Word of the day

Desistance – the process of abstaining from crime by those with a previous pattern of offending; the act or process of ceasing, especially from a criminal or antisocial behavior; the act or state of desisting.

Sowell says

The Middle East must lead the world in cease-fires. If cease-fires were the road to peace, the Middle East would easily be the most peaceful place on the planet.

“Cease-fire” and “negotiations” are magic words to “the international community.” But just what do cease-fires…

— Thomas Sowell Wisdom (@TheThomasSowell) March 27, 2024

Woman of the day

Woman of the Day feminist and trade unionist Rose Schneiderman born OTD 1882 in Poland, founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union, instrumental in the passing of the 1917 New York State referendum giving women the right to vote, and the woman who galvanised public… pic.twitter.com/txjjpAX2jD

— The Attagirls (@TheAttagirls) April 6, 2024

Subjective law is bad law

Hate speech legislation has been binned, but there’s a threat that hate crimes could be introduced.

The Free Speech Union is understandably concerned about this and is inviting others to sign its  letter to Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith explaining why:

‘Hate’ is subjective: whether speech or crime

Dear Minister Goldsmith,

‘Hate’ is an important term referencing a powerful emotion. Where individuals in our society are targets of hate, we must work to counter this hate and promote tolerance and inclusiveness.

‘Hate’ is a powerful term, but an unavoidably subjective one; this is true whether it is used against word or action.

It is not the role of our criminal justice system or laws more generally.

We have insisted that ‘hate’ speech laws would simply introduce a means to censor unpopular opinions. We applaud your decision to stop work on these proposals.

‘Hate’ crime laws suffer from the same weaknesses and have no place in a liberal democracy that values freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the rule of law.

Introducing ‘hate’ crime laws would see police and the judiciary tasked with decisions based on the motivation, not the action, of deciding if one individual acted more criminally than another, despite breaking the very same law.

We have no interest in defending criminal actions. If an individual breaks the law, they must be held accountable. But the law must apply impartially, regardless of who breaks it. There aren’t ‘right’ reasons to break the law, or reasons that are ‘more wrong’ than others.

Breaking the law for ‘hate’ shouldn’t stand alone as a category any more than breaking the law for ‘love’. Who is impartial enough to determine objectively when either of these would apply?

Keep our laws impartial, the rule of law strong, and our speech and consciences free.

---

We call on Hon. Paul Goldsmith, the Minister of Justice, to reject all advice to develop ‘hate’ crime legislation that would introduce unacceptable subjectivity into our laws, and be used to target unpopular perspectives and unorthodox beliefs.

How can what someone thinks or feels be objectively determined by a court and how fair would it be if that makes a difference to a sentence?

This proposal conjures up visions of thought police being added to the justice system to determine the motivation to crimes.

Subjective law is bad law.

So, if two people commit the same crime but have different perceived motives, they’d be punished differently…?

‘Hate’ is entirely subjective.

Join us in urging @PaulGoldsmithMP to say no to ambiguous ‘hate’ crime laws: https://t.co/wvlm5Eyfrj pic.twitter.com/eNi6mZy9d4

— 🗣 Free Speech Union ✊ (@NZFreeSpeech) April 11, 2024

If you agree, you can sign the letter here.