It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are so many people against the hate crimes bill?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


I'm sure you've learned about this in school. You know what a hate crime is. I know what a hate crime is.




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I don't think we need special bills for "hate" crimes. Crimes are crimes are crimes, and most could technically be considered hate crimes anyway. Segregating them out simply calls more attention to the differences among us too, which I don't feel we should focus on. Overall, it's a waste of time and money, but I suppose it makes some people feel better and gives them something concrete to "do."



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
To respond to some of the other posts- I see how this could be construed as thought control. But, hold on a second- a lot of hate crimes do tend to go unpunished. What if this bill is completely innocent?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 



However I fail to see why no one ever argues Tenth Amendment concerns.


This bill violates multiple sections of the constitution, but to answer your question, without the first amendment there would be no constitution.

This yet another horrible piece of legislation. I hope it fails because I don't foresee to many people exercising their right to jury nullification.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by Fromabove
 


I just wonder if this law passes, that if a pastor gets up and reads the parts of the Bible that say homosexuality is vile and homosexuals should be stoned, even if he is not supporting the idea of that, if he is then guilty of a hate crime? Also, I am not condoning violence against people just because they are homosexuals.


He would already be violating laws or inciting a violent crime, conspiracy to commit a violent crime, aiding a person to commit a violent crime, etc. The law provides that any person who aids in the commission of a crime is as guilty for the crime as if he did it himself.

As for Pastors, if they were followers of Christ they would not be shouting "Kill the gays !!" They would be treating them as they themselves would like to be treated, because that is what Jesus tells us all to do. But it's not about hate it's about morality. We Christians who actually follow the Bible as authoritative moral law believe homosexuality to be sinful to God. It doesn't mean we hate anyone, or should wish them harm, it means that we only disagree.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Fromabove]

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Fromabove]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


What hate crimes have gone unpunished?

From your reply to me, I dont really think things are hate crimes they are just crimes, yes some of them are motivated by hate but that doesnt make it any more or less of a crime in my eyes.

If someone kills you for a pair of shoes or because you are gay you are stilll dead and your loved ones still mourn so what is the difference?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


I see where you are coming from but I think you missed my point because I didnt properly explain it.

Would this law make it so that certain verses of the Bible could not be quoted in public because it was considered a hate crime. So if a pastor just reads those verses is it a crime? Is it a crime if he reads them and then says I am not telling you to go out and do it?

So part of my point is maybe this is just one way of begining to censor the Bible by making certain parts of it illegal.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


How so? If a person is not arrested for an already existing law how was a crime committed? Especially a hate crime? If a person is arrested for committing a crime and is found guilty then he will do his/her time.

Just because some Neo-Nazi goes saying screw this person, etc. he has a right to say it, it might not be PC, but he has a right to say it no matter how repulsive it is.

What you have to say is not as important as the right to be able to say it.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


As far as I know, every country in the EU has a hate-crime law of some sort prohibiting it. I, personally, am against it. I CAN'T STAND some of the racist/bigoted/sexist # I hear or read (especially here on ATS) but I think people should be able to say it AS LONG AS they aren't trying to get people to go lynch some group of people (commit a violent act). But, that's in line with normal American 1st Amendment rights.
Personally, I think it's good (although, sometimes disturbing) to know who your neighbors are. Let them tell you by spewing forth their hatred of others.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by really
 


That's the thing. This bill doesn't limit free speech. I think all it does is place a label on hate crimes. And what constitutes a hate crime. I believe the bill is worded with regards to any person of color (white, black), or, any religion...



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


That's a fair argument. I'm just trying to point out with this thread how intellectually dishonest that people are being with this bill. A lot of people are saying oh it's going to end free speech as we know it... no it won't. All it does is enforce protection against crimes that shouldn't be happening in the first place. I think this is happening with the rise of hate crimes since Obama's election...

There are several news stories about this. I think that is what it's a response to.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 




All it does is enforce protection against crimes that shouldn't be happening in the first place. I think this is happening with the rise of hate crimes since Obama's election...

There are several news stories about this. I think that is what it's a response to.


The laws for crimes are being enforced already. What crimes have gone unpunished that you keep referring to but never defining?

Can you give links to some of these stories of the rise of hate crimes since Obama's election? I dont remember hearing that anywhere.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 



All it does is enforce protection against crimes that shouldn't be happening in the first place.


What crimes? You keep saying this, but you don't give any examples. If people are already being prosecuted for a crime then there is already a law on the books that they are enforcing.

So again, what kind of crimes are you talking about that are not being enforced?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 





but to answer your question, without the first amendment there would be no constitution.


Agreed. However I think individuals fail to realize the importance of the other Amendments. Why are the states collectively giving up any remaining sovereignty? The alarming issue with this Bill is that it significantly widens the Federal Governments Authority. The Federal Governments ability to prosecute you for your speech (hate or otherwise) has all ready been established.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 

I don't think I said said they went unpunished. If I did I take that back. I just think that this bill is just created to have a new series of crimes labeled hate crimes. That can be good or bad... however there is justification for this... it's not a martial law bill though. Here is a recent articles about hate crimes and Obama's Presidential election.

www.bet.com...

I'm not saying that it's not unconstitutional- the bill- or several sections of it aren't... I'm just saying that I don't think it's as bad as people are making out to be.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Frankidealist35]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


True, but when has the constitution stopped any politician? The states obviously aren't doing anything to guard themselves against the expansion of federal government.

There is always a pay off, have you read this bill? I linked to the text on the first page, see the section about grants, and fed money being used to help prosecute these news "crimes".

The fed keeps paying the states off, so the states are willing giving up their right for money. The only amendment that is really left fully intact anymore is the First, and without the first the second will then be gone and then you can see where I'm going.

I understand what you are getting at, but with every new bill there is always new state funding.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


How can you not see it? This bill is saying that people are not equal and deserve special protections.

There is nothing good about this bill, I repeat nothing. You are trying to justify something that is unjustifiable.

You just said it yourself, this will create a new class of crime, i.e. make more people criminals.

Nobody deserves special protections under the law. Either we are treated equally under the law or we are not, its that simple.

So again what kind of "new crimes" would YOU prosecute. Because I can't really think of any that we don't already have a law for. If you rob, rape, murder, assault somebody it is already illegal. So what kind of non-crimes are you trying to make crimes?


And no this bill will NOT apply to white people.



[edit on 8-7-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Excuse me? How does this bill promote homoseuality in any way shape or form? Please, it's stuff like that which is why we are said to be schizos.


By supporting resistance against people that think homosexuality is repulsive. By defending a sexual preference. I guess I should be saying that it defends homosexuality against those who disagree with it.


You can disagree with it all you want, you just are not allowed to commit a crime against a homosexual just because you disagree with it.

What is so dang hard to understand about that?

Harm None
Peace



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by amazed
 


You are not allowed to commit a crime against anyone just because you disagree with them. That is why it is called a crime.

There are already the laws that make that behavior a crime, so why do we need a law to make it more of a crime?

[edit on 8-7-2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
OK, here is hate crime charge abuse for you.

www.youtube.com...

www.nypost.com...

Outrage of the Week: Arrested for Desecrating a Koran

littlegreenfootballs.com...

www.chipbennett.net...


As has been pointed out in the LGF comments, burning the American flag, displaying a crucifix in a vat of urine, and displaying a painting of Mary covered in dung are all considered forms of protected religious or political speech. Flushing a Koran, however, is now considered a hate crime.

www.freerepublic.com...


Now, should we even look at Europe? Here is some heavy hate crime -

www.france24.com...&navi=FRANCE

In France, the actress and animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot was fined $23,000 for criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.


"I've had enough of being led by the nose by this whole population which is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing their ways."


Can't say that.. it is a crime.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Now, back to the subject:

www.examiner.com...


The Hate Crimes Prevention Act which has passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin is now facing hearings in the Senate. There are already similar hate crime laws in place, however, this bill imposes much stronger federal enforcement, which is a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment. It grants greater power to federal prosecutors to prosecute hate crime laws by prosecuting those who have been found innocent by local or state courts. The current bill will extend special privileges to gays and transgender individuals that are currently only granted to ethnic and religious minorities. The most dangerous part of the Bill which is a direct assault against the First Amendment is that it allows for the prosecution as accomplices in a hate crime for talk show pundits that the person who commits the alleged crime claims to influence their actions.

Here is the essential text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join