Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-14-2018 11:49 AM
136 online now:
frako, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (9 members, 127 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,067 Year: 18,890/29,783 Month: 835/2,043 Week: 387/386 Day: 44/107 Hour: 9/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
26NextFF
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Legend
Member (Idle past 2985 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 106 of 376 (538109)
12-03-2009 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Lithodid-Man
12-02-2009 7:22 PM


Re: My $10,000 (and where's my change?)
Legend writes:

So you rejected the arguments just because they have been used before to protect perpetrators of crimes. I'm sorry, but this IS argumentum ad Hitlerum in my books.

Lithodid-Man writes:

And after that first sentence I explained my point. I am not rejecting anything on this - I am saying that the perceived consequences are not a necessarily a valid argument against hate crime legislation. It is NOT argumentum ad Hitlerum as I am not saying "arguments against hate crime laws are invalid because similar arguments have been used in a negative fashion in the past."

If that's the case then I must have misunderstood your post and I apologise for that.

Lithodid-Man writes:

I am saying that whatever arguments there are for or against hate crime legislation an appeal to consequence is not a good one. Fear of backlash or racially motivated consequences slowed down the Civil Rights movement here in the US.

Now I fear that you have misunderstood mine. I never argued that hate crimes should be abolished just because of potential backlash from any particular community. That's just a strawman created by Rrhain in previous posts. I've been arguing that hate crimes should be abolished because they are:

1) detracting from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims. This has a marginalising and alienating effect on the communities these laws are supposed to protect.

2) indirectly propagating racism and increasing racial tensions, as inevitably certain groups/communities will feel unjustly and unequally treated when the murder of a loved one is considered a lesser crime than the murder of a loved one of another group. Whether that causes an actual backlash or not is not as important as the simerring tension and suspicion which will permeate every aspect of society, even if no street riots ever occur.

3) and this is most important: judging and condemning people based on the thinking or beliefs which caused them to attack. This is punishing the Motive, not just Intent and -as I've explained in previous posts- it's not a usual, traditional or historical methodology in our judicial system and more gravely it is a THOUGHT CRIME as it implies that certain thoughts and opinions can now be indirectly prosecuted and punished if they can be associated with a crime, or even without.

This has led to many people being AFRAID to express their opinions in case they get punished for them. It's a bitter twist of irony that the laws that are supposed to protect minorities from being terrorised are doing so by terrorising the majority, don't you think?


"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-02-2009 7:22 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 12-03-2009 7:13 PM Legend has responded
 Message 110 by Rrhain, posted 12-05-2009 7:25 AM Legend has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10270
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 107 of 376 (538116)
12-03-2009 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Legend
12-03-2009 5:58 PM


Evidenced Context Motive and Intent
Legend writes:

3) and this is most important: judging and condemning people based on the thinking or beliefs which caused them to attack. This is punishing the Motive, not just Intent and -as I've explained in previous posts- it's not a usual, traditional or historical methodology in our judicial system and more gravely it is a THOUGHT CRIME as it implies that certain thoughts and opinions can now be indirectly prosecuted and punished if they can be associated with a crime, or even without.

This has led to many people being AFRAID to express their opinions in case they get punished for them. It's a bitter twist of irony that the laws that are supposed to protect minorities from being terrorised are doing so by terrorising the majority, don't you think?

I think you are being melodramatic. I find it very hard to identify this poor terrorised majority that you refer to. This majority too terrorised to think or speak.

I think badly applied laws will be bad laws. Always. The question is can laws against hate be applied such that they have the desired effect of protecting communities from fear without resulting in the sort of practical problems that you are suggesting. I think they can.

Where there is clear evidence of a sustained campaign of hatred, where the crime in question is demonstrably part of a systematic targeting of a community to intimidate or change the bahaviour of that community then do you really think appropriate laws should not be applied? Are such cases not all too prevalent? Should we not accept this reality and set the law accordingly?

When that known gay pub is vandalised for the upteenth time in succession, when the mosque is repeatedly plastered with anti-islamic graffiti before eventually being fire-bombed, when the kids at the special needs school are under blatant siege from local bigots.......Etc. etc. etc.

In such circumstances the law needs to make it known that the clearly present bigoted prejudicial element to such crimes is abhorrant and that it will not be tolerated. Perpetrators should be deterred from such campaigns of hatred by the imposition of punishments that take this full context into account. And if the aim of imprisonment is to protect society then there is a far stronger basis for increased custodial sentances for those convicted of hate crimes than many of the other things we lock people up for. It isn't just a case of one-off bullying or a broken window and general vandalism. It isn't just a random act of violence. It is part of something wider. Something intolerable. And it should be treated as such.

I am not talking about anyone being tried for a hate crime on the basis of a one off incident that has no context or history to clearly suggest it is a crime of hate. I am not talking about wild accusations and the assumption that every claim of hate is treated as true until proven otherwise. I am not talking about political correctness or any of your other personal bugbears.

I am talking about situations where there is clear evidence of prejudice, intimidation and the desire to subjugate. How the hell is this going to condemn anyone for a "THOUGHT CRIME"? How the hell does this relate to you being "AFRAID" to express you opinion?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Legend, posted 12-03-2009 5:58 PM Legend has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Legend, posted 12-04-2009 2:35 AM Straggler has responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 2985 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 108 of 376 (538133)
12-04-2009 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Straggler
12-03-2009 7:13 PM


Re: Evidenced Context Motive and Intent
Straggler writes:

I think you are being melodramatic. I find it very hard to identify this poor terrorised majority that you refer to. This majority too terrorised to think or speak.

I can't really answer that other than to say that we must be living in different worlds.

Straggler writes:

I think badly applied laws will be bad laws. Always. The question is can laws against hate be applied such that they have the desired effect of protecting communities from fear without resulting in the sort of practical problems that you are suggesting.


But why should there be laws against hate? People should be free to hate whoever or whatever they want. People should be culpable for what they do not for what/who they dislike. Once you start penalising hate it's only a short step away from having a central authority to dictate likes/dislikes and opinions in general.

Straggler writes:

Where there is clear evidence of a sustained campaign of hatred, where the crime in question is demonstrably part of a systematic targeting of a community to intimidate or change the bahaviour of that community then do you really think appropriate laws should not be applied?


Absolutely! and we already have anti-harassment laws, in addition to ordinary crime laws which can be applied on multiple counts. Show me a 'hate' crime, that isn't already covered by existing laws and then you'll have a point.

Besides, you're talking about systematic and sustained campaigns while a hate-crime can just as easily be applied to one-off crimes too.

Straggler writes:

When that known gay pub is vandalised for the upteenth time in succession, when the mosque is repeatedly plastered with anti-islamic graffiti before eventually being fire-bombed, when the kids at the special needs school are under blatant siege from local bigots.......Etc. etc. etc.

and we already have laws that can adequately punish the perpetrators of such crimes. Why the need for additional 'hate'-crime laws?

Straggler writes:

In such circumstances the law needs to make it known that the clearly present bigoted prejudicial element to such crimes is abhorrant and that it will not be tolerated. Perpetrators should be deterred from such campaigns of hatred by the imposition of punishments that take this full context into account. And if the aim of imprisonment is to protect society then there is a far stronger basis for increased custodial sentances for those convicted of hate crimes than many of the other things we lock people up for.

You're then implying that someone who beats people up coz they're gay/muslim/whatever needs to be deterred more than someone who beats people up to rob them. On what do you base this? What makes a gay/muslim beater more persistent than a street robber and in need of greater deterrence?

Straggler writes:

I am not talking about anyone being tried for a hate crime on the basis of a one off incident that has no context or history to clearly suggest it is a crime of hate.


The context is often simply the labels that the participants attach to themselves or others attach to them. What would you think would happen if, for instance, a member of a far-right group is involved in a fight with a minority member over an unrelated matter? The member's beliefs alone will be enough to get them charged with a hate-crime even if the fight started over spilled drinks in a pub. And let's not beat around the bush, there are certain people who won't hesitate to play the 'hate' card when they think it's in their interest, regardless of whether it was a factor in the dispute.

Straggler writes:

I am talking about situations where there is clear evidence of prejudice, intimidation and the desire to subjugate. How the hell is this going to condemn anyone for a "THOUGHT CRIME"? How the hell does this relate to you being "AFRAID" to express you opinion?


For all the reasons I mentioned above. When people's opinions and thoughts about the victims, i.e. the Motives behind such crimes -however abbhorent they may be- are being judged and condemned it means that Thought is being persecuted and that the general public will be AFRAID to express opinions in case they end up punished for them. It's as simple as that.


"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 12-03-2009 7:13 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 11:54 AM Legend has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10270
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 109 of 376 (538185)
12-04-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Legend
12-04-2009 2:35 AM


Re: Evidenced Context Motive and Intent
Do you actually have any issue with hate laws in principle? Or is your opposition based solely on your media driven perception of how existing laws are being mis-applied in practise? You seem to be very much conflating the two.

Legend writes:

I can't really answer that other than to say that we must be living in different worlds.

I don't recognise this bizzarre world you are describing. A bizzarre world in which the silenced majority are cowering in terror, unable to speak or think without fear of retribution from some sort of fascist-liberal elite. This is just hyperbolic drivel straight off the pages of the Daily Mail or the screens of Fox news.

Legend writes:

But why should there be laws against hate? People should be free to hate whoever or whatever they want. People should be culpable for what they do not for what/who they dislike. Once you start penalising hate it's only a short step away from having a central authority to dictate likes/dislikes and opinions in general.

Of course you should be free to hate whoever you want. Of course I am talking about actions. But are you seriously denying that there are situations where campaigns of hatred are blatantly being waged in order to change the behaviour of, and thus restrict the freedoms of certain social groupings on the basis of deepseated irrational prejudice? Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality.

Legend writes:

Absolutely! and we already have anti-harassment laws, in addition to ordinary crime laws which can be applied on multiple counts. Show me a 'hate' crime, that isn't already covered by existing laws and then you'll have a point.

If we already have de-facto hate laws in place that you accept then I fail to see what principled objection you might have to the laws under discussion. We can all agree that, if what you say is true, duplication is inefficient. But this hardly seems worth debating about. I thought your objections were more concrete?

Legend writes:

Besides, you're talking about systematic and sustained campaigns while a hate-crime can just as easily be applied to one-off crimes too.

I think it would and should be very difficult to convict someone of a hate crime on the basis of a one-off incident if the law were as I am sugesting it should be. The evidence that it was in fact a hate crime would need to be very compelling indeed to even get to court under the sort of application of hate laws I am advocating here.

Legend writes:

and we already have laws that can adequately punish the perpetrators of such crimes. Why the need for additional 'hate'-crime laws?

If your only reason to oppose hate laws is paper inefficiency then I am not sure why you are bothering to debate about them. Are you making an ecological point about saving trees?

Legend writes:

You're then implying that someone who beats people up coz they're gay/muslim/whatever needs to be deterred more than someone who beats people up to rob them. On what do you base this? What makes a gay/muslim beater more persistent than a street robber and in need of greater deterrence?

I am saying that a sustained attack on a sub-community in order to intimidate and subjugate affects people well beyond an indiscriminate act of violence inflicted by one random individual on another. That such crimes are commited in a wider and more sinister context that has consequences and effects far more wide reaching than an isolated incident. I am saying that this context, if evidenced, must be recognised by the law. Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality.

This is not just about an individual randomly robbing people. This is about living in fear. It is about the human right to live your life as you choose within the law without fear and intimidation for being who and what you are. Giving people the freedom to do this. Is that not a basic human right?

Legend writes:

The context is often simply the labels that the participants attach to themselves or others attach to them. What would you think would happen if, for instance, a member of a far-right group is involved in a fight with a minority member over an unrelated matter? The member's beliefs alone will be enough to get them charged with a hate-crime even if the fight started over spilled drinks in a pub. And let's not beat around the bush, there are certain people who won't hesitate to play the 'hate' card when they think it's in their interest, regardless of whether it was a factor in the dispute.

Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality. But badly applied laws will be bad laws. So the question remains: Can hate laws be applied in such a way as to protect the basic human rights of everyone to be who and what they are or choose to be without also infringing on the rights of those who are not participating in discriminatory acts of intimidation and subjugation? I think they can. What do you think?

Legend writes:

For all the reasons I mentioned above. When people's opinions and thoughts about the victims, i.e. the Motives behind such crimes -however abbhorent they may be- are being judged and condemned it means that Thought is being persecuted and that the general public will be AFRAID to express opinions in case they end up punished for them. It's as simple as that.

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Do you actually have any issue with hate laws in principle? Or is your opposition based solely on your media driven perception of how existing laws are being mis-applied in practise? You seem to be very much conflating the two.

Hate crimes and their effects are a reality. The law has to deal with reality. But badly applied laws will be bad laws. So the question remains: Can hate laws be applied in such a way as to protect the basic human rights of everyone to be who and what they are or choose to be without also infringing on the rights of those who are not participating in discriminatory acts of intimidation and subjugation?

I think they can. What do you think?

Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Legend, posted 12-04-2009 2:35 AM Legend has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Legend, posted 12-05-2009 4:14 PM Straggler has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 110 of 376 (538283)
12-05-2009 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Legend
12-03-2009 5:58 PM


Legend writes:

quote:
I never argued that hate crimes should be abolished just because of potential backlash from any particular community. That's just a strawman created by Rrhain in previous posts.

Huh? Have you been paying attention? I didn't come up with that argument. Onifre did. It was he who came up with the scenario of an attack in Florida and the people who carried out the societal reaction to how the prosecution of it was played out (Message 59):

Not a strawman, which I knew everyone would say. Its a true story, happened here on South Beach. The guys were falsely accused of a hate crime and the entire gay community went to the streets to protest. Fights broke out in bars all over beach. Gay guys and straight guys were being harassed. A few clubs even closed due to the fiasco.

In the end the guys were found not guilty of the hate crime but the repercussions of that mislabelling had lasting effects.

Thats on South Beach. Now imagine this same scenario in a small town in the south, and between blacks and whites.

Are the reprecussions on the community worth the extra years in jail for hate crimes?

Please try to keep up.

quote:
detracting from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims.

So terrorism isn't a crime? That's what you're advocating. I guess we should be charging the people involved with the attacks on September 11 with conspiracy to commit vandalism. You're trivializing the very real crime of terrorism.

quote:
indirectly propagating racism and increasing racial tensions

Didn't you just say that you "never argued that hate crimes should be abolished because of potential backlash from any particular community"?

You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, yes?

quote:
as inevitably certain groups/communities will feel unjustly and unequally treated when the murder of a loved one is considered a lesser crime than the murder of a loved one of another group.

How is that not "backlash"? My word, it's only been four sentences and you've already forgotten what you've said. I realize that it's rare for anybody to recognize what happened before and surely people seem to think that what they say now is to be taken for what it is without absolutely no connection to any statements made previously (Palin just now gave an interview where she was asked about the legitimacy of the birthers, saying it's a "legitimate question" to ask about his birth certificate and then immediately said how ridiculous it was that she was asked to provide the birth certificate of Trig, proving he was her son...and then immediately stated that it would be good to take that demand for a birth certificate to use against Obama. A double flip-flop in literally 60 seconds.) But I actually pay attention to what people say and will point out when you contradict yourself.

How is saying that there would be a problem of people "feeling unjustly and unequally treated when the murder of a loved one is considered a lesser crime" not "arguing that hate crimes should be abolished because of the potential backlash"? Just because you say it isn't doesn't mean it actually isn't.

quote:
and this is most important: judging and condemning people based on the thinking or beliefs which caused them to attack.

Which is what we do in every other crime. It's called "mens rea" in the judicial Latin, and means "guilty mind." In English, we call it "intent" and the legal definition is "state of mind." We prove it by citing acts, since we cannot directly read your mind, but the acts are brought forth specifically to prove what you were thinking at the time. It's what allows us to separate murder one from muder two and allows us to have a finding of "not guilty by reason of insanity" (if you did it but didn't understand right and wrong at the time you did it, you are not responsible for it. You did not have the required "mens rea." Your thoughts were not in alignment with your actions.)

It's why coercion allows an exception: If you are being forced to commit an act, you are not culpable for it because your thoughts are not to commit the act. However, there is something else going on that forces you to go against your thoughts.

Proving the act took place at the hands of the defendant is required. But beyond that, you have to prove that the defendant's thoughts were in alignment. You must show mens rea or you don't have a case.

So why aren't you protesting prosecutions of murder one which are dependent upon proving a person's thoughts and punishing him more harshly for them?

quote:
it's not a usual, traditional or historical methodology in our judicial system and more gravely it is a THOUGHT CRIME as it implies that certain thoughts and opinions can now be indirectly prosecuted and punished if they can be associated with a crime, or even without.

Where? Did you even read your own source? This woman wasn't actually accused of a hate crime. She simply had someone write to her to tell her to be careful. No arrest, no trial, no nothing. Just a person (indeed, a person in authority) writing back to someone who mouthed off. Inappropriate? At least. Certainly the deputy chief executive needs to be talked to at the least. But no legal process was ever instigated.

Do you have an example of anybody actually being arrested for writing a letter saying, "I don't like X"? Or are all your examples nothing more than, "But it could have happened!" hyperventilation?

You seem to arguing that because there is a risk that somebody somewhere might have an inappropriate application of a law, that is sufficient reason not to have the law in the first place.

But every law carries that risk. Every law that has ever existed has had somebody unjustly accused in the most outrageous fashion. But I hardly see you complaining about any of those.

quote:
This has led to many people being AFRAID to express their opinions in case they get punished for them.

Nobody denies that there is at least one person out there who is sitting in a puddle of his own urine over the idea of him being arrested for having a thought. But here's the thing: Nobody ever has. You certainly haven't given us any examples of anybody anywhere being punished for "expressing their opinions." Are we to deny justice to people because bigots are scared? Over something that has never happened?

There's a word for that: Childishness. We should withhold justice because a bunch of children are wetting themselves?

quote:
It's a bitter twist of irony that the laws that are supposed to protect minorities from being terrorised are doing so by terrorising the majority, don't you think?

And if you had an example of it happening, then you might have a point but so far, you haven't shown this scenario has having taken place in reality. The only thing we have is a bunch of bigots having panic attacks that they spooked themselves into having. Why should we coddle them? Why should we deny justice simply because idiots don't understand the law?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Legend, posted 12-03-2009 5:58 PM Legend has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Legend, posted 12-05-2009 6:41 PM Rrhain has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 929 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 111 of 376 (538321)
12-05-2009 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
12-03-2009 8:48 AM


Re: Hate Laws - Straggler's Case In Favour
Hi Straggler, sorry for the delay.

To be convicted of a hate crime merely for getting into a fight with a guy who happens to be gay (for example) is patently ridiculous.

Of course. And this isn't happening at an alarming rate, where people are being falsely convicted - that's not the point on that at all and not what I'm saying the problem is.

Point is, the conviction is irrelevant. One can still be charged with a hate crime and stand trail for one. The media can blast it all over the airwaves. And at the end of the trail, you could be completely innocent, yet the damage to your reputation, to the community and to those of the 2 opposing races/religions/etc has been done.

Add to that the bonus of causing increased tension, and creating new bigots and racists (from all sides), and you have a law with great intentions but shitty results.

If you are just trying to add more time to a sentence so it can be used as a deterent, yet it doesn't deter and actually can instigate or simply make matters worse, what's the point?

Also, this is only something to consider for "hate" crimes, no other crime pins two groups against each other like that and divides communities when they get misclassified. So there is no point in comparing it to murder as is being done in this thread.

What this is about is the evidenced targeting of vulnerable minorities

Here's the problem, Straggler: "vulnerable minorities" is a term defined by others. Minorities don't see themselves/ourselves as vulnerable. No form of threat, violence, or intimidation of any kind to another hispanic would make me feel vulnerable in any way.

Where are you getting this stigma of vulnerability?

I feel your logic is just assuming that lesser numbers automatically makes them/us feel vulnerable or weaker...?

...for the purposes of intimidation and subjugation.

You would have to show me how it intimidates, and, how a small minority of racist/bigots/straight up haters is going to subjugate groups, that while considered "minorities," still out number by a long ways any racist organization out there. There are more black people in the US than there are Klan members, hell there are more black gang members than there are Klan members. So who is intimidating who?

If anything, I'd say the racists and bigots are the ones who are feeling threatened, intimidated and fear subjugation from "minority" groups. Certainly they feel this for the Jews - what with their control of the banks and hollywood, lol.

I feel the perceived intimidation and subjugation that is given as the purpose behind a crime is subjective also, and doesn't accurately represent the reality of the situation.

So there's that too, how does it intimidate? Where is the evidence that it does? The reality of it is, I feel, that it doesn't intimidate in any way, so my advice would be to stop thinking/saying that it does, so that racists and bigots will stop thinking it will work.

Maybe if we don't treat it like an indimidating action, it won't be thought of as one, and people will stop doing it?

Now my example involves a school and particularly vulnerable kids who blatantly need protecting from such bigotry.

Well that's the whole point isn't it? You're example is of a physically weak group of people that will feel this their entire lives, but do you actually think that those kids who taunted and tormented them did it because of their hatred of mentally challenged people and wanted them out of their country?

Do you think they were trying to send a message of intimidation to mentally challenged people throughout the community?

But that just isn't the point. The same sort of treatment could be dished out to any minority social grouping by a large enough majority.

And it is, everyday, by the rich to the poor, by the upper class to the lower class. Just because its done passive aggressively doesn't make it different. At least with someone who is openly racist or a bigot you know its coming.

And it isn't just about individuals.

It is until you can prove that it does in fact indimidate to the degree which is being claimed. If that's your reason for seeing it as a hate crime, then you need to show evidence for your main argument.

If not, its no more different then any other crime.

If someone kills a jewish person, then draws a swastika above them (1) they are being unoriginal, a copy cat (2) is only doing so because they think its going to send a message of intimidation, why, because that's what they assume based on what they've heared, read and/or seen, and (3) IMO stupid because the Jews fought back against Hitler, why would anyone think a picture is going to intimidate them? They sent a message, a stupid non-effective message.

It is also about places of social gathering and the right to attend such places freely and safely under the law. A mosque. A gay bar. A wedding ceremony. An ethnic community. Whatever.

Pardon the following cynical reply:

This isn't done for certain minorites at all, forget protection from racist and bigots, I just mean normal everyday obstacles. Try going to school in the ghetto "freely" and "safely" without fear - and the threats and intimidation don't come from racists or bigots. Where's the concern there? Where's the laws to protect there? Where's the actions being taken to deter this?

There is none.

And you know why there is none (and I hope we can all be honest here and admit that the government does nothing to help minorities in their neighborhoods) - because minorities fight other minorities. Gang members fight each other for territory, for respect, etc. Kids arm themselves to shoot each other. Kids and adults have weapons to protect themselves from themselves - So the violence is controlled and keep within the group.

HOWEVER, when a black person is mudered by a racist white guy, the retaliation is against the white community, and that can't happen. NOW the law steps in. Not to protect future aggression by racists toward blacks or other minorites, but to protect the white upper class from violent retribution from minorities, and/or lose control of their work force.

See, that is why I call "hate" crime a euphemism, that is why I say it is superficial, because it is a law placed to protect the upper class, but is promoted as something to protect minorities. You call a crime a hate crime, show the world the disapproval people have of that, and the minorities feel as though something is being done. Also, you add to that the great talking points about how its for everybody, that even white people would be protected by this (which is all true but who cares - the reality is these laws are for minorities and "others" get protected by happenstance) and you calm the situation, you calm the minorities down.

Everything done at a "hate" crime scene is normal, everyday police work. The process of trail and conviction is the same as all other crimes. The only difference is the punishment - and the reason for that is to send a message to minorities that the government cares for them - but then why doesn't it care about any of the other stuff?

/end of cynical rant

If there is DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE that a minority or social grouping is being systematically targeted then as a society we have to stand up and say that this is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

See above response.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 12-03-2009 8:48 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 12-07-2009 5:06 AM onifre has responded
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2009 3:06 PM onifre has responded

    
Legend
Member (Idle past 2985 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 112 of 376 (538323)
12-05-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Straggler
12-04-2009 11:54 AM


Re: Evidenced Context Motive and Intent
Straggler writes:

Of course you should be free to hate whoever you want. Of course I am talking about actions. But are you seriously denying that there are situations where campaigns of hatred are blatantly being waged in order to change the behaviour of, and thus restrict the freedoms of certain social groupings on the basis of deepseated irrational prejudice?

Of course I'm not denying that campaigns of hatred are actually hapenning. And -as I pointed out and you conveniently side-stepped- we already have laws that deal with the effects of such campaigns. So the question raised is: If we already have laws that allow us to punish the perpetrators of such campaigns why do we need extra laws? The answer is, because existing laws punish the actions of the perpetrator, while the powers that be now wish to punish the Motive of the perpetrator as well. Punishing the Motive is punishing the opinions / thoughts / feelings of the perpetrator. It is hence a Thought Crime.

Straggler writes:

But are you seriously denying that there are situations where campaigns of hatred are blatantly being waged in order to change the behaviour of, and thus restrict the freedoms of certain social groupings on the basis of deepseated irrational prejudice?


If you had read my posts you should know that I'm not denying this. I'm saying that campaigns of hatred based on "deepseated irrational prejudice", shouldn't be treated any different to crime campaigns based on sexual gratification or financial motives or any other 'non-hatred' reasons .

If you do so you're not only devaluing the life and well-being of the 'non-hate-crime' victims but you're also implying that certain thoughts are 'bad' and won't be tolerated. The veiled threat of punishment if your thoughts can be even remotely tied down to a crime is easy to discern.

Besides, who's to say that your own opinions and thoughts won't come to be regarded as "deepseated irrational prejudice" in the near future. That's the catch with supporting Thought Crimes: what's considered as 'correct' today can easily be considered abhorrent tomorrow.

Legend writes:

Show me a 'hate' crime, that isn't already covered by existing laws and then you'll have a point.

Straggler writes:

If we already have de-facto hate laws in place that you accept then I fail to see what principled objection you might have to the laws under discussion. We can all agree that, if what you say is true, duplication is inefficient. But this hardly seems worth debating about. I thought your objections were more concrete?

Nice avoidance and diversion. Now back to my question: can you think of any 'hate-crimes' where the perpetrator would get away with it without special 'hate-crime' laws?

or is just that you think 'hate-crime' perps should be punished more than 'ordinary' crime perps? If that's the case please explain why you think that a killer driven by "deepseated irrational prejudice" should be punished more than ,say, a contract killer or a sex murderer.

DO you think that the "deepseated irrational prejudice" killer is more dangerous than the others? or more 'evil'? Please explain.

Straggler writes:

I think it would and should be very difficult to convict someone of a hate crime on the basis of a one-off incident if the law were as I am sugesting it should be.

Yes, but the law isn't like you want it to be. The Home Office site says that:

"A hate crime is any criminal offence that is motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victims"

Note that it says "any offence", not "a string of", or "an orchestrated campaign". Anyone can be charged with a hate-crime for an ordinary pub fight, if it's alleged that during or before the fight the accused said something 'inappropriate'. I've already linked to the Cheryl Cole incident where she was branded a racist because the alleged victim claimed (without any other witnesses confirming it) that she was called a 'black bitch' instead of just a 'bitch'. Just an ordinary nightclub fight turned to something much more nasty and seriously defaming Cheryl (as much as I dislike her).

And this is the great practical danger of such laws: anyone can turn any incident into something much more serious and have the perpetrator punished much more severely than their action deserves.

Having an 'incorrect' thought is the modern equivalent of owning a black cat in the middle ages. At the next outbreak of typhus, you'll be the one burning at the stake.

Straggler writes:

Do you actually have any issue with hate laws in principle?


Yes, and I've already explained why at least twice on this thread.
Straggler writes:

Or is your opposition based solely on your media driven perception of how existing laws are being mis-applied in practise? You seem to be very much conflating the two.


If you're claiming that any of the incidents I've linked to are a 'media driven perception' please show why and how. Otherwise please refrain from making impressionistic sound-bytes about things you're refusing to acknowledge.

Straggler writes:

So the question remains: Can hate laws be applied in such a way as to protect the basic human rights of everyone to be who and what they are or choose to be without also infringing on the rights of those who are not participating in discriminatory acts of intimidation and subjugation?


No. The questions needed to be asked are: Are hate-crime laws necessary? Do they reduce public terror and fear? Are they being used to suppress thought and opinion? Are they being used as an instrument of fear and revenge?

The answers to these questions are No, No, Yes and Yes. That's why hate-crime laws should be abolished asap.

Edited by Legend, : spelling


"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 11:54 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2009 5:33 PM Legend has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 929 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 113 of 376 (538325)
12-05-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by New Cat's Eye
12-02-2009 6:52 PM


Re: Spot on - post of the month for me
A mixed black/white couple moved into my parents old neighborhood after which someone through a malatov through their window. They moved because someone burnt a cross in their previous front yard.

Well first, they need a new real estate agent! lol

But, yea, I agree, this is horrible.

People who are doing shit like that are rally trying (ie intending) to send a message to the entire community. I think that does make it a worse crime that deserves a worse punishment.

Worse punishment than what? There are laws against intimidation already.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2009 6:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 929 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 114 of 376 (538327)
12-05-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Lithodid-Man
12-03-2009 1:23 PM


Re: Same argument on both sides
Hi Lithodid-Man - (and Straggler, if you don't mind I'd like to get your reponse to this post too, dude)

It should be a crime where the obvious and clear intent of the crime was to bend the will of one ethnicity to that of another through fear and intimidation.

Well lets take 911 for example.

It can be argued that Bin Laden's intent was to strike fear and intimidation in the hearts of all Americans by attacking us that day.

However, the reality is in fact quite opposite; it caused rage in the hearts of Americans, and provoked the US to launch an all out (needlessly on-going) retaliation on Afgahnistan. In fact, Bush claimed this was being done to deter other would-be attackers.

So here we have a crime, with intent to cause fear and intimidate, and we responded with a higher degree of punishment.

In fact, Obamush is currently going to increase the punishment with another 40,000 troups.

Is this detering terrorism or increasing the risk of more terrorist attacks? And why?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-03-2009 1:23 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2009 3:19 PM onifre has responded

    
Legend
Member (Idle past 2985 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 115 of 376 (538331)
12-05-2009 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rrhain
12-05-2009 7:25 AM


Legend writes:

I never argued that hate crimes should be abolished just because of potential backlash from any particular community. That's just a strawman created by Rrhain in previous posts.

Rrhain writes:

Huh? Have you been paying attention? I didn't come up with that argument. Onifre did.


In that case, my apologies for falsely accusing you on that one.

Legend writes:

... detracting from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims.

Rrhain writes:

So terrorism isn't a crime? That's what you're advocating.

quote:
Terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Please show me (post and paragraph) where I'm advocating terrorism. You'll find that the only place where I'm doing so is in your mind.

quote:
I guess we should be charging the people involved with the attacks on September 11 with conspiracy to commit vandalism. You're trivializing the very real crime of terrorism.

Please explain how the flipping hell you're equating my objection to hate-ctime with supporting terrorism.

While you're at it you can you also explain why YOU think that someone blowing up a building with 3000 people inside it because they think that these people are agents of the Great Satan should be punished more severely than someone blowing up a building with 3000 people inside it for some other reason?

You seem to think that killing 3000 people is much worse if you're an Arab terrorist than if you are, say, a gay-rights campaigner. Why is that?

Rrhain writes:

Didn't you just say that you "never argued that hate crimes should be abolished because of potential backlash from any particular community"?

NO! What I said was:

I never argued that hate crimes should be abolished just because of potential backlash from any particular community.

NOT:

"never argued that hate crimes should be abolished because of potential backlash from any particular community"

Quick grammar lesson:

quote:
Definition: Just (subject pronoun): merely: and nothing more

You seem to be suffering from a visual impairment which causes you to fail to see words or sentences in certain posts, especially if said posts
express a disagreement with your point of view. May I suggest a visit to the opthalmologist.

Seriously now, this is getting counter-productive and tiresome. When you feel you have the ability to quote one of my posts without distorting it or leaving words out in order to change its meaning, then we can continue this debate. Let me know if and when you're ready.


"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rrhain, posted 12-05-2009 7:25 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Rrhain, posted 12-07-2009 5:43 AM Legend has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3528
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 116 of 376 (538337)
12-05-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rrhain
12-01-2009 3:51 AM


quote:

Think DMCA

That wasn't "unintended." That was the entire purpose.

This is the point isn't it.

Was Dmitry Sklyarov's arrest and detention under DMCA an unintended violation of his legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.

With regard to the first, do you mean the trial regarding the Pentagon Papers? If so, then the law cited (Section 793 of the Espionage Act) was specifically designed to restrict speech:

And another one.

Was the government's issue of a prior restraint order pursuant to the Espionage Act an unintended violation of the NYTimes legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.

With regards to the Skokie trial, that didn't have anything to do with a law but rather a procedure: The city insisted that the Nazis had to post an extremely large insurance bond in the hopes that they couldn't post it and thus wouldn't be able to march (when they didn't ask other groups to post such bond at all, let alone the size required by the Nazi group.)

Village procedures can ONLY follow from Ordinance (Law). Read the case. Was the law of the village of Skokie abused in such a manner as to deny the group's legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.

Can you give a single example of anybody anywhere who has had his First Amendment rights violated because of hate crimes laws? They've been on the books for decades so you have plenty of cases to go through.

Not necessary to go through them all. Just one will suffice.
Have you never heard of the Philly 11? Michael Marcavage?

His is a real piece of religious work. Makes me want to puke.

That's the real stickler with the First Amendment. If you allow it to be abused against the most abhorrent then you will lose the right yourself.

Was the arrest and detention of the 11 under Pennsylvania's Ethnic Intimidation law an unintended violation of the group's legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.

So if we have never had these laws used to violate free speech, why would extending them to cover sexual orientation suddenly cause such violations? There are plenty of people who are as vehemently anti-black as there are those who are anti-gay. So if such laws protecting race never resulted in this bugaboo of "unintended consequences," why would protecting sexual orientation do it?

Where is your evidence?

See above.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not opposed to hate crime legislation. I find it to be both proper and necessary in this society. My issue here is that we be cognizant of the fact (as detailed above) that such legislation, indeed any legislation, law, ordinance, or court opinion can be twisted to abuse. We must be vigilant of such unintended uses of legitimate social legislation to unlawfully enjoin our First Amendment rights.

It has, it does and it will happen.

Edited by AZPaul3, : I wanted to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 12-01-2009 3:51 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 12-07-2009 6:04 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 117 of 376 (538443)
12-07-2009 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by onifre
12-05-2009 4:03 PM


onifre writes:

quote:
One can still be charged with a hate crime and stand trail for one. The media can blast it all over the airwaves. And at the end of the trail, you could be completely innocent, yet the damage to your reputation, to the community and to those of the 2 opposing races/religions/etc has been done.

"One can still be charged with murder and stand trial for one. The media can blast it all over the airwaves. And at the end of the trial, you could be completely innocent, yet the damage to your reputation, to the community, and to those of the two families has been done."

So we should do away with murder laws, right?

If you aren't going to complain about this unfortunate reality that is applicable to every single crime, why are you picking on hate crimes legislation?

quote:
Also, this is only something to consider for "hate" crimes, no other crime pins two groups against each other like that and divides communities when they get misclassified.

Bullshit.

You think the McMartins are ever going to have a normal life after what happened to them? Do you know how many people have been run out of town simply because of the accusation of a sex crime? When I was an undergrad, several students, including the student body president, were kicked off campus not because they actually committed any crime, but because they followed the school's listed honor code regarding another student who was involved in drugs. But because his other student got caught, the school decided that his suitemates couldn't be trusted and kicked them off campus: Only allowed on to take classes and not allowed anywhere near the dorms.

Later on, a group of women accused a man of rape, plastering his face on posters across all the campuses, and despite the fact that no charges were ever filed, he had to leave due to the threats against his life.

You weren't living in Albuquerque at the time that William Kennedy Smith was on trial for rape. He was followed around and hounded after he was acquitted. Had to delay his internship for a year.

Where on earth did you get this silly idea that only hate crimes cause rifts in communities?

quote:
You would have to show me how it intimidates, and, how a small minority of racist/bigots/straight up haters is going to subjugate groups, that while considered "minorities," still out number by a long ways any racist organization out there. There are more black people in the US than there are Klan members, hell there are more black gang members than there are Klan members. So who is intimidating who?

You don't pay attention to the news much, do you? A gay bar in Atlanta was just raided by the police, in full swat gear, including breaking into an apartment above the bar, without a warrant, to arrest the occupant. A civil suit has been filed against the department.

Earlier this year, on the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, the police raided a gay bar in Fort Worth. One of the patrons had to be hospitalized for a week for bleeding in his brain after the police threw him to the ground. The internal investigation, of course, found nothing.

Are you really that naive?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 12-05-2009 4:03 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by onifre, posted 12-07-2009 1:31 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 118 of 376 (538445)
12-07-2009 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Legend
12-05-2009 6:41 PM


Legend responds to me:

quote:
Please show me (post and paragraph) where I'm advocating terrorism.

I've done so already. Multiple times. But you just did it again in the very post I responded to. You claim that hate crimes laws, which are anti-terrorism laws, "detract from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims." Did you or did you not say that?

When you denigrate hate crimes laws, you are saying that terrorism isn't a crime.

quote:
Please explain how the flipping hell you're equating my objection to hate-ctime with supporting terrorism.

Because hate crime laws are laws against terrorism. To trivialize them as "detracting from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims" means you don't think that terrorism should be prosecuted. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should only be charged with consipracy to commit aggravated vandalism, right? OK, maybe accessory to some counts of involuntary manslaughter, but it's not like his actions had anything to do with trying to send a message to everybody else, right? That'd be punishing him for his thoughts, right? How dare we put him on trial for what he thinks, right?

For all your talk about "detracting from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims," you're doing a mighty find job of that which you rail against. You're trivializing the crime, ignoring it completely, specifically to focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims. How dare we focus on the perpetrator and charge him with the appropriate crime which was committed: An act of terrorism.

quote:
While you're at it you can you also explain why YOU think that someone blowing up a building with 3000 people inside it because they think that these people are agents of the Great Satan should be punished more severely than someone blowing up a building with 3000 people inside it for some other reason?

I already have. Because there is a difference between an attack that is focused upon the individual victims and the exact same attack that is carried out on proxies for an entire community. The former is not intended to affect society as a whole while the latter is precisely that: Terrorism. It is not the same and should not be treated the same.

quote:
You seem to think that killing 3000 people is much worse if you're an Arab terrorist than if you are, say, a gay-rights campaigner. Why is that?

Huh? What does the person committing the crime have to do with anything? Crimes aren't (well, let's be honest..."shouldn't") be prosecuted because of who the perpetrator is. Rather, they are to be tried because of what the crime is.

Which means crimes carried out against individuals as proxies for their class are crimes of terrorism and should be treated as such.

And nice rationalization for why you're running away.

There are two very simple questions for you:

1) Do you think attacking someone as a proxy for everybody else in that class is terrorism or not? I say it is.

2) Should an act carried out for the purpose of terrorism be judged more harshly than the identical act when it is only carried out against an individual? I say it should be.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Legend, posted 12-05-2009 6:41 PM Legend has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Legend, posted 12-07-2009 6:46 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 119 of 376 (538446)
12-07-2009 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by AZPaul3
12-05-2009 7:52 PM


AZPaul3 responds to me:

quote:
Was Dmitry Sklyarov's arrest and detention under DMCA an unintended violation of his legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.

You're missing the point, though: The entire reason for the DMCA's existence is to restrict people's rights. Hate crimes legislation, however, does no such thing. The laws have been on the books for forty years and despite many attempts by people to claim that their rights are being violated, they have never been able to show how.

The court didn't say it was "unintended." It said the entire point was to restrict speech and that such restrictions were unconstitional.

And at any rate, you have yet to show how hate crimes laws "restrict speech."

quote:
Was the government's issue of a prior restraint order pursuant to the Espionage Act an unintended violation of the NYTimes legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.

Again, you miss the point. The entire reason for the Espionage act was to restrict people's rights. Hate crimes legislation, however, does no such thing. The laws have been on the books for forty years and despite many attempts by people to claim that their rights are being violated, they have never been able to show how.

The court didn't say it was "unintended." It said the entire point was to restrict speech and that such restrictions were unconstitional.

And at any rate, you have yet to show how hate crimes laws "restrict speech."

quote:
Village procedures can ONLY follow from Ordinance (Law). Read the case. Was the law of the village of Skokie abused in such a manner as to deny the group's legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.

Again, you miss the point. The entire reason for the action by the city was to restrict speech. Hate crimes legislation, however, does no such thing. The laws have been on the books for forty years and despite many attempts by people to claim that their rights are being violated, they have never been able to show how.

The court didn't say it was "unintended." It said the entire point was to restrict speech and that such restrictions were unconstitional.

And at any rate, you have yet to show how hate crimes laws "restrict speech."

quote:
Have you never heard of the Philly 11? Michael Marcavage?

First, it's the "Philly 5." And second, he was found innocent, yes? Are you seriously claiming that because a law can be misapplied, then we shouldn't have the law in the first place? Well, we better get rid of laws against murder as we've seen hundreds of people who were found guilty of murder set free because they were innocent.

You will note, however, that the law that was the basis for the charges against the Philly 5 is still on the books. The court did not find it to be unconstitutional, just that it was misapplied.

So it would seem that the basis for your claim, that these laws restrict free speech, is not founded in reality.

quote:
My issue here is that we be cognizant of the fact (as detailed above) that such legislation, indeed any legislation, law, ordinance, or court opinion can be twisted to abuse.

But since your complaint is only cropping up with regard to hate crimes laws, this claim of yours isn't exactly true, now is it? When you start lodging your protest against the murder statutes for being "twisted to abuse," then we'll start considering your other claim.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by AZPaul3, posted 12-05-2009 7:52 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 929 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 120 of 376 (538481)
12-07-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Rrhain
12-07-2009 5:06 AM


So we should do away with murder laws, right?

If you aren't going to complain about this unfortunate reality that is applicable to every single crime, why are you picking on hate crimes legislation?

I get what you're asking, but they are not comparable.

Murder is not a euphemism where as "hate" crime is. And it is that euphemisms that has the repercussions and not the act itself. Mislabelling something a muder 1 or a murder 2 does not affect at a social level, where as mislabelling it a "hate" vs simply calling it a crime, does.

Its a crime, period, not a "hate" crime or any other euphemism we choose to label it as.

Where on earth did you get this silly idea that only hate crimes cause rifts in communities?

You misunderstand.

I get that other crimes, such as rape, murder, etc., do affect a persons standing in the community they live in, and if they commited the crime, then so be it. But hate crime affects the entire community at a broader level, esp when mislabeled. Now, I'm not saying that the person shouldn't be charged with a crime, and if this has a personal affect on their standing in the community then so be it, but calling it a hate crime divides the entire community which was not involved.

The point that everyone, including yourself, is making is that hate crimes target every other person of that same group, and that is why it should labeled a "hate" crime and have the harsher punishment. And that's the point. People, from the outside in, are saying what the effects of a single crime has and what it is intended to do, yet there is no basis for this opinion and the results are far from accurate.

So if that's the only point to a hate crime and the only reason for having harsher punishment, yet, it doesn't actually have this effect, then (1) it is pointless to signal out specific crimes, (2) the effects are indistiguishable from any other crime, (3) the only part that does affect the entire community is the labelling itself.

You gain nothing, deter nothing, yet you divide communities and force them to pick a side based on their connection to the groups involved.

Call it a crime, carry out the punishment if they are guilty, and don't involve any socially soothing euphemisms - they are pointless.

You don't pay attention to the news much, do you? A gay bar in Atlanta was just raided by the police, in full swat gear, including breaking into an apartment above the bar, without a warrant, to arrest the occupant. A civil suit has been filed against the department.

Are you saying this was hate motivated? Says who?

Are you gonna jump the gun here and say the Atlanta police specifically targeted this group for the sole purpose of them being gay? Are you gonna guess the motive behind this without letting the jury decide? Without seeing the specifics of the case, or seeing what other factors where involved?

Whats your point with this story?

Earlier this year, on the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, the police raided a gay bar in Fort Worth. One of the patrons had to be hospitalized for a week for bleeding in his brain after the police threw him to the ground. The internal investigation, of course, found nothing.

If they found nothing, then what's your point with this story?

Do you have evidence pertaining to this case that somehow changes the findings of the internal investigation? Or are you judging it from the outside in?

Are you really that naive?

To what? You have proven nothing with your straw man cases - in fact, you have shown exactly how public opinion is drawn without knowing any of the specifics. You prove my point.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 12-07-2009 5:06 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Rrhain, posted 12-11-2009 9:01 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
26NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018