I have never been a fan of "Hate Crime" legislation. When one person murders another, a crime has been committed. Why tack on a subjective judgement such as whether or not the crime was done with hateful intent? Where will such accusations eventually take us?
The answer my friends can be found in the following report from across the Atlantic in The Times,
Children are among thousands of people being investigated by police for non-crime hate incidents, The Times can reveal.
Police forces recorded incidents against a nine-year-old who called a primary school classmate a “retard” and against two secondary school girls who said that another pupil smelt “like fish”.
Every kid in my school got called that and worse when I was in K-12 Episcopal schools.
They were among several cases of children being logged as having committed non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), according to freedom of information requests to police forces.
Government guidance says that NCHIs are supposed to be recorded for incidents “clearly motivated by intentional hostility” and where there is a real risk of escalation “causing significant harm or a criminal offence”. Classroom incidents that do not amount to crimes are not supposed to be recorded, and neither are incidents involving journalists expressing lawfully held views with no hostility.
However, The Times has found evidence of widespread confusion among police over what types of incident should be recorded.
No 10 said that the Home Office would review its guidance to protect “the fundamental right to free speech” after the journalist Allison Pearson claimed she was being investigated over an NCHI. Essex police say this is inaccurate and have defended their handling of the case.
However, data collected by The Times shows the recording of NCHIs is widespread. More than 13,200 hate incidents were recorded in the 12 months to June this year, according to statistics from 45 of Britain’s 48 police forces.
Critics have asked whether the recording of non-crime hate incidents is an appropriate use of police resources, particularly in cases involving children...
...Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, a former director of public prosecutions added: “Five years down the line, when they apply for a job, they might not get it. And that might be as a result of a so-called non-crime hate incident recorded against their name that was entirely baseless, entirely motivated by spite or misunderstanding or whatever.
“I mean, the idea that the police are recording the name of a child because that child has described another child as smelling like a fish is just beyond belief.”
Yep, this is where all "hate" legislation eventually leads.
Posts
I agree entirely. The British authorities have taken this way, way too far. The best approach is to charge crimes when they occur, without regard to motivation, and to use motive at sentencing with regard to whether the offender is likely to be a continuing threat to others. Charging people, especially children, who have said something which hurt someone's feelings is insane.
ReplyDeleteAnother serious problem with "hate speech" prosecution is that even reasoned criticism is often defined as "hate." Islamists are using this in Europe, and here, to prevent honest discussion of Islam and its teachings. In practice, the only religion open to criticism is Christianity.
Exactly. Just to enter into a debate as to whether or not Mohammed was a true prophet would certainly run afoul of the hate speech police.
Delete