Is it an offence if the target of racism only appears to be of/from a different race, colour or national or ethnic origin? Background This question was inspired by I was racially abused at a public park. What legal actions can I take?, although I am not asking specifically about that case. In that question someone, in Australia, was verbally abused in a seemingly racist manner. One of the answers quotes Australia's Federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (emphasis mine): 18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group. However, in an edit the OP states he is &quot;not of middle eastern decent but I do have a beard. I was wearing a robe like garment for a cultural function I was attending&quot;. This suggests (to my not-legally-trained brain) that even if Section 18C were to apply1 when the target was someone with a different &quot;race, colour or national or ethnic origin&quot;, it might not apply if the target only gave the appearance of having a different &quot;race, colour or national or ethnic origin&quot;. 1 For the particular incident from the linked question, it is possible that Section 18 would not apply in any case. This Wikipedia page suggests that for 18C to apply, courts require speech to have &quot;... profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights.&quot;. I don't know Australian case-law to know whether the incident described would fall under this requirement: for my question, assume that the acts would meet such requirements. Question For brevity, I will use &quot;target person&quot; to mean someone &quot;of/from a different race, colour or national or ethnic origin&quot;. If someone carries out an alleged act of racial discrimination / intimidation / abuse (verbal or physical) against someone they believe to be a target person, would it be a defence (or would it not be an offence), if it turns out that the other party was not actually a target person, but just gave the appearance of being a target person? Assumptions and Caveats I do now want to debate about whether it is right or wrong to try to legislate in this way, whether it is &quot;thought control taken too far&quot;, or whether other approaches, such as better education, may be better. If necessary, assume that appropriate legislators (parliament, congress, whatever) have decided through due democratic process that they want to punish the &quot;appearance of being racist&quot;, whether the target actually is of a different ethnic group, or is mistaken for belonging to such a group by the perpetrator. I assume that were the target(s) of the attack/abuse to actually be of/from a different race, colour or national or ethnic origin, there would be no question about guilt. The &quot;doubt&quot; is only whether legislation also applies when the perpetrator only believes their victim to be a target person. Scope As the original question was about Australia, an answer addressing Australian law would be welcome. As I'm from the UK, an answer from that perspective (specifically, English law) would also be welcome. However, providing it is not seen as being too broad, answers from other jurisdictions are also welcome.
england-and-wales Q: Is it an offence if the target of racism only appears to be of/from a different race, colour or national or ethnic origin? Yes Q: If someone carries out an alleged act of racial discrimination / intimidation / abuse (verbal or physical) against someone they believe to be a target person, would it be a defence (or would it not be an offence), if it turns out that the other party was not actually a target person, but just gave the appearance of being a target person? No Short answer: The victim's actual, or perceived, race is not important in this context - it's the actions and intent of the offender that creates the various offences which carry a higher sentence due to the racist element being an &quot;Aggravating Factor&quot; Long answer: (Just in the context of race-related &quot;hate crimes&quot;) DISCRIMINATION falls within the Equality Act 2010 which primarily relates to unlawful discrimination within employment, or the provision of goods or services on the grounds of a person's protected characteristics defined by s.4: The following characteristics are protected characteristics — ... race ... s.13 creates the offence: (1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. ... (5) If the protected characteristic is race, less favourable treatment includes segregating B from others ... s.26 of the 2010 Act also creates an offence of harrassment (although it is primarily concerned with unwanted and unwarranted sexual advances it is not exclusively so): (1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if — (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of— (i) violating B's dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. ... (5) The relevant protected characteristics are — ... race RACIALLY AGGRAVATED OFFENCES are created by s.28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and carry are greater maximum sentence than the equivalent non-aggravated offences: An offence is racially ... aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if — (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial ... group ... s.29 relates to certain assaults under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.30 relates to certain offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.31 relates certain to offences under the Public Order Act 1986 s.32 relates to certain offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 OTHER OFFENCES fall within s.145 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which captures those not dealt with by the 1998 Act and requires the court to, for example, impose a sentence greater than it would for a comparable offence that lacks a racist element: (1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence other than one under sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 ... (2) If the offence was racially or religiously aggravated, the court— (a) must treat that fact as an aggravating factor ...
It is generally held (see this article) that contracts are subject to 42 USC 1981 All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other and the wording of the license conditions clearly shows a the &quot;but-for&quot; discrimination cited in the primary holding of Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media that a &quot;§1981 plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the plaintiff’s race was a but-for cause of its injury&quot;. The scope of §1981 is limited to cases of racial discrimination, having been enacted as part of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
On the face of it there is nothing illegal about your proposal, however, "Australia maintains some of the most restrictive Internet policies of any Western country". In addition, a suit can be brought under Australian law for any material accessible in Australia irrespective of the original source or where it is hosted. Offensive Content The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is empowered to look into complaints from Australians about prohibited content on the Internet and issue takedown notices. The ACMA is not mandated to scour the Internet for potentially prohibited content, but it is allowed to begin investigations without an outside complaint. Prohibited content is content that which would attract an R18, X18 or RC by the Australian Classification Board. Note that this is more restrictive than what is allowed for offline publication; offline publications can be R18 and X18. Once the determination has been made that content hosted within Australia is prohibited, the ACMA issues a takedown notice to the Internet content provider (ICP). It is not illegal for the ICP to host prohibited content, but legal action could be taken against it by the government if it does not comply with the takedown notice. For offensive content hosted outside of Australia, the ACMA itself determines whether content is prohibited and notifies a list of certified Web-filter manufacturers to include the prohibited Web sites in their filters. Australian Internet Service Providers (ISP) are required to make these filters available to their customers but their use is not mandatory. Your type of site is unlikely to fall foul of this but it could happen, particularly if you allow images or video uploads. You would need to be able to respond quickly to any take down notice. Hate Speech Australia addresses hate speech through the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group." The Federal Court has ruled that publication on the Internet without password protection is a "public act" and hate speech on your website could fall foul of this provision. ACMA does not have the statutory authority to deal with hate speech complaints so the only avenue is through the courts, however, ACMA will pass on complaints to the ICP. This area is much more likely to be an issue for your site - it is easy to see a complaint about a product with a distinctive national origin descending into hate speech as defined. Copyright As a publisher, you could be held liable for the uploading of copyright infringing materials by others. Defamation This is probably where your greatest risk lies. For a defamation action to be successful, it must be established that the communication: was published to a third person, i.e. to at least one person other than the plaintiff (person/entity defamed). Putting it on the internet does this. identifies the plaintiff, for example, by name or by a reference to a small group of people, etc. Identifying the person as, say BMW, does this. contains a defamatory statement or imputation (whether intentionally published or not). Very generally speaking, material that could be found to be defamatory includes that which has the tendency to lower the person in the estimation of others, or that would tend to result in the person being shunned or avoided or that is likely to expose the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; say a criticism about a car the person makes. In theory, any individual or entity who considers damage to their reputation has or is likely to occur, as a result of material published, may sue the publisher/s of the material. In practice, the laws are inaccessible to ordinary individuals who are defamed due to the exorbitant legal costs involved in bringing a defamation action. Australia's defamation laws are often used by politicians and corporations who consider the media, individuals or community groups have defamed them in publishing information critical of their activities. Defamation action may be brought, not only against the original publisher (writer/speaker), but also against anyone who takes part in the publication or re-publication of the material. However, the fact that a person can be sued does not necessarily mean they would be found liable by a court. There are numerous aspects relevant to liability. Defences that may be successfully pleaded in relation to a defamation action vary throughout Australian jurisdictions. Depending on the jurisdiction, these may include: truth/justification fair comment (e.g. an expression of an honestly held opinion or a criticism on a subject matter of public interest) absolute privilege (this attaches to the occasion, not the statement or speaker, such as during parliamentary proceedings, judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, executive communications and communications between spouses) qualified privilege (e.g. fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings, judicial proceedings, public meetings concerning matters of public interest/concern) consent (e.g. where the plaintiff expressly or impliedly consented to the publication of the particular imputation) triviality (e.g. where the circumstances/occasion of the publication were trivial to the extent that the person defamed was not likely to suffer harm) innocent dissemination (e.g. applicable to re-publishers/re-distributors such as newsagents/book sellers, including potentially to ISPs/ICHs. The defence in Clause 91 of the BSA is also relevant to ISPs/ICHs.) etc The Broadcasting Services Act (C'wlth) ("the BSA") provides a statutory defence to an ISP/ICH who carries/hosts Internet content in Australia and who was not aware that they were carrying/hosting a defamatory publication. You need to have good procedures in place to remove defamatory content ASAP after you become aware of it. Defamation action under Australian law may be commenced in any State or Territory in which the allegedly defamatory material was published. The Australian High Court has ruled that a party within Australia can sue a foreign party in an Australian court for defamation resulting from an online article hosted on a foreign server.
The UK has particularly strong (indirect) restrictions on self defense. Askthe.police.uk appears to be an official police agency. As a police agency, they can only give their version of what the law is, but they could be mistaken. They say "The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm". This by itself does not mean that pepper spray and the like are definitively illegal: There are other self defence products which claim to be legal (e.g. non toxic sprays), however, until a test case is brought before the court, we cannot confirm their legality or endorse them. If you purchase one you must be aware that if you are stopped by the police and have it in your possession there is always a possibility that you will be arrested and detained until the product, it's contents and legality can be verified. One can infer that they somewhat disapprove of pepper spray: There are products which squirt a relatively safe, brightly coloured dye (as opposed to a pepper spray). A properly designed product of this nature, used in the way it is intended, should not be able to cause an injury. The underlying theory seems to be that the dye will frighten the assailant so it might be useful. Nevertheless, they do not fully endorse spray dye: However, be aware that even a seemingly safe product, deliberately aimed and sprayed in someone's eyes, would become an offensive weapon because it would be used in a way that was intended to cause injury. This underscores the point that "intent" determines the criminal nature of the act. If you accidentally spray a dye into someone's eyes, that probably would not make the thing an offensive weapon. Moreover, if at the moment of defending yourself with dye you intentionally spray it into someone eyes, that does not make it an offensive weapon (see below on per se offensive weapons). The difference between pepper spray and dye lies in the outcome that you expect, that pepper spray will cause actual and non-trivial physical discomfort, and it's foreseeability (the point of having pepper spray is to injure). The police are not making any definitive "rulings" (only a court can make a ruling), and they warn The above advice is given in good faith, you must make your own decision and this website cannot be held responsible for the consequences of the possession, use or misuse of any self defence product. Possession of other weapons (mostly knives, also weapons for beating people) is more clearly illegal, due to numerous acts enacted by Parliament over the years. The gov't. prosecutor offers useful details on their (current) policies and the underlying laws. The underlying authority for these restrictions seems to be the Prevention of Crime Act, 1953, which outlaws having an offensive weapon in a public place, and an offense weapon is simply defined as any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him A brick or an egg could be an "offensive weapon", if a person intends to use it to cause injury. It is more difficult to see how an egg could cause injury, but actual injury is not required under the law, only intent to injure. It is thus a bit surprising that the police would be so bold as to say that a "rape alarm" is fully legal, but this may refer to a specific thing, the "Personal Guardian", which silently notifies the police, and is not a loud whistle (which could injure a person). Intent being crucial to the determination of "offensive weapon" status, CPS points out that where a person uses an article offensively in a public place, the offensive use of the article is not conclusive of the question whether he had it with him as an offensive weapon within section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. If you use a chain or stick offensively, that does not establish that you had it with you as an offensive weapon. You crucially had to previously intend to use it as an offensive weapon: as they say: Having an article innocently will be converted into having the article guiltily if an intent to use the article offensively is formed before the actual occasion to use violence has arisen. There are a number of per se offensive weapons: those made for causing injury to the person i.e. offensive per se. For examples of weapons that are offensive per se, see Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, (Stones 8-22745) and case law decisions. (Archbold 24-116). The Criminal Justice Act (1988) (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008 came into force on 6th April 2008 with the effect that a sword with a curved blade of 50cm or more (samurai sword), has been added to the schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 but sticks and chains would not be included. Spices are not likely to be shown to have a per se purpose of causing injury to others; but carrying pepper powder with the intent of throwing it in someone's eyes (for whatever reason) and thus injuring them fits the definition of "offensive weapon". Pepper spray even more clearly fits that definition (you don't use pepper spray in curry), and has resulted in arrests. In fact, the Firearms Act 1968 (S5) (b) specifically makes it illegal to possess any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing
canada In Canada, there are the separate offences of: sexual assault (premised on lack of consent, no matter by what means consent is lacking; R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20) and administering a stupefying substance. If someone were to use a &quot;substance such as everyday alcohol&quot; (I would reject the premise that this is &quot;benign&quot;) for the purpose of facilitating sexual assault, this would be an offence under s. 246 of the Criminal Code. Section 246 makes it an offence for a person, &quot;with intent to enable or assist himself or another person to commit an indictable offence&quot; to administer or cause any person to take a &quot;stupefying or overpowering drug, matter, or thing.&quot; The Court of Appeal for Ontario has accepted that the element of administering a stupefying thing could be established by oversupply of alcohol. They have said that alcohol is a &quot;stupefying substance&quot; (R. v. Vant, 2015 ONCA 481) and can support a conviction under s. 246. &quot;Date rape&quot; has no legal significance and even criminologically, misframes the circumstances in which people experience sexual assualt. Further, your premise that intimate partner sexual assault &quot;usually happens when someone uses narcotics to drug another into an unconscious state&quot; is not supported by the evidence. While this is a criminological point, rather than a legal point, it is important context for understanding such crimes. This 2005 study estimated that 4.6% of intimate partner sexual assaults were facilitated by surreptitious drug use. These two fact sheets describe the variety of circumstances, completely unrelated to incapacitation by drugs, in which people experience intimate partner sexual assault/violence: Fredericton Sexual Assault Crisis Centre Info Sheet; Centre for Research &amp; Education on Violence Against Women &amp; Children Backgrounder on Intimate Partner Sexual Violence.
It doesn't seem as if the bank is discriminating in the way you suggest. They offer two types of account: (A) accrues or charges interest and (B) does not accrue or charge interest. The bank says you can choose A or B whatever your religion. You the customer choose A or B, possibly depending on your religion. So I do not see what cause of action you have or what damages you have suffered. Therefore I don't think you could sue them.
That is happening all the time. Accusations of historic child abuse are often made, often investigated, and often punished. Where the victim is from doesn't make a difference in most countries. Most crimes are prosecuted in the country where they happen. Some crimes, especially sexual abuse of children, will often also be prosecuted in the country that the offender is a citizen of, especially if the country where it happened is hesitant to prosecute. In your example, if the abuse happened in Switzerland, Switzerland will try to get the offender extradited from Italy, and will ask witnesses to come to Switzerland to make statements in court. Italy might prosecute the alleged offender if he is Italian, they might even prosecute an Italian resident, but I don't know their laws.
The validity of the NDA is not an easy question, but a related one is more clear. A lawyer in the U.S. in most states is not permitted to threaten criminal or administrative action (e.g. reporting someone to immigration or tax officials), to gain advantage in a civil case. You can unilaterally bring criminal charges or take administrative action, but it is deemed to be unethical and against public policy to refrain from bringing criminal charges or taking administration action to gain civil advantages. An NDA of the type described arguably violated the same public policy and might be invalidated as a result. Put another way, there is a privilege to make certain reports to public officials without legal consequences and such an NDA might violate that privilege. Some of these privileges found in what are called "whistle blower" statutes specifically prohibit this kind of agreement as to some specific kinds of illegal conduct, but not others. There isn't a general rule. This said, it is not black and white. For example, a private NDA can't prevent someone from testifying under subpoena, but can prevent someone from voluntarily testifying in the absence of a legal compulsion to do so such as a subpoena. Suppose a woman is sexually assaulted at work, and is given an NDA to sign. Can the company legally require her not to disclose the conduct of an illegal activity? I can imagine this example coming out different ways in different jurisdictions. For example, some states have a legal duty (rarely enforced) that requires people to report felonies, and an NDA in this case would contradict that affirmative legal duty, while others do not. Another source of gray in the analysis is that there is a difference between not reporting a sexual assault that actually happened, and, as part of a larger settlement, executing an affidavit stating under penalty of perjury and under oath that a sexual assault didn't happen. The first is potentially an NDA that is void as a matter of public policy. The other, in principle, is a settlement that the person signing the affidavit can only enter into if it is true. There is nothing, in general, wrong, about requiring someone to confirm that certain representations are true as part of a business transaction or contract and allowing the contract to go forwards only if certain facts are true. The gray gets deeper, because whether a sexual assault happened or not is not always a subjectively black and white clear issue of pure fact. (It is subjective because an affidavit or affirmation is made to the best of the declarant or affiants' knowledge and belief, not as a matter of objective fact.) For example, someone may not have perfect memory of what happened, or there could be doubt over the question of whether the perpetrators acted recklessly (the Model Penal Code intent requirement for sexual assault) or merely with criminal negligence (which would not be sexual assault under the Model Penal Code). A statement made under oath about whether a sexual assault happened to the best of your knowledge, thus, might be a mixture of factual issues (A penetrated B at a certain date and time) and legal or not perfectly factually known ones (A acted with X intent regarding consent during that act). So, in a case where there was some room to argue either way about how to characterize what happened and about what actually did happen, there might be some room for a settling party to make a non-perjured statement consistent with the settlement and then to agree not to a true NDA, but instead to not make statements which, if the affidavit is true, would be false. In a plea bargain in a criminal case, one can plead "no contest" without agreeing that the crime factually happened, but that isn't really possibly in the context of an affidavit about what really happened, with an NDA limited to not disclosing the incident since it was already agreed as a matter of sworn fact that there is nothing to disclose that rises the level of a crime.