Defining Hate in the United States

I do not understand why we need to have laws against “hate crimes”. Aren’t laws against crime enough? Do we really want to try to determine motivations of crime? Surely we have sufficient laws to combat “generic crime”.

If we do decide to put hate crimes on the books, do we want to charge black on white muggers with hate crimes? What if they only wanted the money? How do we tell?

“Studies show that victims of hate crimes rarely report the assaults to law enforcement because of fear and isolation. “

This is a problem with crime in general. But the reason for the underreporting is not just what is written, rather it is that police often are ineffectual and cannot protect us.

Posted by wolf on May 9, 2007 at 7:03 AM

Right on, Wolf

I

Posted by whattheheck on May 9, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Yes we all   have the right to express an opinion but - that’s where it should end.  Everyone has the right to live as they see fit - it is none of anyone else’s business what their sexual preferences are - just so long as they do no harm to anyone else.
This business of Gay people being bashed just because they are what they are is victimisation.  Its all about CHOICES we all have the RIGHT to those.  So show a little compassion for people who are different from you. Get on with your own lives and - if people and the way they live offends you - then - just pass on by.  There is no need for hate, nastiness and bashings.  A man died here because someone did not like his singing for Gods sake - can you hear yourselves. Its bigotry.
And because he did not like And because he dd not like Andrew Anthos’ singing he asked him if he was Gay????????????????
Get some understanding, some compassion and love of your fellow man.
Your remarks are so childish and nasty.
Yes they should get better law enforcement for Hate Crimes there are too many of those “IN AMERICA”.
Love & Light

Posted by jacqueline on May 9, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Jacqueline,

So it looks as though you believe that a crime against someone based on a difference of sexual preference, race or other hateful (as opposed to loving?) reason, should receive a more severe punishment.

How reasonable is that?

All bigots should be punished for their speech.

Think about it!  That is just another form of bigotry!

A crime is a crime and should be punished as such. Enough.

Posted by whattheheck on May 10, 2007 at 5:24 AM

I liked John Ireland better as an actor. 

:-)

Posted by whattheheck on May 10, 2007 at 5:25 AM

“Yes they should get better law enforcement for Hate Crimes there are too many of those

Posted by wolf on May 10, 2007 at 8:44 AM

Institute a nationwide concealed carry law for law abiding citizens. If Andrew Anthos was packing a .45 this would be a different story. Old man sticks pipe up juvenile delinquents ass….Story at eleven.

Laws are worthless pieces of paper without some force to back them up. Police are undermanned, underfunded, and stretched thin. Our criminal justice system seems to be a revolving door for violent offenders.

Learn one valuable lesson from Hurricane Katrina…...The government cannot protect you. The police cannot protect you. You can and should protect yourself. If you have some Liberal qualms about a firearm get pepper spray or a stun gun or a large stick.

Posted by texasindependent on May 10, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Hi,y’all!

May I offer an opinion?

First, I would like to say thank you to In These Times for offering us such a good article—plenty of potential material to blog about.

With that out of the way, may I ask if anyone here knows what a hate crime is? I say this because I’ve just read the standard response by most right-wingers. In my younger days, I would have thrown my ink-pot against the wall. Now, with age and gray forming around my muzzle, I just sigh in resignation that the ideals of Jesse helms will never die.

Honestly, is anyone here so naive as to put forward black on white muggings as a justification for not prosecuting hate crimes? Actually,yes.

Since we obviously have lower echelon reasoning voicing opinions, may I clarify what a hate crime is? Pay attention, my ducklings.

A hate crime is a criminal act directed toward a person or group because of what they are. One attacks jewish people because they are Jewish. One attacks black people because they are black. If a black man robs me because he believes I have money, that is not a hate crime,That’s robbery. If he specifically attacks me because I’m white, then that’s a hate crime.

By the way, one method of telling if it’s a hate crime is if the attacker, or attackers(these people usually prey in groups—cowards, in more ways than one) yell things like GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM! ,F*UCKING F*GGOT! ,DIE! F*CKING ZIONIST K*KE PIG! , or ALL F*UCKING N*GGERS MUST F*CKING HANG! Those are fairly competent indicators, wouldn’t you agree?

This just occurred to me. Isn’t it funny how many times the word f*ck appears in all those insults? Perhaps that’s an indicator of what’s missing in the lives of the young men who do such terrible acts. Such an easily remedied problem, Then again,having known a few, most men who commit hate crimes have personalities that, if encapsulated and bottled, would be POTENT birth control. Ah, well, back to square one.

The black on white mugger argument should be discussed in some medical or psychological journal as a symptom of a disease frequently displayed on this site.

That disease is called CRANIAL/RECTAL CONJUNCTION!

Fortunately there are several cures, including keyboard confiscation.


Frankly, I feel it’s the 1960’s all over again and that the gay issue is another civil rights struggle. Let’s just hope that our views,whatever they may be, are the right ones. Living in the South, i look at the older gentlemen, listen to their conversations and wonder just how many have sheets hidden wa-a-a-a-y back in their closets. You know, the sheets with the funny holes cut in them. I,at times,also wonder what else they’ve hidden in their closets. After all, honesty is the best policy, especially with oneself.

Ta-Ta!

Posted by Aunty Rightwing on May 10, 2007 at 1:01 PM

“One attacks black people because they are black. If a black man robs me because he believes I have money, that is not a hate crime,That

Posted by wolf on May 10, 2007 at 2:17 PM

You can’t outlaw hate but you can certainly outlaw violent crimes motivated by hate. It makes sense. Hate crimes are an obvious violation of one’s civil liberties in addition to one’s person. Penalty enhancers make sense. If we outlaw hate crimes now maybe we can effectively outlaw hate by extention. Or at least reduce it by influencing rational people to think and influence those around them that are predisposed toward hateful violence and behavior.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 10, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Hi,y’all!

wolf,wolf,wolf,

I do not advocate censorship of those who disagree with me as I’m not a right-winger. That should be obvious given the double entendre in my posting name. Use the dictionary, if you must. I’ve just used a foreign term.While you’re at it,look up the word “rhetorical”

I was joking about confiscating keyboards. However, in true talk-radio fashion, you have taken a
  joking statement and assumed it’s true to tear down an argument. In addition, you make baseless accusations.Sean Hannity would be pleased. Let me know if you ever write a book about effective debating techniques.

If I didn’t enjoy talking to people that disagree with me, I wouldn’t come to this site. Unlike the right’s favorite venue,talk-radio, there are no call screeners to block those who might challenge the views of the reactionary loudmouth in question.

By the way,I am a liberal because I’ve been deemed so by the right-wing.Probably because I don’t believe that power and submission to such is more important than the people.

Why prosecute hate crimes? If the answer isn’t obvious, then no argument or appeal will convince you. Why the distinction, you ask? Perhaps the distinction lies in the difference between the words"robs” and “attacks”.There is a difference between assault and robbery.

Usually,when blacks,gays,jews and any other group that leaps to mind are attacked in a hate crime, robbery is NOT the motive. Klansmen don’t burn crosses in furtherance of burglary. A hate crime, like rape,is a crime of power. As well, it should be considered an aggravating factor ,at the very least, in a crime.

TI,
Nice to hear from you! I agree,conealed carry is the way to go. The compact M1911 is rather good, especially when loaded with Mag-Safes.“Young man learns what liquid teflon and #12 shot taste like from his would be victim”  has a nice ring to it. At least it’s more cheery than hearing about another senior citizen being beat to death by a young punk.

Just a thought.

Ta-Ta!

Posted by Aunty Rightwing on May 10, 2007 at 4:46 PM

Hate Crimes need to be dealt with as severely as is within the law.

Attitudes such as sticks and stones, baloney show that hate crimes still are not taken seriously enough in this country.

If there is a hate crime on the books and the crimes is determined to be a hate crime, the person is going to receive the punishment he/she deserves for the crime committed.

Nobody deserves to have their civil rights violated.

a hate crimes bill is important and yes it is sad that it is needed in our country but due to the bigotry and hate still here, we need it.

Posted by EV_Ares on May 10, 2007 at 5:05 PM

“I do not advocate censorship of those who disagree with me as I’m not a right-winger. “

I thought you *were* in favor of censorship - aren’t you a lefty?  Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of political correctness?  :)

“In addition, you make baseless accusations.”

Like “Since we obviously have lower echelon reasoning voicing opinions” or perhaps “Living in the South, i look at the older gentlemen, listen to their conversations and wonder just how many have sheets hidden wa-a-a-a-y back in their closets. You know, the sheets with the funny holes cut in them. I,at times,also wonder what else they’ve hidden in their closets. “

If nothing else, you *are* funny!

By the way,I am an independent free thinker because I’ve chosen to be so (i don’t let other people define who i am and even find it odd that others would do so). .Probably because i believe one should gather information and consider it with their own brains, as opposed to taking in the “analysis” of such luminaries as Michael Moore or Rush Limbough (are they the same guy - they are both so loud and obnoxious. .. .).

Seems to me that you are a liberal simply because you are confused. I wish you enlightenment and good fortune.

“There is a difference between assault and robbery.”

Um, isn’t that why they are treated differently under the current laws (you do know that they are treated differently, i hope?)?

PS - you really should include whites in your list above of hate crimes, or do you think that is unnecessary (you do not have to answer, i believe the question is, how do you say, um, rhetorical)?  :)

Posted by wolf on May 11, 2007 at 8:57 AM

Hi,y’all!

wolf,wolf,wolf

You’re simply doing more of the same.Really, it’s getting quite boring. It reminds me of my students when they try to hammer an argument from every possible end, not realizing the argument is flawed.

I’ve called you a right-winger because you are displaying the characteristics of one. Quacks like a duck, or ,in this case, quacks like a righty…

I hope you do think independently. Yet, when you call someone a liberal for making a joke and claim that they wish to repress speech via political correctness based on that joke, you sound like every other right-wing half-wit. That makes it very difficult to see the independent process in your thinking. Confused in my thinking? Typical right-wing response when they wish to sound as though they have all the answers. Psst!..they don’t! Neither do I, but I’m not going to pretend that I do.

By the way, I don’t subscribe to political correctness or the thinking involved. Thinking in euphemism is hooey. Frankly, the whole idea of political correctness strikes me as a concoction of the far right to create another,domestic, enemy that their followers can be afraid ofbecause that group may restrict their ability to mock others at a junior high school level. Mercy me! We can’t tell ethnic jokes or call women “toots” anymore! I don’t like political correctness as it forces people to cover their true nature. If someone’s a bigot, I’d like to know. That way, I can avoid or ignore them.

Do you honestly think I’m excluding whites from being the victims of hate crimes? Hate crime legislation applies to everyone. Are you not able to infer that from my previous postings?

Folks, you need only linger briefly to see cranial/rectal conjunction appear on this thread.

Now, take whatever from this post fits your argument, repeat it back to me as if I don’t know what I’ve written, and try again, albeit vainly, to make your argument viable.

Ta-Ta!

Posted by Aunty Rightwing on May 11, 2007 at 10:02 PM

Sorry to have confused you. The obvious observations i made were simply an aside. Why don’t we discuss the actual topic?

The question is: “Two identical crimes are committed, one with “hate” and the other “not”, the one with “hate” deserves a harsher punishment because ...”.

Posted by wolf on May 12, 2007 at 7:17 AM

Some o dem say dems a niggah hatah
N’ some o dem say dems a block beetah
N’ some o dem say dems a block stahbah
N’ some o dem say dems a paki bashah

Fascists on de attack
no batha wori foh dat
fascists on de attack
we will fite dem bock
fascists on de attack
we will coonteh attack
fascists on the attack
we will drive them bock.

smosh der branes in
cuz dey aint go nottan in em
we gonna smosh der branes in
coz dey aint got notton in em

Lynton Kwesi Johnson

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 12, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Hi,y’all!

wolf,

The crime committed out of hate deserves to punished with more severity as committing a crime out of wanton, malicious hatred is an aggravating factor. Just as vehicular homicide is prosecuted with more severity when alcohol is involved. The decision of a person to behave in a particular way and then commit a crime is considered an aggravating factor.I’m not going to try to break down American Law to you in one post as it would be too difficult for anyone.

Once again, we see it happening. The right acts as though they are totally ignorant, waits for their opponent to write something that can be manipulated, then attacks on that minor detail. This is the reason why the stupid and prejudiced students do not last long in critical thinking courses.

Instead,wolf, I will ask you this. If a man is lynched for his skin color, why should his assailants NOT be prosecuted with greater severity than if he were not different from them? I am white, in fact, by my family’s heritage, I’m so white that I’m pale blue.Can I justify hating certain groups and ridicule them for their misfortune? Can I show disdain to the Irish for not knowing more about agriculture and complain about having to support them when they escaped the potato famine? Can I gripe about the Russians who left instead of facing death for their religious beliefs which are different than mine? Please say no!

This is what we see from the far-right, even when they won’t admit it. Let’s show callous disdain for those who are weaker than us becaue we can, and because our group supports it.

If I were to assault and rob you (put your macho assertions aside for a moment) because you are a republican, not because I merely think you have money, is that not an aggravating factor?

When somebody commits vandalism, say spray painting a cemetery with graffiti, is not the crime worse because they did it out of hatred for the religious beliefs of those interred there?

Why are gay people attacked by certain groups? Why are ethnic groups attacked by certain people? Primarily, because of an instilled hatred. Prosecute the motive as well as the crime and, perhaps, those who do such things will stop. Is that a form of social control? Yes. However, all laws are a form of social control.

The right love to beat a dead horse. Then, they prop the dead horse up and pretend it isn’t dead.

Maybe we need to see a reversal.

Maybe gay groups should beat up skinheads?

Maybe pro-choice people should harass pro- life ministers because PRO-LIFE MINISTERS ARE DESTROYERS OF BASIC AMERICAN FREEDOMS AND CHOICES!!!

Lovely political slogan, don’t you think?

Maybe groups who are pro-choice should attack reactionary churches as has been done to them ?maybe they should post the names of reactionary ministers on the internet as enemies of choice. Gee, who else are enemies of choice? By their definition, COMMIES! So fitting as Jesus did advocate sharing.

Maybe the left should denounce anyone who uses intimidation, fear, and violence as a tool as being a terrorist, since that is its definition. OOPS!, GOODBYE XTIAN RIGHT!

Why won’t these things happen? Because the left is not a party of FASCISTS! We respect difference of opinion.

Guaranteed, if it were Pat Robertson’s church facing violence because of religious belief, hate laws would be in our Bill of Rights!

I don’t advocate organized violence. I’m not a reactionary.

However, I find it strange that the same groups put forth the same ridiculous arguments every time arguments involving human compassion arise. I wonder. How would they feel if those same tools were used against them?

Just some musings.

Ta-Ta!

Posted by Aunty Rightwing on May 13, 2007 at 12:29 AM

What we have here is a failure to communicate

Posted by whattheheck on May 13, 2007 at 5:52 AM

Aunty - long diatribe, short on the actual topic. I really don’t see anything worth responding to in your post. You clearly need to work harder to make yourself stay on topic!

wth - nice post.

Moving on, here is one possible argument for distinguishing “hate” crimes from real crimes. IF you make it a federal offense, then if the states fail to successfully prosecute the real crime, then the feds can (ala the Rodiny King case). But for this to be fair, it should not enumerate select groups - rather it should be a crime for *anyone* to take away *anyone* else’s civil rights. From what i know of the OJ case, this is most clearly not the case. (Of course, those of us who believe in double jeopardy are a bit wary of this reason.)

Still do not see any better/good rational for treating “identical” crimes differently. . .

Posted by wolf on May 13, 2007 at 8:02 AM

Hate crimes should have penalty enhancers added to them. We need to send the message that willfully harming someone else based on your own prejudices will not be tolerated by the law and that the law will address not only the violent act itself BUT THE DESPICABLE MOTIVE AS WELL!!

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 13, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Hi, y’all!

WTH,

I didn’t use a smiley face for my sarcastic comments. I don’t teach elementary school students. Frankly, I’ve found that I only sound pompous to my students who spend their time goofing or lack the ability to comprehend. Also, pompous may, at times , be confused with didactic.

We’re not talking about thoughts or speech.We’re talking about motivation. The crime has been committed, why was it done?

No telepathy is needed.

You can think hateful thoughts all you want, but if you act on those hateful thoughts and hurt others, the penalty will be that much worse. That deters many.

I know we can’t know what lurks in the hearts of men. We’re not The Shadow. Yet, when someone commits an act motivated by hate and we know they associate with people in hate groups, we can pretty much assume that the crime was motivated by hate.

For the simpler students: if a person known to be in the Klan beats up a black person, I would be prone to call that a hate crime, unless there were a very, very good reason for the attack, say, stopping the commission of another crime.

If a hate group wants to hold a rally,and exercise their freedom of speech,let them. I can use a
good laugh. If nothing else, I know at least they are congregated and not out commiting crimes.

I am an advocate of free speech. However, General Pace is more than somebody who simply decides where soldiers should go; he is also a politician. You don’t become a general, especially a four- star general, without being a politician. He should have known to keep his mouth shut and his opinions private leswt he offend someone who might hurt his career. Shut mouths catch no flies.

I’ve also noticed something that’s very curious. How did this thread get locked into the topic of freedom of speech? Isn’t the main topic of the above article about the ineffectiveness of hate laws as they pertain to crimes against homosexuals? And I’m off topic? Talk about hijacking a thread! This one’s been hijacked and flown to Cuba! Talk about deviant brilliance!

I have an idea. Why don’t we talk about the inneffectiveness of hate crime laws and the thinking behind their lack of enforcement instead of this argument about freedom of speech which our first posters lured us onto? Huh, wolf? wth? What do you say? Let’s talk about the REAL topic at hand instead of your ridiculous argument. Then again, it is the job of right-wingers who post here to divert the topic to suit their agenda!

I’m sorry I didn’t realize what was going on here earlier. My attention has been diverted for much of this week. Maybe now I can concentrate on the BU**SH** arguments wth and wolf are spewing.

Changing venue ,for a moment, for my fellow non- right wing posters. I think what bothers me most when I hear people say that hate crime laws are not needed is that it makes me wonder if they’ve just been propagandized, or do they truly lack empathy? Do they not have the ability to imagine what being hated for no good reason feels like? Does that thought not cause them fear? A person without the ability to empathize with the pain of another frightens me.

Republicans, at times, act as though they are unable to put themselves in another person’s shoes. We see that inability in much of their behavior and policies. That was one of the reasons listed all of those examples in my last post. I was hoping one might connect and make sense. Alas, talking tough and showing no compassion is far easier than caring and actually doing something other than harrumphing. Then again, what else do you expect from a pig than a grunt, or a squeal?

Just some musings .

Ta-Ta!

Posted by Aunty Rightwing on May 13, 2007 at 4:49 PM

Issues of motivation are best addressed during sentencing, and are not practically able to be quantified in statute. 

Just as a judge or jury might increase the sentence of an attacker if it was determined that he simply attacked people for the thrill of it, or the fun of it, and not because he was hungry or desperate for money, they will similarly take into account if his motivation was solely the race/gender/orientation of the victim. 

The problem is defining hate and determining who gets to be included in the groups of people that deserve to be protected from “hate”.  Should we also have laws that mandate people must be given an additional 5 yrs if they do crime simply for the thrill of it?  Because they hate rich people?  Poor people?  Because they hate “right wingers”?  Because they hate “left wingers”? 

Hate crimes laws are simply an unauthorized attempt to control and define free thought, and like most other ill-conceived overreaching laws and regulations end up not solving problems, but creating new ones in addition.  They take power away from those best able to understand complex situations and prescribe just punishment, and put it in the hands of a far-removed law writer fooling himself into thinking that he’s really able to solve the age-old problem of people hating each other by saying “hey, it’s illegal”. 

Seems strange that those on the left are dead set against any kind of mandatory sentencing or three strikes laws, and hate being held to educational testing standards for the reasoning that people think and learn differently,  but they’re perfectly willing to lock people up for what they think people might be thinking about select groups that they select.

This is a tangled and nonsensical web they seek to weave, and sooner or later the ones doing the weaving are going to become entangled as well.

Posted by Natalie on May 14, 2007 at 1:45 AM

Aunty,

Posted by whattheheck on May 14, 2007 at 5:57 AM

Hi, y’all

WTH,

I understood the whole smiley face thing. I was being sarcastic…again. I’m not going to use visuals for the thinking impaired.

Inability to comprehend irony.

Bases the main idea of the text upon the picture.

Why would I make references to elementary school students?

Also, why have we made this thread about freedom of speech? True, it is important, but not the focus of the article. The main idea of this article was about the weakness of enforcement and the underreporting of hate crimes. Doesn’t anyone want to talk about why this occurs? Why aren’t these crimes reported more often? Is there, possibly, stigma attached to them? Why are they stigmatized?What is the underlying motive and is it individual or is it societal?

There is a wealth of ideas here to talk about instead of discussing the effect hate crimes may have on freedom of speech. We can yammer about the Bill of Rights and attempts to control the populace. Personally I find that argument laughable when I think about the PATRIOT Act and what it has done to our country.

Natalie,

Let’s not talk about mandatory minimums or three strikes laws. Rather, let’s talk about the above article.

Folks, do you see how they do this? They throw in something that has nothing to do with the subject, yet is similar in some respects. One responds and the topic becomes diverted. I nearly bit, until I saw the hook.

I’m surprised that we’re not trying to disprove the link between hate crimes and depleted uranium.

Ta-Ta!

Posted by Aunty Rightwing on May 14, 2007 at 11:43 AM

Aunty Rightwing,

OK, if you insist.

Posted by whattheheck on May 14, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Hi,y’all!

WTH,

Good to see you participate! Wonderful!

Let’s address some of the points made. You made an attempt, but ,still, I think, you are missing the thrust of the article.

Why are the crimes underreported?
Could this have something to do with the community refusing to admit such a problem exists as the article suggests? Could this also have to do with the shame of being a victim. This occurs also with victims of crimes not motivated by hate.

Why are they stigmatized?
Could this have to do with communities not accepting certain groups while maintaining a facade of tolerance? Yet, when a hate crime occurs, the community does very little as they don’t really like the group in question. The mentality that if the victim wasn’t gay, or if they didn’t “flaunt it”, they wouldn’t be preyed upon does exist. Just rub off a bit of the gilt and you see what’s underneath.

The victims think the idea of hate crimes are absurd?
Are you for real?

Underlying motive:societal or individual?
Reread the bloody article! The article clearly states that the perpatrators believe what they are doing is morally justifiable! Don’t take my word for it, listen to their interrogation sessions or their interviews. They hate and they are proud of it! They would do it again if they could—including murder! This is a guessing game! Maybe, but not a very hard one.

A crusade by PC fixated minds?
First, lets define the meaning of political correctness. Such a vagary! It could easily define the mindset of those who commit hate crimes. Especially if we look at it as the right does; as some form of enforcing proper behavior and thought.

Well, I must run! Thank you for addressing the post, albeit not as much as I would have liked. I’m sure we’ll talk more!

Ta-Ta!

Posted by Aunty Rightwing on May 14, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Aunty Rightwing,

No, I am not

Posted by whattheheck on May 15, 2007 at 5:43 AM

wth - you are more patient than i.

Has anyone noticed, the *only* reason given here for enhancing penalties for “hate” crimes is that, if we do not, we are lacking in empathy and therefore must be republican right wingers? This is one of the reasons the left is in such a bad state - it has no intellectual roots that are accessible to its rank and file.

Posted by wolf on May 15, 2007 at 8:03 AM

I’m surprised that we’re not trying to disprove the link between hate crimes and depleted uranium.

Actually, the two have much in common.  Both are phony issues designed to further another agenda.  One is obvious, and the other I’m about 80% sure of.

DU wackjobs are simply out to hobble and discredit the U.S. military in any way they can, so they exaggurate the effects of DU light-years beyond what’s accurate.

Above and beyond the fact that crimes committed soley on the basis of hate are relatively rare these days, and like DU their true extent is often unjustly distorted, I’m highly suspicious that the agenda behind hate-crimes laws is about much more than bully control.  This is the kind of tractionless incline anyone who truly respects the concept of free expression should fear.

Posted by Natalie on May 15, 2007 at 9:07 AM

Has anyone noticed, the *only* reason given here for enhancing penalties for “hate” crimes is that, if we do not, we are lacking in empathy and therefore must be republican right wingers?

Indeed wolf. In this discussion about hate, Aunty has expressed plenty of it herself, ironically while arguing for laws against such things. 

Nested between the Hi,yalls! and the Ta-Tas!, are nuggets of palpable disdain and mis-placed umbrella characterizations she seems to think are perfectly socially acceptable when it comes to “right-wingers”, while the article she defends complains about how certain hate-induced crimes are thought of as OK and justified by those who commit them.

I just sigh in resignation that the ideals of Jesse helms will never die.

This rather convenient selection of about the only segregationist Democrat to join the Republican party reveals an attempt to falsely paint Republicans with the Klan brush.  In fact, virtually all of the civil rights filibustering Democrats, such as Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr., Fritz Hollings, on and on, remained Democrats until the end.  I can’t think of a more hateful and despicable accusation than that of racism, especially when such an accusation is so misplaced.

Since we obviously have lower echelon reasoning voicing opinions, may I clarify what a hate crime is? Pay attention, my ducklings.

The old Neanderthal reference.  You and Geico need to be more sensitive.  My, the elitist tone here.

you sound like every other right-wing half-wit

The stupid reference.  “<u>Every</u> other”?  How inclusive of you!

Once again, we see it happening. The right acts as though they are totally ignorant, waits for their opponent to write something that can be manipulated, then attacks on that minor detail. <u>This is the reason why the stupid and prejudiced students do not last long in critical thinking courses.</u>

More stupid references, without even a blush!  You know, this kind of casual attitude is likely what enabled all the left-wingers to guiltlessly vandalize GOP offices before the 2004 elections, and what made the Republicans embarrassed to report them.

Why won’t these things happen? Because <u>the left is not a party of FASCISTS! We respect difference of opinion.</u>

Wow.  We’re arrogant fascists now.  Where’s the love?  The tolerance you speak of?

Alas, talking tough and showing no compassion is far easier than caring and actually doing something other than harrumphing. Then again, <u>what else do you expect from a pig than a grunt, or a squeal?</u>

Now you’re sounding like a brainwashed Arab talking about the Jews.  I suppose you might say that you’re kidding with all this, but should that be an acceptable defense for gay-bashers?

My opinion is that you’ve expressed an extraordinary amount of what I choose to define as hatred here, and the fact that you’ve repeatedly painted a many-faceted group of people with a broad brush demonstrates something very closely related to bigotry. 

I wouldn’t advocate for any laws that would mandate an increase in your sentence if you were to be arrested for some crime against a right-winger.  Would you be willing to just accept the added years, when it was revealed how many blanket negative feelings you harbor toward this group, or would you perhaps appreciate an opportunity to put your remarks into context for the jury?

Posted by Natalie on May 15, 2007 at 9:11 AM

Natalie - nice post! Good job of deconstructing what little there is of our poor Aunt (who knows so very little about the topic, but seems to have such in depth data on us posters!). . .  :)

Posted by wolf on May 15, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Thanks wolf, and thanks as well WTH for your earlier comment. 

I think this is instructive and illustrates my earlier point about getting stuck in one’s own web:

9. About f*****g time.
 
Buh-buy, Foulball.

What was that earlier lecture from the teacher about the use of the F-word?

This just occurred to me. Isn’t it funny how many times the word f*ck appears in all those insults? Perhaps that’s an indicator of what’s missing in the lives of the young men who do such terrible acts. Such an easily remedied problem, Then again,having known a few, most men who commit hate crimes have personalities that, if encapsulated and bottled, would be POTENT birth control. Ah, well, back to square one.

Contrary to what Aunty implies and out-right states, my experience is that the bulk of the hate in public discourse, at least of late, has largely been emanating from the left.

Posted by Natalie on May 15, 2007 at 12:06 PM

Natalie, Wolf,

(Natalie

Posted by whattheheck on May 15, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Hi, y’all!

WTH,

Haved you ever heard of the term"aggravating factor”? Of course you have. We use it to more severly punish other crimes. Is that moralizing? Probably, but we feel no compunctions about it when it comes to crimes committed under the influence.

Not every hate crime involves murder. As I pointed out earlier, assault and vandalism are also motivated by hate. Yet, we’ll limit argument by focussing on only one crime—most diabolical.

By the way, what the @%$#*! is the “extreme left” or “extreme fundamentalists”, besides a rhetorical trick to discredit and distance? I don’t mean just your use. I see it all over the place. Can someone give us a standard for that vagary?

“You might be extreme left if…”

I’m not calling you a right wing shill just because you disagree with me, but you are arguing like one at times throwing out some of their talking points. I’m not a liberal either. Politics and the accompanying issues are far too complex to take only one perspective.Just talk to me about gun control and see how far to the left I am on that topic.

natalie,

Being insulting is not the same as hatred.I hope you grasp that. A little sarcasm and ,suddenly, I’m just full of hatred for the right!! Hurling my words back is truly passe.It really gets to be annoying when you see it over and over. By the way, insults are not the domain of the left, as you seem to imply. Just look around this site and you’ll see. Better yet, we could examine the right and their views of those on the left, especially the last twenty-five years of public discourse. Want to revisit the ‘92 and 96 campaigns or the tactics used by Newt and his cronies?  Want me to type a dissertation length post on the statements of Ann Coulter?

Furthermore, the argument about Democrats being for segregation is such a ridiculous Fox News argument that it’s pathetic. More written judo to derail! KI-YA!

Also, I don’t hate the military as you hint. I don’t wish to hobble or discredit the military either. In fact, in spite of the current political schtick used by the right, some of us on the left are quite patriotic. Patriotism, however, is not willing blindness to our government’s policies, or our military’s policies either. When the military,indeed, when our government, does something wrong, It should answer for it , and I don’t mean an answer of “Bite me! Mind your own business!”.

wolf,

The reason for enhancing penalties for hate crimes is not the silly reason you suggest. It is to deter people from doing those crimes. JEEZ, LOUISE! How many times or ways do I have to say that! If a group of people who hate(Let’s use our imagination and fill in the blank . They could be hateful liberals out to brutalize NRA members on their way home. ) realize that by committing a crime out of hatred, they could get a much more severe penalty, even prison, then maybe they won’t do it. Maybe, someone doesn’t get beaten to a pulp, or to death, for that matter. Maybe someone doesn’t have to see their family member’s burial plot desecrated. Maybe someone’s business isn’t burned down. To prevent those things, done out of fear and ignorance, why not toughen the laws?

To my fellow posters,

I don’t hate the right, but I will argue until I turn blue in the face about their views on political and social issues . If a little ridicule of people who commit crimes out of hatred , and belittling those who don’t think stronger measures to reduce such crimes is needed is too much for you, then you need to toughen up.

Finally, consider this.

We are extremely hard on those who commit terrorist acts—GOOD! Yet, what is done by certain other groups is also terrorism. That is to say it is the use of fear,violence, and intimidation to achieve an end. Check your dictionary. That is the definition of terrorism. We have countrymen who are terrorists, albeit there usually half-*ssed. They should get the same treatment as all the others. I DON’T CARE WHAT GROUP THEY ARE WITH.

P.S.

Can we argue about the article and the topic at hand,instead of trying to deconstruct another poster with"blunt little tools”? The only poster to even address the topic has been WTH. Thanks, WTH.

P.P.S.

Jerry Falwell is dead?

GOOD!!! SMOKE A TURD IN HELL, YOU FASCIST !!! YOUR TYPE DESERVES TO HAVE BAT-WINGED DEMONS POURiNG MOLTEN LEAD DOWN YOUR THROAT FOREVER!!!

I’m only sorry I lived this long and was not in Heaven to see ol’ Jerry meet his maker.  OH! Would I have loved to have been there for that! It’s late but,God, I need to find a bottle of Veuve Cliquot !
HALLEJUAH!
PRAISE JESUS!

No respect shown? Boo f*cking hoo! No quarter given, none returned!

May I offer a bit of Blake?

Rise and look out as dungeon doors are opened
and that his wife and children return from the oppressed scourge
They look behind with every step and believe it isn’t a dream singing:
The sun has left its blackness
and has found a fresher morning
and the pale moon rejoices in the clear and cloudless sky
for empire is no more and now the lion and the wolf shall cease.

BTW,Jerry
Did he smile, his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?

Maybe Kurt will intervene for Jerry, having arrived just a bit earlier. I hope, faintly, that the right would be so civilized,but don’t expect it.

Such a busy week!

Ta-Ta!

Posted by Aunty Rightwing on May 15, 2007 at 9:28 PM

AuntyRW,

Posted by whattheheck on May 16, 2007 at 12:51 PM

wth -

“She survived because the .25 cal. bullet bounced off her head (lucky he didn

Posted by wolf on May 16, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Wolf,

He was never caught, so I guess we’ll never know for sure.  He may not have hated her as much as he loved her car. But he didn’t keep the car

Posted by whattheheck on May 16, 2007 at 5:43 PM

How timely and applicable is this?

Millions of human beings died of starvation, and of diseases related to severe malnutrition, when the economic ideas of Stalin in the Soviet Union and Mao in China were inflicted on the population living—and dying—under their iron rule.

In both cases, the deaths exceeded the deaths caused by Hitler’s genocide, which was also a consequence of ignorant presumptions by those with totalitarian power.

Many on the left may protest that they do not believe in the ideas or the political systems that prevailed under Hitler, Stalin or Mao. No doubt that is true.

Yet what the political left, even in democratic countries, share is the notion that knowledgeable and virtuous people like themselves have both a right and a duty to use the power of government to impose their superior knowledge and virtue on others.

They may not impose their presumptions wholesale, like the totalitarians, but retail in innumerable restrictions, ranging from economic and nanny state regulations to “hate speech” laws.

If no one has even one percent of all the knowledge in a society, then it is crucial that the other 99 percent of knowledge—scattered in tiny and individually unimpressive amounts among the population at large—be allowed the freedom to be used in working out mutual accommodations among the people themselves.

These innumerable mutual interactions are what bring the other 99 percent of knowledge into play—and generate new knowledge.

That is why free markets, <u>judicial restraint</u>, and reliance on decisions and traditions growing out of the experiences of the many—rather than the groupthink of the elite few—are so important.

Elites are all too prone to over-estimate the importance of the fact that they average more knowledge per person than the rest of the population—and under-estimate the fact that their total knowledge is so much less than that of the rest of the population.

They over-estimate what can be known in advance in elite circles and under-estimate what is discovered in the process of mutual accommodations among millions of ordinary people.

Central planning, judicial activism, and the nanny state all presume vastly more knowledge than any elites have ever possessed.

The ignorance of people with Ph.D.s is still ignorance, the prejudices of educated elites are still prejudices, and for those with one percent of a society’s knowledge to be dictating to those with the other 99 percent is still an absurdity.

In other words, trust the ordinary average common everyday people who make up the jury.  Therein lies the closest you’ll come to true justice.

Posted by Natalie on May 16, 2007 at 7:54 PM

natalie,wolf,wth.

What i’m saying is that the penalty should be stiiffer if it proven that the crime was motivated by hate. Let’s go back to the intoxication premise.

If I should strike something with my vehicle, say, another vehicle in a parking lot, and there are no injuries,just property damage, I receive one particular punishment. Probably a misdemeanor based on the nature of the damage.

However, if i do this while intoxicated, I would be subject to an entirely different set of penalties. When I show up for court, I certainly wouldn’t be drunk, unless I was an utter moron. It will be the burden of the prosecutor, based upon testimony of the arresting officer, that I was intoxicated at the time.

The same can be said of those who commit hate crimes. The people who do these things make no bones about their affiliations or their racial and social views. Funny, but these hatemongers make their views into a display. In fact, several have been found with memorabilia and reams of internet propaganda in their dwellings. How smart is that? Especially, when a lot of hate crimews are pre-meditated.This needs to be brought to the attention of the judge and jury. It must be considered as a factor when deciding the penalty.

Have any of you heard of the Burmeister killings? No?

Well, how’s this for a bedtime story?

This happened in Fayetteville, which is near Fort Bragg. I was living there at the time of the incident.

This middle-class, suburban, dumb-*ss, white-boy twerp decided that, in order to earn a particular tattoo, he would go out and kill a black person. Did he go into the projects, challenge a bunch of gangstas and shoot them? Yeah, sure, OK, whatever.

No. Instead, he shot a man and woman walking home who were minding their own business.

Stupid crime.

I knew the attackers. Rather, I knew of them. What a bunch of losers.They congeregated in the same drinking establishment I did, which was, at the time, the only place one could get Guiness on draft without going to some tres chic yuppie watering hole. I became fond of Guiness when I went to London a few years earlier. I’m digressing.

They were VERY vocal about their hatred. In 60 seconds of conversation, one knew how they felt. Based on their loud mouths the DA could have had twenty witnesses testifying. I was never called to tesify—darn it all! Their racist views were crucial in proving they did these crimes out of hatred instead of drunken lark with fatal consequences.

It is incidents like these that motivate me and others to press for hate crime legislation. Would such laws prevent murder 1? Probably not. However, perhaps tough hate crime laws might prevent other lesser crimes.

WTH,

It’s lovely to see another fan of the M1911 on this site. I was trained to use it in boot camp—U.S. Navy. We were all shown how to use it, though we were using the .22lr conversion—STUPID!  The M1911 is simple, no-nonsense, and when you shoot someone with a .45, THEY STAY SHOT!  I prefer the compact version. It’s easier to handle,I shoot better with it. It doesn’t want to” droop” when pointed at a target, and it’s perfect for a vehicle. True, you lose one round in the magazine, but you can’t have everything. Still, it’s a great vehicle weapon. Just the thing to wreck a car-jacker’s day!

I don’t like the .38 spl. Weak round. Given my druthers, I’d choose a .380ACP(seven rounds instead of five—JHP if you can), preferably a Walther.(The ballistics are VERY close)  I had one years ago—sweet! I’ll get another when I can.

It strikes me that a common consensus needs to be reached, and if we can agree what a hate crime is and how to punish a hate crime, then quit dicker-daddling and get to work!

Ta-Ta!

Posted by Aunty Rightwing on May 17, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Aunty,

Sorry, I

Posted by whattheheck on May 17, 2007 at 6:43 AM

I carry a modified 1911. New trigger and slide job. Texas gives anyone who can legally own a firearm the right to carry. On the ranch I carry an AK-47 for hogs and any other two or four legged vermin. Perhaps its my knuckledragging nature or independence but when someone enters my house in the middle of the night or atttempts to rob me, I feel my life is in danger and thats one dead sucker.  Under hate crime laws if I shoot someone who is not my gender, age, ethnicity, or orientation I could be charged. 

As I have stated before people suck. They are violent, greedy, savages. Most only understand violence.  And the only solution when being attacked is to fight back.  Violent crimes against the elderly are on the rise and these seniors should be armed with pepper spray at the very least. I saw video of somewhere up in Yankee land of a old man punched over 15 times in the face by some asshole when he carjacked him.  Id like to meet that motherfuc*er and see how bad he is with someone his own size who is more than happy to fight back.

Posted by texasindependent on May 17, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Tex,

I live in Illinois which is attached to Chicago (the tail that wags the dog). Chicago has had a gun ban for years with no affect on their crime rate. We and Wisconsin are the only two states which still “protect” their citizens by not allowing honest, law abiding Americans to carry legally.

We have several friends in England where they have even made WW2 vets turn in their SMLE rifles or have the barrel plugged (and ruined). Anyone who wants to compete at Olympic target shooting must keep his weapon on the continent and go there to practice. To a lot of people in this country England

Posted by whattheheck on May 17, 2007 at 2:23 PM

I was a victim of Gay Bashing in 2001.  I angers me that crimes based on race and religion are considered Hate Crimes under the law, but crimes against people because of their orientation are not.  I’ve created website for victims of gay bashing to share their stories and photos.

www.trylovenothate.blogspot.com

Peace.

Posted by ChrisRico01 on May 17, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Hi,y’all

TI,
Take a good look at Kimber .45’s. Price, but well worth it. I use a Browning High Power for its similarity to the .45 and its ease in disassembly. If you have a Browning, then you know what I mean. The Kimber follows the same method of disassembly; no stupid searches for the recoil cap spring. This says nothing of the ways that Kimber can modify the pistol. I’m saving my pennies…

Wth,
OK! We are making progress! Let’s set up a system of punishment based on said factor of aggravation. If it’s proven that the crime was committed out of hate, then a set of penalties based on that factor should be enforced. Is this perfect? NO. Then again what in our legal system is?

Sorry to hear about your Illinois ordeal. I do the same thing every time I go home to visit my family in that state. Stop the car at the Kentucky/Illinois border, unload the pistol, put it in the trunk and pray nothing goes wrong.Like an antique vacuum, it sucks and blows. THANKS WINDY CITY! I know all about the Glasers, You can’t find them around where I live. I use Mag-Safes or 147gr SJHP’s. Use Jello for examining ballistics—better interpretation.One can easily fill a gallon milk jug with water and Jell-o mix. It does work. If I may offer a little advice, when shooting on the range, use post-it notes if you are trying to do selective shooting. So cheap, and they really work. Not to mention, they save money on targets.

Frankly, I would use a revolver chambered in .357mag. You can always load down. Look at the S&W model 940 in stainless finish. It has the added attraction of being able to be fired through a coat pocket or purse. Maybe, no more ATM robberies?

ChrisRico01,

I know just how you feel. It really upsets me. As I’ve said earlier, the struggle for the rights of homosexuals is very much like the civil rights struggle for blacks in the 1960’s. Let’s hope we’re on the right side. It’s good to see a new voice here! Want to talk? I’m around.

Ta-Ta!

Posted by Aunty Rightwing on May 18, 2007 at 12:16 AM

Aunty, ChrisRico01,

We

Posted by whattheheck on May 18, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Being gay is not the same as being a minority. How in the hell is someone going to know your gay unless you tell them? People know I am Hispanic without me having to say a word.

I am not excusing crimes against gay’s. I am not excusing the idiocy of others for doing so.

But stop putting gays in the same boat as minorities and our struggle for civil rights. Its utterly ridiculous. Has any gay ever been kept from voting? Ever been forced to live in a special section of town? Ever been railroaded into prison because “we all look alike”? Ever been discriminated against because of their skin color? NO.

If two consenting adults choose to be gay and play house thats fine. As long as I am not involved I don’t care. But sexual choice is not the same as racial discrimination.

Posted by texasindependent on May 18, 2007 at 1:40 PM

I love that you wrongfully assume that being gay is a choice.  I was gay bashed because the bar I walked out of was known to be gay. My attackers were waiting outside.  Your ignorance about the persecution of gays and lesbians is astounding.  Being gay is as integral a part of my being as your ethnicity is to yours, my friend.

I’ll close with the words of a Denver Journalist, and that’s all I have to say on this subject.  People can chose to live in ingnorance and be intolerant, or they can embrace love and acceptance.  Peace.

“Once again, there will be a chorus screaming “special rights” when the subject of gay bashing being punished as a hate crime arises. But near as anybody can tell, the opportunity to be threatened, humiliated and to live in fear of being beaten to death is the only “special right” our culture bestows on homosexuals.” Diane Carman

Posted by ChrisRico01 on May 18, 2007 at 1:43 PM

ChrisRico01,

I support you buddy. I am sorry that you were shown such insensitivity and stupidity on a progressive blogsite. This and other sites have been infested with right-wingers of all kinds. I agree with you and want to support your blogspot.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 18, 2007 at 7:22 PM

CHris
    I am not attacking you. I am pointing out the huge gulf that seperates being gay and being a minority.  I apologize if I gave that impression. I don’t really care what you do you are an adult right?

If you don’t tell someone you are gay, how would they know?

Posted by texasindependent on May 19, 2007 at 12:23 PM

You’re right.  As a hispanic, you get to benefiit from affirmative action and you have scores of great and celebrated roll models in arts, entertainment and politics, people in real positions of power who are respected and celebrated for their ethnicity.  Oh, and you’re also protected by hate crimes laws.  Now that you point it out, there is a huge chasm.

And by the way, please stop saying my sexuality is about what I “do.” and thus implying its a choice or a lifestyle.  Pull yourself out of your ignorance and realize that being gay is who I am….I was born this way, just another one of god’s beautiful creatures.

Posted by ChrisRico01 on May 19, 2007 at 1:26 PM

I’m sorry for what happened to you, Chris—- I’m sure we all are—- but don’t you see the slippery slope we’re proceeding down here?  Who’s next in line who thinks they deserve special protection under the law?

First race, then religion, then sexual orientation.  How many of the other dozens and dozens of orientations, lifestyles, belief systems and mental and physical differences from the norm should be included among the “protected”?  How many pages do we have to add to the law books, and just how much more complicated do we have to make it in order to simply prosecute someone for a crime?  Do we have to administer truth serum and employ mind readers in order to truly and accurately tap into the criminal’s inner-most motivations? What if he figures out he should just shut up about his feelings, and simply swing away?  Why, he’ll get off scot-free on the hate rap.

I’ve got some nephews that were for a short time getting beat up, pretty badly actually, at their bus stop.  Not for being gay, but I suspect simply for looking and probably acting a little nerdy, and I suppose thereby projecting weakness.  So far, there’s not a special law for them.  Should there be?  Would that really deter anything, and would all the legal wrangling and mind-deciphering supposition be worth it? 

I think anyone who commits violent crimes against another person does so out of hate, probably mostly of themselves, actually.  I think there are far more positive and effective methods of educating society about human equality than writing easily abused and misused laws against certain thoughts and utterances, and I think that doing so will actually retard and frustrate society’s ability to evolve—- by giving the false impression that we’ve solved the problem now that there’s a law, and by the inequality and the accompanying rancor caused by the selective nature of which laws are passed for which groups, and how unequally they’re often applied and speculated upon.

A victim of an attack for other reasons than pure hate is just as much a victim, and is hurting just as bad, and someone killed for other reasons is just as dead. By elevating the importance across the board for selective groups for selective reasons, you have by definition minimized the importance of other crimes that cause just as much suffering, regardless of the motivation.

If I were the jury/judge in the case of Chris vs. his attackers, on the surface I would certainly be likely to recommend/order the full punishment for assault and battery, which is probably quite substantial.  However, rather than some law which might mandate an extra 5 yrs. or whatever if some witness heard the attacker use the F word, which may or may not have been used out of genuine hate, (who’s really to say?) I would appreciate the opportunity to hear the details of the case, be sure there wasn’t some mitigating factors as to exactly why Chris was attacked, and have the ability to render judgment based on my intimate knowledge and understanding of the case. Hate crimes laws, just like mandatory minimums and mandatory school testing, tend to take that kind of discretionary power away from those best suited to exercise it.

IMHO “The Cosby Show”, “That’s So Raven” and “Will and Grace” have done far more to help adults and children realize that we’re all the same deep down than anything else.  My opinion is that we should proceed down the path of positive remedies such as this, and avoid divisive, subjective, unequal, constraining and easily manipulated burdensome never-ending feel-good laws.

Posted by Natalie on May 19, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Please stop using the term “preference.” It would be the same as implying that people chose their race or gender.  The only PREFERENCE in any of this is religion…that’s a choice.

Posted by ChrisRico01 on May 19, 2007 at 2:02 PM

I stand corrected, and have done so above, however surely there are cases of people acquiring a taste for homosexuality due to outside and sometimes coercive influences, a taste that otherwise would never have developed.  I do agree that most people have no choice about their orientation.  They do however have a choice in how they display and telegraph it, unlike with race.  There’s any number of lifestyles that one might want to be open with, but would also invite a violent negative reaction if flaunted or pushed on others.

Either way, it really doesn’t change my argument, as even race-based laws are equally absurd, counter-productive, and IMHO work against ever achieving true equality.

Posted by Natalie on May 19, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Sexuality is your business. It is a choice as with any choice of sexual partner. I don’t want to know. I don’t care. Keep it to yourself and no one will ever know what you are doing. Its not a handicap and its not a different skin color.

Im sorry you got your ass kicked but so have hundreds of thousands of others, its called crime.  Get a gun. Stop being a victim and learn to protect yourself. Its the first lesson of any struggle for acceptance.

I am not going to sugar coat what the vast majority of minorities feel and talk about when there are no gringos around… Your comment about affirmative action says it all. White people will never never get it. And maricons complaining about discrimination is funny to a black kid in the projects, or some mohow picking grapefruit in the Valley. Let us know when you get turned down for loan after loan because “we don’t usually loan money to your kind.” And finally getting a loan and having to smile and eat shit thanking some white puto for giving you half of the loan you are eligible for. Let us know when your looking for a house and the agent tells you ” We will find a neighborhood that you would feel comfortable in.”  Let us know when security follows you through the store because you “look suspicious”. And be sure and let me know when you are are pulled over for DWM or DWB. Driving while Mexican and Driving while Black. Its a serious crime and is punished quite frequently.

Posted by texasindependent on May 19, 2007 at 11:02 PM

What’s so bad about hate?  The illogic and illiberalism behind hate-crime laws.

.........And why is hate for a group worse than hate for a person? In Laramie, Wyo., the now-famous epicenter of ‘‘homophobia,’’ where Matthew Shepard was brutally beaten to death, vicious murders are not unknown. In the previous 12 months, a 15-year-old pregnant girl was found east of the town with 17 stab wounds. Her 38-year-old boyfriend was apparently angry that she had refused an abortion and left her in the Wyoming foothills to bleed to death. In the summer of 1998, an 8-year-old Laramie girl was abducted, raped and murdered by a pedophile, who disposed of her young body in a garbage dump. Neither of these killings was deemed a hate crime, and neither would be designated as such under any existing hate-crime law. Perhaps because of this, one crime is an international legend; the other two are virtually unheard of.

But which crime was more filled with hate? Once you ask the question, you realize how difficult it is to answer. Is it more hateful to kill a stranger or a lover? Is it more hateful to kill a child than an adult? Is it more hateful to kill your own child than another’s? Under the law before the invention of hate crimes, these decisions didn’t have to be taken. But under the law after hate crimes, a decision is essential. A decade ago, a murder was a murder. Now, in the era when group hate has emerged a sour cardinal social sin, it all depends…....

.......One response to this objection is that certain groups feel fear more intensely than others because of a history of persecution or intimidation. But doesn’t this smack of a certain condescension toward minorities? Why, after all, should it be assumed that gay men or black women or Jews, for example, are as a group more easily intimidated than others? Surely in any of these communities there will be a vast range of responses, from panic to concern to complete indifference. The assumption otherwise is the kind of crude generalization the law is supposed to uproot in the first place. And among these groups, there are also likely to be vast differences. To equate a population once subjected to slavery with a population of Mexican immigrants or third-generation Holocaust survivors is to equate the unequatable. In fact, it is to set up a contest of vulnerability in which one group vies with another to establish its particular variety of suffering, a contest that can have no dignified solution…....

........For hate is only foiled not when the haters are punished but when the hated are immune to the bigot’s power. A hater cannot psychologically wound if a victim cannot psychologically be wounded. And that immunity to hurt can never be given; it can merely be achieved. The racial epithet only strikes at someone’s core if he lets it, if he allows the bigot’s definition of him to be the final description of his life and his person—if somewhere in his heart of hearts, he believes the hateful slur to be true. The only final answer to this form of racism, then, is not majority persecution of it, but minority indifference to it. The only permanent rebuke to homophobia is not the enforcement of tolerance, but gay equanimity in the face of prejudice. The only effective answer to sexism is not a morass of legal proscriptions, but the simple fact of female success. In this, as in so many other things, there is no solution to the problem. There is only a transcendence of it. For all our rhetoric, hate will never be destroyed. Hate, as our predecessors knew better, can merely be overcome.

Posted by Natalie on May 20, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Google “black attack white rape” to get the link the paragraph below was extracted from. (ITT blocks my posting of this link for some reason.)

“Imus calls some black women “Nappy headed hos.” A black woman accuses college Lacrosse players “rapists.” Just words but with huge media coverage. A white couple is carjacked. The girlfriend is forced to watch as the man’s penis is cut off and he is shot 3 times. The girlfriend was kept in the house, raped for 3 days then murdered. No coverage.”

Crimes of violence are not to be tolerated. I really don’t care if the horrible people who committed this crime (who happen to be black) hated the poor victims or not (who happened to be white). We should punish crimes based on the crime itself, not the color of the attackers or victims.

Gay-ness is sometimes a choice, other times it is deeper. It is most decidedly NOT just either nature or nurture - it is better characterized as a complex interaction between the two. (One might wonder if it were completely genetic if it could be “cured”. If it were only genetic, it probably could be. Perhaps this would be desirable, at least in some cases, since so many gays are unhappy. But we know from the deaf community that even “curing” deafness is often resisted, since they think of themselves as merely different, not defective in a particular way. . ).

Posted by wolf on May 21, 2007 at 7:30 AM

Wolf you’re a real right-winger. I read the story about the incident about which you posted. It was horrible. I heard about this before. The local news was full of the story and so were the blogs. I believe it took place in the mid-South. I think somewhere in Virginia. I’m not sure. This is one of the reasons I support the death penalty. I do believe that it is justice to put such people to death.

Having said this I really must stick with my strongly held belief in judging the individual. The vast majority of Blacks don’t commit crime. It is usually the same bunch of thugs each of whom have long records and multiple violations. Most Blacks, including young males, are in fact law abiding and shouldn’t be lumped together with pathological criminals. It is true that there are major drug issues in the Black community and that this is the main reason for the increased rate of incarceration amoung black males and not violent crime alone.

Many young Black males today also lack for positive mentoring from a strong male role model such as a father or other male family member. They often get their ideas on masculinity on the street or from popular culture which harms and distorts their perceptions of reality. Because of poverty and racism many of these folks have poor self images. Some act out violently. The crime you reported is an extreme and unfortunate example. The current state of social affairs in America can only worsen the situation.

I might add that our president doesn’t care. A viable livelihood is a pre-condition for ending these problems. Bush expects people to just bite the bullet and rely on their own resources at a time when income distribution is skewing to the rich and opportunities are disappearing for poor and unskilled people. After a long decline from the Clinton years which continued modestly into the Bush years, we can expect crime to soon begin to get somewhat worse before it gets better,

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 21, 2007 at 10:07 AM

General Hint: Ascribing motives to people one does not know leads to incorrect and foolish assertions. Better to stick to the issues, rather than to attempt to analyze the author of any particular post.

‘Wolf you

Posted by wolf on May 21, 2007 at 3:17 PM

So what exactly is your point, Wolf? If the media report on a highly senaational crime and hysteria and violence breaks out they blame the media for ratings mongering and money grubbing irresponsibility. If the media doesn’t report on a highly sensational crime than they’re accused of some kind of bias and of hiding the truth on behalf of the nefarious “special interests.” Damned if they do and damned if they don/t. Here’s a thought. Why don’t people just shut the f**k up and stop ragging on the media like it’s everyones punching bag and just allow them to do their f**king job.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 23, 2007 at 1:06 AM

“Why don

Posted by wolf on May 23, 2007 at 7:29 AM

There’s the job we think the media ought to be doing, and then there’s the job they’re actually doing…

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2664529389359423152&q=orwell+rolls+in+his+grave

It’s a few years old, but maybe y’all will find it worth your time (1:45:00)

Food for thought, if nothing else.

Posted by Kuya on May 27, 2007 at 11:47 PM

Another great essay pointing out the folly and the counter-productive nature of hate crimes laws.

Posted by Natalie on Jun 1, 2007 at 11:55 PM