Sunny, I stand by what I said on Pickled Politics:

,

On a more happy note, where I’d disagree with Jai is on what ordinary folk, folk like me for instance, actually think.

We do not see all Muslims as suicide bombers, largely, ’cause we know the occasional Muslim, and think that the Muslims we know are unlikely to want to blow us all up.

We are able to spot a, sadly, politicised media for the self serving fools that they actually are. A question for you. Is Melanie Philips a rich person because she failed to underestimate her audience? No, I would argue that she spotted a market gap and filled her boots with it. Still and all, she did not make a ripple in the pool of what John Junior described as the ‘good folk of Auchtermuchty’. They have never heard of her, nor her bloody book. If they think anything at all about the issues that we address here, it is probably from first principles, whether the, one, Muslim they know is an OK person or a complete idiot. that is what judgements are made of, sad to say.

That’s what it’s like out here in the sticks. Frankly, I do not know whether you guys are lucky living in the Big Wen, or whether you are so up yourselves that you can’t see the wood for trees.

What I do admittedly see is a lot of politically engaged folk. And that is right healthy, so it is.

I think you have an issue with that.

In the Southern states of the U.S. I think I am correct in stating that there used to be extra punishments for racially aggravated crimes. It was called lynching. Black men would be lynched for rape and even just improper behaviour to white women. Much of this was extra-judicial.

Liberals believe in equality before the law, justice is blind for a good reason.

Gang retaliation is rare and can be dealt with by existing statutes. Hate crimes are crimes, if you advocate or incite violence, whatever the basis, you are committing a crime. That is right. To go beyond that would be illiberal.

My reaction to Dave’s first point is that punishing someone ‘pre-emptively’ for the possible (or even likely) social effects of their actions is not desirable. The definition of pornography as something ‘likely to deprave and corrupt’ shows how blunt an instrument the law can be when this is attempted. As part of an attempt to produce a socially-desirable outcome, I’m not sure that it would be anything but counter-productive.

Binty Uhuru,

I think they even had a statute about ‘eye rape’. I’d have thought that whatever legislation we do have, and less is more maybe, it ought to be equitable.’Strange Fruit’ seems to sum that issue up, does it not?

The Rule of Law is weakened when special privileges are established.

Rochenko:

Dave’s point amounts to no more than a reiteration of Blackstone’s observation that:

“it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.”

…which was cited by the US Supreme Court in Wisconsin v Mitchell as part of their argument for permitting the State to treat racial hatred as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

As Sunny notes in referring to my own article on this at the Ministry, the notions that motive should be taken into account in handing down sentences and that sentences should have a deterrent effect proportionate to the harm caused by the crime are both well established principles in law and ones that, expressed in other contexts, most on the right would not even question, let alone argue against.

Roger:

These aren’t privileges, they’re deterrents.

Unity:

OK, I see. I hadn’t thought enough about the legal context of Dave’s comments. On that view, there would seem to be a good case for viewing heavier sentences are more justified.

But as for their general deterrent effect, I remain undecided. To play devil’s advocate for a minute: some of what is classified as hate crime is no doubt based on fairly unorganised prejudice (i.e. not the kind of prejudice that forms the basis of an entire worldview). However, the definition of hate crimes recognises that they tend to be rooted in a politicised understanding of the difference between races, religions, sexual orientations etc. That politicised demonisation of groups at work in ‘hate’ is precisely why a distinction is being made between, say, violent hate crimes and other crimes of violence.

But if that’s the case, and hate crimes are rooted in politicised stances and the identities they constitute, then why would heavier sentences not have the opposite of the intended effect? Why would they not consolidate the criminal’s sense of identity and the strength of others’ identification with them?

Rather than legislating for specific, and allegedly graver, types of assault, we should leave it open to the Judges to increase severity of sentencing for violent or other crimes for a range of aggravating factors. Race hatred would certainly be one aggravating factor; so would hatred based on gender, sexuality, religion or any other attribute which one either can’t avoid having or which one should be free to have in a liberal society.

But there will be other aggravating factors as well: viciousness, lack of provocation, re-offending, vulnerability of the victim etc. A yobbo who decides to batter somebody because he dislikes the colour of his victim’s skin should certainly do longer jail time than somebody who afflicts equivalent damage at the end of an exchange of harsh words. But a yobbo who batters an old woman because he wants to steal her purse, or because he gets sadistic pleasure from the act, or who has already done so several times in the past, should also get condign punishment: maybe heavier than the race-baiter.

We don’t want an epidemic of bigotry-inspired violence and hatred in a liberal society. Nor do we want one in which sadistic or greedy people may safely indulge their whims at the expense of people physically weaker than them.

There has undoubtedly been- and there still is- police and judicial racism and neglect. The answer to this is not to make up a list of vulnerable groups and pass legislation forbidding attacks on any of them: it is to demand that the Police and the Judges make sure that all members of our society do indeed enjoy the equal protection of the law.

Rochenko:

Therein lies the paradox one always faces when dealing with such issues.

Yes, group psychology does operate in such a way that repressive measures tend to produce increased solidarity amongst those already inside the group.

For those whose views are heavily politicised, and especially where they are reinforced by other factors, such as a belief in deterministic biological theory of race or a specific religious injunction against homosexuality, both of which are relevant to the general area of ‘hate’ crimes then the very fact that the state and other institutions act to suppress their world view serves as vindication, in their eyes, that they are both correct and – often – in possession of ‘forbidden’ knowledge.

It’s the same psychology one finds amongst hardened members of the tin-foil helmet brigade – the more effort that is put into debunking their pet conspiracy theory the more the see those efforts as proof that they’re right, because, in their eyes, you wouldn’t be trying quite so hard to blow their arguments out the of water if there was nothing to them.

Deterrents, alone, like other forms of negative reinforcement, are limited in the effect they can have. At best they may dissuade some outside of or on the fringes of a particular group from joining in fully. They do, however, give rise to signalling effects which can be woven into efforts to tackle a particular problem by means of positive measures and reinforcements, the most relevant to this issue being social education.

It all, ultimately, comes down to context.

If one looks at this issue from the narrow perspective of ‘personal justice’ then it can appear on the surface that stiffer sentences for hate crimes are difficult to justify and at odds with the principle that justice should be ‘blind’, but viewed in a wider context, the overall picture begins to look rather different.

No, Unity’s argument horrifies me.

If a racist thug batters a man because he has deep-seated objections to the colour of his skin: increase the severity of his punishment, because this was an unprovoked assault and it’s necessary to deter him from re-offending and other people from acting the same way. If a non-racist thug batters an old woman because it’s an easy way to obtain the money in her handbag, or because nothing much happened to him the last time he did this, or because he thinks it’s fun: do exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons.

The context is that we’re discussing this issue because the black and Asian lobbies currently cause politicians more worries than the Old Age Pensioner lobby. As for the ‘lives in the inner city and isn’t streetwise or strong enough to deter assault’ lobby: that doesn’t exist. But people who are not members of ethnic or other easily-defined minorities do exist, and they deserve the protection of the law just as much as any black, Jewish or Asian person. Abandoning them would be morally unjustifiable.

Only slightly less important is the pragmatic argument: do you really think that abandoning the principle of equality before the law is the right way to sell people on a multicultural society? In my experience, one of the strongest arguments that racists can make to white working class people is ‘they get special treatment’- with ‘they’ being anyone without the pale skin of the master race. ( For a long time the BNP had a slogan ‘Rights for Whites’.)

I believe that for the most part, ‘they’ don’t- and I make no apology for saying that in a liberal society, ‘they’ shouldn’t because there should be no ‘them’ and ‘us’. There are black, Asian and white citizens of the UK and all of them deserve equal protection from crimes of violence. Give the racist thugs longer sentences but do the same for the sadists, re-offenders and predators- and leave it to the Judges to decide.

‘Deserve the equal protection of the law’, in my comment above, is entirely the wrong thing to say, btw. I should have said ‘are entitled to the equal protection of the law’. And that entitlement is inalienable.

Hate crime is really thought crime – as unitys argument eloquently demonstrates. The additional punishment is unrelated to the criminal act (murder is murder from the perspective of the victim and their family), but is invoked for pre-existing beleifs, which may or may not have any direct relationship to the crime.
As the additional punishment is justified for it’s deterrrent effect (an unorthodox justification, at least for left thinkers), in effect the law is saying that peope who are not members of certain groups deserve lesser protection under the law, as their assailiants are somehow less deterrred from murdering them, purely on the basis of their exclusion from the protected group. How would/should this be applied if both murderer and victim were from minority groups, a far more common scenario than “white on black” murder. Would the law here be saying that “black on black” murders are less of a crime ? I am honestly surprised that this legislation doesn’t contravene a human right somewhere.

Unity @7,

The increased deterrent factor IS the privilege.

For bonus Stroppiness Points, I am also pretty horrified by Unity’s casual use of this phrase: ‘If one looks at this issue from the narrow perspective of ‘personal justice’ ‘. Well, I’m afraid I do look at the justice system from that perspective, and what is narrow about it? A justice system that works for an entire society is not going to magically appear from a series of personal injustices.

Dan:

You almost got the right point and then shied away at the final hurdle.

I would argue that one cannot doubt the validity of the principle of treating racial (or forms of irrational hatred) as an aggravating factor in sentencing, one of several valid aggravating factors, which would certainly include the level of violence involved, the vulnerability of the victim, etc.

Whether that principle is implemented correctly in law is a different matter. I’m inclined to the view that the current implementation in which an additional tariff for ‘hate’ is added over and above the usual maximum sentence, i.e. outside the standard framework of aggravating factors is both wrong and unhelpful in creating the impression that certain groups are being ‘privileged’ in law.

The correct implementation, as you suggest, is that of extending the maximum sentence across the board with the additional tariff for hatred incorporated as one of several aggravating factors that the judge can take into account in determining the sentence.

So far as the ‘personal justice’ issue is concerned the simple fact is that the justice system does, and always has, applied increased tariffs in sentencing on the basis that certain qualitative elements in a criminal act merit sending out a ‘message’ to others in society who might be tempted to engage in similar acts. Hence a mugger who beats up a pensioner in the course of a street robbery will typically get a stiffer sentence than one who beats up a 25 year old male even if the harm inflicted on the victim in each case is off the same order – does that mean that we’re privileging pensioners or does it mean that we’re sending out a signal that as a society we are less tolerant of those who pick on the most vulnerable.

I’d argue its the latter, as would most people, who would not only support the notion that an attack on a pensioner merits a stiffer sentence but expect that to be the case, even though in terms of ‘personal’ justice one could argue that as the harm to the individual is of the same order, the sentence in each case should be the same.

Matt:

You really don’t get this do you?

For there to be a hate crime there must first be a crime – a criminal act – and it is the act that merits the sanction not the thought.

For a hate crime to be a thought crime it must be the thought itself, or the passive expression of such a thought in speech, writing, etc. that is actionable in law, which is not the case. You might think of beating some up because they’re black and you might even state that that’s what you’re thinking of, but neither is a crime. Its only when you translate that thought into action – you actually beat someone up, that a crime is committed.

To have such a motive is not a crime in itself. It is, however, a factor that may legitimately be taken into account in determining the appropriate punishment for the crime.

So far as pre-existing beliefs are concerned, evidence of such may be admitted as evidence of motive but can be taken into account only if this is relevant to the crime. A court could not, for example, impose a stiffer sentence on someone who can be shown to be racist if the crime of which they are convicted is driving without insurance.

If you consider all that to amount to a thought crime then you must equally think the same of murder, because all that distinguished murder from the lesser offence of manslaughter is premeditation and what is premeditation if not a thought?

Unity, we agree entirely about the flaws in current sentencing policy and the probable best reform. Re the ‘personal justice’ -yes, we agree that the law must (and the English Common Law always has) take into account the preservation of public order and the discouragement of particularly threatening crimes. i didn’t and don’t like calling ‘personal justice’ a narrow perspective: it’s a necessary, though not sufficient, condition of having a proper justice system that it does not conduce towards or tolerate individual acts of injustice (eg depriving innocent men of liberty) in the name of some ‘greater good’. However, I hope that we agree and that the ‘narrow perspective’ phrase was merely poor expression on your part.

As a historical point you’re somewhat narrow in your Ministry post re the establishment of Incitement to Racial Hatred originating with the Thatcher Government’s Public Order Act 1986. There were Incitement clauses in the Racial Discrimination Acts of 1965 and 1976, which were introduced by Labour Governments and led to a number of prosecutions: the first being, I think, in October 1967. The 1986 Act built on and superseded that legislation. See, eg: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4510062.stm
‘Refusing to rent accommodation to people because of their race was also no longer allowed and stirring up racial hatred -’incitement’ – became a criminal offence.’

But I don’t think we deeply disagree on anything.

A question and a quick comment. Unity and others provide data on trials, convictions, etc. on incitement to racial hatred, but here in the UK there is also provision for ‘racially aggravated’ assault , etc. What is the data on that?

In the past, I quite comfortably accepted the validity of criminalising incitement to racial hatred (probably because of the historical context0 , but the recent law on incitement to religous hatred and the proposed legislation re homophoic incitement (and disability) have made me begin to think more systematically about the issues involved.

A comment: What is quite remarkable is that gender is always missing from proposals in the UK and also in this discussion.

It is undeniable that women are the largest category of persons in the UK who are subject to violence and abuse arguably because of their sex and gendered positions in both domestic and public spheres…ie because they are women. ( Is ‘domestic’ violence treated as a particular form of assault? (I don’t think so but am not sure).

Violence perpetrated against women is very often accompanied by verbal misogynistic abuse( racist verbal abuse seems to be the major factor considered in racially aggravated assault).

So if race, religion, sexual orientation…why not sex and gender?

Elaine:

Fair comment.

Off the top of my head I can’t recall if there are any offences specific to domestic violence. I suspect not, but would have to check to be absolutely certain due to rate at which the government have been knocking out new laws in recent years. There could be something slipped into one of the Criminal Justice Acts that I’ve missed.

So far as the principle is concerned then, yes, misogynistic abuse should, like racist abuse, be taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing, as should the vulnerability of the individual. I suspect that there may be a bit of a presumption that this should already be happening on the basis of the vulnerability of the victim, but should and does can still, sadly, be very different things when it comes to violence against women.

It certainly is, albeit obliquely – in the new guidelines on sexual offences, where repeatedly raping the same individual (as can and does happen in DV) really shifts the tariff upwards. The base tariff for a one-off rape, first offence, minimal violence (woman is overpowered but not in a way that causes injury) is 4-8 years. For repeated rapes of the same person, which are most likely to occur in the context of domestic violence, the base tariff is 13-19 years and then start adding time on for degree of violence and other factors.

As for the data on racially (and religiously) aggravated offences, they’re actually pretty high.

A quick search on Google gave up 1183 such offences in Lancashire alone in 2004-5, the majority of which (802) were harassment cases, but there were also 139 less serious woundings, 89 common assaults and the rest were a variety of criminal damage offences.

I must look up the debates surrounding the introduction of these offences to see how the various parties stood, voted and the issues that were raised at the time, to see how these might differ from the current debate.

Surely all crime comes about as an intended or accidental expression of unhealthy emotion on, by or between the individual(s) involved.

From a social and societal point of view attempts to rationalise any motives can actually be a hinderance to understanding and preventing similar occurances in the future, as they are reflective of the quality of public debate in the wider arena. Instead awareness and comprehension of the sensitivity of issues must be raised. Politicising the issues in any crime (especially those associated with ‘hate’, itself a divisive term) will exacerbate the problem, rather than defusing them – and while it remains against the interests of many public figures and politicians to avoid doing so these issue will stay ones that are broached with care.

In many ways it is the success of the justice system to overload on detail and create a perception of boredom (as opposed to frustration) that neutralises perpetuation of destructive cycles of violence. So although ‘hate’ deserves acknowledgement as an aggravating factor within any criminal event and a corresponding tariff of differentiation, it does not deserve seperate treatment simply to attempt to appease or pander to the interests of narrow groups within society for reasons based on anything except equalising injustice.

Surely, the more prudent way to tackle this would be to specify that the race/gender/religious/sexual context offers no MITIGATING factors when considering a case. That would mean that anyone convicted of aggressing against someone, with “hate” intent, would be sentenced as if their attack was completely unprovoked. Justice can best take into account someone’s hate motives by giving it absolutely no consideration at all and treating the case as if someone acted out of pure pointless aggression (which it is).

So long as you made sure that sentences were properly punitive for entirely unprovoked attacks (which they damn well should be but might not be currently), that would also save on constant re-legislating to work out “who is most victimised at the moment” or having to lobby and campaign for new laws constantly. Imagine the energy of having to push through a “Goth hatred bill” 5 years from now or “Genetically modified human hatred” bill 30 or 40 years from now, for example. Every time a new group emerged as an “issue”, they would need a new law for their protection. Instead simply treat aggressive hate crimes as what they are, utterly unprovoked attacks. No need for all this group political theory.

Nic: “No need for all this group political theory.”

But think of all those QANGOcrats out of a job! Oh! The SUFFERING!

“Anti-hate” laws are propaganda designed to privilege certain minorities and actually encourage hate, because they teach those minorities to hold a grudge against the majority. The lying stereotype is that whites are the haters, but blacks and Asians in the UK commit hate crimes far more often than whites, for example, and Muslims far more often than non-Muslims. That isn’t the picture painted by the media. The Stephen Lawrence case is a good example: liberals and race-agitators exploited it to encourage non-white grievance against whites, when blacks are actually far more of a risk to whites than vice versa. Blacks are also far more at risk from other blacks than they are from white racists, and the MacPherson report meant that the problem of black-on-black crime got worse, becauser the Met was frightened of appearing “racist” by targetting black thugs.

And if hate deserves extra punishment then helping that old lady across the road deserves extra rewards. Oh I forgot, government isn’t about carrots, it’s about sticks. Only sticks, and bigger sticks at that. Or Tazers.

Ovum07 @ 23 –
It is wrong to say that ‘whites’ are ‘haters’, without a doubt. It is not wrong to say that some whites are ‘haters’.

“blacks and Asians in the UK commit hate crimes far more often than whites, for example, and Muslims far more often than non-Muslims.”

That is an assertion that I contest. Evidence, please. In any case, you would have to show that each, individual crime listed as a hate crime was such and not, say, caused by clustering or aggravated by poverty. It is, more or less, possible to make a good determination in individual cases, but the aggregate figures (that you don’t provide) are rather harder.

“Blacks are also far more at risk from other blacks than they are from white racists”

Even if that is so, I maintain that failing to challenge racist attitudes leads to non-whites being disproportionately poor and not having the opportunity to improve their financial situation.

Finally, if the Met (which branded itself institutionally racist) is so terrified of dealing with black-on-black crime, why did it set up Trident?

Nic @ 21 –
I don’t see widespread anti-Goth violence. The Devonshire Arms in Kentish Town has never been nailbombed. More seriously, I don’t think your argument is based on reality. The four NUS liberation campaigns – women’s, black students, students with disabilities and LGBT students – are a good example. Each one deals with discrimination and opposition to their existence in a different way. There has been no call for a disablist violence bill because there isn’t the need in the way that there is for racist violence. Equally, racist violence is treated differently to violence against women.

“That would mean that anyone convicted of aggressing against someone, with “hate” intent, would be sentenced as if their attack was completely unprovoked”

Provocation is one thing; premeditation is another which you have to consider.

Unity @ 6 –
Exactly. I would add that Blackstone’s maxim is in place already. We punish manslaughter less severely than murder. There are arguments about specific cases – the person who helps a dying spouse to commit suicide, for instance – but not the principle.

Further to Unity’s point @ ten, the negative reinforcement of the criminal justice system can only be part of our approach to racism. Positive societal measures are needed, but that is another kettle of sustainably-caught fish.

@Dave Cole

“blacks and Asians in the UK commit hate crimes far more often than whites, for example, and Muslims far more often than non-Muslims.”

That is an assertion that I contest. Evidence, please.”
===

Of course you contest it: it doesn’t fit the lying liberal line.

Nearly half of all victims of racially motivated murders in the last decade have been white, according to official figures released by the Home Office.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foi/story/0,,1928604,00.html

The most recent analysis shows that in 2004, 87,000 people from black or minority ethnic communities (BME) said they had been a victim of a racially motivated crime. In the same period, 92,000 white people said they had also fallen victim. Focusing on violent racial attacks, 49,000 BME were victims. Among whites, the number was 77,000. Of those that involved wounding 4,000 were BME. Among the white population it was 20,000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6128466.stm

When 10% of the population is committing 50% of the racist murders and 80% of the racist woundings, it’s clear that anti-white racism is a bigger problem than the reverse. And when you consider how reluctant the police and courts are to accept racist attacks on whites as racist, it’s clear that the real problem is even worse than the statistics show.

“In any case, you would have to show that each, individual crime listed as a hate crime was such and not, say, caused by clustering or aggravated by poverty.

No, I don’t need to show that at all. There are more poor whites in this country than poor ethnics. The poor whites are not committing racist assaults or other forms of crime at anywhere near the same rates as the poor ethnics. Poverty is not an excuse, nor is minority poverty the fault of whites. Some ethnic minorities do extremely well in the UK and the ethnic minorities who fail should look at themselves, not the white majority.

“I maintain that failing to challenge racist attitudes leads to non-whites being disproportionately poor and not having the opportunity to improve their financial situation.”

As above. Racism does not cause poverty. Racist attitudes are worse among the ethnic minorities and are encouraged by the anti-white media.

“Finally, if the Met (which branded itself institutionally racist) is so terrified of dealing with black-on-black crime, why did it set up Trident?”

Because the situation got so bad it couldn’t be ignored any longer. But even now the police are reluctant to act in many cases for fear of being accused of racism. But the pathology of blacks in the UK and US is not the fault of whites or the police.

Ovum07,

Just curious, what does Ovum07 mean, exactly?

Anyway.

If I understood your post correctly, it goes around in this sort of circle. I’d admit you have to start here:

The lying stereotype is that whites are the haters

So, no racist whites then? Damn fine start. That is one stereotype knocked for six.

So then:

but blacks and Asians in the UK commit hate crimes far more often than whites,

Any evidence? But the coup de gráce is this:

and Muslims far more often than non-Muslims

So what, even loosely, has any of that diatribe got to do with a view on whether hate crime is worth a higher tarriff or not. You do actually seem to have a bit of an issue about Muslims, but maybe I’m reading too much into your comments.

Just for clarity, I think all hate crimes are wrong. But this debate shouldn’t be reduced to a ‘my tribe are better, or perhaps worse, than your tribe’ , playground level.

Thanks.

Ovum07

“it doesn’t fit the lying liberal line”

I may be mistaken. I often am. I am quite happy to be corrected. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar is not going to convince anyone.

With regard to your first link:

From the article cited
“[Chief Constable of Cheshire Peter] Fahy also warned of caution in over-interpreting the figures. He said that the 24 white victims also included those who were Jewish, ‘dark-skinned’ Europeans or gypsies. In addition, seven of those were killed by white attackers, four by black, six by Asian, with seven whose racial background was not identified.”

There were – thankfully – only 58 race murders in the year in question, 2004. I submit that such a low number is unrepresentative.

You then say that “The most recent analysis shows that in 2004, 87,000 people from black or minority ethnic communities (BME) said they had been a victim of a racially motivated crime. In the same period, 92,000 white people said they had also fallen victim. Focusing on violent racial attacks, 49,000 BME were victims. Among whites, the number was 77,000. Of those that involved wounding 4,000 were BME. Among the white population it was 20,000.” Which says nothing about the number of criminals.

“No, I don’t need to show that at all. There are more poor whites in this country than poor ethnics. The poor whites are not committing racist assaults or other forms of crime at anywhere near the same rates as the poor ethnics. Poverty is not an excuse, nor is minority poverty the fault of whites. Some ethnic minorities do extremely well in the UK and the ethnic minorities who fail should look at themselves, not the white majority.”

That is an assertion. Ignoring my point doesn’t make it go away. Tell me why I’m wrong without making further, unsubstantiated assertions. I would add that I did not say, nor do I believe, that poverty is an excuse or that minority poverty is the fault of whites. I did say that they were useful explanatory factors. Looking at the last sentence, I’m going to choose to believe that you meant some members of ethnic minorities.

“the pathology of blacks in the UK and US is not the fault of whites or the police”

I’m not sure you really want to engage in the debate…

xD.

Ovum07

I am still fascinated by your moniker. Do tell. Ovum 07. It is so close to parody: were you born yesterday? I am sure there is a better explanation.

Are you from the BNP?

Just asking.

I am a bit worried about Ovum07, to be honest. Google the name and tell me what you think. I’d hate to be wrong.

Dave Cole # 25

Purlease. If you are going to allow poverty and clustering as aggravating factors then you let all racists, including white ones, off the hook. Overt tolerance correlates positively with wealth, ergo agressive white racists don’t generally drive Volvos and live in the leafy suburbs.

And Douglas Clark #28

“So, no racist whites then? Damn fine start. That is one stereotype knocked for six.”

– Some whites are racist (as are some blacks) which proves that the white racist sterotype is accurate in your view ? Presumably you would also agree that as some blacks are criminals the sterotype of the black criminal is equally reasonable ? If you are going to criticise sterotypical arguments you cannot credibly use them yourself.

I can’t quote statistics (which funnily enough are only ever requested here if the party line is violated) but I think the assertion that crime by ethnic minorities (especially against each other) is underrerported/downplayed, is largely true. For example almost all of the fatal gang shootings/stabbings in London this year were intra, rather then inter group, a fact you could only glean from photos of the victims and occasionally, the names of charged suspects.

Contrast this with the reporting of a single “white on white” gang murder in Liverpool this summer (which led on all prime time news for at least a week) and it’s not hard to put together an argument that the media is running scared of “racist” reporting. I actually think that investigating crime is hampered more by the ludicrous amount of legal protection given to “young people” than by race issues per se, but the gross effect of the two sensitivities together cannot be helpful from an investigative point of view.

For example almost all of the fatal gang shootings/stabbings in London this year were intra, rather then inter group, a fact you could only glean from photos of the victims and occasionally, the names of charged suspects.

Black on black violence or white on white violence isn’t motivated by race though. We’re talking about hate-crime motivated by more than just the desire to commit a crime.

but I think the assertion that crime by ethnic minorities (especially against each other) is underrerported/downplayed, is largely true.

You think? Based on? Also, racial attacks on minorities are also under-reported because minorities believe that no one will believe them or there is no recourse for such actions. Many who are victims, the elderly or who cannot speak English properly, are also unaware of how to work the system for themselves.

“I am a bit worried about Ovum07, to be honest. Google the name and tell me what you think. I’d hate to be wrong.”

That was a pretty sad thing to do, but let me still your orthodoxy-sniffing fears: Ovum07 is nothing to do with the BNP and anyone else who uses it has no connection with me. If I were in the BNP, would that automatically make me wrong?

““it doesn’t fit the lying liberal line”

I may be mistaken. I often am. I am quite happy to be corrected. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar is not going to convince anyone.”

You’re not necessarily a liar, but many liberals and race-activists are. In the sacred cause of anti-racism, the end justifies the means.

“So, no racist whites then? Damn fine start. That is one stereotype knocked for six.”

Go on: show where I claim there are no racist whites.

“There were – thankfully – only 58 race murders in the year in question, 2004. I submit that such a low number is unrepresentative.
===

Unrepresentative of what? Do you mean it’s too small to draw statistical conclusions from? a) It isn’t; b) if it were, we have proof that minorities commit more race hate crimes than whites here:

Focusing on violent racial attacks, 49,000 BME were victims. Among whites, the number was 77,000. Of those that involved wounding 4,000 were BME. Among the white population it was 20,000.”

You reply:

“Which says nothing about the number of criminals.”

That response is too feeble even to be called clutching at straws. Look, the ethnic 10% of the population are committing more race-hate crime than the white 90%. Do you think that would become okay if, against all probability, there are actually more white race-haters at work, but less efficiently?

“That is an assertion. Ignoring my point doesn’t make it go away. Tell me why I’m wrong without making further, unsubstantiated assertions. I would add that I did not say, nor do I believe, that poverty is an excuse or that minority poverty is the fault of whites. I did say that they were useful explanatory factors. Looking at the last sentence, I’m going to choose to believe that you meant some members of ethnic minorities.”

I have shown how you’re wrong: there are more poor whites in this country than poor minorities, but they are not committing crime at the same rates. If poverty contributes towards crime, you are essentially saying that ethnic minorities are often too stupid or selfish to see that committing crime is a good way of keeping themselves or their co-ethnics poor.

“the pathology of blacks in the UK and US is not the fault of whites or the police”

I’m not sure you really want to engage in the debate…”

Because I don’t accept the liberal line? Black behaviour is pathological, as many blacks themselves admit.

“Black on black violence or white on white violence isn’t motivated by race though. We’re talking about hate-crime motivated by more than just the desire to commit a crime.”

But that isn’t how hate crime is defined. Whether something is a hate crime or an “ordinary” crime is determined by whether or not the victim perceived it to be racist . So if someone were to mug me on the way home and I perceived it to be a hate crime, de facto it becomes one (except that it wouldn’t because I’m white).
On the other hand if I were black, and if someone attacked me, for whatever reason, and I thought they’d get a harsher punsihement I reported it as a racist attack, then, nothwithstanding the remote chance of anyone actually being prosecuted, I’d say it was a racist attack, wouldn’t you ?

Unity:

Thanks for the data. Yours and others data seem to indicate that while prosecution and conviction for incitement to racial (and probably in the future) religious hatred is relatively low: is that because of the threshold for proof or ????

The figures for ‘racial aggravation’ are quite high. Is Matt’s comment (35) accurate?
Is the determination of whether to pursue the possibiity of aggravation based on the vicitm’s perception? and then what are the evidential criteria –is it words. context, personal history, etc.?? How is it determined? I think Matt is wrong, however, about someone white not being able to claim racial assault: I have read cases in the media where this has been considered as a factor.

Is race the only ‘category’ that can be considered as an aggravating factor or does the existing religious hatred and proposed homophobic legislation include provision for these to be aggravating factors in crimes..and for what crimes.. eg only in assault, murder etc –violent crimes against the person? From your comment number 16, it appears that the incitement to religious hatred bill does make provision for aggravation

There have been a number of high profile cases highlighted in the media – and they seemed unproblematic, but I have no real sense of how this is determined in the more mundane practice of the police and courts.

I personally knew a young man who got in a fight and was initially going to be charged with racially aggravated assault; that was dropped (I think probably because he got involved coming to the defense of his black friend) before going to trial…but why it was dropped was never made clear to him (he was acquitted BTW).

Beyond the issues of principle, there are important issues of practice that I would like to know more about. Has there been any proper research on this? Are there guidelines for the CPS and courts on this?

Also as I said, I think it is worth unpacking why gender – specifically misogyny has not/is not on the agenda.

I was very comfortable with criminalising incitement to racial hatred because of the historical context, but now think this expansion/extension (except for misogyny) in scope and range requires some wider debate.

Sunny Hundals’ point is valid, I think. Black on black would be hard to call as racist, as would be brown on brown or white on white. What would be interesting would be some statistics that spelt out the criminal rivalry between some of these groups. Y’know black gangsters versus white, and so on and so on. If it is just gangsters killing each other, then, that, realistically, is of lesser concern. Is it not? Well, perhaps not, for we don’t want to see anyone having a monopoly on crime do we?

“I don’t see widespread anti-Goth violence. The Devonshire Arms in Kentish Town has never been nailbombed.” -

Well this is where we part company on a rather essential point. I am not interested in justice between groups, but between individuals. It doesn’t matter how widespread “anti-goth violence” is. That doesn’t make any difference to the occasional genuine goth victim: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1023950_final_tribute_to_murdered_goth_

The question is why you should let any crime of unprovoked hatred through the net? Why do you need a pattern of hate in society before that particular hatred becomes punishable? Are we going to reward criminals for just having more inventive hatreds than some others? It is nonsense and iniquitous as it judges the level of punishment on the basis of the victim’s group identity rather than what they suffered personally and the intentions behind the crime.

A more general position on this is far less bureaucratic and allows much more sentencing on the basis of specific cases. And that is simply that unprovoked attacks on individuals whatever their identity should be treated as very serious crimes.

Elaine – But why should different groups have a different status in a hierarchy of victimhood ? If you want to strengthen protection for ethnic minorities, women, gays, pensioners, disabled people, or anyone else then why not make the law stronger/the punishement harsher for everyone ? If you protect everyones rights then the rights of minorities are protected too. It is not the laws job to play identity politics. If it does, then, apart from the violation of the blind justice principle you will end up in a situation where the law is perpetually playing catch up, trying to protect the latest vulnerable group. You also reinforce the idea that everyone except the archetypal middle aged, middle class, able bodied, car driving white male has “special” status.

Matt, you put more clearly the point I was trying to make, and one that even Sunny did not appear to “get”.

Equality before the law cuts ALL ways.