Talk:Hate crime/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Incorrect Information

"The U.S. Congress defined in 1992 a hate crime as a crime in which "the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals" (HR 4797)." -from hate crime wikipedia article

-But this is the text of HR 4797 from the Library of Congress online http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c103:1:./temp/~c103OAXo1R::

103d CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4797 To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for a hopper barge.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 19, 1994 Mr. LANCASTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for a hopper barge.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) and section 12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel known as hopper barge E-15 (North Carolina State official number 264959).

= more errata for you

Second, it must be shown that the defendant was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s minority status.

I don't see anything in the earlier text or letter of the law indicating that the victim must be a minority.

As of October 2001, the federal hate crime law 18 USC 245 (b)(2), passed in 1969, protects religion, race and national origin, and applies only if the victim is engaged in one of six protected activities.

Hate crime laws were not passed in 1969. I think Title 18 USC 45 refers to civil rights legislation, not hate crime legislation. 03:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

where is the "against" argument?

I notice that there is no "against" argument for hate crimes under the ""arguments for and against hate crimes."

THis, to me, is just one more example of the left-wing bias here on Wikipedia. SO, for all the people here talking about how there's no bias in the hate crime argument, we need to look no further than this wikipedia entry to discover that nobody can even come up with an argument against it. And this does not mean there ISN'T one, there's always another point of view. I think people here simply don't want to give any credence to the other side of the argument.

I think hate crime legislation is deplorable. Regarding some of the comments here: I've never heard of minorities being accused of hate crimes against whites. Could the 9/11 event be considered a hate crime? Or the recent (04/06) attack on an NYU student by a gang of black youths who shouted "get the white guy!", chased him into the street where he was hit by a car, then stood around and laughed while he lay there dying?

How is it possible to criminalize a FEELING?

The whole hate crime movement is simply a farce staged by politicians courting a minority vote.

An assault is an assault. A robbery is a robbery. Let's not get too emotional or read into things too much. If you want to separate church and state (distinguishing between irrational and rational, scientific vs. superstition) then let's see things objectively, and not penalize a person for what's in their heads. Let's punish their actions, not their motivations.

If a minority group decides to boycott a certain business becuase they hate the race of the owner, and the business fails as a result, is that considered a hate crime? If a black man is caught robbing a bank, and later admits that he hates white people, should we add the hate crime charge? Was his crime predicated on his contempt for a "white" bank's riches?

Could we conclude that the omission of any argument AGAINST hate crime on Wikipedia constitutes a hate crime in itself? I think there is no "against" entry because of people's racist and contemptuous attitudes toward the majority. Therefore, are their feelings of hate a CRIME???

I agree with this. In my opinion, this article deserves the NPOV tag. I'm going to add it to this article, and recommend it stay there until this article is cleaned up or someone can present a better argument. I'm only seeing 1 side presented in this article. --JOK3R 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, then fix it. There are 'against' arguments at one of the links on this page. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat5.htm Stop whining about it and edit the article. 03 May 2006

-- These generalised attacks on the 'left' are spurious and unhelpful, as are comparisons between a lack of a piece of writing and bigotted attacks on people. Obviously hate crimes against white people are still hate crimes, and considered as such in law, so it would be sensible to check facts before making such blatently biased comments.

I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong! Read the article! I quote: "Thus, commission of a hate crime requires that two elements be proven. First, it must be shown that the defendant committed an enumerated predicate offense, such as assault, robbery, manslaughter, or kidnapping. Second, it must be shown that the defendant was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s minority status." (my emphasis). White people are in the majority in America. Therefore, following the text of this article, crimes commited against whites by non-whites would not be considered hate crimes! Is there a reason no against has been added yet? If I find time tonight I will add it myself, however I would appreciate others inputs on this matter. Help plz 21:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because the legal defenition of something is A, does not meant that the thing is A. There is probably (although I haven't researched it and it is purely speculation) a group, or groups, that feel that all hate-motivated crimes should me classified as hate crimes. If such a group exists, it should be mentioned.Emmett5 03:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make it known that laws are vague and flawed which is the reason they are constantly being changed and amended. Hate crimes are not defined by minority status they are defined by an act of violence toward a group of people: race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic extraction etc. As for there being no argument against, instead of crying about it and blaming it on left-wing bias (which is ridiculous considering anyone can edit this site) how about doing a little research and finding the argument. I'll start off with the legislation is not needed. All crimes covered by the hate crime legislation are already illegal under existing federal and state laws. Also one of the major arguments pertaining to hate crimes is homosexuality being protected in the definition. Some say it should only protect characteristics that can not be changed such as gender, race and so forth because "homosexuality is a chosen act." Obviously there are rebuttals to these statements because there are multiple studies with evidence showing that sexual orientation is not chosen. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

  • I'm glad that someone finally stated that hate crimes are crimes motivated by hatred toward an individual because of his or her actual or perceived membership in one of a number of groups (race, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender). I don't know if jok3r is aware that intent is a significant part of a crime: when an individual commits a crime motivated by hatred, he/she is not only committing the primary criminal act, but is also intentionally issuing an assault towards all members of a group. He/she is establishing a contingency that IF one is a member of this group, THEN people like me will cause them physical harm. He/she is intending to commit assault: it's not just an unfortunate side effect of a hate crime. It's essentially the purpose of a hate crime. How do you attach a legal sanction to such a huge and detrimental statement? Hate crimes are not the same as non-hate motivated crimes- they are far more severe, and have many more victims. For this reason alone, it is sensible enough to institute enhanced penalties. Would I be going out in left field to ask unqualified partisan hacks to leave it to actual criminologists and other scholars to resolve this dispute? Asarkees 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "criminologists and other scholars" have any more right to the interpretation and enactment of our laws than the common citizen. This is a society of equals, not one of subjects and elites. But basically, on the hate crimes issue, I think we have to explore the true motive of such legislation and recognize that such laws are political in nature and have no place in our society.

First Amendment = free speech = free thought = (including) the right to have and to express unpopular ideas and opinions

Hate crime (thought crime) legislation infringes upon this right. Hate crimes = "thought" crimes.

For example:

If Person A assaults Person B, and the typical sentence is 10 years, we should not tack on additional 5 years because Person A is a racist. Not unless we're willing to legislate thought.

We do not need "thought" crime legislation. If you look at any of the recent major incidents of alleged hate crime activity (the poor guy dragged behind a truck in Texas, or the homosexual beaten to death in Wyoming), the communities involved came down very hard on the perpetrators without the need to uphold hate crime statutes. In each case, I believe the perpetrators got a mix of life sentences or death penalties.

Bottom line: our system works without injecting politics into our penal code.

Remember, Hate Crimes = Thought Crimes

Bold textI have to agree with whoever started this blog right here... I have always felt that the wikipedia is riddled with liberal clout. Hate crimes are a savage hypocrisy! A vast majority of hate crime convictions go to white males. This is because racsism is tolerated by non-caucasion races in the main stream public. So I agree with you on this matter but I'll tell you, you are wasting your time. Leftist won't listen to reason, they don't seek to eliminate the double standard, just replace it with one of thier own.

  • Asarkees, I think you are mistaking intent for motive.
Intent:
"Did you mean to drive your car off the road?"
"Yes, I did."
Motive:
"Why did you drive your car off the road?"
"Because the passenger was attacking me, and I thought I could stop him by hitting a tree."
Intent is a legitimate factor to consider in determining the crime of which a person may be guilty (murder or manslaughter?), but motive is an entirely different issue. --AndrewSaint 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

51 states?

From the article: "Seven states have no hate crime laws, twenty states have hate crime laws that do not protect sexual orientation, and twenty-four states have hate crime laws that do include sexual orientation."

This adds up to 51, but the US only has 50 states!!!

We have other stuff, like the district of columbia, guam, puerto rico, etc... Sam [Spade] 13:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, so DC must be the 51st.
Yeah, probably. Anytime they list 51, DC is the 51'st. They want to be a state too, but whatever. Sam [Spade] 13:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually DC is not the "51st state" there is a wiki article about how part of southern Oregon and part of Northern California planned to create a state called "Jefferson". But typically when you hear that its because someone screwed up and referred to DC as a state when in fact it is a federal territory. Alkivar 01:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV and Un-PC

"Another argument sometimes advanced by supporters of hate-crime laws is that violent acts motivated by political or similar reasons are characteristic of less-civilized, Third World countries, and must not be tolerated in a developed country, lest the developed country sink to their level."

This to me sounds extremely un-PC, and sounds highly unlikely, moreover making supporters of hate-crime legislation supporters petty and racist. Chewyman 12:05, 11 Nov 2004 (NZT)


Sollog accuses Wikipedia of hate crimes

Shall we write in a section called "alleged hate crimes", "The seer Sollog or his fans accuse the website Wikipedia of hate crimes because of its inclusion of critical information in an article about him, which Sollog fans consider slanderous. "? Andries 23:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Non-notable. I tried adding detail about Sollog's interaction with us (and in particular with Jimbo) to Sollog's own article, and it was removed. Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why did SlimVirgin protect the current version of the article?

Moving on -- POLL

Question: In 50 words, more or less, what do you object to, in the article in its present protected state?

Answers:

  • It's protected, I think protected articles are contrary to wikipedian principles. Pedant 21:13, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

It was protected against an anon IP who's been causing trouble on a number of articles for weeks using different IP address and user accounts. I've unlocked it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Show us exactly where that trouble is. That's a highly subjective decision that you made. Protected articles are contrary to wikipedian principles. 69.221.62.82 18:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So is edit warring and POV editing, which is what protection helps diffuse. Jayjg (talk) 28 June 2005 16:11 (UTC)
  • "Hate crimes are crimes that are motivated by feelings of hostility against any identifiable group of people within a society, such as violent crime, hate speech or vandalism."

-- "hate crimes" are bogus crimes from a criminal law perspective. E.g. in the case of vandalism hate crime, the crime is damage and the "hate" is the motivation of the crimes which is considered when the crime is prosecuted. "hate crime" is no criminal law term and "hate" is not the crime. You could argue that "hate" is an emotion and you are free to hate what you want. However, you are not permitted to commit a crime which is a different issue. In the case of swastika symbols on a grave you assume that "hate" is the motivating reason. It could well be some sort of disgusting humour or a troll phenonemon, that people want to provoke and they take what provokes. Provocation can also be art, not "hate crime". So it is complicated. "Hate crime" is based on assumptions about the personal motivation.

Black on white rape - hate crime?

If you look at rape statistics it's pretty obvious that black men enjoy violating white women. I've always thought this should be considered a hate crime.

--Legislation that failed in Congress in 1999 tried to make rape, in general, a hate crime. Perhaps you should worry more about that.

--I believe it was Benjamin Disraeli who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". Black men are not more likely to rape a white woman, they are only more likely to arrested and convicted. I'm afraid your argument is bunk.

--I believe it was me who said you're full of it, and can't even begin to prove your (implied) assertion. Of course black men are more likely to be arrested and convicted of rape than white men, but that doesn't support your (implied) assertion, that somehow there's a disparity between actual rapes and arrests and convictions for rape vis-a-vis race of suspect.

Check the victim surveys; blacks actually get away with rape more than whites.

--80-90% of rapes against women are committed by someone of the same racial background as the victim. (US Dept. of Justice 1994) This does not include Native American women, who are assaulted by caucasian males 78% of the time (Wikipedia, 2006).

We can banter back and forth with useless statistics some more if you'd like. Or you can tell me I'm "full of it" again, whatever that is supposed to mean. If you want to make a bigoted comment like that, at least be prepared to back it up.

You seem rather confused. Just because black men may possibily be more likely to rape white women then black women doesn't imply any sort of bias. Given that white women are the majority, it is what we would expect if the perps ignore race. If most black rapes are of black women, there is clearly some sort of bias...
In practice, it's a very complicated issue. A number of rapists appear to prefer richer women and white are on average richer then blacks. Also, even if blacks to specifically choose white women because of their race, this doesn't necessary imply it's a hate crime. They may do so because they feel white women are easier targets or because they otherwise prefer white women as targets. Unless their reasons are because of some degree of hatred towards whites or white women, their crimed cannot be considered hate crimes by definition. E.g. if they choose white women because they believe white women are bitches who deserve to be punished then it'll probably be considered a hate crime. If they choose white women because black women are bitches who are no fun this can hardly be considered a hate crime even if their actions and beliefs are disgusting. Of course, rapes that are hate crimes do occur and are prosecuted Nil Einne 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

-Yeah, this whole argument seems sort of uncomfortably bigoted. Also, a "black on white" rape could be a hate crime, given that the offender's motivation to rape the victim was that she was a caucasion, and was chosen due to the offender's evident and provable hatred towards caucasians. But that doesn't happen a lot. A simple mismatch of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or disability does not a hate crime make. Asarkees 14:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think the hate crime would really be black on white or white on black I think it would be more male on female. Rape is a very degrading assult that not only may physically damage a woman but psychologically as well. Men use fear and force to demean and degrade a woman they victimize. Also, no matter what the statistics say about whether it is blacks who rape whites more or vice-versa you must remember that a hate crime is motivate by hate for someone because of their race, ethnicity etc. Rape is usually motivated by mental instability, not so much to show hate for the person they are victimizing.

Intent vs. motive

In English law, the state of a person's mind has always been important in determining the fact or seriousness of a crime. The legal concept of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") is required for most felony convictions.

If a murder is plotted with malice aforethought, this is classified as first-degree murder; if a murder is committed in the heat of a moment, this is classified as second-degree murder. Likewise, if the act resulting in death was recklessness or negligence, negligent homicide or manslaughter should be the finding. Similarly with illegal drugs, drug possession causes one level of crime; drug possession with intent to sell is more serious.

Hate crime legislation extends this principle. In addition to judging intent, motive is also considered. This extension is not limited to hate crime law; recent anti-terrorism legislation in many countries also considers motive.

I find this section a bit out of place and POV (altho persuasive). I personally support judgement of crime based on Intent and motive, but oppose "hate crime" laws. The reason why is that that as an attractive married male of North Euro ancestry, crimes against ME couldn't be punished in such a way. But if I got into a fight with a black guy, or a turkish guy or whatever, regardless of the reason why, and won, it might be called a hate crime. There shouldn't be another racist penalty for being a white male, and yet another legal advantage for "minorities" (who in reality are the majority worldwide). Sam Spade 22:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Sam Spade, if a crime was committed against you because of the perp's hatred or bias against your gender or ancestry, you would be protected by most hate crime laws. Hate crime laws are not penalties for being white and male, unless you mean to say that the default state of a white male is to commit crimes against an individual or group due to hatred of or bias against their gender/sexual orientation/etc. Which I sincerely doubt. lazy unregistered user, 19:08 Central time, 1 February 2006

I think Sam Spade's problem is he or she's getting confused. Predominantly hate crimes are committed by the majority against some minority. Therefore there is the incorrect assumption that hate crimes are only commited against minority. Hate crimes are NOT all crimes against minorities NOR only crimes agaist minories as some people seem to assume. Majorities can have hate crimes committed against them and these have been prosecuted. Hate crimes against heterosexuals (i.e. because they're heterosexuals) are very rare. Hate crimes against the majority race (generally whites in the US) are probably somewhat more common and a number of these have been successfully prosecuted.
BTW, Sam Spade, homosexuals are not the majority world wide. There are also a far greater number of North Europeans worldwide then there are Turks. You seem to have the problem of lumping minorities into one group. In practice, minorities aren't all the same. For example, Korean and Japanese are Chinese are all East-Asian minorities but their cultures are quite different and they don't always get along.
Finally I want to add that even if nowadays hate crimes (and I mean real hate crimes not crimes which people say are hate crimes simply because they're commited by a person of a different race or sex or sexual orientation) are far more likely to be successfuly prosecuted if they're commited by majorities then if they're commited by minories this doesn't necessarily imply a fault in the laws themselves. It seem far more likely to be a fault in the implementation. Note there is strong evidence that ordinary crimes are far more likely to be successfuly prosecuted if they're commited by poor people then by rich people. At best, you can perhaps try to argue that hate crime law prosecutions are always going be biased in favour of minorities but this seems a bit dubious to me.
Nil Einne 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've moved it to Talk: It seems informative, NPOV, and accurate regarding the application of hate crime laws. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious why I moved it to the talk page. Informative and accurate, maybe. But NPOV it is not. Sam Spade 10:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Two points (and I understand this is a long abandoned debate): 1. I think that there is an important diffrence here between the concept of mens rea and hate crimes. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the use of mens rea in a murder case determines the extent to which a person is guilty, and thus the actual level of the crime they are charged with. Hate crimes are seperate from the actual act, making the actual state of mind as a motive illegal. Can people honestly tell me there is nothing disconcerting about that? 2. If whtie men are protected, then how is hate crime legislation not just an attempt to lengthen sentences in general? If every conceivable group is covered against every other group, if you want to, you can find "hate" motivation in a lot of places that would be surprising.

It may help to look at the case of Vincent Chin (http://www.asian-nation.org/racism.shtml), who in 1982 was beaten to death simply because he was asian. He was thought to be Japanese, he was not. His assailants were automakers, or something in that line of work, and were in danger of losing their jobs due to a recession. The two men who killed Chin blamed him and Japanese automakers for the recession and beat Chin with a baseball bat. They referred to him as a "Jap". Are you willing to say that these two men would have beaten Chin regardless of his perceived race? I think that racial hatred/intolerance was the motivation for the murder. Chin was just a scapegoat for these men.


WorldNetDaily Article

I deleted the WorldNetDaily article because it's a biased conservative website that claims that most reported hate-crime victims are white - and the FBI's own information shows that anti-black hate crimes are over three times as likely as anti-white crimes. They might be getting that information by throwing in anti-Jewish or anti-gay hate crime victims, but if they are, it's misleading. They state that most hate crimes are racially motivated and whites are the primary victims- draw your on conclusions about what they're implying.

You can see those FBI statistics here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable1.htm

I would request that you re-insert the link to the article. You may not like what they write, but the No-Bias policy does NOT apply to external links. You are obviously biased against conservatives - great, I have no problems with that. But you won't be allowed to censor external links just because you don't like them.
I removed it because it was misleading. End of story. Liberal articles that are misleading should also be deleted from Wikipedia whenever they're found.
Additionally, it is absolutely pointless to request us to make up our own opinions - you took that possibility away by removing said link. Why should we trust you more than WorldNetDaily, whatever that is? --TheOtherStephan 14:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I meant make up your own conclusions (here in the talk page) as to why WorldNet put it up there and why it is inappropriate to include it in an encyclopedia. Blog it if you want. The article had to much spin to be included.
It would have taken yout wo seconds to find the article if you tried: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48898 --says white's more likely to be vicitms based on FBI stats, but the FBI says according to the FBI link above:

Anti white crimes: 829 Anti black crimes: 2,731 the only way they can say that white's are more likely to be victims of hate crimes is if they show that hate crimes motivmated by reasons other than race are the factor that caused the crime. The article makes no mention of that. It is either too biased or not written well enough to be included.

Why was "Distinguishing Features of Hate Crimes" Removed?

This section was removed, and I think it should be reinstated. Opinions? Edits?

  • Moroveus 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Moroveus


The Model Penal Code does not yet include a standardized statutory text for hate crime legislation. Despite the lack of any such standard, hate crime laws do not vary significantly between different jurisdictions. Most states have approached hate crime legislation by creating penalty enhancements for pre-existing crimes when those crimes are committed because of the victim’s protected minority status. Thus, commission of a hate crime requires that two elements be proven. First, it must be shown that the defendant committed an enumerated predicate offense, such as assault, robbery, manslaughter, or kidnapping. Second, it must be shown that the defendant was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s minority status.

While the hate crime definition used by the FBI for purposes of crime statistics includes sexual orientation, disability, and gender as protected categories, this is not the case for all hate crime laws. Most jurisdictions include race, religion, ethnicity, and gender as protected classes for purpose of hate crime statutes, while some states also include disability and sexual orientation. As of October 2001, the federal hate crime law 18 USC 245 (b)(2), passed in 1969, protects religion, race and national origin, and applies only if the victim is engaged in one of six protected activities. Seven states have no hate crime laws, 20 states have hate crime laws that do not protect sexual orientation, and 24 states have hate crime laws that include sexual orientation. There have been two attempts in 2001 and in 2004 to amend the current federal hate crime law to include homosexuals. Currently, these attempts have been unsuccessful. ________________________________________________________________________________________________


"The Model Penal Code does not yet include a standardized statutory text for hate crime legislation. Despite the lack of any such standard, "

I have removed the first sentence of section. The Model Penal Code has not been updated since 1981, and is an abhorant source to cite for some areas of the law (for example, under the MPC's "recommendation" for rape law, any man and woman living together as husband and wife, regardless of legal status, and regardless of violence involved in the offense, cannot constitute a rape offense). Furthermore, the Model Penal Code is NOT a "standard." It is merely a suggested text published by the American Law Institute - and in this case, which has not been republished since 1981. (Anonymous, Philadelphia, PA)

  • Shouldn't this be considered "History of Hate Crimes," and distinguishing characteristics be things more along the lines of "a weapon is more likely to be used," "more likely to be perpetrated by a group of offenders" and "more likely to result in grievous bodily harm?" All of which are true, by the way. Link. Asarkees 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Aren't We Supposed to be Debating About the Article, Not Debating About the Issue?

You are entitled to your opinion, but you aren't supposed to argue it on the Editing Page. If you want to add the against section, go ahead, instead of coming to the Editing Page, where you are supposed to be figuring out what to put in the article, not declaring to the world your opinion

Adding a See Also section

At the moment there isn't a "See Also" section, I am adding one now (I am still working on my disadvantages section (trying to avoid directly copying my source is difficult)). I will be starting it off with Cartmans Silly Hate Crime 2000. Your thoughts? Help plz 21:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah. This is Wikipedia, not Southparkepdia. We don't need to include a reference to South Park in every article which is about a subject mentioned in South Park. Or The Simpsons. Or Spongebob. Or whatever. The fact that South Park based an episode on hate crimes is totally unimportant to the subject of hate crimes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I can see your point, but the episode in question does clearly outline some of the arguments against hate crimes, and some opinions based around it. Until this article is made balanced I think it should stay. Also, I know the wiki-page itself doesn't have much on this, the episode in question does, as such I felt a link was adequete. I mean whats the difference between a TV Show and a website illustrating the point with a form of fable? People just don't take TV seriously! Help plz 10:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • "Balanced"? If you think the article needs some "balancing" do it with fact, not parody. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical Situation

Say you found some incoming emails on your girlfriends e-mail acount from a guy that you know who looks hispanic. Is it a hate crime if you send an e-mail back with racial comments but are motivated by him hitting on your girl quite heavily. Replys or edits please.

  • A crime must be committed for it to be considered a hate crime. Sending an e-mail with ethnic slurs in it is not a crime. Asarkees 14:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But, if it were, yes. Hate Crime refers primarily to motive. Kashami 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV the "Against" section

The "Against" section is non-NPOV (it doesn't actually mention the serious, contemporary criticism of hate crime legislation). Parts of it are near-nonsensical: "There are some scholarly arguments that provide reason for opposing "hate crimes" as currently imposed in some legislative forms in the United States. However, these arguments are largely theoretical and are not necessarily reflective of the respective philosophies cited for support." What on earth does that second sentence *mean*? jdb ❋ (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Then, for god's sake, change it. This is Wikipedia. You can. Asarkees 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the author is referring to Kant and Bentham. Its been a while since I studied criminal law (public contracts practice now).

James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics (Oxford University Press, 1998) should probably be mentioned here as a scholarly critique.--Dashpsh45 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

THE "AGAINST" ARGUMENT: CONFLICTS WITH FIRST AMENDMENT

Besides the fact that hate crimes are mostly prosecuted against whites, while "black on white" crime is 96% of the cross-race crime in the U.S. (according to the FBI), the most obvious argument against hate crimes legislation is for preservation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Basically, "freedom of speech" is inclusive of "freedom of thought", and any hate crime legislation is an infringement upon both. Hate crimes legislation is "thought crimes" legislation, and an attempt at telling individuals what they can or cannot think; a legislation of societal behavior just outside the bounds of criminal activity.

Here's the basic scenario:

Person A commits a violent hateful crime. Person B commits a similar violent hateful crime, but is a known racist and perhaps shouted a few racist epithets during the commission of the crime. Assume both crimes show equivalent levels of malice and damage to innocent parties.

Person A gets sentenced to 10 years in prison. Person B gets sentenced to 15 years in prison, basically 10 years for the crime plus 5 years for being a racist. That extra 5 years is punishment for Person B's unpopular beliefs (i.e., "thought crimes").

Hate crimes (thought crimes) legislation is politically motivated and is an attempt to label people with opposing views and to use legislation to limit their views. This is not unlike the recent scenario of a British writer who landed 3 years in an Austrian prison for writing a controversial book on the Holocaust. He didn't support the popular view of what happened, so they tried and sentenced him to prison FOR WRITING A BOOK! Basically, the tenet behind "hate crimes" legislation is "think like we do or go to jail."

Perhaps just as the Left has attacked 2nd Amendment freedoms (with some progress), they have now turned their attention to limiting 1st Amendment freedoms.

---End unsigned user comment---

Agreed. If you remove the variables of intent, malice and damage as noted above then nothing remains of 'hate crimes' except 'thought crimes'. There has yet to be a solid counter-argument that 'hate crimes' (removed from the context of the physical act itself) are any more a crime than offensive speech is. Tolerance is a good thing, but you can't have tolerance without understanding. You can't have understanding without debate. How can you have debate with restrictions of free speech? The 1st Amendment does NOT outlaw speech based purely on offensiveness. I hope that most of the people in this discussion are aware of the 'proper time, place and circumstance' considerations. Be that as it may, 'hate crimes' and other such feel good laws are having a crushing effect on free speech. There are many countries in the Western world that will get you thrown in jail for debating Holocaust authenticity/statistics, questioning the morality/sustainability/whatever of homosexuality and so on. Why not debate these concepts in the marketplace of ideas instead of saying "we can't talk about that". Hate crime laws, while placed on the books with good intentions are landing people in jail for simply 'thinking' thoughts contrary to popular trends.

SF Gate article on hate crimes, free speech and other 1st Amend. issues

Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection. - General Colin Powell (I don't endorse or condemn Powell, but this is an excellent point he makes.)--Saintlink 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This Christian blogger's comments are worth mentioning. Jesus Loves You (But We Hate You)
"I’m very disturbed by the effort to paint this legislation as a 'thought control' bill. The 'thought control' meme has been picked up by various conservative organizations (see, e.g., Concerned Women for America’s webpage on the issue). I think this is extremely misleading. It is not at all unusual or for the law to impose different penalties depending on a person’s state of mind. In fact, state of mind is an element of many crimes. Murder, for example, as every first-year law student learns, traditionally is defined as 'the intentional killing a human being with malice aforethought.' 'Intent' and 'malice aforethought' are states of mind. This doesn’t make the prohibition of murder some kind of black helicopter 'thought control' law.
"I could give hundreds of other examples in which state of mind is relevant either to the elements of a crime or civil claim or to the penalty or damages to be imposed. Indeed, it’s fair to say that both the criminal and civil law routinely address a party’s mental state. To suggest that hate crimes legislation is unique in this regard is false." Vordabois 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


For instance this scenario is untrue:

>>>>>Once more you are debating hate crimes, not the content of the article of hate crimes. Most people on here are not actually debating what is a hate crime versus what is not; they are instead debating what they 'think' is a hate crime in their mind, then creating scenarios that are untrue based on hate crime definitions.

For instance this scenario is untrue:

Person A commits a violent hateful crime. Person B commits a similar violent hateful crime, but is a known racist and perhaps shouted a few racist epithets during the commission of the crime. Assume both crimes show equivalent levels of malice and damage to innocent parties.

Person A gets sentenced to 10 years in prison. Person B gets sentenced to 15 years in prison, basically 10 years for the crime plus 5 years for being a racist. That extra 5 years is punishment for Person B's unpopular beliefs (i.e., "thought crimes").

It should read more like this example:

Person A commits a violent hateful crime against a man who happens to be gay. Person B commits a similar violent crime, specifically against the man because he is gay. Assume both crimes show equivalent levels of malice and damage to innocent parties.

Person A gets sentenced to 10 years in prison. Person B gets sentenced to 15 years in prison, because the crime was against both the individual and a 'societal' group.

Specifically relating to a current situation: Say a US-born radical fundamental Muslim American decides he is angry against the United States, and then he takes out his rage by attacking a person on their way to church, specifically because they were, or he believed them to be, a Christian. Regardless of the charges for the crime, he would additionally be charged for a hate crime. This situation specifically where a Christian is not a minority, and the attack was against a group though perpetrated on an individual.

--141.154.80.243 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)--141.154.80.243 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Super creepy follow-up to my previous post. This news story hit the Reuters wire today that illustrates my example.

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Police stepped up security at Seattle synagogues and mosques on Saturday, a day after a Muslim man who said he was angry at Israel shot dead one woman and wounded five others at a Jewish center.

Naveed Afzal Haq, 31, burst into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on Friday afternoon. He surrendered without a struggle and police arrested him on charges of murder and five counts of attempted murder with bail set at $50 million.

Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said authorities are treating the shooting as a hate crime based on conversations with police during the rampage.

"He said that he wanted the United States to leave Iraq, that his people (Muslims) were being mistreated and that the United States was arming Israel," said Kerlikowske, who thinks Haq acted alone and is not part of any terrorist groups.

"He pointedly blamed the Jewish people for all these problems."

Police officers circled Seattle's Seward Park area, the city's traditional Jewish neighborhood and home to three major synagogues. Uniformed guards stood outside Bikur Cholim-Machzikay Hadath and Sephardic Bikur Holim synagogues.

"There is high security," said Robin Boehler, chairwoman of the Jewish Federation. "This is the thing we dread the most happening." She added three of the victims were not Jewish.

>>>Person A gets sentenced to 10 years in prison. Person B gets sentenced to 15 years in prison, because the crime was against both the individual and a 'societal' group.

A crime is always punished because of the damage it does to society - you just can't have people walking around beating and killing someone because they don't like him. Since all social groups are a part of society hate crimes are like punishing the person twice - once for the damage done to society, and once for the damage done to the part of society he did not like.85.130.30.213 07:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Information in this article

"Hate Speech" is not a crime in the United States of America. It is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. This portion of the article should be changed.

Certain kinds of hate speech are deedmed illegal in certain parts of the US...
California, USA laws may declare hate speech is protected in public, but allows easy prosecution for alleged hate crimes, in verbal form as well in physical form. California law claims hate speech at the workplace does not constitute as "protected speech" and employers have the right to terminate or discharge those who committed hate speech on workplace grounds.;;;
...And outside of the US, hate speech is illegal in a great many forms in a large number of countries. The opening sentence gives a number of types of hate crime, and hate speech can indeed be a hate crime. Crimsone 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. There isn't a single place in the United States in which "hate speech" is illegal. And any attempts to create such laws have been soundly beaten down by the first court that they confronted. The California law that you meant regards a civil matter, not a crriminal matter. And while I do understand that this article refers to world-wide laws, I feel that it is important to point out that "hate speech" is only a hate crime in some of them. - Lewis Ranja

White Power is Redundant > Refer to Racisim Link

User:Ya_ya_ya_ya_ya_ya has reverted back to added in White Power to the see other links. Racism already addresses White Power, Black Power, Asian Power and so on. I don't see the point of dumping in all of the other "power" movements into this Hate Crime page, so leaving in just the White Power one is either slanted or incomplete. At the risk of starting an edit war I wish to state my intention of removing the White Power and any other "Power" movements from the See Other section. It is already amply covered under racism and is repetitive.--Saintlink 10:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Crap

As an Italian, I think this "hate crime" garbage is racism. What about if some black panther members decide to go out at night and murder a white lady? Is that just murder? Seems like hate to me. If we want to become a unified nation, first we must throw one sided racism like this in the garbage! Anyone ever think that a white guy or whoever is "white" in your false categorization in the US can be a murderer that happened to murder blacks? Everyone is so quick to point to race as the factor, but when it's the other way around, you can be called a racist for voicing that perhaps black panther members murdered this white lady because of her race. This is why I think it's unfair to Americans as a whole, trash it. "Latinos" aren't even a race, the US and their political correctionism is very laughable, LOL! First you consider south Americans a race when they are nothing but south Americans with some euro blood, then you call them "latino" to bluntly insult my ancestor Romans? Very nice. Crud3w4re 08:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello. What suggestions do you have to improve the article? (Wikipedia article talk pages are not general discussion forums; they are reserved for discussing the article, not the subject of the article.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh I was going to say that there should be a "Critic" section that some believe this to be racism. Crud3w4re 19:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Then you'll need to find a verifiable reliable source making such an assertion; the section entitled "Arguments against hate crimes legislation" should be the correct place to record it, once you've found it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out this source Here. Crud3w4re 03:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hate crimes (also known as bias crimes)"

Hate Crime? Hm. From my knowledge, "hate crime" refers to a crime against someone you hate, so how can it only be against certain people? I agree that it should be noted that popular opinion deems "hate crimes" only refer to people having their free speech supressed, to so-called "minorities", also should be noted that this term is only in use in the US. Crud3w4re 19:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Is there supposed to be an answer to my question regarding reliable sources, or just more personal opinion? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What a lousy article. How about saying what a hate crime is instead of filling the article with legalism? Gordon, don't belittle Crud's points. That is a fine source, better than the zero you have. So-called mainstream media won't criticize hate crime legalisms because they dont want to be boycotted. Who would be dumb enough to criticize laws outlawing "hate"? No one likes hate.

Improvements?

I have done my best to add some depth to this article by adding more material about hate crimes. Previously, the bulk was arguments for and against hate crime legislation, with little to convey the concept and background. I adapted a lot of material from the US Department of Justice publication, "A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes" which is in the public domain.[1] There is still a lot to be done. A history of hate crime legislation would be useful, along with more statistics about it. Some examples of cases cited by both those that favor and those that disfavor the concept of hate crimes would be enlightening. I'm not trying to assert an opinion about the topic. I'm not sure I have one. I came to this article to learn more about the topic, and it was one of the least useful Wikipedia articles I've seen. So I did something about it. I know the changes are not that good. But somebody had to do something. Please edit if you can improve on them. "Be Bold" --Everyguy 05:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Would everybody agree that this belongs in the external links file?

How about "hell no"? If you want to add something in the criticism section about that ridiculously partisan BS and then source it, be my guest. Of course, you'd hafta frame it something like "Hate crime legislation is being used by the homosexuals to force society to accept their abominable, deviant behavior," but then, that wouldn't sound palatable or even rational, now would it? (Funny how so much of the right wing crapola never comes out and says what it really means.)
Reserve the "external links" section for FACTS or FACTUAL cases. This isn't FOX News. Opinions are not, in fact, facts.
Commentaries about using fabricated examples to push legislation through say absolutely nothing for its philosophical or practical legitimacy or illegitimacy in any real sense because society is the victim of a hate crime. Vordabois 12:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hate crime?

So if a white guy hits another white guy, it's assault, but if a white guy hits a black guy, it's a hate crime? --124.181.241.101 13:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If a white guy hits a black guy because he's black, it's a hate crime. As is a black guy who hits a white guy because he's white. Vordabois 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

But what if a white guy hits a black guy because he hates some (but not all) of black people's mannerisms but that same white guy would not hit a black guy if that black guy "acts white"?

That's irrelevent. You're just complicating matters. To get your answer, just stick with switching from white to black... the equation stays the same. Is the motivation based at least in part on the color of the person's skin? If the answer is "Yes," = Hate crime.
It's really quite simple. Vordabois 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Would everybody agree that this belongs in the external links file?

I hardly think it irrelevant (or non-factual) to mention the confession of the murderers, especially when it turns out that a number of sources (most notably LifeSiteNews) say something akin to the fact that "In perhaps the most famous 'hate crime' case of Matthew Shephard, his murderers said their crime had nothing to do with Shephard's homosexual orientation, but concerned money for drugs. ABC News' 20/20 admitted after an investigation that the attack had not been a 'hate crime,' but was, in fact, a bungled robbery. Nevertheless, the case generated over 13,500 'Matthew Shepard' news stories, massive TV coverage, two major Hollywood specials, three TV movies and a play."

If a reported crime, hate crime or another kind, turns out to be (partially or entirely) fake, that is neither "ridiculously partisan BS" nor "right wing crapola" (no matter who brings it up) but — according to Vordabois's own (and any rational person's) definition — is much closer to "FACTS or FACTUAL cases". Period.

I hardly think it irrelevant (or especially extremist or far-rightist) to note that ""hate crimes" legislation … would grant homosexuals and cross-dressers superior victim status over children and the elderly." More to the point is the simple fact (and what Matt Barber points out is "important to note") "that the two thugs who robbed and murdered Shephard are now serving life in prison apart from any "hate crimes" law, proving once again that such laws are entirely unnecessary if not completely unconstitutional. Equal justice under the law is guaranteed, and equal justice was received."

OK, considering that you are attempting to justify your edits on the grounds that they are truly objective and free of bias, I feel I must explain why I disagree. You are attempting to slant an article to the right, and that is unacceptable.
The key words in your post are "his murderers said." The thing you don't mention is that the murderers have given, so far, no less than THREE (3) different "official" statements about what happened. And contrary to what the ridiculously conservatively slanted "townhall.com" (and other less obvious propaganda machines) assume is true, an investigation gave credence to the idea that it was hate-induced, and that raised the question for such legislation. Just because the murderers decided to change their story after the fact, holding the murderers' fabrications as more believable than input from other sources that are infinitely more credible would attest more to a person's willingness to shill for a political agenda than to confront the truth as it was presented in the court room. (Unless, of course, you're gonna claim that the courts have a liberal bias, which, incidently, wouldn't surprise me in the least. After all, reality seems so strangely often to be accused of having a "liberal" bias.)
Where were you going to mention the Laramie, Wyoming police Chief Dave O'Malley? Were you planning on ignoring the fact that he came forward to the press and stated that "20/20" lied in their report? He actually went on to say that he was "extremely angry" about what they did, in fact. Read: ( http://www.laramieboomerang.com/news/more.asp?StoryID=102392 ) It's especially interesting that he said, of the "20/20" interviewers: “Their pre-conceived focus that this was not a hate crime. This was a drug crime. That’s what they went with.”
Tell me, is that not the very definition of media bias?
Beyond that, more telling is your language: "ABC News admitted..."
ABC news admitted what? That they were part of some leftist bias machine that got stumbled up by "the facts" and that they purposely decieved everyone? That's absurd.
These "facts"... Well, you percieve them to be facts, when in reality, they are nothing of the sort. You see, the particular words that are used are very important. You're seeming to purport that ABC was apologizing for their role in the creation of the media circus at the time. But if you read the actual article here ( http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1 ) it's rather obvious that they include word combinations like "McKinney and Henderson SAY this..." and "McKinney and Henderson SAY that..."
Where is the admittance of wrongdoing you seem to be alluding to with those wonderful weasel words? Seriously... point it out to me, if you would, because I see nothing anywhere in there that even comes close to making that statement.
It seems as though you are trying to create facts using opinions, and real information sources don't work like that. Unless it's Conservapedia. Or Townhall.com. Or FOX News. Or Drudge Report, Newsmax, etc.
PLEASE start questioning your sources. Examine journalistic merit. Criticize them. Hold them up to a microscope. Test them. And use many more than just one.
So, to get down to discussing why your edits were out of line... The question raised is whether the external links follow wikipedia's guidelines. The guidelines state that external links are reserved for information that cannot be integrated into the article mainly because their inclusion would be impossible due to mass amounts of information and/or copyright violations, or are reserved for links to official documents (among other reasons). The external links section is NOT to be used for posting the URLs of editorials that focus on things entirely superficial, especially when they can be integrated into the article with the practical use of the keyboard, the mouse, and the english language. This language can be added to the "criticism" section, or even may comprise a new subheading with a title of the editor's choosing.
But my thoughts rest on the fact that you won't make those edits because you know that even if it were true, those allegations do not discredit hate crime legislation on any sort of philosophical or practical ground, and therefore add nothing to the article as is.
As I stated, modify it if you wish. And if you can come up with a solid base to the claims that really means something, I would encourage it! But don't post merely the URLs to ridiculous hit-pieces chock full of opinion with no further elaboration and try and pass them off as external link-worthy.
Unless they are addressed in the article, they are patently irrelevent.Vordabois 19:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


You state that I am "attempting to slant an article to the right, and that is unacceptable." Two remarks: First, I am not attempting to slant an article in any direction (it can be hardly considered a far-right mantra, especially for members of the equality-for-all crowd, that justice should be equal for all citizens, no matter their race or sexual orientation — see my last point in the second paragraph below); second, it would seem that you only think it unacceptable for anyone to "slant an article to the right", not to the left. I take it articles slanted towards the left are acceptable, even something to be welcomed and/or praised. An encyclopedia/dictionary is supposed to be objective, not slanted to the right or left; and if an article in such encyclopedia gives a slant towards either direction, either that part should be deleted (or reformulated) or (because it presents some type of informative purpose) it should be left as is, albeit balanced with a slant (at least one) from the other direction.

Having said that, I would like to point out that, deliberately or otherwise, you miss the main part of my comment (and indeed of Matt Barber's article): which was that hate crimes legislation would grant certain citizens superior victim status over others ("children and the elderly"). What Matt Barber points out is "important to note" is that (unless he is mistaken, deliberately or otherwise) "the two thugs who robbed and murdered Shephard are now serving life in prison apart from any "hate crimes" law, proving once again that such laws are entirely unnecessary if not completely unconstitutional. Equal justice under the law is guaranteed, and equal justice was received."

(Incidentally, I remember, as a big Al Gore supporter at the time, watching the 2000 debates and being certain that my guy could easily trash George W. Bush. I have to admit that I got some doubts that Dubya was such an oofus when Gore charged the governor of Texas with having gone against hate crime legislation in the state he governed while bringing up the murder of the black man tied alive behind a pick-up truck. Dubya's answer (as I remember it): "The man was sentenced to death! How much further can you go than that?" It wasn't easy going against that reasoning. I also remember that putting into doubt the Republicans' alleged indifference to minorities and to suffering in general. Maybe what you mean by an article's (any article's) "unacceptable … slant … to the right" is anything showing Republicans or conservatives as other than heartless monsters.)

I think it's rather interesting that you'd take my comments and manufacture support for left-leaning articles. I will repeat what I stated before: "if you can come up with a solid base to the claims that really means something, I would encourage it!" Go right ahead, I will not argue with factual, relevent material that is of encyclopedic quality and neutral in POV.
Now, on to the GWB comment: "The man was sentenced to death! How much further can you go than that?"
Funny. But it's so incredibly easy to go against that reasoning. I'll do it in one sentence, in fact: "Did you know that only 2-3% of hate crime cases involve murder?" The vast majority of them involve assaults and lesser violent crimes, property crimes, threats and intimidation.
From one of the most impressive articles I've ever read on the subject:
Hate-crime laws are indeed relatively new insofar as they are now on the books. But attempts to pass laws like them date back to the anti-lynching laws of the 1920s and '30s.
And the reality is that they represent the kind of law that should have been on the books long ago, because they play a substantial role in protecting individual freedoms for all Americans. This isn't tinkering: It's righting an omission.
Keep in mind that hate crimes historically represent an unofficial attempt at oppressing minorities -- in the case of lynching, it in fact was a cornerstone of the Jim Crow system of racial oppression. They are clearly special "message" crimes whose primary intent is to deprive whole groups of Americans of their right to partake of democracy, and they clearly create substantially more harm across all sectors of society than ordinary crimes. As such, they deserve harsher punishment.
This myth [that current laws are adequate to punish them] arises from one of the realities about hate-crime laws: they only exist on the books as laws dealing with a special category of crimes with which we already are well familiar (murder, assault, threatening, intimidation, vandalism, etc.) -- that is, a hate crime always has a well-established "parallel" crime underlying it, upon which is added the layer of motivation by bias (racial, ethnic, etc.). Thus, opponents argue, the laws for those parallel crimes should be adequate for punishing perpetrators. (If this argument sounds familiar, it is; the identical points were raised in the 1920s and '30s by opponents of the anti-lynching legislation that was the NAACP's raison d'etre during its early years.)
Are hate crimes truly different from their parallel crimes? Quantifiably and qualitatively, the answer is yes.
The first and most clear aspect of this difference lies in the breadth of the crimes' effects. Hate crimes attack not only the immediate victim, but the target community -- Jews, blacks, gays—to which the victim belongs. Their purpose today, just as it was in the lynching era, is to terrorize and politically oppress the target community. Hate-crime laws resemble anti-terrorism laws in this respect as well—adding, in effect, punishment because more than just the immediate victim is targeted and affected, and thus greater harm is inflicted.
But this is only one aspect of the greater harm inflicted by hate crimes than their parallel crimes. There are several more, and they are substantial.
-- The violence quotient. Hate crimes are much likelier to be violent than other crimes, on two levels. First, bias crimes involve physical assaults at a significantly higher rate. A study based in Boston found that out of all hate crimes reported to police, fully half of them were assaults—well above the average of 7 percent of all crimes generally. Second, serious physical harm is far more likely to be inflicted on hate-crime victims; the same study found that while physical injury occurred in only about 30 percent of all assault cases nationally, they were present in almost three-quarters of bias-crime cases.
-- The personal trauma levels. There is also a singularly greater level of harm from bias crimes' impact on the emotional and psychological well-being of the victim. As Frederick Lawrence observes in his Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes and American Law:
"The victim of a bias crime is not attacked for a random reason—as the person injured during a shooting spree in a public place—nor is he attacked for an impersonal reason, as is the victim of a mugging for money. He is attacked for a specific, personal reason: his race [or religion, or sexual preference]. Moreover, the bias crime victim cannot reasonably minimize the risk of future attacks because he is unable to change the characteristics that made him a victim.
"A bias crime thus attacks the victim not only physically but at the very core of his identity. It is an attack from which there is no escape. It is one thing to avoid the park at night because it is not safe. It is quite another to avoid certain neighborhoods because of one's race. This heightened sense of vulnerability caused by bias crimes is beyond that normally found in crime victims. Bias-crime victims have been compared to rape victims in that the physical harm associated with the crime, however great, is less significant than the powerful accompanying sense of violation. The victims of bias crimes thus tend to experience psychological symptoms such as depression or withdrawal, as well as anxiety, feelings of helplessness, and a profound sense of isolation."
-- Harm to the community: All crimes, of course, harm the broader community in which they occur. They create fear and uncertainty about citizens' personal security, and add to a climate of civil distrust. However, bias crimes create, in addition to these harms, a further level of injury to a community in a democratic society: They violate the underlying egalitarian principles of equality for all citizens, and they profoundly disturb whatever harmony may exist in a modern, heterogeneous society. Hate crimes may not be as profound an offense in a non-democratic society, but they represent a gross violation of basic American legal and cultural institutions.
This harm is especially evident in small rural towns -- such as Ocean Shores, or Jasper, or Laramie, or Hayden Lake -- which are often dependent to some extent on tourist dollars, and whose names can be permanently blackened by a hate crime committed in the back yards. Not only can the economic effect be widespread, the community itself must grapple for years with questions about its basic integrity; the cloud may lighten, but it never completely goes away. Small towns are especially vulnerable because they rarely have a law-enforcement department capable of adequately handling such crimes, which can create conditions in which a series of incidents can escalate into full-blown violence, as they did in Ocean Shores.
( http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/12/matthew-shepard-and-hate-crimes.html )
NOTE: Even though the article contains a huge amount of factual, relevent material that directly refutes almost the entire argument of those who oppose hate-crime legislation, I did not include it in the "External Links" section. Why? Well, because the information can be integrated into the article!
Anyways... given all that, to oppose such laws is to deny the validity of the motive in the sentencing. But this is the basis of our criminal law. What are the differences between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder and manslaughter?
And in saying that the law gives superior victim status to gays over children and the elderly, you are also ignoring the language of the bill (H.R. 1592). The language is as follows:
       The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or 
       perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, 
       sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the 
       victim...
Are you conveniently ignoring the term "disability" here? And, as for children, it goes without saying that children are protected by a slew of laws that hold extremely harsh penalties for various crimes against minors.
Oh, and this was good: "Maybe what you mean by an article's (any article's) 'unacceptable … slant … to the right' is anything showing Republicans or conservatives as other than heartless monsters." Oh yes, that is so very clearly the case. lol No, I'm not too keen on you misrepresenting my point of view by drawing a false caricature of my intent to point at. In fact, I should think the reader is rather insulted by your notion that my intent could be mischaracterized so glibly.
Vordabois 01:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


I think it's rather interesting that you'd take my comments and manufacture support for left-leaning articles. I will repeat what I stated before: "if you can come up with a solid base to the claims that really means something, I would encourage it!" Go right ahead, I will not argue with factual, relevent material that is of encyclopedic quality and neutral in POV.

You, not I, are the one who 1) mentioned "ridiculously partisan BS" and "right wing crapola" while 2) writing (angrily, I assume?) against people "attempting to slant an article to the right" adding that "that is unacceptable" — i.e., specifying the right at every opportunity without ever making the slightest comment (angry or otherwise) about any leftward slant, real or imagined. What is important in a man's (or a woman's) speech, opinions, and arguments is not only what he or she includes, but also what he or she leaves out.

on to the GWB comment [thanks for reminding us the name of the town (I had forgotten it), albeit the Jasper case also seems to prove Matt Barber's point in the paragraph below]: "The man was sentenced to death! How much further can you go than that?" Funny. But it's so incredibly easy to go against that reasoning. I'll do it in one sentence, in fact: "Did you know that only 2-3% of hate crime cases involve murder?" The vast majority of them involve assaults and lesser violent crimes, property crimes, threats and intimidation.'

No, Vordabois. The idea which we must debate is not whether Matt Barber's main conclusion ("the two thugs who robbed and murdered Shephard are now serving life in prison apart from any "hate crimes" law, proving once again that such laws are entirely unnecessary if not completely unconstitutional. Equal justice under the law is guaranteed, and equal justice was received") applies only to that worst of crimes (murder); but whether the reasoning behind it applies to all crimes.

In other words, the point is not the different types of crimes we are talking about; the point is whether the law (and if society) already has the necessary tools to fight — and to punish — any crime, and Matt Bauer seems to have reason to suggest it does. As a stickler for the constitution, I am apt to believe him — until proven otherwise.

In addition, unless I am mistaken, you have not addressed a secondary main point here; which is the propensity for "reporting" what are (allegedly) false hate crimes, whether they involve the Matthew Shephard case, the Duke Lacrosse Team, or Tawana Brawley.

Here is a tertiary point: I cannot see when putting the rights of the community (any community) over (or equal to) the rights of an individual has ever, in the final analysis, paid off. For the simple reason that the definition of communities changes all the time and with every individual. Offhand, the theory seems to make sense. But as soon as we go into details, we run into problems. Should someone commit a crime against an individual (whether murder, property crime, threat, intimidation, or other), should the punishment be stronger if that individual is gay or black? Doesn't that mean in turn that a society might decide instead to make the punishment lighter if that victim is white or straight? If a white steals another white man's property, his punishment should be less than if he stole that of a black man because that man is black? What if the victim is a handicapped gay black woman? Should punishment be increased four times because four minorities were, in some sense or another, involved? Unless you consider that handicapped gay black women, or handicapped gays, or black women, or some other combination constitute a minority apart from the basic ones?

No, being against "hate crime" legislation and against superior victim status for some does not necessarily have to be "ridiculously partisan BS" or "right wing crapola" from unfeeling, clueless conservatives nor does it have to be… lacking in common sense…

I have added the following to the list of reasons not to have hate crime legislation (# 4). I hope (that with the "allegedly"s) you will agree.

In a number of cases, there have allegedly been false reports of hate crimes. In others, the law as it exists (without the benefit of any "hate crimes" law) has punished the criminals to the fullest extent without the victims enjoying "superior victim status," allegedly proving that "such laws are entirely unnecessary if not completely unconstitutional. Equal justice under the law is guaranteed, and equal justice [is] received." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asteriks (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
This argument is going in circles.
I objected to the fact that you put up an external link that can be incorporated into the article, and you did that. That is acceptable.
However, the argument that your stance (and by extension, your edit) is non-slanted is ridiculous, and I have given ample reasoning why. You don't believe that a hate crime is worse than the physical crime committed, and in so doing, you're attempting to argue that motive is irrelevent. This is, however, to deny the very basis of our criminal code. What is the difference between 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder, and Manslaughter? After all, a person dies in all three cases.
More to the point, you once again have echoed one of the primary myths of such legislation, attempting to pass it off as an argument. Get this through your head: It does not involve minorities... It involves everyone. When they say that someone is attacked because of their race, they mean any person with white, black, yellow, red, purple, pink and blue skin. Therefore, the claim that this is unfair is outrightly invalid.
Now, you're confusing the issue. Your hypothetical in the case of the black, gay woman... "Should punishment be increased four times because four minorities were, in some sense or another, involved?" First of all, I'd like to reiterate that this is a biased question because the person being a minority has no bearing. People who are white Christian straight males can also be a victim of a hate crime. Second, that example makes no sense because one motive is involved, making it a hate crime... The killing of a person due to something they represent and cannot change. Note that I did not say "somethings" (plural). The language of the bill is clear:
       The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or 
       perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, 
       sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the 
       victim...
That is, any incident (singular) of violence. Assault could be an incident of violence. Murder as well. Countless others.
The point I think you're getting stuck on is that a hate crime must be proven a hate crime. This is extremely difficult, as damning evidence must be presented, and that is hard to obtain.
Anyhoo, the notion that your position is the only one based on the Constitution is also rather comical. Point me to the part of the Constitution that defines the degrees of murder.
The fact is, the new laws will be passed now that Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert won't be able to kill it through despicable backdoor moves. Back in 2004, a bill sponsored by 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat was passed in the GOP-controlled Senate 65-33. The GOP-controlled House then voted 213-186 to instruct the House leaders (Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert) to pass the bill through the House Conference Committee because a majority wanted to pass it. Then, DeLay and Hastert cut the legislation out of the bill it was attached to, effectively killing it. It had bipartisan support and was endorsed by more than 175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations, including: the National Sheriffs' Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and many others. But the Democrats are now in control, and its imminent passage has upset the religious right. They are attempting to make this an assault on their version of "morality" (as if there are no other versions), and that has no place in our criminal code. So just like the laws barring gays from ever being able to join in a civil union, it is they that are on the offensive, here. Therein lies the partisan nature, and the reason why external links to arguments against its passage (that don't, in fact, argue against the philosophy behind hate crimes) are slanted.
At this point, I believe it might be prudent to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Vordabois 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I added this reference too (to item # 6): What the Hate Crimes Law Would Do by Chuck Colson, May 1, 2007. I don't think some of the doubts mentioned and some of double standards described should be left out of the debate, do you? ("… in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States. … In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment. This is the unspoken goal of activist groups. We know this because during the debate over the bill last week, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to this hate crimes bill. It asked that nothing in this law limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. The committee refused to adopt it. It also refused to adopt amendments protecting other groups from hate crimes—like members of the military, who are often targets of verbal attacks and spitting. They also shot down amendments that would protect the homeless and senior citizens, also often targeted by criminals. Nothing doing, the committee said—the only group they wanted to protect: homosexuals. Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought.") Asteriks 09:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate your putting that in as a reference and not another link. Very good of you.
But just so we're clear on one thing, the bill already explicitly mentions the freedom of speech. See: H.R. 1592, Section 7(d)
       SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
       
       (d) Rule of Evidence.-- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, 
       evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced 
       as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates 
       to that offense.
As may be evident in reading the language of the bill, its nature -- at its very core -- is to break down the whole idea of physically and psychologically terrorizing groups in society by curbing the notion of groups altogether... it is made clear that the convicted are the only ones who fabricate special groups. After all, anyone can be a victim of a hate crime, whether they are members of the demographic minority or not. Therefore, if we are going to include language that deliberately protects only certain specific circumstances regarding the First Amendment, it would violate the bill's universal nature. It would also inherently set all of the other freedoms of speech in a place where they are considered less sacred.
These amendments, if included, would obviously be the REAL assaults on liberty and freedom, because -- just like the hate crime laws -- the First Amendment is meant to apply to all equally... without discrimination.Vordabois 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

40% of "Arguments Against Hate Crimes Legislation" Removed Without the Slightest Explanation

Somebody has just removed four of 10 "Arguments against hate crimes legislation" (not to mention a sentence I improved), leaving only six. That, without the least explanation. Apparently, conservative arguments (or thoughts labeled thereas) are so (infuriatingly) wrong-headed that they can be removed without explanation, without their being even quoted, without a request for different viewpoints, and without a trace. Asteriks 10:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

They were unsourced and removed per WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and WP:ATT. Fireplace 14:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
They were removed per WP:CROCK. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider the charge of being unsourced a serious charge that must be thoroughly discussed and thoroughly proven before action is taken, not something that a person acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury all in one can take upon himself without said discussion, and that, without presenting the slightest shred of evidence and, indeed, without the slightest note thereof. Since the "offending" material has disappeared, noone can discuss it and offer their viewpoints, conflicting or otherwise. I do know for a fact that item # 4 did not belong among the unsourced facts, real or alleged. What I can do, therefore (and what I have done), is restore the quote from Matt Barber's Fake Anti-“Gay” “Hate Crimes” Keep Piling Up article. That does not excuse you for making the godlike decisions you have made. I, for one, consider it a duty not to remove or to change anything in any Wikipedia article without duly making a note of it and, indeed, without making a quote of said removed material for the sake of documentation. Finally, I find it very strange that the only alleged lack of sources you could find happened to be among the paragraph documenting arguments opposed to anti-hate crimes legislation and not a word, nor a comma, in the rest of the article (those in favor of such legislation). Asteriks 12:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In a number of cases, there have allegedly been false reports of hate crimes and even what some call 'a string of fraudulent high profile “hate crime” reports by homosexual activists.'

Offhand, Matt Barber is stating facts, J P Gordon. Is that quite clear? You may not like his conclusions, but if Barber is the only person stating a (verifiable) fact, then his testimony goes in. If it is a fact that there have been false and/or fraudulent hate crime reports (like there have been false and fraudulent rape charges), then those hyperlinks go in. If it is not a fact that judges and others have, at times, found such reports fraudulent, then and only then is your protest valid. Your duty here, JP Gordon, in my opinion (and the duty of any wikipedia contributor) is to find out if stated facts are true and not to delete material that offer facts you don't like while stating and hiding behind principled positions. (I am still astounded how many people manage to "out" sentences only in the parts of an article they don't like and never ever in the rest of an article.) So I am putting back the enclosed sentence (and while I'm at it, I am adding one from George Will's Hate Crime Laws). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asteriks (talk • contribs) 08:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

  • Please familiarize yourself with the concept of reliable sources. It is important who says what, and it's the responsibility of the editor making the insertions to assure that Wikipedia's attribution policy is satisfied. Next time someone removes the material -- and they will -- you'll need find actual sources, not some essentially unknown opinionator such as Mr. Barber. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we (i.e., Wikipedia readers) are not allowed to read (and/or listen to) Harry R Jackson's Open Letter to the African-American Community either?

  • Hm? You can read whatever you please; why should we care one way or another? Obviously, you've already read it, since you linked to it. We're just not going to link to it in Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

lol @ "not allowed." Sounds like a persecution complex.

Why is this so hard to comprehend? Talking about the validity of hate crime laws belongs in the article, not simply some external link.

So go to the article, state a case, provide the sources (if it's an editorial, say that the person is an editorialist and then link to the article in question which should contain the facts necessary, or at least some sort of verifiability), and there you go. Included in the article.

Example: "Editorialist Matt Barber (of townhall.com) alleges that (yada yada yada). As evidence of this, he recognizes a recent study done by (yada yada yada) that showed that (yada yada yada)."

Of course, one should expect peer review and challenges if the statements are questionable. But if it's relevent, verifiable material, it'd be a welcomed addition!

The concept of neutrality is a pretty simple thing. It's not rocket science. Vordabois 10:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Persecution complex"? I guess I should love the way that arguments with those oriented on a politically correct path always seem to revert to negative partisan descriptions (if it isn't fascists, money lovers, and warmongers, it's reactionary, clueless, and psychologically-challenged retards). FYI (in case you're interested), I have been known to write on Wikipedia in three or four different languages, and always it seems that those concerned with Wikipedia rules and guidelines only seem to get really riled up about them when what could be described as a conservative viewpoint is being presented (when it's a liberal viewpoint, it's at most more of a laid-back, ho-hum attitude). In the meantime, you may not like the author (more personal insults?), but — again — he makes a compelling point from what (offhand) is nothing other than an established fact, so I've added a link to Another Lesson In Selective Tolerance.
PS: Is it me (i.e., is it my persecution complex), or has some 90% of this topic's discussion page been deleted (deliberately or otherwise)?! Asteriks 08:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
In this case, it's actually your ignorance, somewhat surprising for someone experienced enough to have contributed in multiple languages. The talk page was archived, as talk pages often are, lest they get unwieldy; a simple look at the talk page history, or even at the talk page itself (see the "archive box" near the top), would have told you this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you know how t'is, dont'cha? Some of us think only of providin' hyperlinks for the ignoran' reader who — like ourselves! — wants t'explore and learn more (from either side of the opinion aisle) on any given subject. We set 'em up, and don't think of spendin' time learnin' every detail of Wikipedia's rules. And we wouldn't think of deletin' (or even spendin' time readin' an' judgin') each hyperlink that adheres to the politically correct screed, for that matter. Jes' let us set up some alternative viewpoints. I guess some of us non-liberal folk are simply not as smart, as intelligent, as wise, as rule-abidin', as tolerant, as humanistic, as generous, as sensitive, etc, as some other folks on this site… Asteriks 08:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not beleive that lewrockwell.com and townhall.com (both self-published) are reliable sources for factual statements. Please attribute factual assertions to reliable sources, or I will remove them. --Dr.enh 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the first two bullets in "opposition to hate crime laws", and pretty much expect them to be changed in some way. Asterisks, if you change it, take my lead and cite RELIABLE, and OBJECTIVE SOURCES!! Vordabois 07:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you don't consider townhall.com to be a reliable source. It is not self-published, any more than the New York Times is self-published - it publishes columns (usually opinion or op-ed columns) which are often nationally or regionally syndicated. Besides this, it is owned by the fourth-largest radio station owner (Salem Communications) in the United States and had previously been owned by a major think tank (The Heritage Foundation). All-in-all, it's just as reliable of a source as any other news publisher. Citing from WP:V, footnote 3 "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." What Townhall.com publishes, as an media outlet owned by a major media corporation, with professional columnists, clearly meets the definition cited in the policy. It is interesting to note that even the New York Times, which Townhall.com is often critical of, considers them to be a reliable source (further note that the context in which the citations are used in the NYT article is similar to the one in which the citations are used in this Wikipedia article) - No Koran in Congress, Fewer Muslims to America?. Regards, --Tim4christ17 talk 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


"further note that the context in which the citations are used in the NYT article is similar to the one in which the citations are used in this Wikipedia article"
This is not a NY Times editorial page. This is an encyclopedia. What do you think that says to me about your conception of neutrality?
This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.
From WP:Reliable Sources/examples:
“ Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. ”
Did this person remove the material? He's merely asking for more verification. This is clearly mandated by the guidelines, as they are obviously controversial/contested claims published by a right-wing think tank (Heritage Foundation) or the fourth-largest radio station owner in the USA (Salem).


As for me and my edit... Before, I just modified it and let it go, but this is what I removed from the section this time:
According to editorialist George Will, "Hate crimes are seven one-hundredths of 1 percent of all crimes, and 60.5 percent of them consist of vandalism (e.g., graffiti) or intimidation (e.g., verbal abuse)."
He's making the case that hate crimes aren't really all that serious beyond non-bias crimes. However, if he had cited the relevent statistics to prove his case, he would have proven himself wrong. There's a huge difference between 12% and 31.4%. I think his use of carefully selected numbers deems his mention unworthy. What better example of unreliability is there? (Call me crazy, but regardless of the source's integrity, I think the actual FBI statistics are just a little tiny bit more fair to use anyways.)
And this:
"He argues that the relative rarity of their occurrence deems hate crime legislation "[nothing but] indignation gestures. Legislators federalize the criminal law in order to use it as a moral pork barrel to express theatrical empathy."
Totally unencyclopedic. It cannot be included. There's no way.
And this brings me to my problem with townhall.com overall. That George Will citation is a textbook example...
I'm not going to go out of my way to delete any particularly relevent and verifiable factoid coming from columns there... As you can see, I'm not deleting anything else. And I'm not going to say that there is absolutely no worth to some pieces there. But it's an unfortunate reality that places like townhall.com -- which, one could plainly see, draw very little distinction between news articles and editorials -- attract people who obviously are rather prone to being somewhat lazy in the necessity of questioning/examining/testing sources. Then these people go on to edit wikipedia (and pollute the media in general) with partisan nonsense and then claim they're some kind of tragic victims when people call them on it. It's ridiculous. Vordabois 07:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "It is costly and difficult to prove hatred as a motivation..." argument because I did not find support for it in the cited sources. I removed the "can only lead to more government intervention into the lives of citizens..." argument because a partisan think tank and an opinion blog are not reliable sources for a factual assertion. If someone wants to restate the argument as, "Some argue that....{opinion}," please go ahead. -- Dr.enh 05:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are truly interested in objectivity and spreading encyclopedic knowledge (particularly in the present Wikipedia entry), why didn't you (simply) "restate the argument" yourself (rather than leave it to somebody else)? You will forgive me for making assumptions, but it's like the grocer who keeps returning the wrong change and who says in his defense that making mistakes "is only human"; for some strange reason, however, his mistakes with the change always seem to be in his favor. In the same way, it seems strange that some people making edits on this page for supposedly no other reason than to make Wikipedia the objective encyclopedia it deserves to be, only — and consistently — remove information from "Opposition to hate crime laws" without ever touching any other part of the article (unless of course it is to add to the pro-legislation parts).
In fact, the title of this section should now be "60% of "Arguments Against Hate Crimes Legislation" Removed Without the Slightest Explanation" (or hardly much thereof). Indeed, the editing never ceases on this page, as the "Opposition to hate crime laws" has now been whittled down to four arguments (it was once a list of ten!) — again (and as usual) without the perpetrator even bothering to make a record of the elements he or she removed (not to use the word "censored"). Although the arguments can hardly be called that, as the quotes with facts, figures (controversial or otherwise), and relatively lengthy argumentation have been whittled down to unmemorable bland statements. Meanwhile, the "Justifications for hate crime laws" seems to keep growing and ballooning (if only because the other section gets smaller and smaller), with well-written sentences replete with examples forming interesting paragraphs (as contrasted with the "Opposition's" simplistic and bland one-line sentences with no quotes or "spice" in its content, reminiscent of everything Miss Wormwood told us to avoid in Junior High).
Whittle away, seems to be the line of reasoning here, and wear down your (alleged) opponents over time. Asteriks 18:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't Bother

The discussion of this topic is rigged in favor of the pro-hate crime law position. Since there are already hate crime laws on the books with their own official justifications, there is no evidence of equal weight on the other side of the issue - there are no laws that dismiss the idea of a hate crime. Since self-evident facts and logic are not allowed on Wikipedia, it's impossible to reference the points brought up by the many people that oppose hate crime law. Wikipedia bureaucrats will ALWAYS favor the inferior position of a larger or more well-established entity, and ALWAYS reject the superior position of a smaller one. Intellectual fascism reigns supreme here. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A law is required for relevence? Uh... wow. That's a new one. Vordabois 04:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding Kathleen Parker's Hate Crimes and Special Victims: An Un-American Story. ("The fallacy of hate crime laws — the prosecution of which requires a degree of mind-reading not yet available to most Earthlings — has been cast into stark relief the past few weeks following an interracial rape-murder that has bestirred white supremacists and led to death threats against an African-American columnist. The spark that caused the firestorm was the brutal rape-murder of a young white couple, Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, who were carjacked last January in Knoxville, Tenn. Five blacks — four men and a woman — have been charged in connection with the slayings. Because the story didn't receive national media attention, some commentators and others have asserted that the media do not treat racial crimes equally. They point out that when a black stripper charged three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team with rape, the national media grabbed the story by the ankle and wouldn't let go. Not so Knoxville." Whose evidence of hate crime, precisely, is curtly dismissed in the (short) Wikipedia entry; few, if any, interventions by Wikipedia's usual rule-obeyers who fiddle around endlessly on this (Hate Crime) page, unless it is, in the Knoxville case, to remove (almost) all evidence of a hate crime (see Channon Christian discussion page).)

Further down the the Kathleen Parker discussion page, we are appraised by a reader that "I will never forget the way the press shyed away from the truth in the brutal murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising in Sept. 26, 1999. Jesse Dirkhising's brutal death was at the hands of two homosexual predators who later confessed to using the boy as a sex toy while torturing him to death. Talk about bias and lies. This horrid crime never got the press that the heterosexual murder of Matthew Shepherd received." Even if we may not agree with the rest of what Grobie says (even if some people may indeed be repelled about what that churchgoer goes on to say), what some of us are as concerned as him (or her) with is injustice and double standards.

But, frankly, if even George Will is going to get censored (sorry, banned) by people who obviously know better, and who know more, than that Newsweek columnist does — I added the Pulitzer Prize-winner because other references had been judged insufficient by people claiming only to be acting out of good faith (I guess you have to love the way that just about each and every one of the quoted people gets a "source's reliability may need verification" betrothed next to his or her name) — there is hardly much sense in even thinking of attempting to add a reference to Kathleen Parker (who — snort! — is nothing more that another member of the Washington Post Writers Group!), is there? (Which, some would say — I'm speaking of attempts to wear down the patience of anybody even attempting to provide an opinion (nay, a hyperlink) that does not adhere to the politically correct liberal grain — is exactly the purpose here, isn't it?) Asteriks 08:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for reinforcing my points.
You wrote: "Further down the the Kathleen Parker discussion page, we are appraised by a reader that "I will never forget the way the press shyed away from the truth in the brutal murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising in Sept. 26, 1999. Jesse Dirkhising's brutal death was at the hands of two homosexual predators who later confessed to using the boy as a sex toy while torturing him to death. Talk about bias and lies. This horrid crime never got the press that the heterosexual murder of Matthew Shepherd received." Even if we may not agree with the rest of what Grobie says (even if some people may indeed be repelled about what that churchgoer goes on to say), what some of us are as concerned as him (or her) with is injustice and double standards."
As David Niewert wrote in "Death on the Fourth of July":
the killing of Jesse Dirkhising was not a hate crime.
The boy's parents were friends with one of the gay men, Davis Carpenter, who wound up killing him. The boy spent weekends with Carpenter and his partner, Joshua Brown, at their home with his parents' consent; they reportedly believed he was working for them at their hair salon. It was during one of those visits to his home that Brown -- who told police he and Jesse had frequently tied each other up, though not for sexual purposes -- decided to "play a game" by sneaking up on Dirkhising from behind, binding his hands, and shoving underwear in his mouth, then wrapping it all with duct tape and then placing a T-shirt over his head. (Carpenter was present and had apparently encouraged the acts.) Brown then proceeded to rape Dirkhising multiple times with various objects, and then left him lying on the bed while he went to eat lunch. When he returned, the boy had stopped breathing, and attempts to resuscitate him failed.
There was, however, no evidence anywhere that the two gay men had acted out of a bias motivation against straight children, nor that Dirkhising had been intentionally selected because of his sexual preference. Neither Brown nor Carpenter had ever evidenced any animus toward straight people, and there was no indication of any desire to terrorize the straight community or "put them in their place."
In reality, Dirkhising's death was a relatively simple (if appalling) case of child murder -- and indeed, Brown was eventually convicted of, and Carpenter pleaded guilty to murder charges, and both were sentenced to life in prison without parole. There were 1,449 such murders committed in 1999 -- and though the media report such cases locally, they rarely make national headlines, largely because even though every child murder is by nature horrifying, there is no national debate over the wrongness of pedophilia or assaults on children, nor the propriety of stiffer penalties for them. These murders in fact are perpetrated by all kinds of people, though predominantly by heterosexuals who attack young girls. And while some are horrendous enough to catch national attention, there are too many of them to all receive splash coverage. Indeed, in the same month following Dirkhising’s killing, there were noteworthy murder/rape stories in Kansas and Wisconsin involving young girls that received about the same amount of media coverage.
In other words, your mention of this case only solidifies anyone's belief that you do not even know what a hate crime is (at best) or (at worst) are willingly participating in a form of gay-bashing that goes beyond rationality and common sense in attempting to equate homosexuality with child murder and child rape.
Oh, and I WILL be editing that wikipedia entry on Dirkhising. Thank you for making me aware of it and its soon-to-be-resolved factual omissions.
As for the George Will stuff, I think the facts speak for themselves. A retort that consists merely of using Pulitzer Prizes as some kind of proof that he has never written manipulative and slanted tripe at any point in his life is quite... well, absurd. Vordabois 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Who's more slanted than you are? Black-on-white violent crimes outnumber white-on-black violent crimes by a very large ratio, but the media tend not to focus on those crimes and they are far less likely to be classified as "hate crimes." You seem to have an authoritarian mindset when it comes to controlling which opinions and facts are addressed at Wikipedia. George Will is hardly a right-wing yahoo... would you be willing to explicitly state where he was factually incorrect in his commentary?
If you don't like arguments against hate crimes posted here then add more pro-hate crimes commentaries and statistics. Censoring information you dislike doesn't serve anybody's needs here. -- Gerkinstock 00:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Please look at the history of the page before adding to the discussion. Make a note of who it was that deleted what.
Also note that I said nowhere that George Will is a "yahoo". I merely said that Pulitzer Prizes do not suddenly make a person's partisan bullshit into fact. The statistics were quoted, my points were validated by them, and then someone deleted the whole thing. I don't think it was fair, however, and that edit should be undone.
I will have time later tonight to properly respond to posts.Vordabois 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you were not responsible for gutting the anti-hate crimes section, then I apologize. The article is clearly biased in favor of hate crimes at this point, and should at least address the fact that whites who commit crimes against non-whites or perceived non-whites are vastly more likely to be charged with hate crimes, making hate crimes themselves highly suspicious of being racist. Also, I put the term "minority" in quotes because it is a politically charged term; Mormons, for example, are a smaller minority in the U.S. than Hispanics are, yet are not considered "minorities," despite the fact that they have had a more unique history of discrimination in this country than Hispanics (48% of whom describe themselves as White/Caucasian, supposedly a "majority" group) and have never been given privileges comparable to affirmative action or bilingual education. I state this not because you are responsible for the changes I mention, but because they are relevant to the overall discussion.
P.S. -- I did not state that you called George Will a "yahoo." I will state that his partisan "bullshit" is as worthy of mentioning as the partisan "bullshit" that comes from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, NOW, GLAAD, The NY Times, Human Rights Campaign or any other Leftist group. -- Gerkinstock 00:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply to first paragraph: Cite it, and name the source!! There has GOT to be some sort of verifiable study out there that makes this distinction. And for what it's worth, hell if I, personally, would ever delete it. That's something that's been run around on that section but not mentioned. It needs to be there.
Reply to second: No one is disputing this. At all. The problem I think you're running into is that the philosophical reasoning behind hate crime legislation is fairly easily explained using verifiable sources. On the other side, unfortuately, a lot of the anti hate-crime legislation crowd today has devolved into this faction that focuses on particulars, turning it into an attack by zeroing-in on the "immorality" or "authoritarianism" of the pro hate-crime legislation folks. This may be because the new controversy involves sexuality, something social conservatives are passionate about. Nonetheless, the real, rational arguments seem to be left in the dust by this fervor. Vordabois 06:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You "WILL be editing that wikipedia entry on Dirkhising." Yes, and someone HAS continued the editing on this page, as well, as the "Opposition to hate crime laws" has now been whittled down to four arguments (it was once a list of ten!) — again (and as usual) without the perpetrator even bothering to make a record of the elements he or she removed (not to use the word "censored"). Although the arguments can hardly be called that, as the relatively-well argued presentations, with quotes, facts, figures (controversial or otherwise), and relatively lengthy argumentation have been whittled down to unmemorable bland statements. Meanwhile, the "Justifications for hate crime laws" seems to keep growing and ballooning (if only because the other section gets smaller and smaller), with well-written sentences replete with examples forming interesting paragraphs (as contrasted with the "Opposition's" simplistic and bland one-line sentences with no quotes or "spice" in its content, reminiscent of everything Miss Wormwood told us to avoid in Junior High). Whittle away, seems to be the line of reasoning here, and wear down your (alleged) opponents over time.

As for thinking "the facts speak for themselves", yes, they do: anybody, famous or otherwise, who does not support the legislation keeps getting short-shifted. If people quoted aren't well-known enough for Wikipedia, they are too ignorant for Wikipedia. And of course, should anybody think otherwise (whether a nationally-syndicated columnist — famed or other — or a simple reader trying to add an external hyperlink to a Wikipedia entry), he or she needs to be ridiculed, demonized, or otherwise castigated and shot down ("you do not even know what a hate crime is (at best) or (at worst) are willingly participating in a form of gay-bashing that goes beyond rationality and common sense in attempting to equate homosexuality with child murder and child rape").

I notice that some people — consciously or otherwise, deliberately or otherwise — have not understood the main concern of those opposed to the law, which (in case anybody happens to be sincerely interested) Kathleen Parker states in her first sentence ("The fallacy of hate crime laws — the prosecution of which requires a degree of mind-reading not yet available to most Earthlings — has been cast into stark relief"). But then, of course, the mindset that supports hate crime legislation does allow for the reading other of people's minds (and of other people's characters, and other of people's morality, etc) being quite possible (and relatively easy), and thus allows naturally for the type of judgment that says gratuitously (and unequivocally and off the cuff) that certain classes of people are ignorant or rabid right-wingers or racist to the point of gay-bashing.

In any case: thank goodness we have the watchdogs here to prevent anything remotely resembling "unorthodox" thought to enter the debate (either on this page, on the Jesse Dirkhising page, or in any other Wikipedia entry) or even be available. God forbid that you should allow the reader to even have simple links to other opinions and that you should leave the reader to make up his own mind. The line of reasoning, again, on Wikipedia, does not always seem to be discussion, debate, and a true desire for all arguments to be presented (although it is often stated that arguments of a true nature will and would be acceptable; for some strange reason, however, the "objectivists" — the supposedly more-intelligent-than-thou and more-non-partisan -than-thou pure "objectivists" — rarely add these themselves, preferring leave the chore to others). Rather, the line of reasoning seems to be: Whittle away, and wear down your (alleged) opponents over time. Asteriks 18:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It never stops! It simply never stops!!! Remember the fact that what was 10 arguments opposing hate crimes legislation lost four of those arguments overnight? The arguments opposing hate crimes legislation have now been whittled down to three! And — as usual — with no explanation whatsoever, needless to say, with the culprits not even bothering to make a record of their changes on this discussion page… If you will forgive the hyperbole, I am starting to think that this is beginning to look like Animal Farm's Seven Commandments being dropped ever so slowly over time, one by one, without benefit of any declaration and few citizens noticing or deeming it important. I was considering adding Harry R Jackson's Freedom Held Hostage, but, really, what's the point?! (Which, of course, is exactly how the Wikipedia's usual suspects (I mean, usual censors) want us to feel, along with the accompanying sense of futility of adding something not to their liking…) Asteriks 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In Why "Islamophobia" Is a Brilliant Term, Dennis Prager gives more examples of how hate crimes are inherently unfair and lead to double standards; how the terms that their champions use (homophobia, Islamophobia, etc…) are misleading (intentionally or otherwise); and what the true purpose of those types of terms are ("to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of" the subject at hand).

"What do anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia have in common?" asks Dennis Prager. "In fact, nothing. … Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. … One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist. The equation of Islamophobia with racism is particularly dishonest. Muslims come in every racial group, and Islam has nothing to do with race. … Even granting that there are people who fear Islam, how does that in any way correlate with racism? If fear of an ideology rendered one racist, all those who fear conservatism or liberalism should be considered racist. … However, the only religion the West permits criticism of is Christianity. People write books, give lectures and conduct seminars on the falsity of Christian claims, or on the immoral record of Christianity, and no one attacks them for racism or bigotry, let alone attacks them physically. …

"The fact remains that the term 'Islamophobia' has one purpose — to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of Islam. And given the cowardice of the Western media, and the collusion of the left in banning any such criticism (while piling it on Christianity and Christians), it is working.

"Latest proof: This past week a man in New York was charged with two felonies for what is being labeled the hate crime of putting a Koran in a toilet at Pace College. Not misdemeanors, mind you, felonies. Meanwhile, the man who put a crucifix in a jar of urine continues to have his artwork — Piss Christ — displayed at galleries and museums. A Koran in a toilet is a hate crime; a crucifix in pee is a work of art. Thanks in part to that brilliant term, 'Islamophobia'." Asteriks 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring saddens me

Greetings. I know that many subjects can be heated and folks invest passion into articles they edit. Please consider the work we do here will have to stand the test of time and whatever article emerges from our collective work should be accurate and well-researched. As a suggestion consider the viewpoint of folks opinions who disagree with you - what would they write? Is there some truth there that actually should be allowed for? The words "always" and "never" quickly become "sometimes" or "often." No one wins when we fight and argue and the article rarely becomes better. Disagreements can be sorted out with thoughtful dialog that avoids personal attacks and heated language. Please consider that everything you type on WP is archived, seemingly forever, so consider what you want your comments to say about you several years from now. Benjiboi 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Netherlands should be included as a Eurasian country with no hate crime laws. I'm a bit surprised to see this article locked, btw. Bentivogli 08:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think that's incorrect. There are several articles in the Netherlands' criminal code punishing incitement to racial violence, etc. I'll add this shortly. Fireplace 02:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And I am tired of seeing not only the "conservative" point of view of the main article getting regularly edited down, but even the discussion page getting — in effect as well as in deed — censored. (And that is far from being hyperbole or exaggeration.) I was going to add a link to an admittedly partial point of view (albeit a well-documented one) on what can happen in a country when a hate crimes law is adopted (i.e., threats from the police and public attacks on civil liberties necessitating, at the very least, expensive defense), but after viewing the Arguments against hate laws section again get smaller and smaller, I don't really know what the point is anymore. (And needless to say, that is exactly the point of certain people on Wikipedia: to wear conservatives down until they give up in exasperation.)

So, where are we supposed to recount the travails of the elderly couple living near Blackpool in Lancashire who were visited by police officers after they expressed the desire to put Christian leaflets in a town hall that would display gay literature on its premises? After reading a newspaper article, Helen and Joe Roberts got in touch with said council by nothing more than a phone call. A few days later, if the Christian Institute is to be believed, they were visited by two policemen who accused them of being homophobic and spent 80 minutes saying that they were walking on eggshells, warning them of being "very near a hate crime", and telling them that if so convicted, they risked seven years' imprisonment. "We haven't raised our voices, we haven't been abusive, we haven't been over-critical," say Helen and Joe Roberts. "We just said that we wanted to put a Christian point of view across when they were putting the homosexual literature" in the town hall. The Wyre Borough Council and police never asked the retired couple what type of Christian literature they wanted to put out, we are told, they never asked to see the leaflets, "it was just a flat no and that was it." As their lawyer, Tom Ellis, states it, the "principle in the case was the right of Christians to express their beliefs without fear of public interference."

Forget the fact, for a moment, that it concerns gays and Christians (or gays versus Christians or whatever). Does it not belong in the hate crimes article that the law concerned (a so-called just and necessary law) runs a very strong risk of preventing not just Christians but any type of citizen (including, naturally, gays) from expressing their beliefs (whether good, bad, ugly, or otherwise)? And is it biased, prejudiced, reactionary, "reich-wing", or even simply "conservative" or plain subjective to point this out (and to add arguments and links in the article pointing this out)?!

The top box on this page states that "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hate crime article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Well and fine. Agreed for once, a thousand times agreed. Except, if: you do not state — and if you do not demonstrate (!) — that your reasons for your views are not based on partisanship but on rational thinking, on sound judgment, and on the desire for free speech, you get dismissed as being a gay-basher and/or racist with the opposition feeling free to delete your "prejudiced" additions without a second thought and nary an explanation or a record of the deed. (Something they have done repeatedly and unceasingly, as you would be able to see if you knew how to find a trace of the [lengthy] parts of the hidden discussion page.) Asteriks 19:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the elderly couple... Would you or would you not agree that that is covered by this statement?... "Over time, these provisions might be disregarded and hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point where speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion (among others)." I think it's pretty well covered.
And also, who is getting dismissed as a gay-basher? Racist? Are you actually attempting to argue that people who support hate crime legislation believe that disagreement with hate crime laws make you these things? That's what it sounds like to me, and that's ridiculous. (Can you say Straw man??))Vordabois 08:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If the censored parts of this discussion were readily available, I would quote from parts in which we kept getting treated to suggestions, including by you, Vordabois, that people not attuned to the hate crimes law are (or must be) gay-bashers, reactionaries, or maniacs (or… dishonest arguers setting up straw men). (In your case you often wondered about it in (rhetorical?) question form, which I admit gives you an escape hatch for dismissing such suggestions by those of us thus labeled as nothing else than "ridiculous".)

As for whether the travails of the elderly couple near Blackpool is covered by the statement you mention, is the statement "America's three branches are for everyone and are expected to endure endlessly" covered by Lincoln's government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth? Is "British leaders think its military must continue the war" covered by Churchill's we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender? Possibly. But the quotes (and/or specific examples) give meat to the statement and thus render it better and more edible.

More to the point is the lack in balance! The same people who have been continuously submitting the "conservative" part of this article to emasculation for the past months do not see fit to do the same to the main part of the article and the (far longer and much more richly-written) points in favor of the law, with far more colorful examples. As the pro-hate laws group clearly understands, as their part of the article keeps getting longer and longer and richer and richer! Which led me once to say that it is hardly an exaggeration to say that some articles are now 90-95% to the "left" and 5-10% to the "right". What has been happening on Wikipedia is the determination of a set number of people to make their case look good and and the opposition's case (of which the legal nightmare undergone by a retired couple in Lancashire is perhaps the most compelling example) look bland, uninteresting, and harmful. As somebody sometimes described as a conservative, all I ask, all I have been asking from the beginning, is: "give everybody, give all pov, equal space!" Asteriks 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you continue to dig yourself into your hole. I have NEVER stated that anyone who objects to hate crime laws is inherently racist or a gay-basher or anything of the sort, nor have I "wondered rhetorically" about it. I invite you to validate your claims. The only passage I can see that could even remotely be considered as such is one where I point out that you don't know what a hate crime even is after you somehow make some sort of allusion to a totally irrelevant case. (The Dirkhising case could not be considered a hate crime under any definition.)
I have, however, singled out your straw men numerous times before. So have others. You apparently don't realize that you depend on them heavily. In fact, it seems to whittle down to be virtually the cornerstone of your argument. You want to include rightist editorials, people challenge their neutrality due to mischaracterizations/half-truths, omitted facts, and purposely inflammatory statements, then you assume the actual underlying argument banned.
That is absurd. Witness the inclusion of the underlying arguments in the article. Finally! (Well done, btw, folks. After all this edit crap, it's refreshing to see some attention by impartial editors.) Sure, they could use a little beefing-up, but they're there. (Also witness that none of the arguments supporting hate crime legislation are provided by partisan shills. There's a statement sourced to a governmental agency, another sourced to a judge's ruling on a case, and another attributed to the general consensus of a legislative body. Those are the sorts of sources necessary.)
What all of this boils down to is this: in an encyclopedia, there is no inference. It is factual, and what needs said should be said outright. If you feel as though others may have grounds to rationally object to a statement you'd like to include, you're probably right to not act on that urge. It's that simple.
As an afterthought, have you ever considered digging up statements written by Supreme Court Justices regarding their opposition to certain aspects of hate crime laws? Every time the Supreme Court makes a decision, they write reports explaining why they either concur or disagree with the outcome. Seriously, that's your ticket. No one can refute the fact that those arguments are the ones that matter.
Don't take this the wrong way, because I'm not trying to rile you up, here... But try not to use editorials from outlets that are blatantly right-wing. You're just asking for deletion and doing a disservice to the arguments of people who oppose the laws. Especially when the real, sound arguments are so readily available on the net.Vordabois 05:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You speak of "mischaracterizations/half-truths, omitted facts, and purposely inflammatory statements". Unless I am gravely mistaken, most of the authors' concern (whether sympathetic to the gay movement or otherwise) has been with the First Amendment and with free speech, along with concern that a number of examples of hate crimes provided by members in the the gay movement have been bogus, deliberately or otherwise, or at least exaggerated. (Which is hardly a sin in and of itself; any group will lionize its achievements, its goals, and the needs it claims society. But: this is something (when it occurs, or when somebody believes it is occurring) that also needs to be pointed out — unless you want all entries in Wikipedia written by the partisan groups concerned.)

In April 2007, you put matters succinctly: "If a white guy hits a black guy because he's black, it's a hate crime. As is a black guy who hits a white guy because he's white. Vordabois 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC) … just stick with switching from white to black... the equation stays the same. Is the motivation based at least in part on the color of the person's skin? If the answer is "Yes," = Hate crime. It's really quite simple. Vordabois 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)" MY point of view, and the — primary (as far as I know) — point of view of most of the writers I have quoted and/or linked (and all the writers that have been banned!) has been: NO, it is NOT that simple. There have been false examples given in the past, and the history of hate crime laws has led to of a lessening of free speech (with seemingly straightforward examples of citizens getting hounded by the government). All good and well, but his needs to be included. This is the basis of the argument.

Unless I am mistaken, the attitude of some in this debate has been, from the very first: The right is utterly despicable (or close thereto) for putting up the slightest objection to the hate crimes law, its writers (the ones I linked to or myself) are obviously morons and/or treacherous reactionaries, and all demonization of the right is not demonization, because it is (highly) warranted. In contrast (!), any charges of leftist bias are, in the final analysis, patently "absurd".

I only need to go to your very first response to one of my comments (6 April 2007): "If you want to add something in the criticism section about that ridiculously partisan BS and then source it, be my guest. Of course, you'd hafta frame it something like "Hate crime legislation is being used by the homosexuals to force society to accept their abominable, deviant behavior," but then, that wouldn't sound palatable or even rational, now would it? (Funny how so much of the right wing crapola never comes out and says what it really means.)"

Contrast that [I have no idea why the previous paragraph came out looking so weird] with your comment a few days later: "You are attempting to slant an article to the right, and that is unacceptable. … ABC news admitted what? That they were part of some leftist bias machine that got stumbled up by "the facts" and that they purposely decieved everyone? That's absurd." Apparently, there is not the slightest amount of "mischaracterizations/half-truths, omitted facts, and purposely inflammatory statements" in those sentences or from any writer (linked or otherwise) agreeing with those views.

In case you think the same (or rather the reverse) is true of me, I repeat that I have not tried to remove any text. I have only tried to add some comments that give a different perception, thereby balancing the article. (And thereby earning myself — as well as those authors — charges, direct or indirect, of idiocy, partisanship, hatred, homophobia, and what-have-you-not. And again, most of those authors' concerns have been with the First Amendment and with free speech and with the lessening of the civil right to engage therein, along with concern that the examples of hate crimes provided by members in the the gay movement have been bogus or at least exaggerated.)

Here is an article I am trying to give some balance. What do I get in return? None of my examples are good enough. The authors are not good enough. Matt Barber is not good enough. Harry R Jackson is not good enough. Even George Will is not good enough! And a straightforward example of a hate crime law turning the lives of an innocent couple (a relatively innocent couple, if you prefer) into a legalistic nightmare is not good enough either!

Now, you are suggesting that the only valid additions are texts by justices by the Supreme Court. Oh, it does not suffice that citizens wanting another viewpoint, conservative or other (most of whom are not in the law), read a short New York Times editorial (many of which are — rightly — quoted and linked all over Wikipedia). They have to search for a law case (something they are hardly used to doing on a daily basis) and then search through dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of complicated legalese to provide something worthwhile to add on this site. Suppose we do that. And then what? There is no risk that someone say that this is too legalese and that such language should be avoided on Wikipedia!? And what if we quote a majority decision or a minority decision? Won't you delete that, saying it is not good enough until we quote the dissenting opinions in order to provide balance (something that sounds reasonable until one realizes the same standards are not put on articles slanted to the left)? What happens if we quote Clarence Thomas?! Isn't he also a far-right bigot? And aren't the justices chosen by George W Bush obviously morons? You can keep up with this until the article remains the way it is now (the way it has been whittled down until now) — absolutely bland — or until conservatives get tired of this, and throw in the towel. (Which, I strongly suspect, is some people's goal — conscious or otherwise — on Wikipedia.)

The main subject here is balance (or the lack thereof). Conservatives keep getting told that we have to look for — that we have to spend inordinate amounts of time looking for — better examples, that we need to file through — that we need to spend inordinate amounts of time filing through — the stacks of the Supreme Court, or that we have to comb through — that we need to spend inordinate amounts of time combing through — liberals' previous comments to find an exact quote. (Yeah, you're right; a Google search could probably do so "easily"; if you think it is so easy, and if you are really so concerned with nothing but the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, some might be wont to ask: why don't you do it yourself?! (Surely you would have saved dozens of hours (or minutes) writing up the free-speech viewpoint yourself — with the examples — rather than inviting others to find the necessary resources.))

What in fact is occurring here is this: You keep getting to set the standards. Standards that (for some strange reason) enhance the viewpoint that you adhere to. When we happen to meet those standards, they get upped. (When we found a straightforward example of a hate crime law going kafkaesque, this is not good either, because it is covered by a — bland — statement [the sentence, "Over time, these provisions might be disregarded and hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point where speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion" (emphasis mine), as it has been made blander and blander from month to month, sounds entirely hypothetical and nonthreatening, when in the opinions of many — including mine and the authors of linked — there are numerous examples of it already happening and has already happened, notably in the EU]; in contrast to the absence of examples proving a bogus report of a hate crime or a hate crime's erosion of free speech, the article contains numerous examples of what does — apparently — constitute a straightforward hate crime.) The standards keep getting upped. Speaking of the law, you are defense attorney, the main witness, and the judge all at the same time. No judge's retraction for you, for being slanted towards one of the opponents in the courtroom.

You have constantly torn down any "conservative" additions to the article (for some strange reason, nothing anybody adds to the "liberal" view ever got removed). You have constantly said "Oh, we are willing to accept any conservative addition to this article — provided it is up to my standards." But for some strange reason, it's never good enough. At the same time, you have constantly denied that you are partisan. At the same time, you have constantly claimed that your only desire is a well-written article worthy of an encyclopedia. In that case, you should not be inviting us to find better examples; you should be the one seeking out compelling examples (conservative or otherwise) showing the law poses a threat to civil liberties and free speech. Asteriks 11:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.