nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Hate Crime: Goths, Punks And Emos Recognised

Airitech

http://news.sky.com/story/1073632/hate-crime-goths-punks-and-emos-recognised

From the Sky News article:

Greater Manchester Police have become the first in the country to officially recognise hate crimes against goths, emos, punks and metallers.

Attacks on those who belong to alternative subcultures will now be recorded as a crime by GMP in the same way as disability, racist, religious, sexual orientation and transgender hate crime to provide better support to victims and repeat victims.

The move is a response to the 2007 killing of Sophie Lancaster, who was attacked by a mob for being a goth.

Greater Manchester Police say they recognise "alternative subculture" as a broad term to define a strong sense of collective identity and a set of group-specific values and tastes.

This typically centres on distinctive style, clothing, make-up, body art and music preference.

I think this is a move in the right direction. There is enough mindless violence against people solely because of perceived membership of some group to warrant a strong stance on this.

I have seen it enough in Ireland particularly when alcohol is involved. I'd like to see something similar here, but how wide ranging should it be and how should it affect sentencing?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Delirium

LindowMan wrote: »

Yet another case of PC gone mad.

You think what happened to Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend wasn't a hate crime?

LindowMan

koth wrote: »

You think what happened to Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend wasn't a hate crime?

A white, straight, Christian, non-goth, non-punk guy near my flat was unprovokedly attacked by a group of Asians a few years ago and slashed across the face with a knife.

I'm still waiting for the police to make attacks against white, straight, Christian, non-goth, non-punk people being made into a hate crime, but I shan't hold my breath. They aren't a "persecuted minority" like Asians, blacks or punks.

I can't wait to see what GMP are going to class as a "hate crime" next. What about attacks on rappers, or people who dress up as Father Christmas?

Delirium

LindowMan wrote: »

A white guy near my flat was unprovokedly attacked by a group of Asians a few years ago and slashed across the face with a knife.

I'm still waiting for the police to make attacks against ordinary white people being made into a het crime, but I shan't hold my breath.

you didn't answer my question. any chance of getting a response to the question asked?

LindowMan

koth wrote: »

you didn't answer my question. any chance of getting a response to the question asked?

If someone attacked a man because he was dressed as Father Christmas, do you seriously propose that the police make attacking people dressed as Father Christmas a hate crime?

Because that is precisely what they have done regarding goths, punks and emos.

anncoates

koth wrote: »

You think what happened to Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend wasn't a hate crime?

I think the problem with saying all horrible acts of violence are hate crimes gets you into a difficult position and it slightly cheapens the notion of hate crime, or at least dilutes it.

I mean, does that mean that a company dress code that doesn't allow you to wear so-called alternative clothes is a denial of human rights?

I'm happy enough with hate crimes being based on the normal, more serious criteria of sexual orientation, race, gender and other things that have a parallel in entrenched employment/social/legal prejudice.

Killing that poor kid is surely prosecutable in its own right as a horrible crime anyway.

That said, I can see the practical value of it too: a lot of bullying amongst young people is predicated on how people look so anything that further stigmatizes can't be all bad but teenage bullying based on clothes, as bad as it is, shouldn't be ranked with things such as organized homophobia or sexual assault.

Delirium

LindowMan wrote: »

If someone attacked a man because he was dressed as Father Christmas, do you seriously propose that the police make attacking people dressed as Father Christmas a hate crime?

If a sub-culture existed of Father Christmas costumed people in society and they were being targeted due to be being members of that culture, sure.

Because that is precisely what they have done regarding goths, punks and emos.

It's not equating like with like, as goths/punks/emos have an entire culture around them. And as seen by the murder of Sophie, there are attacks on them due to how they dress/being members of the scene.

LindowMan

koth wrote: »

If a sub-culture existed of Father Christmas costumed people in society and they were being targeted due to be being members of that culture, sure.

Why does it matter whether or not they are a part of that PC term "subculture"? If a guy is attacked for being dressed as Father Christmas then surely the police should make that a hate crime.

A white guy was attacked by a group of Asians a few years ago near where I live and slashed across the face, no doubt because he was white. But I have yet to hear GMP making attacks against white people a "hate crime". Yet it would be a "hate crime" had a group of white people slashed an Asian across the face.

And this term "hate crime" just groups attacks and makes certain attacks seem more serious than others. Why don't the cops just treat ALL attacks as seriously as each other? Making attacks on goths or emos a "hate crime", or attacks on homosexuals a "hate crime", makes it seem as though the cops see attacks on these "hate crime" groups as being less serious as those attacks on "non-hate crime" groups.

I don't like to think that the cops will treat an attack on a black, Muslim, handicapped, lesbian emo as being more serious than an attack on me.

anncoates

koth wrote: »

If a sub-culture existed of Father Christmas costumed people in society and they were being targeted due to be being members of that culture, sure.

It's a largely teenage culture that the adherents forget about within a few years.

I'm not sure women, people of transgender, ethnic minorities and so on have the option of growing out of it. :pac:

Lollipops23

LindowMan wrote: »

If someone attacked a man because he was dressed as Father Christmas, do you seriously propose that the police make attacking people dressed as Father Christmas a hate crime?

Because that is precisely what they have done regarding goths, punks and emos.

People who dress in goth/emo fashion do so as a form of self-expression and as part of their lifestyle. It's a recognised and large part of their identity within a subculture that they belong to. If you've ever studied anthropology/ cultural studies (I have studied the latter) you'd be aware of the importance of it.

I'm delighted they've added this to the list of hate crimes. I was a skateboard groupie type in my early-mid teens (baggy jeans, vest tops and lots of bracelets

) and was constantly harassed by other kids and called a "hippie" (I tried explaining the actual meaning of that word to them, it was lost).

Kids will always single out anyone slightly "different" or alternative in my experience.

Delirium

anncoates wrote: »

It's a largely teenage culture that the adherents forget about within a few years.

I'm not sure women, people of transgender, ethnic minorities and so on have the option of growing out of it. :pac:

Religion is also protected under the umbrella of a hate crime. It's a group/culture people opt into, why is that so different than what they're now doing with emo/punk/goth etc.?

And would it not be deserving of more protection considering as you claim it's mainly teens that are involved in the scene?

LindowMan

Lollipops23 wrote: »

People who dress in goth/emo fashion do so as a form of self-expression and as part of their lifestyle. It's a recognised and large part of their identity within a subculture that they belong to. If you've ever studied anthropology/ cultural studies (I have studied the latter) you'd be aware of the importance of it.

So what?

Why should an attack on an emo or a gay or an Asian or a Black be seen by the law as being more serious than an attack on anyone else?

LindowMan

koth wrote: »

Religion is also protected under the umbrella of a hate crime.

Unless you're Christian.

Allyall

bb1234567 wrote: »

This is stupid because you choose to be goth,emo,punk,hipster etc. You dont choose what age,gender,ethnicity,race, social class, sexual orientation you are or if youre disabled. Religion, yes you can choose but a lot of people until they are an adult are forced to stick with the religion of their parents.

I think that's why Greater Manchester Police are first in the UK to recognise these "extra" victims. All those mentioned in your post are already recognised..

anncoates wrote: »

Metallers must be one of the most stupid words ever coined..

And Emo and Hipster and all of the below (If they exist)

Greater Manchester Po-Po going to have a tougher time then they first thought if they include all of these..
http://www.buzzfeed.com/boomslang/37-different-personality-types-illustrated-and-bro-3gs4

Delirium

LindowMan wrote: »

Why does it matter whether or not they are a part of that PC term "subculture"? If a guy is attacked for being dressed as Father Christmas then surely the police should make that a hate crime.

A white guy was attacked by a group of Asians a few years ago near where I live and slashed across the face, no doubt because he was white. But I have yet to hear GMP making attacks against white people a "hate crime". Yet it would be a "hate crime" had a group of white people slashed an Asian across the face.

And this term "hate crime" just groups attacks and makes certain attacks seem more serious than others. Why don't the cops just treat ALL attacks as seriously as each other? Making attacks on goths or emos a "hate crime", or attacks on homosexuals a "hate crime", makes it seem as though the cops see attacks on these "hate crime" groups as being less serious as those attacks on "non-hate crime" groups.

I don't like to think that the cops will treat an attack on a black, Muslim, handicapped, lesbian emo as being more serious than an attack on me.

If the white guy was targeted because he was white, then it should be treated as a hate crime. I don't know if the area has a high incidence of Asians attacking white people because of their race. But if it's happening then it already falls under the umbrella of hate crimes.

Delirium

LindowMan wrote: »

Unless you're Christian.

Have you anything to back up that claim? Are Christians being attacked because of their faith and nothing is done about it? Any reports/news articles as examples?

starlings

anncoates wrote: »

I think the problem with saying all horrible acts of violence are hate crimes gets you into a difficult position and it slightly cheapens the notion of hate crime, or at least dilutes it.

I mean, does that mean that a company dress code that doesn't allow you to wear so-called alternative clothes is a denial of human rights?

I'm happy enough with hate crimes being based on the normal, more serious criteria of sexual orientation, race, gender and other things that have a parallel in entrenched employment/social/legal prejudice.

Killing that poor kid is surely prosecutable in its own right as a horrible crime anyway.

That said, I can see the practical value of it too: a lot of bullying amongst young people is predicated on how people look so anything that further stigmatizes can be all bad but teenage bullying based on clothes, as bad as it is, shouldn't be ranked with things such as organized homophobia or sexual assault.

It could be argued that ALL murders come from hatred - be it in fleeting anger and based on personal conflict, or because of a deep-seated hatred of a certain quality in the victim.

I remember a huge outcry after poor Sophie Lancaster was killed, and wonder if it was less to do with defending her right to free expression of taste in music and clothes, and more to do with the fact that she was a much-loved young person who was just walking in a park with her boyfriend. It's more sobering to think that anyone could be prey to such mindless and hateful violence than that it might be somehow provoked by superficial codes of dress and fandom.

Lollipops23

LindowMan wrote: »

So what?

Why should an attack on an emo or a gay or an Asian or a Black be seen by the law as being more serious than an attack on anyone else?

I don't think it's more serious, I just think it's categorizing the crime. The fact is, the attacker has targeted someone because of a non-imposing aspect of their personality: their colour, their creed, their membership of a cub culture. How do any of these factors invite an attack/murder?

I think it's important to be able to say "this man stabbed someone because he hated as aspect of their identity" as it speaks volumes about the attacker and it should be taken into consideration when sentencing.

anncoates

koth wrote: »

Religion is also protected under the umbrella of a hate crime. It's a group/culture people opt into, why is that so different than what they're now doing with emo/punk/goth etc.?

What happened to that girl is terrible beyond belief but are you really generally equating teenage bullying with the amount of lives lost under the aegis of dedicated religious persecution?

Gatling

Sophie Lancaster's death wasn't a hate crime no matter what spin you put on it ,
It was a senseless act of violence she and her boyfriend were not attacked for being goth ,
The boyfriend was set on after handing out smokes while chatting with a group of teens ,one of the main culprit's is autistic ,the 2 lads convicted of murder were already on a community order for a previous assault in the same park,

Hate crimes for teen subculture's for most part is just PC showboating

Delirium

anncoates wrote: »

What happened to that girl is terrible beyond belief but are you really generally equating teenage bullying with the amount of lives lost under the aegis of dedicated religious persecution?

Why should a person who is assaulted because they're Christian/Jewish/Muslim be regarded as a hate crime, but if it happens because they're an emo/punk/goth then it's not?

I wasn't attempting to suggest that what is happening regarding the emo/punk/goths had the same levels of violence/persecution. I'm just wondering why they should be treated differently is all.

pickarooney

Why does it matter if something is a hate crime? How does it increase or lessen the awfulness of the perpetrator's actions?

Delirium

pickarooney wrote: »

Why does it matter if something is a hate crime? How does it increase or lessen the awfulness of the perpetrator's actions?

It's my understanding that if an attack is decided to be a hate crime that the sentencing can be tougher on the perpetrator.

Ray Palmer

Gatling wrote: »

Hate crimes for teen subculture's for most part is just PC showboating

Having been attacked for what I looked like to me is different to being attacked for having a disagreement with somebody. I know lots of people attacked for how they dressed and also knew people who targeted people for the same reason.

I was attacked by a gang of 5 people because I was a "hippy". Luckily one of the guys who attacked me realized he knew me and was in my class so he stopped it. The only reason they attacked me was I didn't look like their group. Pretty straight forward in terms of what can be defined as a hate crime.

The guy I knew told me it was simply because I was a "hippy". It is certainly a worse crime to attack people randomly just because they aren't the same as you. There is nothing PC about it, it is being recognized for what it is.

smurgen

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I don't think it's more serious, I just think it's categorizing the crime. The fact is, the attacker has targeted someone because of a non-imposing aspect of their personality: their colour, their creed, their membership of a cub culture. How do any of these factors invite an attack/murder?

I think it's important to be able to say "this man stabbed someone because he hated as aspect of their identity" as it speaks volumes about the attacker and it should be taken into consideration when sentencing.

I don't think it speaks volume to be honest. If a person attacks someone because of their identity it tells me that that person is a scumbag and an idiot. If a person attacks someone in an unprovoked attacked for no reason at all they're still a scumbag and an idiot. The only use tat I can see for this is that it categorises the crime. I don't see it as making the crime appear more serious or the criminal any less/more of a scumbag.

Links234

good, it was a horrific thing to happen, and hopefully something good will come of this.

I've had people shout abuse at me in broad daylight for no other reason than I was a "mosher"

Gatling

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Having been attacked for what I looked like to me is different to being attacked for having a disagreement with somebody. I know lots of people attacked for how they dressed and also knew people who targeted people for the same reason.

I was attacked by a gang of 5 people because I was a "hippy". Luckily one of the guys who attacked me realized he knew me and was in my class so he stopped it. The only reason they attacked me was I didn't look like their group. Pretty straight forward in terms of what can be defined as a hate crime.

The guy I knew told me it was simply because I was a "hippy". It is certainly a worse crime to attack people randomly just because they aren't the same as you. There is nothing PC about it, it is being recognized for what it is.

I've been there done that ,long hair happy been jumped several times over the years ,still don't consider it hatred bullying maybe or usual teen hard man show off for there mates ,
A prime example is football violence . two opposing fans with pure hatred for each other and I mean hatred of the highest order is put down to hooligan behaviour when assaults are recorded ,that's not a hate crime then what is,
Drunken violence is what the crime was at the time ,without previous displays of hatred its next to impossible to pursue

Pumpkinseeds

Ahh my Goth days, I remember them with fondness. I wouldn't have the patience for it these days though. The worst hassle I ever had was from bottom feeding mouth breeders shouting insults, but you kind of expect that from pond life. Never really had hassle in England with it though,mainly just in Ireland.

WayneMolloy

Links234 wrote: »

good, it was a horrific thing to happen, and hopefully something good will come of this.

I've had people shout abuse at me in broad daylight for no other reason than I was a "mosher"

Ive had people shout abuse at me for the crime of wearing a Dublin polo shirt outside of Dublin.

What hate crime can they be charged with?

Load of bollocks.

Corkfeen

smurgen wrote: »

I don't think it speaks volume to be honest. If a person attacks someone because of their identity it tells me that that person is a scumbag and an idiot. If a person attacks someone in an unprovoked attacked for no reason at all they're still a scumbag and an idiot. The only use tat I can see for this is that it categorises the crime. I don't see it as making the crime appear more serious or the criminal any less/more of a scumbag.

By giving harsher sentences for hate crimes, the intended effect is to discourage similar attacks from reoccuring.

Gatling

Corkfeen wrote: »

By giving harsher sentences for hate crimes, the intended effect is to discourage similar attacks from reoccuring.

But when its random assault it water's down actual true Hate crime