Hate Crimes Bill Protecting Sexual Orientation Finally Gonna Pass

[MercyfulFate]

The question that's now on everyone's lips...
Why would you think these two cases are somehow different? They're both clear examples of hate speech, and could also contribute to a hate crime. I stated this before, and I'l say it again. It covers EVERYONE. Not just gays & lesbians.

It's not about hate speech, and actually I should've worded it differently. I meant it to be an example of an assault case.

The problem is, it doesn't cover everyone and it creates specific protected classes while at the same time criminalizing "bad" thought processes.

To begin criminalizing thoughts that are deemed "unacceptable" is an incredibly disturbing way to go with it. I recommend reading that entire blog post, as it's from a constitutional point of view. And going back in circles yet again with this is pointless for everyone involved.

Eh, had a link but I'm removing it because the knee-jerk reactions will kick back up.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Ugh, against my better judgement I'm going to reply, but it'll probably be the last time.

You're basically repeating prior arguments that have already been addressed. Crimes being more heinous should be more henious based on the act committed, not the mindset behind the act. If I hear "Intent" or "Motive" again though, I might scream.

Treating different kind of crimes differently is fine, that's not what's being argued. The problem is when you treat these two things differently:

"You're a fucking *insert racial or homosexual epithet* and I hope you die!"

and

"You're a fucking white trash redneck and I hope you die!"

To treat the first as more serious because the state has deemed one group protected, while not protecting the other group is wrong. Treat everyone the same, or don't bother with it. It won't stop the crimes from happening, like I said that's a societal issue.

Also, it does make sentencing more serious here in the US:

Viewpoint: What's Wrong with the Hate-Crimes Bill - TIME

"Which is why it's difficult for me to say that I think she's wrong about what could become her son's most important legacy: a hate-crimes bill before Congress called the Matthew Shepard Act. The bill would expand, far too aggressively, the two existing federal hate-crimes laws. One is from 1968; it allows the Federal Government to prosecute crimes committed on the basis of race, religion and national origin when the victim is engaged in public activities like going to school or eating at a restaurant or attending a concert. The other is from 1994; it requires the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase penalties for crimes on federal lands in which the victim was selected because of actual or perceived race, religion, national origin, gender, disability or sexual orientation."

Add to that, that the definition for a disability is so incredibly vague, and things get muddier and muddier.

Instead of working to right the entire system, or address the societal ills causing the biases and hatred, we simply pass a law and pretend everything is okay, when that's not the case. In fact, stuff like this probably stalls advancement in true equality, by focusing on something that doesn't solve the root of the problem.

While I agree that any sort of hate crime should be treated as such, and that ideally this particular hate crimes law would do so, I'm not against recognising that certain groups face imminent and specific forms of hate crime which have gone completely unrecognised heretofore and that these groups deserve specific attention paid to the deficit of justice they currently face.

The U.S.A is paradoxically an incredibly permissive country ( especially in certain areas ) but it's also an incredibly dangerous place for gay people. I see no specific injustice in the law recognising that gay people in america can suffer horrifically and specifically.

If there is an epidemic of hate crime aimed at Rednecks, on the basis that they are Rednecks and not for any other reason then by all means the law should recognise that fact also.

I'm not sure that judicial systems can ever be used for the kinds of cultural and social engineering necessary to end bigotry, but it is part of a range of indicators of what a society thinks about certain kinds of activity. Certainly bigotry should be combated in other ways also, but these other methods are significantly augmented by the weight of the criminal law being brought to bear upon kinds of crime motivated by specific bigotries.

I will stress that this isn't an ideal solution but its better than nothing, and is undoubtedly a step towards making bigotry of any kind socially unacceptable.

 

[MercyfulFate]

While I agree that any sort of hate crime should be treated as such, and that ideally this particular hate crimes law would do so. I'm not against recognising that certain groups face imminent and spcific froms of hate crime which have gone completely un recognised heretofore and that these groups deserve specific attention paid to the deficit of justice they currently face.

The U.S.A is paradoxically and incredibly permissive country ( especially in certain areas ) but it's also an incredibly dangerous place for gay people. I see no specific injustice in the law recognising that gay people in america can suffer horrifically and specifically.

If there is an epidemic of hate crime aimed at Rednecks, on the basis that they are Rednecks and not for any other reason then by all means the law should recognise that fact also.

I'm not sure that judicial systems can ever be used for the kinds of cultural and social engineering necessary to end bigotry, but it is part of a range of indicators of what a society thinks about certain kinds of activity. Certainly bigotry should be combated in other ways also, but these other methods are significantly augmented by the weight of the criminal law being brought to bear upon kinds of crime motivated by specific bigotries.

I will stress that this isn't an ideal solution but its better than nothing, and is undoubtedly a step towards making bigotry of any kind socially unacceptable.

Saying what I'm going to say next will cause more knee-jerk reactions, and I'm well aware of that. It does not mean I accept it, or like it, but I do feel it's a right.

People have the right to say bigoted, and unintelligent things. They do not have the right to commit crimes based on them. To criminalize speech is contrary to our First Amendment.

"I'm going to beat your ass because you're gay" should be treated as an assault, not a hate crime. The definition of covering everyone is incredibly broad too.

"I'm going to stab you because you've only got one eye!" could be construed as a bias and treated much more harshly than a stabbing of equal nature. It shouldn't be.

Fix the system and the societal issues, not with feel good legislation.

 

[mitchymo]

One side of this argument is clearly as convinced by their way of seeing things as the other is.

But one side is not looking at the issue of equality in an equal way.

Hate laws help achieve equality not destroy it, if this was not true then why would countries all across the west be incorporating it into their constitutions? I dare say it is because the arguments have been played out on a much more sophisticated level than here on LPSG and the right case won.

 

[MercyfulFate]

One side of this argument is clearly as convinced by their way of seeing things as the other is.

But one side is not looking at the issue of equality in an equal way.

Hate laws help achieve equality not destroy it, if this was not true then why would countries all across the west be incorporating it into their constitutions? I dare say it is because the arguments have been played out on a much more sophisticated level than here on LPSG and the right case won.

The hate crime laws is not about equality in an equal way, this is my point.

Everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, yes? That's exactly my point, so to take that and start adding in "Well group X is not part of this, then group Y..." but leave out other specific groups, is not equality.

Once again other places doing it is about feel good legislation. It makes politicians feel like they accomplished something, without actually doing it. Gay marriage can still be illegal places with this law, it didn't fix that inequality.

If you want to see the inequality in it, in all the nations you list, just look:

Hate crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Austria: PENALTY ENHANCEMENT statute for xenophobic and racist motivations.

Doesn't explicity say every other group in existence. Look at Bosnia, look at even Belgium which states "fortune or philosophical beliefs"! So if I get into a fight with you because you're Politically X and I'm Politically Y, that's a hate crime? What?!?!?

Once again my bottom line: Laws should cover everyone equally, we shouldn't have to pass laws for every group of people in existence to make that so, it should just be.

This doesn't fix the Judge's bias in a court case, it doesn't fix the Police Officer's bias in not fully pursuing a gay man being attacked, etc. etc. etc. etc. on into infinity.

As my final word on the subject, from the same link above:

"The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that hate crime statutes which criminalize bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech conflict with free speech rights because they isolated certain words based on their content or viewpoint.[55] Many critics further assert that it conflicts with an even more fundamental right: free thought. The claim is that hate-crime legislation effectively makes certain ideas or beliefs, including religious ones, illegal, in other words, thought crimes.


In their book Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics, James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter criticize hate crime legislation for exacerbating conflicts between groups. They assert that by defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labeling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.[63] Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.[64] Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution.[65]

I least hope you understand why this is an issue to people, and why it's extremely annoying when some show up and call homophobia/racist/bigot because you don't like the idea. It has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with what I've listed.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Saying what I'm going to say next will cause more knee-jerk reactions, and I'm well aware of that. It does not mean I accept it, or like it, but I do feel it's a right.

People have the right to say bigoted, and unintelligent things. They do not have the right to commit crimes based on them. To criminalize speech is contrary to our First Amendment.

"I'm going to beat your ass because you're gay" should be treated as an assault, not a hate crime. The definition of covering everyone is incredibly broad too.

"I'm going to stab you because you've only got one eye!" could be construed as a bias and treated much more harshly than a stabbing of equal nature. It shouldn't be.

Fix the system and the societal issues, not with feel good legislation.

I simply come from the school of thought which insists that with freedoms come responsibilities. If people do not use their freedoms responsibly then they should be made feel the weight of the opprobrium of society for doing so in line with the magnitude of their irresponsibility.

By all means speak freely, but if your speech insights or threatens or otherwise normalises and encourages violence based on bigotry then it should be treated as a hate crime and punished acordingly.

The criminal law alone isn't going to end bigotry ( I'l say it again, and as clearly as possible in case you missed it the last time ) but it is definitely a vital part of a whole range of strategies which hopefully will do one day.

I don't think gay rights groups are as naive as you think they are, and I'm not sure that you could confidently say that they are now claiming that the struggle is suddenly over, and that bigotry will now end in some fire of legal white light.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

MercyfulFate: Dude, there are so many wrong assessments on your last post that I can be here for hours dissecting every single comment and exposing it for the half truth that it is. The thread is about to go around in circles again, and I don't think we need to start repeating ourselves. However, I do have to make this one thing clear.

Hate Crime Legislation has NOTHING to do with censoring Free Speech.

There's nothing in HCL that states you cannot think or say that you're better than someone based on their race, religious beliefs or sexual preference. I challenge you to find anything in the current written laws that illustrate such a sentiment because you won't be able to. However, just because you're free to think and say what you want doesn't mean that you're now entitled to cause harm to whomever you want based of those beliefs. Someone walking down the street can look at me and think I'm a "faggot" all they want, the same way someone can look at you and think of whatever derogatory term they please to mentally label you. I've heard that and many other derogatory words murmured under one's breath when passing by total strangers, or even yelled at me from ill-minded people from across the street. None of these people have been arrested for essentially saying what is on their mind regardless of how mentally degrading the statements are. But if anyone of them turned to you or I and cause harm because of that belief, then it is a Hate Crime.

So many times, you try to take away one part of the issue whether it be the crime itself or the motive when you need BOTH in order to establish whether or not a culprit's actions qualify. In this instance, the crime means nothing without the motive, and listing a bunch of derogatory examples of hate speech mean nothing without the action to coincide with it. How come you still cannot see that?

And to put this out there... one of the main problems some people have with Hate Crime Legislation is that many people think it doesn't protect heterosexuals. That's ridiculous. Instead of blogs, why don't we look at actual FBI statistics. You'll see that practically every race, religion or sexual persuasion have been the subject of victimization in Hate Crimes. Victims - Hate Crime Statistics, 2007

Then again, we don't see a lot of reported cases where homosexuals & lesbians are beating up on straight men & women, calling them "fucking breeders". That's also represented with the link provided above, as roughly 1.8% of the 1,512 sexually orientated biased incidents reported to the FBI in 2007 were of an anti-heterosexual bias.

Perhaps this is just a cultural difference between different demographics of people, how they were raised and how they treat others in public. But it has NOTHING to do with censoring anybody or telling them what to think.

 

[MercyfulFate]

I simply come from the school of thought which insists that with freedoms come responsibilities. If people do not use their freedoms responsibly then they should be made feel the weight of the opprobrium of society for doing so in line with the magnitude of their irresponsibility.

By all means speak freely, but if your speech insights or threatens or otherwise normalises and encourages violence based on bigotry then it should be treated as a hate crime and punished acordingly.

The criminal law alone isn't going to end bigotry ( I'l say it again, and as clearly as possible in case you missed it the last time ) but it is definitely a vital part of a whole range of strategies which hopefully will do one day.

I don't think gay rights groups are as naive as you think they are, and I'm not sure that you could confidently say that they are now claiming that the struggle is suddenly over, and that bigotry will now end in some fire of legal white light.

I didn't say anything about gay rights groups being naive, not sure where you got that from.

Law shouldn't be part of a strategy to get people to think a certain way, and having innocuous "hate speech" as part of this strategy is dangerous. What if a fascist government takes hold and suddenly says criticizing them is hate speech? Setting these precedents can create future problems.

With that we show why this was pointless to start again. I'm just waiting for Monsieur Nick to come out of the woodwork saying I'm going to commit a Hate Crime.

 

[BIGBULL29]

I'll catch shit for it but I agree. Crime of thought is beyond frightening.

I am also against laws such as we have in New York that reserve first degree murder for law enforcement personnel. No one person's life is any more valuable than another's if we are to all be equal before the law as the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.

I agree with you, Jason. You hit this one spot-on.

Hate is hate, isn't it? All life is equally valuable.

 

[MercyfulFate]

MercyfulFate: Dude, there are so many wrong assessments on your last post that I can be here for hours dissecting every single comment and exposing it for the half truth that it is. The thread is about to go around in circles again, and I don't think we need to start repeating ourselves. However, I do have to make this one thing clear.

Hate Crime Legislation has NOTHING to do with censoring Free Speech.

There's nothing in HCL that states you cannot think or say that you're better than someone based on their race, religious beliefs or sexual preference. I challenge you to find anything in the current written laws that illustrate such a sentiment because you won't be able to. However, just because you're free to think and say what you want doesn't mean that you're now entitled to cause harm to whomever you want based of those beliefs. Someone walking down the street can look at me and think I'm a "faggot" all they want, the same way someone can look at you and think of whatever derogatory term they please to mentally label you. I've heard that and many other derogatory words murmured under one's breath when passing by total strangers, or even yelled at me from ill-minded people from across the street. None of these people have been arrested for essentially saying what is on their mind regardless of how mentally degrading the statements are. But if anyone of them turned to you or I and cause harm because of that belief, then it is a Hate Crime.

So many times, you try to take away one part of the issue whether it be the crime itself or the motive when you need BOTH in order to establish whether or not a culprit's actions qualify. In this instance, the crime means nothing without the motive, and listing a bunch of derogatory examples of hate speech mean nothing without the action to coincide with it. How come you still cannot see that?

And to put this out there... one of the main problems some people have with Hate Crime Legislation is that many people think it doesn't protect heterosexuals. That's ridiculous. Instead of blogs, why don't we look at actual FBI statistics. You'll see that practically every race, religion or sexual persuasion have been the subject of victimization in Hate Crimes. Victims - Hate Crime Statistics, 2007

Then again, we don't see a lot of reported cases where homosexuals & lesbians are beating up on straight men & women, calling them "fucking breeders". That's also represented with the link provided above, as roughly 1.8% of the 1,512 sexually orientated biased incidents reported to the FBI in 2007 were of an anti-heterosexual bias.

Perhaps this is just a cultural difference between different demographics of people, how they were raised and how they treat others in public. But it has NOTHING to do with censoring anybody or telling them what to think.

Sorry Vinyl, but the fact that you can't see the future, or current implications and how it is connected to thoughts and speech, I can't help you understand it.

Once again, and for the final time. If I attack you because you're gay, and it's classified as a hate crime, my thought that "I don't like gays" is the thing making this a hate crime. The crime should be treated as an assault on a heterosexual man of the same magnitude, level and all that jazz.

I can't explain it any other way without my head exploding. Just look at how this is expanding (while leaving out plenty) and look at other countries and how THEY criminalize speech. We've been over and over this and it should be incredibly easy to understand by now.

I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree. It should be just as simple to understand what I've said.

I agree with you, Jason. You hit this one spot-on.

Hate is hate, isn't it? All life is equally valuable.

Exactly, thank you.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

The hate crime laws is not about equality in an equal way, this is my point.

Everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, yes? That's exactly my point, so to take that and start adding in "Well group X is not part of this, then group Y..." but leave out other specific groups, is not equality.

Once again you are conflating the idea that the law should treat everyone equally with the idea that it should treat all crimes equally.

It would be disgustingly unjust to treat burglars in the same way as murderers, their crimes are in no way comparable, and yet by your logic the Murderers could claim that they were not being treated equally because burglars got lighter sentences.

The law treats the crime differently not the persons who commit them. It is also a long established and perfectly just thing for the law to recognise that the nature of the crime and those who are its victims play a role in deciding how heinous a crime should be regarded.

This hate crime law simply points out that the state regards crimes motivated by hatred of a specific set of groups of people to be of a specific nature and degree of abhorrence. The law already does this in numerous other instances. Why it should not do so now is mystifying, and indeed were it not to it would be grievously unjust.

Crimes committed against children for instance are rightly regarded with extreme odium both by society and by the law, are you saying that this inequality is unjust ?

 

[mitchymo]

The hate crime laws is not about equality in an equal way, this is my point.

Everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, yes? That's exactly my point, so to take that and start adding in "Well group X is not part of this, then group Y..." but leave out other specific groups, is not equality.

Once again other places doing it is about feel good legislation. It makes politicians feel like they accomplished something, without actually doing it. Gay marriage can still be illegal places with this law, it didn't fix that inequality.

If you want to see the inequality in it, in all the nations you list, just look:

Hate crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Austria: PENALTY ENHANCEMENT statute for xenophobic and racist motivations.

Doesn't explicity say every other group in existence. Look at Bosnia, look at even Belgium which states "fortune or philosophical beliefs"! So if I get into a fight with you because you're Politically X and I'm Politically Y, that's a hate crime? What?!?!?

Once again my bottom line: Laws should cover everyone equally, we shouldn't have to pass laws for every group of people in existence to make that so, it should just be.

This doesn't fix the Judge's bias in a court case, it doesn't fix the Police Officer's bias in not fully pursuing a gay man being attacked, etc. etc. etc. etc. on into infinity.

As my final word on the subject, from the same link above:

"The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that hate crime statutes which criminalize bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech conflict with free speech rights because they isolated certain words based on their content or viewpoint.[55] Many critics further assert that it conflicts with an even more fundamental right: free thought. The claim is that hate-crime legislation effectively makes certain ideas or beliefs, including religious ones, illegal, in other words, thought crimes.


In their book Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics, James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter criticize hate crime legislation for exacerbating conflicts between groups. They assert that by defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labeling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.[63] Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.[64] Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution.[65]

I least hope you understand why this is an issue to people, and why it's extremely annoying when some show up and call homophobia/racist/bigot because you don't like the idea. It has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with what I've listed.

Do you agree that ANYBODY can be the target of a hate crime? I think you do which means that the law itself is inclusive of anyone who might be attacked on the basis of such superficial reasoning as their race or orientation or even there dress sense. There will always be a burden of proof with crimes of this nature and some would naturally be more difficult to proove than others i know.
Nobody is being denied their right to think what they like however bigotted, but when they use those thoughts and turn them into physical action they deserve to be punished more severely because it sends a clear message that it will not be tolerated.
This law does not create inequality, those who feel that they are being treated less than equal because of it are the very narrow minded people likely to behave unfairly. What the law does is make it plain and simple to people that if they want to start a fight on someone for no good reason then they had better think twice about who they choose to attack because the punishment for attacking for a purile reason will land you in deeper water. This is protection for minority groups more than anyone else because minority groups need it more than anyone else, that is perhaps the intention of this law but it includes EVERYONE. It is as equal as is fair.

Does society not allow special rules for disabled, for war veterans, for members of congress?

This law does not create distances between different groups, it creates distances between decent groups and those who are bigots, who stand in the way of social civility.

 

[MercyfulFate]

Once again you are conflating the idea that the law should treat everyone equally with the idea that it should treat all crimes equally.

It would be disgustingly unjust to treat burglars in the same way as murderers, their crimes are in no way comparable, and yet by your logic the Murderers could claim that they were not being treated equally because burglars got lighter sentences.

The law treats the crime differently not the persons who commit them. It is also a long established and perfectly just thing for the law to recognise that the nature of the crime and those who are its victims play a role in deciding how heinous a crime should be regarded.

This hate crime law simply points out that the state regards crimes motivated by hatred of a specific set of groups of people to be of a specific nature and degree of abhorrence. The law already does this in numerous other instances. Why it should not do so now is mystifying, and indeed were it not to it would be grievously unjust.

Crimes committed against children for instance are rightly regarded with extreme odium both by society and by the law, are you saying that this inequality is unjust ?

Look, you're re-treading the exact same argument I've already had. Nothing in what I've said says a burglary and a murder should be the same.

You're completely misconstruing my words, and once again, pointless to continue.

Crimes against children, such as sexual issues is a different thread entirely. A 14 year old can go to jail for a sex crime and be branded for life and be treated the same as a 40 year old who has sex with a 14 year old. That's not equality. If you were to say a crime committed against an 8 year old is more serious and should be treated more harshly than a 9 year old, you'd arrive at the crux of the issue. And in some places crimes will differ based on a year age difference, which unbalances the whole thing.

Argue amongst yourselfs, I'm verklempt.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I didn't say anything about gay rights groups being naive, not sure where you got that from.

Law shouldn't be part of a strategy to get people to think a certain way, and having innocuous "hate speech" as part of this strategy is dangerous. What if a fascist government takes hold and suddenly says criticizing them is hate speech? Setting these precedents can create future problems.

With that we show why this was pointless to start again. I'm just waiting for Monsieur Nick to come out of the woodwork saying I'm going to commit a Hate Crime.

It was all your references to fixing the system and feel good legislation which rather gave the impression that you thought this law was the final destination of those with an interest in ending hate crimes against gay people.

In any case I notice your not actually addressing any of my substantive points.

 

[MercyfulFate]

It was all your references to fixing the system and feel good legislation which rather gave the impression that you thought this law was the final destination of those with an interest in ending hate crimes against gay people.

In any case I notice your not actually addressing any of my substantive points.

I notice you're ignoring what I say, since I've told you...

YOU'RE REPEATING THE EXACT SAME THING SAID X NUMBER OF PAGES AGO, AND THERE'S NO POINT TO RETURN TO IT!

Add to that I did answer them, and what?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Look, you're re-treading the exact same argument I've already had. Nothing in what I've said says a burglary and a murder should be the same.

You're completely misconstruing my words, and once again, pointless to continue.

Crimes against children, such as sexual issues is a different thread entirely. A 14 year old can go to jail for a sex crime and be branded for life and be treated the same as a 40 year old who has sex with a 14 year old. That's not equality. If you were to say a crime committed against an 8 year old is more serious and should be treated more harshly than a 9 year old, you'd arrive at the crux of the issue. And in some places crimes will differ based on a year age difference, which unbalances the whole thing.

Argue amongst yourselfs, I'm verklempt.

What ? Are you now claiming that Bigots represent a specific group within society who are being discriminated against by having their crimes singled out for special attention in this way ?

Because the law doesn't actually address bigots, as you know, it simply regards the criminal actions motivated by a specific form of hate committed by citizen A against citizen B as deserving of a more serious punishment than a similar crime not committed for reasons of hate. A situation which already exists for crimes of differing motivations committed against diifferent groups within society.

No one specific person in that transaction is actually being treated unequally, it is the crime which is regarded differently based on its motivation.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I notice you're ignoring what I say, since I've told you...

YOU'RE REPEATING THE EXACT SAME THING SAID X NUMBER OF PAGES AGO, AND THERE'S NO POINT TO RETURN TO IT!

Add to that I did answer them, and what?

I am actually trying to engage you in conversation, I don't think I've been rude to you in this thread, nor have I been condescending or unpleasant, and yet you seem relentlessly hostile and ill tempered. I haven't called you a Homophobe so there's no need to take your irritation with those who have out on me is there ?

 

[MercyfulFate]

What ? Are you now claiming that Bigots represent a specific group within society who are being discriminated against by having their crimes singled out for special attention in this way ?

Because the law doesn't actually address bigots, as you know, it simply regards the criminal actions motivated by a specific form of hate committed by citizen A against citizen B as deserving of a more serious punishment than a similar crime not committed for reasons of hate. A situation which already exists for crimes of differing motivations committed against diifferent groups within society.

No one specific person in that transaction is actually being treated unequally, it is the crime which is regarded differently based on its motivation.

See? Where in what you just quoted from me mentions bigots at all?

Once again if you want an answer to what I've bolded, go back and read it. This has all been done before, and I'm not saying it again.

And....crimes should be treated as the crime committed, not on the motivation. If I stab two people for two different opinions of my own, both sentences should be identical if the crimes are the same in every way.

As I already posted, motive is not even part of the majority of crimes.

So I'll say it once again, go back and read what I said, this has all been done before.

I am actually trying to engage you in conversation, I don't think I've been rude to you in this thread, nor have I been condescending or unpleasant, and yet you seem relentlessly hostile and ill tempered. I haven't called you a Homophobe so there's no need to take your irritation with those who have out on me is there ?

What about my posting in caps to direct your attention to a point you deliberately missed more than once, connects that in any way with those who used "hate speech" against me?

You're drawing awfully strange, and random conclusions here. If you had wanted to be part of this, you should've joined in when it was actually going on. Forgive me for not wanting to keep repeating things I've already said. Although I could just keep copying and pasting former posts.

 

[mitchymo]

Well i'm done with this one now.

Bigotry is wrong, the hate crime legislation is constitutional recognition of that. It should be enforced to stamp out vermin and thus render the likelihood of ever seeing another facist government ever take hold of a civilised society extremely unlikely.

 

[MercyfulFate]

Well i'm done with this one now.

Bigotry is wrong, the hate crime legislation is constitutional recognition of that. It should be enforced to stamp out vermin and thus render the likelihood of ever seeing another facist government ever take hold of a civilised society extremely unlikely.

I don't know where to start with that one, but it did make my head spin.

If a law can make a fascist government never happen, I'm the Queen of England. Also, bigotry in and of itself shouldn't be illegal. Acting on that? Sure, but thinking it is a constitutionally protected right here in the US.

Banning or criminalizing speech is a very fascist thing to do. Once you start saying this and that are not acceptable, it can continue on to anything. What's offensive to you, isn't to me, or him, or her, etc.