Hate Crimes Legislation

zone · Feb 4, 2013

This thread is to discuss so-called Hate Crimes:
popular and legal definitions of; what a hate crime is and is not; what Legislation purports to do; implications for society and Christians particularly; historical precedents; etc.

[Red Tory can hopefully explain the irrationality of these special laws, if he finds them to be so]

this thread is open for all angles, and derailment is okay, since it's likely

post anything you think is relevant.

example:

....................

Hate Crimes Bill Sets Dangerous Precedent

Apr 29 2009

Washington, Apr 29 -

Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05) issued the following statement today regarding passage of H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. Lamborn voted ‘No’ on H.R. 1913.

“Our laws criminalize actions, not thoughts or beliefs. Criminalizing thoughts sets a dangerous precedent. It turns government into thought police.
“It could also restrict free speech and lead to criminal prosecution of religious leaders or anyone who expresses politically incorrect statements, including religious beliefs.”—Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
# # #

Congressman Doug Lamborn : 2009 Press Releases : Hate Crimes Bill Sets Dangerous Precedent < click

..........

will post on this later today:

H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

zone · Feb 4, 2013

Judiciary Issues: Hate Crimes

Hate crimes are a symbol of intolerance that plague our country.

Last Congress, I was an original co-sponsor and voted in favor of H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. By better equipping state and local law enforcement, we can help provide the resources needed to combat the spread of these inhumane crimes. The legislation provides important new civil rights protections while also providing an unprecedented level of statutory protection for free speech and association. Also known as The Matthew Shepard Act, this measure provides new federal authority for investigating and prosecuting criminal civil rights violations, while also including strong protection for speech and association. Specifically, the bill removes existing jurisdictional obstacles to the federal government prosecuting certain violent acts based on race, color, national origin, and religion, and also creates new authority for the federal government to prosecute certain violent acts based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.

I was proud to be a supporter of this legislation and I will continue in the 112th Cognress to support similar measures and do whatever I can to win the fight against violent acts of racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and all other types of hatred.

Judiciary Issues: Hate Crimes < click

Nautilus · Feb 4, 2013

Ok i see no problem with any of this so far.

Kefa52 · Feb 4, 2013

zone said:

This thread is to discuss so-called Hate Crimes:
popular and legal definitions of; what a hate crime is and is not; what Legislation purports to do; implications for society and Christians particularly; historical precedents; etc.

[Red Tory can hopefully explain the irrationality of these special laws, if he finds them to be so]

this thread is open for all angles, and derailment is okay, since it's likely

post anything you think is relevant.

example:

....................

Hate Crimes Bill Sets Dangerous Precedent

Apr 29 2009

Washington, Apr 29 -

Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05) issued the following statement today regarding passage of H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. Lamborn voted ‘No’ on H.R. 1913.

“Our laws criminalize actions, not thoughts or beliefs. Criminalizing thoughts sets a dangerous precedent. It turns government into thought police.
“It could also restrict free speech and lead to criminal prosecution of religious leaders or anyone who expresses politically incorrect statements, including religious beliefs.”—Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
# # #

Congressman Doug Lamborn : 2009 Press Releases : Hate Crimes Bill Sets Dangerous Precedent < click

..........

will post on this later today:

H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

I haven't been an end times person. For some reason this subject makes me wonder. ( Don't let me derail the subject here)

Ritter · Feb 4, 2013

Once again the government of this fine country shows that it cannot operate as governments should.

I have to get a few things done, so I'll keep this short and perhaps expand on it later.

The regulation of thought as it were is indeed important, but this has never been nor should it ever be the government's job. Regulation of thought is to be done by parents, prevailing culture (media, religion, etc). We are to teach children what to love and what not to love if society is to function.

When something like a mass murder occurs, it is important to know the motives behind it. That will inform society of what the problem is. After Columbine the parents I would classify as good kept an eye on their children's activities and media intake.

If the government takes over it grabs both the power of the Church and the power of the parents, one of the logical consequences could likely be an Orwellian sort of psychostate.

Ritter · Feb 4, 2013

Kefa52 said:

Neither have I. History proves you and I don't have to wonder. The Anti-Christ doesn't have to be behind something for it to be a catastrophes.

They have happened before. They will happen again.

So say we all!

Kefa52 · Feb 4, 2013

Nautilus said:

Forgive me while I loose it here.....

Are you so blind that you can't see that our government has no athority to make sin legal and then make laws to discriminate against our beliefs in Gods Law??????

Kefa52 · Feb 4, 2013

Ritter said:

No...There is something very different going on here.

zone · Feb 4, 2013

Kefa52 said:

wow.
well said.

zone · Feb 4, 2013

Nautilus said:

Hi Naut.

if a man in your town decides he finds your puppy attractive; and he has a powerful lobby, and knows there are others like him in positions to introduce legislation, and they have a long-term plan to make your puppy available....what will you do if there is law in place to jail you for speaking out against the possibility your puppy is in danger?

- will you speak out for your puppy?
- at what cost?
- will you go to prison to keep your neighbor's puppy from the bad man?

don't believe any of this is possible?

zone · Feb 4, 2013

REVEALING QUOTES ON THE GOALS OF PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHOLOGY

The actual aims and results of psychiatric and pharmaceutical-promoted forced "mental health" testing and the resulting "necessary treatments" may become more apparent when you examine the statements of the leaders, founders, and theorists of psychiatry and psychology.

REVEALING QUOTES ON THE GOALS OF PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHOLOGY < click

pay attention to the leaders, founders, and theorists .
remember their names.

Nautilus · Feb 4, 2013

zone said:

this is probably the worst example i have seen. Someone finds my puppy attractive and if i disagree im jailed...yeah that will happen. Moreso these laws you claim to be scared of are more along the lines of curbing actual hate groups lile Westboro Baptist and similar nut jobs from protests and whatever else they do. The average citizen will probably never be bothered. there is also the age old adage of If you dont have anything nice to say than dont say anything at all. Which I think a lot more christians could practice anyways.

zone · Feb 4, 2013

Nautilus said:

Nautilis...the puppy thing was to try to get through to you using something you CARE about.

i'll say it once more: i'm not "scared" of any of this. i'm trying to show those who keep rolling with the agenda that there are NO LIMITS...which i'll post on. this has already happened in the past, resulting in the persecution; jailing and murder of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people.....for DISSENTING, or for suspicion of dissension.

the westboro ppl can be charged and jailed if they've broken the law using existing laws on the books.

they're nutjobs. bricks short of a load.
offensive.

there are offensive groups everywhere - do we make laws which triple the punishment based on SOMEONE'S definition of HATE? who is deciding?

the westboro creeps are loud and actively yelling offensive things both about people, and to their horrible end, about GOD.
they do not provide the REMEDY for the thing they claim the right to protest...which makes them losers.

i want to ask you - is this kind of advocacy offensive to you?

do you know that abortion is the gruesome murder of an actual live baby human being?
what would you think if her T-shirt said "I dismembered Nautilus' puppy" as she smiles broadly about the achievement, recommending protection under the Law for everyone who wants to do the same?

do you care about anything?

do you not understand that, as Kefa said elsewhere....we are at once passing Laws decreeing what God has called sin is not sin, AND passing Laws to punish people for believing and saying they do not agree!

zone · Feb 4, 2013

MONDAY, MAR 22, 2010 03:23 PM PDT
The creepy tyranny of Canada’s hate speech laws
Ann Coulter is threatened with criminal prosecution in advance of a speech

The creepy tyranny of Canada’s hate speech laws - Salon.com < click

for the record, i can not stand ann coulter.
nevertheless...is she to be prosecuted for speech?
the punishments being TRIPLED...simple math:

if someone commits a crime (let's say they beat up a homeless man), we now have legislation which triples the punishment for the beating because of discrimination against the homeless....a special category of assault called HATE.

on the surface, this sounds reasonable, as the homeless are vulnerable.

but is the assault of someone who is NOT homeless any less a travesty?
three times LESS important?

is any assault not driven by reprehensible motives?

zone · Feb 4, 2013

Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)/FBI, as well as campus security authorities, are required to collect and publish hate crime statistics.

Hate crime laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

"crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class"?

who decides who is protected?
if "a class" is specially protected, by default, another "class" is NOT protected.

"The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)/FBI, as well as campus security authorities, are required to collect and publish hate crime statistics."

how do you determine what is a hate crime?
because an onlooker said they heard something?
the person said something on Facebook which suggested they were a hater?
how reliable will these "statistics" be?
will those 'protected classes" be more inclined to make complaints or press charges, say, if their feelings are hurt?

zone · Feb 4, 2013

look at the INSANE wordsmithing going on here:

"Hate crime statistics published in 2002, gathered by the FBI under the auspices of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, documented over 7,000 hate crime incidents, in roughly one-fifth of which the victims were white people.[17] However, these statistics have caused dispute. The FBI's hate crimes statistics for 1993, which similarly reported 20% of all hate crimes to be committed against white people, prompted Jill Tregor, executive director of Intergroup Clearinghouse, to decry it as "an abuse of what the hate crime laws were intended to cover", stating that the white victims of these crimes were employing hate crime laws as a means to further penalize minorities.[18]"

??????????????????????

"P. J. Henry and Felicia Pratto assert that while certain hate crimes (that they do not specify) against white people are a valid category, that one can "speak sensibly of", and that while such crimes may be the result of racial prejudice, (and therefore if that is the case, they are squarely covered by hate crime legislation intent for prosecution), in a limited definition of the word, they assert do not constitute actual racism per se, because a hate crime against a member of a group that is superior in the alleged and dated power hierarchy by a member of one that is inferior, they believe may not be racist"

???????????????????????

""Whites" are legally protected by hate crimes laws both within the laws themselves, and within the constitution's requirement they receive equal protection of the laws. Therefore, it's a moot point to determine if racism is a factor in the case of "black" on "white" crime for prosecution, since racism alone is not the only factor needed for prosecution. What is relevant to determine prosecution for a hate crime is whether any race or some other "protected characterstic" not "protected groups" was a factor in why a person targeted that/those individual/s to be their victim."

Hate crime laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

does any of this make any sense at all?
isn't assault assault?
isn't murder murder?

isn't SIN SIN?

zone · Feb 4, 2013

Outlawing 'gay hate' would create a thought crime

By Janet Daley Politics Last updated: November 12th, 2009

The government is trying to pass a law on "homophobic hatred" by the end of this parliamentary session which would make it a crime to criticise homosexual conduct or practice. They are determined to overturn repeated attempts by the House of Lords to insert a "free speech" clause into the Bill which would distinguish between acts of discrimination or victimisation, and the mere utterance of disapproval or condemnation.

Outlawing 'gay hate' would create a thought crime – Telegraph Blogs < click

- crime to criticise homosexual conduct or practice
- mere utterance of disapproval or condemnation

zone · Feb 4, 2013

Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of one or more characteristics such as color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, and sexual orientation.[1][2]

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, nationality, religion, race, sexual orientation,[3][4] or other characteristic.[5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet.

Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.[7][8][9]

Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

Kefa52 · Feb 4, 2013

zone said:

Working with addictions and recovery groups. I have found that there are so many shrinks that want to be something special in a field that didn't change much up until about the year 2000. They just wrote about the same theories from a different point of view. Around 2000 brain mapping got serious and now they are all floundering and writing that in as many different ways as they can. Albert Ellis and his REBT wasn't even original. They are harmless.

zone · Feb 4, 2013

Kefa52 said:

its not the people in the trenches i'm concerned with, though having been through that meat grinder i know they don't help much...at all.
you need Jesus as the source with addictions help.
i found myself at a Christian women's recovery center

after decades of the other stuff.

no Kefa....it's the ideologies (plan) behind the white jackets and "Hi, I'm an Expert" name tags.

"The ideological roots of the Scientific Dictatorship can be traced to the works of Plato some 2,000 years ago. In truth, humanity has been battling the formation of this tyranny for much of known history. The formation of the United States Constitution created a barrier that H. G. Wells wrote in 1901, had “…to be modified or shelved at some stage…” The focus here is on the modern forms of scientific power that began in the 20th Century and are blossoming in the 21st Century. The Scientific Dictatorship is composed of unelected individuals that have access to the reigns of power. These individuals have access to undisclosed future technology, classified intelligence, and the ability to steer scientific research that impacts our entire society.

The works of Bertrand Russel, Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, Charles Galton Darwin, H.G. Wells and many others provide the mental framework from which this modern tyranny is based upon. The following are several examples of men who helped form the Scientific Dictatorship of the 21st Century. For readers who are new to this information, what you see here is a small portion of the full kaleidoscope of information available. This will give you a start for any in-depth research that you should decide to do."

The Scientific Dictatorship Explained | Old-Thinker News < click

Hate Crimes Legislation

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Kefa52

Guest

Banned

Banned

Kefa52

Guest

Kefa52

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Kefa52

Guest

Senior Member