US Senate adds gays to hate crime legislation

[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.

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.

This actually is one of the strongest arguments against hate crime legislation, imo - that when it is finally passed, it is no longer needed.

[Faeelin]

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.

Tell ya what, when your state recognizes my marriage we can repeal the hate crime law.

[Martinus]

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?

Yup. As I said, it is like a terrorist attack - hate crimes breed terror and fear that goes beyond "living next door to a whacko". To combat that fear - affecting entire communities of people - you show the extra "displeasure" of the society against such crimes.

[Jaron]

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.

Tell ya what, when your state recognizes my marriage we can repela the hate crime law.

You're married?

*snap* Another one got away.

[DisturbedPervert]

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.

Several generations ago I don't added hate crime laws would have helped much 

[Strix]

  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.

So, most homophobic attacks begin with a person or group sitting around deciding that they'll target a gay person that day? Have you been watching a lot of bad movies lately?

People attack random people because they want to do so. They find a person THAN find something to hate about them. If they come across Marty, they'll beat him because he is gay, if they come across Jaron they'll beat him because he is Hispanic, if they come across Berkut, they'll beat him from his strawmen, etc, and so on. They beat people because it's what they do.

[Jaron]

  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.

So, most homophobic attacks begin with a person or group sitting around deciding that they'll target a gay person that day? Have you been watching a lot of bad movies lately?

People attack random people because they want to do so. They find a person THAN find something to hate about them. If they come across Marty, they'll beat him because he is gay, if they come across Jaron they'll beat him because he is Hispanic, if they come across Berkut, they'll beat him from his strawmen, etc, and so on. They beat people because it's what they do.

So you think those boys in Texas would have chained a white man to their truck and dragged him a few miles if they'd come across him first?

I don't think so, Strix. This is just denial on your part. Don't deny racist attacks happen in this country, and don't deny that gay bashing happens.

[Martinus]

  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.

So, most homophobic attacks begin with a person or group sitting around deciding that they'll target a gay person that day? Have you been watching a lot of bad movies lately?

People attack random people because they want to do so. They find a person THAN find something to hate about them. If they come across Marty, they'll beat him because he is gay, if they come across Jaron they'll beat him because he is Hispanic, if they come across Berkut, they'll beat him from his strawmen, etc, and so on. They beat people because it's what they do.

You were right until you got to Berkut.

The fact is, even if they don't go out with a plan in mind to target a specific minority, they essentially go out to target some minority. This means straight white men are usually safe.

[Malthus]

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.

I'd agree that this would have some merit, if gays were the only group so protected.

As I understand it, there already exists "hate crimes" laws that protect people from being attacked on a number of grounds - "Die, you motherfucking Kike!" or "Die, you motherfucking Nigger!".

All this legislation does, is extend the list.

While having the list at all may arguably be a bad idea, once it exists, as many identities as possible ought to be on it - as otherwise you get a hierarchy of rights: that attacking someone for *one* identity is seen as "less bad" than attacking someone for *another*.

[Hansmeister]

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?

Yes, because it violates the equal protection (not extra protection) clause to value some people higher in the court of law than others.  Imagine if, say SC, had a law that would proscribe a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity.  This would rightly lead to outraged cries of institutional racism.

[Strix]

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?

Yes, yes it does. It creates and feeds into the "them vs us" mentality that leads to more hate. You can create a hate crime list that covers every group but it will never cover one particular group i.e. white males. As a result, it's one more law that pisses off white males and contributes to their not accepting the minority in question.

The problem is that minorities drink the politician's kool-aid. They believe that the politicians care and that the legislation helps them. In reality, it sets back relations between the majority and minority.

[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.

I'd agree that this would have some merit, if gays were the only group so protected.

As I understand it, there already exists "hate crimes" laws that protect people from being attacked on a number of grounds - "Die, you motherfucking Kike!" or "Die, you motherfucking Nigger!".

All this legislation does, is extend the list.

While having the list at all may arguably be a bad idea, once it exists, as many identities as possible ought to be on it - as otherwise you get a hierarchy of rights: that attacking someone for *one* identity is seen as "less bad" than attacking someone for *another*.

I think the way it should be done, to be fair, is to make it a "hate crime" to attack someone because of their innate, "passive" characteristic. This is how it is done, for example, in Polish law, and the "protected characteristics" (gender, sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, race, ethnicity, or disability) are only mentioned as examples.

[Malthus]

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?

Yes, because it violates the equal protection (not extra protection) clause to value some people higher in the court of law than others.  Imagine if, say SC, had a law that would proscribe a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity.  This would rightly lead to outraged cries of institutional racism.

If it could be proved he attacked her because she was White, I'd hope there would be no outrage.

Though this points out a significant problem with the laws: it may be very difficult to prove the exact motivation.

[Faeelin]

Yes, because it violates the equal protection (not extra protection) clause to value some people higher in the court of law than others.  Imagine if, say SC, had a law that would proscribe a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity.  This would rightly lead to outraged cries of institutional racism.

Actually, this would be a hate crime.

[Jaron]

Hate crime laws are not about white on black violence. If a white man robs a store and shoots the black clerk before fleeing, that is not a hate crime and should not be treated as one.

If a black man kills a white man for racially motivated reasons, I'd have no qualms about extra time being added on.

Let's make it fair, but lets make it very clear that in our society we won't tolerate these types of crimes.

In a sense, we already have such laws. Doesn't killing a policeman usually carry a tougher penalty than killing any random civilian? Isn't that also a violation of this equal rights idea?