Non-crime hate incidents - yet another not-at-all-Orwellian reality

[ChristineM]

Here's the thing. I don't think you're a hateful person. But I do think you probably just instantly support and defend anything the trans activists tell you to support, and so unwittingly you support some really dubious ideas.

Here's the thing.
You have no idea what you are talking about or who you are talking about.

 

[icehorse]

I quoted the relevant section in my post 172

Yes, and I responded when I mentioned that LGB fall into those protected categories.

You have no idea. Since brexit hate crime has more than doubled

I could believe that. And I can imagine a whole host of reasons for that to be true. But again, THIS thread is about non-crime hate incidents.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, and I responded when I mentioned that LGB fall into those protected categories.



I could believe that. And I can imagine a whole host of reasons for that to be true. But again, THIS thread is about non-crime hate incidents.

Anti lgbt fall onto those categories.

Non crime hate incidents have also increased

 

[icehorse]

Here's the thing.
You have no idea what you are talking about or who you are talking about.

I have a boatload of experience interacting with you

 

[ChristineM]

I have a boatload of experience interacting with you

And have you ever heard of me communicating with trans activists?

 

[icehorse]

And have you ever heard of me communicating with trans activists?

First, I understand that you and I disagree on these points.

But in the past I know you've defended trans-favorable restroom / locker room policies, and I know you've defended GAC.

==

So for the purposes of THIS thread, I'm criticizing the UK's NCHI policy. And as an example I'm saying that - if we were in the UK - I could make complaints against you for supporting those two things listed above. I think that they're misogynistic and homophobic.

And yes, I know we disagree, and it's not the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is that the existence of NCHIs is really bad, and we should fight it, regardless of our other disagreements.

 

[Nakosis]

For the last 9 or 10 years in the UK, if a citizen is offended by the speech of another, they can file a report with the police who might log a permanent "non-crime hate incident" into their records. It is estimated that around 200,000 such reports have been logged to date.

Here's an excerpt from one of the links below:



In 2023 the guidelines were revised, but remain largely as vague and subjective and disruptive as before.

UK police’s speech-chilling practice of tracking ‘non-crime hate incidents’

Non-crime hate incidents: code of practice

Well it's not a crime so I thought who cares.
However, they say the police can release this information collected to potential employers.
They have basically weaponized the police to use gossip against anyone who's opinion they don't agree with.

Certainly not the Western European normal values.

 

[ChristineM]

First, I understand that you and I disagree on these points.

Correct

But in the past I know you've defended trans-favorable restroom / locker room policies, and I know you've defended GAC.

We live in a different part of the world, mixed rest rooms are common in france, I don't see the why the indignation of "some" American is so hateful.
It seems though that you cannot tell me anytime that i "support and defend anything the trans activists tell you [me] to support"

I could make complaints against you for supporting those two things listed above

You do not understand the law, no you couldn't make complaints because you would be complaining against the norm

The point of this thread is that the existence of NCHIs is really bad, and we should fight it, regardless of our other disagreements.

It's not so bad when you have been subjected to verbal hate, when children are verbally abused, and could do nothing about it. Now millions of people can do something about it. I will agree though that is can be misused.

 

[icehorse]

You do not understand the law, no you couldn't make complaints because you would be complaining against the norm

where does it say that??????

I think it's YOU that doesn't understand these NCHIs. A person could absolutely hear someone else defending trans activism, conclude that such defense is misogynistic and homophobic and register a NCHI report against the pro-TRA speaker being hateful towards women and gays. The person doesn't have to justify their "feelings" or prove them. That's a huge part of the problem. The UK now has citizens who disagree ratting each other out. Yet another step towards Orwell.

It's not so bad when you have been subjected to verbal hate, when children are verbally abused, and could do nothing about it. Now millions of people can do something about it.

I don't think anyone here is supporting bullying or abusive behaviors. But this "solution" is a horrible one.

 

[ChristineM]

where does it say that??????

I think it's YOU that doesn't understand these NCHIs. A person could absolutely hear someone else defending trans activism, conclude that such defense is misogynistic and homophobic and register a NCHI report against the pro-TRA speaker being hateful towards women and gays. The person doesn't have to justify their "feelings" or prove them. That's a huge part of the problem. The UK now has citizens who disagree ratting each other out. Yet another step towards Orwell.


I don't think anyone here is supporting bullying or abusive behaviors. But this "solution" is a horrible one.

I have quoted what is included

As i have already said try it

Here is not the point, it's a big wide world and haters will hate. And the solution is a tool to help quieten the haters.

 

[icehorse]

And the solution is a tool to help quieten the haters.

We can hope that the people who created NCHIs were well intended.

Sometimes it's pretty obvious where real hate exists and real hate needs to be exposed to sunlight. "Quieting" real haters just doesn't work, they'll take their hate underground.

The other problem is that it's often not so clear who's being hateful. And this NCHI approach makes citizens the judges of other people's behaviors. It makes people guilty without a trial.

As it stands, if you lived in the UK, you could have an NCHI registered against you and you'd never know, and it could well bite you in the *** down the road.

 

[Sargonski]

I see no actual argument against a utilitarian justification for law.

But, had you read my post thoroughly, you would realize that it was not a justification based on the collective, but for the erosion of rights for particular groups of people. It is irrational to assume this leads to a slippery slope of people being frivolously accused without evidence. What makes this different from, say, vaccination mandates, is that it is not arguing for the betterment of the collective in general, but a protection against one group being marginalized and oppressed.

There is no reason to read past the first sentence .. you said it all in stating that the insulted person makes the law .. an absurd position. Perhaps you did not undersand the post you were responding to.

That said .. you sure don't understand utilitarianism "Erosion of rights for a particular group of people" as justification for Law .. Is a utilitarian argument .. Law on the basis of reducing percieved harm to the collective. .. but in your case .. fallacious utilitarianism as justification of harm .. as no Errosion of rights has occured to begin with.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There is no reason to read past the first sentence .. you said it all in stating that the insulted person makes the law .. an absurd position. Perhaps you did not undersand the post you were responding to.

Yeah, I guess it was completely lost on me. A single sentence is all I needed to show my absurdity.

That said .. you sure don't understand utilitarianism "Erosion of rights for a particular group of people" as justification for Law .. Is a utilitarian argument .. Law on the basis of reducing percieved harm to the collective. .. but in your case .. fallacious utilitarianism as justification of harm .. as no Errosion of rights has occured to begin with.

Is "the collective" synonymous with "a particular group of people"?

I am sure there must be some people who would disagree with your last sentence.

 

[Revoltingest]

I say "who gets to decide what is offensive or insulting"

That would be whichever party is in power,
& the judges they put on the bench.
Pretty reliable in USA, right?

 

[icehorse]

That would be whichever party is in power,
& the judges they put on the bench.
Pretty reliable in USA, right?

THIS thread is about the "non crime hate incidents" policy in the UK. And on this topic, anyone can "convict" anyone they don't agree with, everyone gets to be a judge. What could go wrong?

 

[Revoltingest]

THIS thread is about the "non crime hate incidents" policy in the UK. And on this topic, anyone can "convict" anyone they don't agree with, everyone gets to be a judge. What could go wrong?

OK.

 

[Valjean]

Who gets to decide what insulting speech is ? .. and what may not be insulting to you .. may be insulting to someone else .. you having mixed raced children having no relevance to the question ... of how far the thought police should go to effect compliance.

The insult lies in the intent of the speaker to denigrate, anger or belittle, rather than inform, clarify, or explain. The intent is generally pretty clear to auditors.

 

[Sargonski]

That would be whichever party is in power,
& the judges they put on the bench.
Pretty reliable in USA, right?

No .. It means the person who is offended gets to decide.

One of the main problems with Utilitarianism --- justification for law based solely on "increasing happiness for the collective" - is - who gets to decide what will increase happiness for the collective - one man's poison is another man's pleasure.

The poster suggested that the person who is offended gets to decide what is offensive and what is not.

 

[Sargonski]

The insult lies in the intent of the speaker to denigrate, anger or belittle, rather than inform, clarify, or explain. The intent is generally pretty clear to auditors.

The question is whether or not this is valid justification for law. Should someone be put in Jail for calling a painting by your struggling artist son - "looks like it was painted by a child" .. the intent obviously to denegrate, anger, belittle.

What should the police do upon receiving the complaint from your son ?

 

[Koldo]

For the last 9 or 10 years in the UK, if a citizen is offended by the speech of another, they can file a report with the police who might log a permanent "non-crime hate incident" into their records. It is estimated that around 200,000 such reports have been logged to date.

Here's an excerpt from one of the links below:



In 2023 the guidelines were revised, but remain largely as vague and subjective and disruptive as before.

UK police’s speech-chilling practice of tracking ‘non-crime hate incidents’

Non-crime hate incidents: code of practice

This is your OP but you decide to champion in favor of free speech through the entire thread. I don't really understand your position...

Let me elaborate: You are opposed to this system they have in the UK where the government provides a public platform to the citizens so they can freely speak their minds about someone else without much interference. This is free speech. How come you criticize a system that revolves around free speech and yet spend the rest of the thread defending free speech?