Creating a new category of crime for being hateful feels to me to be related to the speech-is-violence zeitgeist. What do you think?
Also, in many jurisdictions the definition of hate crime includes a list of identities susceptible to hate crimes. In California the list is “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disabili…
Creating a new category of crime for being hateful feels to me to be related to the speech-is-violence zeitgeist. What do you think?
Also, in many jurisdictions the definition of hate crime includes a list of identities susceptible to hate crimes. In California the list is “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, political affiliation, and position in a labor dispute.” Sort of looks like the practical effect is codification of identity politics.
"Creating a new category of crime for being hateful feels to me to be related to the speech-is-violence zeitgeist."
I don't think so exactly. Though there is a danger of it. But I'm talking strictly about violence-is-violence.
Consider Peyton Gendron for example. Peyton's stated aim was to kill as many black people as possible. Should we treat his crime in any way differently to somebody who kills indiscriminately? We're already clear that killing is wrong, but should there be *any* additional consideration for the racist element?
If not, does that mean that race based hatred is morally neutral?
Identity politics has taken some terrible turns. But it's not completely arbitrary. Those identities are selected because they're the main characteristics people use to discriminate against and hate others. Note that in law, they're all neutral. It's not "the black race" it's just race. It's not "the female sex" it's just sex.
I would very much hope that if a black person or an Asian person went on a white person killing spree, there would also be additional consideration for the racist aspect of their crime.
I get that there's a concern that this might not happen in practice, or that the law might be applied too loosely, but is that a problem with the law or the society enacting it?
Creating a new category of crime for being hateful feels to me to be related to the speech-is-violence zeitgeist. What do you think?
Also, in many jurisdictions the definition of hate crime includes a list of identities susceptible to hate crimes. In California the list is “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, political affiliation, and position in a labor dispute.” Sort of looks like the practical effect is codification of identity politics.
"Creating a new category of crime for being hateful feels to me to be related to the speech-is-violence zeitgeist."
I don't think so exactly. Though there is a danger of it. But I'm talking strictly about violence-is-violence.
Consider Peyton Gendron for example. Peyton's stated aim was to kill as many black people as possible. Should we treat his crime in any way differently to somebody who kills indiscriminately? We're already clear that killing is wrong, but should there be *any* additional consideration for the racist element?
If not, does that mean that race based hatred is morally neutral?
Identity politics has taken some terrible turns. But it's not completely arbitrary. Those identities are selected because they're the main characteristics people use to discriminate against and hate others. Note that in law, they're all neutral. It's not "the black race" it's just race. It's not "the female sex" it's just sex.
I would very much hope that if a black person or an Asian person went on a white person killing spree, there would also be additional consideration for the racist aspect of their crime.
I get that there's a concern that this might not happen in practice, or that the law might be applied too loosely, but is that a problem with the law or the society enacting it?