Why are so many people against the hate crimes bill?

If I hate some one and hit them why should that be worse than if I dont hate some one and hit them , So if I hit two people with a bat and one is a different race That is worse than The one I hit that is the same race ,, That is race class in it self very slippey slope I want protection for being normal and avg people hate that and rich and good looking and skinny and fat and smart , and funny and rightwing, you get the pictrue

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

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.

That is my point. Everyone is focused solely on the First Amendment issue, however what few even seem to notice is the alarming jurisdiction and authority this bill gives the Federal Government.

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 whole heatedly disagree with this. The Federal Government has the authority to arrest and detain you indefinitely for items previously covered under the first Amendment. Also there are several court cases that have set a precedent that you are responsible for how others react to your speech, etc..

I think we are on the same side of the argument. However I just hope at some point people start to understand the difference between civil Government and Martial. And where our local and Federal Governments obtain their authorities.

reply to post by harvib


Good argument and good point, harvib. The 10th amendment has been eroded until there is very little state sovereignty left. To correct the horror of slavery the 14th amendment has been used to help the feds destroy it. While I am glad they did their best to fix that piece of history, it done as much damage as good.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

That's a question I've thought about too. But when you think about it- hate crimes aren't usually committed against whites... we aren't usually on the receiving end of hate crimes that often. I would agree that there shouldn't be a racial slant here- but- this bill does nothing that people against it seem to say that it does.

We whites aren't targets of "hate crimes"? Thats intellectually dishonest at best.

Remember a few years back when the asian "immigrant" murdered the hunters because he claimed they "made fun of him?"

or

Kristen Edwards, of Marianna, Ark., was raped and attacked in April. Police say that DNA evidence from Pressly’s crime scene matched Edwards’ attacker, and detectives from both cities collaborated to search for a suspect. Curtis Lavell Vance was arrested Nov. 26 and charged with Pressly’s murder.

(mr vance was a black man)

or

the group of young mexicans that attacked two 15 year olds cutting through a park to go home. AFTER they brutally raped, sodomized, and beat the girls they strangled them with the girls own tennis shoes. The only reason the punks were caught, one of them was bragging about it and wearing the mickey mouse watch from one of the dead girls.

One of the girls could have gotten away but went back to help her friend

or just read this

www....[hate-site-nolink]/2009/01/a-year-of-violence-%E2%80%9Chush%E2%80%9D-crimes-against-whites/

NOW....

These are crimes commited by non whites against whites. Should they be treated as any other violent crime because of this fact?

NO!

NO ONE COMMITS A CRIME BECAUSE THEY ARE THERE FRIEND!

Crime is crime. Period. What is going on in your head (how heinous the act) should determine if you are "marinated (injected) or fried"!

Remember your orwell. (animal farm)
All animals are created equal. Some are created more equal than others.

Personally, I believe that families should get first dibs on the murderer of their kin.
Long, slow, painful death.

reply to post by harvib

I whole heatedly disagree with this. The Federal Government has the authority to arrest and detain you indefinitely for items previously covered under the first Amendment. Also there are several court cases that have set a precedent that you are responsible for how others react to your speech, etc..

Care to give some links to these court cases or articles?

Either way, we are coming upon or already to the point where the courts and government are no longer working in our best interest. Yes the federal government is asserting more control, but if the states don't do something about it then people are willingly letting it happen.

The first Amendment is fully intact and not encroached on yet. You think differently obviously, but you can go to a Neo-Nazi rally and listen to them preach hate all day long.

I still haven't heard of anybody being detained indefinitely for what you said. The one guy Hal Turner posted address phone numbers and names he was conspiring to incite violence. If he just said that people need to do whatever they wouldn't have had a case.

Yes, we are the same side of the argument, but there is a line where it is no longer free speech and becomes inciting violence.

reply to post by felonius


Whites are most certainly the target of hate crimes, too. However, a black man raping a white woman is not a hate crime unless he only raped her because she's white. A rapist is a rapist.

reply to post by really


It's the same way, I white man raping a black woman is not a hate crime unless the white man was raping her because she was black. The difference between your example and mine?

The white man would face harsher prosecution and possible double jeopardy because he is white.

Trying to same a certain crime is a "hate" crime is stupid because 99.9% of all crime is done out of hate.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


The question isn't what you or I think, it's what the government thinks. Do you really think that a government that robs its people repeatedly is going to be 'intellectually honest' about the bill.

Come on... seriously?

You're putting way too much faith and confidence in the government that they will think rationally and be conservative in the use of this bill. They will take EVERY OPPORTUNITY to abuse the power, they won't be honest, and they won't care.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Huh, I'm not denying that a white man raping a black woman is NOT a hate crime unless he rapes her because she's black. I was just pointing out that a crime of one race/ethnicity/religion against another is NOT a hate crime unless it motivated by racial/ethnic/religious hatred. If you show me an instance (and, I'm sure there are) of a black man raping a white woman because she's white then that is a hate crime... Otherwise, it's just rape. I did not bring up anything about sentencing differences for different races.

reply to post by really


Hypothetically if I go hit somebody because I don't like the way they are looking at me that is a hate crime too.

The point of this bill is to give longer sentences to white heterosexual males. Like I said 99.9% of crimes are hate crimes. If you get mad enough to inflict harm upon somebody then you are hating that person at that moment.

This bill will give longer sentences to people that commit hate crimes. Unless you are in the protected class because then your life experiences makes you to be a victim.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


"Hate-Crime" whether you agree with it or not, is a legal term defining crimes motivated by a racially/ethnically/religiously charged intent. While I understand what you're saying your argument is purely semantic. You don't like the term ("hate-crime"). I get it. I understand why, too. Fair enough. I am not arguing that. You're picking your argument with the wrong guy. I do not like when I hear bigoted remarks (unless they are for purely comedic purposes and most people get it) however, as I stated in my first post on this thread I do not agree with the hate-crime bill. Maybe, you did not read that post. I only argued with the other guy because I did not believe that his example was a good one.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by really]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Furthermore, if a bill were to be pushed through, I hope it does handle everyone equally. A white man attacking a black man because he is black should be treated the same way as a black man attacking a white man because he is white.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by really]

reply to post by really


If somebody goes and attacks somebody for whatever reason, it is a hate crime.

A "hate" "crime" is an oxymoron. To put it any other way is double speak. There is no such thing as a hate crime, and to suggest there is one is being intellectually dishonest.

It doesn't matter because some guy hits somebody because he/she is gay or just because they looked at them funny. I don't agree with "hate crimes" and all laws should be wiped off the books.

If you want a more equal and just world then laws like these need to be gone with. Otherwise it is just keeping injustice alive.

Edit to add -

Furthermore, if a bill were to be pushed through, I hope it does handle everyone equally. A white man attacking a black man because he is black should be treated the same way as a black man attacking a white man because he is white.

So why the need to classify a crime as a "hate crime" we already have laws that deal with this, justice is supposed to be blind. If somebody murders somebody they are going to get a 25 to life no matter what.

So why the need for "hate crimes" either with this bill, some new bill, or an old bill?

[edit on 9-7-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Dude, are you even reading what I am writing?

reply to post by really


Yea I'm reading it.

I got it now, my bad. Misunderstanding when I first read your post it sounded like you agreed with hate-crime legislation.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


No probs. No hate here.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35


I don't quite understand... why there is a lot of talk against this bill.

Because all crimes are born from hate, they are not racially exclusive. A Black man raping a black women is every bit as hateful as a white man raping a black women.

Hate crime legislation creates a victimized class of people. Someone convicted of a "hate" crime, say rape, should be thrown on a deserted island filled with starving predatory animals for life, as should the rapist, who raped a member of his own race. Severity of sentence should be based on the crime, not a collectivist idea of arbitrary group identification.

Hate crime legislation is itself, inherently racist, because it forces people to see each other in groups, rather than the individual free-born humans that all of us, regardless of race, are.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by aravoth]

The danger in the Hate Crimes Bill is it furthers the 'Victim' mentality that is slowly robbing a vast majority of people of personal responsibility for their own life as they abdicate it to special assistance programs, prescription drugs and a belief that if they aren't succeeding at something it's because they are a victim and the onus is not on them to themselves put in a full effort to succeed but for government and science to put in a partial effort on their behalf instead for them.

Perfect example another ATS member posted a thread recently on how strobe lights could possibly increase your mental cognizance by adjusting their flicker rate.

Not what you would call a high traffic thread but one of the few posters was an epileptic who chastised the Original Poster in his reply to the Original Poster for not including a warning in his post that flashing lights could cause epileptics a seizure.

I replied to the poster saying...excuse me are you really telling me as an epileptic you don't know not to try this?

He didn't post one word about the actual topic, had no interest in the actual topic, and simply confessed that he wanted to post that just to post that.

In other words he just wanted people to know he is a 'victim' he is 'disadvantaged' and he would like when ever and at all possible for things to be about 'him' based on his perception of being a 'victim'.

Hate crimes are redundant because all crime is about hate, hate of the truth, hate of not stealing, hate of not hurting, hate of having to work for a living, hate of having less, or hate of having lost something, or hate of someone else having gained everything.

All crime is based on hate, further narrowing it only teaches people to believe they are all potential victims based on something and we need big brother to compensate us at a rate big brother believes we deserve and can afford, and that we need big brother to protect us.

Believe me when Truck Driver Reginald Denny was getting beaten into permanent brain damage in South Central L.A. during the start of the Rodney King Riots for being White and being in the wrong place at the wrong time everyone watching it from a TV Helicopter shot understood he was being brutalized for simply being white and in the wrong place at the wrong time...including his ATTACKERS...

Since all Crime is based on Hate, having a Hate Crime Bill is not going to deter Hate Crimes, people who commit crimes based on Hate understands that they are doing it because they hate and are doing it anyway and that it is wrong.

Who it does affect are the people who are trained to believe more and more they are victims of everything and the only thing that can save them from all the things that victimize them is the government.

The same government who is behind most of the victimization anyway!

Hating Crime is not a bad idea; Hate Crimes is a redundant and repugnant idea...

It’s just one viler act by a government who wants us all to believe we are inferior, flawed and weak in some way and we need big brother for everything. It’s nonsense.

Racial sensitivity has gotten quite ridiculous. We can't dislike someone if we're white and they just happen to be black, I mean African-American (sorry it's considered racist to say "black" now) or else we can be labeled racist. We can't kick out illegal aliens because it's racist (among other things I know), we can't call out on people if they happen to be another race or else it's racist.

Don't get me wrong, racism is horrible and stupid and we have no right to impede on people's rights for their color of skin. This bill just seems like you will get a longer sentence and be labeled a racist if the person you harm is of another color. I hope that doesn't happen and they actually investigate if it is a hate-crime or not. The concept of hate-crimes are stupid though. A crime is a crime no matter how it was triggered (unless it was for an understandable reason but that is a touchy subject and I won't talk about that). This bill won't do squat, just further the rising racial sensitivity towards each other.

Edit: grammar

[edit on 7/9/09 by MoothyKnight]

A ridiculous bill - and a further escalation in attempts by the scum to divide society.

The simple answer is this - this divides the law into a tool to be used against certain groups, this means injustice.

It is not by chance that the figure of lady justice wears a blindfold - she does so to indicate that all persons regardless of wealth, race, color, gender or religion will face the same penalties and the same process. To undermine this sacred ideal is to spit in her face.

Crimalizing thought and speech is an insidious evil - it will be used to further intimidate anyone who has real issues which they wish to publicly address, however laws of this kind will be invoked to pressure them to silence so that further injustice can be enacted - the result will be continuing simmering hatreds between all groups - a divided society, something the scum highly desire because they only fear a united population.