Why are so many people against the hate crimes bill? , page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 01:31 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by xmotex

People these days will call anything terrorism. So one guys gets attacked and that is all the sudden terrorism? Talk about being dramatic.

reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 01:37 PM by Rams59lb

reply to post by Frankidealist35

I simply believe that government regardless of who is incharge shouldn't be passing bills, acts, laws that could allow powers to be abuse in any way what so ever. I.E. A fight between two old men is simply an assult or battery against each other. The same fight but now it's a black man and a white man is still an assult not a hate crime. It should be dealt with the same way! In our history people have hurt other peoples feelings, it sucks that people feel the need to do so but it is what it is! These powers will be abused as they always are if this bill passes and it is an attack on free speach because both the left and right sling hurtful and most of the time misleading statments about each other which will lead to restrictions that will be enforced. I work for the Media Industry, we have already been informed that new guidelines of restricted speach will soon be distributed of what can and can not be spoken... That is an attack on free speach, sorry! Facts are Facts but lets just continue to call people right wingers or Obama haters when talking about facts. I would love to see Limbough off the air, I dislike Hannity so very much but I also think Ed Schultz and Rachael Maddow should find a job at Burger King lol...

Here is proof of why this is not a true Hate Crime Bill, check out this video posted today called Holder Admits: No Equality Under Hate Bill www.infowars.com... I know, I know, those who agree with the bill will say that the source link is a hater site lol but the truth is they are just shooting the messanger and not the message because they have no leg to stand on!

[edit on 06/03/2009 by Rams59lb]

reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 02:10 PM by Histopherness

I have always been against the hate crime idea. Crimes are hate crimes. even crimes of passion you hate the person at that moment. You never go out and hurt, abuse, or steal from someone that you currently feel fondly for.

The idea of hate crimes imply that some crimes are worse then others dependent on the people involved. This just is not so. It is no worse to steal from an old lady then to steal from a UFC champion. It is stupid to steal from the champ so maybe in that case it is worse, but as a crime it is not.

All the idea of hate crimes does is perpetuate prejudice. That if white guy beats up a fag because he hates gays then white men are all homo-bashers. If a gang banger robs a oriental store then all black men are thieves and hate asians. These beliefs might be held by many people but they have no place in our courts.

Of course, I don't stop there. I hate manditory sentencing. 3 strikes laws. The american legal systems is supposed to take each case individually. Laws that limit that, that force a judge or jury's hand as to what sentence to lay down are just wrong. Laws that allow the judge or jury to significantly punish one person more then another based on anything other then the crime are also wrong.

I would be all for a law that adds significantly more time for anyone under the influence while commiting a crime. But that is based off a choice they made. Get high, rob a store, go away for a long time. Sounds fair.

reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 02:34 PM by Blaine91555

Since these crimes are already illegal there must be another motive. How may laws against the same crimes are needed. This whole thing stinks.

reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 03:24 PM by LifeIsPeculiar

reply to post by Blaine91555

"Since these crimes are already illegal there must be another motive."

The objective is to teach people different behavior by observing harsh "bonus sentences" for those who meet the requirements. Basically, they are performing "thought control". They believe that they can cure preducial thinking through punishment and example rather than a proper rearing.

reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 03:46 PM by Confused and Dazed!

The law should read; "You shall not exclude, discriminate, withhold, slander, or harm anyone of any class, race, religion, or lifestyle for any reason whatsoever."

In five to eight hundred years from from now, ( if humans survive ) the Caucasian races will be basically extinct. It be interesting to see who screams, rants and raves about discrimination then!

I am glad I won't be around to find out!

reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 04:08 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by Confused and Dazed!

Well if you did that then we would have all the oversensitive people having people arrested everytime they ripped a good fart or told an off color joke. They already whine about how it harms them. People can be "harmed" by almost anything if they allow themselves to think that it is true.

reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 04:44 PM by MontanaMike

Originally posted by xmotex
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.

"Low-level terrorism?"
Yeah, kind of like tax party protests, disagreeing with your government at all, and supporting the 2nd Amendment, huh?

A crime is a crime. People should be punished for what they did, not their motivations in doing it.

If we're going to have "hate crime" legislation, how about y'all tell the police to quit "hating" on highschool potheads and throwing people in jail just because they smoke a freaking plant?

reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 05:31 PM by ProfEmeritus

reply to post by Frankidealist35

But when you think about it- hate crimes aren't usually committed against whites

Hmm, what would you call this?:
www.ohio.com...

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation. But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear. It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron. Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 07:18 PM by projectvxn

reply to post by infolurker

There are good, non-partisan arguments made here. While the source(One News now) often bothers me, this hate crimes bill bothers me more for it's unconstitutional language and potential for abuse. As a Hispanic member of the American community I see little reason for this. If they made an argument for wanting to invoke longer sentences for ALL violent crimes, that would be one thing, but this amounts to thought crime. And while I'm no racist(Obviously) it is the right of the individual to be so. And like anyone else, your thoughts should be your thoughts, and acting out violently should land you in prison PERIOD regardless of your rationale for committing the crime in the first place.

reply posted on 10-7-2009 @ 02:54 AM by xmotex

reply to post by MontanaMike

"Low-level terrorism?" Yeah, kind of like tax party protests, disagreeing with your government at all, and supporting the 2nd Amendment, huh?

Nice Strawman, I said nothing of the kind.

It's terrorism because the intent is not only to kill the victim, but to frighten others.

Many crimes are terroristic in nature.

Those things you mention however are not crimes.
Who precisely would the victim be?

A crime is a crime. People should be punished for what they did, not their motivations in doing it.

Then why do we have different degrees of murder - first, second, etc.?
I believe motivation is a factor in that respect in criminal law - and in others - already.

If we're going to have "hate crime" legislation, how about y'all tell the police to quit "hating" on highschool potheads and throwing people in jail just because they smoke a freaking plant?

Now you are just preaching to the choir

But how many people get dragged behind trucks or tied to fences & left to die for being potheads?

I'd bet not many.

reply posted on 10-7-2009 @ 07:58 AM by skycopilot

reply to post by Frankidealist35

The attorney general was asked point blank would this bill restrict the speech of church ministers from saying anything about homosexuality. His answer was "yes". It was broadcast on the news - video and sound. Of course if you do not like religious people, this probably sits well with you. You also may not have read the first amendment -'Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech'.
If you stop someone else's speech - yours is next. Didn't WWII teach anyone anything?

reply posted on 10-7-2009 @ 08:11 AM by skycopilot

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

ministers in Canada and Scandinavia HAVE been arrested for reading the BIBLE to their congregations that homosexuality is wrong

reply posted on 10-7-2009 @ 08:12 AM by skycopilot

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

ministers in Canada and Scandinavia HAVE been arrested for reading the BIBLE to their congregations that homosexuality is wrong

reply posted on 10-7-2009 @ 11:49 PM by projectvxn

We have institutionalized corruption in this country. It is rampant and far reaching. With Constitutional questions to be asked I can't help but wonder if this is just another divisive tactic by those in control. Divide and Conquer my friend.

Those judges and police whose bias was there before will be there after this bill, and will likely not change the culture of corruption. What we need is a transparency initiative for all areas of government, especially Law Enforcement. If we NEVER know what is happening no law will bring it to light, and therefore never correct the injustices. There are already laws dealing with this sort of issue, if a white dude and a Hispanic guy get into a fight and one kills the other, is it a hate crime? Or just murder? Right now, with the type of track record the Federal Government has compiled for itself, it is very difficult for me not to cast them in the light of authoritarians, some even despots.

[edit on 10-7-2009 by projectvxn]