Obama Signs Defense Policy Bill That Includes 'Hate Crime' Legislation

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


But murder isn't murder isn't murder.

There are different degrees of murder. There's premeditated murder, crimes of passion and murders that happen suddenly because a person just snaps and becomes violent, and some people's negligent actions result in the death of another person.

Obviously, the man in your scenario acted out suddenly because his wife was in immediate danger. He should not receive the same punishment as someone who killed his wife because he caught her in the act of cheating on him. If he later tracked the rapist down and then killed him it would be a different story.

However, I don't think it's right if two straight men get in a fight in a bar and one gets a certain punishment because he was charged with assault. But if the same man gets in a fight with a gay person and calls him something derogatory in the process and gets a harsher punishment, I don't think that's right. Your saying that beating up a gay person is worse than beating up a straight person.

Hate Crime legislation has been around since 1968. It's a little late to be complaining about it now. Obama just extended it to cover gay people, which Republicans in Congress have blocked all these years.

The legislation extends provisions first passed in 1968 that make it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion or national origin.
...
During that period, the House and the Senate separately approved the hate crimes expansion numerous times. But congressional Republicans repeatedly used legislative tactics to block final passage

Source

Damn. This makes one hell of a Catch-22. Let me see if I have this straight. If I am in a situation where I am perfectly justified in beating the crap out of somebody, and that person happens to be gay,I have to make a choice. If I don't beat the crap out of him because he's gay, I just discriminated against him and if I do beat the crap out of him, it can be called a hate crime. I can see where this is going. Where I live we have a number of openly gay men. I really don't have a problem with this except for one thing. They openly try to provoke straight men into taking a swing at them and when it happens, they run straight to their lawyer. It is basically that they think that they can do anything that they want and if you take offense, then you are the one with a problem. It kind of reminds me of the attitude of some blacks right after Obama got elected. They were making statements telling us that "we were going to going to get ours once their boy Obama took office".

Here is something to think about. If somebody doesn't make a pass at you or openly state their sexual orientation, how do you know if they are homosexual?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


That's definitely hard to justify. I wonder if the same people who blocked the inclusion for gays were for the bill for everyone else?

I'm going to bow out on this thread since I'm dead horse beating but as a final point, am I the only one that sees the danger of this camel getting its nose under the tent? I know it's a done deal, but we're going to run into every group wanting some sort of protected status being a political football with this.

"You hate me because I'm [fill in the blank]". And every time we allow this to happen and expand, it grants more and more power to the government, all with the best of intentions of course.

Easy for me to say maybe, since I don't fall into any particular group that could plausibly be classified as victimized. Which if you think about it, makes me a victim of being not a victim class, thus not eligible for equal protection.



"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
George Orwell, Animal Farm

[edit on 10/29/09 by MrDesolate]

Originally posted by nunya13
However, I don't think it's right if two straight men get in a fight in a bar and one gets a certain punishment because he was charged with assault. But if the same man gets in a fight with a gay person and calls him something derogatory in the process and gets a harsher punishment, I don't think that's right. Your saying that beating up a gay person is worse than beating up a straight person.

That's not a hate crime.

What hate crimes are:

A hate crime is a crime of violence that is motivated by hatred of the group to which the victim belongs.
...
The rage of the perpetrator is directed both at the victim, and at the group to which the victim belongs. The perpetrator might beat up one person, but the crime was motivated by hatred for everyone who bears some similarity to the victim -- perhaps hatred of all people of the victim's race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
Source

To prosecute for a hate crime, one must PROVE that the crime was motivated by the victim's "group", which is very hard to do.

At the same time, representatives from the sheriff’s office and the prosecutor’s office say getting a conviction under hate crime laws is difficult. “We have to understand that although the motivation behind the crime may be ... one’s ethnic background, it’s very hard to prove,” Hauge said.“The majority of the crimes we have that are referred to us as hate crimes, we classify as malicious mischief, assault or a variety of things we can get a conviction on,” Hauge said.Sometimes hate on the part of a suspect is apparent, Hauge said, but “what we can’t prove is the motivation behind that conduct ... was driven by that hate.”"

Proving Hate Crimes

My problem with hate crime legislation is that it makes thing unequal not on the human perspective but on a written hardened perspective.

In the past someone who committed a “hate crime” might have gotten a lighter sentence not because of laws that are written, to think that only makes you either stupid or gullible to the media. No the lighter sentence would be because of some jerk off lawyer, judge, or jury. It had nothing to do with law which has always covered violence against others.

No though with “hate crime” legislation you place some on a higher level than others. Meaning that if my wife, son, or even me is beaten down until we end up in ICU a person gets let’s say 5 years. But because you or your family member gets beaten down because you are gay, black, catholic, or whatever and a person gets 10 years because of that it makes things unequal. You have just become more important than my family because of who you are.

Well sorry but screw you. I don’t give a rats rear what you are it matters not at any point in life to me who or what you are. You are not better than my family because of who or what you are so stop demanding different laws just for you.

As for the issue Benevolent Heretic mentioned, you cannot compare a guy getting home and finding his wife being raped to someone killing a guy because he is gay. One is about protection of loved ones and it is about an intruder in your home. The next is about someone killing someone unlawfully because they wanted them dead for no other reason than that.
Even if that scenario involved a man saving an unknown woman from being raped it is different in that one is about someone saving another human being as opposed to someone just killing someone because they can. Unless of course you were trying to point to the contrast between the two in which I can say yes they should be viewed differently because they are different. Other than that murder is murder not including the differing levels of murder.

It would have been better to ask what if a man goes and kills a five year old who made him angry and if that should be looked at differently. In this case no it should not because someone killed another just because. Killing the little kid because they make you mad verses killing someone because they are gay is no different, you killed someone. You deserve the same punishment for both cases not more because one was gay and another not.

“Hate crime” legislation is not about equality but spreading the inequality. The laws we have are hard written and already make it illegal to kill, rape, or cause overall physical harm to another. Making “hate crime” legislation does nothing more than make some worth more than others. No one is worth more than another aside from possibly the victims and normal citizens being worth more than the criminals.


Raist

reply to post by JIMC5499


And this is what I am getting at. Using “hate crime” legislation makes one group worth more than another.

Why should one group get more protection than another? Are we reverting back in time only in a reversed way? It seems so to me.

Raist

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by StopComplaining
The NAZI party was rabbidly gay before Hitler started killing them all. These liberal lax laws will eventually lead to the arbitrary percecution of any citizen, including homosexuals.

The homosexuals who are pro "Hate Crime Bill" make me sick.

Is it only homosexuals, who are pro the "Hate Crime Bill", that make you feel sick or did you mean anybody?

And whats with the "rabbidly" gay remark you make about the Nazi party, would you like to enlighten us on this remark?

According to the history channel one of the SS commented that they used there Hitler Youth camp to select Males for their sexual pleasures. (Paraphrase)

Yes it is only the Homosexuals who make me sick because they act as though it is a Homosexual conspiracy and they want to jump on board. It is not a Homosexual conspiracy, it is an ADL conspiracy against gentiles (goyam). They complain of persecution and then they seek to persecute hetrosexuals, it is Hypocricy.

Besides the bill protect Pedophiles which is horrible.

www.sermonaudio.com...^A.^Johnson&keyworddesc=Sco tt+A.+Johnson&currsection=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=false&SpeakerOnly=true&keywordwithin=porn&x=21&y=12

Originally posted by StopComplaining
According to the history channel one of the SS commented that they used there Hitler Youth camp to select Males for their sexual pleasures. (Paraphrase)

Actually I was asking why did you use the term "rabbidly"?

Yes it is only the Homosexuals who make me sick because they act as though it is a Homosexual conspiracy and they want to jump on board. It is not a Homosexual conspiracy, it is an ADL conspiracy against gentiles (goyam). They complain of persecution and then they seek to persecute hetrosexuals, it is Hypocricy.

The legislation covers a multitude of possible targets:

And the legislation includes a measure -- the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act-- that authorizes the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute violent attacks in which the perpetrator has targeted a victim because of the his or her actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Have you ever been attacked violently by homosexuals for being hetrosexual, if so this legislation is there for you as well, although I haven't heard of many, if any, cases of homosexuals violently attacking hetrosexuals, unless it was in defence.

Besides the bill protect Pedophiles which is horrible.

The only thing I see in your posts, is a hatred for homosexuals and typical of the ignorant is propensity to couple paedophiles with homosexuals..

I don't know if you were posting a particular sermon for the posters on this thread to listen to, but the link didn't work, not that I would use that as an excuse not to listen to it.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Koka]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To prosecute for a hate crime, one must PROVE that the crime was motivated by the victim's "group", which is very hard to do.

No. The burden of proof is on the accused. Does anybody remember the pizza shop owner in Chicago a few years ago? A black teenager tried to rob his shop and the owner shot him dead. There was such a public outcry from the Black community that even though the shooting was considered to be justified, the Feds investigated to see if there was a Civil Rights violation. With this legislation, it is entirely possible to be found innocent of what ever crime was comitted at the local level, but to be found guilty of a Federal "hate crime" depending on which way the political wind is blowing at the time. It is not considered double jeopardy, because it is considered as two different crimes.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
No. The burden of proof is on the accused.

I posted a link to back up my statement. Where's yours?

... the Feds investigated to see if there was a Civil Rights violation.

And they found??? An investigation is not a charge.

reply to post by Koka


Homosexuality is a perversion, but I am talking about people who are/were classified in psychology as having philias, are being protected by this bill.

reply to post by Koka


The bill regulates "Sexual Orientation". If I happen to like having sex with people who are not willing participants, that is my orientation. If my depraved moral compass were to navigate me towards having sex with little boys, that is my orientation. Phsychologist have classified hundreds of philias and they are all covered in this bill. If someone raped your child wouldn't you like the free will to hate that person?

reply to post by Koka


How do you feel about these Sexual orientations?






[edit on 30-10-2009 by StopComplaining]

Originally posted by StopComplaining
reply to post by Koka

 

Homosexuality is a perversion, but I am talking about people who are/were classified in psychology as having philias, are being protected by this bill.

Anything can be considered a perversion.

Who is being protected that does not deserve the right to be protected?

Edit:
I would assume that those tendencies listed by Alcee Hastings would require protection from those individuals that take exception and feel justified in exacting a punishment and in the case of paedophiles, revenge.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Koka]

Originally posted by StopComplaining
reply to post by Koka

 

The bill regulates "Sexual Orientation". If I happen to like having sex with people who are not willing participants, that is my orientation. If my depraved moral compass were to navigate me towards having sex with little boys, that is my orientation. Phsychologist have classified hundreds of philias and they are all covered in this bill. If someone raped your child wouldn't you like the free will to hate that person?

I believe there are laws governing rape and sex with minors.

I don't see the point you are trying to make other than your subjective take on homosexuality.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Koka]

Originally posted by StopComplaining
The bill regulates "Sexual Orientation".

WHAT? "Regulates" sexual orientation? What kind of regulations are they putting on sexual orientation? What does that even mean? Never mind. I don't want to know.

If I happen to like having sex with people who are not willing participants, that is my orientation.

No, it's not. Sexual orientation is one's preference or predisposition toward one or the other gender. It has nothing to do with the deviant behavior to which you are attempting to associate it.

Martin E.P. Seligman, PH.D. former president of the APA (American Psychology Association) in his book "What you can change, and what you can't" states on page 149-150 that the ONLY clear recorded case of a Transsexual being cured is the following case. (As of his writing in 1993.) I copied over a shortened version of the account below.

John...thought of himself as a girl...on his way to surgery [sex change] he kept a promise...to check in with a local physician who was a member of a fundamentalist religion...[physicians explanation] his real problem was possession by evil spirits...prayer..laying on of hands...removed twenty-two spirits...He was followed closely for the next two and a half years by the psychiatric team and was clearly male-psychologically as well as physically...and was looking forward to marrying, a woman.

This is a secular source; if you don’t believe me look it up yourself. These perversions are demonic.

Could I be accused of a hate crime for referencing these?

(This is the original that Seligman referenced in his book)
D. Barlow, G. Abel, and E. Blanchard, "Gender Identity Change in a Transsexual: An Exorcism," Archives of Sexual Behaviour 6 (1977): 387-95

[edit on 31-10-2009 by StopComplaining]

Originally posted by StopComplaining
Could I be accused of a hate crime for referencing these?

Absolutely not. Speech is totally protected under the first amendment. And violence MUST occur for there to be a hate crime. There is no violence in speech.

You could be accused of a hate crime if you sought out a transsexual and physically hurt or killed them for the simple reason that they were transsexual. In other words, a CRIME (assault, murder, etc) must be committed and the motivation must be hatred for a group for there to be a charge of a hate crime.

If a transsexual attacked you and you fought back and they got hurt, that is NOT a hate crime. If you got in a fight with a gay guy at a bar and you hurt him, that is NOT a hate crime.

Originally posted by StopComplaining
Could I be accused of a hate crime for referencing these?

Not for posting references or an article, as I believe you are more than aware.

Although, given your take on what appears to be anything that is not, in your eyes, an upstanding hetrosexual, I wouldn't be surprised if one day you do fall foul of this legislation, which is, I guess, the reason it is brought in to being.

As for your demonic possession references........

Edit: May I ask, do you feel you have the right to go out and act violently toward someone who is protected by this legislation solely for the reason that you disagree with their sexual orientation?


[edit on 31-10-2009 by Koka]