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

[ChristineM]

Ok, so if you lived in the UK, someone could report a non-crime hate incident against you for some of your pro-trans-activist stances.

Does that suit you?

No they couldn't, or wouldn't.

Because being pro trans is not hateful

 

[icehorse]

No they couldn't, or wouldn't.

Because being pro trans is not hateful

You don't seem to understand this non-crime hate incident law. Anyone could report you for being hateful. They don't need to have proof, just their "feeling" that you've said something hateful. Their report against you will go on a permanent record. Years later a prospective employer could find that you had been hateful and turn you down for a job.

 

[ChristineM]

You don't seem to understand this non-crime hate incident law. Anyone could report you for being hateful. They don't need to have proof, just their "feeling" that you've said something hateful. Their report against you will go on a permanent record. Years later a prospective employer could find that you had been hateful and turn you down for a job.

It seems it's you who doesn't understand English law
Their report must contravene hate speach laws.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

And that gets us back to micro-aggressions, and limiting what others get to hear.

I'll ask you the same question: Who do you trust to decide what YOU can not hear?

No one. But then, that's the rub of living communally. Good thing is, I live in a democracy: an imperfect one, albeit, but better than some alternatives.

Holy Carp - that is an absolutely horrible justification for law -- far beyond rational on close inspection .. and anathema to the principles of Justice. Did you think out how that would work .. if all I need do is say that I felt insulted by something .. for that speech to be made illegal .. the person making arrested and punished at what ever the going rate is for such crime .. I see Rudy was ordered to pay over 100 million in damages for insulting the two election workers .. thats right in line with -- Rule of Law principle "punishment should fit the crime" but if the crime and its effect is completely arbitrary .. totally subjective on the basis of each individual .. guess the punishment should be too .. in the perfect world of the woke collectivist .. operating in fallacious utilitarianism mode.

Forgive me for asking, but did you read beyond my first sentence?

Apologize for the Jargon .. but, you could use a lesson or two in this area so go look it up.

"Erosion of fundamental Right to safety in a community" --- Reeking of utilitarian justification for law .. on the basis of increasing happiness/decreasing harm to the collective.
Sounds like a similar fallacious utilitarian justification for the Vax mandate .. similarly fallacious. Giving the ability for each individual to arbitrarily make law on the basis of something they feel insulted by will not make the community more safe .. but more dangerous for everyone .. who at any time could be accused of insulting someone and criminally charged .. and punished .. for something you had no idea you was insulting.

So this is not even a good utilitarian argument -- doing the reverse -- making the collective less safe .. hence the term fallacious utilitarianism .. aside the numerous other reasons why this justification for law fails

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.

 

[icehorse]

It seems it's you who doesn't understand English law
Their report must contravene hate speach laws.

Nope. The "non-crime hate incident" has no such requirements. If anyone feels your stance is hateful, all they have to do is file a complaint. No proof is necessary.

 

[icehorse]

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.

On this forum, my feelings about trans activism run sharply counter to other posters. I feel that some important aspects of trans activism are misogynistic and homophobic. So if we were in the UK, I could file a "non-crime hate incident" against my opponents here on RF.

So who's being oppressed and/or marginalized?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

On this forum, my feelings about trans activism run sharply counter to other posters. I feel that some important aspects of trans activism are misogynistic and homophobic. So if we were in the UK, I could file a "non-crime hate incident" against my opponents here on RF.

So who's being oppressed and/or marginalized?

When I say "oppressed and marginalized" I am not speaking about having unpopular feelings. I am talking about erosion of fundamental rights.

 

[ChristineM]

Nope. The "non-crime hate incident" has no such requirements. If anyone feels your stance is hateful, all they have to do is file a complaint. No proof is necessary.

Proove it

 

[icehorse]

When I say "oppressed and marginalized" I am not speaking about having unpopular feelings. I am talking about erosion of fundamental rights.

Fair enough. I think that aspects of the trans activist agenda are eroding the rights of women and gay people.

So, does it seem like a good idea that if I was in the UK I could file NCHIs against all trans activists?

 

[icehorse]

Proove it

I provided links in the OP.

That's kind of what this thread is about...

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Fair enough. I think that aspects of the trans activist agenda are eroding the rights of women and gay people.

So, does it seem like a good idea that if I was in the UK I could file NCHIs against all trans activists?

You "think" that. Does the UK law count "thinking that" as a violation?

 

[ChristineM]

I provided links in the OP.

That's kind of what this thread is about...

Have you actually read the second link?

For the purposes of the code, a ‘particular characteristic’ means race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity, as defined in hate crime legislation.​

As i said.

 

[icehorse]

You "think" that. Does the UK law count "thinking that" as a violation?

Absolutely! This is about citizens "thinking" or "feeling" that something hateful was said.

 

[icehorse]

Have you actually read the second link?

For the purposes of the code, a ‘particular characteristic’ means race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity, as defined in hate crime legislation.​

As i said.

Yes I read it. And last time I checked LBG still counted as sexual orientations.

So under this law I could file NCHIs against trans activists since I feel that they're being homophobic.

 

[ChristineM]

Absolutely! This is about citizens "thinking" or "feeling" that something hateful was said.

And again i guess you haven't read your second link

 

[ChristineM]

Yes I read it. And last time I checked LBG still counted as sexual orientations.

So under this law I could file NCHIs against trans activists since I feel that they're being homophobic.

Try it, you'd probably be arrested for wasting police time

 

[icehorse]

And again i guess you haven't read your second link

And what part of the 2nd link is counter to what I've said?

Try it, you'd probably be arrested for wasting police time

Something on the order of 200,000 NCHIs have been recorded, man, the UK must just be wall to wall haters!

 

[icehorse]

Because being pro trans is not hateful

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.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Absolutely! This is about citizens "thinking" or "feeling" that something hateful was said.

How would you put it to the police officer?

I think in terms of the OP, it would be useful if UK law was more specific about what "logging" the reported incident (note that it's not a crime or violation by the definitions provided in your OP) means, and what it looks like when an employer is checking a person's background (also note how vague on details the article was on how often this actually occurs and the actual impact), but this is hardly Orwellian. In 1984, thoughtcrime required everyone to be so paranoid about being perpetually aware of what you are thinking in order to avoid "facecrime."

So could the UK law be improved to be more democratic, sure. But it seems hyperbole to suggest that you could just decide that your opinions on transfolks, being unpopular, means you are being oppressed, and, by thinking this, you could report it to the police and trans activists will lose out on jobs because of that report.

 

[ChristineM]

And what part of the 2nd link is counter to what I've said?


Something on the order of 200,000 NCHIs have been recorded, man, the UK must just be wall to wall haters!

I quoted the relevant section in my post 172

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