KaninZ said: “If I get into a bar fight over a game of pool that’s one thing. If some inbred goon says “I’m gonna go beat down a fag!” and tries it on me, that’s more like domestic terrorism and considered a more serious offense than simple assault.”

I completely agree with you. At the same time, however, assault is assault no matter how it happens. If you are attacked by a drunk in a bar for no reason, or beaten by your spouse/partner, or beaten in the street because of your sexuality, the perpetrator in each case should be charged with the same offense, prosecuted for the same offense, and found guilty of the same offense.

The difference should come not in the way a crime is handled prior to conviction, but in the sentence imposed by the judge. A random assault by a drunk in a bar should receive a less severe sentence than an intentional assault by a person against their spouse/partner, and they should receive a less severe sentence than a person convicted of assault motivated by hatred.

No special legislation needs to be created to tell the judiciary to behave this way. It’s basic common sense. A drunk in a bar is unlikely to have been in full control of his mental faculties at the time of the assault and unless that drunk has a history of violent behavior they are unlikely to repeat their crime. A person who beats their spouse/partner, on the other hand, is more likely to repeat their crime, either against that same spouse/partner or a future spouse/partner – thus the sentence should be more severe not only to protect said spouse/partner from harm but also to send a message to that person, a warning of what they may face if they repeat their crime.

A person who commits an assault motivated by hatred towards a minority, or indeed majority, group should obviously receive the most severe sentence. They are extremely likely to repeat their offense, they have a wide class of random victims to choose from and as they are likely to be unknown to their potential victims they have a limited fear of being caught. In a sense you are right – it is more like domestic terrorism than simple assault, but that should be reflected in the sentence they receive rather than the crime with which they are charged in the first place.

The sentence imposed by a judge following conviction reflects not only the severity of the crime, but the repugnance of the motivation, the likelihood of recidivism, and the genuine remorse shown by the perpetrator. If a crime is motivated by hatred then of course the perpetrator should receive a more serious sentence, and ideally taken off the streets permanently, but no special hate crime laws are needed to achieve this goal – just ensure judges have discretionary power when sentencing and trust them to exercise their common sense (if they can’t, or won’t, they shouldn’t be judges in the first place and no amount of hate crime legislation can make up for their idiocy).

As I’ve said before, I acknowledge that hate crime legislation is a necessary evil – I just believe that such legislation should be expanded to ALL crimes motivated by hatred, whether that hatred is directed towards a minority or majority group, and greater efforts should be made to combat the source of the hatred behind such crimes.

I am opposed to hate crime legislation and so find it very difficult to see this as any kind of a victory. If I am assaulted in the street I want no more or less protection under the law than any other citizen is entitled to. If the crime is motivated by hatred then, whatever the reason for that hatred, the penalty should be reflected in the sentence received by the perpetrator. I don’t care if the perpetrator hates me because of my gender, race, religion or sexuality, or simply because I live in the wrong part of town – if a crime is motivated by hatred the perpetrator should be sentenced accordingly. We should not need legislation to define hatred and nor should we need legislation to compel law enforcement authorities to do their job.

I do accept that hate crime legislation may very well be a necessary evil, but I would much rather see legislation passed to increase funding to projects designed to combat prejudice in society, programs designed to tackle violent crime of all kinds, rather than legislation that singles out specific groups for special protection.

If the government really wants to take a stance against hatred, perhaps they should begin by tackling the existing prejudice inherent in the current legislation. By denying the gay community and other minority groups equal rights under the law, the government does nothing to combat hatred and prejudice – indeed they actively endorse it. They send a message to society that “these people are different”, and rather than helping to combat that, hate crime legislation only serves to reinforce that view.

While I applaud the benefits this new legislation offers, and accept that the increased protection is a sad necessity, I firmly believe that time and effort could be better spent in other areas. Hate crime legislation will not combat hatred or prejudice. It only dictates stricter protocols for how the law will address hatred and prejudice when they occur. If hate crime legislation is truly necessary, how about extending it to offer protection to everyone rather than singling out specific groups? How about sending a message to society that hatred, in whatever form it takes, will not be tolerated? And in the meantime, rather than creating legislation that offers special protection to gays and other minorities, how about creating legislation that eradicates the inequality in society, bestowing upon each and every one of us the same rights and privileges?

I am gay. I don’t need special protection because I’m gay. I need equality.