US Senate adds gays to hate crime legislation

[Strix]

Also, special penalisation of "hate crimes" serves an additional purpose of sending a strong message to a minority (usually one that had been previous reviled) saying that the majority considers that minority "one of us" - which in turn furthers social cohesion and tranquility and prevents the creation of "us vs. them" mentality of that minority.

Of course, it also sends a strong message to the majority that the minority group is unwilling to "fit in" and needs special treatment which in turns creates a "them vs us" mentality of that minority.

[Martinus]

Also, special penalisation of "hate crimes" serves an additional purpose of sending a strong message to a minority (usually one that had been previous reviled) saying that the majority considers that minority "one of us" - which in turn furthers social cohesion and tranquility and prevents the creation of "us vs. them" mentality of that minority.

Of course, it also sends a strong message to the majority that the minority group is unwilling to "fit in" and needs special treatment which in turns creates a "them vs us" mentality of that minority.

I don't see how. GLBT people are being targeted for violence because of their GLBT status - you are not disputing that, I hope. What do you mean in this context as "fitting in"? Going into the closet? Pretending to be straight?

I also wonder how the same logic applies, to, say, black people. How do they "fit in" in a way that prevents them from being beaten up by skinheads for being "niggers"? By not being "uppity" perhaps?

[derspiess]

Also, special penalisation of "hate crimes" serves an additional purpose of sending a strong message to a minority (usually one that had been previous reviled) saying that the majority considers that minority "one of us" - which in turn furthers social cohesion and tranquility and prevents the creation of "us vs. them" mentality of that minority.

Oh FFS.  No-- it enshrines said group's 'victim' status, encourages their sense of entitlement, and worsens the "us vs. them" mentality.

[Martinus]

Also, special penalisation of "hate crimes" serves an additional purpose of sending a strong message to a minority (usually one that had been previous reviled) saying that the majority considers that minority "one of us" - which in turn furthers social cohesion and tranquility and prevents the creation of "us vs. them" mentality of that minority.

Oh FFS.  No-- it enshrines said group's 'victim' status, encourages their sense of entitlement, and worsens the "us vs. them" mentality.

I don't see it. Being a member of the said minority, I can tell you that for me - and for others I have heard commenting on this issue - it actually means that the majority sees at us one of them, and thus extends to us the protection. Do you know any GLBT people for whom this kind of legislation enforces the "us vs. them" mentality?

In fact, do you know privately (outside of this forum) any GLBT people at all?

[Strix]

I don't see how. GLBT people are being targeted for violence because of their GLBT status - you are not disputing that, I hope. What do you mean in this context as "fitting in"? Going into the closet? Pretending to be straight?

I have issues with the whole concept of "hate crimes" in it's current form.  Do GLBT people get attacked because of their GLBT status, yes I believe it happens. Are they targeted? No, I am not certain that is the case most of the time. I think they are picked on by people who just plain HATE. These are people who hate people for their color, gender, way they wear their hair, type of shoes, etc, and so on, people who pick a victim then pick a hate to match.

The idea of "hate" crimes gives the idea that a war of terror on GLBT is being planned and fought.

What do I mean by "fitting in"?

It's simple. The act of becoming an everyday American and not having to throw whatever it is that you think makes you special in other people's faces.

[Martinus]

It's simple. The act of becoming an everyday American and not having to throw whatever it is that you think makes you special in other people's faces.

I just love when the expression is used.

What do you mean by that? Is a gay guy holding hands with his boyfriend and walking down the street "throwing it in other people's faces"? Are two girls sharing a kiss "throwing it in other people's faces"? In fact, what is it that gay people do, that straight couples don't do, that "throws it in other people's faces"? Tell me please.

[Grallon]

I read that morst jurists in the West frown upon hierarchization of rights?  In that light, doesn't the designation of groups of people as specific victims invalidate that unwritten principle?

I'm asking this question since the issue has resurfaced in Quebec recently with the ever brewing 'reasonable accomodation' debate.  Some are asking that gender equality be added as an interpreative clause to the charter of rights; in order to make sure that in cases of demands for accomodations based on religious grounds (which could include refusing to be served by officers of the state of the opposite gender), the principle of equality between men and women would outweight whatever religiously inspired demands made by citizens.




G.

[Capetan Mihali]

I have issues with the whole concept of "hate crimes" in it's current form.  Do GLBT people get attacked because of their GLBT status, yes I believe it happens. Are they targeted? No, I am not certain that is the case most of the time. I think they are picked on by people who just plain HATE. These are people who hate people for their color, gender, way they wear their hair, type of shoes, etc, and so on, people who pick a victim then pick a hate to match.

  Most homophobic attacks are perpetrated by people who "just plain HATE" gays, not because they target them.  Of course...

And I can't tell you how many friends I have who've been beaten, chased, threatened, and cursed at for wearing Timberlands.  Unlike all of my gay and lesbian friends who rub it in everyone's face and walk away scot-free.

[DisturbedPervert]

After all, the GOP is not against hate crimes for blacks and religious groups; they just don't see beating up fags as a comparable wrong.

Not true, I think plenty of people are against the idea of hate crimes in general.  However, if it exists as it already does, it should apply to gays as well.

[Martinus]

After all, the GOP is not against hate crimes for blacks and religious groups; they just don't see beating up fags as a comparable wrong.

Not true, I think plenty of people are against the idea of hate crimes in general.  However, if it exists as it already does, it should apply to gays as well.

Well, the way I see it, the concept of hate crimes is not really something that is sustainable in the long run vis-a-vis principled justice. However, it is useful for social engineering purposes (as I explained earlier) for a limited period of time, say a generation.

[Malthus]

I read that morst jurists in the West frown upon hierarchization of rights?  In that light, doesn't the designation of groups of people as specific victims invalidate that unwritten principle?

I'm asking this question since the issue has resurfaced in Quebec recently with the ever brewing 'reasonable accomodation' debate.  Some are asking that gender equality be added as an interpreative clause to the charter of rights; in order to make sure that in cases of demands for accomodations based on religious grounds (which could include refusing to be served by officers of the state of the opposite gender), the principle of equality between men and women would outweight whatever religiously inspired demands made by citizens.




G.

If a list of protected groups exists, I have no problems with basically extending it so that everyone is covered. The real injustice (given such a list exists) is leaving gays off, not adding them on.

Of course it may be the case that there should be no list, and thus no hierarchy ... but extending the list has much the same effect: eventually, every possible person targeted purely for their identity will be added.

Creating a hierarchy of rights is, as you say, a bad idea - for example, if one beats up someone for being a gay you get two years added to your punishment, but if one beats up someone for being a Jew, you get 10 years. That would be bad.

But having an outcome in which you get (say) 2 years added to your sentence for targeting someone, I have less problems with. Really it is adding a new degree of assault - assault motivated by pure hatred - and saying that this is worse than assault (say) motivated by a personal fight.

The key is I think that the "targeting someone' category be as general as possible so as not to in effect say it is "more okay" to target group X than group Y. 

[Jaron]

After all, the GOP is not against hate crimes for blacks and religious groups; they just don't see beating up fags as a comparable wrong.

Not true, I think plenty of people are against the idea of hate crimes in general.  However, if it exists as it already does, it should apply to gays as well.

Well, the way I see it, the concept of hate crimes is not really something that is sustainable in the long run vis-a-vis principled justice. However, it is useful for social engineering purposes (as I explained earlier) for a limited period of time, say a generation.

If hate crime legislation was put into place when it was first needed in America, we would have had anti-black violence laws for several generations now.

[Strix]

I just love when the expression is used.

What do you mean by that? Is a gay guy holding hands with his boyfriend and walking down the street "throwing it in other people's faces"? Are two girls sharing a kiss "throwing it in other people's faces"? In fact, what is it that gay people do, that straight couples don't do, that "throws it in other people's faces"? Tell me please.

None of the above.

It's when special legislation has to be made setting them apart from everyone else. America is supposed to be a "melting pot" of people and cultures. Every law passed that singles out a group makes it that much harder for that group to become part of the "pot".

It's a hate crime to kill a homosexual yelling "Die, you motherfucking queer" but it's not a hate crime to kill your neighbor yellling "Die, you fucking asshole neighbor". Both people are dead. Both people were hated enough to be killed by someone. Why should one get treated different than the other? When it does, it makes the majority resent the fact that the homosexuals death was considered more repugnant than the neighbors. And that makes them resent the minority that caused such legislation to be passed.

[Martinus]

I just love when the expression is used.

What do you mean by that? Is a gay guy holding hands with his boyfriend and walking down the street "throwing it in other people's faces"? Are two girls sharing a kiss "throwing it in other people's faces"? In fact, what is it that gay people do, that straight couples don't do, that "throws it in other people's faces"? Tell me please.

None of the above.

It's when special legislation has to be made setting them apart from everyone else. America is supposed to be a "melting pot" of people and cultures. Every law passed that singles out a group makes it that much harder for that group to become part of the "pot".

It's a hate crime to kill a homosexual yelling "Die, you motherfucking queer" but it's not a hate crime to kill your neighbor yellling "Die, you fucking asshole neighbor". Both people are dead. Both people were hated enough to be killed by someone. Why should one get treated different than the other? When it does, it makes the majority resent the fact that the homosexuals death was considered more repugnant than the neighbors. And that makes them resent the minority that caused such legislation to be passed.

Well I gave reasons above for why targeting someone based on their identity as a member of a broader group may be seen as deserving a higher penalisation above. Malthus has also explained it quite eloquently. Of course you may disagree, but that's your "why".

[Jaron]

The problem with your scenario as presented is "I'm going to kill my neighbor, that asshole" can happen to anyone. Its an equal opportunity killing.

Someone saying "I'm going to kill that fucking fag!" can only happen to a gay person. It specifically targets that person because of a particular trait thats sets him apart from the rest of society.

You or I will never be targeted because we're homosexuals, it cannot happen. Therefore, if someone decides they're gonna go out and kill a fag tonight, you and I are safe. There needs to be an extra deterrent to protect those who are vulnerable.

I guess as mainstream, white men both you and derspiess can't understand what it is like to be a minority. Being on some whackjobs kill on sight list because of something you were born into sucks. Does it really harm you all that much to let us have some extra protection?