You mean putting your money where your mouth is isn’t a good enough reason? Are people who assault homosexuals or other minorities less likely to be charged with assault?
But to answer your question I’d still be against hate crime laws. Simply because I do not think their crimes warrant greater punishment. If someone plans to assault someone because they are gay I don’t think it is worse then some other motivation. However I would be in favor of various law enforcement organizations having task forces specifically set up to deal with these kinds of crimes.
Then how come the FBI didn’t take over the James Byrd, Jr. case? I might be a bit fuzzy but I don’t think the murderers of Matthew Shephard were tried in a federal court. How about the rape and murder of Brandon Teena, federal or state?
All jokes aside, what exactly is your point? That it’s easier to be gay than a racial minority, because we can disappear in a crowd? And even if that were true (which it’s not), what bearing would that have on criminal justice?
That is my point. If we’re on the street there’s only a few ways I can know if you’re a homosexual. You can walk up and tell me, you can wear a big purple t-shirt with a rainbow triangle on it, you can you can exhibit homosexual behavior with another person, or I might see you walking out of a gay bar. So in general if I spot someone at the mall I can’t just say “Hey, he’s gay.”
I don’t suppose it really does matter. But then I’m not the one who originally brought it up.
This is typical of heterosexuals - behavior that they take for granted - for example, wearing a wedding ring, kissing their significant other in public, placing a photo of one’s opposite-sex husband or wife on their desk at work, speaking about their home life to others - all of these things are seen as normal, but when it’s a gay person, all of a sudden we’re “announcing” to everyone “what we do in bed.” It’s just so annoying.
Just because I don’t “have to” do any of these things doesn’t mean that a heterosexual doesn’t enjoy exactly these same privileges without fear of repercussion.
[aside] I’ve tried to ignore it, but I can’t - “irregardless” is not a word. I would guess you mean to use “regardless.”[/aside]
Whoa, hold there pardner. If you’re wearing a wedding ring I still can’t single you out in a crowd. As to kissing your SO in public I already mentioned that as one of the clues. Not kissing in specific but behavior in general. I don’t find homosexuals “annoying”, I want them to be free to marry, and I don’t consider it less of a crime when they are physically attacked.
And in fact how do you know I’m a heterosexual? I could be a deeply closeted homosexual for all you know. If you saw me in the mall you certainly wouldn’t be able to tell one way or the other.
**
In general I still can’t pick homosexuals out of a crowd. Is this some magical power that only gay bashers and homosexuals have.
Hmmm, I think I see some sort of subliminable message there.
Your whole point is being based on some stereotypical behavior. What about people who are heterosexual but exhibit stereotypical homosexual behaviors? What if a straight guy is effeminate? Or wears less-than-butch clothing? Or, perhaps from being raised in a different culture, doesn’t have a problem holding hands with or kissing another man in public? How about a woman with short hair? Or similarly doesn’t mind holding hands with her friend in public (as some women still do)? What about two teenage girls who hold hands in high school? What if someone thinks they’re gay?
One of the important points raised earlier in this debate is that hate crime laws protect heterosexuals perceived as being gay as much as they protect gay people themselves.
And although the “it’s a deterrent” issue will be hotly debated on and on and on, I will remind folks of the issue of intimidation. By attacking a minority for that person’s minority status, there is an element of intimidation against that entire class of people - its own form of terrorism.
I think that makes his point. You just don’t know.
Dixie asked for a valid reason against Hate Crimes, I think it has been established in this thread again and again. I deduct that you refuse to accept it as a valid reason. Hate Crime legislation is prejudice. If you support a law that permits the federal government to take over a case that the local authorities will not prosecute, fine, but do it across the board. I submit that ‘poor’ people are prejudiced against in trials across the boards.
The federal Hate Crime legislation as it exists, only applies to federal crimes. An effective bill would pierce the States Rights, which could bring the death penalty to states that don’t support it. Is that what needs to happen to ensure that all criminal actions are punished in this country?
The only way a case will ever be prosecuted with the Hate Crimes law is if there is a public outrage, otherwise, how will the federal government even hear about it? If there is a public outrage at how something is handled, wouldn’t it be best to prosecute and remove those who allowed the criminal action to occur? And wouldn’t it also behoove that State’s governor to handle these cases at the State level. Add that to a federal bill, but allow the States first rights to correct the matter.
The Civil Rights Act is much easier to prosecute under than the completely ineffective federal Hate Crimes laws. If I am not mistaken, the federal Hate Crimes law was created in answer to a serial burning of ‘black’ churches. It had nothing to do with people getting beat up or killed because of the racists commiting the crime. That may have been thrown into the laws, but it was a waste of ink because it is rare that murder or assault are prosecuted under federal law. I am no lawyer, but I believe the federal government has a way to prosecute arson against churces at the federal level. It was a quick response to a horrific act that created a public outcry.
The Hate Crimes law has been brought up in this debate as an outcry by Al Gore for all minorities to support him because he supports it and GW Bush doesn’t. The federal version of the law is completely inadequate to correct any injustices, but is waved around like some marvel of legislation that it quite simply is not.
Oh, I know - I’ve tangled with MGibson before, the ultimate Devil’s Advocate. I get the distinct impression he enjoys the arguing so much he doesn’t bother to actually express his opinion.
But my point is still valid - hate crime laws are designed to protect everyone, not just that class of people.
It has also been stated several times in this thread that most people would be for laws that either protect all, or do away with them. I said it as well - protection needs to be applied equally across the board, and it evidently is not in the cases of some minority-related cases.
And, being a minority, it’s easy, even as Al Gore pointed out last night, for a member of the majority to say, “Well, we really don’t need this, now, do we?” But it doesn’t address the diversity of experiences each person brings to the table, and, in the case of hate crimes legislation, the law as it stands does not adequately protect those who need it most - those in the minority. I see hate crimes laws, like affirmative action (and just as controversial), as a step in the right direction to acknowledge and repair the imbalance that has existed for so long. Is it revenge? No. It is about equal treatment under the law.
Ah, well, here I have to agree with you - it isn’t the most groundbreaking, ground-shaking legislation ever proposed. But you know what? It’s a way for an administration, for the elected heads of the country, to stand up and say, “We will not tolerate this in our country.” Period. If it comes from the top man, it says something about our government and our country and its peoples. It’s a start to something better, IMHO.
To me, Hate Crime Legislation has only one purpose. It removes local police authority and turns it over to the federal government. This was very apparent after the shooting up of the Jewish daycare school. The guy shoots up a couple of people and ran off. The Northridge Police and emergency people were on the job immediately and took charge of the injured and took all the necessary information. Then they stopped…The FBI arrived and they stopped…One ATF agent came over to the television announcer and told him that they couldn’t make a move until Washington DC declared this a “hate crime.” That is a perfect example of why this legislation must be stopped!
I have worked in the arts for years and have worked with hundreds of gays and lesbians. My question to the citizens of this country is “Why does the request for marriage certification bother anyone?” With the divorce rate now around 50% what difference does the sexes of the license make legally? My best friend has been living with his lover for 30 years and is one of the best men I have ever met.
I can understand a church not recognizing this union, but I believe the government should.
I dunno, Esprix. Satan has expressed his discomfort with hate crime legislation, and he is emphatically not anti-gay (or prejudiced in any other way that I can see). There is a certain “it just ain’t right” feeling about identifying any subgroup for any sort of special treatment, even when the treatment in question is simply ameliorative, in recognition that that subgroup has suffered under prejudicial behavior before. You can quickly spin off from sexual-orientation hate crimes prevention laws to affirmative action programs – if the country is colorblind, why specify that blacks, Hispanics, or whatever must constitute a certain proportion of the workforce, subcontractors, scholarship recipients, or whatever? Well, because they have historically received well below their fair share of the whatever-is-being-proportioned.
If there is a valid argument for “protected group” status in hate crime legislation, it would be that recompensatory behavior on the part of a well-minded electorate is a legitimate reaction to past injustices against a part of that citizenry by another part of it. And that goes regardless of whether you’re talking race, sex, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or whatever. If there were a historical tendency to bash redheads, fire and fail to hire them, avoid renting to them, etc., then redheadedness would be a valid “protected group.”
But I think that you and everyone else can see how there can be different points of view on the hate crimes issue from reasonable and well-intentioned individuals.
I really wish we could address some of the other things that get thrown into the “special rights” dustbin, rather than focusing on hate crimes legislation.
Actually, Esprix I intentionally lived in a gay neighborhood for 3 years. I am not expressing any personal dislikes. Rather, I am stating a fact. Many people find homosexuality disquieting. SO yes, bigotry is, and always will be alive. YOu can try all you want to , but you just can’t legislatively make small minds larger by judicial caveat.
In fact, you discriminate daily. Would you date a smoker? a drug user? a 500 pound man (or woman) with acne? Would you hire a bigot? A stanist? a pedophile?
ignoring human nature is one of the great flaws of the liberal “diversity” argument.
We are given a series of negative rights by the vconstitution. Government promises to not do certain things to us. It ought not to promise to do things for us, and in fact, it doesn’t. The courts have even stated that the police have no duty to protect us.
I came hear to discuss giving gays special protection in regards (or is it irregards ) to employment, mortgages, etc.
I don’t know if you guys are managers, but if you have been then you know that it is extremely important for your employees to “get along”. It makes a huge difference both in productivity, and job satasfaction. All issues of radce and sexual orientation aside, one wants people that can spend 40 hours a week togethr and still enjoy working together. I resent any attempt by the gov’t to dictate who I can hire.
I know, special protections do not equate to quotas, right? Try explaining that on the stand when you fired the only hispanic or black or gay in your department. Plaintiff counsel will kill you. So, for protection, you need to hire a “representative” number of each group that reflects their percentage in the community.
If you disagree with this point you can’t ever use the argument that a disproportionate number of:
blacks are in jail
women are in clerical positions
gays don’t get mortgages
At the end of the day, the litmus test is “is the number of x representative of the community.”
I’m uncomfortable with the idea of “hate crimes” in general.
I don’t know if it’s correct to measure the heinoussnes of a crime by its motive.
If I murder a rapist in cold blood because he attacked a member of my family, this is still just as much a murder as if I had a killed a man merely for the color of his skin.
The motivation for the crime needs to be taken account in the sentencing. It should not be legislated. Each case has it’s own merits, and they need to be taken into account individually. I do beleive that the arbitrary nature of what we are calling a “hate crime” here should cause the judge to be much more stringent. I just don’t think he should be forced to.
Another reason I’m uncomfortable with hate crime legislation, is that it might make one think twice before having a legitimate disagreement with a member of that minority.
A simple disagreement might cause one to be branded a bigot and suffer the consequences, as Mr. Zambezi has found out.
(BTW, Esprix, that was a shitty thing to say, IMHO)
Many thanks, Scylla. I imagine that if one were so minded, he could use my words from this debate to prove that my crime was a hate crime.
prosecuter: Mr.Z repeatedly voted against hate crime laws, proving that he is a hate monger. And he fired a hispanic and replaced her with a white! Racist!
The other side of this, that I have come to see is that there IS a large amount of discrimination out there, and there is a lot of hatred against gays.
As one who does not participate in this, it may seem puzzling why there would be such legislation that seems to put you at unfair risk, and create an imbalance against you.
This slight imbalance seems to be the unfortunate side effect of ameliorating a huge and dangerous imbalance going the other way.
The real question is is it worth doing in spite of this?
I don’t really know, but I am uncomfortable with it.
I thought Esprix’s calling you a bigot though was unfair, and very much unlike him.
In one of the affirmative action debtes, the argument, as I saw it came down to exactly this. It is not really a case of whther “special rights” for protected groups are uneven. They are by nature. Rather, it is whther they are justified and necesary to create equality.
We all agree here that people are equal and should be treated so. We all agree that bigotry and racism are wrong. We disagree on how to correct it and whether tipping the scales the other way a bit is just.
I am biased because I see the law suits and because I have to deal with affirmative action, ADA EAD, etc. I think that the programs we are discussing, while good hearted, are going to have a negative impact on the whole.
Mr.Zembezi, I appreciate your candidness, and I’m not stupid, but the entire statement of, “They’d be better off if they just ‘acted normal’” is another way of saying, “They deserve what they get.” Is this country willing to tolerate that?
[ul][li]Hate crimes are a form of “domestic terrorism” against the group of people to which the victim belongs (or is perceived to belong).[/li]
[li]Congress has previously recognized that, “crimes motivated by hate have wide social implications and therefore need to be treated differently. In 1996, Congress passed the Church Arson Protection Act in response to a national outbreak of church burnings. Arson laws were already on the books, but legislators recognized a difference between targeting a church to send a message to the parishioners and randomly torching a 7-Eleven.”[/li]
[li]Hate crims legislation covers everyone, not just the types of people listed. “Those who misleadingly say that this legislation elevates some victims over others, must somehow be under the impression that they do not belong to a race, have a religion or a sexual orientation. They can rest easy that if they do, they too will be covered.”[/li]
[li]The Hate Crimes Prevention Act punishes actions, not thoughts.[/li]
[li]21 states have hate crime laws that include sexual orientation, but none of the dire predictions of such legislation have come true. In fact, the HRC claims that the HCPA would promote more free speech by protecting entire groups from being silenced from fear.[/li]
[li]Hate crims legislation, effective or not, sends a clear message that these types of crimes will not be tolerated by our society. It might only save one life, but one life is worth fighting for.[/li]
[li]There is no increased penalties for hate crimes (what’s beyond life imprisonment or the death penalty?), but the legislation does give law enforcement federal help in these types of cases. “This key aspect of HCPA is why it has broad support from notable law enforcement agencies and state and local leaders including 22 state attorneys general, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Foundation and the U.S.Conference of Mayors.”[/li]
[li]By not having the freedom to come out in one’s own community, there creates a climate of fear in that community. How does this help America? If anything, it hurts it.[/ul][/li]
As always, somebody else can say this stuff more eloquently than I can.
The opposing view stated on the same site, IMHO, is weak and lackluster. After reading both of these points of view, I still come firmly down on the side of hate crimes legislation.
) to employment, mortgages, etc.