It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Deaf Alien
Apparently you haven't read the whole thread. Some pedophiles have come out and announced their "affliction" and, as another poster pointed out, many in UK have put themselves in the sex offender registry even though they haven't done anything.
Those people have seek help, privately and publicly. Should we punish them for it? It's pretty funny that they had to seek help when they, according to you, weren't born pedophiles.
Even convicted pedophiles need protection. If you start with one group, why not the next one that you consider undesirable? The world will be a very small place if everyone starts killing those they consider undesirable.
Originally posted by FMLuder
I would like to see you cite precedent for that piece of totally spurious fearmongering. I don't believe that IS how the law works.
I too disagree with 'hate speech' legislation of any kind (despite being a beneficiary of some of said legislation - not paedo lol -.-). MY ISSUE is with the manner in which child sex offenders (and indeed others, sometimes for incidents of rape that they STILL deny having served a full sentence) are 'named and shamed' by the government, and then illegally forced to undergo incarceration and psychological treatment on an ex post facto basis simply because pressure groups of 'concerned citizens' with NO real insight into the subject have lobbied loudly enough. In effect, these people are victims of selfish party politics and demagogy. They're being illegally imprisoned to suit a political agenda. And for all their NWO cynicism, many people have apparently swallowed this tripe whole.
[edit on 12-5-2009 by FMLuder]
Originally posted by FMLuderAh, I edited my post.
My point was that a 'hate' crime is in reality 2nd degree murder, whereas if you just kill someone for 'no real reason', you could likely have your sentence reduced to manslaughter.
IF there is any supplementary aspect to the sentence based on racial/cultural sensibilities, then I agree; that is ludicrous. You should NOT recieve a higher sentence for killing a black guy because he's black than you would for killing a ginger man because he's ginger or a bloke with a really annoying voice.
The point of the legislation is to highlight the 'irrational' nature of the crime. In effect, they have created a parallel to 2nd degree murder where the offender demonstrates a callous ability to commit violent crime based SOLELY on a dislike for a superficial aspect of their victim. This is different to murdering someone because they've pissed you off/slept with your wife etc...
That's probably a better explanation of what 'hate crime' is than you might find in the hyperbolous papers, who are desperate to turn this into a poor-persecuted-white-heterosexual-englishman issue...
[edit on 12-5-2009 by FMLuder]