BS: Hate laws

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 09:36 PM

Like Michael Savage, for instance. He was denied an opportunity to pursue a PHD at UC Berkeley. His slot was given to a minority with less qualified credentials. It was a life changing experience for Michael Savage. It changed the way he saw things, and he's gone on to change the thinking of a lot of other people too.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:18 AM

Richard: It's in the 8-17-09 10:26 post.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 09:31 AM

I don't understand positive discrimination as necessarily precluding any white candidates from success, merely as requiring allowance for disadvantage in making decisions and sometimes a minimum ratio of former discriminees as appointees.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 08:54 AM

"Rig - it sounds like your situation was a gross distortion of the law and I wonder if you could have taken the matter to court and appealed your effective exclusion on grounds of race."

          No, Lox, that's just the way affirmative action works, or doesn't. It must have happened to a lot of people, because they did away with affirmative action in California a few years later.

          What it did, though, was create the mindset in a number of folks that set racial harmony back several generations.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 06:31 AM

"A great many informed people hold the same opinion as Mr Cohen, that "liberalism" is a distinct threat to individual freedom and is being used to turn many countries into "Orwellian" states."

Ok - so you aren't going to provide any information of your own ...

are you at least going to tell us which "informed" people hold the same view?

Or is that to remain yet another baseless assertion.


Rig - it sounds like your situation was a gross distortion of the law and I wonder if you could have taken the matter to court and appealed your effective exclusion on grounds of race.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 03:55 AM

The expression "mollify an entire population" (the centre, if I read it correctly) of the argument cited by Bearded Bruce, seems short of rational meaning.

The freeway construction argument arises, if the facts are accurately stated, out of defective application of "positive discrimination" principles, not the perfectly correct notion that one should seek to alleviate disadvantage.

And positive discrimination is nothing to do with "hate laws" - and "hate laws" are nothing to do with thought crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 03:21 AM

Lox,   my quote was not from BB. It was from the article by Richard Cohen in the new York Times, which BB posted.

A great many informed people hold the same opinion as Mr Cohen, that "liberalism" is a distinct threat to individual freedom and is being used to turn many countries into "Orwellian" states.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:26 PM

I tried to submit this message a number of times earlier.

               Lox, let me tell you how I was a victim of affirmative action!

               I was in business with a partner in the San Francisco Bay Area when the George H. W. recession hit. The private work dried up completely.
               The state of California let out a freeway project for 80 million dollars--Keiwit Pacific got that one. There was no way we could bond it--let alone do it in any kind of a reasonable fashion.
               Then they put out 3 million dollars worth of small projects, divided into about 16 different jobs. But it turned out all of these projects were minority-set-aside jobs. We couldn't bid on these projects either. The freeway job represented the "white money."
               There was nothing to do, and nothing we could even bid on. We had to lay off all our people and go out of business. A number of the fellows who worked for us lost their homes and everything they'd worked for for years--as did myself and my partner.
               If you were to ask one of those guys today what he thought about affirmative action, he'd probably take your head off. I wouldn't blame him.

               This kind of thing happens all the time!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 08:12 PM

The reasoning here is just overwhelming ...

Liberals are the real fascists ... not the ones who round up those they don't like and gas them ...

affirmative action is the true racism ... not lynchings and beatings of people deemed inferior ...


And Ake has finally found support for one of his asertions ... in a carefully selected quote from another mudcatters personal opinion ...

Still no sign of any kind of real evidence whatsoever and total blindness to the evidence that has been provided - gets in the way you know - and besides, it was provided by "liberals".

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 07:51 PM

'"One of the biggest signs that somebody doesn't have a clue what "racism" means is when they start talking about "reverse racism"'


                You know what racism is when you've been a victim of affirmative action.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:18 PM

Bearded Bruce printed this in his first post, and I have seen

nothing written here that would make me question it.


"For the most part, hate-crime legislation is just a sop for politically influential interest groups -- yet another area in which liberals, traditionally sensitive to civil liberties issues, have chosen to mollify an entire population at the expense of the individual and endorse discredited reasoning about deterrence."

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Melissa
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:30 PM

Amos,
How do I look at the list for my state? I got a yod by hovering the map, but clicking didn't do anything..

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Melissa
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:21 PM

Lox:
"One of the biggest signs that somebody doesn't have a clue what "racism" means is when they start talking about "reverse racism"

..and one of the biggest signs that someone is clueless about 'hate crime' means is when they talk about how it makes target groups "above the law" and somehow takes away from the group that is accustomed to fairer treatment?

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:18 PM

Unfortunately, the list was compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is a hate group itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:13 PM

Hate Groups in the United States, displayable listed state-by-state. It is embarassing that California has over 80 listed, more than Texas!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:08 PM

"If 'hate laws' are designed to show that it's somehow a worse crime when the victim isn't a hetero-white male, I guess I've been understanding the idea backward."

Melissa - you don't have anything backwards.

If somebody commits a crime (not necessarily murder) against a white heterosexual male because they hate white heterosexual males, then that is a hate crime so your understanding is correct.


Here is the crux of the matter.

If I kill one black man based on hatred his colour, what is there to stop me killing another?

If I kill somebody for more specific reasons, like discovering that he shot my best friend, then he will be the only person who falls into that category. My friends killer is dead and that is the end of my madness.

It isn't right to kill my friends killer, but it is a finite crime.

A racist murder is one of potentially millions, is impersonal and, as we saw in WWII, hate crime knows no mercy.


One of the biggest signs that somebody doesn't have a clue what "racism" means is when they start talking about "reverse racism"

The term "reverse racism" comes from the fallacious understanding that racism is somnething done by whites against non whites.

In fact, "racism" means discriminating on grounds of race.

A racist murder is one in which the murderer has discriminated on grounds of his victims race.

It is therefore a hate crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 03:33 PM

"Maybe what we could all would support would not be a Hate Crime law but proper sentencing with ALL reasons for the crime taking place being taken into account and holding their own extra penalties?"

Our politicians are much more interested in keeping the crazy social/economic system that they are wedded to, on the road, than they are in justice.

Our society is now so corrupt and twisted out of shape, that it has become all but impossible to police. You are correct to say that the punishment no longer fits the crime in many cases, but justice is obviously tempered by what is "affordable"

It makes me sick to see our governments printing hundreds of billions to save a discredited financial system, yet finding it "impossible" to come up with even a few million to alleviate some of our social problems.

The "liberal" smokescreen of concern for racial and behavioural minorities, while the whole fabric of society is in the process of disintegration, verges on lunacy. Rather than ask the relevant questions of our representatives, they promote a nightmare landscape of "thought crime" and "rights for all" regardless of their behaviour; a typical example being the furore exhibited on these threads over the cranks who compose the membership of the BNP....crazies who pose no real danger, while our "democratic liberal" governments attack other nations at will and oversee an economic system which robs us of our savings, our liberty and our childrens future.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Melissa
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 03:16 PM

If 'hate laws' are designed to show that it's somehow a worse crime when the victim isn't a hetero-white male, I guess I've been understanding the idea backward.

It has always been a Very Bad Crime when the victim was a white male within a certain category and I thought the idea behind the 'hate crime' label was that it's an equally Bad Crime when the victim is gay, black, a woman, etc.

I never even thought of it as something that Takes Away from anybody. I thought it was an attempt to recognize and validate the notion that ALL of us are worth protecting/defending?

It wasn't so long ago that a man accidentally killing his wife while 'disciplining' was accepted as an unfortunate accident..and a wife who killed her husband was seen as unnatural, uppity and dangerous.
Same crime--unbalanced perception and punishment.

If punishment and perception were equal for all of us and if every person was valued, the hate crime label wouldn't have hatched and the crime of actively seeking gay/black/etc people to hurt would be a form of pre-meditation.

It's horrible for us to need these laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 02:09 PM

Riginslinger... I think we differ in that I see hate crime as an individual crime itself, which carries a sentence, but one that is usually combined with another crime, i.e. assault, murder, intimidation etc. and so gets extra tariff. I do understand your slant though and can respect that opinion.

akenaton... some of the examples you use I would put under the added hate crime legislation. Others should hold much higher tariffs than they appear to IMHO. Your point is taken. What I have been at pains to point out, as I see, is that whilst murder is indeed murder, the stimuli differ and it seems so therefore is the tariff. Quite often the law in itself is adequate but some of the sentences handed out are rediculously lenient based on tariff allowances that could have been used. The pressure on the Courts now to keep people out of the overcrowded prisons seems to drive sentences down rather than up in the UK. Add to that early realease, good behaviour, etc and we have many victims that appear let down by the law.

Maybe what we could all would support would not be a Hate Crime law but proper sentencing with ALL reasons for the crime taking place being taken into account and holding their own extra penalties?

I am not saying people should be put in shackles for what they think. However, much of what we are all capable of thinking should never ever be put into action. Most have opinions and the majority, thank heavens, are not willing to abuse, assault or kill someone else for having a different opinion, lifestyle, race etc, etc.. I believe the Hate Crime Laws are there to try and quell that kind of action.

If that is liberalism then I plead guilty

Best wishes

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 01:25 PM

The arguments for "thought crime" don't hold water. Murder is murder, people in Scotland are murdered for being supporters of the wrong football team, for living in the wrong part of town, for being a communist, for being a wife who talks too much, or hasn't the dinner on the table .....dozens of "reasons" and each time the knife goes in, the fingers go round the throat, or the boot splinters the ribs, hatred drives them.............."liberalism" is still a smokescreen!!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:29 PM

mauvepink - It has nothing to do with anything you wrote, and I shouldn't have jumped in that way. I don't see any place for "Hate Crimes," in that I don't think they should be treated differently than other crimes. That's just my opinion, and not very many other people share it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 11:24 AM

Well I certainly want no upsets over my words. choice of them or lack of full meaning :-) Perhaps, like so many when this subject crops up, he was seeking clarity. I forget: I know what I mean and am on about when I am writing but it often does not come out that way when written and read by others.

The law is clearer, and is getting clearer as they tweak what constitutes hate crime to a definition all can work with and understand, but it takes time I suppose for new ideas to become acceptable.

It is a difficult subject to be sure. What is fun to someone may cause instant offence to another. THAT is a very gray area. But I do think most know when something is offensive and crosses lines that years ago would not have raised an eyebrow. I am blonde and there are many blonde jokes 'out there'. I would not dream of shouting 'hate crime against blondes' because someone makes a joke about my hair colour. However, most will know when a joke gets to bullying and when someone is being singled out with full discrimination. It is that kind of thing that puts us in hate crime territory.

I make jokes about men: men makes jokes about women. Heaven forbid that humour between the genders is ever criminalised but I do understand the fears of some who think that, inevitably, that is what will happen if we take these 'liberal and PC ideas' too far. It is true that many people now have to be more careful and think about what comes out of their mouths in a joke. I do not blame the 'PC brigade or liberals' for that though. It has come about because people have not changed with the times and kept taking things too far. I truly wish we lived in a world that did not need such laws but, increasingly we do, as we give equal/fair credence to our fellow humans... ALL of them. Respect and common sense really are good bedfellows it seems.

I suspect the more I try and give explanation then the more I stand to make mistakes and upset others. If being a liberl is the worse I can be called I am happy to wear the label, wrong though it be, as there are worse things to be.

Some laws are daft. Some are stupid. Some are plain non sensical. But I would sooner have law than none at all. My being expected to treat other individuals fairly and with due respect costs me nothing at all. It would cost no-one anything... unless they cross that line that is defined in law. I do not agree with all the laws for certain. But, it is what we have to abide by in a civilised society. I for one would sooner be on this side of that divide than the other.

But then I would also defend the right of anyone who disagrees to be able to say so too :-)

I'll shush once more lol

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 11:23 AM

Indeed rig?

Then you will have no difficulty locating my offensive comment so that we can all see exactly what you are referring to.

Till then my point stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:54 AM

"if anyone has said anything offensive then it certainly isn't you mauvepink."

                  Exactly, it's Lox!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Lox
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:22 AM

Mauvepink - thought you might fnd this interesting:

"So if they kill you because you are a Pagan or a Jew, then it is not a hate crime because that is something you decide for yourself to be."

sloppy indeed ...

A friend of mine recently informed me that he was Jewish, but wasn't a Jew. meaning that he was descended from Jewish heritage but did not practice judaism.

Rig is not offended, he is trying to be clever and in the process indicating how poorly informed he is.

His comments also ignore a fairly memorable event in history, not that long ago, when milions of people were murdered not because of their Jewish beliefs but because of their Jewish heritage, no metter how tenuous their connection to it.

As usual his flippancy leaves him with his foot firmly embedded in his mouth and if anyone has said anything offensive then it certainly isn't you mauvepink.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:15 AM

No offence at all. I just think if one is to become a believer in some ancient superstition or another, one would have to become indoctrinated first.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 08:06 AM

PS... I thought most Jews were born as Jews (though I accept some convert to the faith). I have Jewish friends who have suggested to me that 'once a Jew always a Jew by birth and not just faith' is usual. Of course I could be misinformed and incorrect so apologise in advance if I am wrong. I certainly mean no offence

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 07:59 AM

Not at all Rig'... though I take your point as to my example. Basically I am saying that if you are killed for something you are then the law reflects that and I think that is what the hate law is trying to stop happening (and not just murder but any crime against a person for who they are)

I need to watch every word I write in case I miss an example ;-)

Point taken though... sorry for my sloppy English and the use of it

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 07:52 AM

"They are killing you for something that happeneed at birth. I think then that the hate crime law is brought in."

                So if they kill you because you are a Pagan or a Jew, then it is not a hate crime because that is something you decide for yourself to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 07:44 AM

There are tariffs for all crimes based on the basic crime committed. So murder carries a mandatory life sentence as the law currentley stands in the UK (I think). The sentencing guidelines however would decide what that sentence would be and for how long life would mean. For you and I then life, I feel, should mean incarcerated for life, but the law does not do that.

So if you were walking down a road and got hit with a car that was speeding it is doubtful he would be charged with murder, or even manslaughter, as there was no premeditation. But if someome deliberately ran you over, meaning to kill you, then murder has to be the charge. That would go for anyone. But if someone decides to kill you deliberately because you are a Scot or a Heterosexual then they are not singling YOU out but what you are. They are killing you for something that happeneed at birth. I think then that the hate crime law is brought in. Your death is somewhat premeditated for what you are and now who you are then that makes a massive differnce in the eyes of the law and they try to reflect that. I believe many people also see that difference, subtle though it is.

Murdering you is reprehensible and is not condoned or allowed without severe sentence but if that is brought about because of you having a defined difference then the sentence is more severe. You are still dead and, in some ways, I agree with you that each should have the same sentence. But in reality one type of crime is more reprehensible than the other.

I struggle to show a definition that would explain it but I hope the above goes some way to show why there is a difference.

pm

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:44 AM

Boot is on the other foot. If being part of a minority contributes to a crime against you, the crime does more harm and deserves a more severe sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:06 AM

Thought crime/ hate law, is Orwellian madness.
If I, as a white heterosexual Scot were to be murdered, raped, or assaulted, I would not like to think that my attacker would be more leniently treated by the courts than if he had attacked a member of a racial or sexual minority.

I think most people would agree with that view,.... that is what it boils down to.
The "liberal" viewpoint is another smokescreen.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 06:43 PM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 04:54 PM

"...no, I don't think you do. You just wish to pick and choose."


                And you don't, Richard?

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 03:45 PM

Ake, come down south (in disguise if you like). I will put aside my views of you engendered by this thread and introduce you to some 'catters and non-catters who are wholly or partly Romany (or non-Romany travellers) and are by and large as grand a bunch as you might wish to meet. Some have moved away to Wales, but you can't entirely hold that against them.

Rig - no, I don't think you do. You just wish to pick and choose.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 03:28 PM

I hate laws too!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 08:25 PM

""I think all pricks have a mind of their own Don!""

Since, unlike you, I at least try to comply with Mudcat policies re personal attack, I will simply say that you are doing a pretty good job of destroying THAT argument.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: mauvepink
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 08:21 AM

Back home from hospital where I discovered all needles have the potential to be pricks and some, indeed, where pushed into my flesh to supply me with various fluids and drugs. I think around 75% of the staff that have treated me have not been of my country origin so I would have been in a mess had I refused to be treated by those who needed to get me better with all their differences of age, colour, creed, race, religion, gender, sexuality, disabilitiy and their drugs! ;-) We are all DIFFERENT

On a more serious note though...

Reading up on the thread since I went last Sunday it seems that it serves as a good example of how people's different way of saying and feeling things can lead to much disruption of thought and resentment of one's fellow humans. We are 'Catters, so will not resort to hating each other for our differences of ideas and ideals, but it looks like it came close once or twice. I think it great when those differences can be aired and talked about without nastiness.

All I can say is that I do disagree with those who think hate crime legislation is not needed as it is covered by other laws. To the individual that suffers the hate contingent of a crime it is far from just like ordinary crime (if ever there could be such a thing). I suppose that most would need to experience it to know it for sure but I do think that the law is trying to address that leap from hate thought to hate crime by making people more aware and giving protections to some who are more vulnerable because of their difference in society (we all know when we are bullied and, subtle though the perpetrator may be to the point others don't see it, WE know). I really do not think the law is being made to give them protection from the law because of any difference and, for sure, for hate law to work it has to be fair on ALL. If you are a criminal, no matter your minority or majority belonging, then you should be prosecuted.

I think some grey areas are still being worked through and sorted but, in the main, it is there for the good of everyone and society, minority or majority, because as individuals we all are a minority of one..

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 08:01 PM

The young boy in the bath pointed to his testes and said, "Mommy, are there my brains?"

She replied, "Not yet, son, not yet."

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 07:13 PM

I think all pricks have a mind of their own Don!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 07:08 PM

There is no place in the British Isles where the police are turning their backs on serious crime because a minority is involved.

Drug dealing is very difficult to prosecute, whatever the ethnic origin of the dealers. The main problem is that it is only the small fry who are vulnerable to arrest, and the bigger fish ensure that they are too terrified to talk.

I'm damn sure that your local police are pursuing these criminals, and will eventually catch them, and rightly so.

But of course it doesn't suit your shit stirring nature to subscribe to THAT philosophy, so you rather unsubtly remark that "Tinkers" have taken over crime from your home grown nasties (who, if memory serves, were quite a bit nastier than most).

This serves the not so hidden agenda of linking the crimes to a minority, and extrapolating, from there, to a position in which the police are hamstrung by "liberal" ideas.

It won't do Ake. The criminals commit crimes BECAUSE they are criminals, NOT because they are "Tinkers". Neither are the police turning a blind eye to crimes COMMITTED by Tinkers.

Now, before you come back and disagree with that, find some evidence, and I don't mean "My neighbour knows a man, whose sister-in-law knows somebody, whose cousin does the cleaning for the Chief Constables maiden aunt".

EVIDENCE MATE! The same stuff that is hindering the police effort to catch your criminals.

Don T (the prick with a mind of his own---that WORKS!)

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 06:52 PM

BTW Don...I don't mind the Racist, Homophobe Bigot shit.....but middle class!! that really hurts!:0(

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 06:45 PM

Sorry ...that was for "Em"......Didn't see Don lurking there in the bushes, he's been behaving very oddly lately....don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 06:41 PM

A likely story!!

Hope its not swine flu.....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 06:39 PM

Now there's the real Ake showing just what a manipulative twister of meaning he truly is.

I take issue with your sweeping generalisations about travellers, when in fact you are actually talking about eight criminals, who just HAPPEN to be travellers, and suddenly I am in favour of dealing drugs to children.

And you call me a prick.

I have NO liking for criminals whatever, but I refer to criminals and their crimes without bringing their ethnic origin into the arument. And I certainly do NOT subscribe to your "Tar 'em all with the same brush" approach.

Listen to Ake folks he knows what's what.

All Irish are thick
All Jews are grasping moneylenders
All blacks are muggers
All travellers are theives, vandals, and drug dealers who target children.

Only upright middle class Scotsmen can be trusted, and he isn't so sure about them.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 06:23 PM

oops sorry! didn't mean to do that
was just reading and sneezing at the same time :)

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 06:22 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 06:21 PM

I did read what you wrote Joe but I think we are talking about different things, perhaps I haven't explained myself very well.
I appreciate the principle of hate crime law and the murder or ill treatment of, for example, homosexuals or blacks, just because of their colour or sexual behaviour should be very harshly judged.
Saying that judgement should be less harsh if the victim is white or hetero sexual would seem to go against everything you, Lox, or Richard have said regarding human rights.

My point about the group who are terrorising the addicts and homeless young people in the small town near where I live, is that they are using legislation designed to protect their group from victimisation, to harass, victimise and terrorise another group who have no protection in law what so ever.
Something stinks in our civil rights legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 04:24 PM

"...they were sent to jail."


                What were they sent to jail for, destruction of property, reckless endangerment because of the fire, trespassing, what?

Subject: RE: BS: Hate laws
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 03:21 PM

So, Ake, did you ever read what I wrote? I think you're advocating that we should shortcut past some basic principles of criminal justice.

In most countries that aren't dictatorships, criminals do NOT forfeit their rights by their actions. They still have a right to humane treatment, and to a fair trial - and it is the duty of the government to gather evidence to provide proof against them in a fair trial. They lose their rights only if they have been proven guilty - and even then, they must be treated fairly and humanely.

If you think criminals should be handled differently, then perhaps your ideal government would be what you'd find in Iran or North Korea.

As for hate laws, I was surprised to see so many people claim that they are a violation of a defendant's free speech, that the criminal should be punished for the crime alone and not for the "hate" aspect of his crime. Hate crimes cause fear. They can terrorize an entire community and restrict their freedom by making them afraid to leave their homes. The hate criminal causes real harm to the community that is affected, and it is right for society to show it's disapproval of such crimes by increasing the punishment for a crime if it is a hate crime.

I know a Rwandan priest who was assigned to a rural area north of Sacramento, an area known to be a "redneck" area. Well, somebody burned a cross on his driveway. One might expect this could happen in the deep south, but not in California. Do you mean to tell me that this cross burning should be a protected experssion of free speech? The cross burners wheren't protected, by the way - they were sent to jail. And the priest seems to have survived the ordeal quite well - he's outspoken, friendly, gentle, and with a crazy sense of humor. It's a shame that such a crime should happen to such a nice man.

-Joe-