famillyguy Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Why is this classed as a 'hate crime' instead of a 'racist attack' ? This ties in with a topic already running about racism, but as I want to get to the bottom of this particular question on its own merit I though it better to ask it directly in its own topic. Why if you are white and attack someone of colour do you have the stigma of 'racist attached to your crime but, as in this instance and the Somalian girls that beat the white girl, if its the other way round its just classed as hate ? The Somalian girls in my opinion got off scott free because of the lack of mention about it being racial, so this is an issue worth debating. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4112153/17-year-old-boy-Dan-Stringer-battered-by-Asian-hate-mob-in-Manchester.html classic street jihad attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I think that's how the police describe all these kinds of attacks, at least at first. Hate crime is a catch all term, it includes racist attacks, as well as attacks on people for their perceived membership of other social groups (religious, sexual, racial, gender, disability, etc, etc). Once it's been investigated & gone to trial we'll know more. You are probably correct and if the police think there is enough evidence they will change it to racially motivate, hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 They DID NOT get off scot free, stop posting lies to demonise muslims: Why is it a lie, don't muslims demonise themselves and what's it to you anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 So you are presuming that what was reported in the Sun was what the police said verbatim (even though it doesn't purport to be a quote from a police source) and that the Guardian made up the bit about 'race hate' without any reference to what the police told them? This whole thread is based on you massively jumping to a conclusion... The Guardian & other sources are reporting similar words from the police. However, it's to be expected, they would say that if asked to comment shortly after arresting anybody for any racist attack. I think the law is against 'hate crime' & that's what they'll be charged with, like any other racist attacker. Maybe he was attacked based on religion (or lack of), or something else. At this early stage in investigations police have to keep their options open, especially as it is reported that no racist abuse was heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 So you are presuming that what was reported in the Sun was what the police said verbatim (even though it doesn't purport to be a quote from a police source) and that the Guardian made up the bit about 'race hate' without any reference to what the police told them? This whole thread is based on you massively jumping to a conclusion... The BBC don't mention race. So maybe the jumping to conclusions is on the guardians part, who know's ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 The Guardian & other sources are reporting similar words from the police. However, it's to be expected, they would say that if asked to comment shortly after arresting anybody for any racist attack. I think the law is against 'hate crime' & that's what they'll be charged with, like any other racist attacker. Maybe he was attacked based on religion (or lack of), or something else. At this early stage in investigations police have to keep their options open, especially as it is reported that no racist abuse was heard. Arr, so is this which makes it racially motivated? That's what I'm trying to get down to here, what makes it racist, which I deem a higher order of crime outside of the term 'hate crime' which seems to umbrella numerous things. Race crime clarifies it as being something else while still under the term of hate. I assumed what was heard would indicate if a crime is racially motivated or not but the case with the Somalian girls threw that supposition out of the water some what for me, hence me mentioning that case (nothing to do with Muslim, that topic has been and gone as to that being used in their defence). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The BBC don't mention race. So maybe the jumping to conclusions is on the guardians part, who know's ? It probably was on the Guardian's part, most other mainstream sources are reporting it as 'hate crime' in their headlines. The police probably did describe it as a 'hate crime', even the Guardian say that in their article text. Maybe it was based on religion? The police have to keep an open mind when they're investigating an attack like this. It's not really downplaying it, it's the same type of crime, same type of punishment, just a broader definition of what could have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Why is this classed as a 'hate crime' instead of a 'racist attack' ? This ties in with a topic already running about racism, but as I want to get to the bottom of this particular question on its own merit I though it better to ask it directly in its own topic. Why if you are white and attack someone of colour do you have the stigma of 'racist attached to your crime but, as in this instance and the Somalian girls that beat the white girl, if its the other way round its just classed as hate ? The Somalian girls in my opinion got off scott free because of the lack of mention about it being racial, so this is an issue worth debating. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4112153/17-year-old-boy-Dan-Stringer-battered-by-Asian-hate-mob-in-Manchester.html This thread is based upon a misconception, a racist attack is a variety of hate crime. All racist attacks are hate crimes but not all hate crimes are racially motivated. A hate crime could also be motivated by: religious bigotry - eg. protestant on catholic or vice versa homophobia - eg. 'gay bashing' transphobia and so forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Not really, a white mugger attacking a black man for his money is a violent thief, just as a black mugger attacking a white man for their money would be a violent thief. If the attack was unprovoked on someone they didn’t know and didn't involve theft then it would clearly be racially motivated. No it wouldn't. It could quite as easily be motivated by the football shirt the victim was wearing, or the high heels. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Arr, so is this which makes it racially motivated? That's what I'm trying to get down to here, what makes it racist, which I deem a higher order of crime outside of the term 'hate crime' which seems to umbrella numerous things. Race crime clarifies it as being something else while still under the term of hate. I assumed what was heard would indicate if a crime is racially motivated or not but the case with the Somalian girls threw that supposition out of the water some what for me, hence me mentioning that case (nothing to do with Muslim, that topic has been and gone as to that being used in their defence). wikipedia has a summery of uk hate crime law... The Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a court to consider whether a crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is racially or religiously aggravated. The Act requires a court also to consider whether the following circumstances were pertinent to the crime: (a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on— (i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or (ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or (b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)— (i) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or (ii) by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability.[33][34] I don't know the details of that particular case, but maybe it couldn't be proved. I think it's pretty much the same whether it was based on race, religion, or anything else covered by the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.