BS: Hate laws

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 09:37 PM

"So if this issue is all about illegal immigrants then it makes more sense to have a public system public."

            Well, Lox, if you think a public system is the best way for the US to go, I agree with you. I find myself in a position of continually having to bash the two party system. I think this situation is at the root of the problem. There are millions of people in the middle, but the media only concentrates on the far right and Move-On.Org.

            I think there are solutions out there, but as long as this food fight goes on, it seems impossible to find them, or even hear them.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 08:04 PM

"When an illegal alien turns up at a government institution looking for help, they give the authorities someone else's name and social security number."

When an illegal alien turns up at a private institution, they might have to provide fake ID.

They might not.

They might just have to pay the right price.



How does private serve to discourage illegals entering the country more than pulic?

It doesn't.

It's easier with private for illegals to maintain their cover.



So if this issue is all about illegal immigrants then it makes more sense to have a public system public.


But that is only if ...

... the fact remains that illegal immigrants are way down the list of important factors when designing a heaalth service.

Its a big fat red herring.

The only people who disagree with this are people who think immigration is the central issue regardless of what the subject is.


And that is clearly an obsessive and facile approach to political and economic problem solving.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 06:19 PM

"When an illegal alien turns up a a government institution looking for help, they would have to give their name and social security number."

             When an illegal alien turns up at a government institution looking for help, they give the authorities someone else's name and social security number.

             That's why e-verify is an essential part of the equation. Without it, the tax-payers get raped.

             Do you get it yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 05:47 PM

You haven't addressed my point rig.

When an illegal alien turns up a a government institution looking for help, they would have to give their name and social security number.

If they aren't legal immigration will come and get them.

Just as Illegals don't go to the police (thus making them easy to exploit) and just as they don't vote etc etc etc.

If they are so sick that they have to be treated, they will probably get treatment and will definitely get deported.


In order to function in society as an illegal immigrant, you have to avoid detection.

This is easily enugh done when you stay secretly in someone elses home or pay rent to a dodgy landlord and get paid cash in hand for your work at lower rates ...

... but signing in under false pretences at a government institution would effectively be the same as giving your self up.


So it doesn't matter how many come in ...

... if they use a government institution they get sent home.


It is private medicine that serves to protect illegal immigrants as Private institutions serve to make a profit out of the service they provide.

And in particular it is backstreet "private" medicine that is the risk that most illegals are prepared to take.


Do you get it yet?

Illegals don't want to go home.

So they won't hand themselves in.

So they would never go near a national health doctor.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 05:03 PM

"So the whole issue of illegals abusing the health service is utter tripe."

            No, not really. If the percentage of illegal aliens in the US continue to expand at the rate that they have since the disaserous bill passed in 1986, by about 2032 you'd have 140 million of them.

            So the Democrats, trying to court the Hispanic vote, could give lip service to not covering illegal aliens now, get the bill passed, and then agree to cover them later. They could not do that if there were enforcement measures in the bill as it goes through Congress now. And that's the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 04:29 PM

>"Racist" is a word that nonthinking people use to cut off debate because they're lazy.


Sometimes ...


And at other times:


Racism is an approach that nonthinking people use to cut off debate because they're lazy.



Sometime, you might find people discussing the price of fish when someone will say, out of the blue, "yeah, but what about illegal immigrants - who's gonna stop them before the price of fish goes up/down"

Or How do we fix the economy? "well lets talk about immigration"

Or how do we turn healthcare from a privilege into a right? "well first things first, what about illegal immigrants"


You know something, Immigration is one issue.

Health is another.


Immigration is a big fat red herring and illegal immigrants can find a way of abusing any health care system.

Likewise, any health care system can find a way of ensuring that those with a right to receive it do and those that don't don't.

(now for my point of view)

Besides which, what the F*** is wrong with helping sick people whoever they are. Not to do so is inhumane.

And listen to this.


How many ollegal immigrants do you think willingly register themselves at government institutions?

the answer is none.

Why?

Because they risk getting deported.


An illegal immigrant goes to see a doctor or goes to hospital in a government hospital and immigration will find out won't they?

Yes.


Obviously.


So the whole issue of illegals abusing the health service is utter tripe.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 08:18 AM

"I would try to ascertain on what grounds it was concluded that Obama is a Liar."

            That's not hard to do. Joe Wilson is not a racist. "Racist" is a word that nonthinking people use to cut off debate because they're lazy.

            When Obama said the healthcare plan he supported would not cover illegal aliens, he knew that there were no enforcement measures in the proposed legislation, so that the minute it was passed illegal aliens could line up for healthcare, like they do for most everything else, and there would be no effort to prevent them from receiving it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 05:05 AM

Well I'm not sure I understand the point of the post above as it is very vague, but I'll answer the question.


"Who are the racists in American govt?"


Well they would be the ones (if any) who discriminate on grounds of race.

I suppose it is realistic to expect that some of them may be racist.


I do not know the circumstances of the above case, but I would apply the following test.

I would try to ascertain on what grounds it was concluded that Obama is a Liar.

If there were no grounds that stood the test of scrutiny then I would conclude that some other factor was motivating these accusations.


In this case I suspect that while Obama's accuser may be motivated by racism to some extent, his main driving motivation is more likely to be corporate interest of some sort. The insurance companies stand to lose their control of the health "market" if there is reform of the current system and they don't want to see any threat to their profit margin.

If he is racist then chances are that he also has a poor opinion of any kind of social program, such things being the preserve of socialists and communists and therefore unamerican by nature.


Beyond that, the question is so general, there being so many American government employees with each being driven by so many guiding motivations that it is effectively impossible to answer.

I suspect that you're chomping at the bit to tell us your answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 02:54 AM

Interesting point which has a bearing on the subjects we are discussing; and especially Orwell's views on how our society would evolve.

In the US, a Republican senator called Mr Obama a "liar" during debate. The Dems have stated that the word was only used because Mr Obama is "black"
The Republicans have in turn responded that the Dems are play ing the race card by making such a claim.

Who are the racists in American govt?

When you have determined that, try looking back at Mudcat discussion over the past six months.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 08:27 AM

A child of God? Yeah, right.

Interestingly, over on fakebook, Sam Hudson has written on Helen Butcher's wall congratulating her on coming over here and wiping the floor with us in debate. Yeah right!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Sep 09 - 06:19 AM

Don, you obviously know as much about the 18th dynasty as you do about Torlochan and the vermin who used to inhabit it......and that is exactly fuck all.

Try reading something about Akhenaton, the worlds first documented free thinker and his attempt to bring in a "golden age" of peace, art, and realism regarding humanity's place in the world.

Oh whats the fuckin' point.....people with your conservative background and opinions always see war and organisation as the answer to every problem, in fact there should be a "hate law" to take care of folks like you :0)
Akenaton was a child of "god", a peacemaker, a lover of art and music, a loving husband and father, a philosopher......a pretty evil bastard really.......according to your criteria!

Don't worry about me shutting up, I have absolutely no intention of doing so. I don't believe in "gittering" on when I have nothing constructive to say....unlike yourself.

The thread stands and I stand by every word I have written.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Sep 09 - 05:52 AM

SILENCE!

After whingeing about people trying to shut him up, on several past threads, he NOW decides to shut HIMSELF up.

Very Strange.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 07:39 AM

Sense of direction is off too. That should be NORTHWEST.

Thought I'd take away the temptation for Ake to ignore the content and go for the writing.

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 07:36 AM

Sorry about all the underlines. A glitch in the HTML

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 07:35 AM

And in the absence of a sensible response to my reasonable Challenge, I can only infer that you in fact, are the goat.

Your Mudcat Moniker seems to me peculiarly apposite.

Akenaton (the original that is) was an arrogant opinionated brat, who temporarily overturned the custom and mores of an entire race, with his refusal to admit any other opinion than his own.

His attempted destruction of the religion of his people, and the heretical substitution of HIS OWN religious construct, was a triumph of absolute power over heritage, morals, and common sense.

So unpopular that he had to build a new capital city to remove himself from the anger and opprobium his actions generated, he lived outside the mainstream of his society, and when he died his people lost no time in destroying everything that he had built, and reverting to the old ways.

You show many signs of the same delusions of grandeur, the same refusal to brook any argument, however relevant, and the same arrogant assumption of superiority.

Unfortunately for you, you do NOT have absolute power (for which I am sure, the world should be eternally grateful), and therefor your opinion is just that, and none of your posturing and posing will ever make it FACT.

Sorry mate, you were born 5000 years too late, and 3000 miles Northeast, of the place in which you really belong.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 04:41 AM

I wouldn't be so sure in helens case ...

... she's been waxing lyrical on several repressed sexual fantasies lately on the BNP thread so chances are an anorak is a euphemism for something obscene.



"people who lack deductive or imaginative powers"

In the absence of a response to my "simple question" I must assume that my deductions about your friend were correct ...


... "unable to disseminate or put the gathered information to any particular use"

As opposed to disseminating discredited and unsupported information so that folks like helen can put it to good use.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 03:12 AM

Hi Rig.....a couple of internet definitions

An 'Anorak' is the name given to someone who has an obsession with a particular hobby i.e. football statistics, trainspotting etc. I presume that the word itself derives from the rows of sad looking people standing every weekend and evening in the rain at the train station in their anoraks with their thermos flasks of tea while they tick off the numbers of trains as they go past.

It is a term of mild abuse directed almost exclusively at men. Such men are usually obsessively interested in an obscure subject and/or activity - the archetypal one being trainspotting. Such activities often require the participant to spend hours out of doors doing not much and occasionally writing something in a little book. Hence, such people often wear anorak because they are (a) cheap (b) practical (c) have lots of pockets for flasks, notebooks, pencils, other pencils etc. Obsessive participation in such activities into later life is often regarded with derision by soi-disant normal people, whereas in fact it has actually been linked to a mild form of autism.

I would add that "anorak" has also come to describe people who lack deductive or imaginative powers....who are obsessed with the collection of information for its own sake and are who quite unable to disseminate or put the gathered information to any particular use.

Lox to a tee! wouldn't you say?...... :0)
Don on the other hand, is just acting the goat!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 09:46 PM

So I look up "anorak" in the dictionary, and it says:
A heavy jacket with a hood--a parka. I think I'm missing something.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,Helen B.
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 07:32 PM

You are of course correct yet again akenaton. Don't waste your time or energy explaining to a collection of cuckolds,anoraks and a Casting Call Pro drunk.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 07:23 PM

"...the overwhelming majority of Goans are either Catholic or Hindu..."

          Maybe someone will develope a 12 step program to help them!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 10:50 AM

Don....You have copied what was printed in the local newspaper.

""You must read between the lines with local newspaper reports, there are no investigative journalists employed by the Dunoon Observer and they are obliged to print what is given to them by the local authority.

They are unable to print what has really been happening at Torlochan, but suffice to say, I have seen the "business" being conducted with my own eyes......and that is a fact.

Although I cannot go into any further detail than I have provided already, everything I have said about the drug dealing, money lending and vicious intimidation is 100% true and has been witnessed at first hand.""


You really are a piece of work!

You spout a losd of malicious bile, without a single shred of credible proof, and when evidence is produced of the mendacity of your stance, you come out with the above bilge. There has never been a newspaper which shies away from a really juicy scandal, and I don't expect I shall ever see the day when such exists.

You want me to blindly accept your totally unbiased (YEAH! RIGHT!)narration without question because you claim inside knowledge which you cannot reveal.

NO, MR BOND, the Official Secrets Act only applies to those with access to GENUINE classified or secret information.

PROOF, MY FRIEND! Put up or Shut up.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 06:35 AM

"Long before you arrived here, we ..." etc

My first post on mudcate is dated 17th july 2000

yours is dated 4th July 2003

That is a fact.


So don't try to patronize me Sonny Jim.


On the subject of your Goan friend, you have made no attempt to correct me.

Furthermore you never described him as your Moslem friend but as your Goan friend.

Considering that you were making a point about Moslems in British society it is easy to deduce that he isn't a moslem or you would have corroborated your case by saying so.

As the overwhelming majority of Goans are either Catholic or Hindu (More than 90%) , it follows that his heritage is probably in either of these two backgrounds.

Simple question - is he Moslem?


What "special minority status" are you talking about? Can you define this as right now it reads as a general sweeping and therefore meaningless term - then can you show me eidence of its existence.

I suspect that if you were able to find the evidence the definition would be contained therein.


"my distrust of "liberals" who hate any dissent to their agenda."


When I disagreewith someone I don't put them in a category.


The term "liberal" is the label you have on your mental waste paper basket into which you toss evidence that doesn't back up your argument.

You are unable to critically evaluate evidence and learn from it.

If the tenants on your site were forcibly evicted then there will be a record of it somewhere.

You claim they were forcibly evicted from their fortress so you provide the evidence.

Until then, the only evidence is the official statement of the landlord.


Evictions of violent people from fortresses don't slip under the radar.

If it happpened there will be a report of some sort that you will be able to apply for.

Till you provide this evidence, Dons evidence stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 05:45 AM

Oh and BTW please try to make some attempt at understanding what I have written.

"Contrary to your assertion, I do not think that all tinkers are drug dealers or criminals, any more than I think all people who give their vote to the BNP are Nazis. In this case I have cited a particular group of tinker families who are engaged in supplying drugs to schoolchildren and brutal intimidation.
These people have been using their "special minority status" to evade prosecution."

Does that statement say that I hate travellers?.....no, it says that oppose laws which give one group the oppertunity to prey upon another without fear of proper police action to protect the group being preyed upon.......is that Liberal enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 05:36 AM

I know what I am talking about in this particular case, you do not!

Regarding what I write here, I will continue to post what I consider to be the truth without seeking permission from you.

You continually post opinion as fact, for example, my Goan friend being "either Catholic or Hindu" how could you possibly present that as "fact"?

Long before you arrived here, we had a thread discussing "facts", in which "facts" and "opinions" became rather blurred.
I have a very healthy distrust of "facts"...... almost as large as my distrust of "liberals" who hate any dissent to their agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 04:57 AM

"you would do well to examine your attitude to those who do not vote in the way you would like, or adhere to your very limited "principles"."


My problem Ake is with unsubstantiated claims.

Of which you make many.


I don't care what your view is as long as you can support it with facts.


You claim that Moslems don't want to integrate.


That is an inflammatory claim.


You know this how?


because a man you know who is either caatholic or hindu told you that that is what he thinks they think.



You make numerous "factual" claims about other generalized groups that are equally inflammatory.


You don't back them up with facts and you ignore the evidence that is provided which shows your claims are not true.


If you wish to make inflammatory claims about Moslems, Immigrants, liberals or Travellers then back them up with evidence or shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 02:41 AM

Just as a postscript.....The Dunoon Observer is an excellent local paper, giving local news and information. They, like the local authority, are constrained by law as to what they are allowed to print.

The editor of the Dunoon Observer and his wife are personal friends of mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 02:29 AM

I certainly do "know better" than you Lox; and it must be obvious even to you, the reason why the authority cannot give the real reason for closing Torlochan!

It is as you are fond of saying...."lack of evidence required to prosecute". However, in this case, the authorities have used alterative methods to clean out the dealers.

Contrary to your assertion, I do not think that all tinkers are drug dealers or criminals, any more than I think all people who give their vote to the BNP are Nazi's. In this case I have cited a particular group of tinker families who are engaged in supplying drugs to schoolchildren and brutal intimidation.
These people have been using their "special minority status" to evade prosecution.

I keep an open mind on everything Lox....I question every orthodox "belief"; you would do well to examine your attitude to those who do not vote in the way you would like, or adhere to your very limited "principles".

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 06:09 PM

I suppose the Dunoon observer could be asked where they got their information from.

then again.

It does cite two sources very clearly and clarifies its sources credibility very clearly.

It also refers to previous public statements made by its first source, ACHA.

ACHA are the sites landlords and they have made clear that they have not evicted their tenants, but are doing up their home and paying 25% of the refurbishment costs to repair damage caused by fire and vandalism.

The article does not express an opinion, but simply reports two pieces of information.

1. ACHA's synopsis of what they are doing with the site nd why..

2. The results of a survey conducted by 3 local authourities into anti traveller violence.


But even though "I cannot go into any further detail than I have provided already" Ake still knows best.



Ake, your loyalty to your opinions in the face of a constant stream of contradictory evidence on numerous subjects shows great determination, but ultimately marks you out for all the wrong reasons.

Apart from a wittier turn of phrase and slightly more complex rationale, your position is no different to that of the BNP.

Your refusal to accept the evidence provided or to provide your own evidence is also consistent with the way they do things.

You might not be a BNP supporter but they love reading your posts here as on other threads and they certainly see you as being on their side because the upshot of your arguments is the same as theirs.

Witch-hunt my arse.

That's just playing the victim.

So you exercise your free speech and blame eastern europeans for unemployment and tell us how Moslems think they're bettter than us and don't want to integrate cos your goan mate thinks so, and tell us that the tinkers down the lane are all criminals and druggies.

And I'l exercise my free speech and point out what a load of utter tripe you talk.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 02:48 PM

"For someone to be guilty of hate crime in suing a member of KKK... instituting legal proceedings would have to be declared illegal."

               I'm not sure, Don, if you've followed the way he does this. It seems really slimy to me, and a waste of the court's time and an abuse of the legal system.
               I'm not sure who is slimier, Moris Dees or Glenn Beck!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 02:31 PM

Facts!!   "The travellers, or tinkers as you prefer to call them, pay rent, council tax and utility costs and, like housing tenants, can be evicted for arrears."
To the best of my knowledge, the families involved are registered unemployed with children, and are in receipt of full housing benefit.

"The site in question has for some time been considered sub standard, and was scheduled for a refurb for some time, at a cost of £250,000, not the half million YOU posted as FACT."
The £250,000 is an estimate of cost, most local builders, of whom I am one, think that at least double that figure would be more realistic.


3. "It appears that the travellers were victims of vandalism by locals, not, as you claimed the instigators."

You must be fucking joking! The place was a fortress.....no local would want to, or be able to get in to vandalise it. The damage was all done by site residents...two of the families have had a long running feud.
Your "fact" no4 has been dealt with above, you obviously know nothing about this situation and you can take that as fact from someone who does.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 01:58 PM

Don....You have copied what was printed in the local newspaper.

You must read between the lines with local newspaper reports, there are no investigative journalists employed by the Dunoon Observer and they are obliged to print what is given to them by the local authority.

They are unable to print what has really been happening at Torlochan, but suffice to say, I have seen the "business" being conducted with my own eyes......and that is a fact.

Although I cannot go into any further detail than I have provided already, everything I have said about the drug dealing, money lending and vicious intimidation is 100% true and has been witnessed at first hand.

The families who were dealing from the site were made aware some time aqo of the Authorities intention to close the site,they are now in private accomodation.....still dealing and hopefully more accessible to police scrutiny.

The closure of the site is certainly a move in the right direction even if the resons had to be disguised.

The ability of some minorities to abuse their "rights" must be scrutinised, regardless of whether this scrutiny meets with the approval Orwellian "liberals" or not!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 12:51 PM

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948 (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html), enunciates and enshrines the principles of freedom of religion and freedom of expression

In addition, over the past eleven years, the British government has passed a number of laws that specifically tackle, or include directly in their provisions, protection of the freedom of 'religion or belief'

Under this range of existing human rights and anti-discrimination legislation, everyone has the right to hold their own religious beliefs or to hold other philosophically-based beliefs deemed 'similar to a religion'.

They also have the right to have no religion or no belief at all!

for example, under the Equality Act 2006(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060003_en_1),
it is unlawful for someone to discriminate against another because of his or her religion or belief OR because he/she has no religion or belief.

If someone threatens, abuses or attacks someone because of their religion or belief (or lack thereof), this may amount to what is called a 'hate crime' under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006


The KKK, may indeed use religion as one tool among many to motivate terrorism against outsiders but essentially it is a secret, oath-bound, 'fraternal' organization (or a number of small independent chapters) whose avowed purpose is to protect the rights of and further the interests of white Americans.

In the UK -

In order to be protected under the Equality Act 2006, a religion or belief must be able to be generally recognised as being:

* cogent
* serious
* cohesive
* compatible with human dignity.

what constitutes, affirms or denies 'human dignity' may be subject to disagreement; but I don't think, under any circumstances, it could be said to include the KKK!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 12:07 PM

""I one joins the KKK and then is sued by Moris Dees, Moris Dees is performing a hateful act.""

That, Rig, is arguably the most asinine comment you have made to date (and you've made more than a few in the past).

For someone to be guilty of hate crime in suing a member of KKK, first, instituting legal proceedings would have to be declared illegal.

Whatever you were on when you typed that is damaging you.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 09:00 AM

"When a criminal act is based on a factors such as a victim's race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, it takes on some of the characteristics of a terrorist act."

            If any of these categories make any sense, they all make more sense than religion. One chooses one's religion, so to avoid being singled out all one has to do is drop is. It would be no different than joining the KKK--which is itself is a religious organization. I one joins the KKK and then is sued by Moris Dees, Moris Dees is performing a hateful act.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 07:57 AM

That makes interesting reading Emma and, in my humble opinion, shoots down a lot of the criticism against hate crime law. There does seem to be a divide between its use in the USA and that in the UK but, in principle, the concept I think is sound.

The worrying aspect in the example you quote is about homosexuality. It is correct that there is growing evidence that sexuality may be under some genetic control but, even if it is not, and if it is a choice, I can think of no good reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian people just because of their sexuality. I have never understood why someone else's sexuality should be of interest or intrigue to people who are not looking for that kind of sexual encounter/partner/relationship. Why does it upset people so? They are, choice, nature or nurture, a hate target and it is righful they should be included.

The danger for all of us is that the moment we start accepting that by someone making a choice it makes it okay to bully them or single them out for hate, we are all left with, "Who is next?". What next group will be targeted because of difference or choices? We are all individuals who make choices in our life and I say again...

We all have far more in common with each other than we do not. We are all just a step away from being hated for something we are that we are or do different from others. I cannot speak for the USA interpretation of such a law but I do know that in the UK it necessary just now and the concept seems quite sound. I welcome the day it can be taken off the statute books but I fear that time is some time off :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 05:26 AM

Well that is your 'opinion' ...... defined as 'a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence.
It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.


But let's summarize......

"Every crime they cover is already illegal under existing laws."

Protecting a group under hate crimes legislation will make the public aware that the group is vulnerable, has been extensively victimized in the past, and is in need of protection.
Many victims have been attacked by strangers because of their gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or ability status in the past
Legislation should be expanded to cover them to distinguish as
motivation isn't the issue here – intent is.
Attacking a black person to coerce or intimidate other black people is materially worse than randomly assaulting some unfortunate passerby. The later is aimed at only one person; the former targets a community.


"By granting special consideration to victims of 'politically incorrect' crimes, the legislation denies equal protection under the law."

A hate crime is more serious than a conventional crime because it abuses more than the immediate victim.

When a criminal act is based on a factors such as a victim's race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, it takes on some of the characteristics of a terrorist act.
The victim and the perpetrator are typically strangers.
The crime is not directed simply against one person; it is intended to target and intimidate the victim's entire group.
These acts have been referred to as "message crimes:" violence intended to send a message to a minority group within a community.

"Such legislation should only apply to personal characteristics that are beyond the individual's control, like gender, race, national origin, color, disability. Homosexuality is a chosen and changeable preference for members of the same gender."

Denying sexual orientation as a protected class because it is a chosen behavior cannot be supported because there is growing evidence that sexual orientation is not chosen.

Religion is already a protected class and is clearly chosen and changeable.


- The arguments in quotes are taken from an American para Christian fundamentalist group and issued as a 'CitizenLink Special Alert'
The replies are from a group advocating and promoting tolerance by all world religions

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 09:29 PM

At the end of the day, the concept of hate laws seems like a really bad idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 08:50 AM

From the above article, the following FACTS:-

1. The travellers, or tinkers as you prefer to call them, pay rent, council tax and utility costs and, like housing tenants, can be evicted for arrears.

2. The site in question has for some time been considered sub standard, and was scheduled for a refurb for some time, at a cost of £250,000, not the half million YOU posted as FACT.

3. It appears that the travellers were victims of vandalism by locals, not, as you claimed the instigators.

4. None of the travellers were locked out of the site, which was secured after all had already left, presumably for the sake of self preservation. So would you, if you risked waking in the small hours to find your bed on fire.

These are reported facts, as stated by the responsible authority, and they do rather expose your unsupported opinions to ridicule, Ake.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: olddude
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 08:49 AM

Recently in Buffalo a young white man came out of a restaurant with his beautiful black girlfriend. A group of black men attacked him and beat him nearly to death. The response by the black community was immediate and overwhelming. The black leaders and black church leaders asked everyone in the community to help find and punish those who were responsible. On TV they said we will not tolerate hate crimes against anyone no matter what their color or their creed. Called on all people to find these thugs.

It is when all people stand up like this, that a difference is made.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 08:19 AM

""Try this for unbiased reporting from this weeks local paper ("Dunoon Observer").

£250,000 UPGRADE AT TRAVELLERS SITE

SANDBANK'S Torlochan travellers' site will remain closed until next year - but is set to benefit from modernisation costing up to a quarter of a million pounds.

Although there were pitches occupied at the site around four weeks ago, last week the gates were seen to be padlocked, with a notice providing contact numbers should temporary access be required.
The site has been on the receiving end of unwelcome attention over the last few months, with one caravan being completely burnt out and extensive vandalism - the latter cited as a reason for closure by Argyll Community Housing Association chief executive Alastair MacGregor.
ACHA has managed the site - and two others in Argyll - since the transfer of housing stock from Argyll and Bute Council in 2006.
Site residents hit out at ACHA last year, claiming that the facility was in poor condition compared to other similar parks around Scotland.

They alleged that non-residents used the park as a dump, there was flooding and extensive disrepair in the kitchen/bathroom amenity huts on each pitch, and that it was overrun by rats.

In May 2008, following tenants' complaints, ACHA advised that it was taking forward a number of proposals for the improvement of the site.
Now, with its closure, it plans to start work on making improvements at Torlochan.

Mr MacGregor told the Standard: "The site was closed for three reasons; firstly, there has been extensive vandalism; secondly, there are no travellers currently wishing to use the site and thirdly, we plan to modernise the site shortly.
"The site is planned to be closed in order that the modernisation work can be carried out."

He advised that no residents on the site had been given notice to quit and that any personal effects left at Torlochan could be collected by arrangement with ACHA.
He continued: "Our plans are to modernise the pitches and provide improved facilities, following consultation with residents last year.
"The cost will be approximately £250,000; eight pitches will be upgraded and services such as electric and water supplies renewed.
"A grant has been awarded to ACHA by the Scottish government from their gypsy/traveller site grants which were announced last year at £2m for Scotland.
"The grant to ACHA should meet 75 per cent of the costs and ACHA will fund the rest."


The Torlochan closure comes as a study of travellers in Scotland shows that over 50 per cent claim to have been the victims of harassment or discrimination.

The survey, carried out by three local authorities in north-east Scotland, identified that a quarter of travellers had been physically assaulted, including some who had had stones thrown at them.

Others had been verbally abused or called names, while some provided examples of discrimination such as taxis refusing to pick up from travellers' sites.
The local authorities are working together on the accommodation needs of travellers over the coming months.

Argyll and Bute is unique in Scotland in that its three traveller sites are operated by a registered social landlord, ACHA, rather than the local council.
There are 32 sites in Scotland providing 499 individual pitches. In Argyll and Bute last year, 72 per cent of its 32 pitches were let, with 22 per cent available to tenants and six per cent unavailable to maintenance.

Travellers at such sites pay rent, council tax and utility costs and, like housing tenants, can be evicted for arrears.

Meanwhile, at the Torlochan site, five abandoned caravans remain - all damaged or vandalised, and each containing a quantity of personal effects.
A notice on the gate advises arrivals to contact ACHA or its telecare provider, Hanover, out of hours, should access be required.
Asked what provision ACHA was making for travellers who wished to come to the area, Mr MacGregor advised: "We will continue to provide pitches for gypsy/travellers at Duncholgan, Lochgilphead and Ledaig, Oban. Vacancies are available at both of these sites should pitches be required."

Torlochan is expected to reopen in April 2010.""

THAT is what I mean about evidence.

YOUR COMMENTS AKE?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 04:40 AM

Ake,

it is not us who need the evidence.

It is your high ranking officer friend who needs it.

When he has it and is able to prove who sold the heroin and who did the disfiguring then he will be able to prosecute that person.

There is no-one in this country apart from those with diplomatic immunity who is protected from this process.


If you wish to insist that they are protected then you must provide evidence.



Till then, you are relying agaion on second hand anecdotal evidence to suppport your case.

First you establish a homogenous islamic viewpoint from the second hand testimony of a Goan who is either Catholic or Hindu, then you establish that Gypsies criminal activities are prtected by special status.


Now is the time to provide proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 02:56 AM

Don... I know police officers who deal with these vermin on a daily basis, two of them have young teenage children....they are aware of exactly what is happening in the town,regarding the selling of heroin to kids and the vicious intimidation which accompanies that trade.

I have been told by a high ranking local officer, that the "protected status" of this group puts them above the law.

What "evidence" do you require for the purposes of this discussion? names and addresses?......four bags of "kit"....a facially disfigured addict?......

Come to this town Don......take a day trip into the "real" world.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 08:09 PM

""...the police cannot act on YOUR opinion as to guilt."

               And that pretty much defines the description of a "hate crime."""

No Rig, it doesn't. Hate crime is defined as inciting others to racial hatred, which Ake is NOT doing.

He is simply expressing an opinion, and wrongly presenting it as fact.

All that means is that he has, as usual, a biased, and prejudiced opinion. He is not suggesting anyone else should act upon it....YET!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 08:03 PM

""Don the police found it almost impossible to gain the required evidence to charge these people, through their intimidation of police witnesses and the fact that they were using civil Rights legislation to evade prosecution. The encampment had become a virtual fortress.""

Once again Ake, YOUR biased opinion, presented as FACT. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 02:26 AM

Quite so Rig!

Don the police found it almost impossible to gain the required evidence to charge these people, through their intimidation of police witnesses and the fact that they were using civil Rights legislation to evade prosecution. The encampment had become a virtual fortress.

The fact that the buildings had been badly vandalised, gave the police and the local council the EXCUSE to close it down, thats how justice seems to work these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 09:43 PM

"...the police cannot act on YOUR opinion as to guilt."

               And that pretty much defines the description of a "hate crime."

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 04:25 PM

""No prosecutions are to be brought against previous tenants for any crime.""

Why don't you contact your local police, and tell them your theory on precisely which former resident was responsible for which individual piece of vandalism?

You seem to have great difficulty with the notion that prosecution follows on the acquisition of that inconvenient little stumbling block known as evidence, and that a miscreant can only be prosecuted if said evidence supports the conclusion that HE is responsible for the criminal action.

Unfortunately for you, there is no place in our judicial system for a charge of being in possession of an offensive ethnicity, and lynching gypsies out of hand sort of lost its appeal about May 1945.

I'm afraid you may just have to live with the fact that a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty, and that the police cannot act on YOUR opinion as to guilt.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 04:18 AM

As a postscript to the drug dealing tinkers......the council run encampment has now been closed and the entrance gates padlocked.

Officials of the housing association who maintain the site descibe it as a "war zone"...burntout caravans and chalets.... vandalism of council property.....rubbish everywhere ....scrap cars etc.

500 thousand pounds of taxpayers money to be spent on refurbishment.

No prosecutions are to be brought against previous tenants for any crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 09:03 AM

How would they decide who was suppose to head the ticket?

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 09:42 PM

Now there's a ticket for 2012: Sarah Palin and Michael Savage.