Also, I'm sure a lot of people intentionally prey on minorities because minorities lack the support that more privileged groups enjoy when seeking justice.
I think I am looking at this as an isolated incident vs possible copy cats and repeat offenders. I'm marking this up to inspect a bit more closely in my own personal ethos.
A lot of this probably has roots in my parents telling me that 'back home' if you did any violent act, you were harshly slammed. Getting into a fight in public for instance was enough to send everyone to several years in prison- no matter the cause, or how justified the fight was. My mother had never seen a brawl till she came here- so just maybe I've got this background anecdotal vision of how punishments work in discouragement clouding things.
The reason hate crime legislation exists in this country is because some areas (the South) refused to prosecute certain crimes (against black people) so the Feds created a new reason for themselves to step in. It was written then as any crime against someone because of race, national origin, or what not. Gender, perceived gender, and sexuality were added in '99, post-Matthew Shepard.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Hate crime laws are odd for singling out a particular motivation as a separate charge (at least, I think they are a separate charge). It would be better to place them in a list of exacerbating circumstances warranting a longer sentence, unless of course there were some phenomenon making that an ineffective solution.
The reason hate crime legislation exists in this country is because some areas (the South) refused to prosecute certain crimes (against black people) so the Feds created a new reason for themselves to step in. It was written then as any crime against someone because of race, national origin, or what not. Gender, perceived gender, and sexuality were added in '99, post-Matthew Shepard.
Yeah, like that.
Squigie on
Warning: the preceding post may be more sarcastic than it appears. Proceed at own risk. Individual results may vary. Offers not valid in Canada or where prohibited by fraud statutes.
I think I am looking at this as an isolated incident vs possible copy cats and repeat offenders. I'm marking this up to inspect a bit more closely in my own personal ethos.
A lot of this probably has roots in my parents telling me that 'back home' if you did any violent act, you were harshly slammed. Getting into a fight in public for instance was enough to send everyone to several years in prison- no matter the cause, or how justified the fight was. My mother had never seen a brawl till she came here- so just maybe I've got this background anecdotal vision of how punishments work in discouragement clouding things.
Well we're not Saudi Arabia, we don't cut your hand off for stealing. The law is built to remedy certain social ills, it's the stick we use in our carrot/stick approach to encouraging good behavior and preventing bad behavior. We don't send people to jail to punish them, we send them to jail because we want to discourage the crime from occurring again. And we've found that certain psychosocial factors lead to increased repeat occurrences of crimes, so we deter them by making punishments harsher for those crimes. Again, murder versus manslaughter.
Or to use an anecdote: Imagine that you wanted to steal $500 to feed your family. You wouldn't put your family in Jeopardy like that unless you really needed that food so bad that the risk of that was worth it. (You were about to starve to death.) You're not going to be a very likely candidate to repeat your crime, and you committed it because of what may be an extraordinarily poor socioeconomic situation.
In this case what costs society less overall is to try and send you to therapy and rehabilitate you while getting you on some form of aid and job training to get you out of all of the circumstances that lead you to commit the crime.
Now imagine you're stealing $500 for the Mob. You're doing a crime at their request because the mob pays you to do it. You're much more likely to repeat that crime because you're a career criminal for whatever reason. In that case it costs society less to throw the book at you. Not because jailing you might necessarily be cheaper monetarily but it offers indirect benefits by making a Mob career much less attractive because of the increased chances of it totally ruining your life forever. This has a cumulative effect that reduces the overall amount of Mob crime and is worth far more to society than the cost of keeping you in prison. The you that stole for food? sending him to prison is just going to ruin his life AND cost us more money without actually reducing the number of people who steal for food. There's a level of diminishing returns with punishments after all. People destitute enough that they have nothing to lose won't be scared of even the death sentence.
Can you see how these two situations are the same crime but have vastly different costs and implications?
Also, again, there's a quote button you can hit when you reply. Might be a good idea.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I can't believe we somehow have to explain that many people are socialized in such a way as to be regularly hostile to transpersons and that it's beneficial to curb that attitude. There's a big difference between stomping on someone's face because you're an asshole and stomping on someone's face because you're a transphobic asshole. One of these is about hurting a single person whereas the other is about hurting a single person because of their membership in a routinely oppressed group.
It's pretty simple, someone who violently attacks someone because they are a member of a group they are prejudiced against is more of a threat to the public than someone who commits a crime of passion. If a dude kills a guy who was sleeping with his wife, that's a much smaller group of people who need to fear for their safety than if he attacks a guy for being gay, or for being black.
Further, hate crimes are most often committed with a terrorist intention beyond the crime itself. Some jackass burns a cross they aren't committing *arson* they are threatening every minority in the community.
Hate crime laws are odd for singling out a particular motivation as a separate charge (at least, I think they are a separate charge).
/facepalm
/facepalm
/facepalm
Hey, have you ever noticed that in JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER AREA OF LAW, we take a look at people's motivations? For example: you kill somebody. If you intended to kill that person, and you deliberately planned out the murder ahead of time, that is going to be first-degree murder. Whereas, if you were just careless and meant to hurt the person but had no intent to actually kill them, that might be manslaughter - it certainly wouldn't be first-degree murder.
But when it comes to hate crimes, all of a sudden it's the worst fucking thing in the world to examine the criminal's intent and motivation because OMG THOUGHTCRIMES!!!!11
And if you're about to segue into the "these laws make it a worse crime to kill a gay person" argument - that's nonsense too. Hate-crime laws apply to categories (like race or sexual orientation), not groups (like blacks or bisexuals). If a bunch of lesbians beat up a straight man because 'how dare he look at my girlfriend like that', it could be a hate crime. If a white guy beats up a black guy purely to take his wallet, that's not a hate crime.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I am just of the belief the punishment should discourage the crime no matter the drive.
A crime is a crime, and if the punishment isn't discouragement enough, then I would consider increasing it. If every assault was an automatic 10 years in prison, I'd imagine we'd see a whole lot less assaults of any kind, be they typical gang violence assaults, or premeditated hate-based assaults. There may be folks who would do the crime no matter the price, even it being death- in that case, no punishment would ever be a deterrent for them, but for the vast majority, they might just have to keep their hate bottled up.
But if gang violence assaults were only 2 years and hate crime assaults were 10, we'll we've just made a call that one is inherently less evil or less corrosive to our society.
Is this seriously such a flawed concept? You rock the boat, you get your ass thrown overboard. Period. I would imagine a lot less rocking with this system.
I guess it's good to know that it seems a likely enough idea to your imagination.
It's my understanding that the main way hate crimes legislation works is that it moves jurisdiction from the local legal system to the federal legal system, and that the federal penalties just happen to be higher than most places.
The Iowa thing is actually kind of funny in a dark way. "Let the will of the people decide if the judges did it right!" "Wait, the will of the people didn't get them all! The people decided wrong!"
Hate crime laws are odd for singling out a particular motivation as a separate charge (at least, I think they are a separate charge).
/facepalm
/facepalm
/facepalm
Hey, have you ever noticed that in JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER AREA OF LAW, we take a look at people's motivations? For example: you kill somebody. If you intended to kill that person, and you deliberately planned out the murder ahead of time, that is going to be first-degree murder. Whereas, if you were just careless and meant to hurt the person but had no intent to actually kill them, that might be manslaughter - it certainly wouldn't be first-degree murder.
But when it comes to hate crimes, all of a sudden it's the worst fucking thing in the world to examine the criminal's intent and motivation because OMG THOUGHTCRIMES!!!!11
And if you're about to segue into the "these laws make it a worse crime to kill a gay person" argument - that's nonsense too. Hate-crime laws apply to categories (like race or sexual orientation), not groups (like blacks or bisexuals). If a bunch of lesbians beat up a straight man because 'how dare he look at my girlfriend like that', it could be a hate crime. If a white guy beats up a black guy purely to take his wallet, that's not a hate crime.
No, you see, intent is already factored into the varying charges for assault and other violent crimes. Hate Crime legislation probably wouldn't pass muster if someone took their time and brought it up to the Supreme Court.
That's okay because it was built as an end around unfair trials where white criminals would get away with crimes on blacks and so forth. There is a much higher federal conviction rate on all types of crimes.
It's not exactly fair but it is just, if that makes any sense.
No, you see, intent is already factored into the varying charges for assault and other violent crimes. Hate Crime legislation probably wouldn't pass muster if someone took their time and brought it up to the Supreme Court.
No, you see, intent is already factored into the varying charges for assault and other violent crimes. Hate Crime legislation probably wouldn't pass muster if someone took their time and brought it up to the Supreme Court.
That's okay because it was built as an end around unfair trials where white criminals would get away with crimes on blacks and so forth. There is a much higher federal conviction rate on all types of crimes.
It's not exactly fair but it is just, if that makes any sense.
We already have certain ancillary types of crimes that are used exclusively to give the judge more room in sentencing the criminal. The real difference here is that hate crime legislation exists at a federal level often and not a state level. I don't really see how this is any different except for that factor, and given our rather poor history of social tolerance in places I definitely think it's warranted.
Also, when discussing why hate crime legislation is important to divorce its importance from the actual hate or rhetoric involved. Talking about suspect classes won't win over anyone who thinks Gays are evil. But explaining to them how without it, it will lead to a much higher crime rate and a poorer overall society doesn't require you to bring subjective beliefs into the equation and makes it much harder to argue against.
Hate crime legislation simply makes for less crime by targeting its source. It's just good policy, regardless of what you believe is right or wrong to think.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I'm specifically talking about the Federal Hate Crimes Law of 1969.
States themselves are well within their rights to set any sort of sentencing penalty they feel fit for certain crimes.
I'm still all for the law itself I just don't think it would survive intense scrutiny, not that it has had any on that front. I think they struck down the amended part that allowed for additional civil damages in the late 90's, but I'm a bit foggy on that.
Really? Where? I'd be interested to read them, just because the few articles I've read, even the Daily Mail(OMG!) seemed to completely condemn the attacks, and rightly so. Strange to be agreeing with the Mail.
not only that but (granted we dont know how much earlier the attacks started) we clearly see a staff member immediately in there trying to break it up and standing for a period in between the girls and the victim. Granted you also see a bunch of workers and patrons standing around watching.
While we're on the subject of transgender issues I have a more pleasant story from over here in Ireland.
A transgendered woman (that is, she was previously a man, I always get my pronouns mixed up here), was told by her boss that she had to keep dealing with current and past clients of the business "as a man" and she could only deal with new clients "as a woman", she was also prohibited from using the female restrooms.
The Equality Tribunal consequently ruled that she had been discriminated on grounds of gender and disability and she was granted €35k in compensation.
Her story strikes me as quite sad, admittedly I find the issue of gender identity to be extremely confusing but I'm all for their rights and protections.
Saint Madness on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
Makes sense; I think it only makes sense to put in the "trans" qualifier when it's a detail that matters, like in a news article about attacks like this or in a lawsuit. Otherwise just call them by the gender they're identifying as.
The McDonald's employee who recorded the assault has been fired.
Are there any charges to be brought up? I know he's not required to intervene, but he did tell both girls to flee before the police arrived. I dunno if that's a crime or just being a goose.
Sterica on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
The McDonald's employee who recorded the assault has been fired.
Are there any charges to be brought up? I know he's not required to intervene, but he did tell both girls to flee before the police arrived. I dunno if that's a crime or just being a goose.
I haven't watched the video, because I really don't need to see that, but what you're describing sounds like it could be construed aiding and abetting bias-motivated assault, which certainly seems like it'd be a crime. It'd probably be a bit of a stretch though.
No, you see, intent is already factored into the varying charges for assault and other violent crimes. Hate Crime legislation probably wouldn't pass muster if someone took their time and brought it up to the Supreme Court.
That's okay because it was built as an end around unfair trials where white criminals would get away with crimes on blacks and so forth. There is a much higher federal conviction rate on all types of crimes.
It's not exactly fair but it is just, if that makes any sense.
No, honestly, I have no idea what you just said.
The poster I was replying to argued that hate crimes laws are weird because they single out a particular motivation. That is NOT weird at all, and is a standard part of all kinds of criminal laws. I have no idea why you think that SCOTUS would overturn that, or that nobody has thought to try and challenge these laws.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Even if he told them to leave because the police were en route, he still had their faces on tape, which I'm sure the police can use as evidence since it hit the net. Plus its not illegal, by telling them to leave he unintentionally helped end the fight and probably kept those other women from beating on the girl while she was having a seizure. The cops can always pick up the purps later.
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
I like this guy already. Was a little uncertain as I read the article until it noted that he had addressed whether it was just a gimmick or not by showing respect for the LGBT community and GLAAD itself.
In more local (to me) news, it seems that the Toronto mayor is trying to remove city funding from our annual Pride Parade. According to a friend of mine, between actual money given (grant'ed?) and services (police support, etc) Toronto covers something like 10-15% of Pride's 3 million dollar budget, or around $250-350,000. Fake edit: further reading suggests that it might only be $100,000 at risk of being lost.
In return, it seems that the city of Toronto takes in somewhere around 94 million dollars, especially accounting for the influx in tourism such as hotel service and restaurant use.
Apparently their primary issue was with a group called the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid. Said group said they would back out from the parade, but the mayor is still basically flipping Pride the bird, and the answer as to whether funding is coming or not won't be given until May or June. Y'know, not like that money needs to go anywhere or at least needs to be accounted for (either in receipt or with increased fundraising or cutbacks to account for its loss).
Also of note, Toronto will be hosting World Pride in 2014, which one hopes/suspects will be huge and lucrative, assuming you folks don't manage to trigger the Gaypocalypse at the end of next year, as we all suspect you will. Seriously, knock it off.
So with possibly the largest (and thus, likely the most lucrative) Pride event ever coming... err, arriving on our doorstep in a mere 3 years, now seems like the perfect time to lower financing that seems to recoup itself by literal orders of magnitude.
... I know I have a Sarcasm tag around here somewhere?
Anyway, I'd say that this obviously doesn't threaten Pride overall, but it's kind of a dick move. Struggling for funding as everyone everywhere everywhen might be, a hundred grand (hell, even three hundred grand) is chump change for the city. I'm sure we blow (ahem) more than that on paper plates or napkins or some shit, but just like the GOP, they get a bug up their asses (... too easy) about putting women (elsewhere) and fags back in their place and suddenly all kinds of asshattery and fuckmuppetry go on.
Fucking people have no regard for the well being of others. Makes me really goddamn sick.
Whooo, I need to calm down. I hope I never witness something like this because I will pay back the beating to the offending party ten-fold.
Okay. I'm calm now.
I haven't seen the video, but while I agree with your sentiment on assisting and protecting those in need, stepping into a violent situation like this is in many regards a worst case scenario. I've arrested people where I had an easy hundred pound advantage, a foot of height, handcuffs and 2 officers supporting me and it was still a struggle. Trying to subdue one or two assailants when unsure whether the crowd might turn on you next could possibly be a case of taking your life into your own hands. The right thing to do, yes, and if I'm ever in a similar situation I'd like to think I'd put that size between a victim and a threat again, but I can't say I wouldn't quickly weigh out how badly this was likely to go down.
To be utterly and absolutely clear, this event is horrific and I hope that both women are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and that the woman who was beaten is one day able to make a full recovery (and I don't just mean physically). And anyone who cheered this on (as it happened or after the fact) earns my scorn and ire. But stepping into a violent situation can be very helpful, or it can just add to the list of victims, and it's a risk I can't entirely fault others for not taking on a moment's notice.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
His asshattery is one of the things that's making me pay closer attention to local politics, and this issue in particular (for the reasons noted above) earn them a scowl of disapproval. And a vote against their bullshit at the first chance I get.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
So we punish people harshly to discourage killing people.
We punish people even harsher to discourage killing people out of hate and acting upon your hate.
Which is to suggest, bro, its bad to kill someone, but to kill them out of hate, that's like, double bad.
Killing is killing! There is no undo- and in both cases, the maximum punishment should be served.
The reason for hate crime legislation is because hate crimes not only hurt the person they directly target, but serve to intimidate the minority community that the victim belongs to. It's essentially the perpetrators saying "let this be a warning to the rest of you *slur of choice* that acts all uppity".
So our system kinda does that right back. "Let this be a warning to all you racists out there, some dude was just convicted for life for beating a guy while shouting the N-word."
where as a week later, someone could be beat and have their wallet taken, get arrested and face only a handful of years in prison. Maybe this guy's acts were racially motivated, but because it may not have been apparent, he wouldn't get the worse punishment- which again, I feel creates a precedent of bad, vs. double-bad.
if you are going to beat the shit out of someone, better do it for a profit motive rather than hate- you'll face less jail time, it seems.
You don't feel like there should be a legal difference between lighting a pile crap on fire in front of someone's house and lighting a cross on fire in front of their house?
Most likely it was because she was transgendered, just judging by his postings and the attack itself was stated to be over the restroom.
The victim has admitted she was intoxicated at the time, which is not an excuse for what happened, but does make it appear it would be hard for to nail down exactly what happened and why especially because of the attack she suffered.
Some are also digging up her past criminal record (prostitution and some other charges) as an attempt to vilify her.
Invisible on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
Well, once those two women have a criminal record I guess it'll be fair game to beat the shit out of them too.
Well, so far the media isn't making a thing about the transgendered aspect of this attack. Hopefully they wont, but if a trial is involved then at some point it probably will. I wonder how long the media will stay on the side of the victim once the fact that the vic is transgendered comes to light?
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
Some are also digging up her past criminal record (prostitution and some other charges) as an attempt to vilify her.
Ye gods do I loathe that bullshit. Hey, judicial bitches, prostitutes (former, current, alleged, etc) can use the washroom without being beaten too.
Even if she was utterly belligerent to the others in the washroom, even if she was disgustingly vulgar and snarky and offensive, that doesn't come close to justifying physical violence from two other people, especially if the attack continues after she's already helpless.
For all my earlier recognition as to why it's dangerous to get involved, it's for situations like this that I still carry around my leather/kevlar gloves. Not an Iron Man suit by any means, but I'll take 'em over going in bare handed when the last resort is the only one available.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Posts
A lot of this probably has roots in my parents telling me that 'back home' if you did any violent act, you were harshly slammed. Getting into a fight in public for instance was enough to send everyone to several years in prison- no matter the cause, or how justified the fight was. My mother had never seen a brawl till she came here- so just maybe I've got this background anecdotal vision of how punishments work in discouragement clouding things.
Yeah, like that.
Well we're not Saudi Arabia, we don't cut your hand off for stealing. The law is built to remedy certain social ills, it's the stick we use in our carrot/stick approach to encouraging good behavior and preventing bad behavior. We don't send people to jail to punish them, we send them to jail because we want to discourage the crime from occurring again. And we've found that certain psychosocial factors lead to increased repeat occurrences of crimes, so we deter them by making punishments harsher for those crimes. Again, murder versus manslaughter.
Or to use an anecdote: Imagine that you wanted to steal $500 to feed your family. You wouldn't put your family in Jeopardy like that unless you really needed that food so bad that the risk of that was worth it. (You were about to starve to death.) You're not going to be a very likely candidate to repeat your crime, and you committed it because of what may be an extraordinarily poor socioeconomic situation.
In this case what costs society less overall is to try and send you to therapy and rehabilitate you while getting you on some form of aid and job training to get you out of all of the circumstances that lead you to commit the crime.
Now imagine you're stealing $500 for the Mob. You're doing a crime at their request because the mob pays you to do it. You're much more likely to repeat that crime because you're a career criminal for whatever reason. In that case it costs society less to throw the book at you. Not because jailing you might necessarily be cheaper monetarily but it offers indirect benefits by making a Mob career much less attractive because of the increased chances of it totally ruining your life forever. This has a cumulative effect that reduces the overall amount of Mob crime and is worth far more to society than the cost of keeping you in prison. The you that stole for food? sending him to prison is just going to ruin his life AND cost us more money without actually reducing the number of people who steal for food. There's a level of diminishing returns with punishments after all. People destitute enough that they have nothing to lose won't be scared of even the death sentence.
Can you see how these two situations are the same crime but have vastly different costs and implications?
Also, again, there's a quote button you can hit when you reply. Might be a good idea.
Further, hate crimes are most often committed with a terrorist intention beyond the crime itself. Some jackass burns a cross they aren't committing *arson* they are threatening every minority in the community.
/facepalm
/facepalm
/facepalm
Hey, have you ever noticed that in JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER AREA OF LAW, we take a look at people's motivations? For example: you kill somebody. If you intended to kill that person, and you deliberately planned out the murder ahead of time, that is going to be first-degree murder. Whereas, if you were just careless and meant to hurt the person but had no intent to actually kill them, that might be manslaughter - it certainly wouldn't be first-degree murder.
But when it comes to hate crimes, all of a sudden it's the worst fucking thing in the world to examine the criminal's intent and motivation because OMG THOUGHTCRIMES!!!!11
And if you're about to segue into the "these laws make it a worse crime to kill a gay person" argument - that's nonsense too. Hate-crime laws apply to categories (like race or sexual orientation), not groups (like blacks or bisexuals). If a bunch of lesbians beat up a straight man because 'how dare he look at my girlfriend like that', it could be a hate crime. If a white guy beats up a black guy purely to take his wallet, that's not a hate crime.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I guess it's good to know that it seems a likely enough idea to your imagination.
Thank you for sharing your mind rainbow.
Here's some stuff to get back on topic with.
Iowa GOP trying to impeach the four remaining judges who struck down the gay marriage ban.
Italian MP Paola Concia and Her Partner Harassed in Public: 'They Should Have Sent You to the Ovens'
Rapper Lil B Says He's Receiving Death Threats for 'I'm Gay' Album Title
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
No, you see, intent is already factored into the varying charges for assault and other violent crimes. Hate Crime legislation probably wouldn't pass muster if someone took their time and brought it up to the Supreme Court.
That's okay because it was built as an end around unfair trials where white criminals would get away with crimes on blacks and so forth. There is a much higher federal conviction rate on all types of crimes.
It's not exactly fair but it is just, if that makes any sense.
:?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell
We already have certain ancillary types of crimes that are used exclusively to give the judge more room in sentencing the criminal. The real difference here is that hate crime legislation exists at a federal level often and not a state level. I don't really see how this is any different except for that factor, and given our rather poor history of social tolerance in places I definitely think it's warranted.
Also, when discussing why hate crime legislation is important to divorce its importance from the actual hate or rhetoric involved. Talking about suspect classes won't win over anyone who thinks Gays are evil. But explaining to them how without it, it will lead to a much higher crime rate and a poorer overall society doesn't require you to bring subjective beliefs into the equation and makes it much harder to argue against.
Hate crime legislation simply makes for less crime by targeting its source. It's just good policy, regardless of what you believe is right or wrong to think.
States themselves are well within their rights to set any sort of sentencing penalty they feel fit for certain crimes.
I'm still all for the law itself I just don't think it would survive intense scrutiny, not that it has had any on that front. I think they struck down the amended part that allowed for additional civil damages in the late 90's, but I'm a bit foggy on that.
We are going a bit afield on this one anyways.
A transgendered woman (that is, she was previously a man, I always get my pronouns mixed up here), was told by her boss that she had to keep dealing with current and past clients of the business "as a man" and she could only deal with new clients "as a woman", she was also prohibited from using the female restrooms.
The Equality Tribunal consequently ruled that she had been discriminated on grounds of gender and disability and she was granted €35k in compensation.
One of our national newspapers did a very interesting interview with her today.
Her story strikes me as quite sad, admittedly I find the issue of gender identity to be extremely confusing but I'm all for their rights and protections.
I've just seen one that took the black-on-white hate crime angle.
I haven't watched the video, because I really don't need to see that, but what you're describing sounds like it could be construed aiding and abetting bias-motivated assault, which certainly seems like it'd be a crime. It'd probably be a bit of a stretch though.
No, honestly, I have no idea what you just said.
The poster I was replying to argued that hate crimes laws are weird because they single out a particular motivation. That is NOT weird at all, and is a standard part of all kinds of criminal laws. I have no idea why you think that SCOTUS would overturn that, or that nobody has thought to try and challenge these laws.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Fucking people have no regard for the well being of others. Makes me really goddamn sick.
Whooo, I need to calm down. I hope I never witness something like this because I will pay back the beating to the offending party ten-fold.
Okay. I'm calm now.
I like this guy already. Was a little uncertain as I read the article until it noted that he had addressed whether it was just a gimmick or not by showing respect for the LGBT community and GLAAD itself.
In more local (to me) news, it seems that the Toronto mayor is trying to remove city funding from our annual Pride Parade. According to a friend of mine, between actual money given (grant'ed?) and services (police support, etc) Toronto covers something like 10-15% of Pride's 3 million dollar budget, or around $250-350,000. Fake edit: further reading suggests that it might only be $100,000 at risk of being lost.
In return, it seems that the city of Toronto takes in somewhere around 94 million dollars, especially accounting for the influx in tourism such as hotel service and restaurant use.
Apparently their primary issue was with a group called the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid. Said group said they would back out from the parade, but the mayor is still basically flipping Pride the bird, and the answer as to whether funding is coming or not won't be given until May or June. Y'know, not like that money needs to go anywhere or at least needs to be accounted for (either in receipt or with increased fundraising or cutbacks to account for its loss).
Also of note, Toronto will be hosting World Pride in 2014, which one hopes/suspects will be huge and lucrative, assuming you folks don't manage to trigger the Gaypocalypse at the end of next year, as we all suspect you will. Seriously, knock it off.
So with possibly the largest (and thus, likely the most lucrative) Pride event ever coming... err, arriving on our doorstep in a mere 3 years, now seems like the perfect time to lower financing that seems to recoup itself by literal orders of magnitude.
... I know I have a Sarcasm tag around here somewhere?
Anyway, I'd say that this obviously doesn't threaten Pride overall, but it's kind of a dick move. Struggling for funding as everyone everywhere everywhen might be, a hundred grand (hell, even three hundred grand) is chump change for the city. I'm sure we blow (ahem) more than that on paper plates or napkins or some shit, but just like the GOP, they get a bug up their asses (... too easy) about putting women (elsewhere) and fags back in their place and suddenly all kinds of asshattery and fuckmuppetry go on.
I haven't seen the video, but while I agree with your sentiment on assisting and protecting those in need, stepping into a violent situation like this is in many regards a worst case scenario. I've arrested people where I had an easy hundred pound advantage, a foot of height, handcuffs and 2 officers supporting me and it was still a struggle. Trying to subdue one or two assailants when unsure whether the crowd might turn on you next could possibly be a case of taking your life into your own hands. The right thing to do, yes, and if I'm ever in a similar situation I'd like to think I'd put that size between a victim and a threat again, but I can't say I wouldn't quickly weigh out how badly this was likely to go down.
To be utterly and absolutely clear, this event is horrific and I hope that both women are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and that the woman who was beaten is one day able to make a full recovery (and I don't just mean physically). And anyone who cheered this on (as it happened or after the fact) earns my scorn and ire. But stepping into a violent situation can be very helpful, or it can just add to the list of victims, and it's a risk I can't entirely fault others for not taking on a moment's notice.
Yup!
His asshattery is one of the things that's making me pay closer attention to local politics, and this issue in particular (for the reasons noted above) earn them a scowl of disapproval. And a vote against their bullshit at the first chance I get.
You don't feel like there should be a legal difference between lighting a pile crap on fire in front of someone's house and lighting a cross on fire in front of their house?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The victim at no point tried to retaliate or even try to ward off the attacks. Really disturbing shit there in that video.
I'm unclear on how much of that has been verified though.
The victim has admitted she was intoxicated at the time, which is not an excuse for what happened, but does make it appear it would be hard for to nail down exactly what happened and why especially because of the attack she suffered.
Some are also digging up her past criminal record (prostitution and some other charges) as an attempt to vilify her.
Ye gods do I loathe that bullshit. Hey, judicial bitches, prostitutes (former, current, alleged, etc) can use the washroom without being beaten too.
Even if she was utterly belligerent to the others in the washroom, even if she was disgustingly vulgar and snarky and offensive, that doesn't come close to justifying physical violence from two other people, especially if the attack continues after she's already helpless.
For all my earlier recognition as to why it's dangerous to get involved, it's for situations like this that I still carry around my leather/kevlar gloves. Not an Iron Man suit by any means, but I'll take 'em over going in bare handed when the last resort is the only one available.
this is the victim explaining what happened
apparently, she went inside, some guy asked how she was doing, she used to bathroom, comes out, girl spits in her face for talking to "her man"
she later says they looked like they were looking for a fight
so, I was wrong about the bathroom theory
it was two girls looking for a fight, they pick the trans woman