Big Brother Active In UK

Anglican Mainstream has a slightly different story with more details. Including this:

“As a local authority we have a duty along with other public bodies to eliminate discrimination of all kinds,” she wrote.
“A hate incident is any incident that is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hatred. A hate crime is any hate incident that constitutes a criminal offence.

Note the definition of a “hate incident” - according to the letter she recieved, it depends solely on the subjective opinion of the “victim” or anybody else. And people wonder why some of worry about “hate crimes” legislation? There is no way to prove the motivation and no way to defend against a subjective judgement.

What if I feel a gay person says something about me being a conservative Christian that I consider to be hatred? Where does this “thought police” theory end?

We’re always told that raising the possibility of this kind of government action is a scare tactic.  Of course, it isn’t.  The British are human beings just like Americans, and we will subjugate Christian belief just as they’re beginning to do once we travel a little further down the road and there’s enough critical mass among the Beautiful People that they no longer need to tolerate us to get elected, buy their products and/or naively fund their vanity pressure groups.

I read the story on Anglican Mainstream before coming here, and was struck by the same quote as #1. Note that it’s not your motivations but the perception of the motivations that matters. Were I to do something similar to this lady, my motivation would not be hate but love to the people on the gay pride march: a belief that what they were celebrating is harmful for their body, mind, soul and the culture around them; and by warning them trying to prevent that harm coming to them. I cannot comment on this particular case, of course, not knowing any of the details, but this is worrying. Any act of moral charity can be perceived as hatred to the world; indeed, in some situations, I do not believe that charity is possible without hatred of all the wrong affecting the object of charity (c.f. Isaiah 61:8, for example). Yet for those clinging to the wrong, that act of charity will be perceived as an act of hatred. As Christians, we are called to act in love in all things (1st Corinthians 16:14, for example). This is a little worrying.

Of course, the people who accosted her on the march may well be perceived to have been motivated by hatred of Christianity, but I doubt that any police will visit them on account of that.

Were I to do something similar to this lady, my motivation would not be hate but love to the people on the gay pride march: a belief that what they were celebrating is harmful for their body, mind, soul and the culture around them; and by warning them trying to prevent that harm coming to them.

But BB, they do not understand that motivation, and therefore they interpret what they THOUGHT you meant by what THEY would have meant if that had SAID it!  It’s a squirrel’s cage!  And it’s coming here to the US, too!  Just as fast as the liberal can get it into law!  Common sense has been killed with political correctness!

#2 - “What if I feel a gay person says something about me being a conservative Christian that I consider to be hatred? Where does this “thought police” theory end?”

It ends right there - your concerns don’t matter. There is no principle involved here beyond whatever club is most convenient at the moment to bash us with. They hate you and every other Christian - they hate Christ, period -  and “hate speech” laws are merely another weapon in the arsenal they deploy against the Faithful. Don’t think you can avail yourself of similar “protections.” Hate Speech laws were never considered to protect people against “hate” per se to classify opposing beliefs as hate and thus beyond the pale of society, cloaking the intention in the language of general principle to deceive the people. Every leftist understands this.

Can’t wait for Fr. Jake to call for my extermination. I have the police on speed dial.
Intercessor

Ya know what?  This just tears it!!  Its time for the faithful to don the sackcloth & ashes, Declare a season of prayer & fasting and pray the Almighty down upon the principalties and powers behind the bondage of sodomy and other abberant/deviant sexual behaviors.  Enough is enough saints.  We’ve stood by politely wringing our handsand donning the everpresent Anglican still upper lip as a micro-minority has drug a bastion of God’s one holy catholic and apostolic Church through the slime, and gave the blasphemers yet another point in which to mock the name of the Most High. 
Friends, I’m usually given to longsuffering and patience but enoough is enough.

The liberals have gotten it into law, Goughdonna.  It passed a few days ago.  They tucked it into the military appropriations bill.  An amendment to separate it out was introduced, but voted down on a party-line vote.  Saying something considered bad about GLBT people is now officially a hate crime in the USA.

#9 - Warren M:  I know!  And I have just sent a blistering letter to both senators and my congressman about it!  Not that it will do any good.  But no one currently serving who voted for that will ever get my vote for DOG-CATCHER again!  One doesn’t care; he’s about to retire.

I suspect I’ll get a caning over this, but it’s got to be said. Warren M (#9) is dead wrong about what the hate crimes legislation does.

It does not make saying bad things about gays (or anyone else) a crime. What it does is allow for an increase in the penalties that may be imposed for a crime for which a person has been found guilty, based on the motivation for the crime.

The act as passed contains the following with regard to speech:

  (3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS.—Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

  (4) FREE EXPRESSION.—Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

Please understand, everyone. I’m not applauding this. I think hate crimes legislation is unnecessary, and draws distinctions between kinds of victims of crimes that should not be drawn, and that are perhaps unconstitutional. I also don’t doubt that it could—could—lead to criminalizing “hate” speech as it has in places like Sweden. My only point is that this legislation doesn’t do that, and we run the risk of not being taking seriously the next time around if we mischaracterize this as doing something it doesn’t. Oppose it for what it is, not for what it isn’t.

As for the actual subject of Jackie’s post—well, it’s past time to stick a fork in the UK, isn’t it?

David, with respect how do you prove “motive”?  In part you record what someone says, reads, writes etc.  In effect you have criminalized what one says about gays regardless of the provisions you cite.  In the event of an actual prosecution I expect that these “protections” will be a nullity.

subscribe

Br. Michael: I think you’ve missed the fact that there must be a prosecution of an underlying crime of violence (the Act specifies the “bodily harm” must be involved) before a person words are considered. No one can be prosecuted under this legislation just for speaking, unless they are engaged in a conspiracy to commit a violent crime.

David, in order to get the enhanced penalties you will have to prove motive and how do you do that?  Just as I have mentioned.  This creates a situation where the same act can have different penalties depending on what you read, write or say.  This completely trashes the concept that we punish acts and don’t care what the motive is.

You also overlook the fact that someone who does not act can be prosecuted for inciting another to act.  That is where the preacher is prosecuted for “inciting” another to act.

Br. Michael: First, convicting a person of a crime generally involves some exploration of motive, so bringing that in is hardly novel. The place where it now comes is is in sentencing. Again, I object strenuously to that, and part of the reason is exactly as you say, that it punishes people for what they think as well as what they do, but it is far different from prosecuting a person simply for speaking without there being an attendant crime. Second, incitement is a specifically defined legal term, proof of which involves more requirements than simply quoting an opinion or speech. Among other things, direction to action is necessary. Telling one’s audience that they should agree with the Bible that homosexuality is wrong is not incitement. Telling people that they should beat up or kill gays is.

I should have said, “the place where the Act will now have it come in is sentencing, in addition to proving guilt.”

Let’s see David Fischler’s critics substantiate their statements from the text of the bill and the statutes it amends. Not wingnut make-believe, but the text of the law. For example, can you be convicted just for “saying something considered bad about GLBT people,” as Warren M. and Goughdonna assert [#9-10]?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This creates a situation where the same act can have different penalties depending on what you read, write or say.  This completely trashes the concept that we punish acts and don’t care what the motive is.

The intention with which you commit an act has always had huge consequences under our legal system. The same physical act can be murder or self-defense: the difference turns on your intention and the surrounding circumstances.

In the words of Roman law, “the act does not make you guilty unless your mind is also guilty.”

We don’t care about motive in the case of infractions like speeding, illegal lefts turns, and building code violations. But major crimes require criminal intent.

PS to #19: I’m not endorsing the legislation. I do object to false statements about it. Apart from the issue of intent, comment #9 looks rather like a violation of Exodus 20:16.

Not “critics,” Irenaeus. Just vigorous interlocuters.

Fair enough, David [#21]. I hope the interlocutors think about your answers.

Someone who does not act can be prosecuted for inciting another to act.  That is where the preacher is prosecuted for “inciting” another to act.—#16

Under the leading Supreme Court decision, you cannot be punished for mere speech—not even for advocating mass murder—unless two conditions are satisfied. First, you must have intended to incite imminent lawless action. Second, your speech must have been likely to incite imminent lawless action. Anything less than that is protected by the First Amendment.

The US law is just the first step in the same process that led to the crushing of free speech in Canada and the UK.  Whatever “protections” it offers US Christians now will eventually disappear.  Read Canadian writer Mark Steyn’s column on the subject:

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080117_24131_24131&page=2

Money quote:

In a free society, justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. And when you see what’s being done at the CHRC it’s hard not to conclude that the genius of the English legal system — the balance between prosecutor, judge, and jury — has been all but destroyed. The American website Pundita has a sharp analysis of Section XIII, comparing it to Philip K. Dick’s sci-fi novel The Minority Report, set in a world in which citizens can be sentenced for “pre-crime” — for criminal acts which have not occurred but are “likely” to. Who needs futuristic novels when we’re living it here and now in one of the oldest constitutional democracies on the planet?

David Fischler and Irenaeous:  Thanks for your comments; it helps to lower the decibel level and calm down the hyperbole.

I think that the concept of “hate” crimes is philosophically, rationally, morally and constitutionally faulted.  The very idea that one can be more culpable for killing someone one hates than someone one loves is morally outrageous, in my view.  How can it be a greater crime to deliberately kill someone is a fit of hatred, without regard to the origins of the hatred, than to calmly and deliberately kill one’s spouse?  Willful, premeditated murder is punishable, at the discretion of the judge or jury, in some states by execution and in most by incarceration for life, with lesser sentences possible in most states; how does adding hate to the motive improve the system?  Motive and aggravated circumstances have been taken into account for centuries in sentencing in English Common Law, The Napoleonic Code and U. S. Law.

Inflaming emotions by stating, out of ignorance, that it contains provisions it does not contain is not helpful.  It is quite bad enough as it actually is.

Ol’ Bob: I agree.

St. Anon: It absolutely could be. That’s why the law as passed shouldn’t have been, and should be repealed or overturned as soon as possible. And in the meantime, eternal vigilance to make sure it isn’t twisted into something it’s not, and that Congress goes no further.

#25: Trust me, it will not stay “as is”.  Until the left-wing activists can control your thoughts completely, they will not rest.  Look at the UK and Canada if you don’t believe me.

Sure, Warren’s warning (#9) is not accurate for the moment, but if people in the US don’t start to resist thought-crime legislation now, it will be true in the not-s-distant-future.

not-so-distant-future.

Criminal intent is not the same thing as motive.  Intent is related to doing the act.  Motive supplys the why.  I have the intent to beat you about the head and shoulders.  I do so and you are harmed.  That is a battery.  Why I did it is irrelevant.  You don’t care why I did it and up to now the criminal law didn’t either.

With this legislation the “why’ becomes a factor.  In the Third Reich the penalties for assaulting Jews were lighter.  Why?  Because the society approved of the motive (reason).  This is what I see is the danger.  The state can make the penalties for a criminal act harsher or lighter depending on whether the state approves of the reason (motive) for the act (the intent to do the act remains the same).

I view this as a major change in our way of prosecuting criminal acts and I don’t like it.  I think you liberals will come to regret this change.

I beat up and killed the little old lady and took her money (intent), in order (motive) to get money to save the life of mu starving wife and daughter.  My motive was good and honorable and I should get a lighter sentence (or no sentence at all).

I thought all crimes agains someone was a hate crime.  It shows hatred for the individual and God to reach out and harm someone.  Why not just double the penalty for all crimes?

Sermons by Rev. Peter Howe.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&Keyword=Rev^Peter^Howe

Br. Michael (#29),

You wrote: 

I beat up and killed the little old lady and took her money (intent), in order (motive) to get money to save the life of mu starving wife and daughter.  My motive was good and honorable and I should get a lighter sentence (or no sentence at all).

My brother, I think you have motive and intent and their relationship confused.  My take on the motive in your hypothetical is to take resources illegally and immorally obtained to save the life of your starving wife and daughter.  They immoral and illegal obtaining of the resources and their noble application are inextricable and inseparable, in my view.

David Fischler,

Thanks for the correction.  I apologize for my error about this particular legislation.  I agree with you about not mischaracterizing things.  I should take the time to look into things before I spout off.

Warren

O/Bob.  No, criminal intent has a specific meaning.  It is the intent to do the act.  It is also called mens rea. 

If I have the requisite intent to kill the little old lady (that is I form the intent to sneek into her house at night to strangle her in her sleep), for the purposes of the criminal law the motive is (or was) irrelevant.  The traditional law only cares that I form the intent to kill.  Motive goes to why I formed that intent.  And motive, until now, has not been a element in a crime.  Let’s try this:

An idea, belief, or emotion that impels a person to act in accordance with that state of mind.

Motive is usually used in connection with Criminal Law to explain why a person acted or refused to act in a certain way—for example, to support the prosecution’s assertion that the accused committed the crime. If a person accused of murder was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the deceased, the prosecution might argue that greed was the motive for the killing.

Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime. However, a defendant’s motive is important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing. Law enforcement personnel often consider potential motives in detecting perpetrators. Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant’s motives were honorable—for example, if the accused acted in defense of a family member.

In criminal law, motive is distinct from intent. Criminal intent refers to the mental state of mind possessed by a defendant in committing a crime. With few exceptions the prosecution in a criminal case must prove that the defendant intended to commit the illegal act. The prosecution need not prove the defendant’s motive. Nevertheless, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike may make an issue of motive in connection with the case.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Motive

My objection to the hate crime legislation is that it makes motive an element of the crime.  I don’t mind if motive is taken into account in sentencing.

Just to muddy the waters I found the following law review articles:
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+1143
and
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/bclrarticles/6/1/binder.pdf

Br. Michael (#34),

No offense intended, but your last comment sounds like a lawyer sharing legal professional expertise with the readers of this thread, citing law review articles, etc.  If that is the case, I receive your expert opinion as just that.  If you are not, I suggest that you may want to rethink offering lay interpretation of technical legal issues to our fellow readers.

Please clarify your legal credentials so that I, and other readers, can receive your comments in proper perspective.

(Having made this request of you, I will provide the same.  I am not a lawyer; I am a near 80 year old “retired” corporate executive and for the past 20 years a business financial consultant and investment banker. My comments were not offered as legal advice or professional interpretation.  I did matriculate at a major university school of law but withdrew for financial reasons one semester short of graduation.  I intended to work a year and go back and get a degree; it has been a long year.)

Ol’Bob I am a lawyer and I am a member of the Florida Bar.

Sorry, but hating Christians is not a crime. Christians are not a protected group. In order for a crime to be a “hate crime,” the “victim” must be a member of a specified protected group, such as, at least now, a self-identified GLBT person.

This is step one to legistlating political correctness, just like in the UK and Canada.  Why else would they bother passing it?  Seriously.

In my opinion it will be interpreted and applied very liberally if the Democrats remain in power.

Nice of them to sneak it into a bill…but that’s how these things happen.  They wouldn’t dare try to pass it in the light…must be done in the darkness.

“Hate Crime” legislation has existed at the federal level in the United States since at least 1969; the current bill is not the first, it is just the latest.

A 1994 federal law defines a “hate crime” as “a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.”

The current legislation appears to me to expand the sexual orientation definition to include gender identity.  That is bad enough, but it does little more than that, in my view, which is based primarily on data available in the media, including the internet.

The following is a quote from http://www.religioustolerance.org: “If a person delivers a hate speech or composes a hate essay denigrating all Jews, or African-Americans, or gays, then this would not be considered a hate crime anywhere in the United States, because no criminal act has occurred. Hate speech itself is protected under the First Amendment.”

The UK and Canada have frightening laws restricting “hate speech”; the story Jackie posted is an example of the extreme to which the UK has gone.  We, the U. S., may be headed there, but we are not there yet.  Much of our legal heritage comes from England; let’s fight to prevent this from doing so.

Criminal intent is not the same thing as motive. ... Why I did it is irrelevant. You don’t care why I did it and up to now the criminal law didn’t either. With this legislation the “why’ becomes a factor.—Br. Michael [#29]

On the contrary, motive is already an element of some crimes. Here are four examples from federal civil rights laws:

You commit a crime if you deprive someone of his civil rights “by reason of [i.e., because of] his color, or race.” 18 U.S.C. § 242. The crime turns on motive.

The new law uses very similar language. You commit a crime if you willfully injure or attempt to injure someone:
—“because of [that person’s] actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin”; or
—“because of [that person’s] actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” 18 U.S.C. § 249(a).
_ _ _ _ _

You commit a crime if you use force or the threat of force to willfully intimidate anyone “because of his race, color, religion or national origin” from applying for a job, enrolling in college, traveling interstate, or serving as a juror. 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2). The crime turns on motive.
_ _ _ _ _

You commit a crime if you intentionally deface, damage, or destroy “any religious real property, because of the religious character of that property.” 18 U.S.C. § 247. The crime turns on motive.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Nor should we forget about theater-owners discriminating against uniformed military personnel “because of that uniform.” 18 U.S.C. § 244. The crime turns on motive.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Motive has long made a huge difference in criminal punishment. Under Florida law, motive can make the difference between prison and execution. If you’re convicted of first-degree murder, your very life may turn on whether you acted “for pecuniary gain.”

Sorry, but hating Christians is not a crime. Christians are not a protected group. In order for a crime to be a “hate crime,” the “victim” must be a member of a specified protected group.

The new law prohibits willfully injuring or attempt to injuring someone “because of [that person’s] actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” 18 U.S.C. § 249(a). Anti-Christian violence is covered just as much (indeed, by the very same language) as anti-gay violence.

First, Thank-you David #11 - for your excellent comment.  I want to note that one of the most important thing the federal legislation does is give jurisdiction to the Justice Dept to investigate and prosecute crimes against BLBT persons that appear to have been motivated by hatred. Why is this important? Well, as a former USDOJ Civil Rights prosecutor and retired LA Deputy District Attorney, I can tell you that, unfortunately, local authorities may not bother if they feel that the victim “had it coming.” Forty years ago we had to pass this kind of legislation to protect blacks from lynch mobs.

Next, state of mind is and always has been part of some crimes - and certainly part of punishment. Most crimes requite “general criminal intent” - the intent to do the act that the law says is a crime - not the intent to break the law or cause harm. Other crimes require “specific intent” which is not only the intent to do the act - but also to intend a specific result. Sorry to burst some bubbles here - but specific intent goes waaaaaay back to common law. Burglary is an example. To be guilty of burglary the person has to not only break and enter but has to intend to steal property or commit some other felony. Intent is the difference between Grand Theft Auto and Joyriding. Grand Theft Auto requires the intent to permanently deprive - while joyriding can be defined as “illegal borrowing.”

Motive comes into play in many crimes - particularly in the sentencing phase. As someone pointed out motive can be the difference between life in prison and execution in cases such as financial gain. While it isn’t usually an element of the crime (something that must be proved in order to convict) it is almost always admissible in trial. I can tell you from experience that it is almost impossible to convict someone of a crime without presenting a motive! My point here is that considering state of mind is far from new in criminal law.

I personally find it very sad to see Christians overreacting and panicking that their beliefs will be prosecuted because legislation was passed to make it more difficult for some to get away with hate motivated violence. I find it very sad when we add to the secular viewpoint that we are all a bunch of homophobic bigots by overreacting to legislation like this. Chill out. We in the US don’t have a clue what it is to be persecuted for our faith.

42, as you well know criminal intent involves a “state of mind”.  Do you argue that a specific intent crime equals a motive?  We agree that move can become a factor in sentencing.  I just happen to think that making “motive” an element of a crime is dangerous.  The fact that the concept has been previously used does not make it any less dangerous.  Ireaneus and others do not.

Criminal intent is not the same thing as motive.  But if people here what to continue to confuse the two that’s fine.