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: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Your response on this topic was perfect - thank you for bringing some light.




posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
i think this clip explains it pretty well

link




posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Hate speech is the ugly cousin of freedom of speech. The bill in question borders dangerously on the line separating the two. It is another example of "reverse-discrimination" where the best interests of minority groups take precedence over the welfare of the majority.

In theory the bill is a good thing. A deterrent for people who wish to spread hate and fear, and to ensure the safety of society. However, the problem of where to draw the line is a significant and inevitable problem that will need to be examined.

[edit on 9/7/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 





Well considering the fact if a bunch of white people kidnap , rape, sodomize, torture, & kill a black couple they will be charged with kidnap, rape, murder, & hate crimes. Now if 4 black people kidnap, rape, sodomize, torture, & murder a white couple they will be charged with kidnap, rape, & murder and no hate crimes. I know because this happened last year and once again it wasn't a hate crime. Now look at statistics of crime and the black on white crime ratio is like 14 times more than the white of black crimes....


So they can say what ever they want this bill is racist and it does nothing to protect the victims unless You are a so called minority. Here is a idea how bout You make the penalty more sever for these crimes then You won't have to invent new penalties.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


I have to take the opinion of common sense.

Weather you kill someone because they are black or because You just felt like killing someone that day.

You killed someone.

Why does it matter if it was out of race? Is that any more evil then just felling like it?

The simple fact is that it is a new floor on crime lengths. It will expand and expand until every crime is a hate crime.

Then they control what you think, through their vision of how you should think

They want to add bloody midgets now.

if you are going to kill someone out of their height, then you should go to jail. But this is not more evil then killing your class mates because you failed a test.



If it expands too far, what's the limit? How long until hating your government is a hate crime?


reply to post by ranswer
 


This statement is my example.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Should i post a sign on my front door that i am a christian Deist.(religion)

Just in-case a armed black or Hispanic burglar kicks in my front door and i shoot him.

That way i would be protected as a white minority religion.

Or should i just take the body roll it in a rug and bury it in the desert.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 

Yeah our free speech is doing fine.

Free Speech zones

The only problem is they want you to stnd far far away from the ppl
you are trying to offer your 1st amendment right opinion too.

So, don't buy into the everything is fine line.

It is pretty friggin far from fine, but I do not think it will be fixed,
and I am fairly sure it is going to get much worse just like it
did in germany.

Naomi Wolf's speeches and writings go into DEEP detail where we are
headed, and as I said before most of the country is quite distracted
and oblivious to what is being systematically done.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   

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.


Gays would have you know many of them are white and while they may say "but its our being gay that people hate," I tell them THAT is why Blacks see this as minority's we can readily identify as many gays don't wear "I'M GAY" as a tattoo on ther foreheads.

Hate crime? who decides who says so? I think they want this legislation because they know people are giving eachother a lot of Crap these days, and more now than ever, I want my humanary and fundamental right to hate anyone I damn well please.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by DASFEX]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


"I don't see what's wrong with the bill. What a hate crime is- is clearly established in the bill."

It is punishment for "thought". How does the government begin to know what was in the heart of the person? They don't, they can't! That means that the judgment has to come from the opposing colors of the skin. That is defined as racial discrimination.

There are already cases where the punishments of white people have been escalated under these laws when there is no proof of racial motivation and there are cases where blacks were not escalated even though they were yelling racial epithets while beating the whites. Try this: Ask a black person if blacks can be racist. They will respond in the negative most of the time. This simply means that what is “clearly defined in the bill” is subject entirely to interpretation and a presumption that one knows the thoughts of another. From the cases mentioned above, do you see equality in application of those laws? I can provide you a link to a crime involving black-on-white where the authorities are hesitant to call “hate” even though the blacks were shouting racially-based slogans.

Thought crimes proscribe a special status to one race over the other. There are already ample laws against various crimes. If they are applied evenly and fairly, justice is served. Laws based upon racist concepts can only have racist enforcement.

Here is something else to ponder: Here in the “Land of the Free” we have many more laws than they do in Communist China. I’ve been there. I know this for a fact. Why do we need ANY more laws? We’re already way past tyranny as it is.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


"In theory the bill is a good thing."

Not even in theory is "hate crimes" good legislation. They presume that the judge or jury or the blind law can read minds. They presume something about the accused. Justice can never be served when "the system" can presume anything in the case. Justice is served only by exposure of the facts and deliberation of a jury.

This Nations is no longer the "Land of the Free". There is a regulation for everything you can think of, and more besides. Existing laws are not only sufficient, but overwhelming. You need to read the documentation produced by the Founders; for, that will give you a better perspective of what tyranny looks like, and how it comes to be.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by MoothyKnight
 


"(sorry it's considered racist to say "black" now)"

They were called "Negroes" until the "negroes" demanded to be called "blacks". Now I call them "blacks". I'm not PC, and I don't change wording for people who can't seem to make up their minds.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The government and the bill itself should be considered a HATE CRIME as it is doing exactly what they say it is designated for.

Targeting specific individuals.

The IRONY makes my head spin.


[edit on 9/7/2009 by Revealation]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   

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.


Hate crimes aren't commited against whites? You must live in an area where crime rate is low, so I think you're a bit naive on this subject because if you are white and you happen to be driving into a neighborhood this is majority black, or even hispanic there's a very good chance you will be confronted. When whites get attacked, it doesn't become news of a hate crime, it just becomes news of a random mugging. But when it's a black person, then it becomes headline news for the exact same situation. I don't know why it is this way, but it simply is. I'm not saying that when a white enters a black neighborhood, he gets attacked or taunted all the time, but it happens a lot more than you realize. Also, when a white person who is a victim of a hate crime tries to bring of charges of that, that person pretty much gets laughed at. Equality hasn't been achieved, just reverse segregation.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MoothyKnight
 


Screw PC, I still call blacks, black and very few don't express that they are offended by it. Most prefer to be called black cause they don't consider themselves "African-American" because they aren't from Africa, nor have they ever been there. So many blacks are smart of enough to look past all of that garbage. It is interesting you brought up the term "African-American" because it is amusing to everyone outside of American. I have a black friend that is from England, and when he visits he can't help but chuckle when people refer to him as African American.

He would respond like this, "But I'm English. I was born there, raised
there, and live there, how could I be African if I'm not from there, and how can I be American if I only visit here a couple times a year?" Some people's reaction would be blank because they don't know what to say to that, and some blacks give him a dirtly look. Same thing when anyone from some part of Africa often ask blacks what part of Africa they come from but they would just say "oh I'm African-American, my ancestors came from there" but they obvioulsy have no idea that Africa is not a country but a continent that has countries in there.

This bill may have good intentions, but it looks like something else to further this mindless nonsense. Whites will be excluded from this with some exceptions to just appear fair, but I can see blacks bringing a white to court for a hate crime, even though they are the ones that attacked him/her randomly and of course they would win almost all the time. I can see further unfair justice happening from this bill.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darth Lumina

Hate crimes aren't commited against whites? You must live in an area where crime rate is low, so I think you're a bit naive on this subject because if you are white and you happen to be driving into a neighborhood this is majority black, or even hispanic there's a very good chance you will be confronted. When whites get attacked, it doesn't become news of a hate crime, it just becomes news of a random mugging. But when it's a black person, then it becomes headline news for the exact same situation. I don't know why it is this way, but it simply is. I'm not saying that when a white enters a black neighborhood, he gets attacked or taunted all the time, but it happens a lot more than you realize. Also, when a white person who is a victim of a hate crime tries to bring of charges of that, that person pretty much gets laughed at. Equality hasn't been achieved, just reverse segregation.


Great Post. This is the problem. If a white male is the victim of a crime, the racial aspect is thrown out of the equation. It is not even considered to be a possible motive because only minorities can be the victims of hate crimes. This ideal instils more fear and distrust of those who are different. A very effective divide and conquer tactic.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35

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.



Here are some numbers compiled by the FBI in 2004 for your consideration...

www.fbi.gov...

Law enforcement agencies reported 4,863 offenses within single-bias incidents that were motivated by the offender’s racial bias.

Among those offenses, 67.5 percent resulted from an anti-black bias, and 20.5 percent were due to an anti-white bias


Law enforcement agencies reported five bias-motivated murders. Three of those murders resulted from racial bias: two anti-white and one anti-black.
www.fbi.gov...



January 26, 2007 · In Long Beach, Calif., a juvenile court judge has convicted eight black girls and one boy of beating three young white women last year.

One girl was acquitted of all charges. The defendants range between 12 and 18 years old. The racially charged case included allegations of witness intimidation. The attack happened last Halloween in an upscale mostly white neighborhood filled with trick-or-treaters.

Prosecutors called it a hate crime because they said the attackers hurled racial slurs at their victims.
www.npr.org...


Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Fortyfive percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
www.colorofcrime.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Revealation
I apologize, but as you could probably never imagine what it must feel like to deal with this for going on 2 years and as I sit hear looking at my children... it infuruates me with a hateful rage for these people to think of what and how bad the outcome could be for my family.



man i understand what you're going through. i won't go into how i know but i know.

"If this bill passes the senate welcome to thought crime legislation."

if you don't think that we have thought crime legislation then watch the show 'to catch a predator'. and before anyone goes on about how repugnant they think the people on that show are please remember that those PEOPLE are in jail, will be marked with what amounts to a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives, and will be hated by society until they die and they never actually committed a crime. they are sex offenders because they thought about sex. the girl in question wasn't even underage. most of those sting operations are with middle age cops pretending to be younger.
as i said regardless of what they were intending to do they were arrested before they actually did anything. in my eyes that means that every time i go into the bank i could be arrested for potentially robbing it. as some one stated you can't know what i'm thinking. you can't know my intentions.
perhaps instead of finding more ways to lock someone away, from taking years from what could be the only life they'll ever have, we should make dang sure that we're doing it for a really good reason. the human warehousing needs to stop. just because someone does something that offends you does not mean you get to take that life from them. lets get back to putting criminals in prison and not just screw ups.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
The reason that I oppose "hate" crime legislation is that a crime is a crime no matter the motivation.

Imagine two identical assaults, except that during one assault the perp mutters a racial epitaph. The victims of both crimes suffer the exact same injuries.

Why should the punishment for one crime be different that the other?

To me, the punishment should be the same, period.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sporkyou
 


Those people on "To Catch a Predator" were charged for soliciting a minor for sex. Just like if you go and solicit a prostitute then you are committing a crime. It isn't thought crime you are committing a crime already. If those people had not shown up at that house they wouldn't have gotten caught, even though what they were doing is illegal.

Saying somebody committed a crime because of somebody's race is a thought crime. There is noway to prove that a person committed a crime because of the persons race, gender, sexual preference, etc. Unless they openly state that is why they did it.

Two totally different situations.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I'm going to buck the trend here, I don't particularly mind hate crimes laws.

The point of them is that these crimes are a form of low level terrorism, and are attacks on a whole segment of the population, not just the victim.

When gaybashers beat up a gay guy, or Klansman hang a black man, their intent is not to attack only individuals, but the entire group.

Intent is always relevant, and outr laws have always recognized the fact - this is why a premeditated murder, for instance, is considered more serious than one committed in the heat of an argument.

As far as determining intent, the law, again, does it regularly.

I am against "hate speech" laws, but when there is an actual crime committed against a person for no other reason than who they are, that's terrorism, and deserving of extra punishment.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join