Punks are a protected class?

[goose]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/articl ... 406191.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ok, this is just too much. Yes, I said it. F'n nanny state! Fine, go ahead and tell me that goths, punks and alternative types need this kind of protection. It's probably true (ie. WM3), still, this rankles me.

[DerGolgo]

Well, goths ... the modern ones, not the actual goths ... they are a bit, you know, sensitive. All is awful, the world is terrible and hates us, let's go to a pub and have one coke between the five of us while being all gloomy and stuff ... face it, if anyone does punch a goth, are they likely to be driven more by any other reason than hate for the goth lifestyle and those who lead it?

Punks meanwhile ... punching a punk is a special crime now ... oh, that, that is just ... brilliant. Not in an awesome sort of way, but in a "They all laughed, now they will rue the day!" sort of way, and not the cool variant of that, either. But the utter, malevolent, genuinely inspired sort of evil. The stuff that's usually way beyond government bureaucrats, it's beyond even the usual performance of the likes of Mr. Gates in his day or Mr. Zuckerberg more recently. It's so subtle, it's downright sublime. Think about it. Punks. Actual punks. Are now considered to be a victim group worthy of special protections. By no one else but the man they despise. Sure, those who are just punk for fashion will benefit from this, also, and won't be much hurt by it. But the real punks, the smelly, unwashed, vandalizing and mosh-pitting real punks...
Any punks I have known over the years would, had we such a law over here, now consider either emigration or just giving up the punk-ness. Telling them they are special and need the strong arm of the law to keep them safe, and not just telling them but, in the same breath, everyone else, that only the organized embodiment of all that is square and conservative in society can possibly ensure they can be as punk as they like? Putting that which is anti-punk in all respects and which actually is what punks are eager to offend out to stand between the punks and the rest of what the punks seek to offend? I cannot think what else they could do that would be nearly as heinous to what little I know of punk sensibilities as that. And yet, it's evidently an act of support, taking a side for those punks - it's not just mere evil, oh no. It's that special kind of evil that, to everyone else and worse, even to it's victims, looks like a friendly act. But is the utter and absolute opposite. The punch to the gut you can't refuse, the pitcher of poison you just gotta get second helpings from. unless the US federal government establishes special laws protecting militiamen, declaring them a group worthy of special protections and ensuring that, wherever they turn up, special federal agents (in Birkenstocks) will appear to speak "on their behalf" and hand out fliers about all the good things the feds are doing for the militias, unless that happens, I cannot imagine a more genius attack on a hostile social group.
As much as I usually like punks, and as much as I'm quote certain Britain is trying it's best to slide in a sort of upholstered version of 1984, I must give credit where it's due. I must doff my cap.
There is, of course, a 99% chance that those who made that law actually don't get what they've done and have never intended it to be an anti-punk measure, the blind chicken finding that kernel ... their usually level of competence would suggest that. But this is just so inspired, this is evil genius on such a magnificent level, that 1% likelihood outweighs those other 99%. I know, that's punk-math, but that's the point, isn't it.

[motorpsycho67]

WTF????


That is some ridiculously asinine shit mang!

I've never pulled the nanny state card, but this sure as hell qualifies...

[xtian]

That is because you're a bunch of old farts who link goth to the era of pseudo anarchist fuck the system post punks, (still considering that the anarchist pose wasn't much more legit than the gloomy pose, at least teenager are gloomy by nature while you and me pseudo punks of the 80's had songs about anarchy written all over us but still lived by our parents and got mad when they bought the wrong kind of breakfast cereals and asked for a skateboard on every christmas). Goth are to be relinked to the new view of youth as already discussed here, that integrated fashion and consumerism. There's this thing that used to say something along the lines of no one will be persecuted because of his gender or religion blablabla so why not extend that to appearance now that there are so many messages against bullying. It's not like it is considered social mayhem to dress differently nowadays and I consider that any law that brings out more teenage girls in stoking and corset and fancy hair does is a good law.

[roadmissile]

I consider that any law that brings out more teenage girls in stoking and corset and fancy hair does is a good law.

Indeed!

/L

[smashinator]

I'm not saying this isn't ridiculous, but...

This is in the UK. Didn't the mods & rockers, like, kill each other? It seems to me they have quite a history of over the top violence between subcultures.

Still kind of ridiculous. Being a punk/goth/teddy boy/whatever is a choice. They're CHOOSING to be visibly different than everyone else. I knew I was trying to look different than the preppies when I was a young metalhead. You'd think that hate crime laws would be based on things people can't control.

Also, I wouldn't have considered the irony of punks being defended by THE MAN on my own, but since you pointed it out, that is brilliant.

[red]

Still kind of ridiculous. Being a punk/goth/teddy boy/whatever is a choice. They're CHOOSING to be visibly different than everyone else. I knew I was trying to look different than the preppies when I was a young metalhead. You'd think that hate crime laws would be based on things people can't control.

Yup.

[Jaeger]

Still kind of ridiculous. Being a punk/goth/teddy boy/whatever is a choice. They're CHOOSING to be visibly different than everyone else. I knew I was trying to look different than the preppies when I was a young metalhead. You'd think that hate crime laws would be based on things people can't control.

Yup.

+1

I still balk at the idea of "hate crime" anyway, as it's tantamount to "thought crime."

Assault is assault no matter the intention or the recipient -- and this sort've nonsense drives home the problems with trying to make some pigs more equal than others.

--Jaeger

[smashinator]

I still balk at the idea of "hate crime" anyway, as it's tantamount to "thought crime."

Assault is assault no matter the intention or the recipient -- and this sort've nonsense drives home the problems with trying to make some pigs more equal than others.

--Jaeger

Agreed. If we're all essentially equal, it should be equally wrong no matter who beat the fuck out of whom. Wrong is wrong, if we're equals.

[Jaeger]

Wrong is wrong, if we're equals.

Bingo.

I do find some assaults more (or less) reprehensible than others-- I mean, let's face it, there are simply some fuckers who require an asskicking ...

In all seriousness, the consequences of truly beating the shit out of someone (broken bones/teeth, concussion, hospitalization) should not be less than smacking your girlfriend once, even lightly... or breaking a "mutually owned item" (e.g., coffee mug). That's "domestic violence," which often comes with a forfeiture of rights (e.g., never own a gun again, stricter sentencing criteria, bigger fines etc.).

This is not to say that it's appropriate to smack your spouse/girlfriend, but the disproportionate penalties are absurd.

Does this mean it's ok to beat the shit out of total strangers? So long as I don't kill them or use a weapon (no problem), can I maim strangers for fun?

In my time, I've dealt too long with mysandronists and "reverse racists" to be too fond of favoritism. I don't care whether anybody is black, white, yellow, blue, male, female, or feline -- violence is what it is under the law.

--Jaeger

[DerGolgo]

Truly, beating up one guy can't be worse than beating up guy another guy just because of what that first guy looks like.
But it may (note the may) be different if one guy gets beaten up not for what he looks like, but for looking different to begin with.
Making that difference is tricky, and it's still iffy, but the same differentiation is already made elsewhere in law. If you kill someone in a passionate range, or if you kill someone for a nefarious purpose, delicately plotting out how you will kill them, it's different. Not just in the aspect of premeditation. Motive comes in here. If, over here, the court finds you killed someone for a "base motive", like a psychological or sexual urge or for plain greed, it's murder rather than "simple" homicide or manslaughter. How bad a crime is, how worthy it is of punishment, does actually depend not just on it's outcome or premeditation, but also on motive. One of the crucial purposes of punishment is deterrence. An act the actor is driven to by some base urge, even if premeditated, is difficult to deter, while an act committed out of greed or some other, non-hind-brain motivation, can and should be deterred. This is, usually, expressed by punishments that go beyond what would be "just" punishment for a crime, to ensure the potential perps have additional reason for not doing it.

It absolutely shouldn't matter what someone looks like. But if someone beats them up because they look different, like for greed or some base urge other than the rage of the moment or rage over a specific issue of contention, I do think there's a different quality to it.
Legislating motive is iffy, always, and unless it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt (like a video recording showing that the attacker explained he was about to beat up his victim because of how they are black or a wear leather or whatever), it shouldn't be legislated, at all. But if such a motive is involved, equality may come in, also. If someone gets beaten up for looking different, but the perpetrator gets punished no worse than he would for the regular friday-night punchup at a sports bar, that would define mistreating someone for being different as no worse than mistreating someone for what are "just" humdrum, mundane reasons. One could argue that this would, in fact, treat the "haters" preferentially, by ignoring their motive, by establishing that, even though they assaulted someone for these low, hating reasons, those hating reasons are themselves do not require punishment. While letting someone get away with being a hating pos may be necessary in a free society in many respects, not taking such motive into account when appropriate establishes that it's not just okay to be a hating pos, but that denying the victim their equality and freedom of expression is fine, also. Because that's what, when beating up a black guy for being black or a goth guy for being goth, they did - and they're not getting punished for that, only for the incidental violence.

Legislating motive etc. is iffy, yes, and unless there is iron clad proof that such motive existed, it should absolutely not play into any court's decision. Just what qualities the victim may or may not exhibit or have exhibited, what social group they may or may not belong to definitely is a bullshit reason to declare a hate crime, it's in itself an affront to equality. But that doesn't make the concept of considering motive when determining the severity of an action less valid.

[xtian]

I don't really see where this discussion is aiming, first it was said that it was silly to consider a honest beating as a crime, no matter the victim and now it is said that any form of beating is a crime, no matter the circumstances ? Here is what I think is the current definition of hate crime in UK:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/hate_crime/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It lists a number of facts that define a good 'ol Saturday night beating as a hate crime that can be considered against the law:

disability
race
religion or belief
sexual orientation
transgender identity

As goth would not fill any of those cases, it could soon be considered legal to go out and beat the shit out of them without facing much of a legal action. this law probably only allow the state to prosecute the suspects of such beatings and not let the beating unpunished. It does not imply that the goth are considered endangered species or protected minority. Also, you might not be aware that beating the shit out of random people for no reason is a national sport in the UK.

[DerGolgo]

But defining as a hate crime something that is committed against a person with certain traits or qualities is legislating against motivation based on who the victim is, not whether that motivation actually existed. I might have a perfectly honest and reasonable beef with someone, and I'd consider it discrimination if they refused to beat me up just because I'm disabled. What's more, I could have a perfectly legitimate beef with a transvestite or a goth or a punk and what have you, but if it came to blows, I'd get punished for a motivation, hate, I didn't have.
It's legitimate to make rules putting extra punishment on crimes motivated by impersonal, prejudicial hate, when an individual has to take the brunt of the hate someone feels against an entire social group.
But there is no legitimacy in differentiating this based on who the victim is. Everyone, no matter who, should be free to go through life without getting assaulted. No matter who the victim is, the crime is what it is and the identity or appearance or whatever of the victim should have no influence on the determination of guilt or appropriate punishment. Apart from what was done to them and how it affected them, which should be considered deeply and severely, the victim should not be further considered. Hanging the hate-crime stick from the tree of social groups is just another example of divisive "them and us" thinking.
It's the attacker who should be further considered when deciding whether more severe charges and punishments like "hate crime" are appropriate. After all, it's the attacker who is doing the hating.

[motorpsycho67]

Didn't the mods & rockers, like, kill each other?

No


Some big bashups.... but that's it.

[JustNate]

Animal Farm?

[Rabbit_Fighter]

I understand why people don't like the idea of "hate-crimes." Is beating the crap out of somebody because you are a sadistic prick any better or worse than beating the crap out of somebody because of their race? Not sure, but I doubt it.

That said, I understand why "hate-crime" legislation exists. A lot of people have been beaten down by otherwise law abiding citizens for the sake of oppressing minorities. Judges have at times been soft on offenders because "that uppity negro provoked them!"

That's a different debate though. The question here is whether a subculture qualifies as a protected class. Some folks here say "Punk" is a choice. Well, so is religion. So is political party. If Happy Commuter were still around, he might chime in that homosexuality is a choice too. Some people have no problems with dark skinned guys who dress like locals, but will beat the shit out of anybody in a turban. Wearing a turban is a choice. I don't think the choice vs. born into it is that relevant.

I think the spirit of hate-crime legislation is that you don't fuck with people because they are different from you. Whether it is because they are immigrants, or kids with questionable fashion sense is irrelevant. Don't fuck with people just because you don't like them.