Eucharistic Descration=hate Crime?

[Old_Joe]

Most legal definitions of hate crime explicitly state that the perpetrator singles out a person based on their religion, race, gender, etc. However, most definitions include, graffiti, vandalism, harassment, physical and verbal assault, offensive graffiti and letters. Personally, this begs the question of whether or not Eucharistic desecration would equal a hate crime or at least a hate motivated crime. It seems to me that if a person uploaded a video onto youtube showing themselves desecrating a flag, tefillin, koran, or some other emblem of a particular religion, nationality, etc. the video would be immediately removed.

[Old_Joe]

and in case you're wondering, no there are no such videos on youtube depicting desecration of a cross, tefillin, koran, or anything else such as what fsmdude has done. There are some videos by people who state their belief that flag burning should not be made illegal by a Constitutional amendment and some news videos, but none are of a person who explicitly descrates a flag just to post it.

[Aloysius]

there are videos of koran desecrations on youtube.

the thing that makes the Eucharist desecration different is that the host is the Church's property which is NOT being offered freely to anyone, it is being offered to fellow Catholics on the condition that it be consumed by them. a hate crime includes theft of fairly valueless property for the purpose of desecration (if the korans in those videos were stolen, it'd be much more serious than a mere misdemeanor theft, it would be a hate crime; but they are purchased which makes it legal)... and I think a good argument can be made that this IS theft because the Church is not offering it freely. It's theft/trespassing to go to a party you're not invited to and eat their food (small time theft, yes, but still theft)... this is the same principle. someone ought to bring a legal case against these people.

[Old_Joe]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1671615' date='Oct 6 2008, 05:01 PM']there are videos of koran desecrations on youtube.[/quote]

are they news videos or something like what fsmdude has done? I'm only finding news videos.

[prose]

Of course it is a hate crime. It is encouraging hatred towards a specific religion.

I am not sure why YouTube even questions this.

[Aloysius]

search F islam koran (but finish the f word)

[Old_Joe]

ah. I'm sorry to say that I found them.

[Selah]

Desecration of ANY religion is just disgusting to me. Shame on Google for not doing anything about this!

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Old_Joe' post='1671611' date='Oct 6 2008, 04:50 PM']Most legal definitions of hate crime explicitly state that the perpetrator singles out a person based on their religion, race, gender, etc. However, most definitions include, graffiti, vandalism, harassment, physical and verbal assault, offensive graffiti and letters. Personally, this begs the question of whether or not Eucharistic desecration would equal a hate crime or at least a hate motivated crime. It seems to me that if a person uploaded a video onto youtube showing themselves desecrating a flag, tefillin, koran, or some other emblem of a particular religion, nationality, etc. the video would be immediately removed.[/quote]

By your definition, I would believe that desecration of the eucharist, in this case: vandalism, would qualify. However, Youtube is an international company, and I'm not sure how policing those rules applies in international law. Though, Youtube does list its offices as residing in San Bruno, CA. California's definition of hate crime appears below:

[indent]
Any act of [b]intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force directed against any person, or gamely, or their property[/b] or advocate, [b]motivated either in whole or in part by hostility[/b] to their real or perceived race, ethnic background, [b]religious belief[/b], sex, age, disability, or sexual orientation, [b]with the intention of causing fear or intimidation[/b], or to deter the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United State of California whether or not performed under color of law.
[/indent]

I'm having difficulty locating hate crime laws for Quebec, where the offense was committed.

Perhaps the most compelling case would be created based on what Youtube's terms-of-use are, as these are the standards set forth by the company itself, not by laws that may or may not have jurisdiction over the company. I'm at school right now, and can't access Youtube due to our filters. Does Youtube's in-house definition of hate crime include vandalism?

[rkwright]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1671649' date='Oct 6 2008, 05:22 PM']By your definition, I would believe that desecration of the eucharist, in this case: vandalism, would qualify. However, Youtube is an international company, and I'm not sure how policing those rules applies in international law. Though, Youtube does list its offices as residing in San Bruno, CA. California's definition of hate crime appears below:

[indent]
Any act of [b]intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force directed against any person, or gamely, or their property[/b] or advocate, [b]motivated either in whole or in part by hostility[/b] to their real or perceived race, ethnic background, [b]religious belief[/b], sex, age, disability, or sexual orientation, [b]with the intention of causing fear or intimidation[/b], or to deter the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United State of California whether or not performed under color of law.
[/indent]

I'm having difficulty locating hate crime laws for Quebec, where the offense was committed.

Perhaps the most compelling case would be created based on what Youtube's terms-of-use are, as these are the standards set forth by the company itself, not by laws that may or may not have jurisdiction over the company. I'm at school right now, and can't access Youtube due to our filters. Does Youtube's in-house definition of hate crime include vandalism?[/quote]

You're going to need to prove an intention of causing fear or intimidation.

Think of the KKK burning a cross on a black person's lawn, vs the KKK burning a cross at a KKK member's farm for a rally...

Edit: Second, I'm not sure you can sue Youtube for this? I'm not sure under what grounds? Some sort of Vicarious liability?

Edited October 6, 2008 by rkwright

[philothea]

Well, you can sue anyone for anything, but I think that would be dumb in this case. They're not breaking any laws.

However, I think YouTube is selectively enforcing their own guidelines... and I'm not sure why.

[T-Bone _]

There's burglary--entering or remaining on private property with the intention of committing a crime (the crime here being theft--no matter how small the value)--which is, in fact, a felony.

**This is Oregon law, so I'm not sure about other jurisdictions**

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='philothea' post='1671654' date='Oct 6 2008, 04:47 PM']Well, you can sue anyone for anything, but I think that would be dumb in this case. They're not breaking any laws.

However, I think YouTube is selectively enforcing their own guidelines... and I'm not sure why.[/quote]

?

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1671650' date='Oct 6 2008, 06:32 PM']You're going to need to prove an intention of causing fear or intimidation.

Think of the KKK burning a cross on a black person's lawn, vs the KKK burning a cross at a KKK member's farm for a rally...

Edit: Second, I'm not sure you can sue Youtube for this? I'm not sure under what grounds? Some sort of Vicarious liability?[/quote]

Fear and intimidation: perhaps not in those terms. But, he is certainly doing it with the intent of being malicious. His intent is certainly to mock our beliefs, at the very least, if not to make us "afraid" or "intimidated". Does this reduce the act from hate crime to simply vandalism?

I could see someone intelligent buying the case that Youtube bears some liability for allowing these videos to be posted. However, that doesn't mean that the courts will buy it. All I'm able to do is read the language of a law, so long as it's fairly simple to understand.

Also, you need to show that receiving the Eucharist does not transfer ownership of the host to the person who receives it. If so, then it is not the "property" of the Church that is being vandalized, but instead the property of the person doing the vandalizing. One could argue that the reception of the host carries a tacit implication that one is to consume the host, whereby destroying it.

[mommas_boy]

Not enough time to read it now, but here's the Canadian Criminal Code.

[url="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf"]http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf[/url]

Paragraph 319 appears relevant.