Hate crime? Really?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

How odd. Are you saying we are actively trying to encourage crimes against people with disabilities by treating crimes against them the same as crimes against able bodied people?

No, I'm taking a swipe at the 'anti-activist' mentality displayed by yer man, where he clearly feels threatened by someone simply speaking out and suggesting that perhaps traditional ways aren't working for everyone.

Deleted User wrote: »

YOU are the one that is trying to denormalise people. I look as them as the same. If a black person got beaten up or abused for being black, if a ginger got beaten up or abused for being ginger, if I got beaten up or abused because someone just was being a dick, I would call for them all to get justice against the perpetrators of the crime.

I see people as equal and expect the law to see them as such. Anyone can be a victim of abuse and anyone can be intimidated. Some handicapped people are stronger mentally and physically than people who wouldn't fit into your group and would be appalled that they are grouped in one of your assigned categories.

You seem to be missing the point that you may need to treat people differently to create equal opportunities.

In this slightly simplistic example, if you can't take the fence down, you may need to treat people differently by giving them different sizes of boxes to ensure that everyone gets to see the match.


In this arena, as some people are more exposed to crime than others, and experience more crime than others, they need additional protection, above and beyond the rest of the population to ensure they get an equal opportunity to a normal, safe life.

Deleted User wrote: »

I see people as equal and expect the law to see them as such. Anyone can be a victim of abuse and anyone can be intimidated. Some handicapped people are stronger mentally and physically than people who wouldn't fit into your group and would be appalled that they are grouped in one of your assigned categories.

To be honest, I'd have thought they'd be more likely to be appalled by your use of the dated and offensive term 'handicapped'. The 1970s called - they want you back.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Having looked at all the issues regarding the use of the term 'hate crime', the term has now been appropriated over here for headlines by journalists (and others) like the one who wrote the Independent article the OP linked.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/sinead-burke-talks-about-the-hate-crime-that-led-to-her-new-campaign-in-dublin-schools-38007423.html[

Lots of words get appropriated over here for headlines - Murder, killer, paedo, swing - whatever. What's that got to do with the importance of hate crime legislation.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Without getting into intricacies of legal argument - what is clear is the proponents of hate crime legislation want to re-brand the following crimes as 'hate crimes' against particular groups in society - verbal abuse, obscene/offensive calls, text, mail or emails, assault, harassment, criminal damage, arson, manslaughter, murder.

That is factually untrue. You seem to have missed out the fundamental basis of the definition of hate crime, where the motivation of the attacker is central. Do you want me to post the link to the wikipedia definition again?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That part is beyond debate regardless of which side is on in the discussion.

Funnily enough, saying something that you've just made up is 'beyond debate' doesn't make it beyond debate.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

To be honest, I'd have thought they'd be more likely to be appalled by your use of the dated and offensive term 'handicapped'. The 1970s called - they want you back.

Oh FFS. Sorry. Is queer offensive when referring to certain gay people too? In that case you'd want to get onto the LGBTQ people to change their acronym. Calling someone handicapped is not offensive.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

In this arena, as some people are more exposed to crime than others, and experience more crime than others, they need additional protection, above and beyond the rest of the population to ensure they get an equal opportunity to a normal, safe life.

By calling something which is already punishable by law a "hate crime" you are doing nothing to give them additional protection. Why can't you see that? There are laws protecting *whatever the pc term is* people. Why is renaming it giving them "additional protection"?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh FFS. Sorry. Is queer offensive when referring to certain gay people too? In that case you'd want to get onto the LGBTQ people to change their acronym. Calling someone handicapped is not offensive.

Yes, it is offensive. The equivalent of 'queer' as used by some gay people or 'n-i-g-g-e-r' as used by some black people in the disability sector is 'crip'. Check out the US political campaign to 'crip the vote' or the campaign in the film industry to stop 'cripping up'. And of course, it's generally not OK to use those terms from outside the sector - to refer to someone as queer or n-i-g-g-e-r or crip, even where they use those terms for themselves.

The word handicap is not used by people with disabilities to describe themselves. I recall being corrected on this point around the late 80s by a parent of a child with a disability. it is on every list of terms not to use in the disability sector;


http://nda.ie/Publications/Attitudes/Appropriate-Terms-to-Use-about-Disability/


https://www.ihrec.ie/app/uploads/download/pdf/community_pharmacies_serving_people_with_disabilities.pdf


https://www.inclusionireland.ie/sites/default/files/attach/basic-page/1651/inclusion-ireland-submission-policing-authority-2018-policing-priorities.pdf


https://www.sinnfein.ie/ga/contents/34275


It is used in the US, particularly around facilities like parking, and the translations of handicap are used in some European countries. But it is not used in Ireland or UK.

Deleted User wrote: »

By calling something which is already punishable by law a "hate crime" you are doing nothing to give them additional protection. Why can't you see that? There are laws protecting *whatever the pc term is* people. Why is renaming it giving them "additional protection"?

You're calling - calling something a hate crime does nothing. it's not about calling something a hate crime - it is about how those crimes are treated differently, either in how they are investigated, or how they are prosecuted or how they are punished. Different treatment to produce fair outcomes - to rebalance the imbalance that currently exists for many vulnerable people.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

You're calling - calling something a hate crime does nothing. it's not about calling something a hate crime - it is about how those crimes are treated differently, either in how they are investigated, or how they are prosecuted or how they are punished. Different treatment to produce fair outcomes - to rebalance the imbalance that currently exists for many vulnerable people.

You want harsher penalties for what you perceive as hate crimes against people who you deem to need protection than the same crime carried out against what you deem to be people who don't need protection?

Can you not see the problem there?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Yes, it is offensive. The equivalent of 'queer' as used by some gay people or 'n-i-g-g-e-r' as used by some black people in the disability sector is 'crip'. Check out the US political campaign to 'crip the vote' or the campaign in the film industry to stop 'cripping up'. And of course, it's generally not OK to use those terms from outside the sector - to refer to someone as queer or n-i-g-g-e-r or crip, even where they use those terms for themselves.

Nah. I disagree that if a word is in common usage by that group, it becomes fair game. You cant make up rules that people can only say certain words because of their skin colour or sexual orientation.

Imagine I said that black people can't use a certain word. It's only for whites. Or gay can't use a certain word because it's only for straight people. Bollocks to that. Why does it instantly become offensive when I say it? All depends on the context as with any word.

Handicapped is not offensive and I'm ****ed if I'm going to keep up with every new phrase that people want. Disabled is allowed now, give it a month and that will be gone to. Differently abled will be the "correct" phrase. Again, it's context and intent which is important.

batgoat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You want harsher penalties for what you perceive as hate crimes against people who you deem to need protection than the same crime carried out against what you deem to be people who don't need protection?

Can you not see the problem there?

Most countries have some form of hate crime legislation. It's more a matter of time before we legislate more heavily against it and there is party support for it. The reason for hate crime laws coming into existence also tends to be the fact that the prejudice tended to be the primary motivating factor behind the crime.

So you want crimes against straight people punished more severely than crimes against gay people?

If I for example, assaulted someone who I didn't know was gay, how could I prove it wasn't a hate crime? Should I have to prove it? Should I get a harsher sentence than if I assaulted a straight man?

What is to stop people lying about being gay in order to get people longer sentence harsher punishments?

This is why we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.

stefanovich

Deleted User wrote: »

So you want crimes against straight people punished more severely than crimes against gay people?

If I for example, assaulted someone who I didn't know was gay, how could I prove it wasn't a hate crime? Should I have to prove it? Should I get a harsher sentence than if I assaulted a straight man?

What is to stop people lying about being gay in order to get people longer sentence harsher punishments?

This is why we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.

I suppose if it was a provable aggravating factor it should be taken into account but I think that is already the case now anyway. No need for further legislation.

batgoat

stefanovich wrote: »

I suppose if it was a provable aggravating factor it should be taken into account but I think that is already the case now anyway. No need for further legislation.

Eh the Gardai dispute the legislation being adequate...

stefanovich

batgoat wrote: »

Eh the Gardai dispute the legislation being adequate...

Then they need to actually prove things, which is what they don't like to do. Work.

batgoat

stefanovich wrote: »

Then they need to actually prove things, which is what they don't like to do. Work.

It's well documented and has been highlighted by numerous groups as an issue..
https://www.thejournal.ie/hate-crime-4105605-Jul2018/

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

So you want crimes against straight people punished more severely than crimes against gay people?

If I for example, assaulted someone who I didn't know was gay, how could I prove it wasn't a hate crime? Should I have to prove it? Should I get a harsher sentence than if I assaulted a straight man?

What is to stop people lying about being gay in order to get people longer sentence harsher punishments?

This is why we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.

What I want is for people not to beaten up or abused because of their disability, or their sexuality, or the race more than their peers.



Hate crime legislation is one step on to achieve this. And no, it doesn't mean that crimes against gay people are punished more severely than crimes against straight people. Don't make my point to the Wiki definition. It means that crimes against gay people that are motivated because they are gay are punished more severely or otherwise treated differently. Many other countries in the world manage to do this, and to deal with the fairly silly 'what if' scenarios that you're coming up with as you clutch at straws.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah. I disagree that if a word is in common usage by that group, it becomes fair game. You cant make up rules that people can only say certain words because of their skin colour or sexual orientation.

Imagine I said that black people can't use a certain word. It's only for whites. Or gay can't use a certain word because it's only for straight people. Bollocks to that. Why does it instantly become offensive when I say it? All depends on the context as with any word.

So just to be clear, do you call many black people 'hey n-i-g-g-e-r' these days, given that you know that term is in regular use among and between black people? Do you call many gay people 'hey queer' given that you know that term is in use among and between gay people?

Deleted User wrote: »

Handicapped is not offensive and I'm ****ed if I'm going to keep up with every new phrase that people want. Disabled is allowed now, give it a month and that will be gone to. Differently abled will be the "correct" phrase. Again, it's context and intent which is important.

Yeah, this isn't something that changes by the month - more by the decade in this particular case. Handicap has been offensive in Ireland for decades now, as you would know if you listened to many people with disabilities. And no, 'differently abled' has never been recommended or requested by Irish disability organisations that I've come across, so you're unlikely to be faced with that huge challenge next month. It's a strawman.

Deleted User wrote: »

You want harsher penalties for what you perceive as hate crimes against people who you deem to need protection than the same crime carried out against what you deem to be people who don't need protection?

I want people to NOT be beaten up or abused because of their disability or their race or their gender or their sexual preferences. Hate crime legislation is one way of achieving this goal that has worked in many other countries. It's not down to 'my perception', it is down to a Court, just like any other crime.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Hate crime legislation is one step on to achieve this. And no, it doesn't mean that crimes against gay people are punished more severely than crimes against straight people. Don't make my point to the Wiki definition. It means that crimes against gay people that are motivated because they are gay are punished more severely or otherwise treated differently. Many other countries in the world manage to do this, and to deal with the fairly silly 'what if' scenarios that you're coming up with as you clutch at straws.

It's impossible to prove in the majority of cases. For example, the leapfrogging incident was more an incident of opportunity rather than one born of hatred.

And my 'what ifs' aren't silly. They are decent points. If hate crime is treated more seriously than regular crime, it would be very troublesome.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

So just to be clear, do you call many black people 'hey n-i-g-g-e-r' these days, given that you know that term is in regular use among and between black people? Do you call many gay people 'hey queer' given that you know that term is in use among and between gay people?

Funnily enough I do. I don't do it to strangers but in my day to day encounters with colleagues and friends, some I do call the "despicable n word" and there are more than a few I call queer. I wouldn't say it to a stranger, in much the same way I wouldn't call a stranger a c*nt or a tosser but would have no problem saying it to someone who knew me and knew what way it was intended.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Yeah, this isn't something that changes by the month - more by the decade in this particular case. Handicap has been offensive in Ireland for decades now, as you would know if you listened to many people with disabilities. And no, 'differently abled' has never been recommended or requested by Irish disability organisations that I've come across, so you're unlikely to be faced with that huge challenge next month. It's a strawman.

No strawman there. I'm just saying that just because someone or some group is offended by a word, it doesn't make the word necessarily offensive. No word is offensive unless used in an offensive context.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I want people to NOT be beaten up or abused because of their disability or their race or their gender or their sexual preferences. Hate crime legislation is one way of achieving this goal that has worked in many other countries. It's not down to 'my perception', it is down to a Court, just like any other crime.

No it isn't.

I want people not to be raped. Therefore we need legislation put in place to stop that happening and punish people who do it.

Oh wait we do?

And it still happens?

Well then, I guess some people will be rapists, some people will be racist and some people will be homophobic. We have legislation to punish people who commit these crimes. We don't need another label.

stefanovich

batgoat wrote: »

It's well documented and has been highlighted by numerous groups as an issue..
https://www.thejournal.ie/hate-crime-4105605-Jul2018/

The Irish Council of Civil Liberties is nothing but a leftwing propaganda machine.

batgoat

stefanovich wrote: »

The Irish Council of Civil Liberties is nothing but a leftwing propaganda machine.

Sure thing, the CSO has said similar... Based on your post history, you're just okay with hate crime..

Franz Von Peppercorn II

One of the interesting things about debates about hate crime vs crime is this: by adding hate to the crime the normal defenders or excusers of crime reverse their position, as do the lock them up brigade - who become very worried about civil liberties.

If we did police physical hate crimes we’d be locking up a lot of the same people the “lock em up” brigade want in prison anyway. Anto with the 250 convictions.

stefanovich

batgoat wrote: »

Sure thing, the CSO has said similar... Based on your post history, you're just okay with hate crime..

Please don't misrepresent me.

I think someone being attacked because of something outside of their control like skin colour or gender or disability is unforgivable and should certainly be considered an aggravating factor.

What I am highly suspicious of is the push for hate crime legislation. It goes back to identity politics where you categorise some group as special in some way and then use them as a fulcrum for pushing a leftwing agenda. In this case restriction of free speech.

batgoat

stefanovich wrote: »

Please don't misrepresent me.

I think someone being attacked because of something outside of their control like skin colour or gender or disability is unforgivable and should certainly be considered an aggravating factor.

What I am highly suspicious of is the push for hate crime legislation. It goes back to identity politics where you categorise some group as special in some way and then use them as a fulcrum for pushing a leftwing agenda. In this case restriction of free speech.

Thing is, there are limits to freedom of speech in most countries.in addition, the lack of legislation relates to all types of hate crimes. Hence numerous groups highlighting it.

stefanovich

batgoat wrote: »

Thing is, there are limits to freedom of speech in most countries.in addition, the lack of legislation relates to all types of hate crimes. Hence numerous groups highlighting it.

Numerous groups with suspect agendas.

gmisk

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you want crimes against straight people punished more severely than crimes against gay people?

If I for example, assaulted someone who I didn't know was gay, how could I prove it wasn't a hate crime? Should I have to prove it? Should I get a harsher sentence than if I assaulted a straight man?

What is to stop people lying about being gay in order to get people longer sentence harsher punishments?

This is why we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.

You honestly think people would lie about being gay in some bizarre attempt to prove a hate crime? Come on now.

I would think in most cases it would be obvious the attacker has assumed the person being attacked is gay, it is likely they would be using homophobic slurs. Unfortunately I am someone who has experience with this kind of incident. If someone calls you a f#ggot and then slashes your face with a Stanley knife would you classify that as a hate crime? Or a homophobic attack? Or neither?

stefanovich

gmisk wrote: »

You honestly think people would lie about being gay in some bizarre attempt to prove a hate crime? Come on now.

I would think in most cases it would be obvious the attacker has assumed the person being attacked is gay, it is likely they would be using homophobic slurs. Unfortunately I am someone who has experience with this kind of incident. If someone calls you a f#ggot and then slashes your face with a Stanley knife would you classify that as a hate crime? Or a homophobic attack? Or neither?

What if the person just attacks you with no knowledge of your sexuality? Should the onus be on the garda to prove the crime was a crime of prejudice or should that be assumed unless proven otherwise?

stefanovich

What if someone calls you a <derogatory term> and attacks you but you are not gay? Is it still a hate crime?

AndrewJRenko

stefanovich wrote: »

What if the person just attacks you with no knowledge of your sexuality? Should the onus be on the garda to prove the crime was a crime of prejudice or should that be assumed unless proven otherwise?

How do other countries with hate crime legislation manage this particular quandary?

AndrewJRenko

stefanovich wrote: »

What if someone calls you a <derogatory term> and attacks you but you are not gay? Is it still a hate crime?

How do other countries with hate crime legislation manage this particular quandary?

AndrewJRenko

stefanovich wrote: »

Numerous groups with suspect agendas.

Yes, all those dreadful agendas looking for people with disabilities, people of different races and sexual preferences to not get the crap kicked out of them because of who they are.

stefanovich

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, all those dreadful agendas looking for people with disabilities, people of different races and sexual preferences to not get the crap kicked out of them because of who they are.

Irish Council of Civil Liberties website. Typical anti-trump nonsense funded by Soros.

AndrewJRenko

stefanovich wrote: »

Irish Council of Civil Liberties website. Typical anti-trump nonsense funded by Soros.

You should tell Gemma so she can do a livestream about it. What's that got to do with hate crime?

stefanovich

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You should tell Gemma so she can do a livestream about it. What's that got to do with hate crime?

You referenced them as a group who wants more hate crime legislation. The fact that it is a Soros funded organisation just proves my ulterior motive suspicions.

AndrewJRenko

stefanovich wrote: »

You referenced them as a group who wants more hate crime legislation. The fact that it is a Soros funded organisation just proves my ulterior motive suspicions.

The only thing it proves is your own personal inability to distinguish the message from the messenger.

stefanovich

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The only thing it proves is your own personal inability to distinguish the message from the messenger.

It proves that your sources are unreliable and not to be trusted.

gmisk

stefanovich wrote: »

What if the person just attacks you with no knowledge of your sexuality? Should the onus be on the garda to prove the crime was a crime of prejudice or should that be assumed unless proven otherwise?

If the person calls you a f#ggot they have that "knowledge".
If there is no indication the person was attacked for being gay, it is still an attack but no I wouldn't classify it as a hate crime

Roger Hassenforder

If i call a gay guy 'fâggôt' and he punches me in the nose, is that a hate crime?

i hate ye all

is that a crime

gmisk

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If i call a gay guy 'fâggôt' and he punches me in the nose, is that a hate crime?

I have no idea but you would deserve the punch

AndrewJRenko

stefanovich wrote: »

It proves that your sources are unreliable and not to be trusted.

Sure thing - and same for all the legislators in all the governments round the world that have brought in hate crime legislation - are they all unreliable and funded by Soros too?

stefanovich

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sure thing - and same for all the legislators in all the governments round the world that have brought in hate crime legislation - are they all unreliable and funded by Soros too?

Look, that wasn't a wild claim.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/soros-gave-50-000-to-civil-liberties-chief-59vwccvqg

AndrewJRenko

stefanovich wrote: »

Look, that wasn't a wild claim.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/soros-gave-50-000-to-civil-liberties-chief-59vwccvqg

Are you avoiding the question about all the legislators in all the governments round the world that have brought in hate crime legislation - are they all unreliable and funded by Soros too?

Roger Hassenforder

gmisk wrote: »

I have no idea but you would deserve the punch

A punch...for calling someone a bunch of sticks?



But would it be a hate crime?

AndrewJRenko

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

A punch...for calling someone a bunch of sticks?

Do you think that this is in some way clever, to make little of the reality of homophobic abuse for gay people ?

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

?



But would it be a hate crime?

Why don't you go and apply it to the definition of hate crime and see how you get on?

Das Reich

Don't know where to post this, it would be considered hate crime? And what could be done against the parents of this children? They failed on educating them:

https://m.facebook.com/groups/760782890634296?view=permalink&id=2255886441123926&anchor_composer=false

gmisk

gmisk wrote:

I would think in most cases it would be obvious the attacker has assumed the person being attacked is gay, it is likely they would be using homophobic slurs. Unfortunately I am someone who has experience with this kind of incident. If someone calls you a f#ggot and then slashes your face with a Stanley knife would you classify that as a hate crime? Or a homophobic attack? Or neither?

What if someone called someone a fat prick and slashes him with a Stanley knife? Is that a hate crime?

Roger Hassenforder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think that this is in some way clever, to make little of the reality of homophobic abuse for gay people ?

Why don't you go and apply it to the definition of hate crime and see how you get on?

Would it be a hate crime or not?
Simple question.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

What if someone called someone a fat prick and slashes him with a Stanley knife? Is that a hate crime?

Do I need to post the link to the Wiki definition again? Maybe instead of repeatedly coming up with these scenarios, you could just apply the definition as a first step and see how that works out?

Deleted User wrote: »

It's impossible to prove in the majority of cases. For example, the leapfrogging incident was more an incident of opportunity rather than one born of hatred.

At risk of repetition, hate crime does not necessarily have to be 'one born of hatred' as the various definitions that have been posted make clear. And again at risk of repetition, the many other countries worldwide that have hate crime legislation don't seem to find things to be 'impossible to prove in the majority of cases'.

Deleted User wrote: »

And my 'what ifs' aren't silly. They are decent points.

They are fairly silly if you present them as huge barriers to hate crime legislation without checking how the many other countries with hate crime legislation manage these issues routinely.

Deleted User wrote: »

And my 'what ifs' aren't silly. They are decent points. If hate crime is treated more seriously than regular crime, it would be very troublesome.

So you recognise the imbalance, that some people are more frequently victims of these crimes or more vulnerable to the impacts of these crimes, but you refuse any simple manage to readdress this balance because: 'equality' - is that it?

Deleted User wrote: »

Funnily enough I do. I don't do it to strangers but in my day to day encounters with colleagues and friends, some I do call the "despicable n word" and there are more than a few I call queer. I wouldn't say it to a stranger, in much the same way I wouldn't call a stranger a c*nt or a tosser but would have no problem saying it to someone who knew me and knew what way it was intended.

Yeah, that's a fair point. In these cases, it's almost as if you're an 'honorary member' of the community in question and respected enough to be able to use their own internal term of abuse.

Deleted User wrote: »

No strawman there. I'm just saying that just because someone or some group is offended by a word, it doesn't make the word necessarily offensive. No word is offensive unless used in an offensive context.

Isn't that the definition of 'offensive' ; "Causing someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed" - if it causes offence, it is, by definition, offensive. Why would someone explicitly choose to use a word that they know will cause offence to some people when other alternatives are easily available?

Deleted User wrote: »

No it isn't.

I want people not to be raped. Therefore we need legislation put in place to stop that happening and punish people who do it.

Oh wait we do?

And it still happens?

Well then, I guess some people will be rapists, some people will be racist and some people will be homophobic. We have legislation to punish people who commit these crimes. We don't need another label.

The label is neither the problem nor the solution. It is one step along the road to rebalancing, so that people who are more frequent victims or more vulnerable to the impacts of crime come out the other end the same as their peers. What's not to like?

AndrewJRenko

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Would it be a hate crime or not?
Simple question.

Why don't you check the Wiki definition and work it out for yourself?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Do I need to post the link to the Wiki definition again? Maybe instead of repeatedly coming up with these scenarios, you could just apply the definition as a first step and see how that works out?

So yes. Calling someone fat is a hate crime?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Why don't you check the Wiki definition and work it out for yourself?

Examples of such groups can include, and are almost exclusively limited to: sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.[2][3][4] 

Hego Damask

I guess it would be a hate crime if the punched person was someone in the various victim classes that these nut jobs have dreamed up.

What if a dwarf with learning disabilities screamed "******" in a gay guys face, and then the gay guy battered the dwarf!!!

Now that's 2 "hate" crimes - so maybe they cancel each other out ?

Hego Damask

Deleted User wrote: »

Examples of such groups can include, and are almost exclusively limited to: sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.[2][3][4] 

So, if someone called me a straight white asshole that would be a hate crime too ... got it!

AndrewJRenko

Hego Damask wrote: »

Now that's 2 "hate" crimes - so maybe they cancel each other out ?

Because that's how crimes usually work - A stabs B and B shoots A - so the crimes cancel each other out?