guy reading passing through the same instance, he'd still probably get beaten up but this would because he was reading a book.

That's a highly unrealistic scenario.

A black guy wouldn't be reading a book. 

[Jacob]

"Look! A black person! He doesn't belong! Get him!" could equally just as well be "Look! A buddhist monk!" or "Look! A supporter of another football team!" or "Look! Somebody reading!".

I was under the impression that the UK does have some special sanctions and punishments that apply to football hooligans?

[crazy canuck]

It is the same purpose as having anti discrimination laws.  Sure it is possible that someone might discriminate against a young white male but they are not a group requiring special protection - at least not yet.

In terms of crimes against them...yes, it is so. The trouble with such thinking is it often goes further than "don't actively harm different people" however and into trying to give them a leg up.
Anti-discrimination laws in practice often do mean discrimination against young white males.
Have a young muslim woman and a young white guy, both of whom are equally good for a job, and it'll likely be the muslim who gets it since it would help the company build up their quotas and avoid any chance of them falling victim to anti-discrimination stuff.
Affirmative action stuff is particularly bad for poor white people- they were put in place to stop the dominance of the rich whites but the poor whites are then lumped in with them as the ruling class who don't need extra help.

Yep, I went off topic there and on to a different issue but it is all related. A bit slippery slopey.

Your point is valid in relation to the pendulum swinging too far in human rights cases but I see little risk in there being affirmative action type programs associated with the killing of young white males in order to bring their death toll more in line with the deaths of young black males.

This sort of sentencing law functions more like the way Human Rights were initially intended - to change attitudes and reduce adverse effects.

[Barrister]

But if we extend that reasoning we get all sorts of anomalous results. People are more likely to be murdered in their youth, for example, than their rather more staid and stay-at-home middle age. If someone murders a male then they should get a longer sentence than for murdering a female.........and so on.

I don't like it. We pay judges good money for their experience and knowledge, they should decide if a particular murder should incur a greater or lesser sentence.

Drinking my coffee now, I see that your point is different to the one I answered 

So, to try and be more specific, why is hatred toward a disabled or transgender people being treated differently to hatred directed at a white hetero male or a woman? How many hatred-free murders are there anyway? Come to that, is a hatred-free murder relatively inconsequential.....as in "there was no hatred involved, the victim was just in the way"?

I have two answers for you.

First, under Canadian law they aren't treated differently - any crime that is 'motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor' is considered to be aggravating.

But, the second answer is that crime motivated by hatred towards white males are in fact pretty well non-existant.  We don't need to try and deter such crimes because they aren't happening.

Aren't all murders motivated by hate?  Yes, but we find it slightly less distasteful when someone hates you because they actually know you, rather than just based on the colour of your skin.

[Malthus]

I say we bring back the good old Anglo-Saxon institution of the weregeld ...

[crazy canuck]

I say we bring back the good old Anglo-Saxon institution of the weregeld ...

Were they part of the West?

[Malthus]

I say we bring back the good old Anglo-Saxon institution of the weregeld ...

Were they part of the West?

Ask questions like that, and your weregeld gets reduced by 10%.

[Jacob]

Ask questions like that, and your weregeld gets reduced by 10%.