'Hate Crime' Laws: An Assault on Freedom

[DeadCanDance]

Seriously, do y'all ever check the facts? Or do you just believe what Rush Limbaugh tells you: that hate crimes are not prosecuted for anti-white, or anti-christian bias.

In the last two days, I just posted the FBI statistics, showing that there are many arrests for hate crimes of an anti-christian or anti-white basis.

Just because Sean Hannity or Drudge doesn't report these, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

[Annie]

As I intimated, but you seem to choose to ignore, the extra penalties are only being administered on crimes against minorities, whether or not 'hate' figured into crimes against majority groups. If you have some specifics where I'm wrong and the laws were applied, I'd certainly be interested.

Bottom line, as I stated prior, this is about as 'righteous' as affirmative action or how 'equal representation' is administered.

This was a better post, where I asked...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Seriously, do y'all ever check the facts? Or do you just believe what Rush Limbaugh tells you: that hate crimes are not prosecuted for anti-white, or anti-christian bias.

In the last two days, I just posted the FBI statistics, showing that there are many arrests for hate crimes of an anti-christian or anti-white basis.

Just because Sean Hannity or Drudge doesn't report these, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

SO WHAT? What do your friggin stats really prove? That the FBI is out there logging up statistics of who is hateful or who is not hateful? Do you really think some rapes and murders are not hateful? Your crime statistics do not address what is really at the heart of this issue.

Let's say if I go out and beat up a white, a black, and a homosexual all at the same time and use nasty epithets on each while beating them up. I call them white trash, black trash, and queer trash. Does that mean I have committed three hate crimes because my thoughts (indicated by my verbal abuse) add that extra amount of pain and suffering?

Now what if I didn't call any of them nasty names, but just beat each of them up silently? They all still wind up beaten to a pulp but just don't have that verbal abuse ringing in their ears. Does that mean I am NOT to be charged with hate crimes?

Or, if I'm white and straight, and beat up all three silently, will I be charged with hate crimes against the black and homosexual but not the white? Wouldn't that be tantamount to special treatment according to which group you are in or not in?

What is the real definition of a hate crime? Aside from designating favored groups, it boils down to how a person THINKS. Do you really want the government deciding what you can or cannot THINK during the course of a crime? If the THINKING is considered an ADDED crime on top of the physical violence, then the next logical step is for the government to arrest you for your BAD THOUGHTS because those thoughts are considered to be crimes. If this current legislation passes do not be surprised if in the future special interest groups do just that. It is already taking shape in the form of arrests for voicing what certain groups consider "hate speech".

 

[Annie]

Seriously, do y'all ever check the facts? Or do you just believe what Rush Limbaugh tells you: that hate crimes are not prosecuted for anti-white, or anti-christian bias.

In the last two days, I just posted the FBI statistics, showing that there are many arrests for hate crimes of an anti-christian or anti-white basis.

Just because Sean Hannity or Drudge doesn't report these, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I did look at your site and asked you for clarification. F off.

 

[DeadCanDance]

What I'm failing to see here, from the charts are not arrests, but convictions. Where no 'deals' led to the hate crime punishments being dropped.

BTW, I should not have used 'never', didn't mean to.

good question.

We saw from the FBI statistics, that there are many anti-white hate crime arrests.

In california alone, about 88% of the arrests for hate crimes go onto to become a criminal prosecution, and about 50% end up in a conviction for a hate crime. That's a pretty high number of prosecuted and convicted hate crimes.

California Crime Data - page 7
http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/hc05/preface05.pdf

So, its pretty safe to say that not only are there many arrests of anti-white hate crime, but a good number of those end up with a hate crime criminal prosections and/or convictions.


So, all your assertions about how hate crime laws are not applied to anti-white acts, were wrong. Correct?

 

[Annie]

good question.

We saw from the FBI statistics, that there are many anti-white hate crime arrests.

In california alone, about 88% of the arrests for hate crimes go onto to become a criminal prosecution, and about 50% end up in a conviction for a hate crime. That's a pretty high number of prosecuted and convicted hate crimes.

California Crime Data - page 7
http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/hc05/preface05.pdf

So, its pretty safe to say that not only are there many arrests of anti-white hate crime, but a good number of those end up with a hate crime criminal prosections and/or convictions.


So, all your assertions about how hate crime laws are not applied to anti-white acts, were wrong. Correct?

Again, not necessarily. BTW, sorry I didn't give you enough time to catch my earlier post before becoming grumpy.

Not necessarily because 'convictions' can be plea bargains, where the hate crime statute wouldn't apply. Now it may be a case of MSM not covering hate crimes against Whites, Christians, etc., but I've not been reading of such and I read alot.

I'll check a bit more, in fairness.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Again, not necessarily. BTW, sorry I didn't give you enough time to catch my earlier post before becoming grumpy.

Not necessarily because 'convictions' can be plea bargains, where the hate crime statute wouldn't apply. Now it may be a case of MSM not covering hate crimes against Whites, Christians, etc., but I've not been reading of such and I read alot.

I'll check a bit more, in fairness.

The California Justice Department specifically says that 83% of hate crimes arrests are ultimately prosecuted specifically as hate crimes, and that of those hate crimes cases, 50% are utlimately convicted specifically as hate crimes.

Surely, some of those anti-white hate crimes are being prosecuted and/or convicted.

 

[Annie]

The California Justice Department specifically says that 83% of hate crimes arrests are ultimately prosecuted specifically as hate crimes, and that of those hate crimes cases, 50% are utlimately convicted specifically as hate crimes.

Surely, some of those anti-white hate crimes are being prosecuted and/or convicted.

As I said, I'll see what I can dig up. Not just in CA.

 

[Diuretic]

Hate crimes tend to focus more on the characteristics of the victim and perpetrator. It's the crime that should be prosecuted, not the state trying to mind read. There is enough flexibility in sentencing to cover obvious circumstances of such crimes for example as: lynchings, burning of churches, mosques, synagogs, and crimes such as Matthew Shepard. The only 'hate crimes' that seem to be prosecuted are those where the perp is a member of the 'majority class', as if those of minority status are incapable of hate, that's just wrong.

The mistake is to focus on the crime after it's been committed. The purpose of the criminal law is to prevent crime by stating what crimes are and then advising on possible penalties. There is a rule of proportionality. The more serious the crime the harsher the potential penalty. Now there are two aspects to that. One is to express society's disgust at the crime itself. The other is to provide a greater deterrent to the more serious crimes. I hope that makes sense.

I'm used to think that "hate crimes" were bullshit. I don't think so any more.
I use a fairly simplistic reasoning and it works like this:

Situation

A bar. Several men drinking in the bar. A man walks in an orders a drink. He's wearing a tee shirt stating he is a fan of a certain football team. Unknown to him is the fact that the other blokes in the bar are supporters of another football team. The two teams supporters hate each other. How likely is it that the group of supporters will attack the lone supporter? I know if it was in the UK the bloke would have been glassed already for walking into the wrong pub but let's situate this in a city in the US that has two football teams - let's say New York and it's Jets one side, Giants the other. There may be some crass remarks but I would think it's unlikely that the lone fan (he has a collection of Joe Namath tv ads in avi on his computer) is going to get beaten up.

Now what if the lone man had been wearing a tee shirt advertising his support for gays? Is he more likely to get a beating from the other men?

I know this is open to all sorts of variables but the point I'm trying to make is that assault and murder may be more likely for someone who is a hate object, whether that person be of a certain sex, sexual preference or ethnicity. So the law is right to try to prevent the increased likelihood of the core offence (assault, murder) occurring by proscribing the circumstances and advising of a heavier penalty (for assault, murder will always attract the heaviest penalty of all of course).

 

[Diuretic]

I did look at your site and asked you for clarification. F off.

 

[William Joyce]

What's really going on is that the white race is under attack on many fronts. "Hate crimes" are just a part of that attack. These laws are not meant to be applied equally any more than "civil rights" laws, which is why it always comes as a surprise when a white man sues for discrimination. "Huh?" the liberals say. "But we didn't mean... I mean, what we meant was... Well..."

When blacks commit hate crimes against whites, it's not an issue for the powers that be. We "deserve it," as they say, because we're a bad race of oppressors. Their real concern is letting potentially physically violent whites who might actually defend their race know that if they lift a finger, they will be locked away. Black car thief in your neighborhood? The normal, healthy human reaction from a white would be to shoot him. But if you so much as yell at him, YOU are the criminal.

That's America. Law-abiding whites are the criminals, and criminal blacks are a protected class. Revolution, anyone?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I am against hate crime laws for this reason.

#1 Hate is hate, whether it is rational or not
#2 People should not be penalized for their beliefs but for their actions.
#3 we have laws dealing with murder, murder 1 according to the law is for any murder that is planned out, a.k.a. pre-meditation.
#4 giving someone life or the death penalty doesnt require hate crime legislation

In conclusion, I cannot in good faith support hate crime laws, as i find them to be un-constitutional, and free of common sense.

No they don't.

--They pave the way for suppression of the freedoms of speech, association and religion.

That's your claim. But you need to show some evidence for it. If you were so concerned about the suppression of freedoms you might want to check your country's Patriot Act rather than point the finger at very mild legislation.

--They violate the concept of equal protection under the law.

No they don't. Hate crime legislation doesn't reduce anyone's right to equal protection.

--They introduce the un-American concept of "thought crime," in which someone's actions are "more" illegal based on their thoughts or beliefs

Rubbish. Any crime still requires mens rea and actus reus to be a crime. People are still free to hate people based on their feelings towards their sexuality or ethnicity or sex, they just can't beat them up, that's all.

Next?