Subscribe to The Spectator

Sunday 27 May 2012

Latest issue

Buy the current issue

Jobs at Telegraph

The Home Secretary displays his keen intelligence, moral sense and deep love of liberty

Thursday, 24th December 2009


The think-tank Civitas has picked up on a sinister government initiative which everyone else appears to have missed. As reported in today’s Telegraph, Civitas noticed an announcement made in September by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson,  to encourage people to lodge complaints about hate crimes, which they say are being under-reported.

Apparently, the government knows for certain there is a lot of ‘hate-crime’ going on. How do they know this? Because it is not being reported.

Said Johnson:

‘While it may seem counter-intuitive to some, we believe that an increase in the number of hate crimes being reported can be a sign that we are starting to have a positive impact’.

Ah! I see! So if more ‘hate-crime’ were being reported, it would mean the authorities were getting rid of it. It’s the fact that no-one knows about it that shows it’s going on in spades.

Might it be that ‘hate-crimes’ are not being reported because they are, er, not actually happening? Good grief, what a thought! Of course they are happening! Don’t we know that there is simply no-one who is not racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic,  transgenderist, disablist or ageist, or maybe all of the above?

So how can the government ensure that this epidemic of hate of which we are each of us surely either guilty or a victim will ensure that more of it is reported so that it will thus be shown to be diminishing? Why, by redefining more and more of our behaviour as ‘hate crime’ of course!

 The government already showed its far-sightedness by increasing the categories of ‘hate crimes’ from ‘racism to include religious aggravation, homophobia and 'transphobic’ offences – resulting in a seven-fold increase in prosecutions for hate crimes over the past decade.

I’m sure we all feel massively safer as a result. But might they be looking for crimes that don’t exist – and criminalising the law-abiding as a result? Heavens, no.  The  Crown Prosecution Service says:

‘The under reporting of crime can sometimes be due to lack of confidence in the criminal justice system’.

Of course! And the fact that it’s being under-reported means the government knows it’s happening!

As Johnson observed, the Home Office needed to see

a substantial level of proof before we conclude that hate crime is not a problem in a particular area.

Isn't it wonderful to be living in the cradle of liberty?

 


Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article  |  Email to a friend  |  Permalink   |   Comments (52)

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Comments

Post a comment


Your comment:*

Your name:*

Your email address:*
(We won't publish this)

*Required information

Please click the button only once - your comment will not be published immediately

Greg D

December 24th, 2009 3:08pm

Finally Mel - we agree!

A very fine article indeed.

Occasional Ostrich

December 24th, 2009 3:26pm

It looks as if CMD's manifesto is going to be chokka for his first term, well . . . at least until the end of 2010.

liz

December 24th, 2009 4:12pm

"Isn't it wonderful to be living in the cradle of liberty?"
Particularly if you happen to be traveling first class on the socialist gravy train.
Enjoy the holidays!

Tancred

December 24th, 2009 4:32pm

They want hate crime reported - until a white person comes forward and then the police don't want to know.

If a white person does something wrong its all over the papers but if a black person commits a hate crime you can always tell because the race of the offender(s) is usually omitted from the report.

We all know this. We have learnt how to read between the lines.

Look at the continuing fuss over Stephen Lawrence and yet the worst racist murder in Britain, the killing of Kriss Donald by Pakistani Muslims, has been airbrushed away.

Many of us have experienced racist comments, abuse, attacks in inner city areas but the police, courts and media are not interested as it doesn't "fit the script".

That is why the majority of victims of racist attacks are white Britons - and will continue to be so....

Arthur Lincoln

December 24th, 2009 4:50pm

The most stupid, yet most sinister, government ever. They have managed to politically turn me exactly 180 degrees. After a lifetime of support of Labour I now loathe them all with a passion.

workie ticket

December 24th, 2009 5:42pm

This 'Government' is itself a walking talking hate crime. Roll on the election.

I've been the victim of a racist attack but because the assailant committed a series of crimes in one day, my event was 'just not worth it' (as in recording it as an offence - much less a racist one). True, I only had bruising, but the key factor was that I, unfortunately am white and so the policeman was under no political pressure to deal with the matter.

I echo Arthur Lincoln's sentiments.

JohnBUK

December 24th, 2009 5:59pm

Is this the latest Xmas game? It seems very similar to Mornington Crescent. So as I see it, the idea is to determine a list of crimes that no-one knows they are committing, spring them on the population at large and then toss a die to determine which crime was committed by each player. Some players have a "It can't be me I'm in a minority group", card which they play at strategic moments in the game to gain extra points and £200. Others have a "My ancestors were treated badly by the ruling elite" card, or Carte Blanche which allows them free passage throughout the game against all opponents other than "Minority" players. The final two players (usually a Minority or Carte Blanche holder) put the lights out and go to bed. I'm registering the patent as we speak.

Neil Saunders

December 24th, 2009 7:02pm

Here is an immensely important article from Prospect Magazine, about what might be called the Poverty Of Multiculturalism, the ultimate source of the "hate crime" witch-hunt of the authoritarian Left:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/05/fearmasqueradingastolerance/

Ray

December 24th, 2009 7:10pm

"The under reporting of crime can sometimes be due to lack of confidence in the criminal justice system".

And goodness knows, the Crown Prosecution Service has contributed its tuppence worth towards that sad state of affairs!

BritZek

December 24th, 2009 7:10pm

They want a society where it is against the law not to like anybody. They are taking away your right to feel or say anything apart from what they sanction. Like medieval cantholicism we will be constantly struggling to purge ourselves from 'sinful thoughts' with them able to forgive or punish us. Tyranny of 'righteousness' - emphasis on tyranny. And a plan to change society so that there is no conservative or ethnic centre. The hope is that the most tyrannical socialist societies have only been able to survive temporarliy based on force. They NEVER converted people to their values. It will collapse like rotten wood leaving truth behind. If people like each other they do, if not, not. And our freedom lies there. Remember - they are pathetic.

Frank

December 24th, 2009 7:14pm

I'm in the middle of reading "The open society and its enemies by Karl Popper: he must be turning in his grave

John Steadman

December 24th, 2009 8:20pm

Th Home Secretary has a point. How many hate crimes have you heard of? Exactly! A monumental problem!

Samantha Jones

December 24th, 2009 11:40pm

Isn't it funny how we barely had any of these so called crimes until Labour came to power. Coincidence...you bet.

When will we be rid of this despicable party?

sebastian

December 25th, 2009 3:53am

..."a substantial level of proof before we conclude that hate crime is not a problem in a particular area."
Am I alone in thinking this means guilty til proven innocent? I find this rather sinister. More so when such "crimes" are perhaps as much a functon of language as a matter of fact: as the definition broadens so does the width of offence. It's the sly rhetoric of ever more inclusive prohibition which condemns us to guilt that was never there before. We're being talked into a thought crime wave as the grim juristiction of warped, fault-finding terminology catches more of us up. Worse still, events and the manner in which the authorities conduct themselves for the sake of multiculturalism, suggest that "hate crime" is almost the near monopoly, these days, of what the home office insultingly calls the "indigenous population". How many islamists have been pulled up for demanding death to infidels? Or censured for their religious texts' gross intolerance and hostility?
This is becoming horribly oppressive and one-sided. It's proliferating hate crime for us, but not for them, isn't it?
No wonder people feel deeply uneasy and increasingly rebellious. I do.

Fabio P.Barbieri

December 25th, 2009 12:33pm

Give the poor sod a chance. He knows he is hated. He belongs in a government where everyone hates each other, and which is hated by the vast majority of the population, of any race and colour. If he were murdered, he knows it very well, there would be an abundance of possible reasons. How can he imagine that this is not the regular way people live, and that most people outside the Parliamentary Labour Party do not in fact hate much of anyone and have little desire to destroy anyone?

Alex Bensky

December 25th, 2009 6:12pm

The U.S. is inching this way but so far we can thank goodness for our First Amendment, which offers some hope that the courts will rule that there is no constitutional right not to be offended.

Herbert Thornton

December 25th, 2009 7:19pm

This poisonous zeal for inciting witch-hunts also manifested itself in Canada not long ago.

Some officious busybody member of a Human Rights Commission (I think it was in Ontario) said something similar.

She said something to the effect that the few numbers of complaints about Human Rights violations made to the Commission showed that many violations were taking place and that nothing was being done about them.

Amanda Fernandez-Green

December 25th, 2009 7:32pm

I don't know if I call it harassment or hate-crime or cultural misunderstanding but a while ago when I was taking my child to school a man was fellowing some of the mothers who was taking their children to the school, this man was only interested on certain women from certain culture, I became the target, sometimes he fellow me for half and hour, I change directions and time it was exhausting, i worry not only for me but the community and told the authority in the school they should watch out they didn't do anything they were too liberal about it I was also concern today he may fellow people like me tomorrow who knows? at the end I call the police, a hate crime police call back they was very nice and helpful they ask how the person look a like I remember he had big beard like the one archbishop of Canterbury, and sometimes spoke foreign language sounded like Arabic he drove a car and when he approach me say something like salaam, for a European woman this is a cultural shock I never ever see someone like this he did not respect women or children and he will say getting in the car, how much you charge? things like that, well the police took the number I also notice this man was actually working for the council, some lefty people told me don't give him trouble because in his culture he is not allow to have a girlfriend and that is why he is fellowing women around, it was very annoying at the end I moved out that area, I been contacted with charity who works with the home office and they gave me appointment to see them i went there after they ask questions i been told this country is multicultural i was treated like a racist person they gave me an alarm to carry, it is not easy to report abuse like this because the political correctness around the British environment many people suffer silence, now they are saying to report it because it is under- reported, No Sir, I did reported but the only thing i get was unuseful personal alarm the criminals are still around happy and harassing

paulg

December 25th, 2009 9:17pm

You would think that labour have enough crimes to worry about such as burglary which can be quantified; but no they have decided that crime statistics will measure the un-quantifiable.
Only in the crazy world of labour does this make sense.
We should all phone the local bill and register a nasty comment from some one, its xmas so no doubt we have all been on the receiving end of hate crimes from of nearest and dearest!
That should see this legislation put on the back burner, just like burglary, mugging, car jacking, murder, rape, pillage, arson, fraud, hooliganism, GBH and, every other form of quantifiable criminal activity

St Bruno

December 25th, 2009 11:35pm

Reply to Arthur Lincoln
December 24th, 2009 4:50pm

Got to agree with you, I think you are not alone. My wife and I were both Labour Party members till we listened to a speech by Neil Kinnock in Birmingham 1992. On the same platform, amongst the Labour Party dignitaries was an unknown Tony Blair who gave a sweaty new-wave speech with appalling lack of confidence. How things change. The rest is history. The rise of Mr Blair saw many long-term Labour Party members resign, who were basically working class. Even today there is still, as you say, a loathing of Mr Brown and all the New-Labour gang. Itâ™s sad to say, Britain and England in particular has been taken to the cleaners, sold off to Arabs and an assortment of foreigners who have no regard for our country or our way of life, such as it is today.
May I wish all blog readers and staunch comment writers A Happy New Year for 2010. Letâ™s hope the coming General Election will bring a few positive changes for the better.

Lee Jakeman

December 26th, 2009 12:13am

This, of course, is just an extension of the "target" and "quota" mentality that has already been implemented elsewhere, with such fantastic results. For example, if you're a copper and you haven't yet reached your "target" of x number of arrests this month, then it's time to get out there and find a few more parking offences - ignoring more "difficult" crimes like armed robbery, rape and murder where the chances of an actual arrest are minimal.

norm

December 26th, 2009 12:18am

It's not this Government that worries me, or the last or the next, we can get rid of them eventually. It's the establishment, the civil service, the faceless suits.The one's who cannot be changed. They are the ones that frighten me because they drive the Government in whatever direction they choose.

Martin

December 26th, 2009 9:59am

There are many "hate crimes" committed against the British People, mainly by this corrupt & oppressive government & its bosses in Brussells.
On a lower level, there are weekly rapes & murders committed against the British, often as part of a religious agenda. Some of the aggressors possess UK passports, but they
are not really Brits, despite BBC allegations to the contrary.

Martin

December 26th, 2009 10:03am

Tankred is so right.
The Kriss Donald murder has even forced a
Muslim MP to stand down, because his Muslim
constituents threatened him & his extended family
for co operating with the police.

Why are there no Kriss Donald scholarships & youth centres ?

RobC

December 26th, 2009 1:11pm

Postman Pat and the Criminal Protection Service appear to have one thing in common namely looking for the sliver of crime that does not exist and aiding and abetting serious criminals being let out early or worse still with foreign criminals harbouring and physically supporting them under the Human rights farce.
When I read "encourage people to lodge complaints" my thoughts immediately went to a Tiberian code of justice or more recently the nazi or communist doctrine of an informer on every street.
You really could not make this up it appears New Labour hates us all the police state has arrived. Taking another leaf out of Tiberius book why doesn't Postman Pat go the whole hog,pay informers and share the proceeds of a successful prosecution or better still send a letter to every household in the country telling us all we are guilty unless we can prove otherwise?.

BritZek

December 26th, 2009 2:34pm

What we need is a clear definition of the 'social contract'. We need it clearly stated what the limit of their treachery is at which point the obbigation to obey the law ends. According to the Nuremburg tribunals this theoretical point must exist. The deny its existence would be a fairly accurate (and rare!) definition of fascism (of course some people support this). You could call this a written constitution - make sure it doesn't include the right not to be offended. The future will be a fight for freedom against a 'gentle smothering'.

Tom Durkin

December 26th, 2009 4:51pm

Tancred, you're a morally vacuous imbecile:

"Look at the continuing fuss over Stephen Lawrence and yet the worst racist murder in Britain, the killing of Kriss Donald by Pakistani Muslims, has been airbrushed away."

How is one racist murder worse than another? are you ranking the victims or attackers along racial lines?

As for the murders you cite, neither has been 'airbrushed' that is an outright lie that should severely damage your credibility.
I have lived all my life in Eltham where Steven Lawrence was killed and have heard all the crap said of the dead, he was a drug dealer etc.
In reality the 'fuss' over Steven was because of the police assisting the murderers in getting away free. They are still yet to serve time and it is only recently that any police have been held to account.

I hope they get locked up with life sentences, including any police involved.

Dixon

December 26th, 2009 8:20pm

I hate prunes. Does that make me guilty of hate crime?

The very concept of "hate crime" is utterly prepostrous.In fact, it isnt even really a concept, just two words glued together in a meaningless conjunction.

A. MacAulay

December 27th, 2009 9:43am

Yes, Dixon, I also hate prunes and perhaps for the same socio-political reason (apart from the vile taste). In those 10 or so years after the end of WWII when Britain was far from being an affluent society, with the best of all possible intentions well meaning "dinner-ladies" forced primary school children like me to "clean up their plates". This meant sitting before a plate of, ugh, boiled- to-death cabbage or, shudder, tapioca and prunes until one started to cry. Actaully a traumatic experience.

The parallels are obvious; a well meaning, ideologically self-righteous bossy nanny-state forces us to swallow the unspeakable because, "it is for our own good".

Alan Douglas

December 27th, 2009 2:09pm

"racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, transgenderist, disablist or ageist"

No, I'm none of these - merely social-ist. is that yet a hate-crime ?

Alan Douglas

Gman

December 27th, 2009 5:04pm

Tancred: These kind of crimes are called "Hush Crimes". They are the same as hate crimes, but the victim / perpetrator do not follow the pre disposed pattern. Such a crime is an embarrassment and will be studiously avoided by both the Police and the media.

Philo

December 27th, 2009 7:31pm

The first part of this article neatly exposes the minister's nonsense.

The rest is more of a puzzle, at least to me. If, for example, a mosque is torched because it is a mosque, is this simply criminal damage; if Muslims are attacked simply because they are Muslims (and therefore support terrorism), is this simply assault? I can imagine lawyers arguing on either side. But what is the position of this blog: are such crimes simply criminal damage and assault, appropriately dealt with by the law as such?

Augustus

December 27th, 2009 9:27pm

Personally, I couldn't care two hoots whether a person is transgendered, transsexual, or a transvestite. As far as I'm concerned they're all much of a muchness. I used to like watching Danny la Rue, and he/she probably needed a jock-strap under his/her tights. But Dixon is right, how can you hate such individuals? You can only wonder at the thoughts of such people. And even the CPS doesn't appear to define hatred in terms of these characters, it simply intends to criminally prosecute anyone who takes a dislike to them. It says, "it is enough that people do something, or abstain from doing
something because they do not like trans people." So now we're
talking about dislike crime, not hate crime as such. "Oh! you are awful! But I like you!"

Lupus Lungfish

December 28th, 2009 2:15am

Dixon- Red Letter Day- I actually completely and utterly agree with you!.- There is no such thing in law as a 'hate crime'. its complete cobblers friend. This mad government have tried to introduce the concept to no avail thank Christ!

bicycle rider

December 28th, 2009 2:28am

Am i showing my iranian side today?

Maybe this will allow murderers some "respect" as they get away with it and smother up with community cohesion.
Its already happenned.
What happenned to the case of the gay man who was allegedly killed by a partner and some daily mail columnist was in hot water for suggesting that the gay lifestyle was not wholesome.
im not bothered what the sexuality is if it is merely sexuality but what if sexuality is combined with sadism to point of blood lust?
Some people are born like this
i remeber a child in the town i grew up in murdered an old man
achild i went to school with took a perverse pleasure in killing frogs during his adolescence
am i suppossed to show these people "respect" when they go on to commit major crime?
i dont think so
so why do murderers get to hide out in the gay community
what hypocrisy when this government was determined to sedn iranian gays to their death in iran on the basis that they should live very very quietly indeed.
surely the most despicable and homophobic government we have seen for a long time.
i just wonder what peter tatchell thinks of this as he seems to have his head screwed on concerning the loons of the left and their perverse self flagellating pose.

Lupus Lungfish

December 28th, 2009 2:35am

Actually , there was loads of 'hate crime' going on in my local pub in Derbyshire tonight- mainly towards interferring liberal champagne socialists who don't represent anybody but themselves. Its funny, eighty percent of the people around here commit 'hate crime' in that they are indifferent to politicians and journalists who ,on a daily basis, intefere and mess up their lives.
The other twenty percent are either stupid or public sector employees on a two thirds index linked pension.
I suppose I'm just bitter and twisted!

Margaret Muller-Johansson

December 28th, 2009 7:51am

Home Secretary,

Read the Koran first

Nicholas

December 28th, 2009 8:26am

Philo asks: "are such crimes simply criminal damage and assault, appropriately dealt with by the law as such?"

Yes. New Labour have sought to create new criminal offences more narrowly constructed on various ideological grounds where perfectly good law already existed. But their hate crime inventions go further in making even spoken or displayed words criminal if they fall within certain ideological themes. The next stage is criminal thoughts. As others have commented hate crime only became a problem when New Labour appeared on the scene.

These people (New Labour's unelected 'B' team) are nasty secret police fascists and Grade A certifiably barmy. How long before they introduce hate crime against the state and New Labour? They need removing from power because they are not fit to hold it and are dangerous loons who have undermined long-standing British values of justice, common sense and fair play. They attempted to fix something that was not broken and their "medicine" is far worse than the supposed illness.

Philo

December 28th, 2009 3:27pm

I think what I said is the most straightforward, as Nicholas agrees.

I am still in two minds however. The severity of the crime can be reflected in the severity of the sentence: Setting fire to a mosque is more serious than playing with matches behind the bins. Hitting a cleric is more serious than a Saturday night brawl.

But I am still not clear about the cut-off. Abuse at a football match is one thing, repeated abuse of someone simply because they are, say, Muslim is quite another - is it a crime? a "hate crime"? Or is it just the hurly-burly of a free society. Should those who find the stress of abuse damages their health simply be told to toughen up?

Suppose we try to define a certain perception of, say, Muslims which may be expressed as hatred toward them, whose rhetorical or physical manifestation is directed towards individuals and property, community institutions and religious facilities, expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action...

Should we set up a parliamentary committee to look into the possibility of legislation to make such hatred a crime? And what groups would come under the definition? Muslims, but not gays? Blacks but not Muslims? How do we decide, without double standards and plain hypocrisy?

Or is the whole exercise simply leftist fascism?

Irwin Ruff

December 29th, 2009 1:42am

And here I was believing that the US politicians had reached the height of ridiculousness. I'm quite relieved that there is at least one country that matches or even exceeds the US (and that is very hard to do).

Dirty Old Leftie

December 29th, 2009 7:34am

Tancred et al.
In case you hadn't noticed, the the murderers of Stephen Lawrence have not been tried and punished, while the murderers of Kriss Donald have been dealt with.
Indeed, but for the extraordinary coincidence that Stephen's father had done work for offices in the Daily Mail building, the murder might have joined many other racist killings in oblivion.
Careful with your 'all racist murders of whites go unpunished' claim. It sounds horribly like the regular claims made by the BNP/National Front rags-which should be handled at a long distance and with a pair of tongs.

Nicholas

December 29th, 2009 7:19pm

Dirty Old Leftie on Lawrence I suggest you read "Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics" from the Institute for Civil Society the conclusions of which is all the more surprising for being written by Lefties.

Justice is not being served by the present regime, the grief of victims or the ideological agendas of pressure groups.

Wolf Solent

December 30th, 2009 12:10am

Spot on. We live in a country governed by a bong-socialist clique whose default position is that the entire population is a covert racist, homophobe or even a 'transphobic'.

scampy

December 30th, 2009 5:41am

Johnson must be the only postman in the world to hold this position and is showing it?

Philo

December 30th, 2009 10:41am

I suppose if I want an answer to my question I will need to be less oblique:

Suppose we try to define "a certain perception of, say, Muslims which may be expressed as hatred toward them, whose rhetorical or physical manifestation is directed towards individuals and property, community institutions and religious facilities, expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action..."

Would this be a definition of a "hate crime" or what?

December 31st, 2009 11:01pm

This for me confirms we are now living in a Stalinistic state, where we think we are free but we are not. This kind of action, asking us to betray our neighbours, is just like the old USSR, if not then please someone tell me the difference? We have seen their social engineering on immigration, we have 'thought police' if we say the wrong thing that do not fit in with what they want us to say and believe, how did we come to this? Have not all these inteligent journalists, who are paid well to tell us news, not spoken about such things, have they too allowed themselves to be deceived? Lots of questions and I'm wanting to know answers. Out only salvation is we have an election coming up may be we should all rethink our aligences and throw all of them out into the wilderness and start anew, new party, new faces not tainted with greed and lies and cheating. We now have a choice, but so do the media and journalists, will they join the nation in the fight for freedom?

logdon

January 1st, 2010 9:02pm

Is this a 'hate crime'? After all to shoot someone must engender feelings of extreme animosity?

Or doesn't it count as it was black on black?

The whole thing is so ludicrous as to be tragically laughable.

Post McPherson how many black youths have died at the hands of other black youths?

Yet one case is singled out. Doreen Lawrence get's her money and place in the media. Imran Khan, her lawyer is catapulted to fame and a dead Stephen is still, as far as I know, still dead.

This one is too.

Will there be a media outcry? Not on your Nellie. Seemingly according to Johnson's new edict it doesn't count. Only whites are capable of hate in his mad world.

Meanwhile another grieving Mother will be wondering what went wrong.

Maybe cretin Johnson will tell her?

One dead, one injured in shooting
Last Updated: Friday, 01 January 2010, 15:00 GMT

A man has been killed and another injured in a shooting in south London

One man died and another is in a critical condition following a shooting in the early hours of New Year's Day.

The shooting took place in Thornton Heath, south London, at around 5am, the Met Police said.......

The shooting is being dealt with by detectives from the Met's Operation Trident - the unit which investigates gun crime in the black community.

Sue

January 2nd, 2010 1:31am

Tancred, look up Kelso Cochrane, murdered in 1959. The Met still will not release his file. We are obsessed with colour in this country. Put simply, we have great difficulty in being fair to one another. Crime is crime and murder is murder. I put no colour to it.

Nicolas - Where should the Lawrence family have gone to fight for justice? Please tell me because they are still waiting for it. Still grieving.

christy

January 2nd, 2010 5:27pm

I think people give each other a wide berth these days in case someone points a finger at them for whatever reason. It must be hard for state employees or those who work for big employers. The PC police will be all over them. We are living in a nightmare.

David Chorley

January 3rd, 2010 11:52pm

"going on in spades" now there's a crypto-racist statement if there ever was one...
call the thought-police

Philo

January 4th, 2010 4:16pm

"...a certain perception of Xs which may be expressed as hatred toward them, whose rhetorical or physical manifestation is directed towards individuals and property, community institutions and religious facilities, expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action..."

Would this be considered a good definition of a "hate crime" such as could be written into law?

I would be interested in others' opinions, perhaps even the opinion of the blogger herself.

Kathleen

January 5th, 2010 6:35am

Doesn't any crime involve some form of hate? Makes you wonder what boundary or is there any. Throwing egg at your local MP could be now a hate crime.

Melanie Phillips
Cartoons

Search this blog

Melanie Phillips blog archive

sponsored links

Spectator recommends

Spectator classifieds

THE PRESENT FINDER

1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk

OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS

Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844

RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings

62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk