Debate: Is it a Hate Crime to Attack Music Fans?

Police in Manchester now officially class attacks on punks, emos and goths as hate crimes, ranking them alongside attacks based on race or religion. But should there be a distinction when a person has a choice about how they look?

Ultimate Guitar

Were all shocked when we hear news that fellow rock fans have been attacked because of their appearance.

But should these kind of crimes be classed alongside racist and religious attacks?

That's the debate in the UK after police in the city of Manchester officially classing attacks on punks, emos and goths as hate crimes, putting them on par with attacks based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender, according to NME.

They are the first police force in the UK to specifically protect those in alternative sub-cultures from abuse.

The move is the result of a campaign by the Sophie Lancaster Foundation, which was set up after she was tragically murdered in a Manchester park for being a goth.

"People who wish to express their alternative sub-culture identity freely should not have to erase hate crime," said Manchester Police's Assistant Chief Constable Gary Sherwan. "Sophie's tragic death brought forward a need to recognise that there are many other victims of hate crime that should be protected by law."

If all violent crime is wrong, you might be wondering why there is a debate around the issue.

According to commentators that we've heard on UK news channels, some people think that including statements of dress sense alongside things that people can't change - like the colour of their skin or their gender - then it dilutes the severity of hate crimes against people who can't choose otherwise.

But of course, we know that rock fans don't just choose to dress in certain ways. It's part of their personal identity, and they can't stop loving music if they tried. So why should they be persecuted for that?

You may remember our previous reports on emos being attacked and killed in Iraq, or the Indian teenage girls whose rock band disbanded after a hate campaign.

To us at UG, it's unacceptable and we think Manchester Police have taken a really positive step forward in protecting rock fans. Still, we think this is a really interesting issue and one that deserves a debate.

Do you think more cities and countries should take steps to protect people in sub-cultures? Or do you think there are good reasons not to single out individual groups, and instead focus on protecting people from all backgrounds?

Share your views in the comments and we may pick out the best contributions in a future post.

161 comments sorted by best / new / date

    All crimes are hate crimes. Nobody commits friendly crimes. Giving special penalties because a victim belongs to a certain group only perpetuates the idea that different demographics are not equal. We are all equals, and the penalty for harming any one of us should not be different from the penalty for harming another person.
    link no1
    Getting an ass kicking because I slept with somebody's girlfriend. That's a normal attack and I deserved it. Getting attacked simply because I am a metal fan. That's unprovoked and I didn't deserve it at all. There is the difference. Add in to the factor that this is GM Police, these sub cultures get attacked on a regular basis in the Greater Manchester area. I think it deserves a harsher punishment since around here people do actually get beaten on a insanely regular basis for this reason alone. Maybe adding as a hate crime will at least stop some attacks, though I doubt it will make a difference.
    Um,why do you DESERVE an ass kicking because you slepy with someone's girlfriend? Hell it was a decision between two consenting adults right? I think violence for any reason other than self defense/defense of someone else qualifies as a crime.
    How about assisted suicide? That's a crime. Is that a hate crime? Is it hate to take away someone's pain?
    I can't agree with the first part. Not all crimes are hate crimes - they aren't all perpetrated because the criminal has something against the victims. I understand you saying there are no "friendly crimes", but you are failing to understand the meaning of "hate crimes" themselves. Furthermore, I would say that people are not equal; we are not born equal, nor do we live as such. We are all good and bad at different things - it annoys me that we are constantly being forced to all be the same, like items in a factory-produced batch; I don't want to be classed the same as some idiotic, violent brute who gets drunk each weekend because they have no motivation in life. That said, when it comes to the law, I agree that the penalties should reflect the crime committed, and not be based on who the crime was committed against, or by (within reason). Let me clarify - if a guy gets drunk and beats up another guy walking down the street, that is bad. If however, the victim is an 80 year old pensioner who can't run away, protect themself, or possibly even cry out loudly for help, then that is even worse. Do you see the point? Whilst a crime should be punished in a certain way, there are also levels of how bad a particular crime is. So, back on topic... Should hate crimes be punished in a different way to a similar crime that wasn't motivated by hate? Probably not. However, it is a way of classifying what types of crime are being committed - that helps the police/any other organisation to focus on tackling not only the crimes, but the motives behind them. If you don't get to the root of a problem, that problem won't go away.
    But if someone goes out with the express intention of harming somebody based on some aspect of their identity, then surely that's a different crime with different motivations than indiscriminate assault or theft, and should be treated as such? I agree that justice should affect everyone equally, but I think that lumping together religiously-, racially-, or whateverly-motivated assault with 'ordinary' assault is counter-productive. The distinction exists for a reason: it's a seperate crime. Punishing that seperately specifically, IMO, does more good for eradicating social boundaries than pretending they don't exist.
    And how do you prove someone attacked out of a specific hate for a certain group, rather than merely being indiscriminately violent? What if I just dislike your face?
    Giving special penalties because a victim belongs to a certain group only perpetuates the idea that different demographics are not equal.
    ^ this.
    by no means am I trying to make any light of this situation. That being said, by your logic sonofgkex, burglary and robbery are hate crimes.
    No, Iamnoob, by my logic there are no "hate crimes" because there is no real distinction between crimes based upon their motivation. Crimes and hate crimes are the same thing, and there should not be different punishments based upon intent. If I shot you, would you really care if I picked up your wallet as you died? Wether I robbed you or killed you out of bigotry or rage does not make you any less dead, nor does it make me more or less of a murderer. Another thing to consider is that in some cases it is impossible to prove intent or motive despite the cases in which the motive is clear. We cannot base our justice system on trying to prove what people "intended" by their actions because intent is often subjective or impossible to prove through evidence.
    hasn't anyone seen the south park where cartman throws the rock at token? every crime is a hate crime
    If youre not filled with hate when commiting a violent act then there is something REALLY wrong with you. However, music is more real than religion.... so if anything music fans have a better justification to call hatecrime
    I wouldn't say religion is less real. The existence of a God or gods is clearly not guaranteed in the slightest. However, religions aren't just about that (if I understand properly) - they are also about a common set of values, morals and perspectives on life, and those are just as real as someone being really into a particular band or type of music. I think musically-motivated hate crimes are as serious as any others.
    South Park resorts to the Golden Means Fallacy, which much like Goodwin's law, serves as grounds to consider invalidating an argument. Furthermore, in places that have a history of violence targeted toward groups of people, hate crime legislation is pretty necessary. In the US, prior to hate crime legislation, not only was racial violence extremely high and worlds more violent than non-racially motivated crime *still is when it happens* (try having yourself tied to the back of a truck on the ground an being driven around, or tied to a tree and castrated and burned), but these crimes were often not followed up by an actual investigation. Without hate crime legislation there would be no accountability for the police who's job it is to protect, serve, and solve crimes when bigotry toward victims is present in the officers (see US and lynching, the UK with Thatcher's anti-leftist police (yes, the police brutally silenced many, including punks, back in the 80s), or murders of Muslims in India and Hindus in Pakistan that police never responded to (as seen in Slum Dog Millionaire - yes that is a movie, but that kind of thing happened)). So, ya know, South Park's Matt Parker and Trey Stone kind of need to pull their privileged heads out of their behinds.
    Dude, you've ALREADY said that. We get it. You've left your opinions on this matter and you've been heard.
    Does anyone else think its slightly ironic that punks are now protected by the very establishment that historically they were known to be against!?
    they're kinda like feminists. its only ok if it benefits them.
    I strongly disagree. I don't know what experiences you have had with feminists, but far from all of them, and no one with whom I have come in contact, fit to your description. Do you even know what feminists stand for, or are you just generalizing from seeing arrogant radical feminists who support the suppression of the male gender, and who get the most media time because they scream the highest? FYI, they don't represent the feminist movement or its cause in the least bit.
    Oh believe me, their are a hell of a lot batshit crazy feminists.
    I second that. I've met a lot of feminists and they're friggin' nuts. Not ALL of them - It's more of the really self-absorbed ones that use their feminist view as an excuse to behave the way they do.
    "behave the way they do" what the hell does that mean? I don't know who you've met or what experiences you've had with individuals, but no matter how antagonistic or annoying one feminist might be, the fundamentals of feminism are absolutely valid. you cannot deny the fact that women are victims of male-dominated society.
    I've seen both sides of the feminist party and I don't have to explain myself to you. With all do respect, you haven't or you wouldn't be asking me to explain myself.
    No, you're privileged and thus ignorant of the pain of being victim to the patriarchy.
    Apollo X
    Oh my god, UG's got itself a bona fide social justice Tumblrtard troll of its own now! Ladies and gentlemen, let the oppression Olympics begin.
    JelloCrust- Who were you responding to? These comment sections get goofy after a few replies to a single person...
    Exactly. How has it gone from whiskey fuelled punks causing chaos in the streets to them hiding behind a police officer?
    They were against that establishment because the police were actively brutalizing them for standing in opposition to Thatcher's policies.
    In both crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes, or a race hate) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: racial group, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity or gender identity. A hate crime is a category used to describe bias-motivated violence: "assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion." "Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).
    So then, yes. Also, I just find it funny that the police are now required to protect punks when during the Thatcher years they were beat down by the police so much. Yay progress, I'm safe in the UK now.
    If anyone is targeted in disdain, then it's a hate crime.
    You're arguing over semantics here. Would you say the same thing if they were called crimes of bigotry? Because that's what a hate crime is.
    Who CARES what label you put on it? And enough with trying to guilt people on to your side by saying people with a different view are "privileged". Like somehow if your able to support your own existence, your somehow bad and/or ignorant.
    How is attacking a person for how they choose to express themselves, which has no effect whatsoever on the attacker, anything but a hate crime? There is no other motive than "I hate how they choose to express themselves." And as I said in the other thread, it isn't just about how the criminal is punished, it's about how the police help the victims, raise awareness and profile the suspects. To be under the jurisdiction of the correct department, and so to have the right resources available, it needs to be classified as a hate crime. And all of you saying "all crimes are hate crimes" obviously don't understand the concept. Is mugging someone a hate crime? No. It's a crime of greed. Does selling drugs contain hate? Again, no. Many murders are more complex than just "I hate that person, let's kill them". There are usually motives such as jealousy, money or revenge. That's why some crimes are classified as hate crimes, because the only motive is that a person is different. Which, historically, doesn't just occur in isolated individuals or small groups, so large prevention strategies are needed.
    You, sir, make excellent points, and you make them more clearly than I have tried to myself. Well done to you sir. You appear to have a good mind in your head.
    So some killings should be treated more severely than others? Killing for money isn't as bad as killing for hate? Killing for revenge is better than killing for hate of a race? Killing because you HATE someone (not necessarily a "hate crime") isn't as bad as killing someone because of how they look?
    *facepalm* You completely missed my point. I never said treated more severely, or that one was worse than the other. If you read my comment, you'll notice that I said "This isn't just about how the criminal is punished, it's about how the police help victims, raise awareness and profile the suspects." Murders or assaults classed as hate crimes are massively different to murders for revenge or money and should be investigated differently, and require officers with different specialist training and experience to other murders, much like gang violence. Hate crime very rarely occurs in isolated incidents or a small number of linked incidents, so also requires work with communities to raise awareness and change attitudes. Classifying criminal activity is more than just a question of how many years the criminal serves.
    And yet it seems the majority of hate crime legislation only enhances the punishment.
    Actually the majority of hate crime legislation was in alterations to police organisation and procedure, including the creation of specialised detective teams to deal with hate crime in larger police departments such as London and Greater Manchester called Community Support Units (in London at least, the name may vary between forces), creation of Anti-social behaviour orders, and amendments to prosecution procedure.
    I think it can be called a hate crime to commit a crime on someone just because you don't like something about them. I have a buddy that likes hip hop and dresses like the stereotypical hip hop fan, but he was beat up by a gang of weaboos a month ago because they didnt like his style(yes, a gang of weaboos). thats what Id call a hate crime. attacking someone just because you dont like their color, religion, personal preferences, sexuality, or anything should be labeled a ha. also music fans shouldnt be targeted by cops and others just because the music they like(recall a UG article on a guy who was a murder suspect few years ago because he liked slipknot). that can also be called hate.
    In terms of the trial though, the police were probably looking at more about the guy than just his musical tastes - probably how he behaved in general, and the sort of person he was/is. I like some Slipknot songs, but I don't look or act in the way I've seen many fans of "heavier" bands act. Basically, I don't think it's just because he had some songs on his iPod that he became a suspect. That's be a weak case for any police force in the West.
    In my eyes, any crime that actively and aggresively targets another group or social distinction is a hate crime, and i don't see the point of committing them in the first place. I'm a metalhead and proud, and i'm constantly surprised by my tolerance towards members of certain other cultures in my community. If people are committing these crimes just because someone looks, sounds, or dresses differently to them, then i'm sorry but they're living in the wrong bloody country...
    Yep if it is a hate crime to attack an Emo then it is a Hate crime to attack a music fan, because if you say otherwise you are being prejudice against one group and not all of them. Best of just to not attack anyone, problem solved.
    UG refers to a woman named Sophie who was murdered because she was a Goth. Would labeling that crime a hate crime make any difference? Murder is murder, the motivation is ultimately irrelevant. Whether you murder someone during a liquor store robbery, or because they are a Goth, or because they had red hair, the penalty should be the same. Is the murder of a liquor store clerk during a robbery somehow not as bad as what happened to Sophie? Does labeling Sophie's murder a hate crime make anyone feel better about it? I don't understand the significance. Would a maniac who would murder someone because they listen to The Cure, pause to consider his actions knowing not only would he be charged with murder, but he may also be charged with a hate crime? No they wouldn't. If I punch a guy in the nose it is a battery. Does it matter if I did it because he is a Cowboy fan or because he listens to Iron Maiden? A bloody nose is a bloody nose.
    If you kill the clerk in the heat of the moment and killed Sophie with premeditated intent then in the eyes of the USA's law system they are different crimes. That is the whole point of hate crimes. You commit a crime against someone because they are different from you. You have already decided to kill them because of that and it wasn't in the heat of the moment. That's murder in the first degree. If you kill your wife and her lover WHEN you found them in bed together because you found them in bed together that's killing them in the heat of the moment. Murder in the second or third degree. You didn't plan to kill them. It just happened. If you are killing someone for how they act, dress, what race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or whatever then it shows that you have already thought about doing it. Premeditation is the key here. You can't just say I saw this black guy walking down the street so I decided to tie him to the back of my pickup and drive down the road with him and expect that not to be premeditated.
    its just as bad as hating black pepole or jews, moronic pepole hating others just because they are diffrent. you cant expect the whole world to look, think and act the same. just imagine what would it be like if everybody was the same
    I don't think it's as bad. Hating a black person because they are black is ridiculous. They can't change their skin colour unless they're Michael Jackson. People choose to be emo. I'm not saying for one second that it's ok to beat someone up because of the silly way that they are dressed. I think the mindset of the attacker is different however,
    Then look at hate crimes against religious groups - it's very easy to change your religion (or, at least, to say you have), or to stop believing in any religion. Hate crimes aren't only based on factors the victim can't change. However, I think the crimes against victims who can't change the thing they are being attacked for are worse crimes, simply because of it.
    Debate: Is it a hate crime to attack anyone?
    No! Other forms of murder would most likely fit crime of passion. Stop trying to invalidate this legislation through semantics.
    Why does it matter if its a "hate crime" or a "crime of passion"? Assault is assault. Attacking someone who's black is no worse than attacking someone who's white.
    You just changed the subject. The debate question was on whether it's a hate crime, not on whether hate crimes are any more/less severe. Is it a hate crime to attack anyone - no. If someone is drunk and they are the kind who gets violent when drunk, and they then hit someone - that isn't a hate crime. If someone mugs someone, it's for the money, not because they hate the type of person they mugged. Also, many of the mass-murders which happen (looking at the many in schools, etc) aren't hate crimes. Sometimes, crazy people kill anybody in their way; other times, it's targeted against something they were familiar with, such as in the case of school shootings.
    I did not change the subject. The subject is hate crimes and what should be considered a hate crime, correct? Well, IN MY OPINION, either everything should be considered a hate crime or nothing should be (preferably the latter) because they emphasize inequality. Therefore, in a perfect world, nothing would be considered a hate crime, and therefore neither would attacking emos for liking My Chemical Romance.
    The debate you wanted to start was "is it a hate crime to attack anyone", not whether hate crimes are worse than, say, crimes of passion. That was changing the subject. So, would you just like crime to be called "crime", regardless of what type it is? Or I suppose, you also just walk into a restaurant and ask for "food" because you don't want to discriminate any food known to be typical of a country, or because it's discrimination to single out meat from vegetables, and tea from coffee? The point is, not everything is a hate crime - not all crimes are committed because of hate. What if someone euthanases another? Technically, that is murder, but if it is done because the person loves the person dying and doesn't want them to suffer, then how can that be a hate crime? If you run over a person who runs across the road, that isn't because you hate them, it's because you couldn't stop in time or swerve to avoid them...
    It's not necessarily a defense of "rock fans", just fans of music in general that may have a visual style associated with. But yes, I agree that it's a hate crime. Religious people choose what to do as well, I don't think anyone brainwashes them into doing such things (although it may seem very likely when dealing with certain religious people).
    Hate crimes shouldn't exist. Labeling the same intentional crime as different, based the victims beliefs, race, sex etc., is discrimination and inequality in itself. A crime should be measured by the crime itself and resulting damages. Sonofgex is 100% correct.
    But really are different. When exactly would you say trying to abolish "discrimination" has gone too far? Let me give you an example: There are two applicants for a job. One applicant has experience, the other doesn't. Apart from that, they seem fairly similar. The company choose to employ the applicant with experience. Is that discrimination? The other guy might be younger, or simply keep getting rejected from jobs and unable to gain experience because they don't have enough experience already? You see the point? The company could be considered to be discriminating, but they are looking for the better employee? The alternative? Picking names out of a hat. Even that could be considered unfair, because it then is discriminating against the people who are better qualified... And hate crimes shouldn't exist? Surely no crime should exist? Isn't that statement you made defeating the rest of what you said - you have singled as a particular type of crime as being one which shouldn't exist. I agree crimes should be punished by the damage and effects they have. However, it is useful to distinguish between types of crime, and label them as such. For example, gun crime and knife crime, violent crime, non-violent robbery... Those are all different types of crime. Moreover, according to the law (in the UK anyway), the severity of a crime is also judged on other factors - for example, was the criminal in a position of trust? That makes the crime worse, in the eyes of the law. Having hate crimes as their own section means we can see changes and variations over time, and check whether measures taken are actually working. Otherwise, let's just say "crime" and not bother about the causes. But as for hate crimes - I think it should just be judged on the type of crime, not because it is deemed to be done out of hatred.
    If both applicants are white males, no one will give a shit. If the applicant with less experience is black, hell yeah it'll be labeled as discrimination. Which is ****ed up. Minorities should not get first pick because they're a minority; it emphasizes inequality, and it's economically unsound to boot. I think hate crime laws should not exist for the same reason; they emphasize inequality. It shouldn't matter whether the person attacked is black or white or yellow or red or green, a person is a person and assault is assault and it should be punished accordingly with no "extra" factors like race.
    I agree that the punishments shouldn't be based on whether race, religion or any other such factor. However, labelling a crime as a "hate crime" allows the authorities to see which types of crime are growing or shrinking, and if any action they have taken is working.
    The worthwhile scene starts at 3:10....oh and one at 23 for extra laughs.
    South Park resorts to the Golden Means Fallacy, which much like Goodwin's law, serves as grounds to consider invalidating an argument. Furthermore, in places that have a history of violence targeted toward groups of people, hate crime legislation is pretty necessary. In the US, prior to hate crime legislation, not only was racial violence extremely high and worlds more violent than non-racially motivated crime *still is when it happens* (try having yourself tied to the back of a truck on the ground an being driven around, or tied to a tree and castrated and burned), but these crimes were often not followed up by an actual investigation. Without hate crime legislation there would be no accountability for the police who's job it is to protect, serve, and solve crimes when bigotry toward victims is present in the officers (see US and lynching, the UK with Thatcher's anti-leftist police (yes, the police brutally silenced many, including punks, back in the 80s), or murders of Muslims in India and Hindus in Pakistan that police never responded to (as seen in Slum Dog Millionaire - yes that is a movie, but that kind of thing happened)). So, ya know, South Park's Matt Parker and Trey Stone kind of need to pull their privileged heads out of their behinds. Addendum: Murder of a cheating spouse is a crime of jealousy and passion, a mugging is a crime of personal gain, Cartman's crime was a crime of passion and aggravated assault. A hate crime is a crime motivated by bigotry that will often go unsolved also due to bigotry. I mean, hell, even Token's parents are privileged from money to the point where, in today's society, they would be much less affected by crimes of bigotry a.k.a. hate crimes.
    So.....hate crime legislation is only to get the cops to investigate a crime they would normally ignore? Why wouldn't they just ignore the idea that it was a hate crime? Why should dragging a man behind a truck of the same race be any less of a crime than dragging someone of a different race? Guess what...Racial violence is STILL pretty high. and if a crime is "worlds more violent" there is also "worlds more punishment"...race color creed religion and/or music of preference should have NOTHING to do with sentencing...the crime should be the only consideration. How again does a crime that would go unsolved get solved just because it's labeled a hate crime. Is ALL crime against different races HATE crimes based on bigotry? Quit looking at skin color and start punishing evil for being evil...not just when it crosses your race (sex/religion etc) barriers.
    I never said that bigotry motivated violence was non-existent, and furthermore, the rest of your argument fails to really discredit anything I said. Nothing at all. You actually need to provide evidence and counter-reasoning to rebuff an argument, not just repeat the same song and dance that has already been discredited.
    Well, that same "song and dance" was right in the first place! If someone says 2+2=4, and you say "no, 2+2=8", one does NOT have to come up with alternate evidence. YOU say it's been discredited. Yeah for you. The fact remains that a crime is no more of a crime just because of what differences there may have been between the attacker and the victim as far as race, religion etc. You say I failed to discredit anything you said...I say you've argument has been discredited. If a cop isn't going to investigate a crime because he apparently agrees with the reasoning for it (Bigotry) that same cop will not investigate it as a hate crime for the same reasons.
    Downvote; did you even read it and try to process what I said? Or did you just look at it and say to yourself, "boy I sure don't like it when my world view and privilege are challenged." I provided evidence for my argument and rebuffed the argument with solid reasoning.
    And enough with the guilt trip "Privileged" comments. Try a new song as dance to sway people to your side of the logic maybe.
    racial and socioeconomic privilege are a social reality. it's not "song and dance," it's fact, whether you want to acknowlegde it or not.
    In the eyes of the law? And that is what is being As far as these types of law are concerned, it is the group in question ( based on race religion music etc.) that are "privileged", as punishment for these"hate crimes" is more severe or even just more though lay investigated.
    Your premises are false... "at hate crime is a crime motivated by bigotry that will often go unsolved also due to bigotry" is not necessarily true and invalidates your argument. What you've said here holds no water logically.
    By a legal standpoint a hate crime refers to treating someone else with abuse for the sole reason that they look, act or believe in a differing way than yourself. This is absolutely hate crime without any question.
    "Or do you think there are good reasons not to single out individual groups, and instead focus on protecting people from all backgrounds?" Is that even a ****ing question? That part is almost as silly as the laws that call these crimes "hate crimes"...
    Danjo's Guitar
    I would agree that every crime is a hate crime, or at least any violent crime. I would also say that this is a good thing. Your musical taste is just as much a part of who you are as your religious beliefs. They'll probably go overboard on this one too though, which what they do. If someone is attacked specifically because they're in a certain group its a hate crime. If someone is attacked for some other reason, but they just happen to be in a group, that is not a hate crime.
    Discrimination sucks, but i don't support hatecrime-laws at all. People are allowed to hate whatever and whoever they want, it's the violence that is an offense and requires punishment, not hating.
    surely a hate crime is a crime motivated by any factor of a victims lifestyle? if someone instantly starts on you, because they've seen you walk out of a metal/rock bar, or from a concert for example, then they're obviously going towards a stereotype, and therefore a hate crime
    All violent crimes against another human being are hate crimes.
    No they aren't. Stealing someones money for example is a crime of personal gain. There doesn't have to be any hate involved.
    He did say VIOLENT....stealing money isnt necessarily violent
    Ok then change it to attacking someone and stealing their money. That's a violent crime and there doesn't have to be any hate involved. The desire for money fuels the action not hate.
    Agreed man, it doesn't matter why they attack you, race, religion, ethnicity, support the wrong football team, self expression in style etc, it's all hate, anyone who attacks another human without provocation should be dealt with the same way, regardless of whether hey are alternative.
    I might be wrong but what I'd consider a hate crime would be committing a crime against someone because of a trait that they are born with or something that they cannot change about themselves, e.g. skin colour, nationality, gender, sexual orientation.
    What about religiously motivated hate crimes? People aren't automatically born as part of a religion. Also, a hate crime is something done because you hate a certain group and decided to take that hate out on a member of that group.
    I think hate crime laws are counterproductive. Lady Liberty is blindfolded (In America. not sure about the workings of the justice systems of other countries) to signify that the justice system is blind to race, gender, religion ect. because everyone is seen as equal. If a person acts wrongly towards another, the courts should handle the wrong doing itself, and not treat it different due to the motive. When the do, they are recognizing these differences in people and therefor folks are no longer equal. What hope is there for people to see each other as equal if the courts themselves don't? If I'm missing something or am wrong I would appreciate it if someone would let me know what I'm missing or where I went wrong in my thinking.
    link no1
    I understand what you mean exactly but I don't agree, mostly because I a few of my closer friends have been at the savage end of a group beating based on their looks alone. The people who attack others based on their image (and because that person obviously liked a certain type of music/lifestyle) did it because of the same reason racist, religious, gender 'hate crimes' are committed. Being attacked because you hit on somebody's girlfriend, started something because you're drunk or because you're an idiot are things that you had coming, it was probably provoked. You brought it on yourself and it had nothing to do with being yourself. You could have not got your ass kicked if you just st an idiot. Or hey, maybe you where just in the wrong place at the wrong time, I've been punched by my own friends before just because I was in the way during a drunken rage. Being attacked because you're black, disabled, Jewish, Buddist, Hippie, Punk or Metal though is different. These are unprovoked attacked based on the attacker(s) just being the common neanderthal scum that plague the streets. People, whether by birth or by choice, should not be subject to attack because of this. They didn't treat that person equally, why should the law treat them equally? Getting a tooth knocked out because I screwed somebody's girlfriend? I deserved it. Getting beaten, hospitalized or murdered on the way to the shop because I like Slayer? That person should be put far away from other people to work on their obvious social retardation.
    It's not that people are equal; we see differences in race, gender, religion, and disability. It's that we want to provide equal rights and freedoms to everyone. And just because I say people aren't equal, it doesn't mean that one group is greater than another, it's just that they are different. An example of this would be parking for handicap or pregnant women. Not everyone is allowed to park there, however it assists those with mobility issues by allowing them to have equal accessibility just like everyone else.
    I see what you mean, but personally I'd say that attacking someone because of an aspect of their identity is very different from attacking someone for their money or because they looked at you the wrong way. I agree that all cases of the same crime should be treated equally and consistently regardless of race, gender, religion, etc., but in this case the attacking of someone based on one of those very things is (IMO, rightly seen as) a seperate thing with seperate motivations (and seperate consequences; someone who hates all black people is very likely to target those particular people again and plan organised attacks on them), so it makes sense that it should be treated differently. Sorry, I think I explained myself terribly there.
    Epi g-310
    If somebody hates a certain group with enough fervor, they're willing to pay the penalty for their actions, up to a certain point. With higher penalties, those people are forced to decide if committing the crime is worth it.
    For those who are against the American justice system, at least the criminals can get a just sentence according to the crime committed. A recent case in England saw Mick and Mairead Philpott get 15 years for killing 6 of their children in a house fire that they started in an effort to frame his ex-girlfriend. This sentence was given out when Mick is already a repeat offender after an attempted murder case a few years ago. Everything about this case is just wrong and can be reflected on the Irish justice system at this time
    Michael Scott: I am a victim of a hate crime. Stanley knows what I'm talking about. Stanley: That's not what a hate crime is. Michael Scott: Well, I hated it, a lot, okay.
    All I know is unless these emos listen to bands like Mineral, Rites of Spring or Cap'n Jazz I won't agree with the emo label
    Never understand why people feel the need to dress up like this. Maybe they're deluded. Nonetheless it's terrible people get assaulted and abused based on appearance.
    I never understand why people feel they should all talk the same, look the same, live the same, and think the same. What a boring world that would be.
    So....If you LIKE the same kind of if you LOVE the same kind of music....and you get in a fight with someone at a show an beat them it a LOVE crime? Hate crimes are 100% retarded! why should killing people you dont hate be less of an offense than killing ones you DO hate?
    It's not saying they are worse offensives. It's classifying them as being different.
    But then isn't that like classifying attacks on black people as different, and therefore black people as different?
    If the crime was committed because the perpetrator is a racist, and prejudiced against black people, then yes, it is different to someone just, say, mugging someone because they look like an easy target. It doesn't then classify black people as different, if the same action was taken against a criminal who committed the same crime against any another racial group. However, if the police only charged people who attacked blacks, but never people who attack orientals, then it would be treating black people (or orientals) as different.
    Firewind Raging
    Obviously all crimes are NOT "hate crimes", killing someone in the heat of the moment over a personal issue is very different to dishing out a gang beating to someone because of how they dress or what music they listen to. The crimes need to be treated differently from most angles, which might or might not include the severity of the punishment.
    so, killing someone in the heat of the moment over a personal issue should be treated differently than killing someone over their race, music preference, or religion?.... why, exactly? killing a person is still killing a person, regardless of why it was done. if we go with this you'll just have people lying about why they killed people to get off jail time, same way people plea insanity to get out of jail time.
    No, its not the same thing. In every case you need a motive to prove them guilty. If it becomes ilegal, this will change the sentence, regaurdless of how they plea
    So, if you are driving down a motorway, and someone runs out across the road suddenly, and you hit them and run them over, which subsequently (or immediately) leads to their death, then that is as bad as choosing a victim, breaking into their house, tying them up, torturing them and them burning their still-living but mutilated body? I'd say those are a little different. So, killing a person is killing yes, but the situations need to be treated differently. Besides that, people often lie anyway to avoid jail, or have lesser sentences. It's all about what can be proven. Also, there's something called provocation - killing someone walking down the street because you dislike the way they dress is unprovoked. However, if you and someone you know (or have just met) start to argue about something (perhaps this person had an affair with your boy/girlfriend), and you argue about that... they are taunting you... and so on, then that is provoked. In other words, some crimes have a reasonable basis (although they should still be punished), whereas other crimes are totally despicable.
    I'm not even going to state my view because some self-righteous prick will come along and tell me how I'm completely wrong about how most crimes can be tied to a hate crime belief.....oh. Said too much.
    Correct. I'm not self-righteous, but I think you're wrong there. Perhaps you misunderstand the term itself. Hate crimes are crimes which are committed because someone is angry, or hates a particular person.
    Hate-crime gets thrown around to much. I've been kicked out of stores before because I had a mohawk and chains. I can't blame them for it, it's not an unreasonable worry. Sure it's irritating, but I wouldn't really wanna risk having a dude who may potentially rob me in my shop. I've been insulted for how I dress and what I listen to, but as with all forms of discrimination, my answer is generally grow up and deal with it. I don't much like being ripped on for how I dress, and it's not fair that people get beaten up or killed because of their clothes, but you can't blame people for not liking goths, punks, rockers, emos, scene kids, metalheads, or people who dress like vikings.
    Thrice Capades
    There's really not a right answer here. If somebody dressed in skinny jeans and flannel gets their ass beat, you gotta ask why. Did they get pounded because they looked like idiots who listen to hipster music, or did it happen because they were dicks who deserved it? Because while neither case is acceptable, the answer is crucial to determining if there was a hate motivation. Personally, I think all hipsters should get their asses beat, and I hate them. So I'd like to think that when I enact my hipster genocide I'll be charged with a hate crime. But there was that one time, before I ever hated hipsters, that a hipster stole my faux leather wallet and I crushed him into a pulp with my bare hands. It wasn't until AFTER that I started to hate hipsters (actually, it was at that moment but hate didn't motivate the beating). So...I have nothing to really contribute. P.S. I don't really have plans for a hipster genocide. Who's got the time for that?
    Thrice Capades
    I hope as soon as you see the words: "Personally, I think all hipsters should get their asses beat, and I hate them."'ll realize this was a joke.
    "Were all shocked when we hear news that fellow rock fans have been attacked because of their appearance. But should these kind of crimes be classed alongside racist and religious attacks? " LOL no.
    Yes....and they should also be classed the same as ANY other attack. Why is attacking based on race or religion any worse than attacking for money or personal hate?
    Because hate crimes can be committed based on something the victim can't change. Isn't that a bit unfair to you? If someone is born with a disability, and they then get mugged because of that, surely that is worse than someone mugging them just because they need/want the money?
    No, it's not a worse crime! It's the same crime. If you mug someone bigger than you, should the penalty be less?
    I would say that attacking someone disabled is worse than attacking some able-bodied and fit, because the disabled person almost certainly can't stand up for themself or protect themself. The chances are, if you attack someone a lot bigger than yourself, you'll end up getting injured, and then you'll just get a charge for public brawling.
    I believe it all should be equal, as sonofgkex mentioned, all crimes are hate crimes. However, with the system we've got, yes, it should be a hate crime to attack people because of the way they dress, or the music they listen to. It's prejudice, plain and simple, and I believe all prejudice is equal. If a gang went around attacking 'goths' because they are 'goths', they'd be another gang of thugs. If a gang went around attacking black people because they are black, they'd be called Neo-Nazis.
    They'd just be racists. If they went around doing high-arm salutes, and attacking black people, gypsies, disabled people, Jews, Russians and Socialists, amongst others, then they'd be Neo-Nazis.
    Michael Stewart
    Hate crimes are committed because a person hates a specific group. Music is a culture. Religion is a culture. Race has a culture. If I kill people because they like Fords and I like Chevys then that means I hate people of that group and I want to cause harm to them. It sounds stupid but it is what it is. The same hate for them is the same hate that can be used towards a specific race.Hate is hate no matter what it stems from.
    I can't get the mental image out of my head of a hipster listening to bad music ironically in a park and some kid coming over to beat him up and the hipsters like "noooo i wasnt being serious,I actually despise this kind of music, I'm one of you!!!"
    I really like this idea. I think we need it in australia. I think its as serious as a racist attack, insulting someone for what they wear, say a burka, for religious puposes is no worse than insulting someone for wearing dark makeup or peircings for music. Music isnt just a thing people enjoy, its a religion to us all.
    There still needs to be a line though, of common sense which dictates the difference between, say abuse and an insult. If you don't like what someone is wearing, or what makeup they have on, and you make that clear to them, then what's wrong with that? At the same time, committing a crime against a person or persons just because they like a certain type of music is as bad as being racist. Or, it's the same level anyway.
    I think it's ok to attack anyone at any time, for any reason, given they are die hard coldplay fans. Other than those azz wholes, keep your hands to yourself.
    If you attack someone because they are different than you, in any way, and you don't like that and have to attack them, then it's a hatecrime..
    different *to. Also, everyone is different to you in some way or other. Even twins are different. Hate crimes are when you attack or otherwise commit a crime against someone based on a feature or aspect of the general group of people into which they fit. Having something against one person and attacking them isn't a hate crime, whereas hating all (I don't know, black people?) and attacking someone because of that, is a hate crime.
    Attacking someone (physically or verbally) because they have an appearance or an ideal that is different from your own is the basic definition of discrimination. Joking about emokids is one thing, but to actually harm someone (again, verbally or physically) should be a punishable crime, regardless of who the victim is. In the context of this article, there's tons of music I can't stand, but I will present my opinion on the music itself, not the people who actually like it, because music is 100% subjective.