The Truth about Hate Crimes

[Beanieboy]

People often ask why there is a differentiation between Crime and Hate Crime. If I kill you, how is that different just because of my skin color? Aren't both the same?

Well, if I want to kill my wife because I know that she's been cheating on me, send the kids off to their grandmothers, then wait for my wife with a shotgun, I am charged with premeditated Murder, 1st Degree.

If I walk in on my wife having sex with someone, and in anger, shoot her, I can argue that my emotions took over, and be charge 2nd Degree Murder, a "murder of passion."

If I am driving drunk and accidentally kill my wife, its Manslaughter.

The intention matters.

In Hate Crime, there is a difference.
People who want to steal for drugs, look for anyone who is an easy target.
But these people usually have a record.

People with Hate crimes target people who they deem ok to beat up, because society has told them that they are bad for everyone.

So, at one time, drunk boys went out bashing gay guys, and others thought, well, what did gay guys expect?

There was a time when people thought it was their right to take a black man from his home, sting him up in the middle of the night, and strangle the life out of him, and leave him there for everyone else to fear, and wonder who they were coming for next. And they weren't "criminals". The people in hood were people they saw every day, on the street, the baker, the banker, the store clerk, and they caused terror. There were terrorists, and dared to burn a cross, a total sacrelige of it meaning.

So, it was disturbing when I read this:

Assault on red-haired student investigated as hate crime
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/081121/canada/calgary_calgary_kick_ginger_attack_1

On South Park, there was a parody of hatred, about why red haired people are evil, and deserved to be killed, etc.
And it motivated the kids to then go out, and attack a kid, because he had red hair.

And that's the Truth about Hate Crimes - that the only real difference between a person who commits a Crime, and a Hate Crime is that the person committing the Crime knows he's a criminal. The person doing the Hate Crime thinks he's innocent, justified, or even called to do it out of duty, for the good of the people. But he is a criminal.

The Truth seems to be that for many, the only think that keeps them from beating up other people, or even killing them, is the law, and that makes you the same as someone who kills people anyway. I mean, a murderer has to have the thoughts first. Your thoughts fuel your words, and then its just a matter of finding someone who you can justify hurting, or killing even.

Why?
Because they dress funny.
Because they have a funny accent.
Because they are gay, or ever look gay.

Because they have red hair.

Even the lamest excuse will work, to justify the hatred, destruction, murder, and contempt for others that hides in their hearts like a leopard, just waiting for prey to pounce.

 

[sealacamp]

People often ask why there is a differentiation between Crime and Hate Crime. If I kill you, how is that different just because of my skin color? Aren't both the same?

Well, if I want to kill my wife because I know that she's been cheating on me, send the kids off to their grandmothers, then wait for my wife with a shotgun, I am charged with premeditated Murder, 1st Degree.

If I walk in on my wife having sex with someone, and in anger, shoot her, I can argue that my emotions took over, and be charge 2nd Degree Murder, a "murder of passion."

If I am driving drunk and accidentally kill my wife, its Manslaughter.

The intention matters.

In Hate Crime, there is a difference.
People who want to steal for drugs, look for anyone who is an easy target.
But these people usually have a record.

People with Hate crimes target people who they deem ok to beat up, because society has told them that they are bad for everyone.

So, at one time, drunk boys went out bashing gay guys, and others thought, well, what did gay guys expect?

There was a time when people thought it was their right to take a black man from his home, sting him up in the middle of the night, and strangle the life out of him, and leave him there for everyone else to fear, and wonder who they were coming for next. And they weren't "criminals". The people in hood were people they saw every day, on the street, the baker, the banker, the store clerk, and they caused terror. There were terrorists, and dared to burn a cross, a total sacrelige of it meaning.

So, it was disturbing when I read this:

Assault on red-haired student investigated as hate crime
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/081121/canada/calgary_calgary_kick_ginger_attack_1

On South Park, there was a parody of hatred, about why red haired people are evil, and deserved to be killed, etc.
And it motivated the kids to then go out, and attack a kid, because he had red hair.

And that's the Truth about Hate Crimes - that the only real difference between a person who commits a Crime, and a Hate Crime is that the person committing the Crime knows he's a criminal. The person doing the Hate Crime thinks he's innocent, justified, or even called to do it out of duty, for the good of the people. But he is a criminal.

The Truth seems to be that for many, the only think that keeps them from beating up other people, or even killing them, is the law, and that makes you the same as someone who kills people anyway. I mean, a murderer has to have the thoughts first. Your thoughts fuel your words, and then its just a matter of finding someone who you can justify hurting, or killing even.

Why?
Because they dress funny.
Because they have a funny accent.
Because they are gay, or ever look gay.

Because they have red hair.

Even the lamest excuse will work, to justify the hatred, destruction, murder, and contempt for others that hides in their hearts like a leopard, just waiting for prey to pounce.

All crime involves hatred of some form. Designating any crime as specifically a hate crime would infer that someone could read the mind of the criminal. Not only is this not possible it puts any unbelievable amount of power into the hands of prosecutors, and investigators. Crime is crime and that should be the end of it.

S

 

[Beanieboy]

All crime involves hatred of some form. Designating any crime as specifically a hate crime would infer that someone could read the mind of the criminal. Not only is this not possible it puts any unbelievable amount of power into the hands of prosecutors, and investigators. Crime is crime and that should be the end of it.

S

Yet, we differentiate between First Degree, Second Degree, and Third Degree, yet all is murder. Thought police?

The difference from what I was saying is that most people that commit hate crime are probably people that don't think they are criminals.

The KKK was made up of people from the town. It wasn't the "thugs." It was the "good people" of the town trying to teach the black people a lesson. They weren't the people from the jails.

They give themselves the illusion that they are not murders, but executioners, or following the Laws of Leviticus. These people deserve it, because they have murder in their heart, and just need a victim - in this case, having red hair.

It creates fear in the community. That's why the Taliban flying a plane into the WTC wasn't just murder, or destruction of property, but terrorism.

But, doesn't all crime create terror? No. It creates terror within the entire country. It goes farther than the people killed.

But when you can see kids watch South Park, see a parody of how red haired people suck, and then kids acting on it, they are simply looking for an excuse.

 

[OllieFranz]

Although I am not totally convinced that the current form of hate crime legislation is the best way to address the issue, it is an issue that does need to be addressed by the law. And I can't myself come up with another plan to address the issue that will survive the necessity of a law having clear and recognizable boundaries (This action violates the law, that action does not) and still address the issue.

There are some issues that need to be pointed out, however:

1) Many opponents of hate crime legislation claim that merely preaching hatred will be a crime, and that many Christian views will be labeled as hatred for the purposes of these laws. No. The preaching of hatred is covered by the incitement to riot laws, and there has to be a clear connection to a subsequent riot, or the immediate danger of one before preaching hatred rises to the level of inciting a riot. Free speech is still preserved, but yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected speech.

Remember, that given the way the laws written, hate crimes can only be an added charge to certain other crimes against persons and property. As long as a person does not cross the line into violent action, he has nothing to fear from the hate crime laws.

2) Others, like sealacamp above, claim that prosecutors and juries will have to be or pretend to be mind-readers to enforce the hate crime laws. not so. That is why laws -- all laws -- need to be clearly written with recognizable boundaries, and hate crime laws are so written. Intent and motive are two different things (although there is some overlap). Laws, even hate crime laws, address intent, not motive. While proving motive might in many cases necessitate mind reading, proving intent does not.

Intent is proved when it is clear to the average person that a certain act has, or usually has, a certain consequence, and that the defendant has the mental and emotional capacity to recognize that consequence. Impaired or diminished capacity can reduce the degree of intent to recklessness or negligence, but does not usually eliminate it entirely.

Since burning a cross on a lawn before dragging a man out of his home and hanging him from a tree is generally recognized as signalling hatred and inducing terror, the average person expects that any new incident of such an action will produce the same terror. Intent is provable in hate crime laws.

3) Finally, there are those who claim that hate crime laws give special protection, and therefore special rights, to certain groups. This is not true. Most hate crime laws, just like most anti-discrimination laws, do not separate people into groups and protect one group from the other. They recognize that society separates people into groups and declares some of the distinctions made irrelevant for almost any public purpose, and particularly abhorent when used to deny one group full equality under the law.

The laws do not protect "Blacks" from "Whites," but instead they protect anyone discriminated against because of race. They do not protect "Jews" from "Christians," but anyone discriminated because of religion -- and this includes protecting Conservative Christians fron "Fundy bashing." Similarly, the laws do not protect "Gays" from "Straights," but instead protect anyone discriminated against because of orientation.

In practice, it must be admitted, that the vast majority of the times that the law is invoked it is to protect a minority against a majority. But sheer strength of numbers often protects the majority better than the law does, so animosity against them rarely rises to the point of actionable violence, and when it does, there is often a personal grudge that far exceeds any mere (racial, religious, sexual) discrimination.

 

[Polycarp1]

All crime involves hatred of some form. Designating any crime as specifically a hate crime would infer that someone could read the mind of the criminal. Not only is this not possible it puts any unbelievable amount of power into the hands of prosecutors, and investigators. Crime is crime and that should be the end of it.

S

You raise a valid point, which I've seen before. There are three interlocking valid responses to it.

1. Intent/motive is nearly always an element of a crime, as Beanieboy demonstrated with his murder/manslaughter example. 17 years ago a man a foot taller than me and outweighing me by 100 pounds stabbed a sharp knife into my chest and relieved me of $10,000 in doing so. He has my everlasting gratitude for it; he was my heart surgeon, engaged in saving my life. Intent matters. And intent is not found by "reading the mind of the accused" but by his statements, actions, body language, etc. Any televised mystery will show you how this is done, dramatized to be sure, in an hour's viewing.

2. "Hate crime" is probably a bit of a misnomer. But, like "homophobia" and "the Christmas season" (meaning the 4-8 week sales period before Dec, 25 rather than the traditional 12 days starting on that date), it's a misnomer that has befome enshrined in the language. Actually, what a hate crime as the term is used in law is, is a criminal act that also constitutes a threat to a law-abiding defined group. Burning a campfire on somebody else's property is a case of petty trespass and criminal mischief; burning a cross in the front yard of a black family is the same offense coupled with an implicit threat to all black people not to get too "uppity." Beating up a man because you got into a bar argument with him is assault and battery; beating up a gay man because you decided to go bay-bashing is assault and battery and an implicit threat to any homosexual person as well. And notice that it's not because they're black or gay, but because they fall into a group defined by one of those "suspect classifications." The black gang beating up a couple of white kids that came on their turf; the gay demonstrators assaulting the old woman with the "Yes on Prop 8" sign, are examples of the reverse and equally valid hate crimes.

3. Yes, it does place a powerful weapon in the hands of prosecutors. But it's one that requires extra effort and extra proof at law to use. And unlike civil lawsuits where balance of evidence proof is adequate, the prosecutor is required to prove each element of his case beyond reasonable doubt. So only the most obvious hate crimes, the ones easiest to prove as being motivated by hostility against a class of people, get prosecuted as such.

 

[Spherical Time]

All crime involves hatred of some form. Designating any crime as specifically a hate crime would infer that someone could read the mind of the criminal. Not only is this not possible it puts any unbelievable amount of power into the hands of prosecutors, and investigators. Crime is crime and that should be the end of it.

S

Aside from what beanieboy said, I just want to point out that not all crime involves hatred.

Not even all violent crime involves hatred.

If you want to make that claim, please provide supporting documentation for it. And no, I don't accept your opinion as supporting documentation.

And, I should point out that religion is one of the things covered by most hate crime legislation. If anyone wants to complain about special rights, then you should complain about your own special rights first.

 

[OllieFranz]

Although I am not totally convinced that the current form of hate crime legislation is the best way to address the issue, it is an issue that does need to be addressed by the law. And I can't myself come up with another plan to address the issue that will survive the necessity of a law having clear and recognizable boundaries (This action violates the law, that action does not) and still address the issue.

My state has had a law on the books since 1978 that adresses this issue in a different way from the way hate crime legislation deals with it. There is no mention of suspect classes or any other specific motive. That's to the good.

Unfortunately, as written, it would be difficult to charge a crime under this law against anything other than a bomb threat or a death threat. If the threat is silent and begins with the act of violence as most bashing crimes do, this law is not as effective. That is why something else is needed and "hate crime" laws come the closest to meeting that need.

2C:12-3. Terroristic threats.

a.

A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to commit any crime of violence with the purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. A violation of this subsection is a crime of the second degree if it occurs during a declared period of national, State or county emergency. The actor shall be strictly liable upon proof that the crime occurred, in fact, during a declared period of national, State or county emergency. It shall not be a defense that the actor did not know that there was a declared period of emergency at the time the crime occurred.

b.

A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to kill another with the purpose to put him in imminent fear of death under circumstances reasonably causing the victim to believe the immediacy of the threat and the likelihood that it will be carried out.
​

Note: "Crimes" means felonies; degrees are classed from 1st (most severe, eg murder) to 4th (least severe, eg shoplifting with a total value too high to be a misdemeanor)

 

[Beanieboy]

I also don't want to overlook another point - that people that commit hate crime often don't think of themselves as criminals.

Drug dealers admit that they are drug dealers. Prostitutes know that what they are doing is against the law, and will not, to friends and self, call themselves "escorts."

But people in the KKK don't see anything wrong with their beliefs, or their actions toward others, because the others deserve it. The Taliban flying a plane into the twin towers did not think themselves as murderers, or terrorists, but freedom fighters, people who were fighting against the satanic US in the name of Allah.

It's the illusion of good people and bad people. If you admit that you are a junkee, a professional thief, a dealer, then you admit you are no choir boy. You are one of the "bad guys", although you may still justify it, think that police are corrupt, society is corrupt, etc.

If you commit hate crime, the people often don't see the crime as bad, but seem to delight in it. The white guys in Texas, who offered Byrd a ride, only to tie him to the bumper of their car and drag him for 3 miles to his painful, violent death, were proud of what they were doing, and trying to impress the Aryan Nation. They wanted to become heroes, and killing the man is such a violent way was no different than shooting a dog to them. So, they can still tell themselves that they are one of the good people fighting against the enemy, Satan, and name it: gay people, black people, jews, or in the case in Canada, people with red hair.

One has to ask: what would move someone to watch a cartoon talking about how red haired people deserved to be beat up, and then actually go do it? If you have hatred and anger in your heart, but want to believe that that hatred is justified, even righteous, you put that guilt and blame on the other. Red haired people have done nothing, but that has never been the point. The person wants to harm someone, and just needs an excuse, an outlet, and then claim that it was in their right, that they were doing it for the better good of everyone, the good guys beating up the bad guys, the good guys flying a plane into the WTC, David killing Goliath. You have to deny that the other is your neighbor.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I also don't want to overlook another point - that people that commit hate crime often don't think of themselves as criminals.

Drug dealers admit that they are drug dealers. Prostitutes know that what they are doing is against the law, and will not, to friends and self, call themselves "escorts."

But people in the KKK don't see anything wrong with their beliefs, or their actions toward others, because the others deserve it. The Taliban flying a plane into the twin towers did not think themselves as murderers, or terrorists, but freedom fighters, people who were fighting against the satanic US in the name of Allah.

It's the illusion of good people and bad people. If you admit that you are a junkee, a professional thief, a dealer, then you admit you are no choir boy. You are one of the "bad guys", although you may still justify it, think that police are corrupt, society is corrupt, etc.

If you commit hate crime, the people often don't see the crime as bad, but seem to delight in it. The white guys in Texas, who offered Byrd a ride, only to tie him to the bumper of their car and drag him for 3 miles to his painful, violent death, were proud of what they were doing, and trying to impress the Aryan Nation. They wanted to become heroes, and killing the man is such a violent way was no different than shooting a dog to them. So, they can still tell themselves that they are one of the good people fighting against the enemy, Satan, and name it: gay people, black people, jews, or in the case in Canada, people with red hair.

One has to ask: what would move someone to watch a cartoon talking about how red haired people deserved to be beat up, and then actually go do it? If you have hatred and anger in your heart, but want to believe that that hatred is justified, even righteous, you put that guilt and blame on the other. Red haired people have done nothing, but that has never been the point. The person wants to harm someone, and just needs an excuse, an outlet, and then claim that it was in their right, that they were doing it for the better good of everyone, the good guys beating up the bad guys, the good guys flying a plane into the WTC, David killing Goliath. You have to deny that the other is your neighbor.

Gays who physically attack people who oppose gay marriage dont see themselves guilty of a hate crime either - but they are.

 

[Spherical Time]

Gays who physically attack people who oppose gay marriage dont see themselves guilty of a hate crime either - but they are.

Good thing that Christians don't think it's criminal then, right?

I mean, since it's a "thoughtcrime" then Christians should be totally against anyone being prosecuted.

No?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Good thing that Christians don't think it's criminal then, right?

I mean, since it's a "thoughtcrime" then Christians should be totally against anyone being prosecuted.

No?

What? Im sorry but I dont understand what youre talking about.

 

[Beanieboy]

Gays who physically attack people who oppose gay marriage dont see themselves guilty of a hate crime either - but they are.

I agree.
And people who beat up and kill gay people don't see themselves as murderers, but they are.
I listened to a Christian talk show, where they were discussing hate crime legislation. The woman claimed that including sexual orientation in the hate crime legislation was like saying killing gay people is worse than killing straight people.
However, sexual orientation would cover gay or straight people, as you said.

So, she was basically trying to not included it, knowing that gay people are targeted far more than heterosexual people, and that people try to use defense like "gay panic defense", to even justify it.

So, she basically is part of the problem. She is deceptive, and wants to not include gay people (even though race, religion, creed, sex, and origin are already in hate crimes on the books), knowing that there is a problem, only fueling the crime, and helping people get more lenient sentences.

When one of the "moral" people is arguing for the side of the murderers.

Examples:
1983
In Washington DC a gay man was abducted, slashed with a knife, kicked, and urinated on. His two attackers would later be found guilty and sentenced to probation.

A judge in Texas was censured for giving a light sentence to a teenager who murdered two men because they were gay. He explained the sentence by saying that he couldn't give a life sentence to a teenage boy just because he killed a couple of homosexuals.

1985
A gay man was beaten to death by a man who feared he could contract AIDS because he drank from the same bottle as the man. He would be sentenced to three months in prison for the murder.

Is that justice?

 

[Spherical Time]

What? Im sorry but I dont understand what youre talking about.

Do you support hate crimes or not?

I mean, the party line is that "hate crimes" are bad. That a crime is a crime, and we shouldn't punish people like the thought police would.

But then I see you talking about charging gay people with hate crimes against religious groups.

So are you for hate crimes or against them? If you're for them, great, then we see if we can find the gay people that have been attacking Christians just because they're Christians and charge them. If you're against them, it's totally hypocritical of you to want to use them and we get to razz you for being totally biased.

I mean gosh. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I agree.
And people who beat up and kill gay people don't see themselves as murderers, but they are.
I listened to a Christian talk show, where they were discussing hate crime legislation. The woman claimed that including sexual orientation in the hate crime legislation was like saying killing gay people is worse than killing straight people.
However, sexual orientation would cover gay or straight people, as you said.

So, she was basically trying to not included it, knowing that gay people are targeted far more than heterosexual people, and that people try to use defense like "gay panic defense", to even justify it.

So, she basically is part of the problem. She is deceptive, and wants to not include gay people (even though race, religion, creed, sex, and origin are already in hate crimes on the books), knowing that there is a problem, only fueling the crime, and helping people get more lenient sentences.

When one of the "moral" people is arguing for the side of the murderers.

Why do you believe that she is immoral because she might be concerned that more is added than what the crime suggests? There have been gays murdered over drugs yet overzealous advocates of gay rights want to jump on the bandwagon and claim it was a hate crime. Do i agree that real hate crimes happen? Yes.

Examples:
1983
In Washington DC a gay man was abducted, slashed with a knife, kicked, and urinated on. His two attackers would later be found guilty and sentenced to probation.

More facts are needed here - by this description it could have been random violence and the perps may not have known the person was gay - if so it wasnt a hate crime but a crime period.

A judge in Texas was censured for giving a light sentence to a teenager who murdered two men because they were gay. He explained the sentence by saying that he couldn't give a life sentence to a teenage boy just because he killed a couple of homosexuals.

Poor Judge if its as you say - could you provide links to actual news articles about this?

1985
A gay man was beaten to death by a man who feared he could contract AIDS because he drank from the same bottle as the man. He would be sentenced to three months in prison for the murder.

Is that justice?

No it isn't if its as you state - please provide links.

I would like to add though that most christians I know who disagree with certain aspects of hate crime legislation though is to keep it from being used against pastors and others who biblically speak openly about homosexuality being sin. Yes there have been pastors in other countries prosecuted for it on the stance of "hate crime".

As well as again issues where there was no hate - the person who was a target of random crime was not known to be gay yet gay advocates claimed otherwise.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Do you support hate crimes or not?

Why would I support hate crimes?

I mean, the party line is that "hate crimes" are bad. That a crime is a crime, and we shouldn't punish people like the thought police would.

im a person not a party line. Do you even see a political icon in my posts?

But then I see you talking about charging gay people with hate crimes against religious groups.

No - you see me adding balance to the post previously. Show one post of mine where i have asked that anyone be charged with a hate crime. Everything else youve added yourself apart from my thoughts.

So are you for hate crimes or against them? If you're for them, great, then we see if we can find the gay people that have been attacking Christians just because they're Christians and charge them. If you're against them, it's totally hypocritical of you to want to use them and get to razz you for being totally biased.

I mean gosh. It's not that hard to understand.

Can you understand that I am not other people you are basing me on and talk to me like a person? I dont assume what you think - i ask you - like i asked you above. Can you show the same respect?

 

[Spherical Time]

Why would I support hate crimes?

Yes. That was my question. The last paragraph of this post is relevant.

im a person not a party line. Do you even see a political icon in my posts?

<staff edit> The party that I was referring to was Christians. Mostly conservative Christians.

No - you see me adding balance to the post previously. Show one post of mine where i have asked that anyone be charged with a hate crime. Everything else youve added yourself apart from my thoughts.

You explicitly said that what the gay people were doing to the opponents of gay marriage was a hate crime.

Above, you say that you don't believe in hate crimes. That means that what the gay people are going to Christians aren't crimes. QED.

<staff edit>

You don't support hate crimes. If it isn't a crime, you can't be arrested for doing it. If gay people are doing hate crimes on Christians, then you don't think they're doing crimes because hate crimes aren't crimes.

If a Christian shouldn't be arrested for doing a hate crime against a gay person then that also means that a gay person shouldn't be arrested for doing a hate crime against a Christian.

Can you understand that I am not other people you are basing me on and talk to me like a person? I dont assume what you think - i ask you - like i asked you above. Can you show the same respect?

Uh. Perhaps you failed to understand that I also asked you a question. I also offered an explanation, so yeah I added more than what you asked because I might as well build on the answer i gave, but I did show you the same respect, and you blew off the answer.

Can you understand that I am not other people that you are ignoring me on and talk to me like a person? I don't assume what you think--I asked--just like what you asked above. Can you show me the same respect?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes. That was my question. The last paragraph of this post is relevant.

????????????

<staff edit> The party that I was referring to was Christians. Mostly conservative Christians.

I am not the spokesperson for others.

You explicitly said that what the gay people were doing to the opponents of gay marriage was a hate crime.

No I did not - i added balance to the previous post which sited all but what would come from their own side to give balance to see if they also included that(you do know what a rhetorical question is? ). Ive also already explained myself. I did not "explicitly" call for anything - thats your imagination of what I said.

Above, you say that you don't believe in hate crimes. That means that what the gay people are going to Christians aren't crimes. QED.

No , you need to read what you asked and what I answered again. You asked if i supported hate crimes - you didnt ask if i supported hate crime legislation - so maybe you are having a hard time stating what you really want to know.

<staff edit>

We are done.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I would like to add though that most Christians I know who disagree with certain aspects of hate crime legislation though is to keep it from being used against pastors and others who biblically speak openly about homosexuality being sin. Yes there have been pastors in other countries prosecuted for it on the stance of "hate crime".

That is because Canada has different laws from the US. I assumed you were referencing the Catholic Insight Magazine case (which got dismissed), but you could have been referencing any of these previous cases:
"Already, a Knights of Columbus council was fined more than $1,000 for refusing to allow its facility to be used for a lesbian "wedding," and before that printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for declining to print homosexual-themed stationery. In another case Hugh Owens was fined thousands of dollars for quoting Bible verses in a newspaper and London, Ontario, mayor Diane Haskett was fined $10,000 for refusing to proclaim a homosexual pride day."
I feel this particular article is biased, but I couldn't find a non-biased news source.

Anyway, Canada doesn't have the very important Freedom of Speech granted by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Only the Scott Brockie case mentioned above would be a crime in the US (I think), as it is discrimination.

I tend to think of "Hate Crimes" as being murders, beatings, and terrorist acts (like the KKK burning a cross on someone's lawn). Given that the US has the Right to Freedom of Speech, I can't imagine that someone's words (assuming the words are not an assault) would be tried as a Hate Crime in the US. Maybe for Libel or Slander, but not as a Hate Crime. I certainly wouldn't agree with such happening; the US guarantees Freedom of Speech!

 

[Spherical Time]

????????????

Nevermind then.

I am not the spokesperson for others.

Nor did I presume to suggest that you were. I only brought that up because your beliefs could be similar to theirs.

No I did not - i added balance to the previous post which sited all but what would come from their own side to give balance to see if they also included that(you do know what a rhetorical question is? ). Ive also already explained myself. I did not "explicitly" call for anything - thats your imagination of what I said.

Read your own words again. Welcome to the real world. You may have intended only one thing, but your own words carried more than what you intended.

No , you need to read what you asked and what I answered again. You asked if i supported hate crimes - you didnt ask if i supported hate crime legislation - so maybe you are having a hard time stating what you really want to know.

We are done.

Thump. And there closed the book on this long relationship. Yes, although it had persisted for many years, A4T finally grew tired of ST, and said to him "We are done." And that was the end of it.

And then, despite the many hours of horror that she'd caused him in the past, he learned to get on with his life.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

People often ask why there is a differentiation between Crime and Hate Crime. If I kill you, how is that different just because of my skin color? Aren't both the same?

Well, if I want to kill my wife because I know that she's been cheating on me, send the kids off to their grandmothers, then wait for my wife with a shotgun, I am charged with premeditated Murder, 1st Degree.

If I walk in on my wife having sex with someone, and in anger, shoot her, I can argue that my emotions took over, and be charge 2nd Degree Murder, a "murder of passion."

If I am driving drunk and accidentally kill my wife, its Manslaughter.

The intention matters.

In Hate Crime, there is a difference.
People who want to steal for drugs, look for anyone who is an easy target.
But these people usually have a record.

People with Hate crimes target people who they deem ok to beat up, because society has told them that they are bad for everyone.

So, at one time, drunk boys went out bashing gay guys, and others thought, well, what did gay guys expect?

There was a time when people thought it was their right to take a black man from his home, sting him up in the middle of the night, and strangle the life out of him, and leave him there for everyone else to fear, and wonder who they were coming for next. And they weren't "criminals". The people in hood were people they saw every day, on the street, the baker, the banker, the store clerk, and they caused terror. There were terrorists, and dared to burn a cross, a total sacrelige of it meaning.

So, it was disturbing when I read this:

Assault on red-haired student investigated as hate crime
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/081121/canada/calgary_calgary_kick_ginger_attack_1

On South Park, there was a parody of hatred, about why red haired people are evil, and deserved to be killed, etc.
And it motivated the kids to then go out, and attack a kid, because he had red hair.

And that's the Truth about Hate Crimes - that the only real difference between a person who commits a Crime, and a Hate Crime is that the person committing the Crime knows he's a criminal. The person doing the Hate Crime thinks he's innocent, justified, or even called to do it out of duty, for the good of the people. But he is a criminal.

The Truth seems to be that for many, the only think that keeps them from beating up other people, or even killing them, is the law, and that makes you the same as someone who kills people anyway. I mean, a murderer has to have the thoughts first. Your thoughts fuel your words, and then its just a matter of finding someone who you can justify hurting, or killing even.

Why?
Because they dress funny.
Because they have a funny accent.
Because they are gay, or ever look gay.

Because they have red hair.

Even the lamest excuse will work, to justify the hatred, destruction, murder, and contempt for others that hides in their hearts like a leopard, just waiting for prey to pounce.

What about malevolence and ulterior motives? What if you desire to expose and drive away people that you feel have dark and evil motives for their positions?

And what if they really do? Many people tried to stop Hitler before he bacame all-powerful, and most people thought the opposition to National Socialism were wrong.

That cuts many ways.