British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
This wouldn’t be a hate crime because sex hasn’t been included as one of the protected characteristics. I believe the statement “all gay men are violent pigs” would be considered a hate crime (reportable by anyone), because sexual orientation is one of the protected characteristics.
so misogyny isn't a hate crime either? that's surprising tbh
Yes, but something being considered threatening or abusive isn’t a particularly high bar. The obvious Scottish example is that an edgy joke might be considered abusive and hence criminal.
Edit: This was a reply to Willd.
Yes, but something being considered threatening or abusive isn’t a particularly high bar. The obvious Scottish example is that an edgy joke might be considered abusive and hence criminal.
Edit: This was a reply to Willd.
I edited my post a couple of times before I got the wording right so I'm not sure if you read the version I landed on - it has to be both threatening/abusive and be considered intended to stir up hatred against a group to be considered a crime (for all the characteristics except race, for which the laws have somewhat different language). I think there were previous versions of it that got a lot of pushback from comedians among others and this final version has been reworked to attempt to avoid the potential for edgy jokes to fall foul of it unless they're completely off-piste.
Yes agreed
I don't think it's proper to send the police to someone house because someone else found an internet comment offensive.
It's improper and unlawful. That also goes for police phoning someone up and saying 'We need to check your thinking.' Which has actually happened. And it certainly goes for police knocking on someone's door and accusing them of 'untoward remarks about paedophiles' (incidentally this means remarks against paedophilia, not in favour of it), which has also unfortunately happened. The police do this because they've had 'Stonewall training', which they shouldn't have -- there is no case for allowing fringe activist groups to train the police, or for that matter the civil service, a thing that also keeps going on at vast public expense -- and of course they do it because it's easier than doing the actual job they're paid for and catching criminals, which nowadays they appear to regard as a bit too difficult and risky.
Sex is in fact one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act (though the Act does not create criminal offences, it creates civil rights and therefore civil torts requiring action in the civil courts), but misogyny is nevertheless not listed as a hate-crime aggravator by the prosecutorial authorities. This is, again, because prosecutors have had 'Stonewall training.'
Note how this published code for 'non-crime hate incidents' (an essentially unlawful abuse of police power) excludes sex as a 'particular characteristic'.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
Now look at what the Equality Act says.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201...
Interesting, no? The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, referred to in the NCHI guidance notes, does not in fact, under Section 60, list the 'particular characteristics' in question, so these can only be taken as EA2010 characteristics and the 'code of practice' is unlawful in excluding sex, but, again, that's 'Stonewall training'.
Ok I bite, what is this Stonewall training you talk about?
Re the bolded, Y=you'd be wrong about that. As an example, a family conversation at the dining table could be a hate crime.
You appear to be correct, depressingly. The Scottish Hate Crime Act does not exclude private conversation, it merely says that a person commits an offence if he or she 'behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting', which is idiotically bad law, and again the protected characteristics exclude sex (... for some reason...) despite UK and European human-rights law, and the Act's clause allowing sex to be added at some future time is a fairly classic bit of bad faith.
Stonewall was founded in the 1980s as a gay charity but, since the equality of the age of consent and finally marriage equality, it faced oblivion unless it found a new way to milk public funding, and under the direction of Ruth Hunt from 2014, and then Nancy Kelley in 2020-2023 it became a 'trans activist' organisation and it sells highly lucrative training courses to government on that basis. It can't allow any acknowledgement of sex as a protected characteristic in law (which in fact it is), because that would spoil its business model, for obvious reasons, so it just lies to its clients. The 2021 Reindorf Review by Akua Reindorf KC (a barrister and employment judge), arising from trans-activist suppression of speech and hounding of academics at the University of Essex, found that Stonewall training presents the law as Stonewall wishes it was, rather than the way it actually is.
You appear to be correct, depressingly. The Scottish Hate Crime Act does not exclude private conversation, it merely says that a person commits an offence if he or she 'behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting', which is idiotically bad law, and again the protected characteristics exclude sex (... for some reason...) despite UK and European human-rights law, and the Act's clause allowing sex to be added at some future time is a fairly cl
You're missing the entire second half of the law that you're quoting. It's not enough for the behaviour to be reasonably considered "threatening, abusive or insulting" it must also meet the second part which says "a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group."
So Husker is quite clearly not correct that a family conversation could be covered by it unless that conversation is of the form of targetted harassment of a person that also includes incitement of hatred towards others in a protected group that person belongs to. This was covered literally 5 posts before you reiterated this falsity.
Stonewall was founded in the 1980s as a gay charity but, since the equality of the age of consent and finally marriage equality, it faced oblivion unless it found a new way to milk public funding, and under the direction of Ruth Hunt from 2014, and then Nancy Kelley in 2020-2023 it became a 'trans activist' organisation and it sells highly lucrative training courses to government on that basis. It can't allow any acknowledgement of sex as a protected characteristic in law (which in fact it is),
ok i see I knew this was the normal course of action in the USA (pro homosexual orgs going trans activist for the donations) didn't know it was a thing in the UK as well nor that they had the hear of both labour and Tory governments (which is a very scary proposition tbh)
You're missing the entire second half of the law that you're quoting. It's not enough for the behaviour to be reasonably considered "threatening, abusive or insulting" it must also meet the second part which says "a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group."
So Husker is quite clearly not correct that a family conversation could be covered by it unless that conversation is of the form
a family conversation about how Muslim parents forcing their daughters to wear veils in school is bad and they shouldnt do it, and people should raise against it, and a religion with such a provision is a bad religion, would be a hate crime yes/no?
a family conversation about how Muslim parents forcing their daughters to wear veils in school is bad and they shouldnt do it, and people should raise against it, and a religion with such a provision is a bad religion, would be a hate crime yes/no?
Not unless there was someone involved in the conversation that they were specifically harassing as part of the conversation (and even then it would need active hatred, not just arguments against the religion to meet the criteria). It requires both "threatening, abusive or insulting" behaviour towards a person and the incitement against the larger group to be covered under this legislation.
The actual issue with this stuff has almost nothing to do with the legalities involved (you might have an issue with the concept of hate crimes in general but that would be a much wider issue than this specific legislation), it's all around the reporting, investigating, and recording of potential offences.
2022 vs Q3 2023
Was like 0.5% more in 2022
There is something wrong with the dataset and/or with definitions.
Btw in Italy the average worker pays a lot more than 48% of gross wages in taxes if , as per definition on the x axis above, we count SS/NIH contributions by employee and employer as well.
Those payroll taxes alone are approx 33% in Italy.
You're missing the entire second half of the law that you're quoting. It's not enough for the behaviour to be reasonably considered "threatening, abusive or insulting" it must also meet the second part which says "a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group."
So Husker is quite clearly not correct that a family conversation could be covered by it unless that conversation is of the form
You are mistaken. The paragraph you refer to is infinitely subjective and malleable and open to abuse, and the deliberate and false exclusion of sex as a protected characteristic renders the whole thing legally void anyway.
@Luciom. If this was real what do you think should happen here?
