@Pants-of-dog
@anasawad
I am not certain that that is the case.
Anyway, your graph is not from the PDF. The same graph from the PDF (Figure 2.6) shows different percentages.
This graph does not show convictions. It shows the percentage of these sorts of crimes or offences that then proceed to charges being laid, or require a civil court.
The point is to show that hate crimes end up in court more often.
Since not all cases that appear before a judge are convictions, your claim was incorrect.
And it still does not answer my question about numbers.
It's the same report, the PDF form is expanded and just uses different colors.
Anyhow, in order:
Communication act 2003:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contentsText of section 127 in the communication act of 2003:
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).
(5)An information or complaint relating to an offence under this section may be tried by a magistrates' court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland if it is laid or made—
(a)before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and
(b)before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which evidence comes to the knowledge of the prosecutor which the prosecutor considers sufficient to justify proceedings.
(6)Summary proceedings for an offence under this section may be commenced in Scotland—
(a)before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and
(b)before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which evidence comes to the knowledge of the prosecutor which the prosecutor considers sufficient to justify proceedings,and section 136(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (date when proceedings deemed to be commenced) applies for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of that section.
(7)A certificate of a prosecutor as to the date on which evidence described in subsection (5)(b) or (6)(b) came to his or her knowledge is conclusive evidence of that fact.]
From the report, going page by page:
Page 7:
In 2017/18, there were 94,098 hate crime offences recorded by the police in England and
Wales, an increase of 17% compared with the previous year.
This continues the upward trend in recent years with the number of hate crimes recorded by the
police having more than doubled since 2012/13 (from 42,255 to 94,098 offences; an increase of
123%).
Page 8:
Hate crime is defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to
be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’This
common definition was agreed in 2007 by the police ,
This means that offences with a xenophobic element (such as graffiti targeting certain nationalities)
can be recorded as race hate crimes by the police.
Page 12:
These increases are thought to have been driven by improvements in crime recording by the police
following a review Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services
(HMICFRS) in 2014 and the removal of the designation of police recorded crime as National
Statistics. It also thought that growing awareness of hate crime is likely to have led to improved
identification of such offences. Although these improvements are thought to be the main reasons for
the increases seen, there have been short-term increases in hate crime following certain events such
as the EU Referendum in June 2016 and the terrorist attacks in 2017.
Page 15:
Our focus is on Public order crimes.
Page 18:
The chart I previously put, now in different colors:
Page 19:
In total, 94 per cent of hate crime flagged offences recorded in 2017/18 had been assigned an
outcome at the time the data were extracted from the Data Hub.10 The remaining six per cent were still
under investigation.
thirteen per cent of hate crime flagged public order offences had been dealt with a charge or
summons compared with 10 per cent for non-hate crime flagged public order offences
Page 20:
Page 30:
Analysis of the online hate crime data by offence type shows that out of the four selected offence
groups, violence against the person (VATP) had the highest proportion (6%) of online hate crimes in
2017/18 (Figure A1). Looking at the data in more detail, malicious communications offences (a
subgroup of stalking and harassment offences) accounted for the majority (86%) of the VATP online hate crime offences. Criminal damage offences were least likely to have both an online and hate crime
element (<0.5%).
Considering that malicious communications, meaning communications targetted at a specific person, accounted for 86%, that leaves 14% of non-malicious offences, meaning hate speech.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... sb2018.pdfI just want to look at stats, not discuss my feelings about a particular case.
Examples of these online offences include the cases of Azhar Ahmed, Chelsea Russel, and Mark Meechan among many others.
Those cases are the ones that received public attention and reported in the media, they are significant because they show what type of "crimes" are we talking about when it comes to hate speech.
Examples from reports are not anecdotal, and the fact that they did happen in it self proves that there are arrests for hate speech that is not targetted at anyone, i.e. opinions.
This isn't about anyone's feelings, the fact these cases even exist on its own proves my point.
No. I want you to support your claim. Not just repeat it.
I already supported it multiple times, you just keep ignoring and running in circles, so I'll just continue to re-state it.
Since not all cases that appear before a judge are convictions, your claim was incorrect.
1- The fact that a charge is filed and the person is summoned to court means that the "crime" is already recorded on their records.
2- Considering that the UK has a very high conviction rate, it is fair to assume that of the 94% of these crimes, most have received a conviction.
from 2009 to 2017, the conviction ratio (the percentage of defendants convicted out of all those prosecuted) increased for all ethnic groups, from 79.8% in 2009 to 83.7% in 2017
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.ser ... nd-figures@Godstud
People still have the right to hold whatever opinion they have, however they have never had the express freedom to express opinions that can incite people to discrimination and violence.
Except that, as shown, is not true.
People, though a minority of cases at the moment, are indeed being arrested and convicted over stating opinions.
As bad as those opinions might be, they should still have the freedom to hold them.
Canadian law, is quite clear.
Section 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
UK Law
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states, in part:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
I haven't gone through Canadian law, so I'll do it tonight.
But for the UK law, the communication act of 2003 does criminalize offence and the police guidelines of 2007 expanded it even further.
In Germany, the Network enforcement act did the same.
You have to actually prove these in court, so an arrest means very little, unless there is grounds for a conviction.
You have to consider that the minute one is arrested and charges were filed, that goes into record, so just by doing that the state have caused significant damage to the person's life.
Can you present conviction rates on hate speech and specifics?
Exact numbers, no, I provided rough estimates.
94% of all public order offences were assigned outcome, with a conviction rate in the 90 percentiles.
In short, there has to actually be some harm done or problems caused in society by people using hate speech. It's not merely someone expressing an opinion, and being censored for it. It's not about limiting freedom of speech. There's always been limits where it can cause harm.
But you're missing the key problem ( Which I stated a couple of posts ago), the law doesn't say that and doesn't hold any specific definitions, it's vague and considerably large in scope. Simple police guidelines or court precedents define the interpretation due to this vagueness; As seen in the stats, the number of flagged offences are going up with changes in police guidelines.
Likewise, court precedents like the case of Mark Meechan who was arrested and fined for making Nazi jokes, Azhar Ahmed who was arrested for offensive political speech, and Chelsea Russel who was arrested and convicted for quoting a rap song with offensive words in it, all act to expand the scope of the law in enforcement.
The first (Mark Meechan) opened the door for comedians and artists to be arrested and convicted for jokes or offensive materials. (Which is why many famous Comedians and artists condemned the court decision)
The second, Azhar Ahmed, opened the door for political speech to be criminalized which means that the state can now crackdown on opposition parties. (Even if the state doesn't do it now, it now has the power to do so)
The third, Chelsea Russel, opens the door for censorship and criminalization of not only offensive opinions not targetted at anyone, but also for media material in general.
With many other cases of the likes that can be found with a simple search.
The current government not using that new power it was granted doesn't mean much in this argument because, either way, the state now has that power.
Again, enter the example of Trump's corruption here, it's a matter of when not if for someone to come in and abuse that power.
or simple fear-mongering about what could happen.
What could happen is a very important question to consider when making laws.
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, as seen with the case of Trump.
As Murphy's law goes, Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.