Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Hate Crime"=Thought Police

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I for one am getting absolutely sick and tired of some crimes being designated as "hate crimes." I'm also getting tired of being accused of "hate" if I denounce something that needs to be denounced! It's not hate!

Legislation that designates certain crimes as "hate" crimes is nothing more than legalized discrimination! That's right--DISCRIMINATION!

I'm white. Suppose we have "hate crime" legislation in effect. If I kill a black person I get 30 years. Killing a white person would only land me 10, because killing the black person was a hate crime against race.

That says that blacks are more valuable than whites--doesn't it? I think it does.

I'm straight. Suppose I killed a gay person. I'd get more time for that than if I killed a straight person, if we had "hate crimes" legislation. What does that tell you? That gays are "special" and need to be "protected."

That is BULL. You can't believe that everyone is equal and have "hate crimes" legislation too! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

That reminds me of the pigs in "Animal Farm" who were "more equal" than the other animals.

It doesn't matter WHY you committed a crime. The point is, you DID it. End of story.

Funny how the left scream about privacy (and rightfully so, since our Fourth Amendment is being shredded) yet want Thought Police.

Can't have it both ways, people.




posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Oh my gosh! i have wanted to make a post like this for some time!

At first i let it go because it never effected me. But one night my brother went out (he is white) and him and his friend got a bit piddly...
A large group of men would attract attention and they did... a group of male who were black.

Well obviously you realize what has happened.. this black man hit my brothers friend and my brother hit him.... wrong i know but they were all under the influence of alcohol. My brother is a big man, muscle wise and can pack a punch.

Well they all got nicked and the some of the black men got done for assault as did some of my brothers friends..... but then!!!

This is where i get annoyed my brother then got done for a "racial attack".

Well if you read the story i have said above... maybe you will think.... he may of said things which could have been classed as racism. But i know her didn't because one of our

SISTER'S is a Pakistani...... and another sister is Egyptian.

So they are both coloured. How could this make him racist.???

My rant over.... hey hoe! i feel better!! pppffftt! stupid people.

oni x x

ps: i hate saying "white and black men". But under the circumstances it was the only way i could put my point across. Sorry if i have offended anyone. x x



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
It's ridiculous. It just further divides people. True equality is not likely until everyone is treated fairly and equally. Gays, blacks, whites, and everyone else who is unique should be all subject to the same rules.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

I'm straight. Suppose I killed a gay person. I'd get more time for that than if I killed a straight person, if we had "hate crimes" legislation. What does that tell you? That gays are "special" and need to be "protected."

.


If you kill someone because they are something, Black, white, brown, gay, straight........ Its hate, period.

Its the intent of the person at the time of the murder, Period. You can deny it all you want, you will still be wrong.





[edit on 5-2-2006 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

If you kill someone because they are something, Black, white, brown, gay, straight........ Its hate, period.

Its the intent of the person at the time of the murder, Period. You can deny it all you want, you will still be wrong.


If I, a straight white man, were to kill another straight white man, and I were to do so because I HATED him-- because with every part of my being, I utterly, completely and obseessively HATED that straight white man...

it would not be a "hate crime."


You're wrong-- it's not about hate. It's about dividing people up according to race, creed, color, religion, gender and sexual orientation (in clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and treating them differently under the law. It requires that people be treated unequally under the law.

It's divisive and deliberately so. It's designed to further separate us from each other, and it succeeds. It places a variable value on human life-- some lives are deemed more valuable, and the ending of those lives a greater crime. I can think of few things more blatantly evil than establishing it as a law that my life is worth less than another's, simply because of my race or my gender or my sexual orientation. That is exactly the sort of thing that we, as a nominally advanced people, should NOT be doing.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

If I, a straight white man, were to kill another straight white man, and I were to do so because I HATED him-- because with every part of my being, I utterly, completely and obseessively HATED that straight white man...





If you killed him because he was a straight white man , then yes.

[edit on 5-2-2006 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Murder is murder. No matter whatever the situation. If I peed in someone's cereal, would that be a hate crime because I didn't like the chap?



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Murder is murder.

But to automatically blame a person of racism because their opponent was a different colour is wrong. I think they should see all the facts before they send someone to jail or claim they are racist!

This is my opinion.

oni x x



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

If you killed him because he was a straight white man , then yes.



Wrong. Straight white men aren't covered by hate crime legislation. The life of a straight white man has been deemed to be less valuable, and the taking of it to be less of a crime, than that of a homosexual or a minority or a woman.

Again, it's not really about hate-- that's just the propaganda that we've been fed. It's about making this a more-- not less. but MORE-- divisive society.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Straight white men aren't covered by hate crime legislation. The


It is flawed, I didn't make the legislation.



[edit on 5-2-2006 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Straight white men aren't covered by hate crime legislation. The


It is a flawed, I didn't make the legislation.



I never said you made it, but you continue to defend it.

You also continue to selectively respond to my posts. Hate crime legislation is not flawed solely because it doesn't cover straight white men, and that was only a minor part of my post-- it's flawed because it focuses on the differences between people and demands that people be treated differently under the law based solely on their race, creed, color, religion, gender or sexual orientation. It's discriminatory, and deliberately so. It's divisive, and, again, deliberately so. It adds to the culture of division and thereby makes people MORE conscious of the incidental differences between us. It creates the sense of division that it's nominally designed to prevent.

If a person is murdered, that person is dead. It doesn't matter WHY that person was murdered-- s/he's still just as dead. It doesn't matter what race or creed or color or religion or gender or sexual orientation that person was-- s/he is still just as dead. The victim's family and friends have lost something, and again, it doesn't matter what race or creed or color or religion or gender or sexual orientation the victim was-- her/his family has still lost exactly the same amount.

To say that that person is worth more or less than another-- that her/his death is a greater or lesser crime than the death of another simply because of her/his race, creed, color, religion, gender or sexual orientation, is an affront to justice and an insult to him/her and her/his family and friends.

There was a time in this country when people were deemed to be less important because of their race or their gender or their religion or their sexual orientation. That was rightly seen to be evil. However, it's just as evil to decree that people are to be seen to be MORE important because of those same incidental differences.

The idea here is supposed to be that we treat others equally REGARDLESS of these incidental differences. Just as we could not achieve this goal by claiming that they have less value as humans, we cannot achieve it by claiming that they have more.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
It is NOT making a person life worth more, it was and is a deterrent to clans like the kkk.

You are reading what you want out of life.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
It is NOT making a person life worth more, it was and is a deterrent to clans like the kkk.


How is it a deterrant to such "clans?"

Murder was already illegal. There was and is no need to make the murder of some MORE illegal, and to do so creates exactly the unequal treatment under the law of which I've spoken.

Those who murder face penalties for doing so. It didn't used to matter whether they did so in the name of hatred, or in the name of greed, or in the name of random violence. Now, with "hate crime" legislation, it DOES matter. The victim and the murderer are weighed and measured, and some are found to be worth more, and others to be worth less, based entirely on the incidental differences that our society claims should NOT be used to differentiate people.

Or are you speaking of so-called "hate speech?" Those laws are equally flawed, and possibly even more dangerous. They're really nothing more than the blatant censorship of ideas and opinions that have been deemed to be unacceptable, and what's acceptable today could easily be deemed unacceptable tomorrow, but by then it would be too late. The Bill of Rights makes no exception for unacceptable speech specifically because the founding fathers recognized that the danger that censorship posed was not that the government might impose censorship of the wrong things, but that they might impose censorship at all.

To invite the government to punish speech that you find offensive is to give them the power to punish speech that they find offensive. When the time comes when those who applaud hate speech laws find themselves censored, it will be, to whatever degree they supported governmental censorship, THEIR fault.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Is there a link to this hate crime legislation?

I would think that such a law would be in place to crack down on thing like gay bashing or spray painting swastikas on a synagog. From reading this thread it seems like the law is in place to raise punishment in the murder of non-whites?



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax
Is there a link to this hate crime legislation?

I would think that such a law would be in place to crack down on thing like gay bashing or spray painting swastikas on a synagog. From reading this thread it seems like the law is in place to raise punishment in the murder of non-whites?



Well, that's why I wrote the last post that I did-- there are actually a few different forms of hate crime legislation.

Most of the legislation is essentially addenda to existing laws-- additional penalties that are imposed to nominally punish race, gender, religion or sexual-orientation based crimes. For instance, spray painting "John loves Marcia" on a synagogue is vandalism, but spray painting a swastika on one is a "hate crime" and carries a harsher penalty than simple vandalism would. The same holds true of murders (and assaults of all types)-- killing (or assaulting) a person because of their race, gender, religion or sexual preference carries a harsher penalty than killing or assaulting them for virtually any other reason.

Additionally, hate crime legislation has been passed that outlaws particular ideas. In some places, one can be arrested simply for expressing a negative opinion of a particular ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation. It's not necessary to commit any sort of separate crime-- the expression of a "hateful" idea is deemed sufficient cause for criminal penalties.

It's no more possible to provide a link to "hate crime legislation" than it would be to provide a link to "traffic laws" since they're a broad range of laws, at both the state and national levels. There are many different laws that fall under the category of "hate crime legislation" and more are being added every day at all levels of government.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join