In message , Arthur
Figgis wrote:
If a homosexual is mugged *because* she is homosexual, it is a hate
crime. If she is mugged because some low-life wants cash for his drug
habit, it is not a hate crime, just a crime.

What happens if she believes it was because she is homosexual, but the
mugger disagrees? What standard of proof is needed?

Since we're talking criminal law, "beyond all reasonable doubt".

IANAL, but I'm slightly uncomfortable with some classes of victims
being told their incident is "just" a crime.

I didn't mean "just" in that sense, only in the grammatical sense.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Once upon a time, 1506 wrote:

If I am mugged it is a crime. If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

I don't know about the USA but in UK parlance I don't think that's quite
right.

If someone is mugged because they are gay, they yes, it's a hate crime.
But if someone is mugged just because the mugger wanted a new phone or
some cash, with no regard to the LGBT or otherwise status of their
victim, it's just a mugging.

Though muggings are abhorrent, regardless of motive.

As I understand it to get a hate crime charge to stand up in court the
prosecutors must be able to prove that the victim was targeted because
of a personal feature (colour, orientation, whatever), rather than just
having been robbed and happening to be gay / black / etc. This normally
required some evidence that the attacker chose their target for that
feature. Easier with skin colour than sexual orientation but still
provable if the necessary evidence can be found.

--
- The Iron Jelloid

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:15:12 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

On Aug 25, 8:25*am, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:14:08 +0100

"Mizter T" wrote:
None of the sites/ Twitter accounts mentioned in the article seem to be in
the business of purposefully mocking anonymous people - though there's
always the danger that such a thing could develop.

Taking pictures of strangers to publish online is pervy so say the least. And
their suggestion that its ok to take pictures of men but not women is also the
worst kind of disingenuous politically correct feminist ********. Either its
ok to take pictures of everyone or no one.

It is the world in which we live. The American word is Liberalism.
Unfortunately it does not fit the classic British understanding of
Liberal. According to their thinking: It is wrong to discriminate
against women or people of color (and I agree with that). But,
"affirmative action" (discrimination by another name) against men and
people of northern European extraction is fine.

If I am mugged it is a crime. If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

Er, and what if someone is "mugged" simply because one is "perceived
to be Queer".

(And yes, I'm a Fag so I'm able to express myself thus.)

There have been cases in Metro Vancouver where young men have been
physically assaulted on account of the assailant's perception of their
target's sexuality.

So give all of use a break: assault is assault, but if the assault is
engendered because of notions of represssed sexuality (i.e. hate), go
take a running jump...

It is OK for the TSA to fondle little girls, and grandmothers.
But woe betide any TSA officer who stops a 25 year old muslim in his
garb.

The fun part is that these people continually preach "tolerance".
However, they have no tolerance for those with whom they disagree, to
wit Conservatives.

Say goodbye to the sane world we once knew.

If I am mugged it is a crime. If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

Er, and what if someone is "mugged" simply because one is "perceived
to be Queer".

No, in both cases, no matter what the reason for the assault, it's still an
"assault" and should NOT be tagged one way or the other.

Yes, assaulting someone because of their perceived sexuality is wrong but so
is assaulting somebody because they are wearing the "wrong" hockey club
sweater, or look different, or are the "wrong" religion or the "wrong ethnic
group or the wrong whatever. One assault is no more serious than the other.
It's still an assault and any assault, no matter the motivation, should be
punished equally.


--
Cheers
Roger Traviss


Photos of the late GER: -
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...Great_Eastern/

On Aug 25, 6:16*pm, "Roger Traviss"
wrote:
If I am mugged it is a crime. *If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

Er, and what if *someone is "mugged" simply because one is "perceived
to be Queer".

No, in both cases, no matter what the reason for the assault, it's still an
"assault" and should NOT be tagged one way or the other.

Yes, assaulting someone because of their perceived sexuality is wrong but so
is assaulting somebody because they are wearing the "wrong" hockey club
sweater, or look different, or are the "wrong" religion or the "wrong ethnic
group or the wrong whatever. *One assault is no more serious than the other.
It's still an assault and any assault, no matter the motivation, should be
punished equally.

Thank you. Common sense at last.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:16:17 -0700, "Roger Traviss"
wrote:

If I am mugged it is a crime. If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

Er, and what if someone is "mugged" simply because one is "perceived
to be Queer".

No, in both cases, no matter what the reason for the assault, it's still an
"assault" and should NOT be tagged one way or the other.

Yes, assaulting someone because of their perceived sexuality is wrong but so
is assaulting somebody because they are wearing the "wrong" hockey club
sweater, or look different, or are the "wrong" religion or the "wrong ethnic
group or the wrong whatever. One assault is no more serious than the other.
It's still an assault and any assault, no matter the motivation, should be
punished equally.

Er, unfortunately, your "hetero-view" of the world doesn't quite work
out so nicely and neatly.

Anyone "of colour" will confirm the reality of life. And no, no,
don't say we're all (Gays/Blacks/others) whingeing.

It happens day in, day out.

A study released in Metro Vancouver just today (Fri 26
Aug) shows Gay couples and single parents are discriminated against
"simply because..." in the rental housing field.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:37:19 -0700
Nobody wrote:
So give all of use a break: assault is assault, but if the assault is
engendered because of notions of represssed sexuality (i.e. hate), go
take a running jump...

But how can you tell which it was unless the attackers actually start
calling the victim names? Here it seems anything is a "hate" crime if
its done by white heterosexual males against a minority regardless. And as
for that old chesnut of hate being repressed sexuality , by that logic white
racists secretely want to be black. Ie its ********.

B2003

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
1506 wrote:
It is the world in which we live. The American word is Liberalism.
Unfortunately it does not fit the classic British understanding of
Liberal. According to their thinking: It is wrong to discriminate
against women or people of color (and I agree with that). But,
"affirmative action" (discrimination by another name) against men and
people of northern European extraction is fine.

Yup, completely agree. You only have to look at the witch hunt against
David Starkey for what I thought were fairly moderate comments on newsnight
the other night to see the kind of mass demensia thats seems to have
infected a lot of "academics" in the more wolly social subjects.

The fun part is that these people continually preach "tolerance".
However, they have no tolerance for those with whom they disagree, to
wit Conservatives.

They wouldn't know real tolerance if it walked up to them and slapped them
in the face. In fact but some definitions these people would be called
facists.

B2003

On Aug 26, 1:46*am, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:15:12 -0700 (PDT)

1506 wrote:
It is the world in which we live. *The American word is Liberalism.
Unfortunately it does not fit the classic British understanding of
Liberal. According to their thinking: It is wrong to discriminate
against women or people of color (and I agree with that). *But,
"affirmative action" (discrimination by another name) against men and
people of northern European extraction is fine.

Yup, completely agree. You only have to look at the witch hunt against
David Starkey for what I thought were fairly moderate comments on newsnight
the other night to see the kind of mass demensia thats seems to have
infected a lot of "academics" in the more wolly social subjects.

The fun part is that these people continually preach "tolerance".
However, they have no tolerance for those with whom they disagree, to
wit Conservatives.

They wouldn't know real tolerance if it walked up to them and slapped them
in the face. In fact but some definitions these people would be called
facists.

Got it in one. Is that the sound of hornets buzzing I hear?

"Mizter T" wrote:

[x-posted to utl]


Thank you, Mizter T. Apologies for the omission. ;-)