QuoteGay pride
JERRY HAYES
Now that the Tory party is about to embark on an unedifying internal spat over gay marriage, I would commend students of political history to read Michael McManus's beautifully written and well-researched book Tory Pride and Prejudice: the Conservative Party and Homosexual Reform.
Readers may be surprised to learn that supporters of the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in private included Enoch Powell, Margaret Thatcher, Patrick Jenkin and Ian Mcleod. They were lonely figures in those early days.
The paradox that the Conservative party faced is best summed up by Guy (now Lord) Black: 'It was one of those phenomena that, when the Conservative party appeared nationally to be at its most homophobic, at the very heart of the organisation were all these influential gay men. Although everybody knew what was going on, nobody made it very obvious.'
The case that captured the imagination of the 1950s was the imprisonment, for incitement, of Peter Wildeblood, the diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Mail, Michael Pitt Rivers and Lord Montagu. To the surprise of the authorities and the defendants, the crowds cheered them on their way to prison.
Public opinion was on the turn, and David Maxwell Fife, not the most liberal of home secretaries, appointed an obscure academic, Lord Wolfenden, to investigate. The Home Secretary did not appreciate that Wolfenden's son, Jeremy, was actively gay.
Not surprisingly, most politicians were out of step with the public mood for reform. Lord Winterton introduced a debate on homosexual crime, '... This nauseating subject ... fornication and adultery are evils ... [nothing does] more evil nor do[es] more harm than the filthy, disgusting, unnatural vice of homosexuality.' Immediately beforehand, peers had passed the Wankie Colliery Bill.
In the Commons, William Shepherd MP had this to say: 'Incest is a much more natural act than homosexuality.' This was followed by James Dance's classic, '... It was the condoning of this sort of offence which led to the downfall of the Roman Empire. I feel that it was the condoning of these offences which led to the fall of Nazi Germany [laughter].'
Sir Cyril Osborne added a degree of academic rigour to the debate: 'The sponsors of this bill [claim] that there are about one million "homos" in this country ... I do not believe that our country is as rotten as that. It is an awful slur on the good name of the country.' And then, to much laughter, he said this: 'I have never come across a "homo" in this House.'
Eventually, after a protracted and often bitter struggle, the law allowing decriminalisation was passed.
The next row was in the 1970s, when the unusual alliance of Malcolm Rifkind and Robin Cook campaigned to bring Scottish law into line with English. They were defeated. The law didn't change until the next Labour government.
In 1980, MPs tried again to move the law a little beyond Wolfenden. Many Tories were horrified. John MacKay MP said, 'I want my children to watch television and to go down Victoria Street on a Saturday afternoon without having such matters thrust down their throats.' Reform was defeated, but with Ken Clarke, Nigel Lawson and John Major voting in favour.
Michael McManus skilfully leads us through the horrors of the 1980s, when homosexuality had just become a stick to beat the loony left on spending. Clause 28 became a focal point of division, insult and misery. In 1985, a speaker at conference was cheered when he crowed, 'If you want a queer for your neighbour, vote Labour!'
On the floor of the house, Tony Banks asked employment minister Alan Clarke what work was being done to combat discrimination against lesbians and gays in employment. The answer was, 'None.' Those were shameful days for the Conservative Party.
This book is a testament to thorough research and good writing. McManus deftly chronicles the long road from hostility, to prejudice, to tolerance and now equality. He shows how imposing a three-line whip on matters of conscience can destroy a leader, as it did Iain Duncan Smith over gay adoptions.
It is cheering to think that we have come such a long way from 1985, with Cameron being cheered at conference for saying what the vast majority of the public instinctively feel:
'There's something special about marriage. It's not about religion. It's not about morality. It's about commitment. When you stand up there, in front of your friends and family, in front of the world, what you're doing really means something brave and important. You are publicly saying: it's not about "me, me, me, me" anymore. It's about "we": together, the two of us, through thick and thin. That really matters. And, by the way, it means something whether you're a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. That's why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I'm proud of that.'
But, rather than end on that spirit of hope and optimism, McManus sounds a note of warning. He quotes Tory MEP Roger Helmer: 'Homophobia is merely a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions, which have been held by most people through most of recorded history.'
Eighteen months later, Helmer tweeted, 'Why is it ok for a surgeon to perform sex change operation but not OK for a psychiatrist to try to 'turn' a consenting homosexual?'
Sadly, Helmer isn't alone. Before the 2010 election, 32 new MPs signed and 38 were judged supportive of the Westminster Declaration, which defines marriage as:
'The lifelong covental union of one man and one woman as husband and wife ... divinely ordained and the only context for sexual intercourse.' It refuses to, 'submit to any edict forcing us to equate any other form of sexual partnership with marriage.'
It appears that intolerance is still alive and well among some backbenchers.
I only posted this to share that detail about the Wankie Colliery Bill :embarass:
Sometimes I do wonder given the generally homophobic nature of older generations how public opinion was there to get through such reforms.
Quote
The paradox that the Conservative party faced is best summed up by Guy (now Lord) Black: 'It was one of those phenomena that, when the Conservative party appeared nationally to be at its most homophobic, at the very heart of the organisation were all these influential gay men.'
Meh, this is quite the well observed phenomena. See also: The Republican Party.
QuoteLord Wolfenden,
Best. Name. Ever.
Seriously, sounds like something a sub-par fantasy writer would come up with.
"...........the imprisonment, for incitement, of Peter Wildeblood, the diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Mail, Michael Pitt Rivers and Lord Montagu....." :huh:
Those names could have been obtained from a random gay name generator :D
I'm really not sure that the mainstream in England was ever particularly horrified about homosexuality. My grandparents, born at the close of the Victorian age, would talk about "confirmed batchelors" or "he is a dutiful son and devoted to his mother". I think the possibility of lesbians may never have entered their minds :D . The important thing for them was that the proprieties were observed.
Of course there was always that proportion of the population that hate others for being different. But they will always be with us, I'm unsure as to the extent that we should term their bigotry as "racism" or "homophobia" or whatever..........I had several fights in rough pubs in county Durham in my youth, for talking about historical topics in a southern accent..........a heinous crime in some circles it would seem. They are simple xenophobes, no doubt i would have been spared their attentions if a more "different" target had been present.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 23, 2012, 02:26:11 AM
"...........the imprisonment, for incitement, of Peter Wildeblood, the diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Mail, Michael Pitt Rivers and Lord Montagu....." :huh:
Those names could have been obtained from a random gay name generator :D
Michael Pitt-Rivers is only how he was known to his friends. His full name was Michael Ausgustus Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers :lol:
Lord Montagu had a triple barrelled name, but when you're Baron of Beaulieu I think that's inevitable.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 23, 2012, 02:26:11 AM
"...........the imprisonment, for incitement, of Peter Wildeblood, the diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Mail, Michael Pitt Rivers and Lord Montagu....." :huh:
Those names could have been obtained from a random gay name generator :D
I'm really not sure that the mainstream in England was ever particularly horrified about homosexuality. My grandparents, born at the close of the Victorian age, would talk about "confirmed batchelors" or "he is a dutiful son and devoted to his mother". I think the possibility of lesbians may never have entered their minds :D . The important thing for them was that the proprieties were observed.
Of course there was always that proportion of the population that hate others for being different. But they will always be with us, I'm unsure as to the extent that we should term their bigotry as "racism" or "homophobia" or whatever..........I had several fights in rough pubs in county Durham in my youth, for talking about historical topics in a southern accent..........a heinous crime in some circles it would seem. They are simple xenophobes, no doubt i would have been spared their attentions if a more "different" target had been present.
Yeah, recently I have been coming around to this type of thinking, too, myself. There is right now a campaign in Poland to include homosexuality among the categories of people it is a crime to "incite hatred" against (right now it is religion, ethnicity, race, nationality etc.) I think this is a wrong direction. If someone is actually inciting people to murder, lynching, violence etc. then it should be a crime no matter who the target is - murdering hipsters is as bad as murdering Asians. But "hatred" is not something you can legislate one way or another.
I remember a few years ago there was a big story here in Poland when a young Orthodox Jew went to a small town in Poland to visit graves of his ancestors or something like that. While there he was roughed up a bit (nothing serious) by the local hoodlums. When the mayor of the town, a salt-of-the-earth type of guy, was asked by the press about it he said, quite matter-of-factly "Oh these people are not antisemitic. They would treat him the same if he had a different skin color or spoke in a funny way, too." :frusty:
Yes, the sentencing tariff for murdering a disabled or transgender person here in the UK has recently doubled :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16089715
Needless to say that I do not approve of the murder of disabled or transgender people. But I am somewhat peeved that my life would appear to be only half as valuable :hmm:
I think these changes may well be counter-productive and offend people's sense of fairness; and it is that sense of fairness that has led to acceptance of different lifestyles.............so it is foolish to undermine it.
It's funny when you compare the UK legal system and its penalization of homosexuality with Poland which in 1932 decriminalized homosexuality and introduced the same age of consent (15) for both heterosexual and homosexual sex.
In fact the only differentiation in the criminal code of 1932 was that homosexual prostitution was a crime (but only for the prostitute), whereas heterosexual prostitution was not a crime in itself (it was however a crime to be a pimp or run a brothel or rent hotel rooms "by the hour" for prostitution purposes).
It's even funnier when you consider that it was introduced by a decree of our President-Generalissimus who came into semi-authoritarian power after the coup of 1926.
Also, attitudes varied wildly. I'm reading right now a biography of a famous Polish theatre critic (who died in early 2000s) who came from an upper middle class Warsaw family. Just before the war broke out in 1939, he brought to Poland from Lithuania a love of his life, a 10 years younger ballet dancer (they were together for over 60 years, until they died). Apparently as he introduced him to his family, his mother, a stately lady, did not as much as bat an eye and said that she welcomes "a new son in the family."
After the war, the communism government was distrustful of homosexuality and used it to blackmail prominent artists and authors, but did not attempt to recriminalize it.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 23, 2012, 02:57:26 AM
Yes, the sentencing tariff for murdering a disabled or transgender person here in the UK has recently doubled :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16089715
Needless to say that I do not approve of the murder of disabled or transgender people. But I am somewhat peeved that my life would appear to be only half as valuable :hmm:
I think these changes may well be counter-productive and offend people's sense of fairness; and it is that sense of fairness that has led to acceptance of different lifestyles.............so it is foolish to undermine it.
Yeah. Universalization of law (removal of separate courts for priests, nobles, peasants etc., introducing same penalties for murder, as opposed to old wargeld tariffs etc.) is considered by historians to be one of the most important developments towards the modern legal systems. Measures like this kinda destroy that.
Presumably the rationale is that more people are motivated to kill a transgendered person/homosexual/Jew/disabled person, and that more likely acts must be met with greater deterrent force than for other, less likely acts of the same moral reprehensibility.
This assumes that criminal sanctions can achieve linear deterrent effects, which they can't.
People are morans.
There's also the notion that the killing of a minority on the basis of his or her status is a political act, harmful to the state, or society more generally, in a way that your run of the mill murder is not.
QuoteYes, the sentencing tariff for murdering a disabled or transgender person here in the UK has recently doubled :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16089715
Needless to say that I do not approve of the murder of disabled or transgender people. But I am somewhat peeved that my life would appear to be only half as valuable :hmm:
I wonder how long before we get the "I swear, I thought he was a woman!" defence. :hmm:
Quote
I remember a few years ago there was a big story here in Poland when a young Orthodox Jew went to a small town in Poland to visit graves of his ancestors or something like that. While there he was roughed up a bit (nothing serious) by the local hoodlums. When the mayor of the town, a salt-of-the-earth type of guy, was asked by the press about it he said, quite matter-of-factly "Oh these people are not antisemitic. They would treat him the same if he had a different skin color or spoke in a funny way, too." :frusty:
Myeh, sounds reasonable to me.
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.
Quote from: Tyr on January 23, 2012, 03:08:12 AM
Quote
I remember a few years ago there was a big story here in Poland when a young Orthodox Jew went to a small town in Poland to visit graves of his ancestors or something like that. While there he was roughed up a bit (nothing serious) by the local hoodlums. When the mayor of the town, a salt-of-the-earth type of guy, was asked by the press about it he said, quite matter-of-factly "Oh these people are not antisemitic. They would treat him the same if he had a different skin color or spoke in a funny way, too." :frusty:
Myeh, sounds reasonable to me.
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 know. I just find it funny for an elected leader of a community to say "Oh we are not anti-Semites. We just hate everyone who is different." :P
Why you delete post, Marty?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 23, 2012, 03:13:03 AM
Why you delete post, Marty?
Which one? I may have deleted it by mistake. Was it about hate crimes? I thought I didn't post it and wanted to modify it. I will repost my thoughts when I get to work. :P
It expressed mild disagreement. It just seemed odd to delete it, is all.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 23, 2012, 03:31:34 AM
It expressed mild disagreement. It just seemed odd to delete it, is all.
I thought I wanted to develop in it - then realized I am later for work so will do it when I get to the office. :P
So to get to the point, I was referring more to hate speech laws which imo are a derelict of blasphemy laws only that what we consider "sacred" has changed. I don't like it and think the liberal side's efforts to introduce its pet causes in this "sacred" group (sexuality, gender identity, race, Holocaust etc.) are misguided as they should instead be working to bring down the existing sacred cows (such as religion or "nation").
As for the murder sentences and the like, I am a bit on a fence there. In principle there are recognized precedents of penalising some comparable acts more strongly because of the intention (e.g. euthanasia vs. "normal" murder) or the victim's identity (e.g. cop murder). Then again I hear RH's arguments that this creates this sense of unfairness (I feel that way about higher penalties for cop murder for example - I don't think a cop's life should be worth more than a civilian's life - and yes, I hear the arguments about public order and whatnot but I don't buy it the same way someone may not buy the arguments that murdering a tranny is more damaging to a public sense of safety than murdering an ordinary person).
And yes I use the word tranny. Sue me.
I think in principle I am against victim-based penalties but I am fine with *some* differentiation based on intent (i.e. there should not be a higher penalty for murdering a gay guy than for murdering a straight guy, but there is something to be said about giving a higher penalty to someone who murders a gay guy because he is gay than to someone who murders a gay guy during a robbery attempt). But then agaiin I am not sure we need a special cathegory of crimes - I mean, judges usually get some discretion in sentencing that could deal with this without having a legislative intervention. But then again, e.g. in Poland many judges are homophobic so perhaps you need to force their hand a bit.
So as I said I don't know. I guess the paradox with such laws is that by the time there is a sufficient majority to pass them they are no longer needed. :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 23, 2012, 02:26:11 AM
"...........the imprisonment, for incitement, of Peter Wildeblood, the diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Mail, Michael Pitt Rivers and Lord Montagu....." :huh:
...
I went to school with his daughter.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 23, 2012, 02:57:26 AM
Yes, the sentencing tariff for murdering a disabled or transgender person here in the UK has recently doubled :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16089715
Needless to say that I do not approve of the murder of disabled or transgender people. But I am somewhat peeved that my life would appear to be only half as valuable :hmm:
I think these changes may well be counter-productive and offend people's sense of fairness; and it is that sense of fairness that has led to acceptance of different lifestyles.............so it is foolish to undermine it.
It is not that your life is only half as valuable, but rather that you aresubstantially less likely to be murdered for being a middle aged white male than a transgendered person is likely to be murdered for being who they are.
I don't know if the fact RH's bloody murder was unlikely will comfort his ravaged corpse that much. Likewise why would the unlikeliness of it impact sentencing?
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 02:34:36 PM
I don't know if the fact RH's bloody murder was unlikely will comfort his ravaged corpse that much. Likewise why would the unlikeliness of it impact sentencing?
If a certain crime is more prevalent sentences will be higher in order to deter it from happening.
Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2012, 03:41:50 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 23, 2012, 03:31:34 AM
It expressed mild disagreement. It just seemed odd to delete it, is all.
I thought I wanted to develop in it - then realized I am later for work so will do it when I get to the office. :P
That's so fucked up. <_<
Quote from: Barrister on January 23, 2012, 02:46:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 02:34:36 PM
I don't know if the fact RH's bloody murder was unlikely will comfort his ravaged corpse that much. Likewise why would the unlikeliness of it impact sentencing?
If a certain crime is more prevalent sentences will be higher in order to deter it from happening.
:yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on January 23, 2012, 02:21:47 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 23, 2012, 02:57:26 AM
Yes, the sentencing tariff for murdering a disabled or transgender person here in the UK has recently doubled :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16089715
Needless to say that I do not approve of the murder of disabled or transgender people. But I am somewhat peeved that my life would appear to be only half as valuable :hmm:
I think these changes may well be counter-productive and offend people's sense of fairness; and it is that sense of fairness that has led to acceptance of different lifestyles.............so it is foolish to undermine it.
It is not that your life is only half as valuable, but rather that you aresubstantially less likely to be murdered for being a middle aged white male than a transgendered person is likely to be murdered for being who they are.
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 :hmm:
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"?
Yeah, judges should not be actuaries.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2012, 01:48:01 AM
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 :hmm:
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"?
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.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 24, 2012, 02:32:33 PM
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.
Some good posts above. I take Jacob's point that he agrees with me at the "philosophical" level but that pragmatism may well say that the time is right for such discrepancies in sentencing :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on January 24, 2012, 01:52:12 PMAs 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.
Quote from: Tyr on January 23, 2012, 03:08:12 AM
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?'
Quote from: Jacob on January 24, 2012, 01:52:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 09:36:19 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 23, 2012, 03:08:12 AM
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!".
Quote from: Tyr on January 25, 2012, 09:40:01 AM
"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?
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 09:42:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 25, 2012, 09:40:01 AM
"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.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 09:42:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 25, 2012, 09:40:01 AM
"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.
Quote from: mongers on January 25, 2012, 09:49:37 AM
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. :ph34r:
Quote from: Tyr on January 25, 2012, 09:40:01 AM"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?
Quote from: Tyr on January 24, 2012, 07:17:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 24, 2012, 02:32:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2012, 01:48:01 AM
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 :hmm:
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.
I say we bring back the good old Anglo-Saxon institution of the weregeld ...
Quote from: Malthus on January 25, 2012, 04:58:09 PM
I say we bring back the good old Anglo-Saxon institution of the weregeld ...
Were they part of the West?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2012, 05:11:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 25, 2012, 04:58:09 PM
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%.
Quote from: Malthus on January 25, 2012, 05:28:18 PM
Ask questions like that, and your weregeld gets reduced by 10%.
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on January 25, 2012, 05:28:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2012, 05:11:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 25, 2012, 04:58:09 PM
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%.
:D Nicely done.