Hate Laws - Melting The Sword Of The Law

Hate Laws - Melting The Sword Of The Law

revolutionradio.org

Since we may soon join the league of western hate law bureaucracies, we should listen to those who already messed up their legal system this way, say, the Brits. Lawmakers in Britain unintentionally reveal the folly of hate laws by trying to add more and more groups to special federal protection. They currently want to add the elderly and handicapped to the list of hate laws’ protected victims. Who’s next? Women, short people, redheads, sci-fi geeks? Maybe eventually they’ll add enough groups and we’ll all get equal protection again.

(visit the link for the full news article)

You know, I really have no problem with "hate crime" laws.....at least as long as they are ALL encompassing.

Sadly, hate crime laws are, in no way, shape or form, all encompassing.

In fact, hate crime laws are about as discriminatory as you can get.

In the States, hate crime laws really only apply to gays, blacks and jews.

While each of these groups DO deserve proper protection from abuse and assault, they are nowhere NEAR the ONLY groups deserve it. In fact, each of us deserve the SAME protection as everyone else is afforded.

Therein lies the problem.

In order for hate crime laws to be "fair", you have to include EVERY group under the spectrum. After all, how many people a day are targeted for abuse simply because they are fat? or skinny? or hispanic? or white? or poor? or hadicapped? or christian? or catholic? or atheist?

Every single day there are hateful sons of *snips* that target a member of a group that is different than their own.

Aren't ALL of these hate crimes? Or are some groups more "special" and deserving of protection than others?

Personally, I view hate crime laws as NOTHING BUT another means of segregation. I honestly believe that the only reason these laws exist is to maintain prejudice and to ensure that everyone remembers that they are different from others.


What is wrong with just prosecuting according to law? If someone kicks the piss out of someone else, for whatever reason, ARREST THEM FOR ASSAULT! You cannot say that the punishment should be worse simply because a gay person or a black guy were attacked. It's BAD no matter WHO it is that is attacked.


That being what it is, I personally feel that hate crime laws should be COMPLETELY abolished as they serve no other reason than to further keep people segregated.

They are useless and STUPID!

Jasn

revolutionradio.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

I actually have issue with "Hate Crime Laws".

ANY crime one commits against another human being is a hate crime. Period.

I totally agree with you on your assessment of this. You said everything I would have said....but so much better. LOL

A star for you SimiusDei.

I agree with your conclusions, but want to take it a step further.

HATE CRIME=THOUGHT CRIME

If one person were to brutally beat another, that is assult. No new laws needed. However, what these laws are doing by defining the reason of assult, is like charging someone based off of thought or how they feel. Reasons dont matter if the act is already against the law. We cannot be charged for our thoughts or beliefs, that is thought crime.

Good point Jasn

If everyone pushed because of their differences ...things would quickly come full circle...mankind is very slow on the uptake !!lol

It is very very silly !!

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
I agree with your conclusions, but want to take it a step further.

HATE CRIME=THOUGHT CRIME

We cannot be charged for our thoughts or beliefs, that is thought crime.

IMO, this is the real issue and problem with so-called "hate crimes". Actual assault (verbal attack) and battery (physical attack) are already illegal. Why the need to try and also get inside other people's heads? Exactly how can the police or a court decide charges between just beating the crap out of someone and doing it because you "hate" them. Either way, someone still (illegally) got the crap beat out of them.

reply to post by centurion1211


Well naturally, you MUST hate them for hitting them/attacking them.

If someone is gay, black or jewish and someone DIFFERENT attacks them, there MUST be some underlining prejudice causing it right?

/sarcasm


And no, I don't blame this on blacks, jews or gays. I blame it on the people that are using this crap as a means of further segregation.

Jasn

The original impulse bahind hate crime laws was the attempt to combat organized and often violent groups like the KKK . In the first half of the last century, and until relatively recently, it often wasn't safe to be black, especially in the south. My mother grew up in Texas in a town where the mayor and the police were all members of the Klan. And few people today want to see another holocaust. Unfortunately, the cure has become worse than the disease.

The main reasoning behind hate crime laws are that the crime was committed against the victim because of a certain trait the victim possesses. The attacker is charged with a hate crime law, because if they targeted the victim because of that one trait, then they're likely to do it again to others who carry the same trait.

reply to post by DJMessiah


This logic is till flawed unless EVERYONE is protected under "hate crime" law, which they are not.

Who amongst us doesn't have SOME trait that another has been attacked for previously?


Jasn

reply to post by SimiusDei


Yes, but hate crime laws pertain to crimes that can be committed as frequently as others. How many people have you read about that were murdered for having green eyes? What about people who enjoy a certain flavor ice cream than others being attacked for this? Though, I wouldn't be surprised that such acts may have occurred, the likely hood of it occurring as frequently as people being murdered for their race, skin color, or religion is not very likely, meaning those crimes that occur more frequently and in greater numbers will hold jurisdictional prudence over the smaller ones.

Yes, it sucks, but we don't have an unlimited amount of people in congress to invoke a law for every single type of crime committed.

reply to post by LordBaskettIV


Interesting. So you believe motive should never count? To extend that you also believe there is no such thing as "self defense" since the entire notion of it is dependent on whether a person thinks they are in danger?

[edit on 15-11-2007 by The Walking Fox]

Race/Religious hate laws are against preaching such hatred. Why spout such hatred. Well, the naive could say that it is a healthy way of getting things out of the system. Often, it leads to more. You could say that that is too indirect, but we all have laws about inciting a riot. At a guess, when people are rioting, they are full of hate???

reply to post by DJMessiah

The main reasoning behind hate crime laws are that the crime was committed against the victim because of a certain trait the victim possesses. The attacker is charged with a hate crime law, because if they targeted the victim because of that one trait, then they're likely to do it again to others who carry the same trait.

But again, that is just to broad. And I dont believe that is actually why hate crimes were labeled as such.

Some people commit crimes against rich people, because they are rich.
Some serial rapists only rape blondes or brunettes, or women who are 5.5"
Some crimes are comitted against white people, soley because they are white.

Yet those crimes will never be labeled as "hate crimes".

Some crimes comitted against black people have nothing to do with the color of their skin - yet the chance of that crime being labeled a "hate crime" just because of the color of their skin, is pretty high....because its quite easy to pull a "race card".

Any crime done out of hate for another person - no matter what type of person they are is a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay is no worse then murdering someone because they pissed you off....or because they threatened to leave you. Its all hate.

I still think its ridiculous

[edit on 15-11-2007 by greeneyedleo]

I think there is a huge difference between people that are charged with a crime because of a random suituation. For example a bar fight, a burglary, a theft, trespass, battery , assualt or a traffic infraction. Many crimes that people are charged with are due to the criminals own desires to fulfill their own wants or perceived needs regardless of the law or the effect of those around them. A crime that is commited out of hate usually communicates the suspects distaste for the victim because of the suspects preconceived ideas about the victim. The hate laws are in place more as a deterent i think to communicate that yes you can have your views and opinions but if you choose to commit a crime motivated by that hate the charge will be upgraded. There are not special laws to my knowledge that pertain to hate crimes , in my state the charge is only upgraded by a degree.

Basically what i am trying to convey is IMO the following circumstances are different:

- someone breaks into your house while you are at work and takes your television and ransacks the house while looking for your jewlery and valuables they can pawn.

- someone breaks into your house while you are at work , ransacks your house , urinates on all your clothes, flings the contents of your fridge all over your furniture and pretty much causes as much damage as possible and spray paints obscenities about your race / religion / sexual preference on the wall.

Both are considered to be the same crime, a buglary. One had nothing to do with the victim . The suspect was simply fulfilling his / her own perceived need to get their hands on property. The later was motivated by the suspects desire to commuicate to the victim his / her hate. The later victim is going to personally be in fear of additional hate until the suspect is apprehended. The first victim will just be out up grading to a big screen.

Crimes are not charged as hate crimes just because the victim and suspect are of different beliefs / race. Trust me our legal system has some pretty efficient defense attorneys working the system. If a criminal actually get charged and convicted of a hate crime ... he / she probly has quite a few hidden away that know one has been able to nab them on.

And no i am not a minority in any way and i do not considered my self part of any group that would put me in the classification of the victim of a hate crime.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Here, check this out. The FBI keeps track of this stuff, and out of 4,863 "single bias crimes" (i.e. hate crimes) based on race committed in 2004, the FBI notes that 20.5% were anti-white hate crimes. Ever heard of Ronald Taylor? Five counts of aggravated assault, arson, possession of an unlicensed weapon, and ethnic intimidation, under Pennsylvania's hate crime laws.

But let me guess. You're a white guy, right? 'Cause only white dudes are dumb enough to figure they are the main targets of racism in America and that nobody ever gets charged in hate crimes because of it.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by The Walking Fox]

Common Wisdom states that: picking on a tribal group (i.e. race, religion) is worse than targeting an individual because the offender attacks everybody of that identification.

It's no different! Tribes have resources completely unavailable to individuals, starting with huge numbers and family connections. Why do you think there are such things as race riots? They start out as one-on-one or few-on-few confrontations then escalate to whole tribes.

Quite frankly, I would rather be black or gay than a "nerd", "geek", or "faggot" because I would at least have the protection of a tribe and a legal system that favours tribes over individuals. OTOH, being a ghetto black would give me no protection from the (black) thugs in my tribal slum - only "whitey" who for the most part is unseen and with little day-to-day influence. Some brotherhood!

Originally posted by marie4954
- someone breaks into your house while you are at work and takes your television and ransacks the house while looking for your jewlery and valuables they can pawn.

In this case, how do I know the offender(s) won't try it again, and use more force the second or third time? Greed is a powerful motivator, as strong as hatred, and can lead to murder. IIRC they are both two of the Seven Deadly Sins, not that it's a particularly profound statement on ethics.

And how do we know that hatred, even against rich people if not a particular tribe, wasn't involved? It could have been mixed in with greed. (I'll mention the vicious, possibly murderous. thugs that attacked Bernie Goetz as an example.)

- someone breaks into your house while you are at work , ransacks your house , urinates on all your clothes, flings the contents of your fridge all over your furniture and pretty much causes as much damage as possible and spray paints obscenities about your race / religion / sexual preference

Well this one does seem more personal, but is it? The offender attacks me on the grounds of some group that I may belong to rather than on some more personal trait.

If I were the victim in either case, I would be scared just the same.

Ok a fight occurs between two subjects that know each other. The cause of the fight can be about money owed, a common interest in the opposite sex or a disagreement about any perceived wrong... it really doesnt matter what it is but one of the involved parties causes it to escalate to a physical level. Another fight occurs because one person does not like the fact another person is gay , they do not know each other, the straight guy follows the gay guy down the street after he saw him in a gay bar and beats the poo out of him ... not because of any other reason but he is gay.

If you feel like this example and the example from the previous post should be treated the same i can understand that. The law was made in a black and white manner ... with very little accomadation for the gray areas. Many people and apparently you are one that think that is where the law should remain. As time goes on the laws change to accomadate for the gray areas such as victims over 65 , sex crimes under 16/12 yrs of age , hate crimes etc. I think is takes time to work out the kinks ... which yes i agree there are definetly kinks. I just dont think that the existence of the classification of a hate crime is one of the the kinks, though it may have it own kinks to work on.

To place the same exact defining template on every crime and sentence it the same would be a great injustice to many victims.

Originally posted by marie4954
If you feel like this example and the example from the previous post should be treated the same i can understand that. The law was made in a black and white manner ... with very little accomadation for the gray areas. Many people and apparently you are one that think that is where the law should remain. As time goes on the laws change to accomadate for the gray areas such as victims over 65 , sex crimes under 16/12 yrs of age , hate crimes etc.

Someone made the point that justice either means punishing all the hate crimes equally, or just treat them all as regular crimes. The grey areas are larger than you think. What about victims under 18? Or victims under 35 when it comes to employment? Or victims under 5'6", or over 150 pounds, or over 180 IQ?

When was the last time you heard of someone committing (or even attempting) suicide on the grounds that life was unbearable due to racial discrimination?