Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Protected at last – gay and disabled Scots hail hate crime law

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 June 2009
THE passing of new "hate crime" legislation has been hailed as a vital move towards protecting disabled and gay people against prejudice.
A Private Members Bill, unanimously voted through the Scottish Parliament last night, will extend hate crime legislation to include attacks on gay and disabled people.

The new law makes it an aggravating factor if crime victims are targeted becaus
e of their sexual orientation or disability.

Sentences for perpetrators are likely to be tougher – and the level of hate crimes will for the first time be recorded.

The Bill was launched by Patrick Harvie, a Green MSP who is openly gay. He told MSPs he was "glad and grateful" the Bill had received widespread political support.

Mr Harvie said: "The issue of hate crime is one which reaches down into every community and affects real lives.

"Although this is a small step in the right direction, we should be glad we are able to take it."

He thanked the many groups and individuals who had suffered hate crime for speaking out on the issue "even when that doesn't feel safe".

And he recounted his experience growing up in Dumbarton, when homophobic abuse was regarded as mere "playground banter".

"To even challenge it was to risk personal safety – and this in the supposedly protected environment of school.

"This hasn't gone away in the rest of society. This kind of behaviour, which may be wrongly dismissed as playground banter, is deeply harmful criminal behaviour."

He said the legislation was no "silver bullet" but was a "necessary part of the overall picture" for tackling a range of prejudices in society.

Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, praised Mr Harvie's dedication, and added: "Hate crime is an offence motivated by offenders' hatred towards a core element of someone's identity. There's no place for that in a modern Scotland. It's utterly unacceptable."

The new legislation extends current hate crime laws, which apply to offences motivated by religious and racial hatred.

Surveys show one in five lesbian and gay people have experienced a homophobic hate crime or incident in the last three years.

People with disabilities are said to be four times more likely to be assaulted than able-bodied people. Nearly half of all disabled people in Scotland are thought to have experienced hate crime. Most hate crimes go unreported because of fear of reprisals and a belief the perpetrators will go unpunished.

Alan Dickson, chief executive of Capability Scotland, said such statistics were "quite simply unacceptable".

"Hate crime is a violent expression of intolerance and for it still to be so prevalent is a sad indictment on our society," he said.

RNID Scotland, which works to help the deaf and hearing impaired, and the National Deaf Children's Society Scotland have also given their support.

A joint statement from the two organisations said: "In the same way that society punishes those who incite hatred against people on the grounds of their race or faith, it is only right that, in 21st-century Scotland, disabled people are afforded the same equality of legal protection and freedom to live their lives without fear."

Abusing the disabled no less serious than racism

VERBAL abuse directed at her disability has become part of life for Karen, from Edinburgh, who has a neurological condition and displays symptoms similar to cerebral palsy.

"A girl threatened to cut my throat," she says. "She was sitting near me and she just went on and on about how she was going to cut my throat."

Despite such terrifying threats, Karen is a tough character and is able to laugh off most bad experiences.

"She was overweight and no doubt jealous at my slim figure," she says. Another time, Karen was waiting at a bus stop when some young men bumped into her.

"One had a metal pole in his hand and shook it in my face. I was on my way to a night out with friends, and when I got there, I burst into tears."

For Karen, making such attacks against disabled people a "hate crime" is long overdue.

"This law will offer me some protection. And, hopefully, it will send a message out to the public that abusing people because of their disability is no less serious than abusing someone because of the colour of their skin."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 June 2009 1:11 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Legal Issues
 
1

Davy,

04/06/2009 02:46:54
The protection of the disabled is a good thing. What is confusing me is why gay people, are lining themselves up with the disabled.
A disable person may take offence at that, or a gay person may take offence for been categorised the same as disabled.
What is going on, also the SMP who put this forward represents the greens. What is this got to do with green issues, or has he a hidden agenda.
Then the rest of our MSPs vote in favour, because they think they are being cool & forward thinking.
We already have laws in place that cover all the above.
Our politicians need to get a grip big style or very few, will vote at the next election.
2

W Smith,

Middle East 04/06/2009 03:31:32
"The new legislation extends current hate crime laws, which apply to offences motivated by RELIGIOUS and racial hatred".

Considering the SNP have failed to acknowledge the latest sectarian violence in Scotland it looks like MacAskill is playing games.

He supports a football club that is associated with sectarianism does he not?

As does Sean Connery, Tom Farmer, etc.

BTW
One Scottish female drug addict was murdered and her alleged killers, four Turkish muslim males, walked free.

Mind you, with prison being a "skoosh" whats the big deal, eh MacAskill?

I'm pretty sure the anti-gay thugs wouldn't mind a spell in Castle Huntly.
3

W Smith,

Middle East 04/06/2009 03:36:05
I take it the SNP will be confronting Ken Loach on his anti-jewish statement, then eh?

AYE, RIGHT.

MacAskill is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

We all know the SNP are soft on crime and this article is just more drivel.
4

somerferg,

perth 04/06/2009 04:08:32
#4 - interesting use of language in your comment about "young girls etc....." I take it you would be just as harsh on the "young guys" who are the other half of the problem regarding the growth in transmittable diseases. Or is it a case of it all down to the female half of the population to be blamed for all the ills in our society oh and of course bear the brunt of your sexist attitude.

As for this legislation - good idea. Now lets deal with providing the same protection "in reality" as well as in law for women.
5

S'me,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 07:14:51
#1.. sorry,I forgot,thanks for reminding me that it's ok to hate gay people
6

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 07:42:44
A bad piece of legislation which says that some people are more equal than others in the eyes of the law.

Is it worse to attack someone because they are gay than, as seems to be the case in many assaults, for no reason whatsoever? I doubt the victim sees it that way and both are equally abhorrent in my view.

Get the police and courts to enforce our existing laws before introducing new ones for "special" groups.
7

alsirat,

Embra 04/06/2009 07:59:44
I find it unbelievable that anyone would pick on someone unfortunate enough to be disabled. Do we really have people that bad in Scotland?
8

Jim A,

04/06/2009 08:09:45
If a disabled person was so inclined they have a nice card they could play if they so desired. I reckon it would pay to be PC when around disabled people who are strangers to you from now on. Me, I've never treated disable people any different from the way I've treated anyone else. They were always just folks. It's a good thing sure, but it's going to make people who are not disabled wary in some ways.
9

The Man With No Clue,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 08:11:51
Let me get this right. Someone who happens to be gay attacks someone who happens not to be gay, they might get 2 years (say) in prison. Someone who happens not to be gay attacks someone who happens to be gay, they get 4 years in prison (say). Doesn't this contravene equalities legislation not to mention common sense!
10

It's me!,

04/06/2009 08:14:05
So everyone is no longer equal under the law. A sad day. If Gays are included with the disabled in this bill does it mean that homosexuality is now considered a disablility?
11

john z,

edinburgh 04/06/2009 08:14:18
Well done to Patrick Harvie and the entire Scottish parliament, for fully and completely supporting this piece of legislation.

Surprising as it may sound to some, people still get beat up and viciously attached purely because of their sexuality. The purpose of these laws is to ensure that if anyone is retarded enough to beat someone up simply because the are gay or disabled, then they will get punished more severely.

The new law had ALL party support, and was drafted following extensive consultations with the police and the courts.

As regards the comment in No 1. above, It is well know that Patrick Harvie is gay, and that the green party are active in their support of gay equality legislation. You might also like to know, that this law is the very first piece of green party legislation passed in any UK parliament.

Well done the greens and Kenny McAskill for fully supporting it.
12

Stan Butler,

04/06/2009 08:14:28

~3 W Smith,


'Ken Loach on his anti-jewish statement'


Ken Loach has never made an anti Jewish statement.

He is anti Zionist not anti Semitic.

Not all Jews are Zionists.

Most Zionists aren't Jews.


13

Stan Butler,

04/06/2009 08:25:25

#12 john z


'if anyone is retarded enough to beat someone up simply because the are gay or disabled'


Surely someone who is retarded is suffering from a mental disability?

Your language is extremely offensive.

Perhaps you should be prosecuted.




14

john z,

edinburgh 04/06/2009 08:30:43
Number 10,

The law works both ways. If (highly unlikely) a gay person went out and did some 'straight' bashing, then the same law would apply. The law covers an attack on the basis of sexuality (whatever that may be), not on being gay.

So, don't worry all you straight lads, when those scary nasty gay thugs beat you up daily on the way to school just because you are 'straight' this law will protect you too.

Of course, I've never heard of anyone being 'straight' bashed Have you???

Gay people are still subjected to verbal and physical abuse on a daily basis - although there really is no logical reason why.

Many gay people like myself fight back, which usually gives straight retards a bit of a shock. Many gay people are not the 'wilting flower' stereotypes that straight thugs expect.
15

john z,

edinburgh 04/06/2009 08:32:55
14

Your stupidity is extremely offensive.
16

Stan Butler,

04/06/2009 08:36:55

#16 john z


You think it is acceptable to refer to people as being retarded?


17

SandyBottoms,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 08:56:16
Good god, I am appalled at the lack of understanding in some of the comments here! A hate crime is not defined by the victim, but instead by the motivation of the crime and how it is carried out. If a gay person's house is burgled, the crime is the same as if anyone else's house is bulgled. In contrast, the awful girl in our neighbourhood who calls me a d*ke simply because I (a straight person) used to live with lesbians, should definitely get done for a hate crime. It feels different. If someone calls me names based on my actual actions (ie b*tch), I am offended, but not too bothered. But when someone attacks something I have no control over (ie sexuality, esp others' sexuality) then the result is fear and intimidation.

It's great that the Scottish Parliament has passed this law and brought hate crimes in line with employment discrimination legislation. However, unless the police and courts actually enforce the law, this will be little more than one of those "messages" they like to "send", which is just a way of looking like they're "doing something".
18

Reject London,

DUNDEE 04/06/2009 09:12:42
Well done Holyrood ... in case anyone is seriously confused why this legislation is needed it is because for many years gay men and lesbians have been considered easy prey and legitimate targets because of who and what they are. At the moment Greater Manchester police have reported a 63 per cent rise in homophobic assaults/crime.

Gay men and women are SINGLED out solely because of their sexuality. Many people and some organisations fuel the anti-gay sentiment and almost legitimise (give an excuse) for beating someone to death or near.

This legislation gives courts and police the powers to properly deal with hate crimes.

I wonder sometimes if the people who leave the comments about 'special treatment' would feel if they were singled out for attacks/abuse and furthermore I wonder if they are themselves in some way less than sympathetic towards such violent attacks?!
19

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

04/06/2009 09:13:35
18...Precisely...these laws will enable us to root out those in our society who target certain groups of people to victimise...There are people, believe it or not folks, who actually make a point of abusing others because of their race, sexuality or disability...

4...Your evaluation of "Young girls" being the cause of societies breakdown is just a tad doolally...as a previous poster stated..what of the young men who are just as, if not more, sexually active?..Young people have always been indulging in sex...they need sex education to respect their sexual health..not moralising....
20

El Franko,

04/06/2009 09:15:42
I am very wary of such laws. A crime is a crime after all. Will the law be symmetric? In other words, will a homosexual get extra punishment for attacking heterosexuals or even Christians?
21

yockel,

04/06/2009 09:22:22
I am confused as to why illegal behavior deliberately directed against another should be considered more of a crime simply because someone unassociated with the event has moral issues regarding the the status of the victim.

Why are the rights and the protection of the majority being eroded in favor of minorities. Surely we are all equal. We are enshrining bigotry in the law.

Will crimes by the disabled and gay community be treated as aggravated if directed against those in another PC class groupings?

Of course not. What this is about is criminalising non correct thinking.
22

mr broon,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 09:25:25
According to the United Nations website, homosexuality is still illegal in 84 countries worldwide. In 7 of these countries homosexuality is punishable by death.

The vast majority of these countries are Muslim and the remainder nominally Christian.

With the exception of England and Wales, and some of the Scandinavian nations, very few countries have laws preventing homosexual abuse.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People states that disabled people have a right to be free of violence, exploitation and abuse.

According to the Nuremberg files, The Nazis exterminated over 900,000 mentally and physically disabled people. This policy began in Austria and Germany itself.

During Pol Pot's reign of terror in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge killed between 700,000 and 1.7 million of the population, and also took the opportunity to kill over 40,000 disabled people.

Why did the Scots Tory Party oppose this legislation?
23

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 04/06/2009 09:29:27
Gaining special special privileges due to one's gender, sexual orientation or physical or mental state is avoiding the real issue which is that the existing law shouldd be enforced without fear or favour. There may be aggravating factors involved but that should be reflected in sentencing policy not in defining the crime in the first place. If you're gay with the your head kicked in it's just as bad being straight with your head kicked in.

This makes interpretation for the police even more difficult. Does someone who is gay come with a sticker? Could someone up the ante by claiming they're gay or disabled in some way? What nightmare.

I take it it's still OK to hate Greens? Vociferous, mostly unelected, quangoes stuffed full of them and mainly advocating less economic activity.
24

yockel,

04/06/2009 09:36:58
people have a right to be free of violence, exploitation and abuse
or do you disagree with that proposition mr broon? #23
25

billalba,

fife 04/06/2009 09:46:36
#10 your monicker tells it all - you don't get it..
#22 you should change your monicker to "I don't get it either"
People deliberately go out to attack gays..gays do not deliberately go out to attack straights...got it yet!!!
26

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 10:25:56
Many misunderstandings here.

First, this bill does nothing to criminalise thoughts, beliefs or opinions. It doesn't create any new offences - assault is still prosecuted as assault - and it doesn't make any differential between the way an assault is prosecuted when the victim is gay or disabled compared to when the victim is straight or able-bodied. The victim's actual sexual orientation or disability is irrelevant to a prosecution.

This is about offences which are *motivated* by dislike of the victim's *perceived* sexual orientation or disability, and all it means is that for the first time all police forces and fiscals will have statutory aggravations to use in charges for these assaults, meaning that accurate statistics can be gathered, and consistent treatment applied, across all of Scotland.

#21 There is no concept of "extra punishment for attacking a person of type X" in this bill. There are no sentencing guidelines at all in the bill. And it would apply equally to an attack motivated by the perceived heterosexuality of a victim.

#22 This bill doesn't make anything "more of a crime". That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the bill. There is no extra punishment if your victim is of group X - there is simply a statutory way of recording and assessing that. And yes, it applies to all people. There are racist gay people and homophobic disabled people and nobody gets "protected" under this or any other law.

#23 The Tories supported the bill.

#24 What you argue for is precisely what this bill delivers. There is no new crime defined here - merely aggravations to assist sentencing policy. And the aggravations are based on the expressed views of the perpetrator, not the actual orientation of the victim.
27

james 1st,

hamilton nz 04/06/2009 10:51:10
a person who is gay or disabled deserves protection but the same protection as non gay non disabled people
beating someone up because they are gay or disabled is not more serious than beating up someone who is neither gay or disabled. the culprit in either case should be treated the same
28

David North,

Bridgend 04/06/2009 11:07:47
#28 read # 27
29

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 11:07:55
#28, Absolutely. The Scottish Courts have ALWAYS been able to take into consideration the status of the victim and the accused as well as any 'motive' (or none)without the interference of politicians wanting to 'send a message'. This 'New Law' is just another bit of gesture politics from the sanctimonious little prig who made such a fool of himself in the Budget debate.
30

Eve,

Scotland 04/06/2009 11:10:35
#28 james 1st: Aye!! People who commit violent crimes in my opinion do it because they hate and should be punished BUT at the same time should be given some sort of anger management help. As these people have issues that they need to face!

I'm wondering whens a crime NOT a Hate crime? If you like someone or felt indecent to a potential victim you wouldn't bother doing the crime, I would have thought.

31

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/06/2009 11:14:54
This legislation is an absolute disgrace. It will create a two-tier justice system and that is totally wrong.
32

Mèths,

04/06/2009 11:16:06
#27 Good post Duncan.

If everyone just reads #27, some posters wouldn't make a fool of themselves. Too many knee-jerk reactions here from posters not understanding the legislation.

33

Mèths,

04/06/2009 11:16:33
32

Read 27.
34

Herman The German,

04/06/2009 11:24:55
#27 Duncan.
Concise and to the point as usual.
35

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/06/2009 11:28:25
#26 billalba

I reccommend that you read #22 again. Your response seems totally unrelated to #22.
36

Herman The German,

04/06/2009 11:30:56
#33
"Too many knee-jerk reactions here from posters not understanding the legislation."

As there was yesterday and the day before that.
As there will be tomorow.

Horse-water-drink

or is it wh*re- culture-think?
37

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/06/2009 11:32:51
27 Duncan

I think you are not telling the whole story. The punishment for the aggravated crime will definitely be greater:

"Sentences for perpetrators are likely to be tougher and the level of hate crimes will for the first time be recorded."
38

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/06/2009 11:35:12
34 I have.
39

Mèths,

04/06/2009 11:37:27
As for W Smith - what an idiot.

Who initiated the private member's bill? The Greens
How was it passed? Unanimously.

According to the crazy world of W Smith, this is all MacAskill's fault.

Delving deeper into the psyche of agent Smith - wtf has Ken Loach got to do with this?

Oh well. Better watch in case I'm accused of a hate crime.
40

Mèths,

04/06/2009 11:38:41
39

Ok then - you read it. Did you understand it?
Maybe you're OK with hate crimes.
41

Herman The German,

04/06/2009 11:39:32
#33.
Not really a case of people not understanding the legislation,but is a case of read the headline only then indulge in a flight of fantasy then land on the extreme right.
42

Eve,

Scotland 04/06/2009 11:41:22
Ops I've just realised I've got the wrong in coment #31

Please Read "indecent" as indifferent!!

Sorry of the confusion
43

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/06/2009 11:41:47
Here is the problem for me.

A friend of mine in London was beaten up by a gang of youths because they thought he was gay. This may have been based on the way he appears and dresses.

Anyway, where is the logic in handing down shorter prison sentences to the same gang if they had not thought he was gay but still beat him up anyway?
44

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/06/2009 11:42:44
41 Meths

You are a disgrace coming out with comments like that.
45

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 11:43:48
#38 I'm afraid that is the Scotsman talking up the story. There are no sentencing guidelines in the legislation - in fact Labour's Paul Martin pushed for mandatory sentencing in the bill at the committee stages but failed to persuade anyone that it would be a good idea.

The situation is that any charge can have an aggravation of any sort attached by the fiscal, and the judge is free to take that into account or completely ignore it during sentencing. The same applies to the statutory aggravations, which will now include religious, racial, disability and sexual orientation aggravations. None have sentencing guidelines.

The core value of this and similar legislation is to ensure that similar offences are treated equally across the country - in the past the use of aggravations on charges has been very rare - and to make it possible to count and assess the incidents uniformly in order to feed the statistics into policy.

The bill changes nothing about sentencing whatsoever.
46

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/06/2009 11:47:03
46 Duncan

If you are correct, the legislation seems a bit pointless.

By the way, I would appreciate your support in condemning Meths for his post @41. He needs to understand how out of order it was and that it has no place on a thread like this.
47

Herman The German,

04/06/2009 11:49:36
#44

I dispare.I realy do.

48

Mèths,

04/06/2009 11:51:07
connaughtboy

No need to ask anyone to condemn me connaughtboy. I apologise unreservedly. Having read your posts over the years I know you don't condone hate crimes.

Sometimes the typing is quicker than the brain. OK?
49

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/06/2009 11:53:18
49 Meths

Accepted.
50

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/06/2009 11:54:30
48 Herman

I despair over your spelling. I really do.
51

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 11:59:29
#47 I can appreciate that it might appear pointless, but you'd be surprised what a major challenge it can be when hate crimes are simply not recorded consistently across different force areas. Both the police and community groups have been calling for clarity on this for many years, and quite honestly if all this legislation does is ensure that hate crimes are accurately recorded as such it will have been worth doing.

The common law provision for aggravated charges wasn't working - as evidenced by the fact that not a single violent crime in Lothian has ever had a non-statutory aggravation attached. It's sensible to have a common framework for all police and fiscals to work within, and that's what we now have.
52

,

04/06/2009 11:59:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
53

Herman The German,

04/06/2009 12:01:03
#51.
Is that the best you can do?

Perhaps I am dyslexic, which is a disability.
54

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 12:03:21
I love this Governments thinking .... instead of just asking judges to hand out harsher sentences they pass another bit of legislation. What a waste of resource.

All I have seen of 'racism' and 'hate' laws is that they are totally ineffective and can be horribly misused by the minorities to gain advantage or revenge against the majority. I think these laws (infact they are not laws they are statutes) in themselves are hate filled and driven through by militants who shouldn't be allowed out of an asylum let alone allowed to legislate.
55

Herman The German,

04/06/2009 12:04:23

connaughtboy,

Perhaps if you understood the difference between mitigating and aggravated the point of this legislation would become clear.
56

JCA REID,

Annan 04/06/2009 12:04:31
This is a load of "tosh"! Under the acronym "DIMPLE", the danger the victim is put under, the intent of the attack, the motive, the person who is attacked,(whether they be disabled/gay/pregnant/child/OAP etc. etc), I forget what "L" stands for, & "E", the ACTUAL injuries, all types of assault on a person are covered & will be presented before the court as EVIDENCE. So EVERYBODY has the same rights as any victim under the law.

All this is about is a pr*ck trying to justify their existence & also to say they deserve the inflated salary/expenses that are currently going around!!
57

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 12:07:22
#55 Once more: this bill has no effect on sentencing, and cannot be used to "gain advantage or revenge" on anyone.

The bill was proposed by the Greens and supported by the SNP government, the Lib Dems, the Labour party and the Conservative party. It was passed unanimously by the parliament. Do you genuinely believe that they are all "militants", or might it be possible that they actually read the bill and understood it, while you didn't and haven't?
58

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/06/2009 12:21:53
#54 Herman

It was the best I could do with a post that said so little. You give me something better to work with and I will try to do better.
59

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/06/2009 12:23:10
56 Perhaps you would like to expand?
60

mr broon,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 12:29:11
27# This poster here provides the most accurate information.

On the Capability Scotland website it does confirm that, although many Tory MSPs, and one or two others MSPs from other parties had reservations about the Offences
(Aggravation by Prejudice)(Scotland)Bill, it was unanimously passed into Scots Law.
61

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 12:29:55
58:- Of course it was 'unanimously' passed by our sham parliament - none of them have the balls to speak up against this tosh because the militants start screaming at them and the press attacks them. As long as they are taking power from the majority and giving it to screaming little minorities the press loves it and they all chortle about how righteous and liberal they are - at our expense!

Maybe it would be better to ask WHY we need extra red tape when the law already has the means to deal with this ??


Admit it - it is a waste of time ... it is just a means for PC Brigade to get their rocks off.
62

Iain Mac,

04/06/2009 12:38:15
So will religious nutters like the Catholic Church and various Presbyterian sects be prosectuted for hate-crime. Or will they use 'faith' - belief without evidence - as an excuse?
63

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 12:38:50
Why is it we are be legally corralled into not being allowed to hate something we may deeply disagree with ?

We are basically being told that we can only hate the things that are on the approved Governments 'hate' list .. sounds like totalitarianism and anti free speech to me ...

I despair at folk gleefully 'protecting' minorities at the expense of freedom of all of us.
64

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 12:38:58
#62 If you truly believe that this law "takes power from the majority", can you elucidate what you think that power is? Specifically, what are "the majority" now not allowed to do that you think they should be?

I don't think you've bothered to think about this at all. You certainly haven't read or understood my posts which explain precisely why the bill is useful.

Really you're just regurgitating long-held prejudices and wrapping them in a persecution complex.
65

4isbetterthan1,

Scotland 04/06/2009 12:39:08
What about fat people, ginger people, big nosed people, someone with a bad skin condition, unusually dressed people and the list goes on! This is just typical of Patrick Harvey and his self-serving attitude towards his orientation and why the Greens will never ever be taken seriously. You can take any political sensitive issue and popularise it amongst the politicians as they are always too scared to say what they really believe. Not a backbone amongst them hence their collective attitude towards the expenses scandal. The commentators on this forum who congratulate those politicians that have voted this legislation through kid themselves on that the same said politicians actually give a dam about your cause! It’s car salesman politics we have in this country popularised by the Blair government.
66

Iain Mac,

04/06/2009 12:40:21
#62 - some contradictions there. You claim that politicians of all parties passed this then go on to complain about 'PC'. Which political philosophy then is being advanced by this legislation? If all are agreed, then surely all political persuasion benefit?
67

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 12:43:06
#64 Nobody, especially not this bill, is telling you what you are allowed to think - you can continue to hold thoroughly obnoxious opinions if you wish. And no new crimes have been created to prosecute you for holding any opinions.

Most fundamentally, no freedoms whatsoever have been lost here. If you are able to conclude that from this bill you are truly ignorant.
68

Mèths,

04/06/2009 12:49:57
Voldemort

Where do you intend to live? Check what the UK gov is doing. As regards England & Wales -
In 2007-08

Police recorded 4,823 racially or religiously motivated crimes in which somebody was injured, 4,320 crimes without injury, and 26,495 cases of of harassment.

There were also 4,005 cases of criminal damage related to hate crimes.

The typical hate offender is a young white male (most homophobic offenders are aged 16-20, and most race hate offenders under 30).

69

Mèths,

04/06/2009 12:51:33
Voldemort

"I despair at folk gleefully 'protecting' minorities at the expense of freedom of all of us."

Gleefully? Expense of freedom for all of us? Are you for real?
70

me150,

04/06/2009 13:00:03
How about we start a campaign to get normally balanced people the same rights as gays!

This is getting ridiculous.
71

Mèths,

04/06/2009 13:19:46
me150

... and along comes another dolt who understands nothing.
72

JT,

04/06/2009 13:23:02
This law is once again dividing society. We shouldn't need a specific law that protects the disabled or gay people or black people it should protect all. My sister was attacked on her way home from a club because she is gay and it took her months to get the courage to go out again the police implied it was her fault and this angered me more than when I originally found out about the attack.
73

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 04/06/2009 13:40:01
JT

Were the police implying it was her fault because it was dark, in a badly lit street, she was on her own, she left herself vulnerable (all or any of the above) or because simply she was gay?

Did she say to the police that the attacker specifically attacked her because of her sexuality?
74

Allan(handofgod137),

04/06/2009 13:40:52
So gay is now a disability?
75

Mèths,

04/06/2009 13:54:32
75

Another one not reading. This is getting pathetic.
76

Mèths,

04/06/2009 13:57:02
'cos the article says, "protecting disabled AND gay people against prejudice."

Read the confounded article.
77

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 14:00:57
Meths and Duncan ...

Neither of you have answered the question of why we need this legislation - Duncan came close by generalising that 'common law' was not working ... I beg to differ - common law has worked extremely well for centuries. The law has become an ass since people have 'fiddled' with it to make a name for themselves to produce tosh like this !

I am not what you accuse me of being. I am not a racist, a homophobe, a bigot nor a sexist. What you seek to achieve is not too far away from what alot of us want to see - but NOT watching the majorities liberty being buried with pointless legislation which brazenly hands power to the minority. I bet you if I accidentally dropped a banana in front of a black man as he walked into a lamp post I could prosecuted where no actual crime has taken place. The statistics would show a 'racially aggravated crime in which someone was injured' - !

Racism and Discrimination law have been abused on an industrial scale to further careers, to gain revenge or to threaten, but more over it just serves as a tool for minorities to remove obstacles that all of us face without this protection. I think that alot of people rightfully see the majority as being discriminated against.

I simply say that Racism and Discrimination are infact tiny insignificant problems blown out of all proportion. The crime figures are totally manipulated to further the 'Racism and Discrimination' business which employs tens of thousands of people at taxpayers expense and costs our country £billions in red tape alone.

I rather agree with 73 - that laws like this serve only to divide. I wonder if you repealed all this silly Racism and Discrimination nonsense if the world would blow up or infact as would happen society would just get on with it and criminals would still get prosecuted but without disadvantaging the majority.

The needs of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many.
78

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 14:09:02
#76/77

Come on, you're not expecting confirmed recidivist anti-gays to actually READ the article, are you? All they love doing is to exploit ANY opportunity to vomit up their prejudice - don't confuse them by inviting them to confront the reality of the situation!
79

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 14:09:23
74 - you raise a very good point.

Who decides what is a hate crime? Is it just 'presumed' to be a hate crime if the victims happen to be of a minority and the aggressor is not ?

I rather think it it is which is not really right now is it ?! Again we just go back to the mountain being made out of a molehill !
80

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 14:16:42
#78

So what would you propose as a solution to "gay-bashing" when individuals are specifically targeted on the suspicion that they are gay - or are you seriously claiming this never happens - or indeed if a straight person is targeted by a gay (or group of gays)on the suspicion they are straight?
81

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 14:18:33
#78 You're either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the reality. You just keep repeating your prejudice without reference to the explanations that have been given.

I have specifically answered, several times starting at #27, why this bill is useful. In #52 I set out specifically, not generally, the way in which common law aggravations (not "the common law") were not working to give an accurate picture of the problem nor consistent treatment of it across the country.

It is you who makes laughable generalisations when you say that the common law worked for centuries until people started "fiddling" with it. That implies that all statute is damaging: is that genuinely your position? You are for 100% judicial law? Of course it isn't. Your generalisation is a smokescreen for your prejudice.

I say again - this legislation does not "hand power" to anyone. An aggravation still has to be proved to the same standard as any other part of the charge, so your ludicrous banana skin example would not stand. You say that to make the law appear to be an ass, but in fact it is you who is labouring under total incomprehension.

This bill does not make anyone any more likely to be prosecuted than before, does not impact sentencing, and does not hand power to anyone. So what is the real reason it angers you? If you are being honest that you are not a racist, a homophobe, a bigot or a sexist, why does this bother you? Why make up effects that this legislation will not cause, and rail against them in hysterical terms? What is your motivation?
82

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 04/06/2009 14:21:25
Goan yersel Dunc!
83

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 14:21:46
#80 Seriously, you haven't even bothered to read a summary of this bill!

"Who decides what is a hate crime? Is it just 'presumed' to be a hate crime if the victims happen to be of a minority and the aggressor is not?"

No! You could not possibly think that if you had taken even a moment to find out about the bill. That is categorically not how it works, as I, other commenters, the bill, the Parliament and the media have all said, if you could only be bothered to listen!

What is the point of expressing anger without even finding out if there is any cause for it?
84

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 14:25:12
Surely one clue that it is a "hate crime" is when language used by the perpetrators of the crime towards the victim at the time of the attack reveals that the victim has been chosen specifically because of their race, religion or sexual orientation? For example, "you f***ing n*gg*r/p**f", etc. Is it really rocket science?
85

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 14:27:51
#83 Ach Dave, it's like arguing with a character from Alice in Wonderland! Off with his head!
86

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 14:29:30
On hearing the evidence, than presumably the jury in question can decide whether it is a hate crime or not. Isn't that how our criminal justice system works?
87

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 04/06/2009 14:33:25
Aye well Dunc, you put up a good fight today.

Anyways, how does one now aggrevate/assault somebody nowadays without causing offence?
88

Calum Crubag,

04/06/2009 14:41:28
#78 - Yes! By why stop there? Why not do away with ALL laws including those of murder, child abuse and rape? Come on, don't go all pink on me now!

No laws! Forward with hate!
89

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 15:12:13
78:- Gay bashing is presumably a violent crime and therefore already has a law to deal with it ... if you are talking about name calling - I would have nothing done. There is no 'real' crime in calling someone a name.

82:- Utter bunkum ! You have whittered and answered nothing at all. There is no hidden prejudice - I have explained exactly my position which you have chosen to manipulate to try and make it look like your ridiculous 'throw legislation at everything' stance is valid. Your not really fooling anyone its rather sad to watch. You must not confuse disagreeing with piles of pointless legislation leading to no improvement for anyone to holding prejudice - only a simpleton could make such a mistake. I think what you are trying to say is that you are not a homophobe or a racist and that these issues are very dear to you because you see it as a massive problem. I would humbly submit to you that you open your eyes and walk around Edinburgh/Glasgow at night a count the number of 'gay bashers' -- that's right, hardly any ... so it's not really a priority and I simply think that this is a huge waste time and resource for no result. That makes me a pragmatist not a racist if you must label me ! I object to the ethos of legislation such as this because it is devisive and serves no purpose. Why are you so 'for' pointless bits of paper and 'for' protecting minorities where protection already exists under current law ? Why are you against dealing with the root causes one of which may ironically be 'positive' discriminatory legislation! There is another couple questions for you ramble about and not answer !

84:- I was not really being specific to this bill - are we allowed to expand and generalise to a larger but related topic or have you banned that too ?

85:- On who's testimony would that stand ? There is massive scope for abuse - surely we can agree on that !

89:- That is a bit silly .. but look at the opposite extreme do you think it is necessary to legis
90

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 15:13:18
Cont ....


89:- That is a bit silly .. but look at the opposite extreme do you think it is necessary to legislate every type of crime that may happen to every type of person ... I just don't think there is any point in further labeling it - it is a violent crime - deal with it as such .. it doesn't matter what the motivation is - your not going to change that - it matters only that the perpetrator gets a long jail sentence - then Justice is served ! It doesn't need to be more complicated !!

91

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 15:30:33
#90 Let's do this one last time, and please read it slowly:

This is not a new law covering a new type of crime. Assaults are still prosecuted as assaults, whoever they are perpetrated against.

This bill is not pointless. It enables consistent treatment of offences across the country, and ensures that hate crime is measurable.

One gay basher is too many for their victim.

This bill does not "protect minorities" precisely because protection is already available under the law. That's not what the bill is about.

Your post at #80 was not a generalisation, it was a failure to bother to read. Pretending you were talking about something else when you are caught out just makes you look immature.
92

Ifan Har,

Scotland 04/06/2009 15:50:14
When are heterasexuals going to have thier equal rights protected to the same extent as homosexuals???

The societal playing field should be level and all guarenteed equal protection by the law!!!

What makes a homosexual deserving of more protection than a person whose sexual expression is in accordance with the manner that nature dictated it to be???

This is blatant discrimination against people who live their lives in accordance within the bounds of the natural, normal expression of their sexuality as evolved by nature itself.

Religion does not even enter into it, nature's logical rule is that "If it does not fit naturally it was not meant to connect in that way"
93

Ifan Har,

Scotland 04/06/2009 15:52:41
Post#93 Correction.

Apologies, the third word in my first sentence should read heterosexuals!
94

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 15:56:42
#93 If you took 5 minutes out and actually read a summary of the bill you would find that your fears are completely unfounded, and your anger misdirected. This bill does not introduce "more protection" for gay people. It does not change how assaults of all kinds are prosecuted. Please give yourself a break from indignation long enough to read the thing you're complaining about, rather than just the headline of this article.

As for your last paragraph, while you're free to rail against various sexual acts that are enjoyed by straight and gay couples alike, let me assure you that it fits fine.
95

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 16:11:43
92:- thanks for the non-explanation .... well presented but full of drivel. Your not an MP/MSP by any chance ?

Hate crime already gets measured - what is measuring it 'better' going to achieve? particularly given that people manipulate 'race' crime and the like so much that you can never be sure nor rely on the data. The law is always consistent within its guidleines. This does nothing new.

You are right one gay basher is too many for their victim but you could say that of all or any crime so what's your point ?

My post at 80 has simply hit a nerve with you because you know that this type of legislation is horribly abused and that irks you as really dents the argument for having it in the first place. In your heart of hearts you know that ludite race and discriminatory legislation contributes massively towards hate, you know that minorities misuse legislation in the same category as this systematically. This is probably backed up with an inherent mistrust of human nature where you misguidedly think that removal of silly legislation like this will immediately result in anarchy! -- now that, is what I would call immature!

After all of that can you explain to me how one who has been 'gay bashed' will feel any better or how the perpetrator will feel worse and how this could even be construed as a remotely helpful in future policing or tackling the root cause?

Your clever enough - you know the answer - it will change nothing - therefore one would could conclude irrefutably that it is infact more pointless guff for PC anoraks nothing more than an loose 'intellectual' exercise at best ! A waste of taxpayers money, divisive, hate provoking and making gay bashing and race crime look commonplace when it is as rare as rocking horse dung!
96

screwloose or loosesrcew,

04/06/2009 16:22:03
If everybody wants to be equal why specify legislation for specific groups. Can people not see it then broadens the argument of balance and multiplies challenge? Or is more legislation what makes one equal ? People must review their rights from the majority group or you end up with greater rights surely.
Three guys in a pub.
A gay person.
A disabled person.
A white person.
If a black man enters and assaults all three because they are the three groups he hates, how should the system of justice treat them under current and new legislation.
Rationale ?

97

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 16:27:21
#96 I'm afraid you've picked an argument with the wrong person on the measurement of hate crime. There has been for years a structural problem in that crimes motivated by hate were, and still are, recorded differently in different force areas, with the result that it is impossible, today, to give an accurate count of the number of differently motivated attacks across Scotland. Each force has its own guidelines, and its own definitions of a type of incident. What that means practically is that police are unable to co-ordinate work to prevent such crimes effectively; that government are unable to judge how to prioritise such crimes; and that victims lack co-ordinated support.

This bill does do something new. It set out statutory, rather than general, aggravations for crimes motivated by various different types of hate. This means that fiscals can add an aggravation to a charge on the same basis in Oban as they do in Craigmillar, that the police can use the same definitions of aggravations in Stornoway as they do in Castlemilk, and that the British Crime Survey can for the first time break down the incidences of such crimes and calculate their prevalence and spread.

You may want this to change nothing, and want an excuse to have a go at the people who have brought it in, but the truth is that it does change things, for the better.
98

Ifan Har,

Scotland 04/06/2009 16:34:53
Post#95 Duncan in Edinburgh

If the bill does not elevate the Homosexual victim above the normal person as a victim of assault what exactly does it do?

Your statement: "It enables consistent treatment of offences across the country, and ensures that hate crime is measurable" I fail to see how it performs this function!

Your closing paragraph: "As for your last paragraph, while you're free to rail against various sexual acts that are enjoyed by straight and gay couples alike, let me assure you that it fits fine".

After having studied human anatomy and physiological function for four years I am able to categorically state that the coupling you speak of as naturally fitting "just fine" is not possible in terms of the design of human anatomy unless artifical lubricant is employed, the use of which to facilitate of course, negates the natural fitting you falsely claim in your post!

99

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 16:36:29
#97 For the umpteenth time, the actual sexual orientation, disability or race of either the victim or the perpetrator is irrelevant in this bill. In your example these facets of those individuals are not at issue. What is at issue is if a crime committed was motivated by a dislike of the perceived status of the victim.

An assault will still be treated as an assault, but now it will not depend on the individual police officer or procurator fiscal as to whether an aggravation is added to the charge, or how that aggravation is worded. The same crime will be treated the same across all force areas.

That is the only substantial effect of this bill. Not special rights for anyone, no new crimes invented, no inequalities created - merely a level playing field for the application of existing laws.
100

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 16:42:20
#99 I have explained, repeatedly how it performs that function. Perhaps you could read some of the earlier comments.

You apparently object to any sexual act which requires lubricant? I have a suspicion that you haven't really thought that through, but nonetheless, the answer would be for you not to indulge in any such acts. Your particular aversion is not a logical argument against others doing it. Though I would be fascinated to know the full list of proscribed sexual antics by which you live. Do you have a typed up list stuck next to your bed? Is it laminated? Probably not necessary.
101

Richard Lionheart,

04/06/2009 16:58:20
It will be really interesting to see the number of so called gay “hate” crimes which now come into being. It has been clear for some time that “hate” has been confused with criticism and questioning the morality of homosexual activity. Please note this is not an attack on a gay person but a calling into question of the persons moral conduct. It is likely that under this new law this vocalisation will be construed as a “hate” crime.

There has been an increasing number of cases across the UK where those who are critical of or whose faith teaches that homosexual activity is wrong are being actively targeted by fundamentalist gay rights groups, with the primary objective of stopping the vocalisation of religious belief and teaching. We have already seen high profile cases where Bishops and MP’s have been questioned and cautioned by police after vocalising Biblical teaching on Homosexual activity.

This law will be another tool in the hands of those extremists who wish to silence free speech, the vocalisation of biblical Christian Teaching and intimidate Christians and religious leaders.

If Duncan is right that nothing will change then there was no need for the legislation.
Sadly this is about a hierarchy of rights and it appears that our politicians have given the police the power to decide whose rights are more important.

This is a bad day for democracy and an incredibly catastrophic day for free speech and society.

A good day for lawyers!
102

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 17:07:39
I wonder how long it will be before a "hate crime" against the disabled is defined as "allowing a mother with a baby in a pram onto a bus"?

I fail to see how it is possible to lump the disabled and gay people under the same umbrella in any case. Generally, you don't have a choice as to whether you are disabled or not---and I would hazards a guess that given that choice, almost all disabled people would opt not to be so.

However, being gay IS a choice. It's not an affliction. It is a lifestyle choice, a sexual choice and a personal choice. Whilst there is no way that I would ever decry someone for being gay, I steadfastly believe that I should not be under any obligation whatsoever to make allowances for the fact.

Before Harvie starts pontificating on matters like this, he ought to sort out his table manners and etiquette, as that is an area which is clearly lacking.
103

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 17:10:47
#102 As I think I may have mentioned (though you appear not to have noticed) no new crimes have come into being with this bill. That's none, a total of zero new crimes. Just for the avoidance of doubt, so that you don't have to speculate as in your opening paragraph again: the answer is that no new crimes are brought into being by this bill. Okay? Do you need me to say that again? Do let me know.

This bill does not cover hate speech, so your concerns about the criminalisation of criticism or questioning can be laid to rest. Nothing here affects your right to tell me how much you dislike me, who I am, or what you think I do.

"If Duncan is right that nothing will change..." eh, what? Do you have a reading disorder? Some sort of attention deficit? I did not say nothing would change. I recommend you go and do another quick check.

So, in summary: not a bad day for democracy - a democratic, pragmatic decision based on evidence has been made; not a bad day for free speech, no effect whatsoever on freedom of speech in this bill; not a bad day for society, unless you think that improving the consistency of the criminal justice system is somehow a bad thing.

A bad day for logical, reasoned debate on this article, perhaps. But then every day is a bad day for that around here.
104

Duncan in Edinburgh,

04/06/2009 17:13:55
#103 You have misunderstood. The bill does not equate sexuality with disability. It merely deals with hate crimes against the two groups at the same time, bringing them into line with those motivated by religion and race.

While consensual sexual activity is a choice, being gay is not a choice, and only someone with no empathy or experience could suggest such a thing. Who would choose to be gay in a heterosexist society like ours? Did you choose to be sexually attracted to women? Of course not. I didn't choose to be sexually attracted to men.

I did choose to accept myself, rather than live a lie. Perhaps that is the choice you are referring to? How barbaric if so.
105

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 17:26:17
98- You are yet again slavering! I loved that nice wee ego trip of yours you opened up with ...

Anyway to the matter in hand; You are clutching at straws and trying to make out that this will make a difference and to and extent you are right but lets define how you are right.

It will make a difference in the following areas;

More Police time will be eaten up administering this guff which represents virtually zero % of crime.

More Government agencies will spend more time analysing the 'new' (or rather old data repackaged) data and setting up committees to pour yet more legislation on the perceived 'problem'.

In a nutshell you advocate more legislation, more paperwork, more money spent and less action.

You say; 'What that means practically is that police are unable to co-ordinate work to prevent such crimes effectively; that government are unable to judge how to prioritise such crimes; and that victims lack co-ordinated support.' - again this is utter tripe;

The Police cannot 'prevent' the crimes any better by having this data and the victims will be no better supported. The data is irrelevant to the crime .... interesting to some but irrelevant - it should just be treated under the current laws which are quite sufficient as a violent crime. Fiscals have always been able to sentence accordingly and I suspect that if the Police make a report that there was an aggrivational motive that the sentence would be harsher anyway without this petty gimmick.

The bottom line it that this is just window dressing for a problem that doesn't exist to any great degree. What is more concerning to me is the fact that effectively this sort of bill says that violent crime that does not involve a racial aggravated motive is 'better' in the eyes of the law than a violent crime that does have that motive. To me motive for violent crime is utterly irrelevant and the perpetrators dealt with equal contempt for their actions.

Instead what we get is minorities getting
106

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 17:26:59

Cont ..

Instead what we get is minorities getting 'special' treatment once more. It is not as important if one of the majority is attacked .... if you are happy with that then you truly are the wrong person to argue with ... we will agree on that !


107

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 17:49:32
#102
It has been clear for some time that "hate" has been confused with criticism and questioning the morality of homosexual activity.

Quite........I'm sure the victims fully appreciate the confusion as they end up either black and blue or bleeding on the ground simply because of their sexual orientation.

#103

"However, being gay IS a choice."

Really? Evidence? Keeping repeating the old fallacy will not make it a valid statement. Gays, presumably, chose to be discriminated against and continue to choose to be attcked on the excuse of having a particular sexual orientation which they did NOT "choose".
108

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 17:55:04
How strange that the prejudiced posters ALWAYS include the disclaimer: "I am not a homophobe?anti-gay/do not decry anyone for being gay" etc, etc, BUT......
109

SandyBottoms,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 17:58:57
As some wise person noted above, those who object to the law have obviously never been victim to a hate crime, and most likely feel that they would never fall into those categories defined in the legislation. To be targeted for abuse (verbal, physical, vandalism, whatever) because of something you cannot change (Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head, I'm looking at you! You're usually so smart! What gives with this sort of ignorance?) is terrifying!
110

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 18:15:59
109:- maybe it because they are telling the truth but dislike people getting 'favoured' status with the law because of who they are at the expense of a diminished respect for the majority and a system which considers violent crime against a member of the majority 'not as important'.

Wouldn't you agree that you can hold these opinions without necessarily holding the prejudice you suggest. My contempt is not for the minorities themselves it is with the individuals who portray that violent crime against a member of a minority is more important that a violent crime committed against anyone else.

The beef of the matter simply is that all people should be equal in the eyes of the law and there should be no exceptions or 'special' treatment regardless of motivation. The consequences of violent crime should be universally robust and consistent.
111

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 18:18:12
Voldemort keeps on slavering (to use his expression) on about "minorities getting 'special' treatment once again" - yes indeed: verbal abuse (which straights don't get from gays, physical attacks (which straights don't get from gays), murderous assaults.......and simply for having a different sexual orientation. What a civilised society we live in.
112

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 18:19:46
...and all approved by the majority, apparently.
113

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 18:21:21
Why doesn't he read the legislation, rather than his interpretation of the legislation?
114

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 18:27:06
Where is Voldemort's evidence that hate crime represents "virtually 0% of crime"? Is he a crime statistician? Is he aware that it is more likely virtually 0% of hate crime is actually reported?
115

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 18:41:04
115:- So lets get it straight then; you favour minorities having special laws with special sentences over and above what the rest of us have ?

Do you not see that this makes a mockery of democracy and the principal that all people are equal in the eyes of the law ?
116

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 18:44:31
I refer you to #114 - do you not see how this constant dodging of the issue makes you appear?
117

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 18:49:13
Please state where I favour, as in your ludicrous suggestion, that minorities should have special laws and special sentences.

You do realise, of course, that any "majority" typically consists of a whole host of minorities.
118

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 18:52:13
Why don't you address #115?
119

Voldemort,

edinburgh 04/06/2009 19:02:53
118 ... so you don't favour special laws then ?

I don't even think you know where you are coming from !
120

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 19:12:25
So let's get one thing straight then: you don't favour minorities being protected from the hate crimes whose reality you refuse to acknowledge.

What a civilised "majority" view - which planet are you from?
121

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 19:27:52
PS -118 - Yes I am aware that a majority is formed out of minorities but you could boil that right down to individuals ... do you want to legislate for each individual now which each piece of legislation detailing a different punishment depending on exactly who committed a violent crime against who ....

I mean how ridiculous do you want to go ? I am afraid you haven't really thought this through and like Duncan you are completely failing to see the difference between beaurocracy, window dressing and spin to what happens at grass roots levels and what is really useful coupled with your apparent advocacy of what essentially adds up to a disgustingly biased law system which favours some people over others.

Maybe you should check out the Nazi party or 'Totalitarian Monthly' ... I think you and Duncan might find some soul mates there !
122

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 19:37:12
121: Planet Earth, a ball of life you may want to familiarise yourself with.

What is uncivilised about wanting equality in the law for EVERYONE ? I think you need to re-evaluate and come back when you have something sensible and un bigotted to say ...
123

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 20:08:24
You completely ignore, misrepresent and refuse to answer perfectly valid points made by Duncan and myself preferring from an early stage to resort to abuse, your argument completely falls down in a complex modern society, and your view of "democracy" is more akin to that of mob rule which created the type of totalitarian society you accuse me being an admirer of.

Gays have long been deprived of equality in the law, and now when this is beginning to change, you suggest that I am in favour of "special laws" for minorities but offer no further evidence apart from more abuse.

I think you need to re-evaluate and come back when you have something more sensible and unbigotted to say....
124

Kenny A,

04/06/2009 20:30:43
OK, I am going to put my neck on the line and no doubt upset a lot of people, but I thought hate crimes were already delt with. Any crime against anyboby should be delt with equaly.

Why should gays and disabled be given different treatment to the old, young, forigners, or the "able bodied". If I was beaten up by a bodybuilding gay man who was deaf for example would he get a more lenient sentence than a hetrosexual man who was not deaf and committed the same offense.

Hate is hate and it should be delt with in a equal way or it is discrimination. I am sick fed up of minorities thinking they are special or privalaged and get different standards of treatment to the majority.
125

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 20:57:42
124:- Utter nonsense yet again.

Gays are human beings and have always been equal in the eyes of the law. Your constant referral to 'victimization' is what all minorities scream not because of the law but because they need to reconcile their perceived trauma of being different with blaming society for their own problems.

You refuse to acknowledge that what you are angling for is nothing short of a two tier double standard system. I am advocating a one tier one standard system that is equal for all. I find is fascinating that you think equality is repulsive and that you and duncan resort to abuse in order to try and subdue reason over militancy.

I find it equally fascinating that equality does not equal 'equality' in you own mind that you openly admit that double standards are more 'equal'.

I am finding it quite boring trying to reason with the minority bigots who have nothing else but their own self interest at heart and bedamned with everyone else!

It seems that the pressure groups behinds those that are gay, or have a disability, or are of ethnic background that they all seem to think that the world owes them something. I find it insulting that they are categorically saying that they are better than us and that the law needs to be changed and harsher penalties handed out to people who harm them than people who harm anybody else.

The simple fact of the matter is that as long as the minorities are complicit in doling out double standard law for their own gain then there will always be those who will take objection to them.

My opinion is simply that these people do not deserve special treatment and I put it to you that the very fact that there is double standards is one of the main causes of 'hate'. Would you not hate if the law did the reverse and said that minorities were not important and that anyone abusing them was subject to a lesser punishment ?

You and Duncan are hypocrites and you are bigots in your own way. You must know that double s
126

Voldemort,

04/06/2009 20:58:57
Cont ...

You and Duncan are hypocrites and you are bigots in your own way. You must know that double standard law is wrong - your not that daft! - You can't pick and choose your law to suit you which is exactly what you are lobbying for.

125 -- well said ... one law for ALL - no exceptions !
127

Kenny A,

04/06/2009 21:16:39
126 Voldemort

You said what I wanted to in better terms, positive discrimination by its very nature leads to discrimination against others.

As you said, one law for all, no exceptions, thats called justice. By demanding different standards minorities are trying to distort justice. By the way laws are being put about nowabays no one will know where they stand. Perhaps sensible and rational people should claim to be a minority in need of special protection before long. Not sure if I would get into that club but sure I could invent a minority of my own somewhere along the line.
128

Kenny A,

04/06/2009 21:28:29
Tourist guide and Duncan.

My comments are not anti anybody by the way, in case you may have thought so, just backtracked and read what you had posted. I just think justice should be equal for all.

I am old fashioned and find certain things difficult to understand, gays, drugs, religious bigotory believe it or not, and know many people share my views. However never in a lifetime would I go out and beat up the above or and aged person or child or disabled person for what they are.

One law for all is the only way.
129

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 21:40:15
128, again very well put. We are not what the likes of Tourist Guide, Meths and Duncan would have everyone believe. They simply advocate that double standard law is 'necessary' to make things 'equal'.

They name call us because they know that what they are advocating is undemocratic nonsense. They feel that minorities are 'owed' a special deal which is a slap in the face of everyone who believes in equality and democracy.

Their answer is to legislate even further in favour of minorities not realising ( I hope) that the legislation is in itself the source of much of the perceived 'hatred' because it DOES represent double standards and everyone knows it. The problem is that many people do not object for FEAR of being labeled a 'racist' or whatever !

Notwithstanding all of this they have to reconcile the argument of preferential treatment of crimes against minorities. They also must admit that should the boot be on the other foot they would be screaming from the highest echelons ! But because this double standard suits them they agree with it which is ironic to say the least!

I don't want anti-gay, anti-asian, anti-black or anti-anything to rule the roost. I simply ask that all people are EQUAL under the eyes of the law. Bigots like Duncan, Tourist Guide, and Meths don't want equality for the minorities they are hell bent on superiority for the minorities. Knowingly or unknowingly they betray the simple principals of law and democracy which I for one find disgusting,
130

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 21:44:43
Dear oh dear, utter nonsense once again - a sad rant and tirade of total nonsense from a pitiful bigot who hides behind the pretence of "equality for all" as if it has ALWAYS existed for gays (rewriting of history - typical of a totalitarian society mindset) and has only almost been achieved as a result of a lengthy struggle. But you wouldn't acknowledge that because of your double standards, paying lip service to "equality for all in the eyes of the law" and turning a blind eye to the fact that gays have NOT been equal until very recently in terms of civil marriage and tax allowances, for example, to name but two areas of previous inequality. I can't believe you're that stupid with your bleatings of "equality under the law for everybody", so can only put it down to either your ignorance or bigotry, and can see no further point (and also find it very boring) in "debating" with someone so perverse as to be completely blind to, or evade, valid points presented by Duncan or myself they have been challenged to answer. So I will leave the field open to you and your pathetic dribblings to continue all night if you so wish, in the misguided belief that you have somehow won the argument you have constantly avoided (but it will obviously make you feel better).
131

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 21:57:51
Kenny A

Never having been discriminated against in your life in the eyes of the law in the way which the minority gay community has until recently, nor been abused verbally or physically purely and simply because of your sexual orientation may make things difficult to understand.

132

Kenny A,

04/06/2009 22:04:16
130 Voldemort

I truly hear what you are saying and bluntly agree with it.

Here however is a touch of the old devils advocate part. Minorities always feel persecuted and often they are, history has many examples, so I can to an extent understand some of their feelings. Saying that when people disagree with me, am I also not a minority?

It however bugs the living daylights out of me that different sections of society are given prefferential treatment.

When does it stop? To many minority groups are demanding to much, leaving the majority with no where to go. In the end it is possible the minorities will be the majority and then turn upon themselves.

It is a no win situation from my point of view for all.

Again history is not short of examples of this happening. At present there are also stacks ongoing, from my original neck of the woods, the church is in disareers because of a gay minister, sunday sailings are trying to be imposed against the will of most.

Just two examples and easy solutions available, for the minister a different church, for the ferrys sure bring them on but dont use them if you disagree and do not hold it against people if they feel it against their values to work on the Sunday.

I am still a man who believes we were all created equal and should be treated so.

Kenny

133

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 22:13:32
131:- I don't need your sympathies. You obviously disagree with equality where it suits you and that is where I will rest my argument.

You seem to think that minorities have a right to 'superior' law and I think that most folk can see you for what you really are.

I am not anti minority but I am anti double standards you and Duncan just want your cake and to eat it and for some reason you are totally blind to the double standards you are helping to create. You and duncan are just Fascists with frock on and you think or hope that the populous at large will hail your 'reverse' bigotry and when you are exposed for what you really are you emit drivel ! I guess all folk are equal with you but some are a bit more equal than others!

You and Duncan disgust me simply because you stand in a supposed moral high ground and preach nothing but hatred yourselves. You think nothing of 'real' equality but just harp back to 'victimisation' which allows you to launch into your double standards law crud ... You disrespect the majority and you think your chosen minorities should get different treatment under the law. I simply think they should be treated like everyone else with no labels attached. That is true equality. Then again you don't believe in true equality as you have admitted - you simply want the books to be cooked in your causes favour !
134

Kenny A,

04/06/2009 22:22:04
132 Tourist Guide

Now dont take this wrong but I have been the victim of discrimanation on a few occasions. Discrimination takes many forms. I am white but in parts of Africa they blatently put different prices up for haircuts for example.

My career has suffered on a couple of occasions because my original language is not english.

I went into a gay bar in Manchester years ago by accident and had a glass thrown at me because I even went in.

I have also suffered in front of the law because my first wife was from an ethnic minority and I lost my entire family for many years due to the fact that the judge felt compelled to listen to her rather than hear my side. In the end the childern came back to me.

Trust me I am no fan of discrimination and all people should be treated equaly, no special treatment just because someone is a minority. All people with a difference feel the weight of the world is upon them. Nothing wrong with standing up for your beliefs but forcing them upon others leads to fundamentalisim.

By the way, Im not gay but have been disabled for years, not badly, but hope this lends a little weight to my arguements in view of the original artical.

Cheers.


kenny
135

Kenny A,

04/06/2009 22:35:18
134 Voldemort

Slow down now mate, you were doing well, but I think post 134 could have been slightly rephrased.

The tar pit becons for those who jump in without thought. We are in agreement all should be treated equaly. At 132 the tourist guide said in essense we cannot understand discrimination and have never suffered it. I have responded as best I can, lets see what comes back.
136

Tourist Guide,

04/06/2009 22:42:53
Voldemort,

You really are the most disgusting, despicable individual with your twisted, abusive, evasive "argument" hiding a deep-seated bigotry and pretence of "equality" while trying to attribute opinions and political points of view to Duncan and myself which have no basis of evidence or justification at all, while ignoring the evidence of injustice in the eyes of the law.

That's where I FINALLY rest my argument.
137

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 22:47:03
133 - Kenny A

I totally agree. As I have said all along I am not adverse to minorities as you are not but I am adverse to double standards.

People like tourist guide, meths, and duncan have their head up their backside and think it better if some folk have a legal advantage over others, They do not advocate democracy nor fair play they advocate brazen split standard law.

They seem to find offence in our plea for proper equality and seem somehow to think that plea improper - then the name calling starts.

It is strange to me that a request for true equality results in such rabid responses but perhaps a sign of the totalitarian vision of the PC brigade that is fast approaching. There is no difference between them and Hitler.
138

Calum Crubag,

04/06/2009 22:47:15
I think Voldemort is the kind of guy who's probably on some kind of 'register'. I'd say he's pretty dodgy. His posts would point that way.
139

Calum Crubag,

04/06/2009 22:48:28
I also notice Voldemort has been on here for hours. Never trust a man with no friends but many hours with a mouse and keyboard.
140

Kenny A,

04/06/2009 22:58:08
137 Tourist guide

That responce to Voldermort did not help your cause.

Looking like a case of handbags and claymores at dawn (comment light hearted).

But seriously where is the line drawn, all should be equal before the law, no one discriminated against. Saying that there are exceptions the majority of all decent people will not tolorate, I do not think it is required to give examples in this case, chill out and have a peaceful night.
141

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 23:02:00
137:- There you go again - I will concede that you and duncan are hopeless cases with the moral fibre of a Fascist.

Double standards are your cry and all I have done is say that there should be one standard for all - you do not think that there should be one standard for all but that there should be 'preferred' human beings. I profoundly disagree. You are clearly an enemy of democracy and fair play preferring a tilted table and unjust law to favour your PC agenda.

You and Duncan are nothing more than dictatorial wannabes and assassins of common sense with not a hint of respect for the lives of those who are outwith your minorities.


142

Kenny A,

04/06/2009 23:08:21
140 Calum

Some folks have little choice at times in this new electronic age except for the old keyboard, especialy when the leg is kaput for the time being, thus reducing my mobility and increasing my bordom factor greatly. The Voldemort has a good few points tonight, not as I would have put them but so also have others.

It is a serious topic this and I can see future problems with this type of different treatment.

My cat just walked on the keyboard, perhaps she was looking for the mouse?
143

Voldemort,

edinburgh 04/06/2009 23:16:30
139 - I think you must be the lesser son of greater sires .. get some balls son and make a proper comment !
144

Kenny A,

04/06/2009 23:30:02
144 to 139

Cruel but amusing.
145

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 23:49:44
145 - I apologise to 139 but it is just so much fun to castrate the double standards brigade so they cannot pollute the world with their brand of Fascism !
146

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/06/2009 09:12:35
This bill does nothing to criminalise thoughts, beliefs or opinions. It doesn't create any new offences - assault is still prosecuted as assault - and it doesn't make any differential between the way an assault is prosecuted when the victim is gay or disabled compared to when the victim is straight or able-bodied. The victim's actual sexual orientation or disability is irrelevant to a prosecution.

This is about offences which are *motivated* by dislike of the victim's *perceived* sexual orientation or disability, and all it means is that for the first time all police forces and fiscals will have statutory aggravations to use in charges for these assaults, meaning that accurate statistics can be gathered, and consistent treatment applied, across all of Scotland.

There is no concept of "extra punishment for attacking a person of type X" in this bill. There are no sentencing guidelines at all in the bill. And it would apply equally to an attack motivated by the perceived heterosexuality of a victim.

This bill doesn't make anything "more of a crime", nor give any groups "special treatment". That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the bill. There is no extra punishment if your victim is of group X - there is simply a statutory way of recording and assessing that.
147

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 05/06/2009 09:31:35
147 - you are absolutely wrong. This bill is all about creeping double standards and you are brazenly telling people it is not. If it didn't exist you'd be right !
148

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/06/2009 11:54:19
#148 I am "brazenly" telling the truth and listing the facts. You have a bugbear about minority rights and you are determined to bang that drum whether it is justified or not. I think people can tell the difference.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.