4th December 2012

“Under the guise of 'hate crime' laws the scourge of Blasphemy is returning and freedom of speech is literally dying. Since when does "tolerance" mean loss of free speech, instead of its embrace?”

Kent Welton

9 Responses to “4th December 2012”

  1. The Heretic Says:

    The concept of a HATE CRIME is idiotic. You committed a crime. Which is worse? You did it indifferently – or you did it with malice? Who cares? You did it. It was a crime.

    To try to make blasphemy a crime? That is a trip back to the Dark Ages. And…really stupid. But, be watchful – Muslims are out to make sure that you cannot blaspheme their tolerant, loving religion. Which is, of course, where they live (The Dark Ages), and want the rest of us to as well. They need to be eradicated.

  2. Dan Says:

    While I empathize with you here, it is true that going extra tough on a violent offender over a “hate crime” has a higher likelihood of deterring other would-be thugs. That doesn’t make it right to emphasize “hate crimes,” it just makes it more effective.

    In contrast, other categories of violent crime tend to be immune to police crackdowns and the like, with some exceptions. Dealing with those types of crime seems to require more ingenious strategies, I’ve heard. For instance:

  3. Bruce Williams Says:

    Heretic, I have to disagree with you here. Hate crimes are crimes against a stereotype, motivated by baser emotions. They ARE more serious than other crimes. Hate preys upon innocent people whose only offence is that they fit a profile. If we tolerate it, what makes us different from Nazi Germany? Read Ken Follett’s new book Winter of the World for an example of how bad it can get. Granted, it is fiction, but it is based on history and puts the reader IN it with all the fear and sympathy only fiction can evoke.

    Friends of mine consider Islam the enemy. It isn’t. The Taliban is the enemy. Theocratic governments are the enemy. The KKK is the enemy. Groups that attempt to impose their will on the rest of us are the enemy. It is important to keep things in perspective.

  4. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    I’m OK with The Heretic’s perspective on this: Crime is crime. I don’t agree that your emotional status makes it better or worse.

    It is like the Senator who specified “Illegitimate rape” thinking he had a point to make by categorizing degrees of rape.

    Tolerating any kind of rape, of crime, or any blatant stupidity/religion does little to advance the state of humanity.

    Crimes against a stereotype aren’t any worse than random criminal behavior. If the Nazis just randomly burned six million people of a whole vareity it is still just as heinous a crime.

    If the KKK just randomly snatched people from the Wal-Mart and burned or hung them it would not be any less severe than targeting people of African ancestry.

    I’m also not convinced that the random criminal attack derives from anything other than baser emotions.

    And are we really talking about certain crimes separated by the innocence of the victim? I mean what victim of a crime is guilty? I can’t believe you suppose a woman was wearing skimpy clothes and deserved her raping?

    As far as deterrence Dan seems like what you are talking about is sane people versus insane people. Like sane people can be expected to respond to public opinion, or deterance effort of law enforcement where the crazies simply don’t respond to such stimulus?

    I don’t advocate violence to rid the world of crime, religion, bigotry. I advocate education.

  5. The Heretic Says:

    Does the crime hurt any less depending on motive? Is the victim any less maimed or dead? The why of the crime only becomes important if the crime was unintended. But to place a degree of punishment based on the why (or motive)? Are we thought police now? How Orwellian.

  6. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    “The difference between Socrates and Jesus is that no one had ever been put to death in Socrates’ name. And that is because Socrates’ ideas were never made law. Law, in whatever name, protects privilege.”
    ? E.L. Doctorow

  7. Dan Says:

    I’m just saying that, intuitively, it seems to me that Hate Crime offenders would be intimidated seeing the laws enforced stringently. And while I don’t have a thorough analysis available to back me up, it seems to me that racially-motivated crimes for instance have gone down quite a bit since the 1960s.

    But I’ll readily admit that that is anecdotal. I briefly tried searching for data on this, but it seems that it’s difficult to find an article that’s more than a subjective opinion piece on the topic.

    So I don’t know. But it is an interesting question…

  8. Kittie Says:

    Here is a set of stats I got off of the FBI site (I think)

    Of all religious motivated “hate” crimes
    There were two categories under each, one being incidents the other being offenses. An incident many times was classified as “intimidation”… and probably very subjective – reportable but no crime committed. An offense was were property damage or injury occurred. It was interesting.

    65% were anti Jew
    13 anti Islamic
    11% anti christian
    9% not specified…

    I am with Heretic on this all the way. I think it amounts to thought police and it elevates victim status. Many times in reading the reporting on crime, the media is looking for that “hate” element and creates it where none was actually intended. I remember one article that discussed how baggage handlers had found a sex toy in some luggage and had a little fun with it – maybe embarassing the owner when it came around on the carousel. Turns out the owners were a gay couple and the media had a field day discussing it as a hate crime when the baggage guys had no idea who owned the luggage they were going through. If it had been a hetero couple it wouldn’t even be a story… Another was the guy firebombing a mosque – turns out he was pissed off about the parking situation – not the muslim end of it.. but it got that label too… if they had been Baptists parking in his way he would have been just as angry. We are entitled to equal protection under the law – and hate crimes remove the “equal” part of that in my opinion.

  9. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Kittie your “media is looking for that “hate” element” speaks volumes.

    Selling the news distorts the news and in an age where competition for your news attention is at a premium there has to be a lot of selling.

    That selling plays to prejudices and stereotypes.

    Ever notice the local news in every city always leads with the nearest murder? 50,000 people might die from cancer but just one murder is the lead story.