Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

No charges for someone actually trying to incite racial hatred. watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Simply having and expressing anti-migrant view is classed as a hate crime but this is somehow not.

    http://college.usatoday.com/2016/04/...acist-drawing/
    A true case of someone trying to incite racial hatred and no charges pressed and their name not released, if this was the other way around people would be outraged.
    This is what BLM leads to they have done more to create a divide between the races than the kkk, Blm secured segregation which is something that the kkk has wanted for years.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Simply having and expressing anti-migrant view is classed as a hate crime but this is somehow not.

    http://college.usatoday.com/2016/04/...acist-drawing/
    A true case of someone trying to incite racial hatred and no charges pressed and their name not released, if this was the other way around people would be outraged.
    This is what BLM leads to they have done more to create a divide between the races than the kkk, Blm secured segregation which is something that the kkk has wanted for years.
    Hypocrisy 101.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Hypocrisy 101.
    What part is hypocritical? The fact that I have pointed out someone has got away with actually trying to incite racial hatred or me being against black lives matter?

    If it's the first how is that inciting racial hatred?
    If it is me being against black lives matter you do realise that is like being against the junior doctors strike they are campaigning for something and I don't want segregation
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    What part is hypocritical? The fact that I have pointed out someone has got away with actually trying to incite racial hatred or me being against black lives matter?

    If it's the first how is that inciting racial hatred?
    If it is me being against black lives matter you do realise that is like being against the junior doctors strike they are campaigning for something and I don't want segregation
    I agreed with your initial statement.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    I agreed with your initial statement.
    Sorry I thought you were saying I was being hypocritical.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Sorry I thought you were saying I was being hypocritical.
    Not at all!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Good luck convincing the legal system you can commit a hate crime against your own race. Seems highly improbable this will stick, though I'd throw them off campus for breaching its code of conduct in any case. Maybe try a public nuisance conviction (i think thats a thing in America). Apparently there are so few hate crimes in a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy they have to invent them though, so there's that.

    Matthew Jackson, a senior at the university, said whoever drew that image didn’t understand the severity of it, and the fact that people were actually lynched throughout history. And that’s an issue, he said.

    This annoys me, obviously they knew the significance - thats why they did it.

    subconscious oppression.”

    F**k off. Oppression isnt subconscious you hypersensitive weirdos.

    “After we’ve already been making these strides … to see something like this. … It goes to show that there’s still work to be done,” Jackson said earlier this month"

    Still turned it into a political football. A picture of a lynching drawn by black students to pretend a hate crime happened somehow proves we need to still do more for equality. Literally an exercise in ridiculousness.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Good luck convincing the legal system you can commit a hate crime against your own race. Seems highly improbable this will stick, though I'd throw them off campus for breaching its code of conduct in any case. Maybe try a public nuisance conviction (i think thats a thing in America). Apparently there are so few hate crimes in a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy they have to invent them though, so there's that.

    Matthew Jackson, a senior at the university, said whoever drew that image didn’t understand the severity of it, and the fact that people were actually lynched throughout history. And that’s an issue, he said.

    This annoys me, obviously they knew the significance - thats why they did it.

    subconscious oppression.”

    F**k off. Oppression isnt subconscious you hypersensitive weirdos.

    “After we’ve already been making these strides … to see something like this. … It goes to show that there’s still work to be done,” Jackson said earlier this month"

    Still turned it into a political football. A picture of a lynching drawn by black students to pretend a hate crime happened somehow proves we need to still do more for equality. Literally an exercise in ridiculousness.
    I'd give this case a go this wasn't trying to get people to hate black people this was intended to incite hate against white people, by saying white power they were intending to anger non-white people against them by showing how evil they are, I'm not sure about the USA but the law here would be s.18(1) of the public order act.

    A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

    From what I have read about this it was insulting, there have been a lot of similar cases which has increased tension which have been big news stories which I believe they have to of heard so they would fulfill a & b.

    It doesn't mention that the group you are intending to incite hatred of have to be the people insulted and the act mentions some defences against it and that is not mentioned so I would assume that isn't a defence, if it was that would lead to huge problems as it would include a loophole that would allow people to incite hatred.

    That's just my interpretation of it, does anyone know of any case similar to this going to court?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I'd give this case a go this wasn't trying to get people to hate black people this was intended to incite hate against white people, by saying white power they were intending to anger non-white people against them by showing how evil they are, I'm not sure about the USA but the law here would be s.18(1) of the public order act.

    A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

    From what I have read about this it was insulting, there have been a lot of similar cases which has increased tension which have been big news stories which I believe they have to of heard so they would fulfill a & b.

    It doesn't mention that the group you are intending to incite hatred of have to be the people insulted and the act mentions some defences against it and that is not mentioned so I would assume that isn't a defence, if it was that would lead to huge problems as it would include a loophole that would allow people to incite hatred.

    That's just my interpretation of it, does anyone know of any case similar to this going to court?
    You'd have a hard time showing a chain of causation and intent, particularly given that its been framed as a bad joke without understanding already. You would have to prove insulting which isnt guaranteed (though i agree that should be cut and dry), as threatening wont stick and nor will abusive according to common law definition (at least as far as i remember off the top of my head).

    (a) is impossible to show, the chance of courts indicting on intention to stir up hatred for ones own race or for another by victimising ones own race is nearly none as it is a hell of a dangerous precedent. A single wrong word, a poorly thought out sentence or even a badly applied legal principle and it'd set a horrible standard for cases to follow. Not to mention it would go through the entire court system to the supreme court costing thousands along the way. The chain of causation and mens rea are far too vague. In addition whilst you make a good point that you cannot exclude using your own race (i cant refute that), the presumption that normal sensible people would be raised to racial hatred by this is questionable.

    Im not convinced point (b) would hold either. In order for there to be likelihood it assumes (a) people in general are racist enough to blame an entire race for a whiteboard drawing and (b) that said drawing would inherently be attributed by race and that there is enough evidence to suggest the reasonable person would take this as reason to commit a racially aggravated crime or be dis-positioned to do so.
    Then again I'd have these sorts sectioned under the mental health act so what do i know =P

    I'd be interested to see the common law surrounding the issue though, i would look it up but atm i'm far too tired
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    You'd have a hard time showing a chain of causation and intent, particularly given that its been framed as a bad joke without understanding already. You would have to prove insulting which isnt guaranteed (though i agree that should be cut and dry), as threatening wont stick and nor will abusive according to common law definition (at least as far as i remember off the top of my head).

    (a) is impossible to show, the chance of courts indicting on intention to stir up hatred for ones own race or for another by victimising ones own race is nearly none as it is a hell of a dangerous precedent. A single wrong word, a poorly thought out sentence or even a badly applied legal principle and it'd set a horrible standard for cases to follow. Not to mention it would go through the entire court system to the supreme court costing thousands along the way. The chain of causation and mens rea are far too vague. In addition whilst you make a good point that you cannot exclude using your own race (i cant refute that), the presumption that normal sensible people would be raised to racial hatred by this is questionable.

    Im not convinced point (b) would hold either. In order for there to be likelihood it assumes (a) people in general are racist enough to blame an entire race for a whiteboard drawing and (b) that said drawing would inherently be attributed by race and that there is enough evidence to suggest the reasonable person would take this as reason to commit a racially aggravated crime or be dis-positioned to do so.
    Then again I'd have these sorts sectioned under the mental health act so what do i know =P

    I'd be interested to see the common law surrounding the issue though, i would look it up but atm i'm far too tired
    I think this would be a hard case to prosecute but somewhere along the line a case like this will eventually (if it hasn't already) go to court but both sides will have lawyers a lot better than me and it could go either way.

    I think that for a case like this the judgement would have to worded perfectly as a decision either way could set a really dangerous precedent.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I think this would be a hard case to prosecute but somewhere along the line a case like this will eventually (if it hasn't already) go to court but both sides will have lawyers a lot better than me and it could go either way.

    I think that for a case like this the judgement would have to worded perfectly as a decision either way could set a really dangerous precedent.
    Agreed, I personally would like to see these sorts of people face charges for trying to victimise themselves to push an agenda but my boring law degree faculties kicked in and pointed out lots of technicalities and ramifications beyond a few morons with a sharpie. Thats a pseudo apology for being intellectually pedantic =P
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    F**k off. Oppression isnt subconscious you hypersensitive weirdos.
    Relax mate. Just a discussion.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ODES_PDES)
    Relax mate. Just a discussion.
    Vitriol is a reasonable way to make a point =P, oppression is subconscious is a prima facie ridiculous statement and one I've heard so many times in certain intellectual circles i cant be bothered to refute it every time so just swear at it instead. Admittedly tonally inconsistent but you cant have it all
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Agreed, I personally would like to see these sorts of people face charges for trying to victimise themselves to push an agenda but my boring law degree faculties kicked in and pointed out lots of technicalities and ramifications beyond a few morons with a sharpie. Thats a pseudo apology for being intellectually pedantic =P
    I know what you mean this case would have huge ramifications either way it was decided and then we could get into the technicalities of the reasonable person in this case.

    Based on the evidence available I agree it would be unlikely a conviction would occur but it is possible with clearer information it could be possible to prosecute but still unlikely, it seems like this would be the type of case you would get in an exam
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I know what you mean this case would have huge ramifications either way it was decided and then we could get into the technicalities of the reasonable person in this case.

    Based on the evidence available I agree it would be unlikely a conviction would occur but it is possible with clearer information it could be possible to prosecute but still unlikely, it seems like this would be the type of case you would get in an exam
    Don't mention exams, I'm not sure I'm ready for mine =P

    It would be a really interesting case for sure if it did go to court.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.