dreamer_easy: (australia)
[personal profile] dreamer_easy
Have posted a few links over at [livejournal.com profile] seeingred about the attacks on Indian overseas students here in Australia, which have included a petrol bomb and a stabbing that has left a student in critical condition. (I'd love to think the violence was just a Melbourne thing, but I'm very worried it's affecting more than one group of visible OS students and more than one city.) Anywho, for me, the most hopeful was The Age's report that the Victorian A-G is pushing for hate crime laws, which would increase sentences for crimes motivated by homophobia, sexism, and religious prejudice, as well as racism.

Date: 2009-06-02 10:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jennyblackford.livejournal.com
I'm fairly sure that the people who bashed and robbed the Indian students were the same sort of revolting kids who hated, victimised and bashed kids like Russell and me at school for being "different" - wanting to read books, for a start - and also mistreated anyone else they could justify as "different" - anyone with different accents or skin colours, redheads, plumper people, people with any disabilities whatsoever, whatever. Maybe we can say they come from abusive backgrounds, but some people are just horrible. And, in my reading back as far as written records go, they always were. The good thing as that most people NOW think it's a bad thing, and should be stopped.

Date: 2009-06-02 10:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kateorman.livejournal.com
You know, that's a really interesting point. IIUC, research shows that school bullies tend to continue their behaviour in their adult life. From police remarks, it may be that the thugs in this case see the Indian students as not only different and therefore fair game, but also as vulnerable, and therefore safe targets. Part of that vulnerability is the failure of the authorities to do anything about it. School bullies do it partly because they can get away with it; and the thugs who've been victimising students have been getting away with it for years.

Date: 2009-06-02 11:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jennyblackford.livejournal.com
Yes - it seems to me very much like an extension of the usual school bullying behaviour, with name calling and similar immature bahaviour. And picking on the vulnerable is, like, so manly and impressive.

Date: 2009-06-02 12:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kateorman.livejournal.com
Good grief - they're even stealing their lunch money.

Date: 2009-06-02 10:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kelemvor.livejournal.com
I'm somewhat ambivalent on the subject of hate crimes. Two years ago, a man was killed at a notorious cottage not half a mile from my flat. He was the victim of a homophobic attack, but that doesn't make him any deader. Likewise, bullying hurts regardless of the "justification" used by the bullies - getting mocked for liking "Doctor Who" is no less painful that getting mocked for being good at academic work.

I believe that people should be made to answer for their actions. I don't believe that people should be made to answer for their thoughts.

Date: 2009-06-02 10:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kateorman.livejournal.com
Interesting thoughts. Certainly in the case of the Melbourne crimes, the problem seems to be that the violence has been allowed to build up to this point over a number of years; simply enforcing existing laws might've prevented that. OTOH, a hate crime affects far more people than just the victim of that crime - and it's intended to.

Date: 2009-06-02 11:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kelemvor.livejournal.com
I think that a lot of problems are caused by existing laws not being enforced. Trouble is, legislators then go on to create new laws in response to particularly vile acts, which is a perfect example of shutting the stable door after the horse bolts - you can't prosecute the perpetrators under the new law!

OTOH, a hate crime affects far more people than just the victim of that crime - and it's intended to.

Hmm.

Isn't that the definition of an act of terrorism? As I understand it, a hate crime is one motivated by a dislike for the different. Whether anyone else is affected doesn't seem to have entered into it in the cases that I've read (which is, admittedly, a very small sample).

Date: 2009-06-02 11:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kateorman.livejournal.com
Some Indian students have already left Australia out of fear that they'll be targetted next. Others are restricting their movements and taking other precautions. The crimes may only have directly affected scores (hundreds?) of students, but they also keep thousands of people in fear, and impact their ability to work and learn.

Date: 2009-06-02 11:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kelemvor.livejournal.com
Right, I see. Looks like the lines between hate crimes and terrorism are being blurred...

Date: 2009-06-02 12:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kateorman.livejournal.com
Well, they do have the same goal. In fact, you'll have noticed that NOW have described the murder of Dr Tiller as "domestic terrorism", which is exactly what it is: you only need to target part of any group to keep that whole group afraid. It's what lynching was about, too, and what Brownmiller called rape.

Date: 2009-06-02 12:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hiraethin.livejournal.com
My position on hate crime legislation is that it is wrongheaded.

If person A bashes person B, motivation should be considered in the sentence, not in terms of the charge.

From a purely practical point of view, I cannot see how being able to charge an alleged offender with (for example) both assault and a hate crime is going to make things better for the victim or necessarily worse for the alleged offender - or, more importantly from a big picture POV, reduce the likelihood of similar future assaults.

IMHO, in order to reduce the level of violence in a society, more prevention (through campaigns and law enforcement visibility), better complaint clear-up rates (through increased law enforcement patrols and investigations) and better conviction rates (through more effective investigations and prosecutions) are key.

Philosophically, I think it's inappropriate to criminalise a point of view, even one with which I'm vehemently in disagreement.

Finally, is it ethical to seek what is effectively a two-tier justice system - one level of prosecution for offenders targeting victims either randomly or specifically aiming at members of the majority, and another level of prosecution for offenders targeting members of a minority? Shouldn't we seek equality of opportunity for members of minorities, rather than discrimination, preferential or otherwise?

Date: 2009-06-02 01:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kateorman.livejournal.com
See my comments to [livejournal.com profile] kelemvor elsewhere in this thread. But I should point out that the Federation of Indian Students in Australia has called for initiatives which would be a lot less simple to put in place than just tweaking existing law.

(A violent bigot specifically targetting Christians would be aiming at a majority, but would still be affected by a hate crime law which covered religious beliefs, as the proposed Victorian law does.)

Date: 2009-06-02 11:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] murasaki-1966.livejournal.com
Umm, according to Radio National this mornign (AM prgram), there is a similar problem in Sydney....we are not immune.

Profile

dreamer_easy: (Default)
dreamer_easy

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11 121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 1st, 2025 07:51 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios