The New, and very Dangerous "Left" - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15040930
I wouldn't expect a poorly educated Georgian to commit to an argument he was making. :p

I don't think you even know what a straw man argument is, as we are talking about freedom of speech, here. It's very relevant considering the discussion.
#15040937
@Pants-of-dog
The number I gave isn't 17% going to court.
The number going to court is over 90%. The number you're referring to is the number of hate speech that isn't targetted (i.e. not harassment, nor incitement, but rather opinions).
Your final number is sound, but you got it through the wrong percentages.
The number of overall cases going to court is 94%. The number of convictions is also in the 90 percentile based on ethnic groups (all are in the 90% range for public order offences). The number of hate speech that is not targetted (this is the number you're referring to) is roughly around 15%.

So yes, from 1600 cases a year, there would be around 250 cases regarding hate speech, of which around 90% of them would lead to a conviction.

@Godstud
The number itself is low for the time, but that is still a precedent and it is only the beginning.
It is only wise to consider the long term consequences of laws.

And might I add that you guys also use the same logic (which is a sound logic) of considering the long term consequences in other cases when it comes to your rivals, so I don't see why you are refusing to consider these consequences here.

As an example, the reason why there is a huge backlash against the detention facilities in the US is because the same precedent was established in Germany in the 1920s when Germany was hosting massive numbers of Jewish and minority refugees from Tsarist Russia and it opened refugee camps in the same fashion these detention camps in the US are today; Although those camps in the 1920s did not hold much significance at their establishment, they became the corner stone in establishing the infamous concentration camps 2 decades latter in the late 1930s and shortly after, death camps.
The camps and the accompanying rhetoric played the initial role of driving a wedge between the German and Jewish people which would accumulate in the far right taking over after intense fighting between the far right and the far left and the resulting genocide.
This precedent is why nowadays people are making NAZI comparisons between the current US government and Germany early 20th century.

So the progressive left already does take long term consequences into account in some instances, so why not be pragmatic and use the same logic and reasoning to policies of both the right and the left to ensure sound results and a truly better society?

I'm not as emotionally engaged in this conversation as you might think, I'm a bit stressed out due to other things in real life and that might reflect in my writing, but it's not about the case.
The whole arguement between me and @Pants-of-dog is about whether these laws are actually resulting in arrests and convictions, which once this matter settles, it will turn to the argument regarding long term consequences.

On that regard, I must also add, @Pants-of-dog, I apologize for calling you dishonest previously, I was tired and a bit angry due and some of it came out on you. It is best to establish good intentions and remove hostilities to ensure any continuation of this argument under a good light.
#15040940
anasawad wrote:and it is only the beginnin
You know, Hate Speech laws are nothing new, and have been around for a very long time(the 60s in Canada, the 80s in the UK, etc.). The fear-mongering is just that, given the track record and decreasing(not increasing) numbers of incidents.

anasawad wrote:I'm not as emotionally engaged in this conversation as you might think
You appear to be very emotional, as the facts really don't support your fears.
#15040946
@Godstud
Actually no, those laws aren't old, they're new in Europe and in both the UK and Germany, and those arrests aren't based on old laws, they're based on new ones.

Similar cases of new laws being set in many European countries, not old ones being the same.

And I already provided more than sufficient number of evidence to support my claim, the fact does prove the projection I am making and the facts do support my claim.
#15040947
I listed where they aren't new and demonstrated that these have not escalated to the heights you suggest(or project). new changes does not make the laws themselves, now.

Why do you not think criminal acts that promote violence against groups should not be prosecuted?
#15040948
@Godstud
And I showed and quoted the text of the laws that were and in comparison to the new laws, and there is a significant expansion.
The new laws although are based on older ones, they're much more expansive, have significantly larger scope, and whether it's in the UK or Germany, the new laws are more vague and allows for police and court guidelines to hold much of the interpretation and control which means they give it a huge openning for even further expansion.

And they're not limited to incitement and harassment, we already ruled those out of the calculations, we're talking about opinions and jokes being prosecuted.
#15040954
You still have no evidence that mere cartoons and joke are being convicted, however. That's where you "fear" comes into play.

Can you provide evidence of a "frivolous" hate speech case and ruling? That might help. otherwise, all I see is a lot of conjecture on what COULD happen.

As I said before... we still don't have people marrying dogs and cats, despite 15+ years of homosexual marriage in Canada, and fears of some, associated with that.
#15040958
@Godstud
Except I do. In the UK alone, around 15% of all public order offences are not targetted ones, i.e. not harassment nor incitement.
And I already referenced cases that gained mainstream media attention where the subject was indeed arrested and convicted for making jokes (not targetted at anyone, but general nazi jokes) , publishing "offensive" material not targetted at anyone (in this case quoting a rap song), and a case where a political opinion that was deemed offensive got the person arrested.

Again, I already provided more than sufficient evidence that my claim is correct.

This discussion is entering it's 11th page, you think that it would've gone this long if I didn't provide any evidence?
#15040961
anasawad wrote:publishing "offensive" material not targetted at anyone (in this case quoting a rap song),
Publishing material can be harmful, however, and be construed by incitement, under the right conditions, which I am sure you are ignoring.

anasawad wrote:and a case where a political opinion that was deemed offensive got the person arrested.
Sure, but were they convicted?

It doesn't matter how many pages this discussion is, as you are only demonstrating a FEAR of what could happen.

Yes, there are hate speech laws in many countries, and they have to have evidence of intent. It's not as simple as you imply, and the conviction rate is very low.
#15040993
anasawad wrote:
This discussion is entering it's 11th page, you think that it would've gone this long if I didn't provide any evidence?



How may times did Congress waste time using Benghazi as an excuse to smear Hillary?

Passion and certainty are typically inversely related.
#15040997
@anasawad

Go back and look at the graph called figure 2.6 that you cited.

It shows how many offenses go to court. The highest percentage on the chart was 17%, so I used that. It is actually 16% according to the chart.

The chart is called: Figure 2.6: Percentage of racially or religiously aggravated offences and their non-aggravated equivalents recorded in 2017/18 resulting in charge/summons, by offence type

It is found on page 18 of the PDF.
#15041003
@Godstud
Publishing material can be harmful, however, and be construed by incitement, under the right conditions, which I am sure you are ignoring.

So..... We should ban rap songs?
Because the girl was arrested and convicted for a post where she quoted a rap song.

And how are they harmful?
Is making a joke about the NAZI harmful to society? Or making a rap song?

Further more, if you were to consider that political opinions can be harmful and thus can be banned, you do realize you just removed the right to belief, the right of expression (i.e. free speech), the right of association and affiliation, the right to assembly, etc are all gone righT?
You would also effectively leave the door wide open for a dictatorship, because if political speech can be banned under the banner of being harmful, then who ever is in power can simply ban and imprison their opposition under the guise of their opposition's opinions being "harmful".



Sure, but were they convicted?

They were.
And furthermore, the conviction rate ranges in the 90s percentile for public order offenses in the UK (it varies based on ethnic group), meaning the if we took the minimum, 90% of the times there is a conviction.

I haven't yet looked up stats on Germany so I can't give definitive number, but it also have significant conviction rate for hate speech.


have to have evidence of intent. It's not as simple as you imply, and the conviction rate is very low.

Not necissarily, as shown before, conviction can and is made not only without proving intent, but even when there is clear evidence that intent was opposite to the claimed intent of the court.

And the conviction rate is surprisingly very high.
Even higher than the average conviction rate of regular crimes.

It's not as simple as you imply

Was, not is, was.
It wasn't as simple as that, but now it increasingly is.
#15041005
90 percentile for the 16% that even make it to court. :roll:

Fear-mongering. This whole thread is simply the right-wingers/conservatives fear-mongering.
#15041015
@Pants-of-dog
True, but that percentage is too early in the process relative to what we're discussing.
As in:
The total number of recorded crimes recorded in that years is 94 thousand. The number of reported hate crimes is even far higher and the police is criticized for under-recording in their stats.
The number of flagged cases means that the case was reported by someone, recorded by the police, flagged in one of I believe 10 crime flags for hate crimes, and then pursued.
Majority of cases are not flagged or pursued.
The Percentage you're quoting is of the total recorded crimes, not the flagged crimes.
So the numbers do add up.

That's why you constantly get reports of the UK police not pursuing or investigating a significant portion of crimes.

The biggest number is the number of reported crimes, of which a portion is recorded, then an even smaller portion is flagged, investigated, and pursued.
The percentage at the beginning is of the recorded crimes.
The percentages down the line (the 94%, and the conviction rates after) are for pursued crimes.

If we took the numbers and assumed the rates are universal, we get a rough estimate of 190 crimes that are relating to hate speech that is not targetted at anyone (i.e. opinion) that resulted in conviction. (The number obviously varies because that data provided is limited)
It would be 1605 overall, remove 1380 targetted cases (harassment and incitement, 86%), then multiply that by 94% the cases were assigned an outcome (212), then count the conviction rate, which ranges between 87.9% for blacks and 97.4% for whites (we'll take 90% as an average), so you get 190 cases rough estimate of cases where the online speech in hand was not targetted at anyone, but resulted in arrests and conviction. (noting this is only for online speech)

So the figure indicated by the media report of 500 (average) in London a year matches up once we count out the harassment and incitement.



Also, there is, I provided the conviction rate chart below from another report. (page 13 of this thread)


@Godstud
Just go check the numbers dude.

Even if they're low for the time, it is still a precedent.

Also, if all cases were pursued or went to court, considering that every one reports every little thing, the number of crimes in overall would be in the 100s of thousands.

In 2018 alone, there are I believe 300 thousand or so (not sure which report I read it in) reported hate crimes alone (so the number will be much much bigger if counted regular crimes as well), of which 94 thousand were officially recorded.

And if it's so much of a fear mongering for me to point out a precedent being set, then half of the complaints about Trump's action would also be fear mongering since most of those are based on the long term consequences of his actions.
#15041030
@anasawad

No. I am using the numbers you gave me.

I am using them as they are described in the report.

You seem to be simply coming up with numbers out of thin air, and applying odd logic. For example, it is impossible for the number of hate crimes to be higher than the number of total crimes.
#15041040
@Pants-of-dog
Dude, I'm quoting the report directly.
All the numbers I'm using I already quoted from the report in page 13.

You're using the wrong numbers. Go back and check, I already quoted all the relevant parts.


And it's not "odd" logic, this is how it's counted. Reported crimes are not all pursued because not all are credible.
Recorded incedints aren't all pursued because not all are worth it.
Flagged cases are the ones pursued.

The numbers I'm counting are already quoted from the report directly and the conviction rate is from official government stats that I also quoted.
Ignoring the evidence wont work, it's on page 13.

And how many reported crimes do you think are there in the UK?



Here is the post:
viewtopic.php?p=15040067#p15040067
I quoted all the relevant numbers and info, from 3 sources.
All the numbers I'm using are backed and from these reports.
#15041081
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog
The number I gave isn't 17% going to court.
The number going to court is over 90%. The number you're referring to is the number of hate speech that isn't targetted (i.e. not harassment, nor incitement, but rather opinions).


When you originally cited it, you incorrectly said that it was about convictions.

The 16% refers to the number of cases flagged that then proceeded to someone being charged with a crime, or receiving a summons for civil court.

Your final number is sound, but you got it through the wrong percentages.
The number of overall cases going to court is 94%. The number of convictions is also in the 90 percentile based on ethnic groups (all are in the 90% range for public order offences). The number of hate speech that is not targetted (this is the number you're referring to) is roughly around 15%.

So yes, from 1600 cases a year, there would be around 250 cases regarding hate speech, of which around 90% of them would lead to a conviction.


It is difficult to discuss these numbers without looking at where you got them from.

On that regard, I must also add, @Pants-of-dog, I apologize for calling you dishonest previously, I was tired and a bit angry due and some of it came out on you. It is best to establish good intentions and remove hostilities to ensure any continuation of this argument under a good light.


No problem. I assumed it was something like this since you are normally very polite.

Consider it forgotten.
#15041087
@Pants-of-dog
When you originally cited it, you incorrectly said that it was about convictions.

The 16% refers to the number of cases flagged that then proceeded to someone being charged with a crime, or receiving a summons for civil court.


True, I was a bit off as I haven't gone through the full data yet.
The number is the percentage of the overall that are flagged and proceed to charges and summons.
The problem with that number is that it deals primarily with racially motivated cases, as such when I quoted the full report, I only re-stated the graph with a note above it to show that it is the same report.

Of those 16%, we should remove the targetted cases which account for 86% of the cases, those are harassment and incitement, and then we multiply the remaining by the average conviction rate.

It is difficult to discuss these numbers without looking at where you got them from.

It's here:
viewtopic.php?p=15040067#p15040067
It's taken from 2 stats, both are quoted and shown.
#15041091
@Pants-of-dog
The numbers I'm using are:
From 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.


From 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.


From 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%).


Report:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... sb2018.pdf

From second source:
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

Image

We are interested in the public order offences here, which has the conviction rates of:
94.7% for Asians.
87.9% for Blacks.
92.4% for Mixed.
97.4% for Whites.
87.3% for Others.

Now, considering that whites have the highest number, it means the conviction rate is higher than 90%, however I took the 90% as a low average for conviction rates.

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.ser ... nd-figures

Using all these rates, I ended up with 190 rough estimates to how many arrests and convictions for hate speech that was not targetted in 2018 throughout the country.

It's a low number, but it is a precedent nontheless.


For why I think this is important, From my previous posts:
As an example, the reason why there is a huge backlash against the detention facilities in the US is because the same precedent was established in Germany in the 1920s when Germany was hosting massive numbers of Jewish and minority refugees from Tsarist Russia and it opened refugee camps in the same fashion these detention camps in the US are today; Although those camps in the 1920s did not hold much significance at their establishment, they became the corner stone in establishing the infamous concentration camps 2 decades latter in the late 1930s and shortly after, death camps.
The camps and the accompanying rhetoric played the initial role of driving a wedge between the German and Jewish people which would accumulate in the far right taking over after intense fighting between the far right and the far left and the resulting genocide.
This precedent is why nowadays people are making NAZI comparisons between the current US government and Germany early 20th century.


Look at surveillance for example in the US, it started small, only meant to track credible threats and required tons of procedures to be able to even track or surveil a person; 20 years later, everyone is constantly watched and the state has immense powers because of that very small law that began with a very small scope.
And now, someone like Trump has the keys to that power.

And those aren't small countries we're talking about, the UK, Germany, the US, Canada, etc are all world-leading countries, meaning the minute they go in a certain path, many countries follow.
That's why Trump's victory kicked off an entire chain of right-wing authoritarians all across.

And It's not a strawman comparing it to the early beginnings of the Baath party, read the writings of Michel Aflaq and Salah Al-Din Bitar; The laws they pushed and formulated all the way back in the 50s and 60s establishing the state's authority to censor people and media in sects-related subjects in order to reduce and prevent sectarian tensions from exploding again are the same laws that would permit Hafez Al-Assad decades latter to throw 10s of thousands in jail under the guise of keeping national unity and preventing sectarian divide, and the same laws that would cause the descent in Syria that would grow underground until it blew up in the current civil war.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16

Amb. Taylor pointed out, in his earlier testimony,[…]

The Paradox of Poverty

I'm just saying that as the poverty grows in form[…]

A quick update pending fact check, but the inciden[…]

EU-BREXIT

It's obviously much better to invest in the single[…]