Cruising online, FuelMix discovered a report from that West Coast shithole, World Class City. A group of young men surrounded 2 men walking hand in hand just after midnight, down the main drag of the gay village. It is alleged that obscenities and slurs were uttered by the group. The result was that one of the 2 men sustained facial injuries and a broken jaw and one of the youths might be charged with a “hate crime”.
Since the matter is going to trial, FuelMix will not say anymore on it. Instead, FuelMix will comment on gay bashing and “hate crimes” generally.
Having “hate crime” legislation is a silly notion. At best it’s a sop to political correctness (i.e. “gee, aren’t we a diverse, multi-cultural, multi-sexual society…..we need to sanitize the language and restrict people’s behaviour more”). At worst, it’s a tool of social intimidation with potentially fascist consequences since it has no limits. It is also open to abuse and manipulation by 3 parties: the Police, the accused and the victim.
Why is it open to abuse and manipulation? In a criminal court the standard of proof for a “hate crime” is higher. The prosecution has to show that what was said and done was with the specific intent of attacking another person’s race, gender, religion and sexuality. In practice, “hate crime” charges are rarely brought. The prosecution doesn’t want to be seen clutching at straws by attempting to distort the evidence.
FuelMix has always felt that “hate crime” legislation should be repealed. Instead, pursuant to a conviction on the other charges e.g. aggravated assault, the Judge should be invited to infer from the totality of the evidence that the injured party was targeted on the grounds of race, gender, religion and sexuality. If the judge agreed, then the defendant gets extra punishment.
It’s often overlooked by fags that due to the difficulties of proof, “hate crime” legislation should not be viewed as the automatic choice of prosecution. FuelMix suggests it should be viewed as the last resort. The fallacy in most fags’ reasoning is screaming that because an attack took place in Fagland or on a fag, it must automatically be a “hate crime”. In some cases, that’s true: thugs will descend on a neighbourhood knowing that a certain (stereo)type of person is likely to come by.
But what about a situation where a dude, who happens to be a (straight looking, straight acting) fag, is walking by himself down a suburban street with his backpack and IPod. He’s attacked and mugged by thugs. They punch, kick him and break his jaw. He falls to the ground dazed and bleeding. The thugs swipe his wallet and his IPod. One of them gets the bright idea of unzipping the backpack and they find 2 gay porno mags. They fish them out, flip through them, laugh and make comments. They toss the magazines on the ground, next to where the fag is lying in a pool of blood, kick him a few times then split.
The police come along to find an injured, mugged dude surrounded by gay porn which was obviously unzipped from his backpack and which has his and the fingerprints of the thugs all over them. Are they to assume this was a “hate crime”? Would they pressure the traumatized fag into making a potentially embarrassing confession that he’s gay just in order to up the ante for a conviction? At what point could they show that the mugging morphed into a “hate crime”?
FuelMix suggests that fags have forgotten the inherent tension in “hate crime” legislation namely, the intended protection of minorities or a sub-culture, versus the notion of affirmatively favouring one group and all the political baggage that brings.
© 2008 FuelMix All Rights Reserved