Hate crimes legislation :: radical social policy or justice at last?

Don't you love how for 40 years, they were protected, and not a peep. Now protect us and BAM!!!, out comes the criticism. Maybe we can just take them off the list if they think it is so unnecessary.

Gay Mom:

They are afraid they might lose their bigoted tempers and physically harm us because of our sexual orientation. Now they know they cannot do that now without severe repurcussions. It's no longer the "good old days" to them. I'm sure some of the same type of people were infuriated when they could no longer beat up on blacks just because they didn't like black people.

Gay Mom - you have a fan in Toronto!!(even though for some reason Topix has me hailing from Tottenham, which I'm not!! Topix does this to me quite a bit...)

1. There have been hate crime laws for 40 years.
2. They have nothing to do with freedom of expression.

This is a red herring. Thes could have been accomplished very quickly with a couple of court decisions. But No. They had to make a big deal out of passing a law. Why? In politics it's you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. There is always the "Now you owe us" factor.
Regards, Terry

I am an Anti-Racism Activist... and even I know Hate crime laws are ignorant.

There are enough laws in place... we don't need SPECIAL laws for certain people.

We are ALL equal under the law!

http://www.HeavyFed.com

Heavy Fed wrote:

I am an Anti-Racism Activist... and even I know Hate crime laws are ignorant.
There are enough laws in place... we don't need SPECIAL laws for certain people.
We are ALL equal under the law!
http://www.HeavyFed.com

Even if that does turn out to be the case they cannot just cover stuff like religion and race and NOT sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability otherwise it is discriminatory.

equalityboy81 wrote:

<quoted text>
Even if that does turn out to be the case they cannot just cover stuff like religion and race and NOT sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability otherwise it is discriminatory.

What about people with diabetes?

Should their be a hate crime law to protect them too?

How about fat people... plenty of fat people are abused and beat up because they are fat?

How about skinny people too?

How about white people with really good tans?

equalityboy81 wrote:

<quoted text>
Even if that does turn out to be the case they cannot just cover stuff like religion and race and NOT sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability otherwise it is discriminatory.

If you TRULY want to be equal... why do you think you need special laws to protect you?

Heavy Fed wrote:

<quoted text>
If you TRULY want to be equal... why do you think you need special laws to protect you?

Why does religion need to be protected under a special hate crime law? Gays are victims of hate crimes to answer your question. Sexual orientation doesn't just cover gay but straight and bisexual as well, so it is equal and not special.

Heavy Fed wrote:

<quoted text>
What about people with diabetes?
Should their be a hate crime law to protect them too?
How about fat people... plenty of fat people are abused and beat up because they are fat?
How about skinny people too?
How about white people with really good tans?

What about religious people and why?

equalityboy81 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why does religion need to be protected under a special hate crime law? Gays are victims of hate crimes to answer your question. Sexual orientation doesn't just cover gay but straight and bisexual as well, so it is equal and not special.

There are already laws to protect people... are YOU not a person?

Why do you think you need a SPECIAL law to protect you?

EQUAL RIGHTS are just that... EQUAL... not SPECIAL!

Why do you think you deserve special rights of protection under the law?

Heavy Fed wrote:

I am an Anti-Racism Activist... and even I know Hate crime laws are ignorant.
There are enough laws in place... we don't need SPECIAL laws for certain people.
We are ALL equal under the law!
http://www.HeavyFed.com

You don't know the definition of a hate crime.

Heavy Fed wrote:

<quoted text>
What about people with diabetes?
Should their be a hate crime law to protect them too?
How about fat people... plenty of fat people are abused and beat up because they are fat?
How about skinny people too?
How about white people with really good tans?

Calm down. Look up the definition of a hate crime.
"A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin." Now gender has been added.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_repor...

White people are protected. In fact, approx 1/4th of race based hate crimes are against white people.
There are even some against straight people.

Rose wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't know the definition of a hate crime.

No... you don't understand.

I know more about Hate than you ever will.

I used to infiltrate Hate groups for the FBI.

Why do you think certain groups... need special protection?

Are we all not equal?

You can't have it both ways... either we are equal... or we are not.

Rose wrote:

<quoted text>

White people are protected.

White people are protected by the same laws that protect everyone else... gay, black, red, green, religious, non-religious, Satan worshipers, cow pie eaters... everyone is protected by laws that currently exist.

Heavy Fed wrote:

Why do you think you deserve special rights of protection under the law?

Straights are protected under this new law too. That's equal! I don't think I'm any more special than anyone else.

Heavy Fed wrote:

<quoted text>
White people are protected by the same laws that protect everyone else... gay, black, red, green, religious, non-religious, Satan worshipers, cow pie eaters... everyone is protected by laws that currently exist.

Yes! But the white victims of black on white crimes are rarely successful in claiming "Hate Crime". The law always presumes that it was white on black victimisation or refuses to acknowledge that it might have been black on white victimisation.
Regards, Terry