This is topic Canada files anti-homosexual propaganda under hate crimes in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=018414

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
...and it's about damn time.

After the Canadian Alliance's motion to define marriage legally as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" was defeated – albeit by a razor-thin five votes after the first vote tied – the New Democratic Party's motion to add homosexuals to the list of minorities protected by hate crimes legislation passed by about 141 to 110. The Canadian Alliance argued that the NDP's motion could limit religious freedom if passed, but since freedom of religion is already protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms most MPs saw that argument as more than a little spurious.

According to the CBC, Canadian statistics have shown that homosexuals are in fact Canada's most persecuted minority (particularly when it comes to violent crimes), and hate crimes legislation certainly doesn't cover what the pastor says on Sunday morning, so I'm glad to see that the NDP motion passed handily.

Of course, I was also glad to see the Alliance motion defeated and would love to see homosexual marriage finally legalized, but hey, I'm a raving liberal

At any rate, just thought I'd give Hatrack the update on what's happening north of the border in this area. Oh, and we've decriminalized marijuana, too.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Ahh, my husband and I were just talking about Canada last night.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
You just think your country's soooooo cool.
 

---

Posted by Youth ap Orem (Member # 5582) on :
 
Get your Tom Green out of America and take Celine Dion with him!
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I always get a little irked when they announce new minorities, having de-minoritied Asians. Are Jews still considered a minority? Just talking about the general subject of what constitutes a minority or not. What if the persecution leveled against you tends to be from other minorities?
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
If i just could have found a small liberal arts college in Canada I would be there right now.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 

quote:

---

You just think your country's soooooo cool.

---

quote:

---

hate crimes legislation certainly doesn't cover what the pastor says on Sunday morning

---

quote:

---

On a serious note, what is being catagorized as "anti-homosexual?" Are we talking propaganda that encourages hate crimes and aggressively working against basic human rights?

If so, that is good news. Everyone should be protected against such propaganda.

---

quote:

---

...but then, I can also honestly say that I find opposition to same-sex marriage utterly incomprehensible.

---

quote:

---

If you beat a gay man to death because he's gay, you're guilty of a hate crime – as of yesterday – and it carries a heavier penalty.

---

I really, really don't like thought-policing. I don't like any kind of hate crime legislation.

It is punishing for intent instead of action. If kill your business partner, is it worse to do it because you hate him for sleeping with your wife than because he was about to find out you stole the money?

It's better to beat someone to death because YOU'RE a worthless bastard than because you think your victim is? Shooting someone for their wallet is less of a crime than shooting someone for their reputation?

If it works to prevent assaults and such, why not strengthen the original punishments? Surely we want to prevent ALL assaults.

[ September 18, 2003, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
All right, all right, I give... I have a huge crush on Caleb.

Ryan, as I said in my first post, freedom of speech and religion are still both guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is why the argument made by the Canadian Alliance (that granting homosexuals minority status could inhibit freedom of religion) is complete bunk. It still isn't a hate crime to say "I think homosexuality is a sin." It is a hate crime to spray-paint "fag" on a gay man's house, though. As of yesterday, anyway.

Edit:

>> It is punishing for thoughts instead of intent. <<

No, it's punishing for intent, insofar as you consider motivation part of intent.

[ September 18, 2003, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
I think the point of hate crime legislation is partially to counteract the pre-existing memes that give rise to its need in the first place.

They punish you for a crime of hate specifically because they are trying to fight the hate itself as well as the crime. I don't see anything wrong with that.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
^^^^^
Indeed.

Which is why there's a distinction between those who think homosexuality is wrong and say so (not a hate crime) and those who think homosexuality is wrong and believe it so fervently that they actively try to hurt homosexuals (a hate crime).

Edit: Not to mention, kat, that we also might disagree because I think you're more libertarian than I am. I'm definitely a "nanny state" sort of person in many respects.

[ September 18, 2003, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Should have proofread. Now reads better.

quote:

---

to counteract the pre-existing memes

---

The memes. The thoughts. The ideas. Using the state to punish those who think a certain way.

It's a good fight, but it shouldn't be fought the threat of jail. It isn't a crime to be rascist, but it is a crime to act on it.

Caleb, your justification was the justification used for the McCarthy hearings. Do you agree with the principle of those?

-------

twinky, that makes lots of sense. Libartarian is almost another word for that Texas individualism by which Bob has become enraptured.

quote:

---

they actively try to hurt homosexuals

---

quote:

---

it's worse in the eyes of the legal system than your average crime

---

Why is it worse? Because of the thoughts of the person who did it?

If someone shot me because I beat him at darts, you are saying that is better than if someone shot me because I turned him down and he thought I might be gay?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Oh fine, change your post. Now mine doesn't make sense.

*goes back to edit*

[ September 18, 2003, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> If someone shot me because I beat him at darts, you are saying that is better than if someone shot me because I turned him down and he thought I might be gay? <<

Yup.

Intent is important in the legal system, remember? That's why premeditated crimes are punished more harshly than spur-of-the-moment crimes. Motivation is important.

(Edit: Not to mention that the idea is to protect homosexuals, given that under the current system they're being persecuted more than other minorities.)

Edit:

Well yeah I changed my post because when I posted, your post wasn't there. But you don't need to change yours, since I'm responding to it anyway

[ September 18, 2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 

quote:

---

Caleb, your justification was the justification used for the McCarthy hearings. Do you agree with the principle of those?

---

quote:

---

...but then, I can also honestly say that I find opposition to same-sex marriage utterly incomprehensible.

---

quote:

---

It is a hate crime to spray-paint "fag" on a gay man's house, though. As of yesterday, anyway.

---

quote:

---

They punish you for a crime of hate specifically because they are trying to fight the hate itself as well as the crime. I don't see anything wrong with that.

---

quote:

---

Teaching the members of your society to stop hating each other is a good way to live in peace. Accusations of communism were a good way to forward your own political agenda, back in the day.

---

quote:

---

Because it happens to homosexuals more than other people, and thus homosexuals require special protection (just like racial or religious minorities).

---

I agree, and I would add that the idea is that they are being murdered *solely* because they are homosexual. Not because they caused their murderers any particular personal grievance. I'm having trouble illustrating my exact thoughts on this matter, but it comes down to "The idea that someone who was homosexual needed to be dead because they were homosexual" is at it's roots, a deeper, more psychologically harmful societal belief than, say, "He slept with my wife." Does that make any sense? I have a feel i'm being unbelievably unclear. It's killing for an idea, like the priest who murdered the abortion doctor. Or if someone decided to kill any child with Down Syndrome. Or if someone decided to kill people who had blonde hair. It's a serial killer-type mentality, that "all homosexuals need to die" and it's more important that it have a stronger label. Thus, "hate crime"

*please make sense*
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> Graffiti and vandalism are not illegal in Canada? Things are worse over there than I thought. <<



>> People always vandalize, beat, or kill because they hate (even if only temporarily). What you're saying is that hating me because I cut you off in traffic, or because I embezzled money from you, or because I slept with your wife, or because I'm a jerk are all more acceptable than hating me because I'm a minority. Does the reason really make that big a different? <<

Yes, it does. If I spray-paint "ass-pirate" on someone's house for kicks, and you spray-paint "fag" on someone else's house because its owner is gay and you hate gay people, you should be going to prison for longer than me. Again, intent and motivation are important.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

You don't think an important part of addressing crime is addressing the reasons that crime exists?

---

quote:

---

Kind of like the Patriot Act. Congratulations - this means we can put the terrorists on the run, and in the process, destroy the justice of the system we are trying to preserve. It's a Pyhrric victory.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't address the reasons for the prejudice in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Again, not comparable--and for obvious reasons.

---

Nice empty dismissal. Back it up.

[ September 18, 2003, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
Not if you understand the legal system. To get a first degree murder you need to show some sort of premeditation. Any at all will work. Whether it was because the guy was gay or an ass-hole it doesn't matter. I'm saying it's impossible to judge what truly was the motive.

Caleb- Someone seems like they want to create Big Brother to protect themselves.

[ September 18, 2003, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
I think kat's point, Caleb, is not actually that it doesn't address the problem of prejudice, but rather that it doesn't solve the problem.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> Why do people assume hate crimes are limited to the majority? How many Christian churches have been burned? The law should give protection to EVERYONE, straight or gay, white or black. As long as we act like minorities need special protection, then they will. <<

They do need special protection, because more crimes are committed against homosexuals per capita than any other group in Canada. If that isn't reason enough to consider protecting their rights then I don't know what is.

In Canada, the Christians aren't persecuted. So they don't need any special protection beyond freedom of speech and religion, both of which they have.

>> Intent defininently should NOT be part of the legal system. The heart of man cannot be accurately judged by another. <<



Do you seriously believe that premeditated murder is equal to involuntary manslaughter? Or are you playing devil's advocate?

Edit:

>> Twinky stuck his tongue out at Icky, but Icky has a point. If you spray-paint "You're a &@$*#&^" on someone's house, you get a lighter sentence than if you spraypaint "You're a fag"? <<

Hey! I stuck my tongue out at Icky's joke, and then responded to his point.

[ September 18, 2003, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Twinky - those are different, though. I wrote something about this above, I think...
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 

quote:

---

That isn't blind justice; this doesn't even pretend to be.

---

I'm reasonably certain that the idea behind "blind justice" is not so much that you don't see any difference between defendants, but rather that the process of justice (not the results) should be the same for everyone.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
Go back and read Twinky. With everyone posting so fast I think you missed it.

Saxon's right. Justice is equal not stupid.

[ September 18, 2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> Not if you understand the legal system. To get a first degree murder you need to show some sort of premeditation. Any at all will work. Whether it was because the guy was gay or an ass-hole it doesn't matter. I'm saying it's impossible to judge what truly was the motive. <<



Um... you know that motive and intent are both important to the legal system, right?

Edit: I did indeed miss it. You posted while I was writing. Shame on you! *waggles finger*

>> Saxon's right. Justice is equal not stupid. <<

But saxon hasn't contradicted me.

[ September 18, 2003, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*shakes head*

So if going home tonight, I'm jumped, beaten and killed, the person would get a lighter sentence than if Caleb was jumped, beaten, and killed?

What happened to equal protection under the law? If harsher penalties prevent crimes, then harsher penalties for everybody!
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
Okay, I'm pretty familiar with you skipping details so I'll reiterate since you asked:

The Patriot Act is in no way comparable to hate-crime legislation because, as Saxon said above (and which is perfectly obvious to you as well, since you recognize the faults of the Patriot Act):

quote:

---

I think that comparing legislation that imposes stricter punishments only after due process has been applied to legislation that circumvents due process is just a wee bit hyperbolic.

---

quote:

---

What happened to equal protection under the law?

---

quote:

---

Caleb- Someone seems like they want to create Big Brother to protect themselves.

---

Hey, Ryan. Play nice.

It's not thought policing. It's not pretending to establish intent without any proof. How can you say that the gentlemen who murdered his male "secret admirer" after they appeared on Jenny Jones, did not do so because his admirer was gay? The intent is obvious! We're not suggesting that all murders of homosexuals are hate crimes. But those which clearly are, like the beating to death of Matthew Sheperd, *should* be classified differently than usual. Why do you think the world gets up in arms when a black man is surrounded and killed by a bunch of white men? Because of the principal behind it. The heinousness of murdering someone solely because of their skin color or sexual orientation...neither of which they have any control over. It's a different level of crime, and therefore deserves a different label.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
saxon, I could be applying that incorrectly.

I wasn't considering the equal protection from the point of view of the perpetrator, though, but from the point of view of the victims.

That may not be the way it is meant. Come to think of it, it almost certainly isn't, or else the police cars would circle my neighborhood as often as they circle Highland Park.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> You're saying that a hate motive moves a crime up to a punishment level comparable with premeditiation because the preexisting hate is considered the same as the premeditation of a crime. << (me, explaining kat's reasoning to myself)

Okay. Now that I understand what you mean, let me explain what I think.

I can see how you interpret it that way, but I don't believe that is the intent of hate crime legislation. While it may amount to the same thing, we've already established that I think intent is important, which is why even though the law can be interpreted in precisely the way you interpret it, I still support it.

Edit:

My unconscious mind is the biggest procrastinator ever. I knew I had to finish a poem for my Creative Writing class tomorrow morning, but of course I came home and started a thread about yesterdays' parliament vote.

[ September 18, 2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

The heinousness of murdering someone solely because of their skin color or sexual orientation...neither of which they have any control over.

---

quote:

---

but the dislike and thoughts themselves are being punished

---

quote:

---

Does this work the other way? Do you have the same sympathetic rage when a white man is beaten to death by a group of black men? When a straight kid is assulted and murdered by a couple of gay men?

---

quote:

---

As in, you can think from here to doomsday that Tom Cruise is gay. But if you print it in your newspaper, you can be sued for libel.

---

This isn't really a good analogy, because you can only be successfully sued for libel if it's not true.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Okay, hang on. This thread is missing something. What is it? Oh, right:



Just thought I'd remind everyone (myself included) that Hatrack is, at heart, a big fat lovefest.
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 

quote:

---

it doesn't matter whether or not you did it because you secretly think he's gay.

---

it wouldn't, no, but that's because it more than likely couldn't be proved. We're talking about crimes where it is evident that it was hate-oriented. Prejudiced. Does that make sense?

edit: yeah, saxon, it was kind of an un-thought-through analogy. the main point i was trying to make was you can think it, but if you act on it in a harmful way, you can and should be punished. The government isn't trying to "thought-police"...people can still think that homosexuality is a sin and all gays should die. But they sure as heck can't act on it.

[ September 18, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Twinky, are you saying it is okay to use the law and the justice system to make acting on dislike worse than acting on, say, greed, because you see dislike as being more prevelant of a motive than greed? *trying*
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
*hops up and down excitedly*
*waves at Kat*

Aren't you forgetting someone?
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
Would you say that someone who actively hates other people is a more harmful person than a greedy miser?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Would you say someone who shoots man for his wallet is better than someone who shoots a man for his walk?
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> Twinky, are you saying it is okay to use the law and the justice system to make acting on dislike worse than acting on, say, greed, because you see dislike as being more prevelant of a motive than greed? <<

"Dislike?"

It'd have to be a pretty strong "dislike" for you to kill for it, right? That's why they're called hate crimes.

At any rate, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, in essence, that when it's clear a minority is being persecuted – more so than other groups, minority or no – that minority should be afforded some protections.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Okay.

I just don't think it works, and that it corrupts the system to make it try to work.

Hmm... same for affirmative action. Not real excited about affirmative action. The failure is in schools and lack of preparation for opportunities.

This seems like a method of attacking the manifestation of the problem - at the expense of justice - instead of solving the problem at the root cause. Since it doesn't address or solve the root cause, it doesn't fix the central problem, and only creates a greater injustice where there was only one.

In other words, I don't believe in supporting affirmative action, but do believe in supporting the UNCF and volunteering at schools. This seems like the same principle, only with the integrity of the justice system at stake.
-------

btw twink, how was your weekend?
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
I think you can make a much better case for this not addressing the root cause than you can for affirmative action.

But that's probably for a different thread.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Heh. I believe in supporting both. Is that allowed?

My weekend? Have you been talking to Bob the Lawyer?

...or am I reading too much into what could easily be a perfectly innocent question?

*dons tinfoil hat*

Bob had to take care of me on Saturday night, because I *cough* got a fair bit drunker than I'd intended to get *cough* ...and hence I suspect this is your motivation.

...but then...

...I mentioned my current women-related dilemma on GreNME before it croaked, so maybe you're trying to find out if I'm still confused since you're a sweetie and all.

*removes tinfoil hat*

All conspiracy theories aside, my weekend was... interesting. I had fun, but it has also led to some soul-searching and confusion. Thanks for asking.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
saxon: I agree - it's an imperfect analogy, but its the closest I could think of, which is why I'm only middingly opposed/don'twildlycare about affirmative action and widly opposed to this. Making hate a crime is both less effective and a greater travesty of justice.

[ September 18, 2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I thought if you spray painted "ass-pirate" or "fag" on someones's house in Canada, they made you translate into French, too.

*ducks*
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
twink: No tinfoil hat. I'd ask on GreNME, but the dictator is retooling.

Edit: holy crap, this thread moves fast.

[ September 18, 2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Yup – if you're in Québec

Edit:

Heh heh You see, kat, here's the thing.

There's this girl. And there's this girl. And, well, there's this girl.

You dig?



Actually, it's not quite that simple, because there's also this girl.

(If you're interested in a straighter answer, I should maybe put it in its own thread )

[ September 18, 2003, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*counts on fingers* Wow.

Only if you want to.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Twinky, I demand that you stop making the rest of us men feel jealous.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 

quote:

---

My weekend? Have you been talking to Bob the Lawyer?

---

quote:

---

I'm not huppy.

---

Now there's a word you don't see every day.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Y'all type way too fast.

quote:

---

..it doesn't depend on who is doing it. Only 'unto whom,'

---

quote:

---

. . . Or rather, only if the prosecution could show beyond a reasonable doubt that Caleb was jumped, beaten, and killed because he's gay.

---

quote:

---

Intent is important in the legal system, remember? That's why premeditated crimes are punished more harshly than spur-of-the-moment crimes. Motivation is important.

---

quote:

---

Teaching the members of your society to stop hating each other is a good way to live in peace. Accusations of communism were a good way to forward your own political agenda, back in the day.

Yup, pretty much the same, aren't they?

---

quote:

---

You don't think an important part of addressing crime is addressing the reasons that crime exists? How much sense does that make?

---

quote:

---

Do you seriously believe that premeditated murder is equal to involuntary manslaughter? Or are you playing devil's advocate?

---

quote:

---

You've yet to show how McCarthyism, which is based on singling people out and destroying their lives--hate crimes, one might say--is in any way comparable to anti-hate crime legislation, which singles out a certain kind of criminal (yes, those wonderful criminals that need to have their thoughts protected, evidently) for the express purpose of destigmatizing a society against a certain kind of crime.

---

quote:

---

If I spray-paint "ass-pirate" on someone's house for kicks, and you spray-paint "fag" on someone else's house because its owner is gay and you hate gay people, you should be going to prison for longer than me.

---

quote:

---

Reginald Denny got just as much media coverage as Rodney King.

---

Um no. Not even close.

lol @ Olivet
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Oh, and
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Incidentally, how does Canada define "propaganda"? Because in my experience in rhetoric classes, that's a slippery word to define. How exactly are they making sure that Sunday sermons don't count as hate crimes?
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
Wow Ic. That's some post you got there.

OK, so my refutation of the Patriot Act analogy had nothing to do with definitions, not as you are using the term, anyway. It had to do with procedure. There is a very big procedural difference between legislation that imposes harsher punishment after following due process and legislation that denies due process.

And as far as the Rodney King vs. Reginald Denny thing, maybe it's because I was in California. Or maybe because I was in middle school. But I was certainly just as aware of each of them.

Regarding equal protection, I wasn't saying necessarily what I thought it should be, but rather what I thought the intention behind the phrase and associated legislation is.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Damn it, Icarus, I was sure I'd successfully turned my thread to fluff!

Having just spoken with my good friend and roommate BtL, it seems he's going to post some clarifications, so there's no real need for me to post anything other than fluff. This way, I can keep the fluff ratio up in this thread, and maybe even justifty starting a new thread about my weekend

Icarus, kat and I concluded that her view vs. mine is very much a libertarian vs. authoritarian thing. What do you think?
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
There are a few things that need clearing up here. The first one, I think, is what the law actually says

Hate propeganda means any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide. The laws of how hate propeganda apply to the spoken work are slightly more tricky. It's basically anything said in any public place that incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. More broadly, anyone who wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group.

Deferals of the law would happen if said incident happened in private conversation. If they were true (Like, my saying, Caleb is a homosexual. He *is* a homosexual). Or if, in good faith, he expressed argued an opinion on a religious subject. There are a few other reasons for deferal, but I think these are the ones that weigh most heavily on the minds of people on this board.

So, I think we can all see how religion is protected here. We can also see that it's highly unlikely that someone is going to be slapped with a charge of a hate crime for spray painting someone's house. Although, the analogy still works for displaying the differences in people's intent.

The thing is, this section of our laws is not used often. Since the section on hate crime was added 30 years ago only 3 people have been prosecuted under it. So the whole country isn't going to be walking on egg shells and worrying about being hauled off by men in black for thinking that homosexuals are sinners.

The severity of the charge is also more minor. You aren't going to get a 2-year charge changed to life imprisonment for a hate crime. The maximum term for promoting genocide is 5 years and the maximum term for wilful promotion of hate is 2 years.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Civilizations are founded on the idea that people should be able to live together even when they hate each other. I mean, people hate each other all the time for lots of reasons, most of them terrible ... but most of us have agreed not act out most of our hateful impulses. We go to work for a boss we hate, share a dorm with a roommate we hate, drive on the same stretch of highway with five hundred people we hate, and most of the time, nobody gets hurt, and everything is FINE.

So long as each person takes responsibility for his own actions, and strives to avoid hurting people in any way, we get along just great, no matter WHAT our differences are.

Recently, the attitude of society has shifted a little. We no longer think of people as individuals who bear the responsibility for their own actions. People are instead treated like mindless drones, acting out whatever script society has given them. If a child kills a classmate, it's because he played Grand Theft Auto. If a man cheats on his wife, it's because he was trapped in an unhappy marriage. If a racist kills a member of a minority, it's because of racism. In none of these cases does anyone say, "It's because that person FAILED in THEIR responsibility and chose to do something that was WRONG."

It's like we're too squeamish to assign blame to people anymore. So we decide that everyone is just a product of their influences. We blame the influences for the crimes, figuring that if we eliminate the influences, the crimes will go away, too.

That's NOT how it works. That's the REVERSE of how it works. If you have a child who wants every Pokemon toy he sees on television, and begs you for each one incessantly, you don't solve the problem by getting rid of the television. Do that, and he will just find something else to whine about. You solve the problem by letting him watch the commercials, and NOT GIVING HIM THE POKEMON when he whines. Then he learns that whining does not solve his problems, and he finds more constructive ways to get what he wants.

But no matter WHAT you do, you will NEVER stop that child from wanting toys. The television isn't what MADE him want toys. Being a kid made him want toys. Punishing him for motivations like that will only make the motivations stronger.

Similarly, punishing someone for "being a racist" doesn't make them less racist. It doesn't make their friends less racist. If anything, it makes them more indignant about it. It's just a fundamental part of human psychology. You can't change an opinion by punishing people for having it. Punishment changes BEHAVIOR, but you can ONLY change opinions through persuasion, evidence, empathy, etc.

In a nutshell, if you want a person or a group to change a BEHAVIOR (such as killing, stealing, slander, arson, whatever), punish them for it. Or at the minimum, refuse to reward them for it. They will very quickly learn that this particular behavior is a bad idea, and they will learn new behaviors that actually WORK, and don't get them in trouble.

If you want to change a prevailing OPINION or MOTIVE, however, punishing it is the last thing you want to you. People, by and large, do not feel in control of their feelings and opinions. I mean, how many of you could change sides in this debate right now, just because you wanted to? You could fake it, sure, but could you really change your own opinion just because I said you had to? Would anything I said or did to you actually CHANGE the bits of knowledge and experience that have led you to draw the conclusions you've drawn? How would you feel if I threatened you with some credible punishment for your opinion? Would that make you feel like your opinion was wrong? Or would you feel even MORE justified because clearly, your opposition is a bunch of Nazis?

The only way to end prejudice is to make everyone live together in a society where they are expected to act with civility and responsibility. Right now, we're doing a great job of dividing our people up into little camps that only sympathize with their own members. Legislation like this only makes that problem worse. Everyone starts feeling like their only true allegiance is to their own group, which must be defended against everyone else who is out to get them, and only Big Mama Government can protect the camps from each other.

That is wrong. You teach kids to play nice together by making them play TOGETHER. If you create a fair and equal society, and EXPECT people to live together civilly in that society, enforcing equal laws based on behavior, then they will slowly become accustomed to one another and the hate will fade.

I mean, this new legislation is like ... In middle school, some teacher finds out that Billy is getting picked on, so she brings Billy to the front of the class, and says, "Now everyone, you have to be nice to Billy. If I see anyone picking on Billy from now on, you're going straight to the principal." Does the teasing stop? Sure, as long as the teacher is watching. But how many friends is Billy going to have after that?

Anyway. The post is too long, I know. And I guess I should do my job and stuff ...
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
Amen Geoff.

Silly Postmodernists ruining society.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Oh yes, and identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

If you kill someone because they are white or becuase they are christian, it is still a hate crime. Granted you may have a harder time getting that through court because there isn't the same public sympathy for those groups, but under the letter of the law they are still protected.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
*nod* Yeah twink, that seems to describe it pretty well. I don't know that I can quite describe myself as libertarian. Certainly not fiscally, or in the realm of what services the government should provide. But I do tend that way when the question comes up of what we should legislate against.

Interestingly enough, Kat doesn't strike me as tending toward libertarianism either . . . Kat?

Sorry for upsetting your fluff ratio. See, I posted once and found that ten people had beaten me to it. So I posted again, and kept refreshing in the little window before hitting submit, adding stuff to it as more and more people got their posts in ahead of me.

sax, I think you're right about the California thing. In fact, the thought ocurred to me when I read it. I would say that outside of California it's not close to the same.

And thanks for pointing out you were in middle school, by the way.
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 

quote:

---

Civilizations are founded on the idea that people should be able to live together even when they hate each other.

---

quote:

---

And thanks for pointing out you were in middle school, by the way.

---

Hey, any time, dude. I figure that since you won Club Presidency on the "experience" platform, turnabout is only fair play.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
saxon:

Geoff, you don't read all the posts in the thread, do you? Actually, nice baseball bat analogy. Totally more effective than what I said.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
I'm really torn about this. I can see both sides of the argument. Someone who has graffiti painted on their house because the local football team went out and got drunk after a win has the damages monetarily, but the one who has racial epithets or homosexual slurs because the football team knows the kid who lives there is gay or black and they have decided they hate him, has not only the monetary damage, but also the psychological damage. Hate crimes are more related to terror than they are regular petty crime. If some group of yahoos from Canada flew a plane into a building in the US because they were suicidal and thought it would be a hoot, we wouldn't invade Canada. However, if they were part of a larger group that hated America that operated throughout Canada and Canada tacitly approved this behavior, we probably would.

Anyway, while I can see the point about treating a crime like a crime, I think that some crimes are more equal than others.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

If some group of yahoos from Canada flew a plane into a building in the US because they were suicidal and thought it would be a hoot, we wouldn't invade Canada. However, if they were part of a larger group that hated America that operated throughout Canada and Canada tacitly approved this behavior, we probably would.

---

quote:

---

Ahh, so, we should invade the churches and schools who teach that homosexuality is a sin and look the other way while kids are being teased, harassed and bullied? It's a sin, and boys will be boys, after all. Seems like tacit approval to me.

---

I SO do not see how you get this from my post. From where do you get the notion that I think we should look the other way while kids are being teased, harassed, and bullied?
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
I didn't say that you did. But, as long as you bring it up. . .

What is the difference of punishing someone in school for bullying and teasing someone for being gay or black and doing it in the criminal justice system when they are older?
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 


I don't see your point. Punish them for teasing. It doesn't matter why they teased. Obviously they thought they had a reason, and obviously it's not acceptable, whatever the reason.

And as for your "invading the church vs. invading Canada" comparison . . . if the people who are supposed to be in authority aren't doing their job and this is causing people who normally enjoy our country's protection to be harmed, then yes, the government should step in. So if Canada harbors and tacitly endorses a group that sets off bombs in the US, then I tend to think the US is justified in going in there and doing what it takes to protect US lives. And yes, if a church is tacitly approving the abuse of some kids by other kids, particularly in the way you describe, I think the government can and should step in: day care licenses should be revoked, lawsuits should be filed, and people should be removed from positions of responsibility over children. And in sufficiently extreme cases, I think people should go to jail.

I see no inconsistency here.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Okay, I'm not even going to argue that anymore because I see that we have different opinions.

Maybe it's just me. If my kid punched another kid because they both wanted the same toy, I'd punish him. If my kid punched another kid because he wore glasses, I'd treat it much differently and punish him much more harshly. Some things shouldn't be tolerated. And if adults haven't learned that, they need extra punishment.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
If gay marriage is permissable, so should be polygamy. And if the US permits polygamy at this point, there is going to be a shiPload of reparations claims.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Why would the right to marry equate to the right to marry many people? And what does that have to do with hate crimes?

Boys get chocolate chip cookies, girls get peanut butter cookies.

Johnny wants a peanut butter cookie. No! He can't have one! Those are for the girls!

Why can't he have one. A cookie is a cookie.

Well, if he gets a peanut butter cookie, then I should be able to have 15 chocolate chip cookies!


 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Actually, I think polygamy should be legal.

Though I agree that this is taking the thread back into well trodden territory.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Well, you can live with as many people as you want, but you only get a tax break for one of them.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Do we get a break or a penalty?
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Having come into the discussion after everything has been said (as usual), I'd just like to take this opportunity to officially welcome Caleb into the club. (I missed the thread where he came out. )
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

Interestingly enough, Kat doesn't strike me as tending toward libertarianism either . . . Kat?

---

Not about everything. Some things.

I absolutely adored Bob's description of the Texas mindset, because it resonated down to my toes. To put it vividly, you can be, think, and do whatever you what for whatever reason you want as long as you don't hurt anyone. If you hurt someone, it doesn't matter what your excuse is, you're going down because you've broken the rules of civilization and now everyone is less free. Motives have nothing to do with the setup.

The libertarian vs. authoritarian setup came, I think, where twinky is comfortable with the state doing social engineering to encourage the proper ways of thinking, and to me, that sounds like the state telling me how to be and think instead of how to act, and that's none of their dang business.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
But if they put God in there somewhere, it's okay to tell people how to think.


 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
um, I'm not in favor of legislating what people think for any reason, be it Christianity or Political Correctness.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*grins* That's why the Texas Republicans are so infuriating. A nice, lovely code of conduct I completely agree with that is torn to pieces when the compromises are meant to help a cause to which they are sympathetic.

----

Icky, I agree with you.
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Arg, i'm going to jump into this late into the game, and open up a whole new can of yummy worms.

However, first i'd like to chastize Ryan Hart.

Postmodernism is no-more. I've always found it extremely irritating when i happen to run across people who blame postmodernism for the ills of society, since the only serious post modernists that still exist tend to be disgruntled teenagers who've been reading 30's and 40's era post-modternist writing. They tend to abandon it after a short period.

ITS DEAD, GET A NEW WHIPPING BOY.

yeesh.

Okay, onto more substantive discussion and the can of worms.

So, are the Nazis guilty of hate-crimes, or simply mass murder?

Because i think most people will, and i will say reasonably, claim that the Holocaust was an abomination unparalleled in western european history not because it was a systematic and wide-spread killing machine, but because the goal of this wide-spread killing machine was to kill arbitrarily determined ethnic groups which had been deemed inferior for some reason.

The same underlying logic works here. People should be held accountable for the things that they believe, if it leads them to cause harm to others, for no other reason than that other people are being themselves. And this does apply to "majorities" or whatever, Ryan, so your ridiculous anti-PC argument is garbage as well. If the Black Panthers decided to burn down former President Clinton's harlem office because as they put it, "[he's a] Cracka'" they are certainly guilty of a hate-crime.

Although, i must say, watching the black panthers call former-president clinton a "cracka" was one of the funnies things i've seen on CNN.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
Well this thread was a learning experience.

My only remaining question is: what actual harm does hate crime legislation cause to the justice system? Insofar as the laws could only be used against convicted criminals that performed hate crimes--those that you could prove to be hate crimes, that is--I'm not sure I agree that the whole system becomes at risk because one kind of crime outweighs another kind of crime.

I mean, I'm starting to come around to the conclusion that this may not be the best way to change people's attitudes. And changing people's attitudes is what this whole thing is about.

But on the other hand, what else can you do from a governmental standpoint? Buy ad time on television to tell everyone to please play nice? See, I agree with Geoff about the best way to get kids to be able to get along with one another. But part of the reason that that's an option is because they are kids. American and Canadian adults can't be led around on an ideological leash that is held by the state. We can't be parented anymore.

The only way I can think of for a state to fight crimes that are contributed to by anti-homosexuality (and I hope we can agree that there's a need for that fight) is to take that into account during sentencing. You don't lose due process and the only person that it affects is the one you're trying to target: the hater. What could be a more appropriate way for the state to fight hate crimes?

You'll say "by fighting all crime equally".

Of course I agree with this. I would love to watch Kenneth Lay get run down on Cops, but I'm not going to, am I? That's because our society does not view all crime equally. There's some fundamental difference between killing your wife for cheating on you and mowing down a post office because you're a postal worker. Or even worse, killing several people of varying ethnicities over a period of several days with a sniper rifle. Why is that so much worse?

Does that really need to be answered?

Does anybody question that the 11 September attacks of 2001 were more heinous than
a bank robbery that goes sour and kills the same number of people?

They are more heinous. Why? Because hate crimes are a form of terrorism. A person who commits a hate crime is not just causing harm, they are representing a viewpoint and sending a message. And given the prevalence of that viewpoint/message, the Canadian state feels obligated to respond to both the harm and the message.

Much like many of us who argued in the wake of 11 September that bringing our military might to bear upon any and all threats to America was not enough to address the issue of terrorism. The reasons why Arab societies keep producing terrorists needs to be addressed, we said.

But the Canadian government can't very well edit Sunday School curriculum, can they? Neither would they want to approach any limits to free speech, anyway. People need to have the right to believe in their personal definition of sin. Like Geoff said, you can't force people to accept one another. It doesn't work.

What you CAN do is give a greater penalty for a greater crime.

So, unless there's some real damage to the justice system by taking motive into account during sentencing (and remember that we're talking about those who have been found guilty of a crime and THEN found guilty of a hate crime), I have to assume that our real difference in opinion is that you don't see any difference between your run-of-the-mill premeditated murder and a God-hates-fags-and-so-do-I murder.

Of course the lives involved in either case are equally priceless. But are the crimes involved in either case equally heinous? I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. Perhaps it makes a difference that in my world, the very same hatred that fuels gay hate crimes goes completely unaddressed in other areas of life. Perhaps it makes a difference that I've known victims of hate crimes as well as victims of regular crimes, from vandalism to involuntary manslaughter to murder.

But I no longer see this as a black and white, right or wrong issue. After some other posts and some rethinking, I think fears about an unbalanced justice system ought to be dealt with seriously. What I need to know, though, is what specific harm or unbalancing can occur as a result of this legislation? Whose rights are being trampled on if Matthew Shepherd's killers were found guilty under hate crime legislation?

Because the only cost I can think of is what katharina mentioned about the victims' perspectives. But that cost is predicated on the understanding that there is no difference between the crimes themselves, and as this whole post is trying to say, I think that is wrong.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

What you CAN do is give a greater penalty for a greater crime.

---

quote:

---

You don't lose due process and the only person that it affects is the one you're trying to target: the hater.

---

quote:

---

There's some fundamental difference between killing your wife for cheating on you and mowing down a post office because you're a postal worker. Or even worse, killing several people of varying ethnicities over a period of several days with a sniper rifle. Why is that so much worse?

---

quote:

---

(and remember that we're talking about those who have been found guilty of a crime and THEN found guilty of a hate crime

---

No, it is being found guilty of a crime, and then being found guilty of hate. As disgusting and reprehensible as hate is, it isn't a crime.

How can I convey the horror of the first half of your statement? That because they have committed a crime, it doesn't matter what happens to them, it doesn't matter if what happens next is fair or not, it doesn't matter if the system they are being judged under is even fair because... they hurt someone to whom you are sympathetic.

That attitude has justified lynchings, two-year enemy combatant confinements, and beatings for much of our shameful past and present. If you believe in civil liberties at all, they are still sacred even when you ...hate... the opinions of those whom they protect.

[ September 19, 2003, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Punishments aren't purely based on degree of the crime, they're also based on deterrent factor. If crimes against homoseuxals are currently occurring at a higher percentage rate than other crimes (in a causal relationship), it may be worthwhile to society to increase the penalty such that crimes against homosexuals for reasons of them being homosexuals are more discouraged, so as to bring them more in line with "normal" crime levels.
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
For the same reason the Nazis aren't simply mass murders.

particularly if they dont' think what tehy're doing is wrong. And that fits perfectly into what Fugu is saying.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Spell it out, Pod. What's the reason?

(Technically, mentioning the Nazis just invoked the Second Law of the Internet on this thread. Do you want to leave it at that?)

[ September 19, 2003, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Now y'see Kat, this could get really hairy

I could ask you if by your logic, the nazis did nothing more than mass murder. I will however, be somewhat more gentlemanly and attempt at some non-gut reaction "killing people for who they are is not cool" reasoning. Although, i must say, i do think it strikes at the notion of individual freedom really, to kill people exclusively for things they have had no say in.

Really, what i think hate-crimes represent are the notion that there are individuals out there who are willing to perpitrate wide-scale harm to a particular set of people as designated by the perpitrators selection. Hate crimes effectively can be seen as a pre-cursor to a wide-spread and chronic behavior.

Why? Because in nearly all cases the criminals are unrepentant, unashamed, and would very likely be willing to commit the same crime again.

Thus, the option of more severe sentencing is left open.

Now as for a serial car jacker, i think it's reasonable that if you could prove that the person is a likely canidate for becoming a serial car jacker/murderer, people are probably going to be willing to concider a similarly strengthened sentence.

Don't you?
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
However, a singular murder over a car or other wise, in of itself, does not indicate repeated behavior, or willingness to repeat such behavior.

Although i will certainly agree that it could (but that's a case by case thing, while i'd say that hate crimes lend a categorical implication at willingness to repeat offend)
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Pod, the life expectancy for a black man in Detroit is considerably less than the general population of America.

The homicides are overwhelmingly committed by and upon young black men. The problem isn't from whites from the suburbs getting shot at the gas station, or blacks in the city getting gunned down by frat boys from UofM on a tear.

It is a huge problem, and it would be great if that could stop.

Okay, so lets sentence the white suburbanite who killed a nineteen-year-old black kid to thirty years, but lets sentence the nineteen-year-old black kid who kills another kid from the city to life, because that's the bigger problem.

Does that seem fair to you?

In the test for a law:

1. Is it within the scope of the state?
2. Will it work?

Hate crime legislation fails both. It is punishing an opinion, which is NOT within the scope or right of the state, and it doesn't work, for the reasons that Geoff set out so beautifully.

----

Pod, so your reasoning that a crime motivated by hate is worse than a crime motivated by greed is because it is more likely to be repeated?

What basis do you have for saying that? I don't know any statistics, but it would be nice to see some backup for that very convenient likelihood.

Also: would much like to see answer to Scott's question.

[ September 19, 2003, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
It's perfectly okay to punish an opinion that is acted upon -- if my opinion is that it's okay to kill people, and I act upon it, then I get shut away. Similarly, if someone's opinion is that it's okay to kill homosexual people, and they act upon it, then they get shut away.

As I pointed out before, discouragement is a perfectly valid reason to enact legislation. If people are being killed, because they are homosexual, at an abnormally high rate, it makes sense to increase the deterrent (ie punishment, if you subscribe to that school of legislative thought) so such crimes decrease to a more "normal" level.
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Kat, you did read my post right? I'll respond to your post but first,

My point was that hate-crimes fit the bill of repeat offenders. This is why sex-offenders are stigmatized by the american legal system.

If someone has perpitrated a hate crime, it's already too late to change their mind. Most likely, since they're going to be punished for murder, you're not going to make their like-minded friends very happy, since they don't see their compatriot's behavior as being wrong. Thus any punishment at all, is seen as unjust. The point is to put people who are unrepentant hazards to society into a place where they're not going to be able to do harm to society (unless they happen to be selected as cell-mates with homosexual pediphiles in boston jails).

As for your argument no, i agree, those aren't fair. But there the situations you described don't inherently deal with what i think is important about murder cases. The issue is willingness to repeat such behavior.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

that the person is a likely canidate for becoming a serial car jacker/murderer, people are probably going to be willing to concider a similarly strengthened sentence.

---

quote:

---

Why is killing a homosexual a greater crime than killing a heterosexual?

Or do I misunderstand the implications of your statement?

---

quote:

---

[Hate crimes] are more heinous. Why? Because hate crimes are a form of terrorism. A person who commits a hate crime is not just causing harm, they are representing a viewpoint and sending a message.

---

quote:

---

What do you think due process means? Turning the lights on in the courtroom?

---

quote:

---

This isn't about justice, it's a vendetta and you're excited that this time the state is on your side. You don't care about the rights of the people who did it, you don't care about justice, and you don't care about the law being fair or the precedent being set.

---

quote:

---

That justification is EXACTLY the justification used for the Patriot Act (the only people it affects are the terrorists) and the McCarthy hearings (the only people it affects are communists).

---

quote:

---

Because more people die. Is that really hard to understand?

---

quote:

---

how can you prove that the reason someone beat up a man was because of his hate-filled heart? Because the person he beat up was gay?

---

Through due process, of course.

Likely the most frequent case with a hate crime conviction would be one in which the defendent themself testified that they were acting on their beliefs about their victim.

Other examples might include cases in which credible evidence to the defendent's state of mind had been presented. These might include journal entries and weblogs. Other things used could be testimony of friends and relatives, another gay person in the community who had frequent contact with the defendent, eye witnesses to the crime... so on and so forth.

Of course ALL of those things could also be used to defend against a hate crime charge, as well.

And I have to question the assumption that hate crime legislation would have no effect on the occurrence of hate crimes. A lot of what Geoff said was correct, but then Geoff was talking about how you raise children with loving adults, he wasn't talking about how you get adults to stop killing each other when you have no parent figure to do it for you.

Furthermore, I don't think this legislation loses any value even if it doesn't act as a deterrent for hate crimes. If evil people want to hate homosexuals even when the law goes out of its way to say that they cannot act on that hatred, then I'm all for giving them the maximum--and sensible--sentence. Do the crime, do the time and all that.

Again, I think the major difference here is not actually that we have differing opinions on what makes up a just legal system. It's perfectly sensible to give out punishment based on the guilt of the defendent(intent), first, the severity of the crime, second, and the motive behind it, third. That's the same 1-2-3 punch that we use to try a man whose plea is self-defense. There's no skipping around due process and there's no 'corruption' in the system.

The real difference here--again, I may be completely misunderstanding the way this legislation would be carried out; I'm open to that possibility--is that you don't think a hate crime is any worse than the same crime comitted without the hatred. That's an opinion I can respectfully disagree with, because I've already described why I feel one to be more severe than the other. The way you write it...

"What's the difference between murdering a heterosexual and murdering a homosexual?"

Or,

"Why is killing someone because they are homosexual worse than killing someone because you want his car?"

...belies the truth of the homosexual hate crime situation. Of course there's no difference between murdering a heterosexual and murdering a homosexual. Most murderers don't stop to ask anyway. But the difference between "murdering a heterosexual" and "murdering someone because they are a homosexual" is something entirely different, for reasons stated above.

quote:

---

No, it is being found guilty of a crime, and then being found guilty of hate. As disgusting and reprehensible as hate is, it isn't a crime.

---

quote:

---

thoughts are being shaped, and the law is creating a class of victim more needful of protection than others.

---

quote:

---

I don't believe the motive for a crime is something subject to a state's purview.

---

quote:

---

There is ALWAYS a this time. There is always some crisis that would seem to warrant setting aside rights and laws and fairness and thought-policing under the law. There's always a bathetic reason to be found for setting aside civil liberties

---

quote:

---

Does that mean the statements in court of the unrepentant of "He had it coming." are wrong not because it is never right to hit someone, but because they are spouting the wrong party line?

---

katharina, it's common knowledge that murderers who show no remorse for their crimes will receive weightier punishments than those who do.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Kat, did you just skip my thread detaling the law? I post so rarely on serious topics you think it'd be a special event

To clarify. Hate crime legislation is not new. The law used to apply to anything that wilfully targets an identifiable group. A group being defined as a section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

Check out my posts on the second page to see more of how the law works. Any more questions, just ask. (I won't even include a snarky remark in reply, honest!)
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
But you want to punish one criminal for a crime more severely than another for the same exact crime, because the first one has it coming.

You claim it isn't the same crime, because one was committed because he hated homosexuals, but the other was committed because he hates everybody.

There isn't a single motive for a murder or a crime that is acceptable. If it provokes the person to committing the ACTION, then they are equally bad. This law makes some more equal than others.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 

quote:

---

This is not a productive discussion. At this point, I'd just link you the whole thread. This is going nowhere. And I'm getting the feeling you're not talking to me, but the crowd. You don't need me for that.

---

Again you comment on my person where it is not welcome. katharina, I've asked you SEVERAL times how making a crime more severe than another crime can possibly obstruct the system of due process. By several I mean more than a few. If you were to link me to this thread, I would find exactly as many answers to that question as I've found in it thus far.

I'm willing to grant to you that this legislation is wrong if you can show me that it does indeed take away ANYONE'S rights. I continued this discussion because I felt you would eventually give me an example that I could think about and then give an educated response to. Instead you say it's a mockery of the law and you liken it to racial profiling.

<imitation>*shrug*</imitation>

I feel like I've covered everything. I've covered why I think a hate crime is worse than a regular crime. Pod supported with statistics that there's a definite need to curtail homosexual hate crimes. I've posted over and over again about how this legislation does not interfere in any way with due process, or fairness or civil liberties. And in the end, you accuse me of attacking due process, fairness and civil liberties.



To a crowd and I don't care:

Somebody help me out, here. Am I nuts? Did katharina really answer my questions, and I just missed it? Because it feels to me as if she waded through each post looking for something she could contradict and just went with that while ignoring everything else.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Thank you, Bob. I did miss that. I don't have the internet at home, and I just scanned this morning and responded to my name.

If it helps, I only read Geoff's because so many people mentioned it after.

----

So what happened is that sexual orientation was added to a list of things that may already increase the severity of sentence.

----

*grin* What can I say? I still don't like it, but at least it's toothless?
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Kat:

I find this quote absolutely surreal:

quote:

---

It won't work, and it corrupts the system to have it in place. I don't like using the justice system for social engineering.

---

quote:

---

I don't like using the justice system for social engineering.

---

quote:

---

Seriously, if greater penalties deter crime, why not raise the penalty for all crimes? Don't you want to prevent all crime?

---

quote:

---

the law is creating a class of victim more needful of protection than others.

---

quote:

---

you seem a little confused about the law and seem to think it protects only minorities as opposed to everyone of an identifiable group.

---

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean? I do not understand.
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
there needs to be a :slaps you: smilie

Turin:

The point that keeps being reiterated, is that a hate crime is when somebody is perpitrating a crime against another individual who the perpitrator believes has quality x. Doesn't matter what the quality is, doesn't matter if the quality belongs to the majority of people. If i beat you up because you have blond hair, and i tell you its because i hate people who have blond hair, then its a hate crime.

If i were to beat up asian people in berkeley california because they're asian (where asians aren't the minority), then its still a hate crime.

Once again, this is potentially open to frivolous claims (like everything else in legal systems), however, thats why we have the whole "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" thing.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
What happens when motivation cannot be established?

What happens when one gay man kills another gay man?

How will prosecutors establish motive?

What preventative measures will be put in place to stop prosecutors from abusing these laws?

The problem that I am having with laws like this, is that they punish MOTIVATION as well as ACTION. And that is uncomfortably close to thought policing.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
As per statements that have already been made in this thread by various people,

>> What happens when motivation cannot be established? <<

Then the crime is prosecuted normally.

>> What happens when one gay man kills another gay man? <<

Then the crime is probably prosecuted normally, though I can imagine circumstances under which it could be a hate crime – e.g., the accused was not openly gay and hated being gay so much that he decided to start killing gay people.

>> How will prosecutors establish motive? <<

The same way they do in any other case – with evidence. No evidence, no prosecution. As has been said, this is not legislation that gets invoked often. It has to be painfully obvious what the motivation was.

>> What preventative measures will be put in place to stop prosecutors from abusing these laws? <<

Either they're already in place here or we don't need them, becuase they've been around for three decades and have not been abused. All we've done is add homosexuals to the list of minorities that falls under the legislation's jurisdiction.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
While motive is sometimes hard to determine, that doesn't mean it isn't easy to determine in many cases.

Many people are more than happy to make their motives clear, often by telling people, or involving their motive in the crime.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Why should a motivation to kill a man because he's gay be despised more than the motivation to kill a man because he's greedy? Or rich? Or married to someone that the murderer is obsessed with?

Isn't one of the cornerstones of modern law the idea that people are punished only for their actions? Discovering motivation can be useful in determining if a crime was commited, but I am extremely uneasy in adding punishment because of motivation.

Then again, it is conceivable to modify sentences because of motivation-- for example, we feel pity and mercy for Jean Valjean at the beginning of Les Miserable, and we feel rage at the injustice of his sentence. . .
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
::grins::

Have we suggested anything differently from what you've said at the end of your post?

peopel get sentenced differently, that's it.
 

---

Posted by Túrin (Member # 2704) on :
 
::If i beat you up because you have blond hair, and i tell you its because i hate people who have blond hair, then its a hate crime.::

Um, okay. Then why were anti-homosexual crimes just added to Candadian law? I thought the event that sparked this thread was that certain groups of people were listed, and only just now were gay people included, and the original poster was happy that they finally were.

Does anyone have a link to the actual text of US or Canadian hate crime laws so I can read them and know just what they do and don't say?

Obviously if one of my premises (that only some classifications such as race, gender, or sexual orientation were protected) is false, it renders my subsequent argument moot. But since I was arguing *for* universal applicability, which you say we already have, then I wouldn't think anyone would have a *problem* with it. I don't see why I needed to get slapped.

::If i were to beat up asian people in berkeley california because they're asian (where asians aren't the minority), then its still a hate crime.::

Um... duh? No offense, I'm just confused because I don't see how this is connected to anything I wrote. I never use the word "minority," but it's been said in response twice. I don't get it. What do people think I'm arguing?

I argued:

1. Crimes of cruelty are worse than crimes where no cruelty takes place. (I would think hate crime law proponents would agree with this.)

2. Punishment should *not* depend on the classification of person who is on the receiving end of it, so we don't need laws listing groups of people protected by hate crime legislation and excluding others.

3. We should punish more harshly for cruelty, not hate, and the distinction is important. (I expected this to be the main point of discussion.)

I still don't know why people think I was talking about "minorities." It's not a word I use, and I actually have no idea what people mean by the word "minority" if they don't define it, either, since it seems to mean something different to everybody.

...

Okay, I did a tiny smidge of research.

"A hate crime is defined as any criminal act or attempted criminal act motivated by hatred based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability."

That's from: http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/hc2000/preface.pdf

From the California Attorney General's website.

So, your example of hate crime against people with blond hair *is not true*, in California, at least (which is where I live). Nor fat people, short people, or bald people. So my premise appears to have been accurate: right now only certain groups of people are protected against hate crimes. (And just in case: I never said anything about the group having to be in the minority. I still don't get that one.)

So if I hate fat people and think they're disgusting, I can beat up fat people, and I can be punished only for assault. If I hate paraplegics, and beat a paraplegic because of it, I can be punished more harshly because I hate paraplegics. Not because I made anti-paraplegic comments during the beating, or did *anything* to distinguish it from the assault on a fat person. But because hate was the motive. And it only works that way for certain groups of people.

Túrin
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Of course there is a large difference between a loaf of bread and a man's life. . .

I don't see yet any reason behind this law. Are hate crimes really that much more prevalent than ordinary, run of the mill, apathetic crimes, that a system of deterrance has to be set up?

Not to mention that if deterrance is the goal of this program, it is bound to fail. Just as the death penalty is not a deterrent for murder, stiffening penalties for hate crimes will not make them disappear, or prompt those who might engage in them to have a change of heart.

Scott R's unwarranted venom of the day: "Hate crime legislation is the liberal's way to feel like effective policemen."

[ September 20, 2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
As has been said, more crimes per capita are committed against homosexuals than any other group in Canada.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Will this law will deter crimes against homosexuals?

Is that the purpose of this law?
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> Is that the purpose of this law? <<

I'd argue that deterring at least some potential criminals is one of the principal aims of punishing crime.

Edit: On looking over this thread, it's interesting to note that almost every single person who has argued against hate crime legislation believes homosexuality is wrong. Túrin and Icarus are the exceptions.

[ September 20, 2003, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Hmm.

That's an interesting point, twinky. Do I object to the philosophy behind this law because I object to the homosexual lifestyle, or because I think that the law is actually unjust?

While self-introspection/examination are beautiful things, in this instance, I'm pretty sure my objection is based on the injustice of the law.

Pretty sure.

Hey, turnabout's fair play-- have you noticed that all those who support this law are in favor of homosexual unions?

:Gasp: DURN IT ALL! This law is really just a ploy by them homey-sexuals to get hitched! Them canuck's and their durn sneaky ways! Mabel, get my boom-stick, and hide Junior in the root-cellar! Ain't no tu-tu wearing dance instructor gonna git aholt 'a my boy!


 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Túrin (Member # 2704) on :
 

quote:

---

On looking over this thread, it's interesting to note that almost every single person who has argued against hate crime legislation believes homosexuality is wrong. Túrin and Icarus are the exceptions.

---

Oh, I believe homosexual sex (and extramarital sex, and premarital sex, and lying, and all sorts of other actions) to be immoral, I just don't see how it has anything to do with hate crime legislation.
 

---

Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
 
Irrelevant reference to a comment a couple of pages ago:

Just to chastise Pod and his assertions about postmodernism, the 30s and 40s are generally regarded as being part of the modernist era. In fact, the idea of "postmodernism" doesn't come in to being until the late 1950s (1956?) with certain ideas in architecture (mostly concerned with open, more vibrant and aesthetically pleasing building structures rather than the utilitarian modernist behemoths made famous by the Bauhaus [sp?] school). Postmodernism IS still a very current theory, however postmodernism is really nothing like the ridiculous caricature that most opponents paint. Very few people seriously propose that everything is equally meaningless, for example.

It is just as frustrating, IMHO, to hear "postmodernism is dead, so get a new whipping boy" as it is to hear "well you would say that, you're a postmodernist" or whatever.
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Forgive me, English major, i stand exposed.

And you're right, i was thinking late forties, and some earlier philosophical precursers to literary postmodernism which started in the 30s.

And, actually when i come to think of it, postmodernist art is still around, however things like fluxus have certainly seen a decline in more recent years. And of course, postmodernist architecture doesn't really go away, so long as the postmodernist architects actually knew their architecture. The wexner center here at OSU would be a good example of post-modern architecture.

So, if we haven't left the post-modern era, i'd at least gander to say that it's on its way out.

So basically i'm trying to finnagle my way out of being totally wrong
 

---

Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
 


Don't worry, Ryan was much more offensive about it... You just made a mistake.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
A belated response.. I was reading this thread yesterday and found it very interesting indeed.

And then this morning on the news was the sentencing of a group of hindu fundamentalists who killled an Australian missionary and his two young sons in India a few years ago. They were killed solely because they were Christian - and the crime was, I think quite rightly, charactarised (and proscecuted as) a hate crime.

I'm pretty sure not many people would agree that murder based solely on the religion of a person is a crime elevated in its heinousness as compared to murder for revenge/greed/the 'normal' human motivations.

What I don't understand is why this kind of crime is accepted to be a hate crime, and crimes against other minority groups (such as homosexuals) are more contentious - I would see it as the same issue. Persecution based on gender/race/sexuality is wrong, and should be seen as a 'more serious' crime.

Two additional points - I know that some people have been arguing against the idea of 'hate crimes' as an elevated offence per se, not just hate crime legislation protecting homosexuals. In that sense, I would imagine those same people would think that murdering someone because they are Christian is no worse than murdering them for any other reason.

The second goes to hierarchies of crime - I know there has been some discussion as to severity of sentancing, and how we can have a more serious crime (or sentance) than murder. The reality is we already do - in international law for example, the crime of genocide is recognised as a much graver crime than murder. This is not denigrating the seriousness of murder, but acknowledging that some things are even worse.

So that's my 2 cents worth... I thought it was interesting.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

What if an angry homophobic man found out that his son had been molested by a gay man? He goes out and beats the gay man within an inch of his life. Did he do it because the man was gay? Or because the man molested his son? The two are intertwined — the child molester wouldn't have gone after the son at all if he weren't gay. So do you prosecute as a hate crime or not?

[by the way, as a disclaimer, this is NOT to assert that gay men are child molestors, or that child molesters are gay ... so don't even go there]

---