Hate Crime or not? Obama Effigy on noose racist - Palin Effigy on not even sexist. - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 10-28-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

I don't think the comparison is valid. You're comparing two different crimes which laws without a "hate" clause distinguished between anyway. Do you think the punishment would be different if your example of a hate crime were instead two heterosexuals walking down the street and someone follows them home and bashes their head in with a hammer?

It shouldn't be. A hate crime is a hate crime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Not to mention that in my opinion if you have proven you have it in you to kill another human being in a given circumstance, you have it in you to do it again in another not necessarily identical circumstance, and no innocent person should be subject to that possibility ever again.

You may have that opinion, but I don't see any reason to think so. We all have the potential for murder. You, me, even Barack Obama. Whether or not you act on it, that potential is there.

As for innocent people being subject to the possibility of murder, we're all in that to one degree of another.

matthew330 · 10-28-2008, 07:11 PM

Will, I've probably wanted to kill 10 people a day for the last 20 years. Whether or not we act on it makes all the difference. You act on it once, you can act on it twice and once someone has crossed that very clear line, why are you willing to put other people at risk because "all of us have the potential". It makes no sense.

What do you mean by "it shouldn't be" with regard to hate crimes. You're the one supporting the hate crime which distinguishes between the two.

genuinegirly · 10-28-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Genuingirly, no way Palin is laughing about this.

Prove it.

matthew330 · 10-28-2008, 07:20 PM

You're the one that said it to make a point. You prove it.

Willravel · 10-28-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Will, I've probably wanted to kill 10 people a day for the last 20 years.

How does that make you feel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Whether or not we act on it makes all the difference. You act on it once, you can act on it twice and once someone has crossed that very clear line, why are you willing to put other people at risk because "all of us have the potential". It makes no sense.

If the intent is a one time thing, there's no way to determine if that person is more likely to kill again. A man kills his wife's lover in a fit of rage, he's not necessarily likely to kill again, and anyone that says otherwise is simply guessing. Guessing plays no part in our justice system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

What do you mean by "it shouldn't be" with regard to hate crimes. You're the one supporting the hate crime which distinguishes between the two.

I'm explaining the existence of hate crimes. If a gay man hates straight people because of their lifestyle choice and kills one of them for that reason, it's just as hateful as the opposite.

BTW, there's no burden of proof in the Palin laughing thing, so it's not on either of you to prove it. It's also incredibly moot.

Cynthetiq · 10-29-2008, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

If the intent is a one time thing, there's no way to determine if that person is more likely to kill again. A man kills his wife's lover in a fit of rage, he's not necessarily likely to kill again, and anyone that says otherwise is simply guessing. Guessing plays no part in our justice system.

really? then why is it that sex offenders have to continue to register and pay after serving their time? Because EVERY sex offender is a repeat offender? Or because they GUESS that some offenders are repeat offenders?

If EVERY offender is a repeat offender, then they shouldn't have been released in the first place.

Poppinjay · 10-29-2008, 06:47 AM

Do you think there should be specific charges for, say, putting a burning cross in a person's yard beyond trespassing and arson?

Glory's Sun · 10-29-2008, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

really? then why is it that sex offenders have to continue to register and pay after serving their time? Because EVERY sex offender is a repeat offender? Or because they GUESS that some offenders are repeat offenders?

If EVERY offender is a repeat offender, then they shouldn't have been released in the first place.

I'll agree with you completely on this one.

The reason people are going to say they aren't guessing is because of the stats of recidivism rates.. well.. it's kind of hard to have a recidivism rate for murder when the people are locked up for 25+ years.

people will guess at what a person's intent was, and whether or not he intends to do so. it's called psycho analysis.. but in the end it's still a guess.

Cynthetiq · 10-29-2008, 06:57 AM

I'm not aware of what crimes that are tried as.

But yes, the simplest answer is yes. that's it those crimes are sufficient. If the judge wishes to add penalty because he interprets it as requiring more punishment, I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with creating SPECIAL laws to protect certain classes.

If we're all equal, we're all equal.

roachboy · 10-29-2008, 07:25 AM

uh wait...just to go back to the op---with the palin effigy, it seems to me the worst fault here is stupidity. there's no crime.

how did we get around to the question of recidivism?
i am confused and i don't have time to go back through the thread at the moment---plus i think it'd be useful at this point to do a quick recap of the logic behind where this is presently. thanks.

Glory's Sun · 10-29-2008, 08:41 AM

recidivism came up from posts #45 and #46.

I threw it out there to bolster what I thought was a good argument as this thread is not just about Palin effigies, it's about classing crimes as hate or not.

Willravel · 10-29-2008, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

really? then why is it that sex offenders have to continue to register and pay after serving their time? Because EVERY sex offender is a repeat offender? Or because they GUESS that some offenders are repeat offenders?

Please read the whole conversation between Matt and I. It will give my statement the proper context.

Sex offenders are likely to repeat. Crimes of passion are not.

Cynthetiq · 10-29-2008, 09:17 AM

and you've stated it right there... LIKELY.

which is not guarnateed, but LIKELY, likely is equal to a guess.

You guess that they are going to commit the crime again.

and for the record, sex offenders are not all likely to commit the crime again, especially when sex offenders can be anything from exposing themselves to urinating in public.

roachboy · 10-29-2008, 09:21 AM

i was confused by the leap from making an effigy to a debate about hate crimes that actually take place.
this seems a screwy way to have the second debate, given that a stuffed dummy hangs over the whole thing.

this despite the fact that the question was implicit in cyn's op---it seems the base of it---why is x a hate crime-like action and y not one...but i thought this was already more or less settled. then context got stripped out and things went to this other place anyway. it's most strange. it seems like this conservative post-bakke inverto-discrimination logic only obtains in the abstract, and might as well have a stuffed dummy hanging over it.

Cynthetiq · 10-29-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it seems like this conservative post-bakke inverto-discrimination logic only obtains in the abstract, and might as well have a stuffed dummy hanging over it.

can you explain that in something very simple?

roachboy · 10-29-2008, 09:34 AM

this idea that there's something discrimitory in the application of the notion of hate crime is like blaming affirmative action for racism. same kind of logic.
that's all i meant.

Cynthetiq · 10-29-2008, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

this idea that there's something discrimitory in the application of the notion of hate crime is like blaming affirmative action for racism. same kind of logic.
that's all i meant.

I find affirmative action to be racist, in the very definition of the word since it's giving preference to those by race. Anytime you classify anything by race, it's racist. I don't blame it for it, but I see it as not solving the racism issue.

As someone who was assaulted in Iceland for being a different race, I was not aware of the fact that was the reason for my assault. I had many people telling me how much more horrible it was that there was a hate crime committed. As far as I was concerned, it was a drunk asshole that assaulted me, not a drunk bigoted asshole.

I was assaulted. Nothing else.

People prompting me to to feel differently was absurd. Assault. Not made worse because I'm a different ethnicity.

You know who was more horrified by the hate crime? The other people were who were embarrassed and who felt bad by the actions of the drunk bastard.

Poppinjay · 10-29-2008, 09:48 AM

Which is why it was a hate crime, it affected you - and others.

The drunk guy assaulted you because of your ethnicity. Like it or not, he is a bigoted asshole.

Cynthetiq · 10-29-2008, 10:06 AM

sorry I don't buy that.

I don't know that 100% and neither do the people who told me that it was such. They ASSUME it was that, but they weren't there to hear him say anythin OR know his intentions.

In fact, you don't know it either, and are equally guessing.

Any assault affects others. Any crime makes people pause and think that it could happen to them. Insert race/sex/creed, and suddenly you've sliced the demographic so that only those people will be more scared.

roachboy · 10-29-2008, 10:46 AM

i'm sorry that happened to you, cyn.

i don't buy in any way, at any level, the idea that affirmative action is racist. you cannot arbitrarily detach present from past--you cannot wish away history---and the only way your argument holds is if you wish away history. go for it if you like--to each his own fantasy---but i don't buy it. the argument from this point is not interesting to me, mostly because the gist of it already happened early in the thread and you agreed with the statement there. so i assume this is a separate matter, and one that runs across the experience you outline. so we just disagree about this.

also, the hate crime law in the united states would not have obtained in iceland in any event, so i'm not sure i see the connection between that unfortunate incident and the context that shaped such laws in the states.

and we're having this discussion underneath an image of a stuffed effigy hanging from ropes, so it's all a bit surreal.

Cynthetiq · 10-29-2008, 10:56 AM

rb, I'm not detaching from history but that's a different subject completely. I'm pendantic about language and it's definitions.

Iceland is/was considering forming laws based on hate/bias because of the influx of immigrants. From the articles I've read they are looking deeper than creation of laws, but more discussion as to where the bias originates from especially in their youth.

Maybe abaya can comment more about that since she's there and interfaces with ethnic groups directly.

I can only based on my experience, which was a belief that I was just assaulted by a drunk man. Other people, after contacting the police (no police report was filed even the police didn't label it as such) discussed it as a hate/bias crime.

roachboy · 10-29-2008, 11:02 AM

cyn---actually i am a bit pedantic about this kind of definitional thing as well, and the fact is that racism is an ambient condition, a lovely aspect of american history, and is in no way condensed onto either affirmative action or hate crime legislation. racism is what both were set up to address--it is out there in this glorious land, and it's still out there.

but again, we're talking about effigies, so i think we're in a bit of a hysterical context, particularly given the total desperation of the mc-cain campaign, and much of the conservative media apparatus, in the last 6 days before an election that could spell disaster for both. so anything goes, anything at all from the right, it seems. they're willing to generate such little theatrical pieces in the hope that something, anything will change what they think is coming on the 4th.

outside of that context, this is lint, the effigy matter. it's stupid, done by stupid thoughtless people.

Galileo · 10-29-2008, 11:35 AM

P.J.,

First, I don't know what the difference is between a "quick reply" and the standard "reply" options. Since I chose "quick reply" I am typing rapidly. I would click on the "go advanced" button but I have an old computer. Second, I don't know how anyone can determine whose reply is directed at whom.

Anyway, blacks have a history of being lynched. Thus the difference between a Palin effigy and an Obama effigy. We elect judges to determine if such differences are valid since it is a judgement call. But regardless of who is being effigized, to determine intent requires that one reads the mind of the accused. I remember back in my football playing days I was about to get clobbered when I threw a pass to where my receiver was suppose to be. But he had run the wrong pass route and was nowhere near where the pass landed. I was flagged for "intentional grounding". Like an elected judge in a courtroom, the referee had to guess my motive in order to throw the flag. He guessed incorrectly, but the team was still penalized.

abaya · 10-29-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I don't know that 100% and neither do the people who told me that it was such. They ASSUME it was that, but they weren't there to hear him say anythin OR know his intentions.

In fact, you don't know it either, and are equally guessing.

Well, if the attacker didn't say anything to you involving slurs or other discriminatory language (in Icelandic or English), then you're right. It was just a random crime, and it would be reading into the situation to assign any more meaning to it than that (especially in downtown Reykjavik on a Fri or Sat night, around 4am when EVERYONE goes insane)... though knowing the history of xenophobia towards foreign-looking people here in Iceland, I still would not be surprised if you were picked out precisely because of your different appearance, as an easy target. I don't know whether that makes it a hate crime, or an "easy target" crime, but we can't say much more without further info from the attacker.

However, let's say for the sake of argument that something was said about you being of Asian descent. That most certainly gets said to the Thai immigrants here all the time, when people are sober even... moreso in the old days than now, but accusations of "How much did your husband pay for you?" or "Are you working tonight?" (the stereotype of all Asian women being prostitutes, basically) were commonplace. So let's assume something was said to you, something racially derogatory, as you were assaulted. If so, then no, I disagree with this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Any assault affects others. Any crime makes people pause and think that it could happen to them. Insert race/sex/creed, and suddenly you've sliced the demographic so that only those people will be more scared.

Yes, any assault affects others and scares the community. But when it happens to a particular demographic, especially a vulnerable one (and especially repeatedly--say, lynching of black people in the South), those people most definitely have a right to be more scared. That's the whole point of hate crimes--not to hit random targets, but to hit specific groups and make those groups feel unwelcome and unsafe, which changes the context of reception for those people drastically. And that has even greater consequences on the social fabric of a diverse society, in the long run.

When there was news of a "foreigner-hating crime" (direct translation from the Icelandic term here--they're specific about who they hate, lol) last year--an Arab man getting stabbed in the back by an Icelander downtown, hateful phrases included--you'd better believe we paid attention to that and watched ourselves a little more carefully, for obvious reasons.

I don't know about the formation of anti-hate crime legislation, but the Intercultural Center and other immigrant resource centers are working very hard to get educators talking at the youngest levels about tolerance and openness towards foreigners. I think that in the next generation of Icelanders, this will have an effect. But for now, there is still a lot of ignorance out there.

Cynthetiq · 10-29-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

However, let's say for the sake of argument that something was said about you being of Asian descent. That most certainly gets said to the Thai immigrants here all the time, when people are sober even... moreso in the old days than now, but accusations of "How much did your husband pay for you?" or "Are you working tonight?" (the stereotype of all Asian women being prostitutes, basically) were commonplace. So let's assume something was said to you, something racially derogatory, as you were assaulted. If so, then no, I disagree with this:Yes, any assault affects others and scares the community. But when it happens to a particular demographic, especially a vulnerable one (and especially repeatedly--say, lynching of black people in the South), those people most definitely have a right to be more scared. That's the whole point of hate crimes--not to hit random targets, but to hit specific groups and make those groups feel unwelcome and unsafe, which changes the context of reception for those people drastically. And that has even greater consequences on the social fabric of a diverse society, in the long run.

I think you're positing this in a light which explains it better for me. I don't agree with it either...

But this is about acceptance to the group... via politics and policy. Set legislation to promote or force acceptance via legislation, as opposed to acceptance via assimilation.

I don't have more time to expound on it but will try to again later tonight.
-----Added 29/10/2008 at 05 : 47 : 27-----

Quote:

View: Palin Effigy Prompts Visit From Feds
Source: News
posted with the TFP thread generator

Palin Effigy Prompts Visit From Feds
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (Oct. 29) - Chad Morrisette never imagined his Halloween yard decorations would prompt interest from the Secret Service.

But apparently hanging a mannequin of GOP vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin from a noose isn't something to be ignored.

Agents recently visited Morrisette's home to see the display and have been trying to meet him to ensure no violent plots have been concocted, Deputy Special Agent in Charge Wayne Williams said Tuesday.

So far, he said, it seems to be a harmless — though unusual — display.

"We're not treating it as a threat," he told The Associated Press. "Halloween presents some interesting challenges for us with the masks and costumes."

Local officials aren't quite as accepting of the display, which also features Palin's running mate John McCain surrounded by fake flames coming out of the bungalow's chimney.

West Hollywood Mayor Jeffrey Prang has urged Morrisette to remove the mannequins, and Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich called for an investigation into whether the effigy constitutes a hate crime because it targeted the candidates based on their political affiliation.

"Had this stupid act been done to Senator (Barack) Obama, there would appropriately have been a national outcry," he said in a statement.

Frosstbyte · 10-29-2008, 01:53 PM

Quote:

West Hollywood Mayor Jeffrey Prang has urged Morrisette to remove the mannequins, and Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich called for an investigation into whether the effigy constitutes a hate crime because it targeted the candidates based on their political affiliation.

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.

abaya · 10-29-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Set legislation to promote or force acceptance via legislation, as opposed to acceptance via assimilation.

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.

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.

Jadast · 10-30-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galileo

P.J.,

Anyway, blacks have a history of being lynched.

Contrary to present-day popular conception, lynching was not a crime committed exclusively against Black people. During the nineteenth century a significant minority of the lynching victims were white. Between the 1830s and the 1850s the majority of those lynched in the United States were whites. Although a substantial number of white people were victims of this crime, the vast majority of those lynched, by the 1890s and after the turn of the century, were Black people. Actually, the pattern of almost exclusive lynching of Negroes was set during the Reconstruction period. According to the Tuskegee Institute statistics for the period covered in this study, the total number of Black lynching victims was more than two and one-half times as many as the number of whites put to death by lynching.

Lynchings occurred throughout the United States; it was not a sectional crime. However, the great majority of lynchings in the United States took place in the Southern and border states. According to social economist Gunnar Myrdal: “The Southern states account for nine-tenths of the lynchings. More than two-thirds of the remaining one-tenth occurred in the six states which immediately border the South: Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas.”4 Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama were the leading lynching states. These five states furnished nearly half the total victims. Mississippi had the highest incidence of lynchings in the South as well as the highest for the nation, with Georgia and Texas taking second and third places, respectively. However, there were lynchings in the North and West. In fact, every state in the continental United States with the exception of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Vermont has had lynching casualties.

I got this info from 79.02.04: The Negro Holocaust: Lynching and Race Riots in the United States,1880-1950. I find it humorous that people think only blacks were lynched and that it only happened in the south. Check the stats from 1830 - 1850 and check the history for Ohio and Illinois.

10-29-2008, 06:47 AM	#47 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Do you think there should be specific charges for, say, putting a burning cross in a person's yard beyond trespassing and arson? __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet Last edited by Poppinjay; 10-29-2008 at 06:50 AM..

10-29-2008, 06:57 AM	#49 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I'm not aware of what crimes that are tried as. But yes, the simplest answer is yes. that's it those crimes are sufficient. If the judge wishes to add penalty because he interprets it as requiring more punishment, I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with creating SPECIAL laws to protect certain classes. If we're all equal, we're all equal. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

10-29-2008, 07:25 AM	#50 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	uh wait...just to go back to the op---with the palin effigy, it seems to me the worst fault here is stupidity. there's no crime. how did we get around to the question of recidivism? i am confused and i don't have time to go back through the thread at the moment---plus i think it'd be useful at this point to do a quick recap of the logic behind where this is presently. thanks. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-29-2008, 09:17 AM	#53 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	and you've stated it right there... LIKELY. which is not guarnateed, but LIKELY, likely is equal to a guess. You guess that they are going to commit the crime again. and for the record, sex offenders are not all likely to commit the crime again, especially when sex offenders can be anything from exposing themselves to urinating in public. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

10-29-2008, 09:21 AM	#54 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i was confused by the leap from making an effigy to a debate about hate crimes that actually take place. this seems a screwy way to have the second debate, given that a stuffed dummy hangs over the whole thing. this despite the fact that the question was implicit in cyn's op---it seems the base of it---why is x a hate crime-like action and y not one...but i thought this was already more or less settled. then context got stripped out and things went to this other place anyway. it's most strange. it seems like this conservative post-bakke inverto-discrimination logic only obtains in the abstract, and might as well have a stuffed dummy hanging over it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-28-2008, 07:11 PM	#42 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Will, I've probably wanted to kill 10 people a day for the last 20 years. Whether or not we act on it makes all the difference. You act on it once, you can act on it twice and once someone has crossed that very clear line, why are you willing to put other people at risk because "all of us have the potential". It makes no sense. What do you mean by "it shouldn't be" with regard to hate crimes. You're the one supporting the hate crime which distinguishes between the two.

10-28-2008, 07:20 PM	#44 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	You're the one that said it to make a point. You prove it.

10-29-2008, 08:41 AM	#51 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	recidivism came up from posts #45 and #46. I threw it out there to bolster what I thought was a good argument as this thread is not just about Palin effigies, it's about classing crimes as hate or not.

10-29-2008, 09:34 AM	#56 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	this idea that there's something discrimitory in the application of the notion of hate crime is like blaming affirmative action for racism. same kind of logic. that's all i meant. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-29-2008, 09:48 AM	#58 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Which is why it was a hate crime, it affected you - and others. The drunk guy assaulted you because of your ethnicity. Like it or not, he is a bigoted asshole. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

10-29-2008, 10:06 AM	#59 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	sorry I don't buy that. I don't know that 100% and neither do the people who told me that it was such. They ASSUME it was that, but they weren't there to hear him say anythin OR know his intentions. In fact, you don't know it either, and are equally guessing. Any assault affects others. Any crime makes people pause and think that it could happen to them. Insert race/sex/creed, and suddenly you've sliced the demographic so that only those people will be more scared. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

10-29-2008, 10:46 AM	#60 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i'm sorry that happened to you, cyn. i don't buy in any way, at any level, the idea that affirmative action is racist. you cannot arbitrarily detach present from past--you cannot wish away history---and the only way your argument holds is if you wish away history. go for it if you like--to each his own fantasy---but i don't buy it. the argument from this point is not interesting to me, mostly because the gist of it already happened early in the thread and you agreed with the statement there. so i assume this is a separate matter, and one that runs across the experience you outline. so we just disagree about this. also, the hate crime law in the united states would not have obtained in iceland in any event, so i'm not sure i see the connection between that unfortunate incident and the context that shaped such laws in the states. and we're having this discussion underneath an image of a stuffed effigy hanging from ropes, so it's all a bit surreal. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-29-2008, 10:56 AM	#61 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	rb, I'm not detaching from history but that's a different subject completely. I'm pendantic about language and it's definitions. Iceland is/was considering forming laws based on hate/bias because of the influx of immigrants. From the articles I've read they are looking deeper than creation of laws, but more discussion as to where the bias originates from especially in their youth. Maybe abaya can comment more about that since she's there and interfaces with ethnic groups directly. I can only based on my experience, which was a belief that I was just assaulted by a drunk man. Other people, after contacting the police (no police report was filed even the police didn't label it as such) discussed it as a hate/bias crime. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

10-29-2008, 11:02 AM	#62 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	cyn---actually i am a bit pedantic about this kind of definitional thing as well, and the fact is that racism is an ambient condition, a lovely aspect of american history, and is in no way condensed onto either affirmative action or hate crime legislation. racism is what both were set up to address--it is out there in this glorious land, and it's still out there. but again, we're talking about effigies, so i think we're in a bit of a hysterical context, particularly given the total desperation of the mc-cain campaign, and much of the conservative media apparatus, in the last 6 days before an election that could spell disaster for both. so anything goes, anything at all from the right, it seems. they're willing to generate such little theatrical pieces in the hope that something, anything will change what they think is coming on the 4th. outside of that context, this is lint, the effigy matter. it's stupid, done by stupid thoughtless people. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-29-2008, 11:35 AM	#63 (permalink)
Galileo Upright Location: At my computer	P.J., First, I don't know what the difference is between a "quick reply" and the standard "reply" options. Since I chose "quick reply" I am typing rapidly. I would click on the "go advanced" button but I have an old computer. Second, I don't know how anyone can determine whose reply is directed at whom. Anyway, blacks have a history of being lynched. Thus the difference between a Palin effigy and an Obama effigy. We elect judges to determine if such differences are valid since it is a judgement call. But regardless of who is being effigized, to determine intent requires that one reads the mind of the accused. I remember back in my football playing days I was about to get clobbered when I threw a pass to where my receiver was suppose to be. But he had run the wrong pass route and was nowhere near where the pass landed. I was flagged for "intentional grounding". Like an elected judge in a courtroom, the referee had to guess my motive in order to throw the flag. He guessed incorrectly, but the team was still penalized.