Why are Jews so different?

[Serapth]

Ok, very incendiary topic, but it does bring draw attention!

This isn't so much a question of race or descrimination, more so I suppose a matter of trying to figure out the social stigma behind such things.

First, for the record, I have nothing against Jews, Blacks or any other visible or invisible minorities. It's just I recently had a conversation with somebody that stemed from a talk about a two state solution to Israel/Palestine.

Basically it went something along these lines.

[ ... back and forth about whether a two state solution would work ...]

Him. "One of the biggest problems is, we can never really have a good global conversation on the subject as anyone that is critical of Israel is branded a racist"

Me. "Hyperbole much??"

Him. " Yeah, well explain this than... why is it someone that denies slavery against blacks is viewed as at best a nutjob at worst a racist, while someone who denies the holocaust can go to prison for hate crimes?"


This point actually did stump me, for it rings of truth.

Why do we ( Western Soceity ) have such different standards when it comes to hate crimes? If post slavery blacks founded an independent nation, would we treat them differently? Is it a matter of nations, or a matter of religion vs racism?

[National Kato]

Is your question about Jews or hate crimes? I'm not sure.

[National Kato]

Him. " Yeah, well explain this than... why is it someone that denies slavery against blacks is viewed as at best a nutjob at worst a racist, while someone who denies the holocaust can go to prison for hate crimes?"

Did you call your friend on this? Can you cite this as fact?

[Serapth]

Did you call your friend on this? Can you cite this as fact?

Yes, and he cited Ernst Zundel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel) ( sadly, a Canadian ) as an example


Once the certificate was upheld and Zündel was determined to be a national security risk he was deported to Germany and tried in the state court of Mannheim on outstanding charges of incitement for Holocaust denial dating from the early 1990s. On February 15, 2007, he was convicted and sentenced to the maximum term of five years in prison.[8]

[Ink Asylum]

I think you're comparing apples to oranges with the Holocaust/slavery denial comparison.

For starters, I don't think I've ever heard anyone deny that blacks were enslaved. People may have a "get over it" mentality towards slavery, but no one denies it happened.

Second, slavery happened much farther back than the Holocaust. The Holocaust is considered a "modern" atrocity with people still alive who were directly involved, while widespread black slavery is far enough in the past that it is viewed as history.

[Ink Asylum]

Did you call your friend on this? Can you cite this as fact?

It's true, but only in certain countries. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial)

Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland.

[National Kato]

Oh, I'm aware of the fact that Holocaust denial is illegal in many countries. I just assumed Serapth's friend was speaking about the United States.

[Serapth]

I think you're comparing apples to oranges with the Holocaust/slavery denial comparison.

For starters, I don't think I've ever heard anyone deny that blacks were enslaved. People may have a "get over it" mentality towards slavery, but no one denies it happened.

Second, slavery happened much farther back than the Holocaust. The Holocaust is considered a "modern" atrocity with people still alive who were directly involved, while widespread black slavery is far enough in the past that it is viewed as history.

Slavery is but one such ( poor I suppose ) examples. To be honest, outside of direct calls for violence against a certain set of people, I can't think of a single other example where it can get you jailed. On the flipside, I have heard of a number of professors for example talking about say eugenics, or as a local to me prof did, intelligence of different races... they may be ridiculed or in this case, he lost his tenure, but not in a single case did they get sent to jail.

This is the difference I am trying to understand, because it honestly does have me at a loss.

Are you proposing its the newness of it? That the holocaust was the most recent occurence?

[Serapth]

Oh, I'm aware of the fact that Holocaust denial is illegal in many countries. I just assumed Serapth's friend was speaking about the United States.

There are other countries in the western world you know! ( For the record, me and my friend are Canadian, having the conversation in Canada, I suppose I should have clarified that upfront. )

From my quick google-age, apparently Holocaust denial is not particularly a crime in the US, is gray in the UK and Canada and as mentioned, is illegal in a number of European countries.

[National Kato]

There are other countries in the western world you know!

Yes, I know. You've since clarified the intent of your post, so I don't have any other questions. It was just a bit confusing to understand what you were asking in the OP...attention-getting or not.

[Serapth]

Yes, I know. You've since clarified the intent of your post, so I don't have any other questions. It was just a bit confusing to understand what you were asking in the OP...attention-getting or not.

I guess I should have summed it up.

Why do we ( western world... ) treat racism/hate differently based on the recipient, I suppose would have been a better example.

Jews are the cited example, as like I said earlier, they are the only ethnic group I know of anyone getting jailed over something like this.


I would really love to hear the opinion of some Jewish people, a legal expert ( sorry Ox, you are the only one I can think of ) and perhaps those who can be the subject of hate that isn't criminal. I am a WASP and outside of a theoretical argument, I really can't understand the impact on either side.

[Ink Asylum]

Are you proposing its the newness of it? That the holocaust was the most recent occurence?

I would say that along with the sheer scale of the atrocity. The history on the Holocaust is still freshly written, relatively speaking. What countries that have made denial illegal could be trying to do is ensure that the historical record of the Holocaust remains untarnished or weakened by accusations of denial.

Another part of it could be that first hand accounts are not as widespread as those of slavery. Pretty much everyone in countries where there was slavery had direct experience with it. Either they were slaves, had slaves, encountered slaves on a regular basis, etc. The Holocaust, however, happened largely in secret. The victims, for the most part, died and are unable to tell their stories. The direct survivors of Holocaust camps were few. The Nazi soldiers in charge of the camps and those from the Allies that discovered them were also few compared to the general population.

[BlackPete]

Deny that 9/11 happened and you're branded a nutjob but not a criminal, so I doubt newness is really a factor.

[Ink Asylum]

9/11 and the Holocaust is still apples to oranges. Europe and America have different approaches to freedom of speech and its limitations. Again, there is also the difference in scale. 9/11 was horrible, but it comes nowhere near the Holocaust in terms of lives lost and sheer damage to a race of people. Also, the lesson of the Holocaust, that of the dangers of the might of a country turned towards killing an entire race of people is much more important to protect than that of 9/11.

I'm not advocating for throwing Holocaust deniers in jail. Personally, I consider them fairly harmless in the long run. However, I can see the arguments countries that outlaw denial could make.

[National Kato]

I also see the reasoning behind countries like Germany, Poland, Austria, Belgium, France, and others directly involved with the Holocaust banning denial, iconography, etc. I'm not saying I agree with it, for I am with Ink in that I find Holocaust denial and the white supremacy movement completely laughable, but I understand their sensitivity.

[rifter]

In my eyes, the Holocaust was... just worse than slavery. I have a hard time defining what it is. Basically, Slavery happened across races, just predominantly was Africans being shipped over. And, they were not targeted per se. The "slaves" tended to be targets of opportunity, that were caught, and then shipped to the US. (or other countries).

The Holocaust is targeted at a race. The Nazis targeted ALL Jews. Thousands of Nazi soldiers helped create the camps, helped exterminate the people. It was genocide on a massive scale... done by a modern nation. I think that is the big deal. It was, and still is considered a relatively modern nation at the time.

I think a little closer comparison would be what the US and Canada did to the Indians. But, along with Slavery, that WAS a different time. The world was much harsher. In modern times, that type of thing, just is not done, yet the Nazis did it.

Sorry, a LOT of rambling there. It is hard for me to express. I am really hoping my point came across.

[Ox]

Why do we ( Western Soceity ) have such different standards when it comes to hate crimes? If post slavery blacks founded an independent nation, would we treat them differently? Is it a matter of nations, or a matter of religion vs racism?
I don't understand this question, but I will point out that post-slavery American blacks did found an independent nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia).

Jews are the cited example, as like I said earlier, they are the only ethnic group I know of anyone getting jailed over something like this.
It would help if you would define a little more precisely what "something like this" is. Making statements that condemn or defame entire religious or ethnic groups in a hateful way?

Most countries that prohibit some form of hate speech do so with broadly-written statutes that cover all ethnic groups and often all religious groups. I'm going to interpret "Western countries" very broadly, if you don't mind, to make this point. See, for example, the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits speech that "promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities." In Britain, several individuals have been prosecuted for hate speech against non-Jewish groups, including this fellow (http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/4271428.Far_right_leader_gets_suspended_prison_sen tence_for_race_hate_speech/). In Sweden, this fellow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ke_Green) was imprisoned for preaching hateful sermons about homosexuals, although it was later overturned on appeal due to a technicality.

There are countries that have laws specifically relating to hate speech about Jews and the Holocaust. Those countries, I believe almost without exception, are countries which historically either were controlled by the Nazis in World War II (and thus had large domestic populations of Nazi sympathizers) or which collaborated with the Nazis (e.g., Spain). The only exception to this rule I know of is Israel, an exception I think we can all pretty easily understand.

For clarification, neither Canada nor the United Kingdom specifically prohibit Holocaust denial. Both, however, have broad prohibitions on hate speech, and Holocaust denial has routinely been held to constitute hate speech. So I think the answer to your question is, "Jews aren't special."

[Serapth]

I don't understand this question, but I will point out that post-slavery American blacks did found an independent nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia).


It would help if you would define a little more precisely what "something like this" is. Making statements that condemn or defame entire religious or ethnic groups in a hateful way?

Doh regarding forgetting Liberia... especially doh'ed because I believe they were just referenced by an interview guest on The Daily Show, it should have been fresh in my memory.


As to "something like this" I am referring to the level of direction.

For example, if I say "Lets kill all the Blacks/Gays/Asians/Whatever, they are inferior and we should rule over them", that can probably get me jailed under hate laws in Canada or the UK or many other countries as I am calling and inciting violence over a specific demographic.

However, if I say somethings like regarding the history of any of these factions, false or not, I cannot get jailed over it. Saying "Africans were never enslaved by whites", or "the Spaniards didn't harm native South Americans" won't get me thrown in jail. And the example of Zundel stands, he didn't call for harm against the Jewish people (regardless to his motive), he questioned the established history, much like 9/11 deniers, or hell, every Michael Moore film, yet, Michael Moore is still a free man. This is what I was referring to as the difference.

I am not saying that nations don't charge people for hate crimes, I am saying the metric used to judge them seems to vary from group to group, with the Jewish people seemingly getting special treatment.

[Ox]

For example, if I say "Lets kill all the Blacks/Gays/Asians/Whatever, they are inferior and we should rule over them", that can probably get me jailed under hate laws in Canada or the UK or many other countries as I am calling and inciting violence over a specific demographic.
Inciting violence against anyone will probably get you jailed almost anywhere.

However, if I say somethings like regarding the history of any of these factions, false or not, I cannot get jailed over it. Saying "Africans were never enslaved by whites", or "the Spaniards didn't harm native South Americans" won't get me thrown in jail.
That depends on whether saying that constitutes inciting hatred. If I were to go to Britain and say, "Slavery never happened. Those stupid dirty blacks volunteered to work our cotton fields," I might very well be jailed for inciting hatred. In context, "Holocaust deniers" don't merely question certain aspects of the history or evidence of the certain events of the Holocaust, but rather claim it was all a great deception on the part of the Jewish race to deceive the good Aryan people into being ashamed of their heritage. That is hateful.

As they example of Zundel stands, he didn't call for harm against the Jewish people, he questioned the established history, much like 9/11 deniers, or hell, every Michael Moore film, yet, Michael Moore is still a free man. This is what I was referring to as the difference.
The difference there is that (a) Michael Moore hates the Bush Administration, which is neither an ethnic nor a religious group and no statute criminalizes hating people on the basis of their politics, and (b) Michael Moore primarily hangs around America. We actually believe in freedom.

I am not saying that nations don't charge people for hate crimes, I am saying the metric used to judge them seems to vary from group to group, with the Jewish people seemingly getting special treatment.
Maybe this is partly an issue of them being unusually common victims of hate speech? Very few people are prosecuted for raping big strong men. This may (and probably partly is) because cops don't care about big strong men as much, but it's also because big strong men aren't raped nearly as frequently as attractive slight women. To paraphrase Israel Zangwill, "The Jews are an anxious people. Twenty centuries of Christian charity have broken down their nerves."

[Inspector Fowler]

One thing I have always noticed is that Jews are bizarre in that they exist as both an ethnic group and a religion, but some of them don't see the difference.

I personally know several atheists who call themselves Jewish. One even has a father who is (nominally, at least) a rabbi. Until I met some Jewish people I always assumed you didn't say you were Jewish unless you believed in their religioun.

I always wonder - if you approached somebody like that and asked, "Why are you Jewish?", what would they answer? They go through the religious motions because they enjoy the tradition and they enjoy belonging, but they think God is a bunch of bullshit. Interesting!

There aren't too many other groups I can think of that have such distinct dual identities, if we talk about groups that are, in some cases, protected under color of law. No atheist would call himself Christian. Homosexuals have to prefer members of the same gender sexually but there are no spiritual obligations to call yourself "gay". Any race is just that - just a race, you're born with a certain skin color but you don't have to do anything to be "white" or "black".

In my mind there are always "cultural Jews" who enjoy the sense of belonging and historical/cultural knowledge but don't have any spiritual faith, and then "religious Jews" who believe in the Jewish God and his works on Earth.

In retrospect, this probably doesn't help answer the question. But I've always noticed it and found it odd.

[Ox]

I always wonder - if you approached somebody like that and asked, "Why are you Jewish?", what would they answer? They go through the religious motions because they enjoy the tradition and they enjoy belonging, but they think God is a bunch of bullshit. Interesting!
Some Anglicans are much the same.

[Johan]

Why do we ( Western Soceity ) have such different standards when it comes to hate crimes?

Because hate crimes are inherently prejudicial and subjective. They're also ridiculous at their core. All crime is hateful, and it shouldn't be encouraged by the system to victimize a person of a particular demographic group for a lower penalty as opposed to another demographic group with a higher penalty. That's patently absurd.

[ShivaX]

Because hate crimes are inherently prejudicial and subjective. They're also ridiculous at their core. All crime is hateful, and it shouldn't be encouraged by the system to victimize a person of a particular demographic group for a lower penalty as opposed to another demographic group with a higher penalty. That's patently absurd.

I don't know that all crime is hateful neccessarily, but I do strongly agree that "hate crimes" are extremely subjective.

If someone randomly shoots someone else its pretty hard to prove they did it because of some factor that equates to a hate crime. Did he shoot him in the face because he was black? Gay? Or is he just fucking crazy and would've shot anyone who happened to be there in the face?

There are some fairly clear cut cases of hate crime, but those aren't common enough to really enact whole new laws for them imo. Typically the penalty on the books is more than enough already.

When you're talking about Europe though, thats a whole new ballgame. The whole thought police concept is fairly common and their ideas of "free speech" differ from Americans quite a bit.

[DoctorFinger]

First and foremost is guilt. The European powers could have saved those lives, they just didn't. The denial laws are an overreaction to that inaction. But that's not all of the story. At least in part it's because Jews are hated in many, many more places than just about any other socio-ethnic group.

Let me digress for a sec and explain my theory why the Jews are so hated. Their land was conquered, but rather than convert or die, they kept their faith and culture while spreading around the world. They were always outsiders, and therefore feared, but still managed to spread around the world. If a Russian, an Englishman and an Arab got together at a bar in the 19th century they would tell essentially the same racist jokes about their own ethnic enemies. The Russian about the Poles, the Brit about the Irish, and the Arab about the Turks. But they all tell the same jokes - and stories, and anecdotes - about the Jews, since they all deal with them. That reinforces and magnifies the stories, and breeds the Blood Libels we hear about the Jews now.

So Jews are hated in more corners of the world than just about any other people (at least they were before the advent of the communication age, things have evened out a little since then), therefore the denial of their genocide is in many ways worse. Some Turks deny the Armenian genocide, some Japanese deny what they did to the Koreans and some Americans think the Native Americans were treated okay. But no group cares about the other since it didn't affect them. The Holocaust was different. Since Jews were present in just about every corner of the (Western) world, denying the Holocaust touched more people than any other form of capital 'D' Denial.

[Shrinn]

Criminal Law trials attempt to prove intent a lot. Mens rea, the guilty mind, and actus reus, the criminal act, are the fancy Latin words they like to teach. That's why accidentally killing someone because they went into shock after seeing your face is a less serious offense when waiting outside their work with a heavy implement to murder them. If the intent is racially discriminate, it's viewed as being a worse crime then not killing someone because of discrimination.

[BlackPete]

9/11 and the Holocaust is still apples to oranges. Europe and America have different approaches to freedom of speech and its limitations. Again, there is also the difference in scale. 9/11 was horrible, but it comes nowhere near the Holocaust in terms of lives lost and sheer damage to a race of people. Also, the lesson of the Holocaust, that of the dangers of the might of a country turned towards killing an entire race of people is much more important to protect than that of 9/11.

If it's about genocide, then a pretty recent example of attempted genocide is... well... nearly all of Africa. Or to be specific: Rwanda.

Or hell... Albanians are another (recent and arguably ongoing) example if you don't want to use Africa.

I'm sure people can throw up a bunch of nuances explaning why Africa is an orange while Albania is a banana, etc., but the core point still remains the same: Holocaust denial is a jailable offense, while denying any other type of mass homicide/genocide is at worst a "nutjob" idea.

The idea of a country trying to wipe out an entire race is not new, nor is it a thing of the past. Most of the time, the UN simply says, "Nuh uh it's your problem not ours."

[Ox]

I'm sure people can throw up a bunch of nuances explaning why Africa is an orange while Albania is a banana, etc., but the core point still remains the same: Holocaust denial is a jailable offense, while denying any other type of mass homicide/genocide is at worst a "nutjob" idea.
But that's not true. Almost all the countries that prohibit Holocaust denial also prohibit denying Rwandan or Albanian genocides. The statutes are (usually) broadly written to cover all crimes against humanity or genocides.

[Serapth]

German criminal code, section 130.

What a horrifically vague and potentially damning law.



Section 130 Agitation of the People

(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) Whoever:

1. with respect to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), which incite hatred against segments of the population or a national, racial or religious group, or one characterized by its folk customs, which call for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or which assault the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming segments of the population or a previously indicated group:

a) disseminates them;

b) publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;

c) offers, gives or makes accessible to a person under eighteen years; or

(d) produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of numbers a through c or facilitate such use by another; or

2. disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in number 1 by radio,

shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

(4) Subsection (2) shall also apply to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) with content such as is indicated in subsection (3).

(5) In cases under subsection (2), also in conjunction with subsection (4), and in cases of subsection (3), Section 86 subsection (3), shall apply correspondingly.

[National Kato]

DoctorFinger, thanks for that insightful explanation. I agree with it on many points.

[Serapth]

For example

2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population


My god, I've told a great many jokes that could get me jailed in Germany! You hear the one about the Irishman, German and Arab that all went to a bar and....


Even more disturbing, if someone came into this thread and ranted a racist diatribe, the administrators of CoG itself could actually be jailed!

Wow, what a scary law.

[Serapth]

Just curious Ox but the following:


(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.


Remember when the Danish newspaper published pictures of a cartoon depicting Muhammad, which caused a huge Islamic backlash. Would this not be illegal under German law?

[Ox]

Quite possibly. A Frenchman who republished the cartoons in his home country was prosecuted but acquitted (http://www.workersliberty.org/node/8011). Although Denmark prohibits racist or blasphemous speech, the public prosecutor declined to bring charges because he thought Danish law forbade it (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/915). Ironically, at least one of the protestors against the cartoons was convicted in Britain of inciting race hate (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1086949.ece).

Part of the issue is that international law is conflicting (http://www.asil.org/insights060207.cfm). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination require member states to criminalize hate speech (the USA is not a party to either treaty, although this does not preclude the possibility that they are customary international law and also bind the USA). However, the European Convention on Human Rights provides limited protection for free speech. In Jerslid v. Denmark, the ECHR barred a Danish prosecution of a journalist who transmitted hateful speech uttered by people as part of a documentary. The link I just provided argues that Jerslid is distinguishable and Denmark could have prosecuted had it chosen to do so.

[DoctorFinger]

From what I understand some efforts were made to prosecute the Jyllands-Posten editors for inciting violence. The argument goes that they were, in essence, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater by publishing the cartoons.

[Johan]

The argument goes that they were, in essence, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater by publishing the cartoons.

* Except that they were actually shouting "cartoons!" This is apparently even more dangerous than shouting "fire" in a theater.
* Also, they weren't in a movie theater. They were in a paper that you had to buy to view the cartoons, or on the godless Internet.
* Additionally, they didn't force pious Muslims to read their paper and view the cartoons. Why would pious Muslims be checking out cartoons insulting their religion? And if they didn't check out the cartoons, why would they feel the need to riot over something they hadn't seen?

Confusing. :confused:

[alienmastermind]

I don't know that all crime is hateful neccessarily, but I do strongly agree that "hate crimes" are extremely subjective..

Hey Shiva.

I just wanted to say that hate crimes seem to be a specific type of crime, closer to terrorism than simple assault or murder. In the case of Nicholas West, a Chile-born American, he was killed and tortured by three men in Texas 'because he was gay'. In their interrogation, they bragged about why and the wherefores of his murder, explaining that it was a message to the rest of the gays.

What makes this a 'hate crime' is that the act is designed to strike fear into a class of people. This was not simply an attack on Mr. West. It was an attack on Mr. West, because he was gay. And secondarily, I believe, to send a message to other gays in that part of Texas: You're not welcome here. Be afraid.

Lynching, that horrible kind of murder, was also a 'hate crime' designed to strike fear in the black communities of the South, letting the black folks know that they should feel fear, should feel unsafe.

When someone targets a person based upon religious belief, sexual preference, or skin color with the intent to send a message (in the case of Mr. West, the men responsible bragged abou their intent) to the rest of that strata of society, I think it's different than simple bloodlust or murderous rage.

Also, hate crime legislation seems to also try to expand sentencing guidelines rather than de facto calling every questionable situation a 'hate crime'. Leaving it up to judges, if I'm right in interpreting the law. Ox? Any thoughts on this?

Alien

[alienmastermind]

German criminal code, section 130.

What a horrifically vague and potentially damning law.

Section 130 Agitation of the People

(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:


I don't think this is vague, man. It looks like they're saying if you're able to disturb the public peace, in say, a Bierhall putsch, these laws apply to you. If you're attempting to incite violence with your racist humor, then watch out. But I think you're safe saying the 'n' word in your jokes, if lacking in kindness. :)

Because the people around you are laughing, and joking. If you use this routine to incite people to violence against whoever your joke is about, I think you'd be sent to jail.

There's a difference, I'm sure...

[alienmastermind]

But that's not true. Almost all the countries that prohibit Holocaust denial also prohibit denying Rwandan or Albanian genocides. The statutes are (usually) broadly written to cover all crimes against humanity or genocides.

One good example of the reverse would be the the official state denial Armenian genocide in Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide), no?

[Inspector Fowler]

I am not a fan of hate crimes. They are one of the few crimes that actually bring into question the motive rather than the intent.

If my wife was raped, tortured, and then dragged to death, it would not be prosecuted as a hate crime, even though she would probably only be subjected to it because she is a woman. Why not? Because she isn't politically expedient to "protect".

The thought that one person's life or safety is more important than another's and thus more worthy of protecting via punishment is ridiculous. If people beat you up because you are gay, they need to be punished. If they beat you up because you were looking at their girl, they need to be punished. If the injuries are the same, why is the gay man's safety worth more to society?

It's one of those guilt things where people get convinced that years of treating gays (or other protected groups) as second-class citizens now means that they need to be elevated above others. Fuck that.

[J Arcane]

Some Turks deny the Armenian genocide, some Japanese deny what they did to the Koreans and some Americans think the Native Americans were treated okay.

I think the Armenian genocide is probably the best argument one could make for cracking down on Holocaust denial. Most people outside the country don't even know it happened unless they're also Armenian or they know someone who is. It's only been relatively recently that much public attention has been given to such things.

I think the mess that is Japanese history teachings about the Imperial actions during WWII is also a pretty good example. They're still getting in fights with China over whose version of history is the real story. I think we as Americans only see that situation the way we do because of our own involvement in the Pacific Theater.

[alienmastermind]

If my wife was raped, tortured, and then dragged to death, it would not be prosecuted as a hate crime, even though she would probably only be subjected to it because she is a woman. Why not? Because she isn't politically expedient to "protect".

I would say that if in the court's findings the intent of this crime was to create fear in women in general (i.e. motivated simply by class of person), your wife would be covered under the hate crime laws, man.

The thought that one person's life or safety is more important than another's and thus more worthy of protecting via punishment is ridiculous.

People already believe this. Many people who are pro-life in the abortion debate are for the death penalty. I am one of the people who calls themselves pro-life, because I am against the practice of abortion. But I'm also against state sponsored killing of prisoners. My brother is pro-life and pro-death penalty.

I would say that the hate crimes aren't designed to elevate a special group to a status above others. It's to protect minorities from being terrorized by the majority.

If people beat you up because you are gay, they need to be punished. If they beat you up because you were looking at their girl, they need to be punished. If the injuries are the same, why is the gay man's safety worth more to society?

Because in the case of the gay person, there are far fewer men and women who are gay than there are straight. All hate crime legislation does is widen the limits of punishment when it's determined that the crime itself had a motive in terrorizing a group.

It's one of those guilt things where people get convinced that years of treating gays (or other protected groups) as second-class citizens now means that they need to be elevated above others. Fuck that.

Hate crimes legislation protects white people with the same protections where whites are the minority. In the September 2005 case in Richmond, VA, a white teen walking through a primarily black neighborhood was beaten savagely, to send a message that whites weren't allowed in that neighborhood. The guilty parties were sentenced to harsher punishment based upon hate crimes legislation.

[Serapth]

Because in the case of the gay person, there are far fewer men and women who are gay than there are straight. All hate crime legislation does is widen the limits of punishment when it's determined that the crime itself had a motive in terrorizing a group.



So again, it comes back to size of the population? What about gang members going on a vendetta against cops, is this a hate crime? Its against a very specific subset of the population. What happens if a group of blacks in the South string up a few white guys to send a message, is that a hate crime? What about the hundreds of racially motivated killings in prison, are these hate crimes? Finally, what about ethnic gang violence where hispanics are killing blacks, or vice versa, based on racial factors, are these hate crimes?

EDIT: Missed this comment, need to look into this case.

Hate crimes legislation protects white people with the same protections where whites are the minority. In the September 2005 case in Richmond, VA, a white teen walking through a primarily black neighborhood was beaten savagely, to send a message that whites weren't allowed in that neighborhood. The guilty parties were sentenced to harsher punishment based upon hate crimes legislation.

[Johan]

So, hate crime legislation is like the Endangered Species Act?

Oh...I forgot. The penalties for violating that act are worse than for many violent crimes against people. :D

[alienmastermind]

So again, it comes back to size of the population? What about gang members going on a vendetta against cops, is this a hate crime? Its against a very specific subset of the population. What happens if a group of blacks in the South string up a few white guys to send a message, is that a hate crime? What about the hundreds of racially motivated killings in prison, are these hate crimes? Finally, what about ethnic gang violence where hispanics are killing blacks, or vice versa, based on racial factors, are these hate crimes?

For purposes of sentencing, not determining guilt or arrest. Hate crimes legislation puts additional sentencing leeway when dealing with violent crimes where terrorizing a specific group is the goal.

It's about everyone getting the same protection under the law, just expanding the punishment for a certain type of crime. Just as there are degrees of murder and larceny, there are degress of intent. 9/11 would be considered a hate crime, as well as terrorism, under the descriptions of the law.

I don't see the problem with giving a judge additional sentencing freedoms when it comes to the parties involved.

[Inspector Fowler]

Hate crime laws are ludicrous. They are a salve for the guilt of white people who feel like it's somehow time to apologize to every oppressed group in the history of the world. Just because a hate crime statute fits doesn't mean the DA uses it - they usually only use them when it's politically advantageous.

The one case you mentioned above is an extremely rare use of hate crime laws. Crime IS hate. Victimizing ANYBODY is hateful. But some groups get extra protection, which is terrible.

[Ox]

Also, hate crime legislation seems to also try to expand sentencing guidelines rather than de facto calling every questionable situation a 'hate crime'. Leaving it up to judges, if I'm right in interpreting the law. Ox? Any thoughts on this?
First, you're way too broad: some hate crime statutes act as mere sentencing enhancements, but far from all. Hate speech is not a crime unless it's directed at a specific protected group.

Second, most hate crime statutes do not give judges more discretion at sentencing. Instead, they either expand the maximum penalty permissible (which is different from the sentencing guidelines, if any) or they increase the minimum permissible punishment (which limits discretion). Most sentencing guideline regimes have a catch-all provision that permits judges to consider unspecified aggravating factors; specific hate-crime legislation is neither needed or intended to permit judges to exercise discretion.

Even those statutes (such as West Virginia's) that specify hate crime motive as an aggravating factor in sentencing mandate that judges consider the hate crime motive as an aggravating factor. This effectively reduces their discretion, because on appeal a higher court can reverse for failing to consider or specify the aggravating factors.

[alienmastermind]

First, you're way too broad: some hate crime statutes act as mere sentencing enhancements, but far from all. Hate speech is not a crime unless it's directed at a specific protected group.

Second, most hate crime statutes do not give judges more discretion at sentencing. Instead, they either expand the maximum penalty permissible (which is different from the sentencing guidelines, if any) or they increase the minimum permissible punishment (which limits discretion). Most sentencing guideline regimes have a catch-all provision that permits judges to consider unspecified aggravating factors; specific hate-crime legislation is neither needed or intended to permit judges to exercise discretion.

Even those statutes (such as West Virginia's) that specify hate crime motive as an aggravating factor in sentencing mandate that judges consider the hate crime motive as an aggravating factor. This effectively reduces their discretion, because on appeal a higher court can reverse for failing to consider or specify the aggravating factors.

Consider me corrected, then Ox. It was my understanding that at the federal level, the Hate Crime bill offers the expanded sentencing. I don't know much about this stuff, not being a lawyer and all, at the state level.

[Ox]

You're right about the federal statute (the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act), but you're several years behind the times: in US v. Booker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Booker), the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are entirely advisory and nonbinding. How this works in practice is complicated -- appellate courts have a weird combination of claiming to respect a judge's sentencing discretion and overturning him anyway -- but since the whole point of the Sentencing Guidelines was to reduce judicial discretion, I don't think you can argue that adding additional guidelines increases discretion.

Anyway, I was more thinking of the non-US hate crime laws, since Serapth specifically talked about stuff like Holocaust denial (which is protected by the First Amendment here).

[Ox]

Incidentally: while I don't agree with hate-speech statutes, I can understand the desire. There sure seems to be good reason to give the Jews special protection under the law. One out of four non-Jewish Americans think "the Jews" deserve a great deal of blame for the financial crisis, and nearly 40% blame "the Jews" in part (http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/malhotra_margalit.php).

[J Arcane]

Incidentally: while I don't agree with hate-speech statutes, I can understand the desire. There sure seems to be good reason to give the Jews special protection under the law. One out of four non-Jewish Americans think "the Jews" deserve a great deal of blame for the financial crisis, and nearly 40% blame "the Jews" in part (http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/malhotra_margalit.php).
And yet during the election everyone was crowing about how racism was dead, and you were a bad person for suggesting it would have any effect on Obama's chances, his victory was some great proof of the death of American racism, etc. etc.

Never underestimate the ability of people to be fucking assholes.

[Serapth]

Incidentally: while I don't agree with hate-speech statutes, I can understand the desire. There sure seems to be good reason to give the Jews special protection under the law. One out of four non-Jewish Americans think "the Jews" deserve a great deal of blame for the financial crisis, and nearly 40% blame "the Jews" in part (http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/malhotra_margalit.php).

Yes, but how many of this same demographic think blacks should be strung up, women should stay home and NASCAR is a sport?

Learning that nearly 40% of Americans are bigots would shock me. Frankly, I would expect the number to be a bit higher.

[Ox]

Yes, but how many of this same demographic think blacks should be strung up, women should stay home and NASCAR is a sport?
I'm not sure: 32% of Democrats blame the Jews, while only 18% of Republicans do. Your call whether you think stringing up blacks, etc., is a predominantly Democratic or Republican view.

[Serapth]

I'm not sure: 32% of Democrats blame the Jews, while only 18% of Republicans do. Your call whether you think stringing up blacks, etc., is a predominantly Democratic or Republican view.

I don't delude myself into believing the Democrats are any less racist than most Republicans. From my last job, at our facility in prominently democratic Michigan, I would consider just about everybody I knew there as pretty much racist.

[Vector]

Yes, but how many of this same demographic think blacks should be strung up, women should stay home and NASCAR is a sport?

Learning that nearly 40% of Americans are bigots would shock me. Frankly, I would expect the number to be a bit higher.

It's funny you're accusing others of being bigots in the same post where you stereotype nascar viewers as being racist.

Take a long look in the mirror.

[Serapth]

It's funny you're accusing others of being bigots in the same post where you stereotype nascar viewers as being racist.

Take a long look in the mirror.

Humour, and Canadian smugness.

We can do that, we didn't have slaves and only committed genocide against one ethnicity.


Besides, on a very different point, being a NASCAR fan is an opt-in demographic. Sorta like joining the KKK is an opt-in demographic, but stereotyping most clan members as bigots isn't well... bigoted.

[Ox]

Besides, on a very different point, being a NASCAR fan is an opt-in demographic. Sorta like joining the KKK is an opt-in demographic, but stereotyping most clan members as bigots isn't well... bigoted.
Videogamers are an opt-in demographic, too. Is it not bigoted and prejudiced to suggest that all videogamers are racists? And at least there, we have some evidence to back up the bigoted assertion: Xbox Live.

[Ultima Thulian]

Deny that 9/11 happened and you're branded a nutjob but not a criminal, so I doubt newness is really a factor.

Well, who would deny 9/11? We all know the Jews were behind it. :D I kid, of course.

As for the question, this summed it up nicely.

Because hate crimes are inherently prejudicial and subjective. They're also ridiculous at their core. All crime is hateful, and it shouldn't be encouraged by the system to victimize a person of a particular demographic group for a lower penalty as opposed to another demographic group with a higher penalty. That's patently absurd.

Granted, not all crime is hateful, but Johan's point is still solid.

[Deadend]

Well, who would deny 9/11? We all know the Jews were behind it. :D I kid, of course.

As for the question, this summed it up nicely.



Granted, not all crime is hateful, but Johan's point is still solid.

I disagree with you and Johnan.

If I mug someone, it's for money, not hate.
Murder? Hitmen, rivals, anger, passion. Not cold hate.
Rape is about power.
Killing a guy because he is gay? That is a hate crime and different than killing a man because he cut me off in traffic, or I want his money, or any reason at all.

The shit is not to hard to grasp.

But hey, try and say that motivation doesn't matter.

[Ultima Thulian]

I disagree with you and Johnan.

If I mug someone, it's for money, not hate.
Murder? Hitmen, rivals, anger, passion. Not cold hate.
Rape is about power.
Killing a guy because he is gay? That is a hate crime and different than killing a man because he cut me off in traffic, or I want his money, or any reason at all.

The shit is not to hard to grasp.

But hey, try and say that motivation doesn't matter.

Whoa whoa, Cap'n. I said not all crimes are motivated by hate. I just said many are. At the end of the day though, should motivation really be such a deciding factor IF the end result ends up being the same?

For example. Let's say I rob a guy outta $200 cause I wanted the money. Now let's say another guy robs the same dood for $200 as well, but he did it because he hates this guy cause he's black or something dumb like that. Now, since the crime and end result is pretty much the same, should I get greater or less punishment than the guy who committed the "hate" crime, even though at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter as the end result is the same?

Also, rape is sometimes fueled by hate (though power tends to be the key reason for those sickos. Drunkeness has it's way sometimes too). It's not that all crimes are motivated by hate (though I'd argue many, but not all, are fueled by hate to at least some degree), it's that ANY crime can be motivated by hate. And considering the subjectivity and complexities that go into the notion of hate...well, you get my idea.

[Vector]

Videogamers are an opt-in demographic, too. Is it not bigoted and prejudiced to suggest that all videogamers are racists? And at least there, we have some evidence to back up the bigoted assertion: Xbox Live.

I was gonna respond to his post but you pretty much summed up my thoughts.

[rifter]

We can do that, we didn't have slaves and only committed genocide against one ethnicity.
Interesting, considering you committed genocide on the same races we did... and by what I have been reading, kept slaves, just like the United States, as well. It DOES sound like they were treated better in Canada, though, than many in the southern US.

[Serapth]

Interesting, considering you committed genocide on the same races we did... and by what I have been reading, kept slaves, just like the United States, as well. It DOES sound like they were treated better in Canada, though, than many in the southern US.

Canada was confederated (born) in 1867. The slavery to which you refer ( of which there were less than 5000 slaves, 90% of them in Quebec ) were both under direct French / English rule.

I was even rather joking about Genocide too, as early British and French settlers were actually a hell of a lot nicer to the natives than they were in the States. In fact, it was Indian military support that helped defeat the Americans. The Indians fared poorly under Canadian rule, but we have NOWHERE near the blood on our hands that Americans do. And, regardless to the incidents in Ipperwash and Oka, we treat Natives a hell of a lot better in modern days too.

[Vector]

Canada was confederated (born) in 1867. The slavery to which you refer ( of which there were less than 5000 slaves, 90% of them in Quebec ) were both under direct French / English rule.

I was even rather joking about Genocide too, as early British and French settlers were actually a hell of a lot nicer to the natives than they were in the States. In fact, it was Indian military support that helped defeat the Americans. The Indians fared poorly under Canadian rule, but we have NOWHERE near the blood on our hands that Americans do. And, regardless to the incidents in Ipperwash and Oka, we treat Natives a hell of a lot better in modern days too.

You make up for it by clubbing baby seals ;)

BTW...there's no blood on my hands nor on any American's hands. Noone alive today has every owned a slave or killed a native.

[Serapth]

Videogamers are an opt-in demographic, too. Is it not bigoted and prejudiced to suggest that all videogamers are racists? And at least there, we have some evidence to back up the bigoted assertion: Xbox Live.

You could easily argue that the anonymous nature of XBox live brings the inner racist out.

As an aside, as some fluke of my XBox connection, the vast majority of times I get connected with Brits for some reason. I know you aren't that found of the British in general, but from my experiences once they learn I am Canadian, they are a great bunch of people.

I don't know why it is, but the whiny, nasally, racial sluring throwing brats that tend to make people hate live so much, never, ever, seem to have a British accent...

[Serapth]

You make up for it by clubbing baby seals ;)

BTW...there's no blood on my hands nor on any American's hands. Noone alive today has every owned a slave or killed a native.

Fuck that, seal tastes yummy.

As to the second point.... I wouldn't be so sure about either. You may not have directly owned a slave, but have you benefited from the class based structure you have inherited? Does a modern WASP have a head up as an indirect benefit of past years of slavery? As to killing natives, perhaps not recently, but look into how natives were treated after returning from WWII. Poverty and the bottle may take longer to kill than a bullet, but they can be just as effective.

[Vector]

Fuck that, seal tastes yummy.

As to the second point.... I wouldn't be so sure about either. You may not have directly owned a slave, but have you benefited from the class based structure you have inherited? Does a modern WASP have a head up as an indirect benefit of past years of slavery? As to killing natives, perhaps not recently, but look into how natives were treated after returning from WWII. Poverty and the bottle may take longer to kill than a bullet, but they can be just as effective.

If you're gonna tenuously connect every American to some distant, non related individual then I can say every Canadian is just as guilty because Canada's current economy is directly tied to our own and has therefore benefited from the US and is fully dependent on us since we're their largest import/export partner.

Every Westerner has benefited from the Roman and Greek civilizations and we wouldn't be shit without them. Does that make me guilty because some ancient Greek killed some Persian?

People of every color were treated like shit after Vietnam. That still doesn't mean I have blood on my hands because some other guy did something that I had no control over. You're blaming me in 2009 for some Native American who turned into an alcoholic? Really?

See how that works?

[Serapth]

If you're gonna tenuously connect every American to some distant, non related individual then I can say every Canadian is just as guilty because Canada's current economy is directly tied to our own and has therefore benefited from the US and is fully dependent on us since we're their largest import/export partner.

Every Westerner has benefited from the Roman and Greek civilizations and we wouldn't be shit without them. Does that make me guilty because some ancient Greek killed some Persian?

People of every color were treated like shit after Vietnam. That still doesn't mean I have blood on my hands because some other guy did something that I had no control over. You're blaming me in 2009 for some Native American who turned into an alcoholic? Really?

See how that works?

Actually, I am just fucking with you, and have been since the Nascar comment ( even though, as far as motor sports go, NASCAR is pretty lame... ). I as a WASP myself and pretty sick of the guilt that is heaped on my shoulders for things that happened generations ago. On the flipside, I do believe that me as a WASP do still have an advantage to a certain degree and that advantage can be trace back over hundreds of years.

That said, regarding Native American alcoholics, actually that one is genetic and yeah, we ( European descendants ) are directly responsible for it. Additionally, the social and economic situation that Indians have been cast in, at least here in Canada, encourages isolation and poverty. Reservations are a classic example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. We give Indians free money, grants, free housing, tax incentives, etc... if they stay on reservations, but basically cut it all off if they try to integrate or leave the reservations.

So, actually, you should probably feel a twang of guilt every time you see an alcoholic Indian.

[alienmastermind]

Also, rape is sometimes fueled by hate (though power tends to be the key reason for those sickos. Drunkeness has it's way sometimes too). It's not that all crimes are motivated by hate (though I'd argue many, but not all, are fueled by hate to at least some degree), it's that ANY crime can be motivated by hate. And considering the subjectivity and complexities that go into the notion of hate...well, you get my idea.

But if a crime is designed to send a message to a sector of the population to put fear into them, that's different than plain-Jane murder, isn't it? Or should we be going after Khalid Sheik-Mohammad for planning mass murder on a federal level, rather than holding him for terrorism charges.

There are degress of both murder and larceny. I think this type of legislation is designed to prosecute terrorism as terrorism and not assault.

[rifter]

But if a crime is designed to send a message to a sector of the population to put fear into them, that's different than plain-Jane murder, isn't it? Or should we be going after Khalid Sheik-Mohammad for planning mass murder on a federal level, rather than holding him for terrorism charges.

There are degress of both murder and larceny. I think this type of legislation is designed to prosecute terrorism as terrorism and not assault.

I think the possibly murder and terrorism can be explained by scope. A murder is one person, generally targeted. Terrorism is non-targeted.

[Ultima Thulian]

Not only that, but causing fear and panic arguably cause concrete (i.e. visible) results. Think yelling fire inside a crowded theatre times a thousand. Hate is abstract. It's absurd to punish someone or a group of people just based on hate or hate as a motivation. Most terrorists don't attack purely for hate reasons either. Terrorism is often done for political and religious reasons.

However, I guess one could say that some groups of terrorists attack innocents for being "infidels" (i.e. non-believers) and thus are being instigators in hate crime. After all, killing a giant group of people because you think your god wants them did and it'll score you some big pussy later on is arguably fueled by hate. Or stupidity. Bah, both go hand in hand really.

[alienmastermind]

I think the possibly murder and terrorism can be explained by scope. A murder is one person, generally targeted. Terrorism is non-targeted.

I think terrorism is targeted, Rifter. I disagree with you there.

[Serapth]

I think terrorism is targeted, Rifter. I disagree with you there.

Depends on how specific you want to get, and which terrorist organization you are talking about. 9/11 for example, wasn't really targeted other than from a symbolic perspective. Hell, the hit an international building. Granted, it was targeted in terms of being an economic attack and on American soil. On the flipside, blowing up a mosque is very targeted. Murder however, is much much much more targeted, in that you are aiming at a particular individual.

[Vector]

Depends on how specific you want to get, and which terrorist organization you are talking about. 9/11 for example, wasn't really targeted other than from a symbolic perspective. Hell, the hit an international building. Granted, it was targeted in terms of being an economic attack and on American soil. On the flipside, blowing up a mosque is very targeted. Murder however, is much much much more targeted, in that you are aiming at a particular individual.

They were aiming for the white house and the pentagon because of specific actions of this country that they perceived as crimes against Islam and the Arab world.

I would say their targets were very specific. It wasn't like they threw a dart at the map.

[rifter]

I meant targeted in scope. Most murderers take out one person... or a small group. Terrorists target swaths of people. Usually swaths of random people.

[J Arcane]

I see hate crime laws as nothing more than an extension of discrimination laws. What worse form of discrimination is there than deciding whether someone lives or dies based solely on race/religion/sex/etc.?

[Ox]

I see hate crime laws as nothing more than an extension of discrimination laws. What worse form of discrimination is there than deciding whether someone lives or dies based solely on race/religion/sex/etc.?
That's kind of odd. Anti-discrimination laws prevent otherwise-permissible acts from being based on impermissible criteria. I'm okay with not getting a job because someone else is more qualified, but I'm not okay with not getting a job because I'm Catholic.

But if you offered me the choice of getting killed by someone who hated Catholics and someone who just hated me personally, it's not really obvious why one would be better than the other. I can understand the argument that hate crimes are worse for society in general because they promote fear, but I don't think a hate crime is worse for the particular victim.

[J Arcane]

See, I see anti-discrimination laws as being more of a way to ensure a person is not treated badly or unfairly based on such criteria. What could be worse or more unfair than actually being killed just for being X.

I just don't see this point of hate crime laws being "unfair", because as I see it they're nothing more than one more iteration of a series of laws all about seeing that people are protected from unfair treatment.

[Ox]

See, I see anti-discrimination laws as being more of a way to ensure a person is not treated badly or unfairly based on such criteria. What could be worse or more unfair than actually being killed just for being X.
You're suggesting that it's somehow more unfair to be killed for religion than to be killed for, say, being annoying. How does that work? Being murdered for one reason is no better or worse than being murdered for another reason. Perhaps the different reasons might imply different levels of moral culpability or there are other societal factors mandating different treatment, but subjectively, you don't give a shit.

I don't think this issue can be boiled down to fairness. There is some other value at work here.

[J Arcane]

There is some other value at work here.

I think the one I'm getting at is equality?

The difference between your example is that one is an indelible part of one's being, and the other is simply a behavior.

People should be treated by their actions, not by such things as race or creed or faith. I thought it was a pretty important value of free civilizations that people be treated the same regardless of such factors, and judged on their actions?

[Ox]

The difference between your example is that one is an indelible part of one's being, and the other is simply a behavior.
Religion is an indelible part of one's being?

People should be treated by their actions, not by such things as race or creed or faith. I thought it was a pretty important value of free civilizations that people be treated the same regardless of such factors, and judged on their actions?
Sure. But that hardly implies that criminals who prey on particular communities must be punished more than criminals who are indiscriminate. Both should be punished, but anti-discrimination doesn't get you to hate crime legislation.

Take Bernie Madoff. He disproportionately preyed on Jews for his financial scams. Is that a hate crime?

[J Arcane]

Religion is an indelible part of one's being?

I knew someone was going to pull that card, though I must admit I didn't expect you to be one of them.

I apologize if I do not wish to argue the point further, but I will simply say that, as a religious person, yes. It is. To ask me to believe other than I do would be about as effective as asking a black person to stop being black.

Sure. But that hardly implies that criminals who prey on particular communities must be punished more than criminals who are indiscriminate. Both should be punished, but anti-discrimination doesn't get you to hate crime legislation.

Do we not ever make examples of offenders? Does not particular harshness on such specific crimes against liberty make it more abundantly clear to those who would act against it that such behavior will not be tolerated?

Take Bernie Madoff. He disproportionately preyed on Jews for his financial scams. Is that a hate crime?
That is a trap. A good one though. Your skills impress me again.

[Serapth]

I apologize if I do not wish to argue the point further, but I will simply say that, as a religious person, yes. It is. To ask me to believe other than I do would be about as effective as asking a black person to stop being black.


Changes of faith are a hell of alot easier than changes of race.

[Ultima Thulian]

Tell that to Michael Jackson.

BAH-ZING!

[Vector]

Religion is an indelible part of one's being

It is if you buy into the theory that people evolved to believe in a god figure! ;)

[J Arcane]

Changes of faith are a hell of alot easier than changes of race.
Something tells me you are not a religious person, or you would not believe that.

[Serapth]

Something tells me you are not a religious person, or you would not believe that.

I once was, I suppose to prove my point.

I was raised baptist, I am not currently baptist.

[Vector]

I once was, I suppose to prove my point.

I was raised baptist, I am not currently baptist.

I certainly agree with you...for many people their religion is a choice. Noone chooses their race. Only Michael Jackson has demonstrated the ability to change their own race! ;)

[Crowe]

Something tells me you are not a religious person, or you would not believe that.

Even if someone's parents forced/sent them to attend Jesus Camp and home schooled them, there is always a chance of a change in faith.

[Ox]

Something tells me you are not a religious person, or you would not believe that.
I'm moderately religious, and I believe that. Heck, the existence of evangelism, which presupposes one can convert to a faith, requires such a belief.

[Hotcod]

That's kind of odd. Anti-discrimination laws prevent otherwise-permissible acts from being based on impermissible criteria. I'm okay with not getting a job because someone else is more qualified, but I'm not okay with not getting a job because I'm Catholic.

But if you offered me the choice of getting killed by someone who hated Catholics and someone who just hated me personally, it's not really obvious why one would be better than the other. I can understand the argument that hate crimes are worse for society in general because they promote fear, but I don't think a hate crime is worse for the particular victim.

If some one kills you for your religion or race then with you dead there are STILL people that give him the exact same motive to kill again. If some one kills you 'cus they hate you then with you dead there is no one else for who they have that exact same motive. They may hate other people enough to kill them but that is not as random or broad as the kind of "hate" we are talking about.

In other words when it comes to you, the dead person, it makes little difference. But that is a straw man argument because the point of the extra "added" hate crime 'punishments' are not to punish the person for killing you, that is already covered. They exist simply to either put this kind of person off doing it in the first place or to keep them off the streets for longer.

People who commit hate crimes are not like psychopaths, serial killers and the like would do what they where going to do anyway. But with a hatecrime that crime is not one they are likey to have commented against some one from a group they didn't hate. It's a given thought processes, that person is one of them so that means it's ok to do this to them. The point of extra punishment for hate crimes is to punish that kind of thinking and hopefuly inject "if i do this to one of them and get caught it will be wrose for me so maybe i shouldn't" in to there thinking.

In the end there far from perfect but they exist to fulfill a function that only really exists when hate against a given group is involved. And that fuction is not about justice for the victim but protecting society.

If they work is another matter but the reason for having them are for the most part, to me at lest, valid.

[rifter]

I knew someone was going to pull that card, though I must admit I didn't expect you to be one of them.

I apologize if I do not wish to argue the point further, but I will simply say that, as a religious person, yes. It is. To ask me to believe other than I do would be about as effective as asking a black person to stop being black.


I want to point out something here... I have a really good friend, that has a daughter that switched religions to be Jewish recently. Before that, she was VERY involved in church, her entire life, with their Christian denomination... (I have no clue WHAT denomination, but I know they are Christian of some sort).

Even someone that is completely entrenched in their religion... can change...

[alienmastermind]

Take Bernie Madoff. He disproportionately preyed on Jews for his financial scams. Is that a hate crime?

I'll step into the trap here, with (I hope) a reasonable answer.

When I read your response about hate crimes being possibly worse for society rather than the individual victim, I'd say that that's the crux of the issue, Ox. Societally, we have a long way to go from being totally desensitized to issues of race, and in the instances I've used above as examples, 'hate crimes' are typically various kinds of assault, murder, or criminal vandalism used as a message to the race or group the victim belongs to.

Bernie's crimes were felonious larceny, right? Theft? Unless he has a manifesto out there about how he's sending a message to Jewish people (which would be completely odd, considering his background) through his thefts, or says this was designed to cripple and strike fear into the Jewish community (again, an odd choice) then no, it wouldn't fall under what I'd consider a hate crime.

But you'd be the expert on whether a prosecutor would go that route, Ox. I'm curious as to whether you think this is probable to happen in the future with regard to predatory lending or the like?

[Ox]

'hate crimes' are typically various kinds of assault, murder, or criminal vandalism used as a message to the race or group the victim belongs to.
I've bolded what I think is the important language. Certainly, I have no problem with punishing crimes more severely if they are intended to intimidate others -- that intimidation could be considered a separate crime apart from the underlying one, with more victims than the specific target.

But such intimidation can often involve a category of people that legislators haven't considered. Think, for example, of the gangbanger who kills while wearing a "Stop Snitching" shirt. Even if he kills someone other than a snitch, it's fair to say that part of his mental state was a desire to intimidate snitches. I'd be inclined to see that fellow prosecuted for a hate crime, but legislators haven't had the foresight to include "snitches" as a protected class under the statute.

I'd be happier with hate crime legislation if it were more broadly written to include identified threatened groups without requiring each conceivable group to lobby for its inclusion.

As for Madoff, I highly doubt he could be prosecuted for a hate crime: not only do most hate crime statutes remain limited to crimes of violence and vandalism, but they usually require one have intended to intimidate the group. The mere fact you preyed on a particular group is evidence of intent to intimidate, but in Madoff's case, there's more than a reasonable doubt he was just picking on Jews because they were convenient.