For the UK folks

obscurity · Post by **obscurity** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:44 pm

I don't know if you've ever heard of Sophie Lancaster, but if you haven't, she was a goth who was beaten to death for, as far as anyone can tell, being a goth.

In response to this, there's currently a petition on the downing street epetition site thingy asking that the definition of hate crimes be expanded to cover crimes commited against a person on the basis of their appearance or subcultural interests. As someone who has been on the receiving end of such intolerance on many occasions (although thankfully I'm still alive!), this is a subject somewhat close to my heart.

If you're a UK citizen and you've nothing more pressing to do, could you please have a read of the petition, and sign it if you agree with it?

Thanks.

Denyer · Post by **Denyer** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:00 am

what can I sign to show my support for the beating of goths?

Me$$iah · Post by **Me$$iah** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:51 pm

Hate crime laws are wrong and stupid.

I oppose all hate crime legislation, on account of freedom of speech and expression.
Everyone has the right to be a bigot if they choose to, and damn the government for trying to control what people think and do.

If a goth is murdered beacuse they were a goth its no worse than them being murdered beacuse they were a cunt or because they cheated on a partner or for an insurance policy..... they still have been murdered and the perp needs to be caught and punished for murder. Not for disliking goths or gays or blacks etc.

Murder is wrong, hating something isnt.

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:17 pm

Denyer wrote:what can I sign to show my support for the beating of goths?

Nothing cracks me up like Brisbane goths. Walk down the Queen St mall on any day in summer and you will see goths dressed up in big black coats and make-up and shit - trying hard to look cool while at the same time trying not to to pass out from heat stroke in the sub-tropical humidity! Cracks me up.

...but yeah - I'm sort of with Messiah on this one. Beating up someone already is a crime. Doesn't matter if you do it because they are a goth, or because they are Denyer, or whatever.

obscurity · Post by **obscurity** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:55 am

Me$$iah wrote:Hate crime laws are wrong and stupid.

I oppose all hate crime legislation, on account of freedom of speech and expression.
Everyone has the right to be a bigot if they choose to, and damn the government for trying to control what people think and do.

Since when was beating someone to death a matter of free speech or expression?

Me$$iah wrote: If a goth is murdered beacuse they were a goth its no worse than them being murdered beacuse they were a cunt or because they cheated on a partner or for an insurance policy..... they still have been murdered and the perp needs to be caught and punished for murder. Not for disliking goths or gays or blacks etc.

So being a goth is equivalent to being a cunt or cheating on a partner? Well fuck you too...

Me$$iah wrote: Murder is wrong, hating something isnt.

Nobody is talking about making it illegal to hate goths.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:15 am

Motivation for a crime should not factor into punishment for a crime.

Me$$iah · Post by **Me$$iah** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:25 pm

Obs,

Nice use of the quote function. However, you obviously have read from my post what you wanted to read.
I never said beating someone to death was a freedom of expression thing, I said that hate crime laws infringe upon theses freedoms. Also I didnt directly compare bieng a Goth to being a cunt etc, I was just pointing out that murder is murder, for whatever reason (self defence isnt murder).
Also making it illeagal to hate Goths is exacly what it is, like its illeagal to hate blacks n gays or latinos. Hate crimes legistlation take away the right to hate. And that sucks.

Incidentally I love the goth music and have seen live the only two goths bands that there are. And there are only 2, everyone else is a mere pretender to the title.
And both were amazing.

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:46 am

Hate crime laws make illegal the acts borne of hatred, not the hatred itself. If you intend to harm others based on your opinion of the group to which they belong, I have little sympathy for your 'lost freedoms'. If not, then your rights aren't really infringed upon anyway.

Me$$iah · Post by **Me$$iah** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:41 pm

Hate crime laws make it illeagal to say certain things.
Hateful speech is outlawed as well as the acts bourne of such speech or hate.
You have to watch what you say, or fall foul of the law.
That is an infringment on rights, however you look at it.

Hello Ingsoc

Hate crime is not double plus good.

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:23 pm

Protecting people based on subcultures or interests makes it illegal to say things like, "fucking furries."

It also gives people like practitioners of homeopathy or Scientology or whatever even more ways of shutting down criticism against them.

I think that is what Me$$iah is getting at, and I have to agree.

Murder is already illegal, regardless of motivation. People who are willing to break murder laws are also going to break hate-crime laws. Meanwhile, it makes non-racially/subculturally/whatever-motivated things suddenly take on extra weight because you can't really disprove that something was racially-motivated. (For an example of it taken to a ludicrous extreme, see that one episode of South Park. You know the one.)

As the recipient of a lot of abuse based on my perceived sexuality and nerdiness, I still oppose hate-crime laws. Hate-crime laws wouldn't have stopped the drunken fratboys from verbally assaulting me in college, and they wouldn't have stopped the assholes from tripping me in the hallway or slapping "kick me" signs on my back in high school.

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:51 pm

Is 'hate speech' really a criminal act? Having read Mitchell v. Wisconsin, I'm inclined to think the law is pretty firmly on the side of free speech.

I'll keep looking for examples, but if anyone has any handy, that'd be good too.

EDIT: Ah yes, I'm not looking outside my borders, am I? I see that hate speech laws are on the books in many countries. That censored website has a list of hate speech laws around the world.

bz£ · Post by **bz£** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:09 pm

WeaselSlayer wrote:Motivation for a crime should not factor into punishment for a crime.

I am largely ignorant of how things work outside of my own country, but in the US, at least, motivation is a key factor in punishment. That's what "hate crime laws" are really for. They don't make anything illegal, they simply change some of the penalties for things that are illegal anyway.

I'm not convinced that this is a particularly effective way to fight various "isms," though I do support the idea. Is killing someone because they are a fucking furry worse than killing someone because they murdered your father? There's a dead guy in both instances, but a lot of people will see one act as worse than the other.

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:24 pm

WeaselSlayer wrote:Motivation for a crime should not factor into punishment for a crime.

a guy who plans a murder for months and performs it in cold blood should be treated the same as someone who accidentally kills someone with his car should be treated the same as someone who <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/wrestling.death/">was imitating wrestling moves</a> on a child?

the differences among first-degree murder, third-degree murder, and manslaughter are differences in motivation.

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:04 pm

Degree != motive.

Billy's Little Trip · Post by **Billy's Little Trip** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:52 am

mean people suck

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:10 am

mkilly wrote:
WeaselSlayer wrote:Motivation for a crime should not factor into punishment for a crime.
a guy who plans a murder for months and performs it in cold blood should be treated the same as someone who accidentally kills someone with his car should be treated the same as someone who <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/wrestling.death/">was imitating wrestling moves</a> on a child?

the differences among first-degree murder, third-degree murder, and manslaughter are differences in motivation.

Should a guy who plans a murder for months and performs it in cold blood be treated differently than someone who jams a red-hot poker up Denyer's arse simply because he doesn't like Victorians?
You are correct - the differences among first-degree murder, third-degree murder, and manslaughter are differences in motivation - but murder and manslaughter are essentially different crimes - if you want to make comparisons - compare murder with murder.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:13 am

By motivation I mean the cause of the impulse to kill. The guy who hits someone with their car never decides to kill someone, nor the wrestling-move-imitator.

The idea of there being hate crimes means that there are certain ideologies which are more virtuous than others. It's someone else deciding for you what is moral and what you should think, which is bullshit.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:36 pm

obscurity wrote:
Me$$iah wrote: Murder is wrong, hating something isnt.
Nobody is talking about making it illegal to hate goths.

If nobody hated goths then goths would have no reason to exist. Am I right? 8)

j$ · Post by j$ » Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:59 pm

obscurity wrote:
Me$$iah wrote: Murder is wrong, hating something isnt.
Nobody is talking about making it illegal to hate goths.

Oh, can we? Pleassssseeeeee, mummy?

If nobody hated goths then goths would have no reason to exist. Am I right? 8)

I have a sneaking suspicion that they would blink right out of existence. It has something to do with quantum theory. or cats.