Monday, December 5, 2022

Mr Perrin’s Blog: “Is hate a crime?”

Mr Perrin’s blog.
A Word in Your Ear

Is hate a crime?

“I ask the question because I attended a public meeting, organised by the Police Commissioner for Essex, and an item on the agenda was titled “Hate Crime”.

I thought it was a worthy sentiment and was the reason I was at the meeting because I “hated crime” and was eager to hear what the Police Commissioner and the Police had in mind to tackle the problem of crime in Thurrock.

So I was somewhat surprised to learn this item had nothing to do with solving the myriad of crimes committed daily and bringing to justice the perpetrators, but was a specific “crime” related to hatred toward a person or persons and there was a dedicated team of Police Officers allocated to deal specifically with that “crime”.

According to my dictionary “The Oxford Universal Dictionary” hate is “an emotion of extreme dislike or aversion; detestation, abhorrence. To hold in very strong dislike; to detest; to bear malice to”. That being so I suggest it would be extremely difficult to prosecute someone for an emotion and may well explain why the police seem unable to produce a figure for the conviction of anyone specifically charged with committing a “Hate Crime”.

I hate people who hunt and kill foxes and other wildlife in the name of sport and a “good day out”. I hate politicians who impose severe cuts upon “ordinary” people whilst at the same time indulge themselves in luxurious lifestyles. I hate people who push and shove their way onto trains and buses and queue jump. I hate drivers who “race” me to a pedestrian crossing but, even though the thought may cross my mind, I do not set out to do such people harm or incite others to do so. Whilst I may hate such people I do not believe I am guilty of any crime until I actually attack or abuse or incite others to attack or abuse such persons. It is the act not the emotion or thought that constitutes a crime and warrants prosecution. There may be some exceptions, such as plotting to kill someone or planning to rob a bank, where intent to commit a crime can be proved.

There are adequate laws already in force to deal with violence and abuse or incitement to violence and abuse without the necessity to create a specific law for so called “hate” crimes. It would appear that the Government has, yet again pandered to the “do- gooders” who regard the slightest criticism of ethnic groups as racist irrespective of whether or not the criticism has merit.

My advice to the Government and the “do-gooders”, most of whom do not live in areas with large numbers of so called ethnic “minorities”, rather than dismissing the expressed concerns of the indigenous “white” minority as racist they would do well to look at both sides of the “racist coin” and instead of considering it necessary to give ethnic groups special protective laws they ensured that everyone was treated equally under the law.

The practice of special laws for some is in the same category as “positive” discrimination i.e. they both allow favour to be given to one at the expense of the equal rights of another.

Dare I suggest that the dedicated team of police officers, currently investigating “hate crime”, would be better employed catching real criminals such as burglars and muggers?

17 COMMENTS

  1. Very well put Mr Perrin, the “Hate Crime” is a joke, this was put together by the PC brigade to try and alleviate racial tensions but all this has done is to increase the “Them and Us ” attitude.

    How often do we see the headlines of Racial Attack when it is whites beating up Blacks but when the boot is on the other foot it is never reported as racism, well here’s a bit of news for the Journos, Race is a two way street, if you are going to pull the race card each time please ensure that this is done equally for all.

    The sooner that this country/government start to realise that a crime is a crime no matter what the colour/religion/sexual orientation of a person the better, and to have these “hate crime” sections of the police is both useless and ineffectual

  2. I’ve already had a comment removed today as it referred to the hatred displayed by ethnic minorities. I suspect Mr Perrin will get more respect for his views than myself as I don’t tend to put them in such a compromising manner.

    Hate crime is a term I believe we’ve inherited from the USA where the race relations industry is flourishing. We’ve imported that for much the same reason, mass immigration. It was part of the raft of measures brought in by the Labour party when they were implementing their policy of mass immigration.

    Mr Perrin is absolutely right, there are already laws regarding the incitement of crime. The word hate was added to sensationalise something that is entirely the making of the race relations industry and widened to include religion and sexual orientation at the behest of other left wing lobby groups. They will discriminate against christian beliefs because that’s part of the way of life in this country and that must be curtailed at all costs.

    How many Africans and Afro Carbbeans have been convicted of inciting hate crimes against gays? Or muslims for that case.

  3. According to my dictionary “The Oxford Universal Dictionary” hate is “an emotion of extreme dislike or aversion; detestation, abhorrence.

    The Government’s definition of hate crime involves any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a personal characteristic. The definition covers five main strands:
    • disability,
    • gender-identity,
    • race,
    • religion or faith,
    • Sexual orientation.

    Legislation has been in place for a number of years to protect victims from such hate crimes, including offences for those who intend to stir up racial hatred, and those who commit racially and religiously aggravated offences. Increasing the severity of sentencing reflects the seriousness of hate crime. Article

    Mr Perrin at the outset of this blog I would like to say how much I have enjoyed your past articles on your Thurrock and have no wish to be detrimental to your views, but I would point out you cannot quote The Oxford Universal Dictionary, in matters of the law, hate crime is most definitely a criminal offence, so when the police investigate a crime of this nature they are in fact doing exactly what they are paid to do, bringing charges against criminals

  4. The point being there was no need for sensationalist rubbish from the handwringers. This was a crap piece of copy cat legislation brought in by the Labour luvvie brigade aimed at the white British population of this country that wasn’t needed in the slightest. Blair and Brown and the boring, droning lefties haven’t got an original thought in their heads. Another waste of time and money courtesy of the hate filled left. Little children in the playground, “he called me names, he’s nasty, call the hate police”. Pathetic.

  5. NoVoice
    The penny has still not dropped NoVoice race hate laws are in place, exactly for people like yourself perhaps that’s why you’re having such a hard time understanding them

  6. I would wade in on this issue as I do voluntary work with a group in Basildon some members of which are the victims of various types of hate crimes but I feel that hot press has covered the issue sufficiently enough to allow me to just sit by and watch the debate.

  7. Hot Press – At risk of being a pedant I feel obliged to reply to your comment “you cannot quote the Oxford Universal Dictionary in matters of the law”, I can and I have.. I believe I was justified in doing so on the grounds of highlighting the difference between the dictionary definition of hate as an “emotion and the Government making hate, an emotion, a criminal offence particularly if it affects people in any of the categories you mention.

    So, if I understand you correctly, if a person burns down the house of a homosexual and says he did it because he hates homosexuals he should be dealt with more harshly than a person who burns down a house motivated by jealousy. Surely that cannot be right the crime was the burning down of the house not the motive/emotion of the perpetrator. The law should apply equally to all

    The point I was making is that hate of itself is not a crime it may be a motivation to commit a crime. I am not aware of any person who has been sentenced for the crime of hatred.

    You say the race hate laws are in place exactly for people like No Voice, he expresses himself in a manner which you obviously consider offensive but he has not actually committed a crime, or has he in your eyes and that of the Government?

  8. I don’t think our leftist hero’s have read the law. There is no such thing as a hate crime. It is an aggravatinhg factor in a crime and is currently under review. It effectively gives anyone that feels they were the victim of a crime, becasue of reasons other than most other people are victims of crime, the chance to take out their grievances on the offender. So if they go to the police and say, “he called me an effing black ba***rd before he punched me”, hey presto they’ve got an aggravating circumstance. Truly pathetic. My suggestion to all white people when they are attacked by an ethnic minortiy or someone who is gay, make up a story about how the person was derogatory about you and you will have more chance of getting them convicted. What’s good for the goose comrades.

  9. Dear Mr Perrin I would like to deal with your point’s one at a time

    – At risk of being a pedant I feel obliged to reply to your comment “you cannot quote the Oxford Universal Dictionary in matters of the law”, I can and I have.. I believe I was justified in doing so on the grounds of highlighting the difference between the dictionary definition of hate as an “emotion and the Government making hate, an emotion, a criminal offence particularly if it affects people in any of the categories you mention.

    Mr Perrin you can and you have, never the less I do not feel it would be a very good defence in court, the reason I mention court is because you mentioned it in the context of being, a crime, just hating somebody is not a crime and quite rightly so, but in conjunction with the categories described in the government’s guidelines, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a personal characteristic is. And as you mentioned, it was one of the subjects of the meeting you attended organised by the Police Commissioner for Essex, I assume it was discussed in this vein. But you’re quite right just hating somebody personally is not a crime or criminal offence to my knowledge.

    So, if I understand you correctly, if a person burns down the house of a homosexual and says he did it because he hates homosexuals he should be dealt with more harshly than a person who burns down a house motivated by jealousy. Surely that cannot be right the crime was the burning down of the house not the motive/emotion of the perpetrator. The law should apply equally to all

    I do not believe anybody suggested they be dealt with more harshly except you. Obviously there is always a motive in committing a crime and in conjunction with what we are discussing would be a factor as to the crime. In showing motive

    The point I was making is that hate of itself is not a crime it may be a motivation to commit a crime. I am not aware of any person who has been sentenced for the crime of hatred.

    Again you are right, but hate crime works in tandem usually, against others usually motivated against groups of people such as disability, gender-identity race, religion or faith, Sexual orientation. This I believe was what the meeting was trying to get across

    You say the race hate laws are in place exactly for people like No Voice, he expresses himself in a manner which you obviously consider offensive but he has not actually committed a crime, or has he in your eyes and that of the Government?

    At the risk of sounding like No Voice, who expresses himself in my belief with a total disregard for people’s feelings or emotions, which I feel are offensive and are quite clearly meant to be, and do not bother me in the slightest, but there are vulnerable people within our society who would be caused distress and discomfort from some of his comments, but because they are made solely within the bounds of a blog site and are his personal beliefs that fine, but taken in conjunction within a personal view outside the realms of a blog site I believe he’s comments could be construed as hate crime if attached, against individuals or the groups I’ve mentioned above. I can only assume this was the kind of content the meeting you attended was concerned with.

    To recap Mr Perrin to hate something or somebody is not a crime, but in conjunction with other factors, it’s certainly quite clearly defined by the government and the police in being an offence

  10. You’re wrong hot press. So called hate crimes have to be considered separately from the main crime. It is an aggravating circumstance specifically designed to be used in the sentencing process of the main crime, whatever that may be. If it can be proved that a person carried out a crime because it was motivated by a number of reasons, sentencing will carry a heavier penalty.

    I’ve not read anything in Mr Perrin’s post, or comments after, which claimed I was a racist. Once again that is all down to you. At least have the courage to stand by what you said.

    I hate bullies hot press and the pathetically named hate crimes are people bullying someone else because they think they are either inferior or weaker than they are. If I see someone bullying someone less fortunate than the other person I step in and try to stop it.

    I have two gay friends who were both in the army, one was a marine, who know very well what it’s like to feel bullied. Fortunately for both of them, they are big enough to stand their ground. Both of them would rip a person another ar**hole if ever a professional whiner told either of them they were a victim. They don’t have that mentality.

    I grew up with Sikh’s as best friends in Grays and still have the same people as friends. I really don’t know what to make of you hot press. Are you the people’s front, the popular front, or the peoples popular front. I don’t know whether to call you Adolf, Stalin or Mao. You are a fanatic.

    I truly rue the day when the Labour party was taken over by career politicians and professional whingers like you. You believe everyone is a victim and has a special need t be catered for by people like you. You believe nobody can stand on their own two feet. You probably make a living out of it.

    If people like you concentrated their efforts on doing what the old Labour party did and give working class people the aspiration to achieve and make a decent life for themselves, who knows, Labour might have even won the next election. But no, you and people like you are hell bent on finding victims and accusing people of fictitious wrong doings.

    I guarantee you hot press, there are a number of Labour supporters I have spoken to who find people like you appalling and believe the type of person you are to be part of their downfall. Some of them find people like you gut wrenching. The professional whiners and victim merchants have hijacked the Labour to their detriment. I hope the unions tear the Labour party down and start again, without people like you anywhere near it.

    You are a brainwashed fanatic hot press. You are abusive, you can’t back up your own words and I challenge you to find anything that I have written that could be anywhere close to incitement of any kind. As for your assumptions that people can’t be sued for what they write, go speak to the person married to the speaker of the house of commons about that one. I think she may disagree with you. Another thing you’re wrong about.

  11. Dear Mr Perrin I’m glad you emphasised No Voice in your blog I think he makes a perfectly good case for hate crime being a criminal offence let’s hope he continues to be a spokesperson for yourself. Although he’s help was not asked for by yourself Mr Perrin you can obviously see the damage he does to people’s reputations

  12. Point it out hot press. Point to the bit in the article that mentions me. You’re a loon. Keep smoking the oxo cubes, yo’ll feel better in the morning.

  13. hot press to suggest that Mr Perring is somehow affiliated with my views is utter nonsense and you know it. I’m sure I don’t have to point that out to anyone. What you have just written is a real cynical toady attempt to to slur someone. Get out of the gutter.

  14. Hot Press and No Voice, I am a little disappointed that, yet again, an issue has degenerated into a “slanging” match between yourselves.

    Hot Press you say that you do not believe any body, except me, suggested that they [people perceived to have committed a “hate” crime] should be dealt with more harshly. I made the point in response to your comment “increasing the severity of sentencing [punishment] reflects the seriousness of “hate” crime”. The words harshly and severity which, according to the aforementioned dictionary, mean the same. So, again not wanting to appear pedantic, it was you, not me, that first mentioned an increase in the severity/harshness of sentencing.

    Hot Press your comment implying that No Voice speaks for me is unworthy of you. I may be old but I am still able to express my own views without the need of a spokesperson.

    Just a thought, if you and No Voice continue your personal vituperative attacks are there grounds for one or other of you to prosecute a “hate” crime?

  15. You’re absoluitely right Mr Perrin, the slanging matches are unfortunate but I reserve my right to to hold my opinions depite being constantly branded a racist. If some people knew myself and my children they would be shocked and realise how wide of the mark they are.

    My understanding of your article was generally to do with the waste of police time and money on having to prove additional aggravating elements of an original crime. The majority of people would agree with your sentiments.

    Unfortunately for some, the latter aggravating elements of a crime are more important than the crime itself which are designed to inform judges at sentencing stage of a crime that the aggravating circumstances warrant a more severe sentence. That is the interpretation I have got from a document which is part of the Law Society’s review of hate crimes.

    So this is designed as a punitive extra punishment for those people who may have expressed views while perpetrating a crime that they would not normally express.

    As I have said, people who bully people because of who they are or what their beliefs are should be dealt with and if that means harsher sentencing then so be it. There is no need to sensationalise, or once again compartmentalise people’s behaviour in this manner. It is a waste of police time and money, taxpayers money that is spent on yet more left wing drivel with no basis in common sense.

    Unfortunately I can’t sue anyone for calling me a racist because of my political views. Anyone that feels I have incited hatred is free to take it to the police.

    If we could sue people for persecuting people for their political beliefs then we would see social workers for a number of Labour run local authorities in court for abusing a person’s right to foster children. Local authorities banning members of the BNP working for them. Unions doing the same thing.

    The left scream about prejudice without realising the irony of it all.

  16. To hate someone is not a crime. If you hate someone because of their race, culture, sexuality, whilst deplorable, should still not be a crime. It is up to individuals to decide who they like and don’t like. As long as they are not discriminating against someone in terms of employment, housing, healthcare etc then thats their business.

    Labour thinks everyone is a victim and everyone needs government help hence why they ran down the country so much over the last decade.

    The only victims in this country are the low wage white working classes up and down the land who Labour have dropped in favour of more obidient voters such as various ethnic minorities and middle class public sector workers black and white folk like Diane Abbott and Polly Billington.

    Socialism as a concept is built on hatred, hatred of those who have made money, those from old money and those who aspire to make money. It’s a rigid ideology which keeps the ‘proletariat’ stagnant (through state dependacy using the money of those they hate) and then claims that those same people are ‘victims’ so its no wonder that Labour and their supporters harp on about ‘hate crime’.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest

More articles