If I am mugged it is a crime. If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

Er, and what if someone is "mugged" simply because one is "perceived
to be Queer".

No, in both cases, no matter what the reason for the assault, it's still an
"assault" and should NOT be tagged one way or the other.

Yes, assaulting someone because of their perceived sexuality is wrong but so
is assaulting somebody because they are wearing the "wrong" hockey club
sweater, or look different, or are the "wrong" religion or the "wrong ethnic
group or the wrong whatever. One assault is no more serious than the other.
It's still an assault and any assault, no matter the motivation, should be
punished equally.


--
Cheers
Roger Traviss


Photos of the late GER: -
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...Great_Eastern/

On Aug 25, 6:16*pm, "Roger Traviss"
wrote:
If I am mugged it is a crime. *If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

Er, and what if *someone is "mugged" simply because one is "perceived
to be Queer".

No, in both cases, no matter what the reason for the assault, it's still an
"assault" and should NOT be tagged one way or the other.

Yes, assaulting someone because of their perceived sexuality is wrong but so
is assaulting somebody because they are wearing the "wrong" hockey club
sweater, or look different, or are the "wrong" religion or the "wrong ethnic
group or the wrong whatever. *One assault is no more serious than the other.
It's still an assault and any assault, no matter the motivation, should be
punished equally.

Thank you. Common sense at last.

On Aug 25, 10:57*pm, Jeremy Double wrote:
Nobody wrote:
(And yes, I'm a Fag so I'm able to express myself thus.)

It's unuual for a cigarette to be posting on Usenet ;-)

This is *uk*.railway!

He may have posted on misc.transport.urban-transit, or
uk.transport.london

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
1506 wrote:
It is the world in which we live. The American word is Liberalism.
Unfortunately it does not fit the classic British understanding of
Liberal. According to their thinking: It is wrong to discriminate
against women or people of color (and I agree with that). But,
"affirmative action" (discrimination by another name) against men and
people of northern European extraction is fine.

Yup, completely agree. You only have to look at the witch hunt against
David Starkey for what I thought were fairly moderate comments on newsnight
the other night to see the kind of mass demensia thats seems to have
infected a lot of "academics" in the more wolly social subjects.

The fun part is that these people continually preach "tolerance".
However, they have no tolerance for those with whom they disagree, to
wit Conservatives.

They wouldn't know real tolerance if it walked up to them and slapped them
in the face. In fact but some definitions these people would be called
facists.

B2003

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:37:19 -0700
Nobody wrote:
So give all of use a break: assault is assault, but if the assault is
engendered because of notions of represssed sexuality (i.e. hate), go
take a running jump...

But how can you tell which it was unless the attackers actually start
calling the victim names? Here it seems anything is a "hate" crime if
its done by white heterosexual males against a minority regardless. And as
for that old chesnut of hate being repressed sexuality , by that logic white
racists secretely want to be black. Ie its ********.

B2003

On 26/08/11 08:27, 1506 wrote:
Common sense at last.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

(Albert Einstein)

Ian

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:06:53 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 25/08/11 18:15, 1506 wrote:
Say goodbye to the sane world we once knew.

Do you mean the sane world in which gay people were imprisoned, women
were forced to resign from their jobs when they got married and
discrimination against "******" was the norm? **

So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals? Which you might need reminding make up
95% of the population of this country - something which metropolitan inner
city living liberals who never venture outside the M25 unless they're going to
the airport seem to forget.

** Starred out so I don't get nailed by the companies deep packet inspector and
having to spend the afternoon explaining myself to HR.

B2003

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:08:22 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 08:27, 1506 wrote:
Common sense at last.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

(Albert Einstein)

Which goes to prove even Einstein can get it wrong (we won't mention quantum
theory). Do you know many 18 year olds with common sense?

B2003

On Aug 26, 1:46*am, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:15:12 -0700 (PDT)

1506 wrote:
It is the world in which we live. *The American word is Liberalism.
Unfortunately it does not fit the classic British understanding of
Liberal. According to their thinking: It is wrong to discriminate
against women or people of color (and I agree with that). *But,
"affirmative action" (discrimination by another name) against men and
people of northern European extraction is fine.

Yup, completely agree. You only have to look at the witch hunt against
David Starkey for what I thought were fairly moderate comments on newsnight
the other night to see the kind of mass demensia thats seems to have
infected a lot of "academics" in the more wolly social subjects.

The fun part is that these people continually preach "tolerance".
However, they have no tolerance for those with whom they disagree, to
wit Conservatives.

They wouldn't know real tolerance if it walked up to them and slapped them
in the face. In fact but some definitions these people would be called
facists.

Got it in one. Is that the sound of hornets buzzing I hear?

On 26/08/11 10:31, 1506 wrote:
The guy was badly beaten. And, IMHO, no-one should die like that.
There were no clues as to motive. However, the young fellow in
question happened to be homosexual. The case became a rallying point
for campaigners against hate crimes. Homosexuals for hundreds of
miles around demanded hate crime legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

But, why, I ask was the guys horrible death worse because he was
homosexual? Would you or I not have felt the blows just as much?

His experience was no worse than yours or mine might have been. But the
fact that he was tortured to death for being gay /additionally/
threatened other gay people and it's for that /additional/ effect that
/additional/ punishment is merited.

Or at least, that's the theory. Seems OK to me.

Ian