Runoff: homophobia, hate crimes, and tyrany?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Samcol

Sorry Will, you are so far off imo. Don't stop the lynching because he's black. Stop it because they are KILLING A PERSON unjustly. God won't judge me if I kill a black man, or a white man, or a brown man, he will judge me for killing a man period.

I don't think this about God. It's probably more about deterrence. The idea would be to regulate societal development by making it clear that bigotry is looked down upon legally. I think that we can all agree that the followin examples of murder are different:
1) A man comes home to find his beloved wife of 12 years in bed with his best friend. He flies into a fit of rage and stabs his friend in the arm. He hits the corroded artery and the man bleeds to death.
2) A man sees a flamboyant (a nice way to say flaming) homosexual leave a bar and decides that, because the Bible says God hates queers, he's going to bash his head in with a baseball bad from the back of his Ford truck.
This isn't just about protecting a minority, which is important, but it's also about motive. In our criminal justice system, we take motive into account when deciding the severity of a crime. If a man steals because his family is starving, he's probably more likely to get a reduces sentence than a guy who stole despite having plenty of money (case in point: Wynonna).

Originally Posted by Samcol

I support candidates on the issue not on what party they voted for or why they voted against something. Government not recognizing 'gay' marriage is the 'freedom' choice ( or the 'not recognizing an establishment of religion choice'). Just like it would be if they didn't recognize heterosexual marriage. There job is to enforce contracts not recognize religious ceremonies.

Voting records don't lie. Candidates do. Remember when Bush said he'd never invade another country for their resources? Yeesh.

Originally Posted by Samcol

Government's job is not to protect the right of different classes, or races, or groups of people, it's job is to protect the right of every "INDIVIDUAL" EQUALLY.

I think a child rapist should get more time than an adult rapist.
_____________________________________________________________

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Objection, your Honor. Prosecution misses the point, assumes too much from facts in evidence.

If Thompson is against hate crime legislation in general, then those first two votes are not compelling evidence of homophobia.

I don't see any evidence that suggests he's against all hate crime legislation.

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

If Thompson is against regulating the hiring practices of private businesses in general, then that last vote is not compelling evidence of homophobia.

Again, I don't see any evidence of that. Not only that, but these two together are a mighty coincidence. Add on the same sex marriage thing and it's almost certain.

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

That third vote comes close. It's actually fairly compelling. But it's not an open and shut case, and you should have called more witnesses. There are reasons other than bigotry to welcome gay marriage bans - the belief that gay marriage will further destabilize the institution (as the Scandinavian study might superficially appear to demonstrate) or the dictionary argument ("It's just not marriage, it's something else"), coupled with some lack of serious thought on the matter. Put simply, laziness is an equally good explanation for some opposition. It's not a greatly important issue, after all, next to stuff like the war, fiscal policy, immigration... pretty much every other major issue.

It's often a major issue when you're a Republican. Again, we're talking about multiple votes creating a precedence. He clearly has a precedence for voting against homosexuals, and it would have to be for very coincidental and varying reasons for it not to be a bias.

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I've had friends who opposed gay marriage, yet never withheld the slightest bit of kindness or respect for their gay friends. Call them bigots, and the word 'bigot' loses all meaning. Or at least your usage does.

I would argue that being against gay marriage is a withholding of a right, not just kindness or respect...but I don't know your friends.
_________________________________________________________

Originally Posted by Samcol

Had Hitler slaughtered 6 million Asians, or Americans, or Africans, or South Americans, or Australians made any difference? Should his sentence of made him anymore hanged or shot to death? It is GENOCIDE. Just like murder is murder. Black or white, what's the difference we are all people right?

The definition of genocide is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group". That's killing out of bigotry, and is thus a hate crime.

Originally Posted by Samcol

What if the slave was from Asia, or the girl forced into prostitution was from Mexico? Do they deserve less justice?

Less justice? We're not talking about letting non-hate crime offenders walk. We're talking about the beefing up of the particularly bad crimes.

Originally Posted by Samcol

Why should a class get a preferential victim status? You still haven't really explained that.

It's not just a class. It's gender, race, age, creed, orientation, etc.

Originally Posted by Samcol

And why shouldn't individuals be equal under the law?

We're talking about the criminal's intent more than the victim.

[FoolThemAll]

Good move, will.

Originally Posted by willravel

I don't see any evidence that suggests he's against all hate crime legislation.

Again, I don't see any evidence of that. Not only that, but these two together are a mighty coincidence. Add on the same sex marriage thing and it's almost certain.

You're claiming that those votes are evidence of homophobia. They aren't. At least not alone. I'd vote the same way and I'm not homophobic. You need more evidence, the burden is on you.

It's often a major issue when you're a Republican. Again, we're talking about multiple votes creating a precedence. He clearly has a precedence for voting against homosexuals, and it would have to be for very coincidental and varying reasons for it not to be a bias.

It's a major wedge issue, but not necessarily a major issue in any personal sense. Which brings up a third motive: there's bigotry, there's laziness, and there's political posturing. He might vote that way for the primary/sole purpose of getting votes/funding. Certainly not admirable if true, but not bigotry either.

Not much coincidence or variance is needed here. Just a weakness in unthinkingly towing the party line, or an opposition to hate crime legislation and business regulation coupled with a cursory glance at Webster's and Scandinavia. It's really not that outlandish, and you really haven't made your case yet, unless you were shooting for nothing more than 'plausible'. I'd conceed the word 'plausible' to your assertions.

I would argue that being against gay marriage is a withholding of a right, not just kindness or respect...but I don't know your friends.

I wouldn't defend their position, I'd only argue that 'bigoted' isn't an accurate way to describe their position, even if the political outcome is the same as a bigoted position.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Good move, will.

TY. I felt like this conversation was important, but I didn't want to threadjack.

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

You're claiming that those votes are evidence of homophobia. They aren't. At least not alone. I'd vote the same way and I'm not homophobic. You need more evidence, the burden is on you.

And my evidence is circumstantial, but very, very, very coincidental if I'm wrong. Really, this is as much evidence as we'll get without actually speaking to the guy. It it had been just one of those votes, I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. This is 4 separate votes, with 3 separate meanings.

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

It's a major wedge issue, but not necessarily a major issue in any personal sense. Which brings up a third motive: there's bigotry, there's laziness, and there's political posturing. He might vote that way for the primary/sole purpose of getting votes/funding. Certainly not admirable if true, but not bigotry either.

That reminds me of the politician (the name is on the tip of my tongue) who is gay, but voted against gay interests. The thing is, he's not always a party line guy. The campaign finance reforms he's all about are very un-Republican. They're downright brave, frankly. I'm left wondering why someone who took over after Al Gore (LIBERAL) left would have the balls to fight campaign finance reform, but couldn't fight on gay rights.

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Not much coincidence or variance is needed here. Just a weakness in unthinkingly towing the party line, or an opposition to hate crime legislation and business regulation coupled with a cursory glance at Webster's and Scandinavia. It's really not that outlandish, and you really haven't made your case yet, unless you were shooting for nothing more than 'plausible'. I'd conceed the word 'plausible' to your assertions.

I'm not saying it's a certainty. I'm saying it's likely. I'll admit my language in my first post on the subject didn't make that clear, but I guess I figured people would pick up on the meaning.

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I wouldn't defend their position, I'd only argue that 'bigoted' isn't an accurate way to describe their position, even if the political outcome is the same as a bigoted position.

I'll agree there. Actually, this supports my other argument about hate crimes being about motive. We're arguing about the motives, while the voting record remains the same no matter what. That gives us a great deal of knowledge about the man. If he towes the party line, then he's likely to go hard line when in office. If he's a bigot, he may try to reverse some of the pro-homosexual legislation that's managed to squeak by.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

If a black guy killed you because you were white, you'd get the same protection.

BWAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Your naivete is cute.

Originally Posted by willravel

I know you believe that the road to tyrrany is gun control or gun bans, but you can't think that's the only way to get there. There's no way you're that pertinacious.

How do you think they attain that subjugation? read your post 13th Amendment history, jim crow laws, black codes, etc...

[host]

willravel, if you read my post #28 in the "Republican Fred Thompson officially Announces Candidacy for President. Good News, Or?" thread, you might agree that Thompson's anti gay stance may not be based on his personal homophobia.

It seems that all republican candidates for elected federal office, most especially candidates for president, must embrace the same extreme positions...rabidly partisan against Plame, Wilson, and Patrick Fitzgerald, and irrationally pro Libby, to the extreme of ignoring national security consequences of the Plame CIA leak, in a time of war. They all must privately address TPTB at CNP, and seek the endorsement from it's board of governors. They must be anti-gay, anti-abortion, skeptical of the theory of evolution, and pro intelligent design.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._53729225/pg_2

The closet on the Right - gay journalist David Brock writes about politician Michael Huffington - Interview
Advocate, The, Feb 2, 1999 by Chris Bull
<< Page 1 Continued from page 1. Previous | Next

As a conservative who had a public coming-out after years of rumors, did you relate to Huffington's story?

I might have been more sensitive to the issue than some journalist off the street, but my own coming-out process was different. I was happy to be gay going back to when I was 18 or 16. I was fortunate that I never had a problem accepting it. Before I made my announcement, it was known among my friends and family and about 200 conservatives I dealt with in Washington. When I came out I had a day or two of stress. After that, I felt fine. Having it become public was a good thing for me. I believe it was a good thing Huffington did for himself as well. It's a big step in his journey to accept himself.

Before you began to move away from the conservative, antigay movement, you had many gay critics. Many felt you were aiding and abetting the enemy.

People did recognize me sometimes when I was in public, but it was never spoken to me directly. My politics are in a state of flux at the moment, and I'm not really prepared to talk about them. I was knocked off my conservative foundation in a fundamental way, and I still don't know where I am exactly. As a journalist I'm skeptical about all ideologies.

<b>What do you think about the recent conservative Republican attacks on gay men and lesbians?
</b>
The tone of the Republican leadership in the last couple of years does make me wonder if there is any place for gay people in the Republican Party. It's something I've thought a lot about, and I'm not sure I have the answer yet. I'm not questioning the party's free-market philosophy, but its stance on social issues is wrong. I'm afraid to say the party might be a lost cause. The influence of the religious right has certainly increased over time. The pressure for a kind of culture war from neoconservatives like William Bennett is also increasing. <b>I think it indicates that conservatives lack issues that resonate with Americans now, so they try to inflame their base. That's destructive.</b>....

They all must remind us.... 5-1/2 years after 9/11 that an "enemy wants to attack us". They all want "victory" in Iraq. They are all "saved" christians. They are all politically and ideologically, "fringe" candidates...extremely partisan, extremely christian, committed to reviving "Reagan's" legacy.

It's not homophobia, that they personally embrace, it's a mixture of ultra conservative rabidly partisan bullshit, spiced with just the right amount of fear mongering and race/ sexual orientation baiting. Ugly, ignorant....and a proven recipe for moving election results to a close enough actual outcome, that a revamped and totally corrupted and partisanized DOJ can suppress enough opposition votes to clinch close races in their candidates' favor...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-center
Minnesota case fits pattern in U.S. attorneys flap
A prosecutor apparently targeted for firing had supported Native American voters' rights.
By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2007

.......At a time when GOP activists wanted U.S. attorneys to concentrate on pursuing voter fraud cases, Heffelfinger's office was expressing deep concern about the effect of a state directive that could have the effect of discouraging Indians in Minnesota from casting ballots.

Citing requirements in a new state election law, Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer directed that tribal ID cards could not be used for voter identification by Native Americans living off reservations. Heffelfinger and his staff feared that the ruling could result in discrimination against Indian voters. Many do not have driver's licenses or forms of identification other than the tribes' photo IDs.

Kiffmeyer said she was only following the law.

The issue was politically sensitive because the Indian vote can be pivotal in close elections in Minnesota. The Minneapolis-St. Paul area has one of the largest urban Native American populations in the United States. Its members turn out in relatively large numbers and are predominantly Democratic.

Heffelfinger resigned last year for personal reasons and says he had no idea he was being targeted for possible firing. But his stance fits a pattern that has emerged in the cases of several U.S. attorneys fired last year in states where Republicans wanted more vigorous efforts to legally challenge questionable voters.

Politics have always played a role at Justice and other Cabinet-level departments. But, critics say, Bush administration strategists went beyond most of their predecessors — Democratic or Republican — in seeking ways to convert control of the federal government into advantages on election day.

And the Heffelfinger episode has contributed to a backlash among some Minnesota Republicans. Sen. Norm Coleman, a Bush loyalist in the past who is facing reelection next year, has called on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales to resign — largely as a result of the U.S. attorney firings and the revelations about Heffelfinger.

A hint at why Heffelfinger's name was on termination lists that Justice Department officials and Bush political strategists put together emerged when Monica M. Goodling, the department's former White House liaison, testified last week before the House Judiciary Committee about the firings.

<b>Goodling said she had heard Heffelfinger criticized for "spending an excessive amount of time" on Native American issues.

Her comment caused bewilderment and anger among the former U.S. attorney's supporters in Minnesota.</b> And Heffelfinger said it was "shameful" if the time he spent on the problems of Native Americans had landed him in trouble with his superiors in Washington.

But newly obtained documents and interviews with government officials suggest that what displeased some of his superiors and GOP politicians was narrower and more politically charged — his actions on Indian voting.

About three months after Heffelfinger's office raised the issue of tribal ID cards and nonreservation Indians in an October 2004 memo, his name appeared on a list of U.S. attorneys singled out for possible firing.

"I have come to the conclusion that his expressed concern for Indian voting rights is at least part of the reason that Tom Heffelfinger was placed on the list to be fired," said Joseph D. Rich, former head of the voting section of the Justice Department's civil rights division. Rich, who retired in 2005 after 37 years as a career department lawyer — 24 of them in Republican administrations — was closely involved in the Minnesota ID issue. He played no role in drafting the termination lists, which were prepared by political appointees....

[seretogis]

"Hate crime" legislation is a ridiculous perversion of "doing the right thing." I certainly don't want myself classified as a type of person to whom a particular crime is "more wrong" than any other law-abiding citizen.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by willravel

Actually, this supports my other argument about hate crimes being about motive. We're arguing about the motives, while the voting record remains the same no matter what. That gives us a great deal of knowledge about the man. If he towes the party line, then he's likely to go hard line when in office. If he's a bigot, he may try to reverse some of the pro-homosexual legislation that's managed to squeak by.

But is bigoted hate more likely to produce repeat offenders than greed or lust or other forms of hate?

It's very possible for a given hate crime to expose the community to more harm and more justified fears than a given greed crime. But the reverse is also true. It depends on the case. And if there's solid indication that the defendant might commit his crime again, whether out of hate or greed, the judge already has the ability to give a sentence closer to the maximum allowed.

[dc_dux]

The fact that the FBI keeps separate statistics on "hate crimes" - crimes motivated by biases based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/ national origin, and disability - is a recognition of the distinction from other crimes of the same nature.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/index.html

I dont know that hate crime legislation is the answer, but it is important to recognize the fact such bigotry is still a serous social problem.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

BWAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Your naivete is cute.

And your condescension is ignored. The fact of the matter is that any crime out of bigotry is a hate crime, and if a crime by a black man were committed against a white man out of racial prejudice, a good lawyer could easily spin that into a hate crime and get the offender an extended sentence. Most crimes committed by black people against white people are theft, though.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

How do you think they attain that subjugation? read your post 13th Amendment history, jim crow laws, black codes, etc...

Jim Crow laws were about singling out one group to punish. Hate Crime laws are about punishing a bigoted motive. Those are two very separate things.

I'll have to respond to the rest later (work)

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

And your condescension is ignored.

I certainly hope you'll forgive any perceived condescension, but will, if you don't know that every single day there are white people killed by black or hispanic people and the media doesn't give a damn, nor do most in the justice system....but god help the white person who kills a black man because then we get to hear jesse jackson and al sharpton rail and rant about the blatant racism in (name your city) and that they expect the DA to charge a hate crime. Face reality my brother, you and I are the most discriminated against species on the planet at this time.

Originally Posted by willravel

The fact of the matter is that any crime out of bigotry is a hate crime, and if a crime by a black man were committed against a white man out of racial prejudice, a good lawyer could easily spin that into a hate crime and get the offender an extended sentence. Most crimes committed by black people against white people are theft, though.

If you were talking civil cases, maybe...but you're talking about a slow crawl justice system with DA's more interested in political careers than you are anything else and the reality of that is, your death or mine just doesn't frickin matter to them. I'm not very up to speed on san fran crime, but here in dallas/fort worth, it's just not the way you describe.

Originally Posted by willravel

Jim Crow laws were about singling out one group to punish. Hate Crime laws are about punishing a bigoted motive. Those are two very separate things.

and it's also sliding away from the topic of the OP so i'm not going to threadjack here.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Face reality my brother, you and I are the most discriminated against species on the planet at this time.

Humor: even more than the cockroach? There are people out there who hate whites more than they hate cockroaches? What about rats? Or fleas?

Not humor: referring to whites as a separate species smacks of deep racism and marginalizes anything associated with that kind of claim. If you're going to stand behind that kind of sentiment, dk, my estimation of you just took a big nosedive.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

If you were talking civil cases, maybe...but you're talking about a slow crawl justice system with DA's more interested in political careers than you are anything else and the reality of that is, your death or mine just doesn't frickin matter to them. I'm not very up to speed on san fran crime, but here in dallas/fort worth, it's just not the way you describe.

While I will agree with this up to a point, hate crime laws have been used in black-on-white crime but rarely. Typically those kinds of crime have another motivation along with the hate, typcially robbery or drugs. Blacks just don't go out looking for a random white person to kill as often as whites do.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I certainly hope you'll forgive any perceived condescension, but will, if you don't know that every single day there are white people killed by black or hispanic people and the media doesn't give a damn, nor do most in the justice system....but god help the white person who kills a black man because then we get to hear jesse jackson and al sharpton rail and rant about the blatant racism in (name your city) and that they expect the DA to charge a hate crime. Face reality my brother, you and I are the most discriminated against species on the planet at this time.

Wow, just, wow. I'm not saying that jackson and sharpton aren't necessarily full of shit, but this sounds like bullshit. I don't suppose you have any stats concerning interracial murder rates to back this up. If you don't, perhaps you should question the bases for your own beliefs before you call someone else naive.

As for whites being the most discriminated "species" in the world, well, i guess if that's true discrimination isn't so bad, since we (the poor oppressed white people) have managed to account for every president, the majority of congresspeople, and the majority of wealthy people in the united states. Kudos to us, i guess.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by filtherton

As for whites being the most discriminated "species" in the world, well, i guess if that's true discrimination isn't so bad, since we (the poor oppressed white people) have managed to account for every president, the majority of congresspeople, and the majority of wealthy people in the united states. Kudos to us, i guess.

Yeah, I'm waiting for dk's explanation of his reference to whites being a separate species, let alone most discriminated against. Traveled much?

[filtherton]

Yeah, i think he's probably confusing real oppression with having to deal with the aftereffects of being oppressive. Affirmative action = oppression of white men, immigration = oppression of white men, gun control = oppression of white men, Z.O.G. = oppression of white men, etc.

[Willravel]

So, Host, you're saying it's partisanship, not homophobia?

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I certainly hope you'll forgive any perceived condescension, but will, if you don't know that every single day there are white people killed by black or hispanic people and the media doesn't give a damn, nor do most in the justice system....but god help the white person who kills a black man because then we get to hear jesse jackson and al sharpton rail and rant about the blatant racism in (name your city) and that they expect the DA to charge a hate crime. Face reality my brother, you and I are the most discriminated against species on the planet at this time.

The only condescension perceived was the condescension communicated.

White people are killed every day by people who aren't white, but it has nothing to do with race. They aren't killing someone because they're white. Usually, they're doing it because of theft. Theft is different than a hate crime.

If by species you mean race, then I'm afraid I'll have to disagree by citing the fact that I make over 100k a year, went to great schools, and my daughter is about to go to a great school. I may have been treated like crap by my old manager at Sears, who was black, because he resented me, but I've not felt the sting of bigotry the same way as women, blacks, or homosexuals.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

If you were talking civil cases, maybe...but you're talking about a slow crawl justice system with DA's more interested in political careers than you are anything else and the reality of that is, your death or mine just doesn't frickin matter to them. I'm not very up to speed on san fran crime, but here in dallas/fort worth, it's just not the way you describe.

Dallas just had a black man killed by hate crime a few weeks ago. I read something about it (I'll look for an article). We have hate crimes here, too, despite the very liberal nature of the people in this area. It's a problem. The thing is, it's a different problem than non-hate crimes.

[archetypal fool]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I certainly hope you'll forgive any perceived condescension, but will, if you don't know that every single day there are white people killed by black or hispanic people and the media doesn't give a damn, nor do most in the justice system....but god help the white person who kills a black man because then we get to hear jesse jackson and al sharpton rail and rant about the blatant racism in (name your city) and that they expect the DA to charge a hate crime. Face reality my brother, you and I are the most discriminated against species on the planet at this time.

I have to ask, do you understand that this discussion's roots lie in the motives behind the crime? If a black person kills a white one for a theft, or for revenge, or for taking his wife, that's one motive; it's not a valid motive to kill a person, but none-the-less, there is a perceived "reason" for the murder, which has nothing to do with hate for who the person is, but hate for what the person has done. If a black man kills a white man for being white, that's a hate crime; the murder arose only because of hate for the race, and had nothing to do what whatever the deceased has done, or whether he was a good person or not.

What's worse? "I'm going to kill that guy for wrecking my car and not having insurance," or, "I'm going to kill that guy for being a cracker (or nigger, spick...whatever, you get the point).

I see a significant difference here, and I'm sure others do as well.

[seretogis]

This discussion all boils down to this simple question: Do you believe government should police the thoughts of others?

Thought-policing is what hate-crime legislation is. The crime itself is put aside and the focus is given to what nasty terrible thoughts they were thinking while they committed it. Now, I won't go so far as to whip out my annual income figure like will, but as a non-white non-heterosexual I will defend the right of the KKK to hate me purely for those reasons as much as I will defend the right of another to protest at KKK marches.

Thoughts are not crimes, even when they are ignorant and bigoted bullshit. I wish that people would realize the terrible implications of asking the government to intervene in this way. Ignorance and bigotry is a social issue, not a criminal one. It is something for society -- without government intervention -- to fix.

[Willravel]

Are you really going to tell me that the intent isn't important? You're going to tell me the ends of the crime are the only thing we should look at? If that's the case, then what you're proposing would suggest that involuntary manslaughter is the same as premeditated murder (a point I've already made, but something you didn't address). Do you think that involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder should be punished the same?

[archetypal fool]

Originally Posted by seregotis

This discussion all boils down to this simple question: Do you believe government should police the thoughts of others?

Thought-policing is what hate-crime legislation is. The crime itself is put aside and the focus is given to what nasty terrible thoughts they were thinking while they committed it. Now, I won't go so far as to whip out my annual income figure like will, but as a non-white non-heterosexual I will defend the right of the KKK to hate me purely for those reasons as much as I will defend the right of another to protest as KKK marches.

Thoughts are not crimes, even when they are ignorant and bigoted bullshit. I wish that people would realize the terrible implications of asking the government to intervene in this way. Ignorance and bigotry is a social issue, not a criminal one. It is something for society -- without government intervention -- to fix.

Right, right. I'm with you. But a "thought crime" is no longer a simple idea in the mind of the person committing it, when they are in the process of committing it. I agree, the government doesn't have the right to stop the KKK, or Fred Philps, Black Panthers, etc. from voicing their opinions, no matter how ugly and disgusting they are. But if a white kills a black merely because of race, it isn't "thought crime" anymore. It's something else entirely. Its a hate crime, done because of contempt for what the person is, not what the person has done.

If you had another non-heterosexual friend, and someone kills them simply because they were non-heterosexual, and the murderer had never met your friend before, would you be willing to simply categorize it as first or second degree murder? Even though this person was a saint in your eyes, the nicest person you'll ever meet, it wouldn't bother you that they were targeted just for being non-heterosexual?

It's a play on emotions, I know, but the point is still valid.

[ubertuber]

Will, hate crime legislation addresses neither ends nor means. It addresses intent.

Example:

Intent: to kill a homosexual
Means: baseball bat
End: he dies

It's the intent that would define this as a hate crime, not the end or the means.

[Willravel]

Jeez, that was a massive slip. I'll go back and edit.

[ubertuber]

A moment of devil's advocacy:

Will, would it be appropriate to introduce LEGISLATION to lessen sentences in crimes of passion?

[host]

Originally Posted by willravel

So, Host, you're saying it's partisanship, not homophobia?......

....no, I'm not saying that the target audience of Thompson's "queer baiting" are not homophobic, I'm saying that Thompson is not motivated by his own homophobia, anymore than Lee Atwater was by his own racism, when he said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Southern_strategy

...In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the focus of the Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states.

The phrase Southern strategy was coined by Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips.[1] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner <b>the Negrophobe</b> whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."[2]....

In this opinion piece:

Bob Herbert expounded on what was contained in this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=eqf...fFTWc#PPA61,M1 (lower page 61 to upper page 62:

&
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/1...king-the-code/


Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964 . . . and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster . . .

Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps . . . ?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'....

....and more from the same link:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/1...king-the-code/

....This convenient conflation of "traditional" southern culture and family, of course, ignores the fact that slave families were ruthlessly broken up. And anyway the slaves had a mental defect that made them want to run away. But, no matter. You can see how easily the neoconfederates have incorporated this "family values" rhetoric and substituted their overt racism with overt homophobia.

The neoconfederates are a marginal group. Even most conservative southerners aren’t members of such organizations as League of the South. But, as David Niewert explained last week, this language makes its way into the mainstream through the right wing noise machine until it becomes mainstream. The codes are still understood by those at whom they are aimed and the rhetoric itself becomes a normal part of the discourse. While not everyone who hates gays is also racist, you can probably feel fairly comfortable in assuming that if somebody is talking about their Christian, southern antebellum heritage and they hate gays — it’s code. For gays, sure. But also for blacks, for Mexicans, the whole kaleidoscope of colors and cultures they hate.

It is no surprise then that loaded terms such as "the homosexual agenda" have emanated from the usual racist rightwing suspects. As Jack Balkin explained:

<i>There has been considerable discussion about Justice Scalia’s accusation that the Lawrence majority had signed on to "the so-called homosexual agenda." I believe what has irked some people is that the expression "the homosexual agenda" has a history. It is a form of code often used by Jesse Helms and other social conservative politicians to whip up resentment against moderates and liberals who support gay rights. The use of the term "homosexual agenda" has been a shrewd way of intimating without overtly stating that people who supported gay rights were somehow disloyal to the country (like the hidden communist agenda) because they were assisting in the destruction of America by destroying its moral fibre, or extremist, because they supported a deeper, hidden agenda whose real goals cannot be openly announced and are instead disguised in the plausible sounding garb of equal rights.

Here’s a representative quote from Sen. Helms in support of a bill he introduced to roll back President Clinton’s executive order prohibiting discrimination against gays in federal employment:

" Mr. President, for many years the homosexual community has engaged in a well-organized, concerted campaign to force Americans to accept, and even legitimize, an immoral lifestyle. This bill is designed to prevent President Clinton from advancing the homosexual agenda at the expense of both the proper legislative role and the free speech rights of Federal workers."
</i>
And, of course, it’s a matter of states’ rights, don’t you know.

<b>The Mighty Rightwing Wurlitzer and its little volume pedal, the bigotsphere, are continuing the long tradition of American intolerance. The good news is that they are largely forced to find ways other than overt racist language to convey their hatred and intolerance. The bad news is that they manage to do it so very well.</b> In case anyone has missed their latest brilliant rhetorical twist, here it is: if you call them on their racism, you are a racist. It’s one of the more successful applications of the GOP epistemic relativism of the "I know you are but what am I" variety. It’s quite frustrating, just as the Orwellian "losing means winning" rhetoric is. But don’t mistake it for anything but what it is. It’s not just a lame riposte. It’s not a defense. It’s code to others who think as they do. Racists.

[Jinn]

While I AM upset intellectually by the idea that if someone kills me (as a white man) out of hate for my race that it is a less serious crime than if a white man kills a black man (or woman) out of hate for their race or sex, I recognize the necessity.

I hate to think that my life is less valuable than another's simply because of my skin color, as it does smack of reverse-racism. And yet I also see a demonstrable public need to stamp out as much racism as humanly possible.

Furthermore, I look at "hate crime" legislation with the same credibility as "premeditated murder" legislation. Certainly a murder still occurred, and the victim suffered pain and death, but I still feel differently about it. If someone accidentally murders someone through their reckless behavior, it is less severe than someone who makes the choice to kill someone out of anger. Worse still is someone who PLANS their attack; they had time to consider their actions, and didn't act out of anger or recklessness. If "premeditation" can be demonstrated and defended, certainly "hate" can be too.

If a person is killed by someone of the opposite race or sex, it should NOT be immediately considered a hate crime. Only when proof exists that the person acted directly out of hate for the other individual should it be acted on. And it should be acted on in exactly the same way that someone convicted of premeditated murder should be acted on.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by host

....no, I'm not saying that the target audience of Thompson's "queer baiting" are not homophobic, I'm saying that Thompson is not motivated by his own homophobia, anymore than Lee Atwater was by his own racism, when he said:


....and more from the same link:

...so it's the homophobia of his constituents.

[seretogis]

Originally Posted by willravel

Are you really going to tell me that the intent isn't important? You're going to tell me the ends of the crime are the only thing we should look at? If that's the case, then what you're proposing would suggest that involuntary manslaughter is the same as premeditated murder (a point I've already made, but something you didn't address). Do you think that involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder should be punished the same?

You picked a bad example, since involuntary manslaughter is just that -- involuntary. First degree murder and first degree murder committed due to the criminal's hatred of homosexuals is still first degree murder and should be punished equally and harshly.

I do not want to criminalize bigotry or ignorance.

In matters of self-defense (since I am also a gun-owner as well as a conceal-carry licensee) the issue is still relatively simple if you take into consideration the FACTS surrounding a self-defense slaying. Often those who kill in self-defense are not even charged / taken in for questioning because it is so clearly not murder.

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

Right, right. I'm with you. But a "thought crime" is no longer a simple idea in the mind of the person committing it, when they are in the process of committing it. I agree, the government doesn't have the right to stop the KKK, or Fred Philps, Black Panthers, etc. from voicing their opinions, no matter how ugly and disgusting they are. But if a white kills a black merely because of race, it isn't "thought crime" anymore. It's something else entirely. Its a hate crime, done because of contempt for what the person is, not what the person has done.

"Hate crime" is relatively new terminology. It has not existed forever and is not an absolute. What it is, is a perversion of the examination of intent when it comes to crimes, and even prosecution. It is shamelessly "playing the race card" when it should not even be in consideration. If I were an omnipotent embodiment of "The Law" the intent of someone would matter little to me in the face of the law-breaking. If someone stole bread from a bakery to feed his starving children, he is still a thief. If someone kills a mexican homosexual because he is a bigoted ass, he is still a murderer. Punish for the crime, not the "thought" which he may have used to justify it.

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

If you had another non-heterosexual friend, and someone kills them simply because they were non-heterosexual, and the murderer had never met your friend before, would you be willing to simply categorize it as first or second degree murder? Even though this person was a saint in your eyes, the nicest person you'll ever meet, it wouldn't bother you that they were targeted just for being non-heterosexual?

I fail to see the importance of making a distinction in law between someone who kills a) for money to support their drug habit, or b) "cuz dem faggots was askin' fer it." They both are murder and both should carry a heavy sentence.

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

It's a play on emotions, I know, but the point is still valid.

"Hate crime" distinctions themselves are a play on emotions. They're not logical and reasonable things to consider when trying to judge innocence or guilt of the commission of a crime. So, I don't really see the "point as valid" but instead as proof of how far separated "hate crime" legislation is from a reasonable and objective system of law.

[host]

Originally Posted by willravel

...so it's the homophobia of his constituents.

yup....Thompson panders to the racism and homophobia of his constituents...they all do, because their party has to convince folks to vote against their own REAL interests. While the southern white vote streams in and elects corporatist republican candidates because of their "guns, God, n' gays" platform, Thompson and the former republican congressional majority were easily able to pass "bankruptcy reform", against the interests of Tennesseans who experienced the highest rates of home foreclosures, in the US. it works great in Utah, too....another heavily republican state with high foreclosure rates.

It's win win for big corporations and for ignorant fundy christian racist gay bashing idiots lulled into believing that a corporatist shill like Thompson or Bush....are "on their side"....

[seretogis]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

While I AM upset intellectually by the idea that if someone kills me (as a white man) out of hate for my race that it is a less serious crime than if a white man kills a black man (or woman) out of hate for their race or sex, I recognize the necessity.

The necessity being..?

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I hate to think that my life is less valuable than another's simply because of my skin color, as it does smack of reverse-racism. And yet I also see a demonstrable public need to stamp out as much racism as humanly possible.

Racism is race-motivated hatred, whether the target it white or black. Labeling hatred of whites as REVERSE racism is inaccurate, and something that really shows the thoughtless emotionalism of the entire debate.

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Furthermore, I look at "hate crime" legislation with the same credibility as "premeditated murder" legislation. Certainly a murder still occurred, and the victim suffered pain and death, but I still feel differently about it. If someone accidentally murders someone through their reckless behavior, it is less severe than someone who makes the choice to kill someone out of anger. Worse still is someone who PLANS their attack; they had time to consider their actions, and didn't act out of anger or recklessness. If "premeditation" can be demonstrated and defended, certainly "hate" can be too.

Can, but why should it? Why not just criminalize "hate" entirely and throw people in jail for being bigots? Why wait until another criminal act is committed?

[Jinn]

Why not just criminalize "hate" entirely and throw people in jail for being bigots? Why wait until another criminal act is committed?

Becuase "hate" is not a crime, just like "premeditation" isn't a crime.

But it does dramatically effect my feeling of the situation if someone is killed accidently by a person hitting them with a car than if they spent three weeks plotting the murder of the person.

You can't reasonably say that the laws now would treat these two murders the same, and I don't think they should be. It's legal precedent at the least, but "moral imperative" at best. In an idealistic sense, laws are based on how we as a society feel about the crimes and how they should be punished. So feeling does have a place in the FORMATION of the laws, but not the enforcement.

We (as a society) feel that premeditation makes a murder worse, so I don't see how it's a logical leap to say that seething hatred for someone doesn't make it worse. It should require demonstration beyond a reasonable doubt, just like the addition of pre-meditation does. Hateful speech, writing, dismemberment or manipulation of the corpses, etc. It should be hard to prove, just like proving intent is in the case of premeditation.

[seretogis]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Becuase "hate" is not a crime, just like "premeditation" isn't a crime.

Plotting to kill someone is indeed a crime. In some cases it is called "conspiracy to commit murder."

So: Why not just criminalize "hate" entirely and throw people in jail for being bigots? Why wait until another criminal act is committed?

[Jinn]

Plotting to kill someone is indeed a crime. In some cases it is called "conspiracy to commit murder."

Having been arrested for Conspiracy to Commit, I can tell you that while conspiracy (with other individuals) is a crime, premeditation is not. This is simple, becuase conspiracy requires you speaking your intent to another individual, making it no longer a thought. I can think about murdering someone all I want (premeditation) but it does not become a crime until I commit it. However, if I conspire (speak the intent to another) then I am no longer just thinking it and it is now criminal.

This makes sense from an enforcement standpoint, as you cannot prove what an individual was actually thinking, but you can prove what they said and what they wrote.

I can think hatred all I want, but if I make it clear through my actions or words spoken to others that I am acting out of hatred towards their class, race, gender, orientation, etc, then I am just as culpable who speaks intent to murder (conspiracy).

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Host

yup....Thompson panders to the racism and homophobia of his constituents...they all do, because their party has to convince folks to vote against their own REAL interests. While the southern white vote streams in and elects corporatist republican candidates because of their "guns, God, n' gays" platform, Thompson and the former republican congressional majority were easily able to pass "bankruptcy reform", against the interests of Tennesseans who experienced the highest rates of home foreclosures, in the US. it works great in Utah, too....another heavily republican state with high foreclosure rates.

It's win win for big corporations and for ignorant fundy christian racist gay bashing idiots lulled into believing that a corporatist shill like Thompson or Bush....are "on their side"....

That's what I figured. I wonder what's worse: being a massive bigot yourself or being a hypocritical tool of bigots....I'd say the latter. At least with the former, one can simply blame ignorance. The latter is knowing bigotry.

Originally Posted by seretogis

You picked a bad example, since involuntary manslaughter is just that -- involuntary. First degree murder and first degree murder committed due to the criminal's hatred of homosexuals is still first degree murder and should be punished equally and harshly.

I'm sure you know what the word motive means. We punish differently for different motives, as I made clear in comparing manslaughter to first degree murder.

Originally Posted by seretogis

I do not want to criminalize bigotry or ignorance.

It's a compound problem. We're not punishing bigotry alone (though there are laws against hiring practices that are bigoted, which I'm sure you agree with), we are punishing bigotry that leads to crime. There is a huge difference between the two concepts.

I like Jinnkai's take on this comparing a hate crime to premeditation.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm sure you know what the word motive means. We punish differently for different motives, as I made clear in comparing manslaughter to first degree murder.

Will, you keep using this example. I feel that you may be failing to distinguish between the presence of a motive and what the motive is.

[Willravel]

To make it more clear, I'll move over to what Jinnkai is saying: hate crimes are to regular crimes as premeditated murder is to murder.

[seretogis]

Premeditation is not just "thought" -- it involves planning a crime. E.g. making scheduling arrangements, researching, and otherwise taking action to ensure the crime is committed. Premeditation involves evidence of forethought, whereas labeling something as a "hate crime" plays merely on emotions.

Originally Posted by willravel

It's a compound problem. We're not punishing bigotry alone (though there are laws against hiring practices that are bigoted, which I'm sure you agree with), we are punishing bigotry that leads to crime.

Don't be so sure about what I agree with. :P

[Willravel]

So you really wouldn't want to punish someone more for killing someone because of their skin color than someone who killed because he came home to find his wife in bed with another man? They're both, be definition, second degree murder.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by willravel

So you really wouldn't want to punish someone more for killing someone because of their skin color than someone who killed because he came home to find his wife in bed with another man? They're both, be definition, second degree murder.

In a word, no.

[seretogis]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

In a word, no.

Agreed.

[Willravel]

I guess it boils down to a philosophical difference.

[pig]

why punish the guy who found someone else fucking his wife? could have been rape, you know?

funny, i don't mind the concept behind affirmative action so much, but i think hate crimes are bullshit. you don't kill someone you like.

you hug it out.