For one thing, laws have to be passed to define them. That takes time. The public must be consulted. Politicians get involved.
For another, to charge someone with a traditional offence, police have to go through the inconvenient rigamarole of gathering evidence. They have to present that evidence in court. Even then, judges and juries can be unhelpful. To get a conviction over the line, a case has to be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’
The New Zealand police have found a creative way around this quagmire. They are training their officers to ‘recognise, record, and respond’ to ‘hate incidents.’
According to police materials, a hate incident is “anything the complainant feels is hateful towards them as a member of a minority group.”
The new approach is as elegant as it is efficient.
Gone is any need for legislation, with all the associated definitional problems. A hate incident is literally anything a complainant from a minority group says it is.
With hate incidents, the evidentiary process is also greatly expedited. In fact, there’s no need for any evidence at all. Best of all, the courts, with their vexatious insistence on ‘due process’ and ‘burden of proof’ will not be involved.
Regrettably, not all police are happy with the training. A few antediluvian officers think the constabulary should stick to enforcing actual laws. Some of those malcontents contacted the Free Speech Union (FSU) to complain that they didn’t sign up to be ‘thought police.’
Representatives of the FSU met with Police Commissioner Andrew Coster to discuss the concerns of the officers who had contacted them. The Commissioner said that he is concerned too, although not about the hate incident initiative itself.
No, what bothers Commissioner Coster is the attention the FSU has drawn to the new approach. He is worried that the publicity might “undermine public confidence in national institutions.”
In fact, the very name of the Free Speech Union contains the solution to his difficulty. The police training manual on hate incidents provides him with the means to shut down this seditious pressure group.
You see, while the hate incident provisions rightfully leave the fraught matter of definition up to complainants, the manual does provide some helpful examples.
As it turns out, one of those examples is using the heinous slogan, ‘Free Speech.’
Dr Michael Johnston has held academic positions at Victoria University of Wellington for the past ten years. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the University of Melbourne. This article was published HERE
The New Zealand police have found a creative way around this quagmire. They are training their officers to ‘recognise, record, and respond’ to ‘hate incidents.’
According to police materials, a hate incident is “anything the complainant feels is hateful towards them as a member of a minority group.”
The new approach is as elegant as it is efficient.
Gone is any need for legislation, with all the associated definitional problems. A hate incident is literally anything a complainant from a minority group says it is.
With hate incidents, the evidentiary process is also greatly expedited. In fact, there’s no need for any evidence at all. Best of all, the courts, with their vexatious insistence on ‘due process’ and ‘burden of proof’ will not be involved.
Regrettably, not all police are happy with the training. A few antediluvian officers think the constabulary should stick to enforcing actual laws. Some of those malcontents contacted the Free Speech Union (FSU) to complain that they didn’t sign up to be ‘thought police.’
Representatives of the FSU met with Police Commissioner Andrew Coster to discuss the concerns of the officers who had contacted them. The Commissioner said that he is concerned too, although not about the hate incident initiative itself.
No, what bothers Commissioner Coster is the attention the FSU has drawn to the new approach. He is worried that the publicity might “undermine public confidence in national institutions.”
In fact, the very name of the Free Speech Union contains the solution to his difficulty. The police training manual on hate incidents provides him with the means to shut down this seditious pressure group.
You see, while the hate incident provisions rightfully leave the fraught matter of definition up to complainants, the manual does provide some helpful examples.
As it turns out, one of those examples is using the heinous slogan, ‘Free Speech.’
Dr Michael Johnston has held academic positions at Victoria University of Wellington for the past ten years. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the University of Melbourne. This article was published HERE
3 comments:
According to police materials, a hate incident is “anything the complainant feels is hateful towards them as a member of a minority group.”
This is a ridiculous law that would be unenforceable in court.
Why?
Well a person charged would logically claim that they could not possible obey the law, because they could not possibly know the personal sensitivity of the complainant.
Unfortunately, that is no defence, Doug.
And no intent needs to be proved either.
You say it offends you and as long as you're not a White sexually normal male, the speaker is guilty.
Reminds me of the witchcraft trials in Germany in the Middle Ages when to be accused was to be guilty.
Unfortunately, Barend, I suspect that you are right.
The accusation of the "offended" complainant would probably be "evidence"
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.