Scandinavian Thread

[Sheilbh]

I don't think I know enough about hate crime enhancements. Off my gut it feels like they are valuable as sort of making up for hate crimes against groups that were historically less likely to be investigated/prosecuted/given significant custodial sentences.

Is that their purpose or is there something more to it?

Interesting - that's not how I'd understood or seen it framed at all.

You may well be right, but I'd always understood it as more law as norm - it's about the society that we want to live in. That a crime is worse and has a social angle/impact if it is also motivated or characterised by hate against someone's race, faith, disability, sexuality, gender identity etc. It is not just a personal attack but a challenge to our social values.

I think that's why it's in the UK not actually necessary to be part of that group (which I think is right) - it applies to crimes motivated by someone's race etc or perceived race etc. So you don't actually need to be part of a group that was historically disadvantaged - it's the nature of the attack/crime that's changed even if the actual person committing the crime was wrong.

[Josquius]

The result, however, is that the progressives are doing the islamists' bidding. No amount of excuses is going to change that

Except the Islamists WANT dopey morons to go around burning quarans and spewing Islamophobic nonsense.

You keep saying that, but frankly it seems like they're more interested in letting the progressives think that since that group will inevitably act on its authoritarian instincts and enact laws that end up doing what the islamists want: namely undermining western society and its freedoms.

Except its what they actually say amongst themselves. It frequently comes up in their newsletters. The film clip I posted it is claimed is copied basically verbatim from intelligence transcripts.

As to undermining western values. Ironic. It's the far right who are the authoritarian fifth columnists trying to destroy our hard won freedoms.

And there is no such thing as Islamophobia, it's a trick to make afraid of opposing Islam.

I mean. It actually does exist. It's came up in legal cases.

[garbon]

I don't think I know enough about hate crime enhancements. Off my gut it feels like they are valuable as sort of making up for hate crimes against groups that were historically less likely to be investigated/prosecuted/given significant custodial sentences.

Is that their purpose or is there something more to it?

Interesting - that's not how I'd understood or seen it framed at all.

You may well be right, but I'd always understood it as more law as norm - it's about the society that we want to live in. That a crime is worse and has a social angle/impact if it is also motivated or characterised by hate against someone's race, faith, disability, sexuality, gender identity etc. It is not just a personal attack but a challenge to our social values.

I think that's why it's in the UK not actually necessary to be part of that group (which I think is right) - it applies to crimes motivated by someone's race etc or perceived race etc. So you don't actually need to be part of a group that was historically disadvantaged - it's the nature of the attack/crime that's changed even if the actual person committing the crime was wrong.

But why then that selection of identities? Is it because they are largely seen as immutable?

Like I could see it being negative for society, someone who targets librarians or charity workers or the homeless or refugees. Or, I'm a specious manner, millionaires as UK/US society values money makers.

If just clash against social values why aren't those protected categories?

[Sheilbh]

But why then that selection of identities? Is it because they are largely seen as immutable?

Like I could see it being negative for society, someone who targets librarians or charity workers or the homeless or refugees. Or, I'm a specious manner, millionaires as UK/US society values money makers.

If just clash against social values why aren't those protected categories?

I think that's possibly where the historic disadvantage comes in - we know racism, sexism, sectarianism, transphobia, homophobia, discrimination against the disabled exist (and have existed). But also I think that they are somewhat immutable and, often, a fundamental part of who someone is or is perceived to be. And I think all in one way or other something that can be perceived by someone else which motivates the crime. It's difficult to spot millionaires.

While, despite my best efforts, social wide discrimination against estate agents has yet to take off so they don't need special protection (yet).

Although I have seen landlords on Twitter plead that they need hate crime style protection

Edit: And in that sense we want to be a multi-faith, multi-racial diverse society where everyone can live. Do we want to be a society that tolerates recruitment consultants? Much to ponder.

[Barrister]

So it isn't so much what people say they are doing but rather whether it is judged they are trying to make a point that determines what should be permitted?

I'm pretty sure that its common in law that intent matters. IIRC the wording of hate crime laws in the UK specifically talk about this.

Don't confuse intent with motive.

Intent is basically "did you mean to do what you did".

Motive is "why did you do what you did".

In criminal law intent is hugely important (accidents aren't crimes), but motive doesn't need to be proven.

[Barrister]

I'm an atheist, in my mind people that need magical pretend friends to get through life are not admirable in any way shape or form based on that alone. I don't care very much either, for me it's not an important issue unless someone tries to impose their special brand of delusions on me. Then it becomes deadly serious, I do not want that backward shit to affect the laws where I live.

It's always useful when people are so upfront about their bigotry.

[Barrister]

But why then that selection of identities? Is it because they are largely seen as immutable?

Like I could see it being negative for society, someone who targets librarians or charity workers or the homeless or refugees. Or, I'm a specious manner, millionaires as UK/US society values money makers.

If just clash against social values why aren't those protected categories?

I think that's possibly where the historic disadvantage comes in - we know racism, sexism, sectarianism, transphobia, homophobia, discrimination against the disabled exist (and have existed). But also I think that they are somewhat immutable and, often, a fundamental part of who someone is or is perceived to be. And I think all in one way or other something that can be perceived by someone else which motivates the crime. It's difficult to spot millionaires.

While, despite my best efforts, social wide discrimination against estate agents has yet to take off so they don't need special protection (yet).

Although I have seen landlords on Twitter plead that they need hate crime style protection

Edit: And in that sense we want to be a multi-faith, multi-racial diverse society where everyone can live. Do we want to be a society that tolerates recruitment consultants? Much to ponder.

I really don't think the distinction between "immutable characteristics" and "choices" is a very useful one.  There's just too much overlap.

Earlier Thereviel characterized religion as a "choice".  In some ways it is, sure.  I know Christianity does emphasize that you have to choose to join the faith.  But that just plain ignores the fact that religion is largely inherited from your parents and society.  If you are religious, it's a good chance it's the same religion as your parents.

Or take language.  You can always go and choose to go out and learn a new language.  But you probably speak the language your parents taught you.

Even when it comes to sexuality or gender - you may be attracted to the same sex, but it's your choice to act on it.  You may feel you identity with a different gender - but it's your choice to take hormones or get gender-affirming surgery.

[DGuller]

I really hate the sound of this law, but I'll make an argument in favor of the devil.  One of the responsibilities of every member of a tribe is to protect its own from those outside of their tribe.  In modern days the job is outsourced to the government, but the concept remains the same. 

In return, I would argue that it's reasonable for the tribe to collectively put a limit on the ability of some members to antagonize the members of a different tribe, and get the whole tribe ensnared in a conflict that most wanted nothing to do with.  Therefore, there is some justification for the tribe to collectively go "if you try picking a fight with the goons on the other tribe, we'll stop you violently before you get us all involved".

[Jacob]

I'm fine with protecting minorities from oppression and unfair treatment, including religious minorities.

I'm less persuaded that members of a religion that recently got to define the social norms and oppress those who didn't follow those norms they defined are being oppressed when they don't get to be jerks to people who don't follow their norms.

Nor am I particularly keen on giving members of minority religions the ability to impose their norms on others and justifying it as protecting them against bigotry.

There are nuances that can be discussed and reasonable people can disagree on exactly where the lines should be drawn - but the bottom line IMO is that religious people should be respected and accommodated insofar as that accommodation doesn't impose their particular value set on those who do not share their religious values.

[The Brain]

Giving more consideration in law to religion than to other ideologies is unsound. Religion is as much a choice as other ideologies, and they also have as much impact on non-adherents as other ideologies, and should be available for criticism, including symbolic criticism. Also, the state having to define religion is best avoided (just like the state having to define art).

If burning religious symbols is illegal then burning national flags (for instance) should be illegal too, if the law is meaningfully consistent. Inconsistent law is unsound, and I think banning flag burning would limit people's ability to express themselves to an undesirable degree (just like banning burning of religious symbols does).

And obviously, as has been mentioned, bowing to terror threats is just very bad policy. If my neighbor comes up to me and says "Hey can I use your lawnmower this weekend?" and I let him use it, then that is ENORMOUSLY different from a situation where he says "Hey I wanna use your lawnmower this weekend, let me do it or I'll beat up your wife" and I let him use it. The situations are not even remotely the same, neither in message I communicate nor regarding impact on future events.

[garbon]

Earlier Thereviel characterized religion as a "choice".  In some ways it is, sure.  I know Christianity does emphasize that you have to choose to join the faith.  But that just plain ignores the fact that religion is largely inherited from your parents and society.  If you are religious, it's a good chance it's the same religion as your parents.

You also agreed it was a choice...but it was just 'a choice' but the 'most important choice you will ever make in your life'

If you're religious, your religion isn't just "a choice".  You make it sound as if it deserves no more respect then what colour of socks you choose to wear.

No, choosing your religion is the most important choice you will ever make in your life, and the next one.

Even when it comes to sexuality or gender - you may be attracted to the same sex, but it's your choice to act on it.  You may feel you identity with a different gender - but it's your choice to take hormones or get gender-affirming surgery.

Oh fuck you. A claim is made that religion is a choice, you get butthurt and make up a ludicrous claim that choosing one's religion is the most important choice in life. Then you get butthurt again when someone disagrees with you and isn't polite (as wont on Languish) and you declare religion isn't a choice. Then you decide to point out that LGBT individuals could just choose to be unhappy.

Guess what? I'd still be gay and attracted to men even if I weren't fucking them.

That said, I do agree that how religion propogates is it gets to children when they are young. The contradictions inherent in organized religion are likely less palatable to non-religious adults off converting. (E.g., loving, omnipotent God who permits all kinds of horrific suffering; if God has you born somewhere where no one is a Christian and you've no opportunity to learn about it to convert, well that might not work out well for you; God gives people ability to reject Christianity and therefore doom themselves for...reasons.)

[Barrister]

Oh fuck you. A claim is made that religion is a choice, you get butthurt and make up a ludicrous claim that choosing one's religion is the most important choice in life. Then you get butthurt again when someone disagrees with you and isn't polite (as wont on Languish) and you declare religion isn't a choice. Then you decide to point out that LGBT individuals could just choose to be unhappy.

Guess what? I'd still be gay and attracted to men even if I weren't fucking them.

That said, I do agree that how religion propogates is it gets to children when they are young. The contradictions inherent in organized religion are likely less palatable to non-religious adults off converting. (E.g., loving, omnipotent God who permits all kinds of horrific suffering; if God has you born somewhere where no one is a Christian and you've no opportunity to learn about it to convert, well that might not work out well for you; God gives people ability to reject Christianity and therefore doom themselves for...reasons.)

My point was only that there's not some easy binary between "choice" and "innate characteristic".

When it comes to religion I already said there was an element of choice to it - but there's also an element of innate characteristic.

And that's been an argument used against gay rights in the past - that the person isn't against "the gays" - just against them choosing to act on their sexual attraction.  You rightly object to that kind of reasoning.

[crazy canuck]

What is innate about choosing religious belief?  Are you suggesting the dominant culture is something that is innate to an individual?

[Josquius]

What is innate about choosing religious belief?  Are you suggesting the dominant culture is something that is innate to an individual?

If you're in a community where everyone wears a pointy hat and your parents raise you to always wear a pointy hat or else a giant elephant will be angry and stomp on your soul, then stopping wearing a pointy hat isn't an easy decision to make.

[Jacob]

If you're in a community where everyone wears a pointy hat and your parents raise you to always wear a pointy hat or else a giant elephant will be angry and stomp on your soul, then stopping wearing a pointy hat isn't an easy decision to make.

Fair enough. Nonetheless, you should still not agitate for those who don't wear pointy hats to be stomped by elephants due to your communal beliefs.