We were told that somebody painting white paint on a rainbow crossing was a hate crime, but I thought it was just a protest against the treatment given to Posie Parker in Albert park. A mob of 1000+ haters gathered in Albert park with malicious intent, and violently assaulted the small group of women there, but the Police never called that a hate crime. The Police were there watching, and must be corrupt and biased. Who do you take seriously ?
I think that in some cases “hate crime” is a moveable feast. The “policing” of the Albert Park Posie Parker incident raised questions on all sorts of levels.
Good thought-provoking article. Love it. Thank you.
Hate is subjective. It is an emotion and can't be defined or put in a box. I view any legislation on hate as a free for all opposing democracy and that is scary.
Malicious intent is tricky enough.
What Tarrant did was hateful but his motivation - was it emotional hate or planned maliciousness resulting in murder?
I don't know.
The hate crime thing bugs me because I see the Muslim community in Christchurch and sympathetic NZ getting right on board with them being victims forever from just one insane man's maliciousness.
Should we all feel responsible? I don't think so.
Then there is the largely unreported maliciousness towards Jews in NZ, it will never make the news because it seems 'hate crimes' only go one way. You will never hear a victim cry from them.
If you ever wonder why that is, in my opinion they are from a culture that is adult ( think 2000 years plus) and there is nothing is new under the sun. Such faith is undefeatable.
Another excellent summary for those of us without your expert legal knowledge. Thank you. I had never heard of Te Raranga. ‘Hate Speech’ appears simply to be a way to silence centre-right (aka non-woke-narrative) voices. To ‘hate’ is not nice, and as we know, leads to suffering and the ‘Dark Side’, but what may seem to be ‘hateful’ is all too often just plain old frustration. We’ve recently seen otherwise decent citizens in the UK imprisoned for posting something on social media (out of frustration) that went a bit too far.
A crime should be determined on actions & effect, not on the perceived feelings of the perpetrator. And of course, the radical lefties can ‘hate on us conservatives’ all they like. But somehow that’s ok?
We were told that somebody painting white paint on a rainbow crossing was a hate crime, but I thought it was just a protest against the treatment given to Posie Parker in Albert park. A mob of 1000+ haters gathered in Albert park with malicious intent, and violently assaulted the small group of women there, but the Police never called that a hate crime. The Police were there watching, and must be corrupt and biased. Who do you take seriously ?
I think that in some cases “hate crime” is a moveable feast. The “policing” of the Albert Park Posie Parker incident raised questions on all sorts of levels.
Good thought-provoking article. Love it. Thank you.
Hate is subjective. It is an emotion and can't be defined or put in a box. I view any legislation on hate as a free for all opposing democracy and that is scary.
Malicious intent is tricky enough.
What Tarrant did was hateful but his motivation - was it emotional hate or planned maliciousness resulting in murder?
I don't know.
The hate crime thing bugs me because I see the Muslim community in Christchurch and sympathetic NZ getting right on board with them being victims forever from just one insane man's maliciousness.
Should we all feel responsible? I don't think so.
Then there is the largely unreported maliciousness towards Jews in NZ, it will never make the news because it seems 'hate crimes' only go one way. You will never hear a victim cry from them.
If you ever wonder why that is, in my opinion they are from a culture that is adult ( think 2000 years plus) and there is nothing is new under the sun. Such faith is undefeatable.
.
Another excellent summary for those of us without your expert legal knowledge. Thank you. I had never heard of Te Raranga. ‘Hate Speech’ appears simply to be a way to silence centre-right (aka non-woke-narrative) voices. To ‘hate’ is not nice, and as we know, leads to suffering and the ‘Dark Side’, but what may seem to be ‘hateful’ is all too often just plain old frustration. We’ve recently seen otherwise decent citizens in the UK imprisoned for posting something on social media (out of frustration) that went a bit too far.
A crime should be determined on actions & effect, not on the perceived feelings of the perpetrator. And of course, the radical lefties can ‘hate on us conservatives’ all they like. But somehow that’s ok?