Quote (HeLiCaL @ Sep 12 2018 08:54am)
example you provided - is made up by you
it is not from an official list of rules & banned words provided by the UK thought police, because they do not offer one
yet you just blindly singed off in support of something that is not exactly defined anywhere, embarassing stupidity
is there a reason you stated the obvious that my example was made up? did you think i was presenting it as anything other than hypothetical? you may have noticed, later in the post, i called out a lack of real world examples of this being applied, if you have any please provide them.
as for "signing off", now who's making things up? i didn't endorse it, and don't support it. I simply provided examples for clarity you may have been lacking. It appears the author of the cartoon is implying that a hate crime, per this, is a crime. I believe it is not, but in fact an aggravating circumstance that causes a separate charge of a crime to be filed. No one, i believe, will be ticketed for "hate incidents", they will be charged with a crime as a result of a "hate incident".
I prefer, as we have it on the book in the US, a country i live in and not the UK, to have hateful motivation be an aggravating circumstance for sentencing, and admissible evidence in the case itself. Rather than a vehicle for charging in the first place. In layman's terms, i believe that the crime devoid of the hateful motivation must be present for a charge to be placed. In reference to the examples i gave, the person screaming would be let off with a warning, regardless of what they yell.
if you need any more clarity on my position, and want to avoid making foolish assumptions that wont stand up, just ask.