• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hate Crimes (1 Viewer)

Static

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hate Speech --

The very phrase infuriates me, and fills ME with hate.



"Hate Speech" is defined as "Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group." by Dictionary.com -- and more broadly defined by Wikipedia.org as

-- a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

If the creators of this phrase intended to incite hate in those who encounter it's usage in normal conversation; they've succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

The problem with the definition of hate speech is that it so broadly defines what is inflammatory. The word "bigoted" can mean a variety of things to different groups of people: For example if I wrote that the east side of Cleveland, Ohio is mostly black, it could be considered "prejudice". Now, if I went further and said that Clevelands' school district predominantly houses black student's, some may say that I'm crossing the line. Furthermore, if I said that the primary reason for the failure of Clevelands' schools is that millions of dollars of property taxes used chiefly to fund them are left unsolicited each year in the east side of Cleveland, because Clevelands' black leadership relies so heavily on the black liberal vote that they allow the white minority to pay the tax burden for the failing school system instead of cracking down on the government-dependent and lazy east side, you may say I'm headed down the slippery slope of "racism." And, if I made that statement that the black community is to blame for it's own plight in inner-city Cleveland, because they have fostered a culture and identity that relies on and embraces poverty and criminality... Well... You might try to lock me up for a crime of hate. Although you may be offended at what I'm saying, many people feel this way and their hands are slowly being tied; with the steady decline of our constitutional freedoms, so go our rights of free speech.

The word "disparaging" has me most troubled. That word means:

To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle.

To reduce in esteem or rank.

ads : expressive of low opinion; "derogatory comments"

So, according to the broadly defined definition of hate speech, anyone who "disrespects" someone for any reason is committing a crime. Do you see where this is going?

Communism relies on propaganda and a lack of free speech/press. The ruling class is allowed to do what ever they want, and if anyone speaks up they're thrown in jail for "inciting hate." The creation of hate crimes is pure Communism infiltrating America. If you've never read "Animal Farm", I will summarize. The pigs (communists) take over the farm(saving the poor animals from the cruel humans who worked them so hard), and write a bunch of rules on the barn wall, guaranteeing freedom and equality for all. Eventually, slowly, the pigs sneak in at night, and erase parts of the rules and subtly change them to their advantage, right under the noses of the other animals. Eventually, so much time passes that no one is around to remember the original "constitution" of the new republic. And to the dismay of the proletariat, the pigs owned everything, and give nothing to the workers. They rule with an iron fist that clamped down so slowly and subtly that no one noticed it's grasp until it was too late.

Too late for what? Too late to protest, too late to stand up for what's right, too late to save us from destroying our selves. We're headed down that path right now, and the normal 9-5'er doesn't see it clearly enough. Remember, before it was the U.S.S.R it was a revolution of the people. It can happen here, and it will if we're not careful. Remember, Russia is thousands of years old; we've only been around for a few hundred. We have yet to go through many trials, like every other country on earth. We must learn from the past, and recognize tyranny before it takes hold. My friends, our only saving grace has been the complexity of our government, but the checks and balances set in place by our founding fathers are breaking down; it's just too slow and complicated for most people to notice.

Preaching against homosexuality can be hate speech; so can anti-abortion rallies. If you read the communist parties goals, you clearly see that degradation of the family and promotion of promiscuity is high on the list. A breakdown of Christian American values means they can move right in and take over without resistance.

Meanwhile, America is changing. What used to be against simple moral code is now commonplace, and the true sins in society are "intolerance" and "closemindedness." We're seeing the disappearance of traditional sin, and the emergence of a new morality, where the only true sin is offending anyone about anything. Under this new morality, it is more of a sin to speak out against homosexuality then to be a homosexual. It's worse to protest abortion then to have one. We used to hold our selves to higher standards, and despite "White Picket Fence" syndrome, we aspired to be MORE moral then we were. Now, morality is no more.

I'm asking all Americans to take notice of everything we're losing, before it's lost. I want everyone to read our constitution, over and over until it's fixed firmly in your memory. Then take time to ponder all the ways our freedoms have been undermined. Don't allow the culture of "offendedness" to squash our free speech! Speak out! Speak your mind! And may America remain the greatest achievement of humanity for centuries to come.

~Static

View my blog at adamkirk.blogspot.com
 
Static said:
Preaching against homosexuality can be hate speech; so can anti-abortion rallies.

So can preaching against Christianity. Fortunately, few if any people are actually attempting to make hate-speech illegal. If anyone suggested taking away someone's freedom to speak his own beliefs, I will also stand against them.
 
I wish that were true, but multiple times in recent history we have seen bills attempt to do just that. As far as preaching AGAINST Christianity, that doesn't happen. No one holds rallies to preach AGAINST morals and values, they do what is legal, and WE preach against it. It is aimed at those who preach Christian values, not at those who "do what is legal." Therefore, by manipulating the long arm of the Judicial system it's possible to make all sorts of things normal and legal, makeing those of us who preach against it the "haters"

See evidence here:

(TITLE X--LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION)


Defines “Hate” against federally protected groups. (Its important to understand how they define "Hate" Section 280003(a) of the (Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement of 1994 H.R.3355.ENR 103rd Congress)


SEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.
(a) DEFINITION- In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime , the property that is the object of the crime , because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

(for more info on specific language go to http://www.truthtellers.org/hatecrimes.html)

The term "perceived" used above is dangerous. You may perceive that the sky is blue, but I may perceive the sky is gray or white. Two views, two opinions/ perceptions, here is the issue.

This definition "HATE" is defined by the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), against federally protected groups (race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation) eliminates our FREEDOM of SPEECH. Impacting Christian & Secular ministry efforts that may promote morals. For example: The Pro-Life organizations, could be perceived as promoting "Hate" again, its all a "perception"

Any question that Christianity CAN be defined as hate speech is covered in this article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34671
Defines the Bible as HATE Literature.

Example: You could as a Christian be witnessing, protesting, or speaking on SIN, and someone whom perceives our values as HATE, then could report us to the local law enforcement to be potentially arrested. This would effectively make Christianity a crime.



Sources: Worldnetdaily, WRWL Minisrites, Ohio House of Rep

~Ak

adamkirk.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
I think we're coming from slightly different perspectives here. I am a liberal, bisexual atheist, while I am thinking you may be a conservative, straight Christian. So perhaps we can help each other see from different perspectives on this issue.

I do like the theory behind hate crimes. I think that it is similar to motive. If someone commits murder because he hates people of a certain group, that person has acted out of great malice, and remains a threat to that group if he is ever freed. Because of this, his punishment should be greater, in the same fashion that the punishment of a cold-blooded killer is greater than the punishment of someone who killed in self-defense.

But I agree that speaking one's mind should not be a crime, and your right to protest my actions should never be taken away. Your protest of my actions does not harm me. It is not the same thing as killing me or assaulting me or anything like that. Instead, you are voicing your opinion. This is a freedom you are guaranteed by the American Constitution.

You linked to an article talking about a Canadian hate speech law. Though the Bible was never deemed "hate speech" in Canada, their law against hate speech is still wrong. I am not aware of any attempt to duplicate that law in America, though if I am ignorant of such attempts, please inform me.
 
I personally don't like the idea of HATE CRIMES. It's essentially institutionalized prejudice in my opinion.

If some some nut case decides to off another member of society because of their sexual preference or skin color, the criminal's punishment shouldn't be more severe. They killed someone, the crime should be treated the same.
 
SixStringHero said:
I personally don't like the idea of HATE CRIMES. It's essentially institutionalized prejudice in my opinion.

If some some nut case decides to off another member of society because of their sexual preference or skin color, the criminal's punishment shouldn't be more severe. They killed someone, the crime should be treated the same.

So, a person that kills someone by accident should get the same sentence as a person that kills in cold blood?
 
afr0byte said:
So, a person that kills someone by accident should get the same sentence as a person that kills in cold blood?

Of course not.

I guess I should have been more clear. I believe the sentence should be the same if the persons death was intentional and not accidental.
 
SixStringHero said:
Of course not.

I guess I should have been more clear. I believe the sentence should be the same if the persons death was intentional and not accidental.


So, there shouldn't be differing degrees of murder? (I'm guessing, at most, an accidental killing would fall under man-slaughter)
 
afr0byte said:
So, there shouldn't be differing degrees of murder? (I'm guessing, at most, an accidental killing would fall under man-slaughter)

I'm pretty sure there are different degrees on man-slaughter as well.

What I'm mainly getting at is all MURDER ONE crimes should be treated the same regardless of the sexual preference, religious affiliation or skin color etc.
 
I don't think this is currently done in our legal system, but perhaps early parole is the proper time to consider the likeliness to reoffend. If a murder is random or provoked, there may be an argument made that the offender made one bad decision. If the murder is a "hate" crime where simply being one of color, or sexual orientation, etc, is the "cause" of murder, what confidence would there be that the offender would not kill again?

Washington State has a law that sexual offenders can be held beyond the term given by the judge, if it is deemed that the offender is likely to reoffend. It's more complicated than that, but you get the drift of this law.

The law is tricky business, but I would be interested in your opinions about making parole the place to differentiate in the "type" of crime, rather than the original sentence.
 
Well, the situation that primarily concerns me about hate crimes is something like this:

Joe hates Buddhists. Joe overhears that Tom is a Buddhist, gets really angry, and kills Tom.

Because this is not premeditated murder, Joe may be charged with only third-degree murder. However, I feel that Joe's hatred of Buddhists makes this crime equal in malice to first degree murder, and it makes him as likely to reoffend as a first degree murderer, and therefore I would rather he be charged with first degree murder.

Is this a reasonable situation without hate crime laws?
 
Jaxian said:
Well, the situation that primarily concerns me about hate crimes is something like this:

Joe hates Buddhists. Joe overhears that Tom is a Buddhist, gets really angry, and kills Tom.

Because this is not premeditated murder, Joe may be charged with only third-degree murder. However, I feel that Joe's hatred of Buddhists makes this crime equal in malice to first degree murder, and it makes him as likely to reoffend as a first degree murderer, and therefore I would rather he be charged with first degree murder.

Is this a reasonable situation without hate crime laws?

What if Joe hates white women with blue eyes and there are no specific hate crimes protecting white women with blue eyes???

Basically Joe is a killer. It doesn't matter who he kills or why he should be treated as a killer and punished accordingly.
 
Just up the penalty for all crimes and be don with it.
 
talloulou said:
What if Joe hates white women with blue eyes and there are no specific hate crimes protecting white women with blue eyes???

Basically Joe is a killer. It doesn't matter who he kills or why he should be treated as a killer and punished accordingly.

My sentiments exactly.

I don't believe in this idea of institutionalized racism.
 
talloulou said:
What if Joe hates white women with blue eyes and there are no specific hate crimes protecting white women with blue eyes???

Basically Joe is a killer. It doesn't matter who he kills or why he should be treated as a killer and punished accordingly.
I doubt there is any hate crime legislation that specifically enumerates the groups that are acceptable as victims of hate crimes. I would assume that hate crime legislation pretty typically says what Static posted: that any crime in which the victim is chosen because he or she belongs to a specific group, can qualify as a hate crime. So if anyone goes picking on white women with blue eyes, because they are white women with blue eyes, it could be seen as a hate crime.

And I disagree that Joe's motive doesn't matter. If someone kills me because they hate me, they are a killer, but on the other hand, they're done killing. If someone kills me because they hate all men with long hair, that is far more dangerous in my eyes. Not only for what Jaxian pointed out in terms of reoffending, but also because that kind of non-specific hate has to be very intense for it to lead to crimes against people that have not harmed you as individuals, and that kind of intensity is dangerous.


I do, however, have one problem with hate crime legislation, which is: how does one prove hate? If there are two possible motives in a crime -- Joe hates black people and Joe is also poor; he kills a wealthy black man and steals his money -- how do you know which was the motvie for the crime? You can prove that Joe has a history of racist statements, he belongs to racist groups, and so forth; but I don't believe you can prove how someone feels. If Joe confesses to it, fine; but otherwise, I find hate crimes to be impossible to enforce fairly. The punishments will tend to land on those who have a past history of intolerance, but the right to be intolerant is free speech, and I believe hate crimes would corrode that; people would no longer be willing to speak their views, for fear it would create a history of intolerance that could lead to a hate crime conviction.
 
Static said:
The problem with the definition of hate speech is that it so broadly defines what is inflammatory. The word "bigoted" can mean a variety of things to different groups of people: For example if I wrote that the east side of Cleveland, Ohio is mostly black, it could be considered "prejudice".
No, it is descriptive.
Static said:
Now, if I went further and said that Clevelands' school district predominantly houses black student's, some may say that I'm crossing the line.
Still description. Though both this and the first one depend on what you have used to determine this: if you walked through East Cleveland and happened to notice a large number of black people, your assertion that East Cleveland is predominantly black could be rooted in prejudice; people that are racist tend to notice the targets of their prejudice more, and inflate their numbers/influence as a way of justifying hate and paranoia. But if the statements you have made are both accurate, then they are not racist.
Static said:
Furthermore, if I said that the primary reason for the failure of Clevelands' schools is that millions of dollars of property taxes used chiefly to fund them are left unsolicited each year in the east side of Cleveland, because Clevelands' black leadership relies so heavily on the black liberal vote that they allow the white minority to pay the tax burden for the failing school system instead of cracking down on the government-dependent and lazy east side, you may say I'm headed down the slippery slope of "racism."
Headed down? You fell over the edge. You have just made a half dozen unfounded assumptions in one sentence, and at least two of them are stereotypes about a group of people that you have defined by race, which is generally seen as racism. First you described the "black" leadership's motivation for not collecting taxes, ascribing a dishonest and itself racist political stance to a group of political leaders whom you identify only by their race. Then you describe the east side of Cleveland as "government-dependent" and "lazy," and say they need to be "cracked down on." All of those are intolerant, and you are again stereotyping an entire group of people who you have only previously identified by race. There's your racism.

Racism, sexism, etc., is really not very hard to identify in most cases. The problem with hate speech legislation is knowing when the speech is intended to harm, and when it is simply an expression of someone's personal, bigoted views.

Static said:
And, if I made that statement that the black community is to blame for it's own plight in inner-city Cleveland, because they have fostered a culture and identity that relies on and embraces poverty and criminality... Well... You might try to lock me up for a crime of hate. Although you may be offended at what I'm saying, many people feel this way and their hands are slowly being tied; with the steady decline of our constitutional freedoms, so go our rights of free speech.
You are speaking again stereotypically and intolerantly; I'd call this a racist statement. I wouldn't try to lock you up for it, unless it was followed by a statement such as, "Let's go get 'em!" Then maybe you should be locked up.
And the fact that many people have racist feelings doesn't make them right, or give anyone any more justification for stating them.

Static said:
Too late for what? Too late to protest, too late to stand up for what's right, too late to save us from destroying our selves. We're headed down that path right now, and the normal 9-5'er doesn't see it clearly enough. Remember, before it was the U.S.S.R it was a revolution of the people. It can happen here, and it will if we're not careful. Remember, Russia is thousands of years old; we've only been around for a few hundred. We have yet to go through many trials, like every other country on earth. We must learn from the past, and recognize tyranny before it takes hold. My friends, our only saving grace has been the complexity of our government, but the checks and balances set in place by our founding fathers are breaking down; it's just too slow and complicated for most people to notice.
The only problem with your Communism/Animal Farm analogy is that the pigs were the group in power, and they changed the Constitution to protect themselves. With hate crime legislation, it is being pushed by the minority, by the proletariat, and being fought by the ruling class; in other words, you're not Boxer. You're Napoleon.

Static said:
Preaching against homosexuality can be hate speech; so can anti-abortion rallies. If you read the communist parties goals, you clearly see that degradation of the family and promotion of promiscuity is high on the list. A breakdown of Christian American values means they can move right in and take over without resistance.
This confuses me; are you saying that preaching against homosexuality and protesting abortion should be considered hate speech? Or trying to show the injustice of hate crime legislation by telling us how these two great pastimes might be taken away by the Communists? Because if it's the latter, boy have you made some unfounded assumptions about your audience.
Preaching against homosexuality is hateful. So is what I have seen at anti-abortion rallies. That doesn't mean either of those forms of speech are meant to incite harm, and I don't think either one should be banned, so I will assume that's what you meant and leave it at that.

Static said:
Meanwhile, America is changing. What used to be against simple moral code is now commonplace, and the true sins in society are "intolerance" and "closemindedness." We're seeing the disappearance of traditional sin, and the emergence of a new morality, where the only true sin is offending anyone about anything. Under this new morality, it is more of a sin to speak out against homosexuality then to be a homosexual. It's worse to protest abortion then to have one. We used to hold our selves to higher standards, and despite "White Picket Fence" syndrome, we aspired to be MORE moral then we were. Now, morality is no more.

I'm asking all Americans to take notice of everything we're losing, before it's lost. I want everyone to read our constitution, over and over until it's fixed firmly in your memory. Then take time to ponder all the ways our freedoms have been undermined. Don't allow the culture of "offendedness" to squash our free speech! Speak out! Speak your mind! And may America remain the greatest achievement of humanity for centuries to come.

~Static

View my blog at adamkirk.blogspot.com
The problem with this now is by associating the breakdown of American society with the attempt to legislate against hate speech, you are equating hateful speech with high morals. That was what I saw as dangerous about your statements concerning preaching against homosexuality, so I see I should have assumed the worst.

It is ridiculous to assume that the attempt to eliminate hate crimes is an attempt to undermine the American moral fiber; it is, if anything, an attempt to strengthen it. Tolerance and acceptance of all is the basis of America; not one particular group's ability to denigrate and castigate other groups at will. The fact that such a state has existed in the past is not justification for undoing the progress that has been made and returning us to the days of Jim Crow laws and lynchings. You are trying to disguise your hate with a cloak of protest against unfair discrimination, and it is foolish and, as I said, dangerous. However, I do understand that if you and your ilk managed to pass legislation that protected a white preacher who wanted to tell his congregation to kill homosexuals, the pigs would have won the day, and, as you said, slipped that iron fist around us without our noticing.
 
Jerry said:
Just up the penalty for all crimes and be don with it.

Wow, that is a really bad idea. I had a friend in high school that stole some CDs got caught and tried to run. He got 5 years. 5 YEARS! Is that really justice. Upping the penalties does not even out the playing field.

Hate crimes are unjust because they discriminate, because all of us know that most crimes involve some level of hate which makes the idea of hate crime laws a hypocracy. No one commits murder on purpose without some level of hate against the victim. So why say that if a white man kills a black man it is instantly a hate crime and then say a white man killing a white man is just a regular crime. It is the highest level of injustice in our justice system (oh the irony!).
 
Sir_Alec said:
Hate crimes are unjust because they discriminate, because all of us know that most crimes involve some level of hate which makes the idea of hate crime laws a hypocracy. No one commits murder on purpose without some level of hate against the victim


They differentiate rather than discriminate. By very nature, hate crimes differ from ordinary crimes because hate crimes are commited against strangers rather than acquaintences, and so the target is selected as representative of a group rather than the selection being based upon interpersonal relationships formed between peretrator and victim. The victim of a hate crime could be anybody rather than somebody already known to the perpetrator, and so the crime affects a whole community because of the randomness of it all. There is no way for a hate crime victim to minimize their chances of being a victim as it isn't their relationship with the perp responsible for the hatred - it is just because of their race, ethnicity or sexuality.

THe law creates different penalties for all sorts of different circumstances that surround a crime. I would rather live in a legal syatem that applied moral reasoning in such a way as to differentiate between these circumstances than one that didn't myself -- even if others do not see the point of it all.
 
Sir_Alec
Quote: So why say that if a white man kills a black man it is instantly a hate crime and then say a white man killing a white man is just a regular crime. It is the highest level of injustice in our justice system (oh the irony!).

your right about the black on white crime but a white isn't going to kill a white guy because he hates white people
 
So, a person that kills someone by accident should get the same sentence as a person that kills in cold blood?

No, they should take it case by case and judge the according to what the person deserves. Crime is crime and doesn't need a special category. Hate crimes have just been installed by communist groups to elimate potential threats and dissent. The only people who are usually charged with hate crimes are white people and its rarely applied to non-whites even though they commit lots of "hate crimes" as well.
 
No, they should take it case by case and judge the according to what the person deserves. Crime is crime and doesn't need a special category. Hate crimes have just been installed by communist groups to elimate potential threats and dissent. The only people who are usually charged with hate crimes are white people and its rarely applied to non-whites even though they commit lots of "hate crimes" as well.

Can you prove that the crimes committed by non-whites against whites are hate crimes? No more than one can prove that a white person's crime against a non-white was motivated solely by hate. So I agree that hate crime is an unnecessary category; any case in which a crime is clearly racially motivated should be apparent to a thinking court, and I assume there is enough latitude in sentencing to make that a factor when it is appropriate.

Out of curiosity, though, what is wrong with eliminating potential threats and dissent? Oh, or are you saying that the communists wanted to eliminate potential threats to their world domination? Here's a poser for you: is white nationalism the dissenting movement against the world domination of communism, or is communism the dissenting movement against the world domination of white nationalism?
 
Hate crimes requires that we figure out the person motivations behind the killing. That sort of scenario is difficult enough with premeditate vs 2nd degree murder where psychical evidence is actually useful. Furthermore, it makes race or sexual orientation or religion and factor, and that tends to breed more of the same hatred.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom