Call_me_Virgil

Call_me_Virgil

95p

1,646 comments posted · 75 followers · following 0

35 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Caroline ffiske: How n... · 0 replies · +1 points

I appreciate the response, and will response to some of the points you raise.

In the context of criminal sanctions ‘hate’ is only used *if* it is part of the motivation for a crime. If I beat the crap out of somebody *because* they spilt my beer, that is not a crime. if I beat the crap out of someone *because* they are black then that is a hate crime. The criminal sanction received for the latter will be greater than for the former scenario. This is because society, through it representative democracy, has decreed that such motivations warrant greater sanction.

For this reason, the characteristics are not ‘arbitrary; except in the sense that they are the ones our legislature has chosen. There is a political debate to be had as to what, if any, motivations warrant greater criminal sanction. I’m not sure which constituency Millwall falls in, but their MP could make the case…

My list of offenders was not in priority order - perhaps it did reflect unconscious bias.

You seem to accept that there is a case for motivational dependent sanction, if hate is not the right term, what would you call it?

35 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Caroline ffiske: How n... · 0 replies · +1 points

If I have understood this article correctly then at its heart is what is what role should the state play, if any, in policing (in its widest terms) ‘hate’. At some point a threshold is crossed and that expression becomes part of the criminal justice system. that is what define criminal and criminal hate. We need to understand where that boundary is and why.

The starting point that I am making is that, as a matter of law, hate by itself is not a crime. Hate can be an aggravating event to a a crime, but holding a hateful view just isn’t a crime. So, as it stands, there are no criminal sanctions that the state can impose for voicing a specific viewpoint (subject to inciting to violence).

The trickier questions are, to what extent should the criminal justice seek to keep tabs on those whose ‘hateful’ expression may be a prelude to their (violent) criminal action and secondly, which characteristics, if any, should be basis of additional criminal sanctions.

It seems to me, that the former question is largely a matter of practicalities. The latter is a question of democratic will. I would posit that the majority in this country are of the view that a crime motivated by race should command greater greater sanction, are less sure whether gender should, and are mostly very confused about transgender issues.

35 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Caroline ffiske: How n... · 4 replies · +1 points

Fair question. In of itself, it does not, but it *might* be a starting point.

As with mort political debates, there is a great deal of nuance and this just seems to get lost in out current binary political climate. With the very real threats of violence in the name of seemingly endless causes, there is a trade off between monitoring and protection. How often have we heard “XYZ and known to authorities”.

The debate we need to have is how do we find an acceptable compromise. What we get is the right gagging for a culture war.

35 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Garvan Walshe: We can ... · 0 replies · +1 points

You make an interesting point.

The Oxford group have recently published the full analysis of their early trials. A preprint can be found here.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_...

It does seem that, very encouragingly, that a single shot does prevent deaths/hosptial admissions (at leat to very significant degree).

However, I was talking to Professor at a major London teaching hospital yesterday and the point he made was that the majority of their patients now were in their 20’s - 40s. They are not dying and don’t need the ICU, but they do need to be in hospital. The data are emerging by the day, but I do think the idea that we have ‘saved granny’ so, thank you very much now sod off, is something that need very careful consideration. Because, as with seemingly all debates in the UK, Covid has polarised into tribes, I am pessimistic that such a debate will be had.

35 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Garvan Walshe: We can ... · 0 replies · +1 points

As I tend to do, I have been doing some research. It turns out the JebStu is actually at 32 yr old woman called Brenda who live alone in her apartment in a rough neighbourhood of Boise, Idaho. because she weighs about 600 lbs she can’t get out much. That is why she craves so much attention and why she looks to ConHome to get it. She is delighted that her evidence free conspirational posts get so much feedback. It validates her very existence

Brenda stumbled on ConHome when she asked “Alexa - please find be a Q-Anon blog” Because of Brenda’s speech impediment, Alexa mistook Q_anon for ConHome - and here she is.

For those of you who are confused by this post, can I just point out is based on the same level of truth and research as JebStu’s (i.e Brenda’s) posts.

35 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Garvan Walshe: We can ... · 1 reply · +1 points

As I tend to do, I have been doing some research. It turns out the JebStu is actually at 32 yr old woman called Brenda who live alone in her apartment in a rough neighbourhood of Boise, Idaho. because she weighs about 600 lbs she can’t get out much. That is why she craves so much attention and why she looks to ConHome to get it. She is delighted that her evidence free conspirational posts get so much feedback. It validates her very existence

Brenda stumbled on ConHome when she asked “Alexa - please find be a Q-Anon blog” Because of Brenda’s speech impediment, Alexa mistook Q_anon for ConHome - and here she is.

For those of you who are confused by this post, can I just point out is based on the same level of truth and research as JebStu’s (i.e Brenda’s) posts.

35 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Caroline ffiske: How n... · 12 replies · +1 points

This article (deliberately?) fudges and avoids a few issues.

There is no such thing as a hate crime per se. A ‘hate crime’ is committed when a criminal act is committed and the person committed it is motivated by ‘hate’ (against defined characteristics - this excludes supporting the wrong footaball team). The motivation (mens rea) has of course been a central requirement of criminal law for centuries. Hate is an agggreavting element, not the crime itself.

Second, it has long been accepted that there are limits to free speech, in the context of this article, stopping at inciting violence. The yearning of a “Miltonian lost paradise of free speech” is just romantic idealism that ignores the world we live in today.

That leads to the third point. The boundary between words an actions. In recent years we have seen acts of violence and deaths perpetrated by the far-right, islamists, anti-gay activists, animal rights activists, sectarianism and others. These didn’t just come out of the blue. The individuals involved gave voice to their perspectives. If the police are not going to keep a record of those that speak before they act, how are they going to protect us?

35 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Protecting free speech... · 0 replies · +1 points

Be careful what you wish for...!

35 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Protecting free speech... · 0 replies · +1 points


Just wondering how many generations it takes for this DNA to become ‘native’. So for example who the “native” Americans? Is it restricted to the pre-white settlers? What about the Irish immigrants of the 19th century?

Can we call the dependents of the Huguenots English yet/ What about the jews that fled Europe in the mid-20th century. Can they ever be native english?

Who decides who gets to be a native and who decides what benefits that accrues?

35 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Protecting free speech... · 0 replies · +1 points

You have it. Article 10 of the Humnan Rights Act enshrines, in UK law, your freedom of speach.