What Do You All Think Of This Hate Crimes Stuff?

[Budge]

bump

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]I remember the number wrong it wasnt 100, it was 150! and included "racists" too. {this was 5 years ago}[/quote]From the article itself, emphasis my own:

[quote]Police investigating allegations of racism, homophobia and domestic violence have raided about 150 addresses across London. Twenty-seven people have been charged, including one for [b]rape[/b] but most have been arrested on suspicion of [b]making racist threats[/b] and of homophobic [b]harassment[/b]."[/quote]

There is a huge amount of difference between expressing an opinion and making a threat, and you know it. So take the 'racists' out of inverted commas.

Secondly...the article says nothing about Christians being arrested for preaching against homosexuality. You said that there were some. The article, on the other hand, says that the police were called in to deal with [i]harassment[/i] - which would involve a breach of a current law. Where are these Christians that you spoke of, Budge?

[quote] Sheesh talk about being a supporter of NANNY government.

"You bad man, you said something naughty, report to the #20 correction station at 8:am pronto and get out your broom says the boomnig voice over the surveillance camera.[/quote]That's not what community service is, at least not in this country. You don't have to be an offender to participate in community service. I sometimes do it of my own choice. It's a way of taking responsibility for your community, taking pride in it, and keeping it a decent place to live.

But maybe this is a 'nanny' government. Maybe I am wrong to be lobbying for stricter punishments for verbal abuse. Maybe I should just ignore the fact that three of my young disabled friends tried to commit suicide as a result of verbal abuse that they received on a daily basis. After all, the bullies didn't do [i]much[/i]. They only 'said something naughty'. If three fourteen-year-old youngsters get upset to the point where they want to take their own lives, fine. Let's uphold freedom of speech!

But hold on a minute. What about the freedom of that trio to go to school and learn in peace without getting viciously insulted for something they can't help? Should their quality of life be sacrified to the 'right' of some complete idiots to spew out offensive remarks?

[quote]So someone gets in an argument with you and you want to LOCK em up and get the police involved?

They already HAVE laws against disturbing the peace, and harrasment on the books it seems you want to take things way too far.[/quote]

There is a big difference between a legitimate argument and vicious insult. As a disabled person myself, I've learned to tell the difference between the two. And no, the laws that are already in place aren't always enough to protect you. I've found this out the hard way. You want to try being autistic and apraxic and having a 'simple' task like supermarket shopping to complete before you make statements about the efficacy of the current laws.

Secondly, I repeat yet again: prison is not an answer for situations like this, and it is not a solution I've ever advocated. Community-based iniatives are far better, although it appears that you don't know what they are. Perhaps the programmes are different in America.

[quote]bump[/quote]

Now you have got the time to bump up threads, perhaps you will post answers to all those arguments that you keep abandoning. I know there are several questions waiting for you in other threads, but you seem to mysteriously vanish into the ether for a day or two whenever the pressure gets too much...

Edited April 29, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1259257' date='Apr 28 2007, 08:33 PM']Why? NO they are not.

The homosexuals have their own "religion" as it were, anyhow the religious spectrum also includes Wiccans and out and out Satanists. I guess they could make their claim for religious defamation when a priest preaches against Satan.[/quote]
Blah, blah, blah . . .

Your original topic was "hate crimes" laws regarding homosexuals. The Church has not, does not, and will not endorse such laws. Once again, you are inventing silly and ridiculous straw-men scenarios and attacking them, rather than dealing with what anyone has actually said or argued.

[Budge]

So hate crime laws are NOT ok, when it coems to homosexuals {Im against all of hate crime laws}

and OK, when it comes to disabilities, religion and other differences.

Thats not being very consistent.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]So hate crime laws are NOT ok, when it coems to homosexuals {Im against all of hate crime laws}

and OK, when it comes to disabilities, religion and other differences.

Thats not being very consistent.[/quote]

We're being perfectly consistent if only you engage with what we are actually saying rather than with what you want us to be saying.

I do not think people should be allowed to be abusive to homosexuals and neither does the Church. There is a great deal of difference between saying, "Your lifestyle is sinful and it needs to change" and hurling personal abuse at someone when they are on the bus or in a shop, making it difficult for them to go about their business. A 'hate crime' is defined as something much more serious and significant than merely expressing a thought.

Secondly, you say that you are against [i]all[/i] hate crime laws. So if somebody burned down the house of a black family because they were black, you would want the crime to be treated as pure arson and the motive to be ignored. That is basically the logical conclusion of what you are saying here.

[Budge]

Yes I would want it to be treated as pure arson.

why should crimes be punished [u]more[/u] because of what race the victims are?

If some white dude burns down a white persons house, why should they get less of a jail sentance, then the white dude who burns down a black dudes house, because the guy who owned the house happened to be black.

HATE is BEHIND BOTH CRIMES.

May be hate for different reasons...but still hate.

Crimes ACTIONS are to be punished NOT THOUGHTS.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Budge

[Sojourner]

So should we not have a crime of conspiracy? I'm reviewing for my criminal law exam on Friday and ran across this statement:

“That’s not to say, of course, that our criminal law doesn’t come perilously close to criminalizing thoughts in its expansive concept of conspiracy, particularly in jurisdictions that don’t require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Conspiracy punishes one man’s thought provided it is shared by another. In jurisdictions that follow the Model Penal Code in subscribing to the unilateral theory of conspiracy, it punishes one man’s thought as long as he thinks it is shared by another (e.g., an undercover police officer posing as a co-conspirator).”

Why is it OK to punish thoughts when they involve conspiracy, but not to enhance punishment of a crime because of a motive we find particularly despicable?

[Budge]

Conspiracy is ACTION not THOUGHT.

{ie someone is calling looking for a hit man, or arranging the crime--havent you seen those videos on TV, where they tape em making the plans}

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Yes I would want it to be treated as pure arson.

why should crimes be punished more because of what race the victims are?

If some white dude burns down a white persons house, why should they get less of a jail sentance, then the white dude who burns down a black dudes house, because the guy who owned the house happened to be black.

HATE is BEHIND BOTH CRIMES.

May be hate for different reasons...but still hate.

Crimes ACTIONS are to be punished NOT THOUGHTS.[/quote]

Arson is the simple act of burning down somebody else's property. By this logic, the teenager who burns down an empty and unused shed for misguided 'fun' is guilty of the same crime as someone who burns down a family's house with intent to intimidate and abuse because of the colour of their skin. In the scenario that you describe, where a white person burns the house of another white person, I [i]would[/i] expect the court to take into account the intention of the criminal and to punish accordingly. Intention can be crucial - the woman who kills a suspected rapist in self-defence is not committing the same crime as a woman who murders her husband in cold blood. Technically, their actions are the same. But their actions do not warrant the same degree of punishment.

[Budge]

Why does burning down a black man's house warrant more punishment then the burning down of a white mans house?
[b]
By the way, I used to be totally indoctrinated into the guilty white liberal syndrome. They used to teach me in the UU church there was no such thing as racism against whites, because whites were the majority group[/b]. . Interesting since one of my white co-workers {social worker} got beat down for daring to enter a section of the city, she was warned about. Her car was trashed, bottles, bricks and she was dragged out, to be beaten up, I dont know how she survived it, and none of them knew her at all personally, it was all racial. I was also in that same part of the city, but was not alone, had African American clients with me, they told me "if you werent with us, thered be a beat down". I believed them because I knew what had happened to her. {now laws against CRIMINAL ACTS already apply to what happened to her, so hate crime laws, being abritrarily applied, with some groups favored over others, that definitely will lead to WORSE PROBLEMS}

There was this one AFRICAN-AMERICAN minister in the UU church who made a stand AGAINST the liberal garbage regarding race, I respected her, wrote her a letter even. She talked about how all the guilty liberal garbage about race actually led to MORE VICTIMIZATION and division among races. She said that alot of this stuff ignored even the realities of class.

I doubt if this nonsense was passed that itd ever be applied to whites who suffer racism...{according to the liberal PC code, that doesnt exsist} and only certain disabilities and the gays are to be "protected" too.

The courts are already over over innudated without being given the responsiblity to read MINDS.

ACTIONS [actual CRIMES] is ALL they should be dealing with.

It is animal farm," some animals are more equal then others."

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Budge' post='1262394' date='May 2 2007, 09:14 AM']Why does burning down a black man's house warrant more punishment then the burning down of a white mans house?
[b]
By the way, I used to be totally indoctrinated into the guilty white liberal syndrome. They used to teach me in the UU church there was no such thing as racism against whites, because whites were the majority group[/b]. . Interesting since one of my white co-workers {social worker} got beat down for daring to enter a section of the city, she was warned about. Her car was trashed, bottles, bricks and she was dragged out, to be beaten up, I dont know how she survived it, and none of them knew her at all personally, it was all racial. I was also in that same part of the city, but was not alone, had African American clients with me, they told me "if you werent with us, thered be a beat down". I believed them because I knew what had happened to her. {now laws against CRIMINAL ACTS already apply to what happened to her, so hate crime laws, being abritrarily applied, with some groups favored over others, that definitely will lead to WORSE PROBLEMS}

There was this one AFRICAN-AMERICAN minister in the UU church who made a stand AGAINST the liberal garbage regarding race, I respected her, wrote her a letter even. She talked about how all the guilty liberal garbage about race actually led to MORE VICTIMIZATION and division among races. She said that alot of this stuff ignored even the realities of class.

I doubt if this nonsense was passed that itd ever be applied to whites who suffer racism...{according to the liberal PC code, that doesnt exsist} and only certain disabilities and the gays are to be "protected" too.

The courts are already over over innudated without being given the responsiblity to read MINDS.

ACTIONS [actual CRIMES] is ALL they should be dealing with.

It is animal farm," some animals are more equal then others."[/quote]
You're assuming that bias crimes against white would not be charged as hate crimes. If you actually read the statutes that have been enacted, you find that there are no statutes that limit hate crimes to only those crimes committed against African-Americans.

The thought is that we want to discourage people from committing crimes based on their hatred of characteristics that their victims have no control over -- race, gender, ethnicity, etc. -- or things such as religion which are constitutionally protected rights.

[Budge]

Liberals preach constantly that there is no such thing as racism against whites.

Consider this, everyone knows who Matthew Shepard is and yes what happened to him was beyond horrible but there was this CHristian lady killed for being a Christian right here in America. Anyone ever hear of that "hate crime"?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Budge' post='1262541' date='May 2 2007, 12:59 PM']Liberals preach constantly that there is no such thing as racism against whites.

Consider this, everyone knows who Matthew Shepard is and yes what happened to him was beyond horrible but there was this CHristian lady killed for being a Christian right here in America. Anyone ever hear of that "hate crime"?[/quote]
Some people may preach that, but that's not what's in the statutes. In addition, the DOJ statistics on hate crimes include crimes committed against whites because of their skin color. If you're going to argue against including these crimes as laws, you should at least do the basic research about whart you're arguing against.

And do you have any more details about "this Christian lady"? Because, you know, I have heard of people being killed in America because of their Christian belief. Off the top, there was the girl in Columbine who was shot after she confessed her love for Jesus. That one is pretty well known.

And did you give any thought to my conspiracy question earlier? Should conspiracy not be a crime?

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='Budge' post='1262541' date='May 2 2007, 11:59 AM']Liberals preach constantly that there is no such thing as racism against whites.

Consider this, everyone knows who Matthew Shepard is and yes what happened to him was beyond horrible but there was this CHristian lady killed for being a Christian right here in America. Anyone ever hear of that "hate crime"?[/quote]

Name, date, and place, please.

[Socrates]

I for the most part agree with Budge about the whole "hate crimes" thing - though I disagree that what the vatican is talking about is really the same thing - that's more typical Budge twisting of the facts to bash the Church.

People should be prosecuted equally for committing the same crime. Race and "sexual orientation" should not play into the legal equation.

There is no reason why "racism" or especially "homophobia" should be considered legally worse than any other motivation which would lead someone to commit a deliberate act of disgusting violence against another person. The fact that someone deliberately commited a violent crime in cold blood should be proof enough of "hate." Anything else is simply injecting ideology into the law. Criminal law should be about justice, not about social/political ideology.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Socrates