Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hate crimes

Rate this topic


aequalsa

Recommended Posts

It is now MORE illegal to attack anyone but straight white males. So if you feel that you unavoidably must give someone a beatdown to get rid of some aggression, and want to do as little time as possible, you know who to attack. A rider attached to the bill stated that you sill get bonus points for straight, white males of the protestant republican variety. (only kidding....please don't hit me. I have no legal recourse.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20091028...clatchy/3343585

"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed the first major piece of federal gay rights legislation, a milestone that activists compared to the passage of 1960s civil-rights legislation empowering blacks.

The new law adds acts of violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to the list of federal hate crimes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama was a university professor heavily into postmodernism, so he does believe all of this stuff, and, no doubt, has the arguments for it in their purist form. I can just imagine what the faculty at those universities sit around talking about. Not a pleasant thought!

Actually, think about that. Obama is not just a lawyer, he's a professor from a university. These are exactly the people spreading the Kantian poison. He is the president. Yikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it hasn't been done yet, I'm just waiting for the court case where a your typical straight, white, male comes to cry discrimination too because now people are legally able to get less harsh punishments for attacking straight white males specifically than any other category of people. Then the law gets amended to make things equal for them too and the end result is just that all around all the punishments are harsher than they used to be basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, actually, the law makes it a federal offense to commit a violent felony that "is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim". That means it is a federal crime to beat the crap out of a straight white male because he is a straight white male. It is still not a federal crime to beat the crap out of a person because he is a commie or opposes abortion. As usual, the Yahoo media didn't bother to read the actual law.

Zip -- we're lucky down here. We had some run-ins with this hate speech nonsense, and those laws were struck down as unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zip -- we're lucky down here. We had some run-ins with this hate speech nonsense, and those laws were struck down as unconstitutional.

Pfft, constitution... We got around that whole "problem"

Equality Rights

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.(84)

This is from part of the so called "Canadian Constitutional Documents" which includes the "British North America Act (1867)" and the "Constitution act of 1982" it is called "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"...

What a farce. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone remember this story? ...when some Republican congressman tried to introduce an amendment that would include members of the armed forces as a protected group because "Congress needs to make clear that hate of our armed forces will be punished at a heightened level..." and some Democratic congresswoman then said that violence perpetrated against military was "non-existent" and that they were not "real victims" of hate crimes, like gays and blacks and so forth. She goes on to say that is is "belittling of the respect that we should have of these groups [the gays, blacks, jews etc.]" to suggest that veterans and military have been systematically discriminated against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Yeah, um, the law says that if a white man were beaten up by a black man, that would be a hate crime.

I still have problems with laws such as these. It infringes on the independence of a judge, and it's a federal mandate. It makes the assumption that the judge MUST take into account that the person was racist.

We need manslaughter, first degree, second degree murder, etc. What we do not need is the government condemning racism. It's not the government's job to establish or punish racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, um, the law says that if a white man were beaten up by a black man, that would be a hate crime.

In theory, sure, but I'd love to see some honest statistics on how often that happens because I haven't once heard about a case like that on the news.

I agree with the rest of your statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, um, the law says that if a white man were beaten up by a black man, that would be a hate crime.

How very un-progressive of you.

"We're talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends -- is designed to cover. We don't have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person's desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute." --Eric Holder, Attorney General of the US

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How very un-progressive of you.

"We're talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends -- is designed to cover. We don't have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person's desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute." --Eric Holder, Attorney General of the US

Or...maybe not in theory even. I am far to positive in my outlook on the government sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, sure, but I'd love to see some honest statistics on how often that happens because I haven't once heard about a case like that on the news.

I agree with the rest of your statement.

Then that's what would need to be changed too: the aspect of our society that singles white people out as racists.

But hate crime laws are still stupid.

How very un-progressive of you.

Should I take that as a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...