Hate Crimes Legislation

[Lemniscate]

Well, as of a few days ago, it seems that a Hate Crimes bill has been attached to a $680 billion defense spending bill, coming up for vote next week in congress.

The bill states that any negative actions taken by a person against another person based on "sexual orientation" is now a hate crime, and can be prosecuted under federal law.

If the bill passes, then any speaking out against, or violence action against others due to sexuality becomes a crime.

 

Discuss this bill, and its ramifications for the United States.

[CrabHelmet]

If the bill passes' date=' [b']then any speaking out against[/b], or violence action against others due to sexuality becomes a crime.

 

Considering that this is inconsistent not only with all other hate crime legislation but also with the doctrine of free speech, I'm going to assume that you're just plain wrong about the bolded portion above.

 

The rest is fabulous.

[PrometheusMFD]

If the bill passes' date=' [b']then any speaking out against[/b], or violence action against others due to sexuality becomes a crime.

 

Considering that this is inconsistent not only with all other hate crime legislation but also with the doctrine of free speech, I'm going to assume that you're just plain wrong about the bolded portion above.

 

The rest is fabulous.

 

Just because they pass it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone will obey it.

It is hard to regulate this without removing a lot of rights.

[CrabHelmet]

If the bill passes' date=' [b']then any speaking out against[/b], or violence action against others due to sexuality becomes a crime.

 

Considering that this is inconsistent not only with all other hate crime legislation but also with the doctrine of free speech, I'm going to assume that you're just plain wrong about the bolded portion above.

 

The rest is fabulous.

 

Just because they pass it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone will obey it.

It is hard to regulate this without removing a lot of rights.

 

Presumably, it is set up exactly the same way every other hate crimes legislation is.

[Lemniscate]

Actually, the largest problem with this particular piece of legislation is a lack of proper definition for the term "sexual orientation". By not properly defining it, the bill would make anything related to sexual orientation protected, this would include:

- Pedophilia

- Necrophilia

- Voyeurism

- Flashing

 

It also criminalizes Churches speaking out against homosexuality, because any defamatory language against homosexuality becomes classified as "hate speech". It would make the teaching against homosexuality in Church illegal. The problem with this is that it is a clear violation of Church and State. Now, before people begin to argue that, let me discuss the history of Church and State.

The modern standard idea of Church and State is that the state must be protected from the influence of the Church, including Church based morality and teachings. Now, this was not what Church and State was intended to be, the doctrine of Church and State began as a way to protect the Church from subjugation to the State, the new Americans in the colonies had originally fled England under religious persecution, having been terrorized for not being part of the Church of England, the state established Church. When they created the Constitution, they wanted to create systemic protections against the same thing being repeated in the new Republic, and so created the doctrine of Church and State.

[CrabHelmet]

Actually' date=' the largest problem with this particular piece of legislation is a lack of proper definition for the term "sexual orientation". By not properly defining it, the bill would make anything related to sexual orientation protected, this would include:

- Pedophilia

- Necrophilia

- Voyeurism

- Flashing

[/quote']

 

I'm just going to stop reading there, because you pretty clearly have no idea what you're talking about there. This doesn't trump harassment laws.

[Lemniscate]

No, here is what is does:

Imagine this scenario...

A man is walking down the street, and flashes a woman. The woman hits him with her purse. He has committed a misdemeanor, she has committed a federal hate crime.

 

And if you are going to insult my intelligence, you should try to at least be correct in your assumptions.

[Static]

This will teach ignorant Americans to pick on gay kids. Seriously, if you're actually sick enough to commit a hate crime; a criminal action that is driven entirely by personal dislike with a person's (insert generic race/religion etc), you should be put in prison. If it were up to me they'd bestow Capital Punishment for these sick fucks if mental help doesn't work. Nazi's don't contribute to society, they can only hold it back.

 

About time they put some defense in for the one well known generalization that isn't protected under the law yet.

[PrometheusMFD]

This will teach ignorant Americans to pick on gay kids. Seriously' date=' if you're actually sick enough to commit a hate crime; a criminal action that is driven entirely by personal dislike with a person's (insert generic race/religion etc), you should be put in prison. If it were up to me they'd bestow Capital Punishment for these sick fucks if mental help doesn't work. Nazi's don't contribute to society, they can only hold it back.

 

About time they put some defense in for the one well known generalization that isn't protected under the law yet.

[/quote']

 

You must remember, though, there are a lot of social/racial/religious groups that are still unprotected by law. You have Catholics, Teenagers, Otakus, Mixed Ancestry, Elderly, ect.

So adding this and thinking that it will solve all the remaining problems is naive

 

And people could still ignore it. Sure you can punish them afterward, but the victim had to experience it.

[OMGAKITTY]

This will teach ignorant Americans to pick on gay kids. Seriously' date=' if you're actually sick enough to commit a hate crime; a criminal action that is driven entirely by personal dislike with a person's (insert generic race/religion etc), you should be put in prison. If it were up to me they'd bestow Capital Punishment for these sick fucks if mental help doesn't work. Nazi's don't contribute to society, they can only hold it back.

 

About time they put some defense in for the one well known generalization that isn't protected under the law yet.

[/quote']

 

You must remember, though, there are a lot of social/racial/religious groups that are still unprotected by law. You have Catholics, Teenagers, Otakus, Mixed Ancestry, Elderly, ect.

So adding this and thinking that it will solve all the remaining problems is naive

 

And people could still ignore it. Sure you can punish them afterward, but the victim had to experience it.

 

Otakus? Really? -_______-

I hardly think teenagers need protection either.

But back on topic, anyone who would actually go an assault someone based on something like sexual orientation is in need of psychological help >_>

Because that's not cool.

[PrometheusMFD]

This will teach ignorant Americans to pick on gay kids. Seriously' date=' if you're actually sick enough to commit a hate crime; a criminal action that is driven entirely by personal dislike with a person's (insert generic race/religion etc), you should be put in prison. If it were up to me they'd bestow Capital Punishment for these sick fucks if mental help doesn't work. Nazi's don't contribute to society, they can only hold it back.

 

About time they put some defense in for the one well known generalization that isn't protected under the law yet.

[/quote']

 

You must remember, though, there are a lot of social/racial/religious groups that are still unprotected by law. You have Catholics, Teenagers, Otakus, Mixed Ancestry, Elderly, ect.

So adding this and thinking that it will solve all the remaining problems is naive

 

And people could still ignore it. Sure you can punish them afterward, but the victim had to experience it.

 

Otakus? Really? -_______-

I hardly think teenagers need protection either.

But back on topic, anyone who would actually go an assault someone based on something like sexual orientation is in need of psychological help >_>

Because that's not cool.

 

I've seen some f***ed up stuff.

But it isn't a psychological thing. And based on what you are saying, what makes you any different than the people we are discussing?

[OMGAKITTY]

Because...I don't judge a person solely on their looks/race/gender/sexual orientation?

Because even if I did, I would not assault and/or harass them for it?

[PrometheusMFD]

Because...I don't judge a person solely on their looks/race/gender/sexual orientation?

Because even if I did' date=' I would not assault and/or harass them for it?

[/quote']

 

But you are judging them based on beliefs

And even though you don't take physical action upon it, the law in question (apparently) covers speech as well (which is BS if that is true).

So, what else makes you different from the people who speak out against gays.

[Lemniscate]

The problem with the legislation is the criminalization of speech. It treats an anti-religious doctrine as being more important or correct than a religious doctrine, and by creating this bill, forces the opinions of one group down on another, essentially creating a reverse of the problem that the bill is trying to correct.

Also, one of the dangers of this legislation is that is allows for systemic abuse. People would have the ability to plead a hate crime, saying that they were attacked based on being homosexual (whether they actually are or not, as there is no clear way to prove it, and it can be faked), thus, a person would be able to cause another individuals local assault case (or something of the like) into a federal hate crimes case, which have a much higher minimum for sentencing.

[OMGAKITTY]

Because...I don't judge a person solely on their looks/race/gender/sexual orientation?

Because even if I did' date=' I would not assault and/or harass them for it?

[/quote']

 

But you are judging them based on beliefs

And even though you don't take physical action upon it, the law in question (apparently) covers speech as well (which is BS if that is true).

So, what else makes you different from the people who speak out against gays.

 

I admit my ignorance to how hate laws work. How extreme does the speech have to be to be considered a "hate crime"?

 

I'm not the guy who goes out on the streets and yells that all gays are going to burn in hell (idiotic, just as stupid, and possibly even more stupid than yelling at straight people that they will burn in hell and calling it "spreading the gospel"). But if I'm not allowed to say I don't agree with gays? Bullshit.

[CrabHelmet]

The problem with the legislation is the criminalization of speech. It treats an anti-religious doctrine as being more important or correct than a religious doctrine' date=' and by creating this bill, forces the opinions of one group down on another, essentially creating a reverse of the problem that the bill is trying to correct.

[/quote']

 

Personally, I hate laws that forbid murder. They force the anti-murder crowd's opinions down the throats of the pro-murder crowd. It seems fairly clear to me that murder should be a personal choice.

 

Also' date=' one of the dangers of this legislation is that is allows for systemic abuse. People would have the ability to plead a hate crime, saying that they were attacked based on being homosexual (whether they actually are or not, as there is no clear way to prove it, and it can be faked), thus, a person would be able to cause another individuals local assault case (or something of the like) into a federal hate crimes case, which have a much higher minimum for sentencing.

[/quote']

 

People can already do the same by pointing to whatever race, gender, or religion they follow. Thus, no new options are opened at all.

[Lemniscate]

1- Race can't be faked, it's clear and easy to prove

2- Gender cannot be faked, even those who have had a gender change can be proven to be of a specific sex.

3- Religion isn't a protected class.

 

Also the comparison of the subjugation of doctrines against religion to the subjugation of doctrines against murder is entirely stupid and fallacious. Murder is the taking of a human life, which is inherently wrong and directly harming the rights of another person.

Religion, on the other hand, does not directly harm any one person through its doctrines, it may indirectly harm someone through the actions of its followers, but that does not make the belief itself to be evil and harmful.

[CrabHelmet]

1- Race can't be faked' date=' it's clear and easy to prove

2- Gender cannot be faked, even those who have had a gender change can be proven to be of a specific sex.

[/quote']

 

Doesn't matter. Whatever race or gender you are, you can claim that your assailant was hating on you because you are that. If you're black, say they hate blacks; if you're white, say they hate whites.

 

3- Religion isn't a protected class.

 

It isn't yet? Bloody well ought to be. >_>

 

Also the comparison of the subjugation of doctrines against religion to the subjugation of doctrines against murder is entirely stupid and fallacious. Murder is the taking of a human life' date=' which is inherently wrong and directly harming the rights of another person.

Religion, on the other hand, does not directly harm any one person through its doctrines, it may indirectly harm someone through the actions of its followers, but that does not make the belief itself to be evil and harmful.

[/quote']

 

Religion isn't the issue; hating gay people is the issue, and some religions just happen to fall on one side of that. Some religions also happen to promote murder; that doesn't make laws against murder a case of religious oppression. It only doesn't come up because most religions are rather more opposed to murder (or claim to be by ignoring inconvenient sections of the Bible that openly support it).

 

I'm pretty sure that attacking gay people is harmful. >_>

[Lemniscate]

The problem isn't really the attacking of gay people, as there are already laws against the attacking of anyone. To create this law is superfluous, as it would only criminalize ideas which were first stated and spread by the church. It would criminalize the ideas and doctrines of one group, when the group stating that they are being persecuted is already naturally protected by the same laws that protect all others in the nation, namely, the laws against murder, assault, harassment, and the thousands of other systemic protections previously put forward by the United States.

[CrabHelmet]

The problem isn't really the attacking of gay people' date=' as there are already laws against the attacking of anyone. To create this law is superfluous, as it would only criminalize ideas which were first stated and spread by the church. It would criminalize the ideas and doctrines of one group, when the group stating that they are being persecuted is already naturally protected by the same laws that protect all others in the nation, namely, the laws against murder, assault, harassment, and the thousands of other systemic protections previously put forward by the United States.

[/quote']

 

Were they really created by the church? I think you'll find that it is simply human nature to despise those who are different. The church threw its support behind this idea once it was created, but if you are going to make whether or not a church happens to support something the deciding factor, then that is itself a violation of the separation of church and state.

 

The aim is simple: if one group is far more likely to be oppressed or attacked than other groups, then that group should have the strongest protection as a deterrent to reverse this trend and restore equality.

[OMGAKITTY]

I would just like to point out that while the Bible states that being homosexual is wrong, it doesn't say you should go out and attack them, verbally or physically.

 

Though catholicschurches do tend to screw things up for the rest of us.

[Lemniscate]

No, people should be given the opportunity to defend themselves, as all other groups are given, instead of being handed extreme governmental protections to compensate. Also, humanity doesn't have a predisposition to hate that which is different, we have a predisposition to fear that which is unknown.

You just stated then that it is human nature to hate that which is different, in this case, homosexuality. Then how do you explain the existence of any sort of alliances between differing groups?

The problem with bills like these is that they are more likely to create problems then they are to solve problems, people will see the extra rights given to homosexuals, and resent them fore receiving governmental assistance for being in a minority. It all comes down to the idea of "minority tyranny" where the ideas of the minority are forced upon the majority, all in the name of equality.

 

EDIT:

I would just like to point out that while the Bible states that being homosexual is wrong' date=' it doesn't say you should go out and attack them, verbally or physically.

[/quote']

 

Thank you, this is one of the points I have been trying to make.

[CrabHelmet]

No' date=' people should be given the opportunity to defend themselves, as all other groups are given, instead of being handed extreme governmental protections to compensate.

[/quote']

 

That sounds good in theory, but how exactly do you propose that they "be given the opportunity to defend themselves"? What are you going to do, hand out guns to every gay person and tell them to shoot homophobics int he face?

 

Also' date=' humanity doesn't have a predisposition to hate that which is different, we have a predisposition to fear that which is unknown.

[/quote']

 

Both predispositions exist. There is also some overlap.

 

You just stated then that it is human nature to hate that which is different' date=' in this case, homosexuality. Then how do you explain the existence of any sort of alliances between differing groups?

[/quote']

 

A predisposition to hate that which is different is not equivalent to a magic invincible barrier that causes any form of cooperation or understanding to be completely impossible. The word "predisposition" implies an automatic tendency rather than an immutable force.

 

The problem with bills like these is that they are more likely to create problems then they are to solve problems' date=' people will see the extra rights given to homosexuals, and resent them fore receiving governmental assistance for being in a minority.

[/quote']

 

Precedents show that this is negligible, particularly when compared to the effect of the deterrent. The only controversial aspect regarding laws on racial and gender discrimination is affirmative action; the hate crimes legislation has never generated such tension.

 

It all comes down to the idea of "minority tyranny" where the ideas of the minority are forced upon the majority' date=' all in the name of equality.

[/quote']

 

However, the ideas of what you claim is the minority - "don't discriminate based on orientation" - are themselves founded on equality, whereas the opposing viewpoint is built upon blanket discrimination and inequality. Furthermore, the legislation acts to remove an existing inequality and restore equality.

[Lemniscate]

Never once did I suggest guns should be handed out to homosexuals to fight homophobics, I merely mean that the law is superfluous, as there are already protections and laws against violent crimes. Creating this law would just create inequality in opportunity, which is a greater inequality than inequality in outcome, and is not the government's job to create. The government's job in this area of law is to give people all the same opportunity to protect themselves and live their lives as they wish, this piece of legislation instead puts forth the idea that it is the job of government to make sure everyone's results with their freedoms are exactly the same.

[CrabHelmet]

Never once did I suggest guns should be handed out to homosexuals to fight homophobics' date=' I merely mean that the law is superfluous, as there are already protections and laws against violent crimes. Creating this law would just create inequality in opportunity, which is a greater inequality than inequality in outcome, and is not the government's job to create. The government's job in this area of law is to give people all the same opportunity to protect themselves and live their lives as they wish, this piece of legislation instead puts forth the idea that it is the job of government to make sure everyone's results with their freedoms are exactly the same.

[/quote']

 

There is already inequality of opportunity - homosexuals have a much greater opportunity to be the victims of violent crimes than heterosexuals. Of course, the distinction between "opportunity" and "outcome" is essentially meaningless in this context, since how often a group gets attacked represents both their opportunity to be attacked and their outcome (whereas, in an affirmative action context, the former represents initial status and the latter represents ultimate status, with the change governed not only by the initial status but also by various other factors such as intelligence and strength; in a hate crimes context, however, such other factors don't really exist).