• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Long time lurking

The big bogus hate crime thread

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

I hope it is both massive and peaceful.

I don't expect it to get much media coverage.

fuck the legacy media. Only the oldies watch / read it.  Social media is where it's at

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wahoo said:

They'll only report the event if there's a riot.  I wouldn't put it past TPTB putting a few plants into the event.

Its not within his interests , it`s the last thing he wants but you are right it will be the only way it will get any coverage listen to what Lord Pearson say about the press`s MO 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Oskar said:

Sounds like this new banning regime is official but unannounced policy then.

It's not going to help them.

We need to start a new one policy political party... Bring back the firing squad for traitors party.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare and contrast to the treatment of Abu Hamza.

Utterly staggering. The people in charge of these decisions should be imprisoned for life for treason. They are actively destroying this country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The XYY Man said:

I am not a person who seeks binary answers - and I get that there are many shades of grey to consider when dealing with the majority of life's conundrums.

But to anyone of sound mind, the entire concept of "hate-crime" is absurd.

I will accept NO argument in favour of this mind-fuck bull-shit.

Ever.

Under ANY circumstances.

And neither should you...

 

XYY

If someone wants to waste their time and effort "hating" anything that's up to them. 

As you say - making a crime of it is utterly absurd. 

This country has gone insane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ccc said:

Compare and contrast to the treatment of Abu Hamza.

Utterly staggering. The people in charge of these decisions should be imprisoned for life for treason. They are actively destroying this country. 

Quite 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ccc said:

Compare and contrast to the treatment of Abu Hamza.

Utterly staggering. The people in charge of these decisions should be imprisoned for life for treason. They are actively destroying this country. 

Watch and weep ...but the sarcasm is great

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, XswampyX said:

It's not going to help them.

We need to start a new one policy political party... Bring back the firing squad for traitors party.

 

Yep its pouring fuel on the fire...but the dull fekers cant see it ...and if it`s a double bluff and its what they`er actually intending to do i take my hat off to them but i don`t see that happening 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Long time lurking said:

Yep its pouring fuel on the fire...but the dull fekers cant see it ...and if it`s a double bluff and its what they`er actually intending to do i take my hat off to them but i don`t see that happening 

And all the while they are building the chains (anti terror laws & censorship) that will eventually be used to bind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I underrtand it, 'hate crime' is merely a categorisation of an existing crime, that is also perceived as being motivated by hatred of a racial, ethnic, etc. group.

So if someone is assaulted, it is a crime. If that crime is also seen as motivated by hate, that crime is categorised as a 'hate crime'.

There is no hate crime, unless the action would also be a crime, even if it were not motivated by hate.

The term 'hate crime' seems to me to be calculated to raise tensions in the community, and serves no useful purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good article.

http://barristerblogger.com/2018/03/18/the-met-has-a-problem-with-hate-crime-it-cant-explain-what-it-means/

 

Quote
Skip to content

BarristerBlogger

Matthew Scott's Legal Comment Argument and Discussion. Comment Awards 2015 Best Independent Blog

The Met has a problem with hate-crime. It can’t explain what it means.

The Metropolitan Police has a rather strange notice about “hate crimes” on its website.  It has attracted quite a bit of attention on social media.

Met-Police-hate-crime.jpg?resize=534%2C2Hate crimes and hate incidents

If someone commits a criminal offence and the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we class this as a ‘hate crime’. It means the offender can be charged for the crime itself and also their reasons for doing it.

If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.

Let’s break this down, sentence by sentence.

If someone commits a criminal offence and the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we class this as a ‘hate crime’.”

The classification has been adapted from Recommendation 12 of the MacPherson report into the murder of Steven Lawrence, which said that a racist incident should be defined as:

… any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”

MacPherson’s concern was that investigating officers might sometimes decline to take allegations of racist crime seriously if it was left to them to judge whether a particular incident was racially motivated.

As a working principle in a police force still believed by many to be infected with prejudice the MacPherson definition may be a useful corrective to a tendency to overlook or downplay racism or other hate motivation. That doesn’t stop it being a pretty rotten definition. It requires the police to treat crimes as racist (or motivated by religious or homophobic hate) whenever someone, however unreasonably, makes that assertion. It requires the police, on occasion, to believe and indeed to perpetuate a fiction. In this respect it is rather similar to the College of Policing’s guidance that officers should “believe the victim” when investigating crime.

So, it is a controversial definition, in my view a bad definition, but it does at least make linguistic sense.

The next sentence is more opaque:

“It means the offender can be charged for the crime itself and also their reasons for doing it.”

This is beginning to get rather confused. It is true that there are some offences (principally assault, harassment, and various public order offences) which become “aggravated,” or more serious, if they are proved to be motivated by racial (or religious) hatred. A person might be charged for example, with “racially aggravated assault” but it is still all one charge. The Met seems to imply that a person can face two charges, one for the assault, and another for “their reasons for doing it.” That is not true.

Next the Met goes back to MacPherson:

“If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’.”

Sir William made a recommendation  that:

… the term “racist incident” must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.”

It is probably sensible that racist (or “hate”) incidents should generally be recorded, even when they do not amount to crimes. There is more to policing than simply arresting criminals. Part of good policing involves talking to people and trying to persuade them not to behave badly. And of course the police should be allowed to gather intelligence on suspicious activity that might not be criminal. That said, MacPherson’s recommendation that “non-crimes” should always be investigated with as much commitment as crimes does seem rather foolish.

Now we come to the final two sentences of the announcement. They do not come from MacPherson but from the Met itself:

Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.”

We are back to the suggestion that a person may be charged with“the reasons for doing” an act which is itself lawful.

The Met is in a terrible muddle here and it is very hard to understand what they mean.

We need a little, just a little, basic law; and I hope you’ll also forgive me for using just four Latin words. (Odd though it seems, Latin doesn’t always obfuscate. Even if, like me, you would be horrified and baffled to be faced with a lengthy passage the occasional Latin word or phrase can actually help when talking about legal concepts, just as it can help when talking about gardening or insects).

Most crimes consist of 2 elements: first of something done, the Latin phrase actus reus covers it conveniently; and secondly of a “mental element”, a “guilty mind” or mens rea.

So, for example, the actus reus of murder is killing someone; but a killing is not a crime at all unless it is accompanied by the appropriate mens rea. It may be accidental (in which case no crime is committed), or grossly negligent (in which case the crime is manslaughter but not murder). It is only if the killer intends to kill (or at least to cause serious injury) that the crime of murder is committed. In fact the boundaries between murder and manslaughter get rather more blurred than this, but we don’t need to worry about that for now.

The same principle applies to other crimes. If I push you I might do so accidentally, in which case I have committed no crime, or I may do so with what the law calls a “hostile intent” in which case I have assaulted you. If I take money out of your purse I may do so intending to permanently deprive you of it, in which case (as long as I’m acting dishonestly) I’m guilty of theft; or I may do so intending to repay you in full, in which case I’m not guilty (although again the law of theft can get rather more complicated than that). Since we’ve introduced a bit of Latin, let’s quote a handy maxim from Roman law: actus non facit reus nisi mens sit rea, which translates as “An act does not become a crime unless the mind is guilty.”

Whatever its status in Roman law, the maxim is not entirely accurate as a statement of English criminal law. There are, in fact, some crimes where your state of mind is irrelevant and doing the actus reus alone is enough to make you guilty. If you drive over the speed limit you are guilty of an offence even if you did not intend to do so, and even, in fact, if (unknown to you) your speedometer is broken so that you didn’t realise what you were doing. If you drive with a breath alcohol level over the legal limit, your state of mind is irrelevant; you are guilty even if you think you’re sober and even if your drink was laced, although if you can prove (take it from me that you almost certainly can’t) that it was laced you may escape serious punishment. If you cause noxious waste to be discharged into a river without a permit it’s no defence to say that you didn’t mean to, or even that you weren’t negligent. These are said to be crimes of “strict liability.” There are quite a few such offences, but they are still anomalous because there is a strong presumption that a criminal offence requires some mens rea unless the words of a statute make it absolutely clear that it does not.

But although there are some cases where doing an act is illegal irrespective of your state of mind, there are no cases where your state of mind can make you guilty of an offence if you don’t actually do anything capable of amounting to a crime. It doesn’t matter how wicked your mind may be, unless it is combined with an act of some sort (or, very occasionally, where you are under a duty to act and you omit to do so) you have not committed an offence. Intending to kill someone is not criminal. Intending to rape is not an offence. Intending to incite racial hatred is not an offence. The closest the law gets to criminalising a state of mind is the offence of “conspiracy” to commit a crime, but even that requires an agreement (which, as prosecution-minded judges like to emphasise to juries, can be made with just a nod or a wink) between at least two people to commit a crime.

The Met’s website seems to presuppose the existence of an entirely novel type of criminal offence: a crime which requires only a guilty mind, mens rea but not actus reus. If such an offence existed then “thought-crime” would be a very good description of it. But of course it doesn’t.

With that law lecture out of the way, let’s look again at the Met’s website:

Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are.”

There are indeed some acts which, as the Met implies, are never against the law, whatever “the perpetrator’s” reasons for doing it may be. If this perpetrator sits down in his armchair, he is not committing a crime, however wicked he may be, however evil his intentions, and even if he is doing so solely in order to make himself comfortable before thinking up a way of massacring all the Muslims in the neighbourhood.

Moving slightly closer to what I think the Met is getting at, if I put up a sign in my front garden saying “BAN ALL IMMIGRATION,” that is no more against the law than it would be to sit in my armchair. It is not threatening, it is simply an expression of opinion. My reasons for doing it might be very disreputable: I may believe, like Max Moseley apparently used to believe, that immigrants should be kept out because they carry “venereal diseases.” If I organise a campaign against circumcision, that is lawful whether my “reason for doing it” is the laudable one of believing that children should not be subjected to unnecessary pain, or a scurrilous and anti-semitic desire to make life difficult for Jews. There is no sense in which my “reasons for doing it” are in themselves “against the law.”

On the other hand, if I put up a sign saying “KILL ALL MUSLIMS,” or for that matter KILL ALL INFIDELS” that would, in all probability, be the offence under S.29B of the Public Order Act 1986 of displaying threatening written material (the actus reus), as long as I had the mens rea of an “intent to stir up hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.” The crime would not be my “reason for doing it,” it would be the combination of making a threatening display and my intention in making it.

This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.”

It should be obvious now that whatever the Met’s gobbledegook may mean, this is nonsense. There is no offence of having an unlawful reason for doing something. Thought-crime does not exist in English law.

Does all this matter? Why, you may ask, are you wasting our time on a lengthy and frankly rather boring dissection of a website that was probably written by a Met PR person who has just worded a couple of sentences rather clumsily?

I think it matters quite a lot. Most people have only a fairly sketchy idea of the criminal law. People look to the police for guidance on what is and isn’t a crime. They won’t get it from this. Despite its many failings the Met still has a reputation as a reasonably efficient, impartial and reliable upholder of the law. Padding out its website with gibberish does not enhance that reputation. It is even worse when, if you do manage to discern some meaning from the garbled prose, it fundamentally mis-states the law.

So a badly written website misleads the public and damages the reputation of the Metropolitan Police. That does matter.

There is another problem. People reading the website, or more likely the extract that has been spread around the internet in the last few days, will quite understandably conclude that it means what it appears to say: that you can be prosecuted for doing something legal because of your “reasons for doing it.” They can hardly be blamed for believing that “thought-crime” is a reality in English law, after all the Metropolitan Police says that it is. They will then either harrumph in outrage, or mock the stupidity of the police and the whole concept of “hate crime,” or perhaps even make silly complaints against people they don’t like in the hope that they will get them arrested for “hate-crime.” Yet racist incidents, attacks on or harassment of Muslims or Jews, or on gay people and so on – in other words “hate crimes” – are all real and serious issues. A foolish and garbled message from the police does nothing to deal with them, if anything it trivialises the problem.

That matters too.

Liked it? Take a second to support Matthew on Patreon!
become_a_patron_button.png?w=840
292b3faf00c1bc6dbc972cedc94ad907?s=42&d=

Author: Matthew

I have been a barrister for over 25 years, specialising in crime. You may also have come across some of my articles I have written on legal issues for The Times, Standpoint, Daily Telegraph or Criminal Law & Justice Weekly View all posts by Matthew

292b3faf00c1bc6dbc972cedc94ad907?s=49&d=Author MatthewPosted on March 18, 2018Categories Criminal LawTags College of Policing, hate crime, hate incident, MacPherson, Metropolitan Police, racial hatred, religious hatred

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The thing that he was about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws), but if detected it was reasonably certain that it would be punished by death, or at least by twenty-five years in a forced-labour camp."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.