Talk:Hate crime

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

References 10 and 11 no longer exist at that URL. Just putting it out there. BUmkdyn 00:30, 28 July 2010 (EDT)


Cut from the article:

A common form is racial hate crime, 90% of which is committed by blacks on whites.[Citation Needed]

Two questions:

  1. Are we saying that most inter-racial crime is black on white, rather than white on black?
  2. Are we saying that 90% of racial hate crime is black on white?

BTW, I've heard that most crime perpetrated on blacks is black-on-black crime.

P.S. I'm a math teacher, so be careful with your statistics. --Ed Poor 11:31, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

It is mostly black on white, and I am starting to think this site is trying to piss of white people. Well, maybe I meant interracial. Tyhorm 11:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)


Likewise, Ed Poor: Please provide a cite for the "The new Speaker of the House for the 2007-2008 Congress, Nancy Pelosi, seeks to pass hate crime legislation proposed in the prior session of Congress in H.R.3132." sentence, as the "Children's Safety Act of 2005" doesn't seem to mention "hate crimes". thanks Rob Pommertalk 11:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Just for the record, title X of the Children's Safety Act delas with hate crimes.[[1]]--Steve 11:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, Steve. Sorry Ed if I gave you the impression of not trusting your source but please try to include kinda exactly where to find these things; trying to wade through an entire piece of legislation for the germane section can be taxing.
Rob, I don't know anything about Pelosi or H.R. 3132. I suggest you ask Mr. Schlafly. --Ed Poor 11:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, unless he comes and visits this page he won't see my "complaint" and I'm not going to "pollute" his talk page with piddling details. Could you, though, Ed, at least fix the sentence: Changing seeks to sought ought to do it. Thanks. Rob Pommertalk
Done. Rob Pommertalk


I'm wondering if the section "Free Speech and the Gay Agenda" needs to be changed. Lines like "Homosexuality, on the other hand is not God-given or godly in any way. It therefore does not merit any protection or honor whatsoever, and is just as wrong as other perversions (such as incest), even when performed by "consenting adults"." seem to both confuse facts and beliefs (How do we know that homosexuality isn't God given or godly? That's a belief, not a fact), and is a non-sequitur (why, assuming that homosexuality isn't godly, does it not merit any legal protection?) Could I suggest changing that section so it reads as follows:

Opponents charge that hate crime and hate speech rules amount to an erosion of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion, free speech, and freedom of press. In particular, they object to rules or laws which equate condemnation of sin with prejudice. Hate crime legislation imposes additional punishment for crimes held to be motivated by such "prejudice". Liberals promote hate crime legislation to legitimize certain lifestyles by declaring them to be protected by law, and to chill free speech that criticizes those lifestyles. Hate crime legislation is a stepping stone for a lifestyle to become protected under anti-discrimination laws. As part of the homosexual agenda, the gay rights movement has attempted to equate racism and anti-Semitism with the condemnation of homosexuality. To do this, they must of course gloss over the fact that race is 100% inherited and immutable, while there is a debate whether or not homosexuality is immutable, and that religious and ethnic persecution against Jews involved a 6 million person Holocaust (see genocide and ethnic cleansing), which greatly exceeds any discrimination homosexuals have suffered. Nonetheless, the strategy of some of those supporting extending hate crime legislation to gays is to insist that condemnation of homosexuality is a type of "prejudice" equivalent to a civil rights violation. They want people of conscience, who already condemn antisemitism and racism, to regard any critique of homosexuality as an expression of "hate". This matter is complicated by the fact that some religious denominations consider homosexual behavior sinful and homosexuality to be a choice. So, from the point of view of members of these denominations, their criticism of homosexuality is nothing more than pointing out evil and telling people to stop committing sin. They see this not as hate but an expression of love.

This both expresses the point of view of those opposed to extending hate crime protections to gays, while making it clear that it is a point of view.--Steve 17:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure why that needs "clarifying". Sounds more like "diluting".
We need to get across the point that the Homosexual Agenda wants to use any means possible to prevent Christians, et al., from declaring that (1) homosexuality is sinful and (2) homosexual behavior is 100% by choice.
This is not the article to stick on objections or quibbles about immutablity of "orientation". There's another article about that (or should be): sexual orientation. --Ed Poor Talk 18:58, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Abuse of the law

Matt McReynolds, a staff attorney for Pacific Justice, said:

It's gotten to the point even pure speech is being criminalized, with no actions or violence," he said.
"That's where hate crimes legislation inevitably has led in other Western societies," McReynolds said. His organization has worked on a number of such cases already involving California's own version of a "hate crimes" plan.
"The law of unintended consequences – or perhaps intended consequences cleverly disguised – is starkly illustrated by the ongoing federal case Harper v. Poway Unified School District," he wrote in a summary of the problems. "In Harper, a student responded to the annual pro-homosexual 'Day of Silence,' which was being heavily promoted on his high school campus, by wearing a T-shirt which expressed his religious viewpoint that homosexuality was 'shameful.'
"Instead of allowing a differing viewpoint, school officials pulled aside Harper, demanding that he change his expression or face suspension. An assistant principal even suggested to Harper that he needed to leave his faith in the car while at school, in order not to offend homosexual students," according to McReynolds.
"Such a result clearly undermines basic Constitutional protections," including free expression and religion, he noted. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57583


No one is saying that they are in favor of hate crimes. If you assault someone because they are Christian or homosexual, it's a hate crime.

Their objection is to suppressing pure speech. If I say, "God prohibits homosexual behavior", no one should say I'm breaking the law; rather, they should defend to the death my right to say this! --Ed Poor Talk 12:48, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Article title

Shouldn't this article be called 'Hate Crimes and Homosexuality', since it really doesn't mention anything about racialy (two Ls?) based hate crime, or religious based hate crime except against Christians. Maestro 00:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Holocaust of gays, gypsies, and handicapped

Rather than reverting the changes of a respected editor & sysop, I would like to provide links that yes the holocaust did indeed target gays, gypsies, and handicapped individuals including US government's own documents from teh war. http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ (US holocaust museum), http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005143, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/27/155228.shtml, from Jstor http://www.jstor.org/pss/2657492, and of course any google search on Weizsdcker's announcement in 1985.--JeanJacques 14:21, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks, but before I check those references, I will provide this one: Pink Swastika
I think homosexuals were more predator than prey during the Nazi era. However, it's not opinion that I want in the article but fact. We only put in opinion when we can't get to the facts. --Ed Poor Talk 14:25, 10 November 2008 (EST)
So, you are saying the US government, the German government, the Italian Government who all state unequivocally that Homosexuals, gypsies, handicapped, and others were also targets - you are saying they are just stating "opinion?" or worse, lying?--JeanJacques 14:30, 10 November 2008 (EST)
So, are you saying that former mayor Ed Koch is a spokesman for the US government? Don't put words in my mouth, and I will give you the same respect. --Ed Poor Talk 14:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)


References

  1. [2] from Edward I. Koch, former mayor of New York - more of a politician than a historian
  2. between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in concentration camps [3] - not many, compared to 6,000,000. Jews were one thousand times more likely to be put in a concentration camp.

I'm not going to bother to check the other refs. This sounds like trying to grab onto the coattails of the real victims. --Ed Poor Talk 14:32, 10 November 2008 (EST)

It seems by your words you are saying that unless the same number (or similar numbers) of people die in a particular event, the smaller group is not the real "victim". In my home town, two killers targeted "popular people" "jocks" and "Christians" at a school shooting. They also shot a teacher and at least 2 students who were not in the above 3 groups. by your logic, or at least the way you present your logic, the 2 students and teacher were not really "victims", they just wanted to grab onto the coat tails of real victims. Gays were targeted and killed by the Nazis. Just in smaller numbers. Same with the physically and mentally disabled. Same with various ethnic groups. These groups are still victims. I'm sorry if you think the only people who are victims are those whose numbers were most depleted. I think anyone who is killed is a victim. Again, I respect that I should not change the article, since you put far more time and energy into this site. but I would ask you to rethink your stance, as it is not a stance of love.--JeanJacques 15:12, 10 November 2008 (EST)

You should correct the article if it is wrong. But you should not put your own spin on things.

No one is saying that if 0.1% of concentration camp internees were killed because they were homosexual, they weren't victims. I'm just saying there is no evidence that homosexuals were targeted in anything like the way Jews were.

Did you read the source I quoted? I read two of yours.

My source indicates that gays were interned because of behavior - not identity - specifically having sex with people of their own gender in public places. I'm sure you understand the difference between behavior and "membership in a group".

For example, some people daydream about acting like Robin Hood, and "stealing from the rich to give to the poor". But in the U.S. no one is put in jail for advocating such a redistribution of wealth. They would be jailed if they actually stole something, though. --Ed Poor Talk 15:39, 10 November 2008 (EST)

If you read [4] (from the Holocaust Museum) more carefully, you'll see that while less than 15,000 men were placed in concentration camps just for being gay (and presumably, many of those survived), "approximately 50,000 served prison terms as convicted homosexuals," and around 100,000 were arrested. As you say, this is a relatively small part of the overall story of the Nazis, but it certainly was real: it certainly isn't a matter of the gay community trying to ride the Jewish community's "sympathy coattails". Google "the forgotten Five Million" and you'll find many good sites that talk about some of the smaller groups targeted by the Nazis. Individually, each group was small, but taken together, nearly half of all Holocaust deaths (approx. 5m out of approx. 11m) were targeted for some trait other than Jewishness. Fishal 08:19, 11 November 2008 (EST)

The deception is to imply that gays were rounded up "for being homosexuals". Please provide evidence for that, or drop it.

What I've seen is rather that a relatively tiny group of men were arrested "for breaking a law" with their actions: specifically, having sex in a public place with other men.

We need to write more about the distinction between "traits" (or "identities") and Behavior.

Another theme here (perhaps Gay deceit?) is the deliberate blurring of distinctions. This is used to persuade people of things that are not true.

We all agree (or pay lip service to, if you're a typical liberal) the idea that we should tell the truth. Who's going to help me tell the truth about this? --Ed Poor Talk 10:08, 11 November 2008 (EST)

I assumed that in order to be "convicted of homosexuality", these men had to engage in homosexual actions at some point. It was the actions that were punished, sure, I'll agree with you. The source does not say whether these 100,000 arrests happened in a public place, or on what basis some were convicted and others were not, or on what basis some were sent to concentration camps and others were not. What I was addressing was your denial that homosexuals (and the handicapped, the Gypsies/Romany etc.) were ever made the victims of Nazi aggression; clearly, they were. Fishal 16:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Personal tools