Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Hate Crime or not? Obama Effigy on noose racist

Cynthetiq · 10-30-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

I think that sentence explains exactly why I think having "hate crimes" is one of the dumbest ideas we've ever come up with as a society.

right. where does it end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

I don't see it as promoting or forcing acceptance. I see it as protecting the vulnerable, in order to safekeep their efforts to integrate and make all things as equal as possible. Obviously, people can still choose not to integrate--and natives can still choose to dislike foreigners--no legislation is going to change the attitudes of those types of people. But at least in that sense, there is no violent threat to not integrating--people are free to live as they wish, within the rule of the law, regardless of what group they belong to.

If the context of reception is at least neutral (at best, welcoming), and not hostile/violent to the minority... then the burden truly remains on the minority members themselves to integrate. But that never happens--the context of reception for immigrants/outsiders is initially almost never positive or even neutral, and yes, that does have an effect on their attitude/willingness towards integration.

Native residents very rarely consider that consequence of their behavior towards outsiders, but I believe that is the point of anti-hate-crime legislation and why it must take a different tack than regular crime legislation. It is meant to put a stop to (or at least lessen the effect of) perpetuating historical wrongs, and to protect the rights of a minority from a sometimes hostile majority. In a utopia, such legislation will no longer be necessary--but we're not there yet, by far.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

In the two major metropolitans I lived in for almost 20 years in each, the history doesn't show that.

Italians, Irish, Germans, Polish, all seemed to "get along" and integrate to some degree without hate crime legislation in NYC. In fact the neighborhoods that were predominately German or Italian are now giving way to other ethnicities.

I started reading some information about the NY Hate Crimes Act of 2000 and this write up solidifies for me why I'm against hate crime legislation.

New York's Hate Crimes Act of 2000: problematic and redundant legislation aimed at subjective motivation | Albany Law Review | Find Articles at BNET

These quotes are taken from the first 4 pages of this article.

Quote:

New York's Hate Crimes Act is unnecessary and ill-advised. There is little or no credible evidence that bias-related crime is either prevalent or deserving of specialized treatment. (4) The criminal law that existed prior to the passage of the Hate Crimes Act adequately addressed the anti-social behavior of defendants who commit crimes motivated by bias. Furthermore, the current Hate Crimes Act will not serve as a deterrent to bias-motivated acts. (5) Additionally, this statute might violate the federal and state constitutions, create procedural and evidentiary problems not envisioned by its drafters, and represent little more than political pandering to a panoply of special interest groups.

Quote:

Did the legislators do their homework? For example, did the legislature consider how prevalent bias-related crime is in New York? Is the criminal law an effective means for addressing the problem of ethnic, racial, and religious bias--or does the statute represent symbolic legislation enacted for the political goal of appeasing various demographic constituencies? Will the statute serve as an effective deterrent to bias-motivated crime? In general, do hate crime laws provide a remedy to the victim or do they help rid society of prejudice? Many legal scholars--including noted professor James B. Jacobs at New York University School of Law--argue that these statutes are almost completely ineffective for achieving any of their laudable goals. (24) An overarching concern is whether the government should attempt to legislate against and to punish subjective thought. (25)

It is impossible to determine just how widespread the instances of hate-motivated violence are in New York. The legislative findings section that precedes the substantive New York statute attempts to shed light on this area of concern in claiming that crimes motivated by "bias and prejudice have become more prevalent in New York state in recent years." (26) The legislators, however, provide little empirical or statistical evidence to substantiate their claim. In fact, the legislative packet is quite sparse, consisting only of a letter from former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's legislative representative Anthony Piscitelli, a memorandum from the New York State Attorney General's Office, several private attorneys and a few lobbying groups. (27) The letter from the Mayor's office states that there were 390 bias incidents in New York City during 1999, which was down from 513 bias incidents during 1996. (28) Through May of 2000, however, these incidents slightly increased to 183--a growth of nine percent--compared to 166 during the corresponding time period the prior year. (29) The City responded to this increase by forming the Hate Crime Task Force. (30) Unfortunately, the Piscitelli letter does not mention how the incidence of bias crime compares to other criminal activity in the city.

A review of the New York City Police Department's CompStat statistics helps to put the actual prevalence of bias-related crimes in perspective. During 1999, for example, there were 155,859 major crimes committed in New York City that were also enumerated crimes under the Hate Crimes Act. (31) As noted above, there were 390 bias incidents during this same time period. (32) Without doing a statistical analysis--and even without the inclusion of the thousands of offenses not reported by CompStat that are enumerated crimes under the New York statute--it does not appear that bias-related crimes constitute an overwhelming problem in New York City. Even without considering the offenses enumerated under the Hate Crimes Act, which are not included in the CompStat figures, the incidence of bias-motivated crime in New York City appears to be less than 0.2 percent--fewer than one in five-hundred criminal acts. Given the extremely low reported incidence of bias crimes, one must wonder why the legislators found it imperative to enact special legislation to address an almost nonexistent problem. As is often the case in politics, it is not necessarily the pressing issue that gets attention, but rather, the cause that enjoys vocal proponents. (33)

Furthermore, history suggests that bias-related crime is actually at an all time low. One need only hark back to the days of the Know-Nothings and their campaigns of terror against immigrants, or the strong anti-Japanese sentiments that led to violence on the West Coast in the early 1900s, to see a period when bias-motivated incidents were more ubiquitous. Certainly, the level of racially motivated bias today pales in comparison to our ignominious history of lynching Black Americans during the heyday years of 1880-1920. (34)

Quote:

Federal statistics have done little to shed light on the hate crime incidences. The federal statute defines hate crimes as those "that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity." (40) Since 1990, the United States Attorney General has been required to collect data on the incidence of hate or bias crimes from local law enforcement agencies. (41) This information has become part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program. (42) Unfortunately, federal reporting relies on voluntary participation from state and local law enforcement. (43) While some agencies report, many do not. (44) Further, among the reporting agencies, different protocols are employed to determine if a crime is bias motivated. (45) This complicates attempts to objectively quantify the actual incidence of hate-motivated crime.

The evidence relied on by the media and various advocacy groups suggesting that bias related crimes are prevalent or increasing is anecdotal at best. The New York City figures are representative and actually suggest the contrary. Statistical evidence, however, may paint an inaccurate picture of the incidence of hate crime because some agencies use different reporting criteria and evaluate varying factors in determining whether a particular crime qualifies as a bias incident. (46) For example, a black-on-white crime might be classified as a bias crime, but a Tutsi-on-Hutu, Pakistani-on-Indian, or Japanese-on-Chinese motivated act may not.

The available information suggests that bias crime is not prevalent in New York, that it is not on the rise, and that it does not present a grave threat to our society. Advocacy groups, politicians, and the media may all be playing a role in perpetuating the misperception that bias-related crime is a serious problem in New York.

C. Symbolism Over Substance

Are bias-motivated crimes more reprehensible than crimes motivated by other factors? Or is the rush to enact hate crime statutes simply political pandering to special interest groups at little expense to the politician or the state? In the words of columnist John Leo, are not "the skulls of all Americans ... equally valuable?" (47) Society should not consider it more reprehensible to shoot someone because he or she is African American rather than because he or she is a Republican.

I believe it all boils down to these very sentences for me. There isn't enought to say that bias/hate is limited to black/white, brown/white, asian/white, but that is what it has become to me.
For example, a black-on-white crime might be classified as a bias crime, but a Tutsi-on-Hutu, Pakistani-on-Indian, or Japanese-on-Chinese motivated act may not.

Society should not consider it more reprehensible to shoot someone because he or she is African American rather than because he or she is a Republican.

An asshole is an asshole, no matter what. Just like a criminal is a criminal. They aren't more of a criminal becuase they are a bigoted one.

Quote:

View: Lynched effigy of Obama comes down in Redondo Beach after complaints
Source: Mercurynews
posted with the TFP thread generator

Lynched effigy of Obama comes down in Redondo Beach after complaints
Lynched effigy of Obama comes down in Redondo Beach after complaints
Larry Altman

Los Angeles News Group

Article Launched: 10/30/2008 12:54:45 PM PDT

REDONDO BEACH — A lynched effigy of Democratic candidate Barack Obama came down here after police officers and a representative from John McCain's local campaign office paid a visit to the resident and convinced her to take it down, according to authorities.

Emotions stirred in a Redondo Beach neighborhood Wednesday when the resident hung an effigy of Sen. Barack Obama from her balcony with a meat cleaver slashed through his throat as a Halloween display.

The figure outside Lisa Castaneda's house north of 190th Street is a likeness of the Democratic presidential candidate with his necktie pulled tight and hung from a post, his jacket covered with blood and a sign in red that reads, "Nobama."

Castaneda, a mother of two young children, said the Halloween display is part of her larger scary exhibit that includes the Grim Reaper, a graveyard and the attacker from the "Scream" movies.

A sign in support of McCain/Palin is posted in front of the yard.

Castaneda said she supports the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain. She said the Obama effigy simply makes a statement that he is not fit to be president.

"I disapprove of him, period," she said. "I am appalled by a man who is so close to being our president who won't put his hand on the Bible, who won't wear a flag pin."

Some neighbors didn't think depicting a bloody Obama was an amusing way to celebrate Halloween.

"I absolutely think it's deplorable," said neighbor Joe Pollack, who supports Obama. "She's welcome to her political beliefs. The signs are fine. Something like this is in poor, poor taste."

Neighbor Lloyd Stuck, a McCain supporter, said he had no problem with Castaneda's effigy.

"I like it," he said. "She decorated the house. She didn't like Obama. That's her right."

Stuck said Castaneda had a right to counter a West Hollywood man's effigy of Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin that's been hanging from a noose outside his house for weeks.

"It's called equal expression," Stuck said. "Why don't they complain about something serious? Give me a break."

The Sheriff's Department deemed the Palin effigy an act of free speech, but the resident received a visit from the Secret Service. And on Wednesday, after a conversation with West Hollywood Mayor Jeffrey Prang, the resident reportedly agreed to remove the Palin effigy.

Pollock and other nearby residents called Castaneda a great neighbor. She is the Neighborhood Watch captain and organizes Fourth of July block parties and a movie night.

But another neighbor, who asked not to be identified, said the Obama figure reveals something about Castaneda that nobody knew. The election, he said, is "bringing out some true characteristics that may have been hiding under the surface."

"It's amazing to me from that same sense of community, for the person to also do something that is so divisive," he said.

The neighborhood is no different than any other. Some homes have Obama signs out front. Others show support for McCain.

Many houses are decorated with traditional pumpkins, cobwebs and spiders for Halloween.

Castaneda said her display is the result of several years of Halloween purchases. She and her children bought clothes in thrift stores and stuffed them with newspaper. She bought the Obama mask recently in a Halloween store because it was torn and cheap.

After they created the Obama dummy, she covered his jacket with fake blood.

"I just made the Nobama sign," she said. "My intention is really a statement on how I am obviously for McCain."

Castaneda recently forwarded an anti-Obama e-mail to some neighbors, including Obama supporters.

"What does Obama prefer to read?" the message asks. "He is reading 'The Post-American World.' It is Muslim's (sic) view on the fall and collapse of the United States as a Super Power. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!"

Castaneda had told neighbors she planned to put up an anti-Obama Halloween display, but they did not expect what they found.

"She probably thinks it's cute and funny," said another neighbor who did not want to be identified. "Hanging a black man is really distasteful. It's a free country, but your rights end where the next person's begin."

Ben Fortun, 16, of Redondo Beach and his 13-year-old brother, Joe, heard about the effigy and stopped by Wednesday evening to protest wearing Obama T-shirts. They called the effigy racist and immoral.

"We decided to come up here and quietly protest," Ben said as he carried a large American flag. "That's not right.

"We want to change America even though we can't vote."

Castaneda said there was nothing racist about her display. "There was no malice," she said. "I just like Halloween. It's nothing mean-spirited by any means. We all have our opinions."

It was unclear if Castaneda would receive a visit from the Secret Service. Agency spokesman Malcolm Wiley said effigies and similar visual presentations "could be indicative of threatening behavior."

"We take them into consideration when we hear about them," Wiley said. "Many times it will necessitate an investigation. Any threat against anybody we protect we take very seriously."

Again, I think like rb, it's dumb and stupid, I don't find it racist. I find it stupid.