Hate crimes - who defines hate?
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
The law defines hate speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom
Hate isn't the problem. Irrational hate is the problem.
I hate what Hitler did to the Jews. Is that irrational? OK, I'm judging myself here but I think it is a rational hate and therefore not a problem.
I hate lemon in certain pastries. Lemon cookies and cakes do not align with my preferred flavor palate. Is that irrational to dislike that use of lemons?
I hate bitchy people. They rub me the wrong way. Is that irrational?
All three of the cases were for cause.
Fundamentalist Christians hate homosexuality because of some idea expressed in a 2000-year-old book, even though modern science has shown that homosexuality is very likely to be simply a condition of birth caused by gestational abnormalities during brain stem formation. We suggest that hating others for birth conditions is unfair and improper. Why is this different? There, I believe the hate to be irrational.
I hate what Hitler did to the Jews. Is that irrational? OK, I'm judging myself here but I think it is a rational hate and therefore not a problem.
I hate lemon in certain pastries. Lemon cookies and cakes do not align with my preferred flavor palate. Is that irrational to dislike that use of lemons?
I hate bitchy people. They rub me the wrong way. Is that irrational?
All three of the cases were for cause.
Fundamentalist Christians hate homosexuality because of some idea expressed in a 2000-year-old book, even though modern science has shown that homosexuality is very likely to be simply a condition of birth caused by gestational abnormalities during brain stem formation. We suggest that hating others for birth conditions is unfair and improper. Why is this different? There, I believe the hate to be irrational.
And therein lies the problem. What is irrational hate for one, is rational hate for another. Freedom fighter or terrorist? Given that, should we have hate speech laws at all?
Let's take a few examples:
#1. Guy in Nottingham in the UK wolf whistles at a woman. As I understand it, this is now a hate crime. Someone correct me if I am wrong. This guy might fancy this woman, but is unaware of the law. Is it hate? I thought that was love!
#2. A British comedian tells a joke involving people from Ireland. The audience of 1,000 are Irish. One member of the audience perceives this joke as offensive. They consider it a case of racism. The other 999 don't think it is racist. Under current British laws, this then gets recorded as a potential hate crime and it is then investigated.
#3. A Christian points out that the Koran has passages where it says it is ok to beat your wife. Based on that observation, they state Islam is incompatible with Western values. They get labeled Islamophobic and this is therefore a hate crime.
#4. Trump creates a list of 5 or 6 countries to heavily screen or suspend travellers from entering the USA, for a period of time, all in the name of security. He gets labeled Islamophobic because most of the people from those countries are Muslims. There is no mention that this represents only 10% of the worlds Muslim population. Also, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world and they never got a ban. Is he practicing hate speech against Muslims, or does the fact that he is not targeting 90% of the world's Muslim population count?
#5. Hillary Clinton calls half of Republicans "Deplorables!" So, this represents perhaps 50 million people. Is this true or is this hate speech? Ask the left or the right for your answer.
Let's take a few examples:
#1. Guy in Nottingham in the UK wolf whistles at a woman. As I understand it, this is now a hate crime. Someone correct me if I am wrong. This guy might fancy this woman, but is unaware of the law. Is it hate? I thought that was love!
#2. A British comedian tells a joke involving people from Ireland. The audience of 1,000 are Irish. One member of the audience perceives this joke as offensive. They consider it a case of racism. The other 999 don't think it is racist. Under current British laws, this then gets recorded as a potential hate crime and it is then investigated.
#3. A Christian points out that the Koran has passages where it says it is ok to beat your wife. Based on that observation, they state Islam is incompatible with Western values. They get labeled Islamophobic and this is therefore a hate crime.
#4. Trump creates a list of 5 or 6 countries to heavily screen or suspend travellers from entering the USA, for a period of time, all in the name of security. He gets labeled Islamophobic because most of the people from those countries are Muslims. There is no mention that this represents only 10% of the worlds Muslim population. Also, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world and they never got a ban. Is he practicing hate speech against Muslims, or does the fact that he is not targeting 90% of the world's Muslim population count?
#5. Hillary Clinton calls half of Republicans "Deplorables!" So, this represents perhaps 50 million people. Is this true or is this hate speech? Ask the left or the right for your answer.
Last edited:
Interesting points, Jon.
Going back to the link I posted, the Public Order Act, 1986 states:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
Guy in Nottingham - I'd say not a hate crime, but it is bordering on harrassment. The woman has the right to go about her business without being reduced to a sex object. So, not a hate crime, but likely to have both infringed her human rights and also the Equality Act 2010.
British comedian telling a joke. Not a hate crime, but certainly a misjudgement and seriously lazy humour. I say not a hate crime because it would be difficult to prove his intent to stir up racial hatred. However, if his whole set centred around Irish stereotyping, then there's a problem.
Islam's compatability with Western values. Not a hate crime. It's a point of view for debate and discussion.
Trumps's security measures. Trickier territory. I'd say, not a hate crime for the reasons you've outlined. But, the problem Trump had (which was of his own making) is that he didn't explain WHY he was implementing that policy. He simply did it and left himself wide open to accusations. Not smart.
Hillary calling a significant amount of people 'Deplorables'. Yes, I'd say there's a case there for hate speech.
Going back to the link I posted, the Public Order Act, 1986 states:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
Guy in Nottingham - I'd say not a hate crime, but it is bordering on harrassment. The woman has the right to go about her business without being reduced to a sex object. So, not a hate crime, but likely to have both infringed her human rights and also the Equality Act 2010.
British comedian telling a joke. Not a hate crime, but certainly a misjudgement and seriously lazy humour. I say not a hate crime because it would be difficult to prove his intent to stir up racial hatred. However, if his whole set centred around Irish stereotyping, then there's a problem.
Islam's compatability with Western values. Not a hate crime. It's a point of view for debate and discussion.
Trumps's security measures. Trickier territory. I'd say, not a hate crime for the reasons you've outlined. But, the problem Trump had (which was of his own making) is that he didn't explain WHY he was implementing that policy. He simply did it and left himself wide open to accusations. Not smart.
Hillary calling a significant amount of people 'Deplorables'. Yes, I'd say there's a case there for hate speech.
Regarding wolf whistling: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...mshire-police-count-wolf-whistling-hate-crime
Free speech is not limited, hence free. If it is free, it is not limited.
That does not mean that it comes without consequence. If you yell fire when there is no fire, you are still inciting a panic in addition to exercising your right to loose your gob and will likely suffer the consequences of the choice to yell such a thing.
That does not mean that it comes without consequence. If you yell fire when there is no fire, you are still inciting a panic in addition to exercising your right to loose your gob and will likely suffer the consequences of the choice to yell such a thing.