Stacy at MediaSoul reports that her car was vandalized not once but twice by a new category of hate crime thug: the hetero-hater! She writes:
A few months back I wrote about how my Marriage equals one man plus one woman bumpersticker was vandalized. In that incident the perp had used a pen to make the figures the same sex.In tonight’s incident, the heterosexual hater had taken off one bumpersticker that said protect marriage, and found my previously vandalized sticker underneath it. So they placed a rainbow sticker over the figures of the man and woman.
And they also took my God Bless America magnet that was on my car and cut through the word God.
Do we need to create new categories of protected classes? If you assault a heterosexual or God-of-the-Bible worshipper because he/she is a heterosexual or God-of-the-Bible worshipper, have you committed a hate crime?
Only in America could someone come up with a concept called “hate crime.” But it’s not just any hate, you see. It’s a certain kind of hate. If you’re black and you kill a white person for whatever reason and call them “cracker” while you’re doing it, in addition to murder you’ve committed a hate crime. Maybe. Whites may or may not be protected under the statutues, but you get the idea. If you kill someone for sleeping with your husband and call her a whore while you’re doing it, you’ve committed murder but no hate crime. As of this writing, “whore” is not a protected class. Sorry.
Now, about that “God” bumper sticker, if you strike out God in “God Bless America” because you hate God or don’t believe in him, who or what are you appealing to for this blessing? (Why not just strike out the whole phrase while you’re at it?) Where is it supposed to come from? The sun, moon and stars? The universe? Trees and rocks? Perhaps man himself?
“Man bless America!” That’s rich. It’s also sexist. How about “Humankind bless America!”
“Humanity bless America!”
“Humans bless yourselves!”
Doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, does it?
Important Note: I do not want this thread to become a discussion on homosexual “marriage.” I will likely delete such comments. You’ve been warned.
For people reading this blog for the first time or who think I support so-called hate crime law, read this.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 61 comments }
Vandalizing other people’s property is wrong in all circumstances. Period. It is certainly not the way intelligent ADULTS disagree or debate the issues.
That said, the person who defaced those bumper stickers were not necessarily “heterosexual haters.” Believing that marriage should be open to both heterosexual and homosexual couples does not mean one “hates” heterosexuals, rather it means they “hate” discrimination… I anticipate one day marrying my life-partner (and as we will soon be moving to MA, it may indeed be a legal marriage too)… that doesn’t mean I hate heterosexuals.
In fact, I’m fairly traditional in my hopes for the future: marriage, good job, pay my taxes, raise children, support my local schools and community…
I seem to remember reading a book all about God and some of the things that happened to people who showed less than appropriate respect for His name.
I can’t quite recall the name… I think it might be outlawed by now…
Ya know, hate speech and all.
Believing that marriage should be open to both heterosexual and homosexual couples does not mean one “hates” heterosexuals…
Excellent, jab. I just hope you apply the same reasoning to people who believe the opposite.
Having said that, I DON’T WANT THIS THREAD TO BECOME A DISCUSSION OF HOMOSEXUAL “MARRIAGE”!!!
La Shawn, I stepped on a roach the other day, is that a hate crime against animals? Should I be concerned that a lawyer from PETA will come knocking on my door soon? I’m so tired of the double-standards in this country. It’s so predictable too, the ones telling everyone else to be tolerant are the most intolerant of the bunch. I mean, why can’t they be tolerant of my intolerance?
Bryanm, if PETA comes after you, it will be for not properly turning the roach over to them so they can shoot it themselves.
On the upside, the hypocrisy is so blatant, I’d be willing to wager 10 years tops before the PC crowd are sent packing. Reason being most kids are not going to be fooled and they’re starting to call them on it. There’s hope for the new generation, or?
“Do we need to create new categories of protected classes?”
Some people don’t like sexual orientation being a protected category. Why, I don’t know. Maybe its because they confuse categories and classes.
“Whites may or may not be protected under the statutues, but you get the idea.”
I have yet to see a hate crime statute that was not color blind. Do you have any.
Well of course the law wouldn’t be written that way. That would make it discriminatory on its face. It’s the application that’s not color blind.
Huh?
My “Huh?” was aimed at Actus, who has done it again, posting something I can’t decipher
“Well of course the law wouldn’t be written that way. That would make it discriminatory on its face. It’s the application that’s not color blind. ”
I *really* want to see some stats on this. The FBI has stats on hate crime *reports*, but I haven’t found any of charges. For race bias motivation, the 2003 report has 2100 white hate crime offenders, and 577 black hate crime offenders.
Whats sources do you have on non-color blind application?
The sources are “my eyes and ears.” Most news reports and stories are about white-on-black crime, not the other way around. It’s unrealistic to think all black-kills-white crimes are being committed for reasons that have NOTHING to do with the victim’s race. – Admin
“hate crimes” are always interesting – and so are acts of a discriminatory nature. In Australia, Aboriginals and their descendants receive educational financial suppliments: Abstudy. You are eligible to receive this payment even if you are 1/4 or 1/8th aboriginal. There was a girl I went to school with who claimed Abstudy, claiming aboriginal heritage – I found that interesting as she had no prominent features of having aboriginal ancestry and she was also naturally blonde and had quite pale skin.
Sometimes decisions are made which favour the aboriginals, but discriminate against “whites”, but if we protest, we’re accusted of being racist. How does that work?
BTW – I have no personal agenda here; I grew up in a town with a high aboriginal population and have many aboriginal friends…it’s just a POV.
How’s this, Actus:
Last fall at Cornell, the rapper Ludacris gave a concert on campus. At some point, a white girl standing in one of the front rows was dancing around to the music, and her ponytail flew in the face of a few black girls sitting behind her. They angrily shouted at her to get her white hair outta their faces. She did.
After the concert, the white girl had just left the building when the same 4 young black girls, joined by a young black male, began taunting her. They surrounded her, began shouting racial slurs at her (Like “we’re going to f- up you’re pretty white face!”), and finally beat her up. She required 13 stitches in the face, suffered a burst eardrum, and was out of school for a while.
None of the perps were charged with a hate crime, despite efforts to get them so charged. The girl received little support from the community. The conservative campus newspaper did an expose on the issue, and was subsequently called irresponsible by a vice-provost and prominent government professor. A rally was held by campus liberals, who banded together shouting, “We gotta beat back the hate attack!”. They meant the paper, not the Hate Crime.
Compare the community’s and DA’s reaction to this crime to other hate crimes in the area at
http://www.cornellreview.org.
http://www.cornellsun.com has reactions from professors.
I’m sure searching “Ludacris hate crime” will bring up the relevant articles.
Paula, that’s akin to some here without a drop of Indian blood staking a claim and milking the system for all it’s worth.
“How’s this, Actus:”
If you want to tell me about idiot prosecutors, save it. I have enough friends and contacts in the defense and PD communities to know about.
To my way of thinking, the designation “hate crime” is one of the stupidest perversions of our legal system to come down the pike in a long while.
If a gang of (pick a group) beat up a member of another group, or kill that person, or perform any other “hate crime” against the person of another grouping, what is the difference in hatred level from a beating, killing, rape, etc., performed without racial, gender or other differences.
What makes one murder worse than another? One rape worse than another? One beating worse than another? The absence of someone calling me a cracker, or a nigger or a kike, certainly isn’t going to make me feel any better when my ribs are getting kicked in.
A crime is a crime and should be punished as such. Dispense with the “hate crime” BS and prosecute the criminal activity. That includes verbal assault and depriving an individual of this/her civil rights.
“The absence of someone calling me a cracker, or a nigger or a kike, certainly isn’t going to make me feel any better when my ribs are getting kicked in.”
Part of the justification is that the victimization goes beyond the individual and towards the whole community that has been targetted.
“Hate crime” is worse than “stupidiest” perversion. The very idea of the law punishing me for what I think about someone is putrid.
“The very idea of the law punishing me for what I think about someone is putrid.”
What if you thikn they should be dead, and then kill them?
“Part of the justification is that the victimization goes beyond the individual and towards the whole community that has been targetted.”
I find that point of view totally wrong-headed. A beating, a rape, a murder are all crimes against an individual, not a group. The motivation of the criminal may have been hate, and that hatred may have been for some group, but the expression of that hatred was against an individual. Racism and bigotry are loathsome, but they are not crimes. Assault, rape, murder, etc., whether motivated by bigotry, greed, anger or insanity are all heinous and inexcusable.
The motive is not the crime. Punish the crime.
Dont you get a little tired of these damn secular humanists and the crap they spew a say its time to tell them to jump over a cliff
“I find that point of view totally wrong-headed. A beating, a rape, a murder are all crimes against an individual, not a group.”
What if they’re meant to cause fear in a whole group?
Actus, you asked for a source on non-color blind application. I gave you an instance that speaks straight to the point.
Note on my earlier posting: I don’t agree with prosecuting people for what they think, either. But if the laws are on the books, they need to be implemented consistently. If whites aren’t allowed to shout racial slurs when they beat up people of other races, blacks and Hispanics shouldn’t be allowed to, either.
Following the argument that the hate aspect of the crime deserves additional punishment has an interesting logical conclusion – that verbal taunting based on race, sex, age, religion, political orientation, etc. should be punishable by law in general, that is, “hate” without the crime should be penalized. Ridiculous.
“What if they’re meant to cause fear in a whole group?”
Whether you do it to cause fear in one or a whole group is immaterial since the victim is the one that has been violated.
The focus on group intimidation is absurd. What the whole group can’t fight back? Whatever happened to strength in numbers? By your lights, MLK should have been fearing any white man. Nevermind Jesse Jackson was fearing a brother more than the honky accross the street one dark night.
If one person is mugged in a park, then everyone who knows of it is intimidated regardless of group category.
To take Brazil as an example, the savvy know not to wander alone on the beach or most public areas lest they get assaulted by gangs of “feral” kids. It doesn’t matter if you’re black/white/brown, straight/gay or male/female, you’re going to lose something and at worst your life.
That’s the whole problem with motive, in the first place.
You can lie about motive. Motives can be fabricated to get a lesser sentence.
The crazier a motive you can come up with, increases the chances of an insanity plea, and criminals avoid jailtime altogether.
Very clever.
“Actus, you asked for a source on non-color blind application. I gave you an instance that speaks straight to the point.”
I don’t need a source for anecdotes. I would like one that adds to the reporting source that we have from the FBI.
“Whether you do it to cause fear in one or a whole group is immaterial since the victim is the one that has been violated.”
Right, the point is in this case the victim also includes the whole group that has been intimidated.
Fear? Group? Community? Targeted? Victimization?
The repeated use of various combinations of those words, emotional but without specifics, is part of the problem. It brings to mind the defining statement I heard a while back that “liberals feel, conservatives think.”
This whole “discrimination” thing is a scam! If you keep telling someone they’re a victim it will become true. People like actus say that the the vandalizers of your car aren’t against “straights”, but rather discrimination. Yes the victims are allowed to be the final arbitrators because of all the “injustice” they’ve suffered!
This is the logic of Hollywood. At the end of the movie the “victim” always gets to punch the bad guy in the nose. Justice is served! THE END! Never any mentoin of the assault charge, the civil suit and the two years of court hearings. I’m sorry actus but yours is the logic of a “GOOGAN”-(sales term). Sucker may also be applied. No one commits a crime to “threaten a race or group.” The only place this happens is in TV land where you can spot the bad guy ’cause he’s white and hasn’t shaved. You have been sold a bill of goods. There is no “discrimination”-(except against whites but the Supreme Court said that’s OK!) The producers of America are growing tired of the whiners, snivellers, cry-babys and instigators. If someone wants to just complain about America all the time, they should move to that country that treats people better than America. That country is……………
Actus, show me a crime where only, and only the victim is “intimidated” and not society at large. The is the whole point of the penal system – to remove someone from society because 1) they have committed a crime against society by breaking the law, 2) to punish by mandating a “time-out”, in that order.
What one does against another affects everyone else. If that weren’t true, there would be no validity in the oft-repeated quote; “first they came for the Jews & I did nothing because I wasn’t a Jew…”
More importantly from a Judeo-Christian POV, God has a stake in the issue of crime; “Whatsoever you do to the less of them, you have done it to me…” It is this point that is more important than any man-made legal construct to most of us here and totally lost upon you. Furthermore, our justice system was founded upon this truth and your post-modern attempt to rewrite constitutional intent is uninformed and pathetic.
You can “argue” all you want, but unless you come from this POV your talk is nothing MORE than hot air and empty babbling. It is in effect, but a moment in time and soon forgotton while God’s Word is eternal.
Since you keep bringing up the FBI hate Crimes index Actus, why havent you if youre so clever seen that under the victim catagory they have:
Whites, blacks, non-white hispanic, etc etc
but under the perpetrator catagory the non-white hispanic listing magically merges with Whites to increase thier numbers and reduce the Black hate crime numbers, as we know many Hispanics are black or of African decent. LBC posted that “interesting” top 10 most wanted list not so long ago, how many of those were African or Dark skinned Latinos? Almost all of them. magically they become white to the FBI when tallying total numbers though. Get real. PC-Libs are bent on destroying the white race. Its disgusting.
Actus,
Please excuse the “piling on” (since everybody else is sniping at your posts), but I have to go back to your comment that hate crime statutes are written in a color-blind manner.
This is in fact true. The statutes I deal with on a daily basis are written that way, but it is in the application that we run into problems. While I do not believe in the catagory of laws collectively referred to as “hate crimes laws” I have filed charges against individuals under my stste’s hate crimes statutes, and I have seen the District Attorney’s office either turn them down or present them based on who the victim is. The application of these laws is far from “color-blind” and is certainly not blind to sexual orientation or religious affiliation.
The protected classes that are most often covered by these laws are Blacks, and people of Middle Eastern descent. Apparently even Hispanics are not a protected class here. I have also seen the laws used in cases involving Jews and Muslims, but turned down in cases involving Christians of any denomination. Of course homosexuals are covered but not heterosexuals.
These laws, which were originally designed to combat discrimination, are themselves applied in a discriminatory fashion. If a crime is committed against an individual how is it that a “group” of people not involved with the victim become victims too? Based on this concept, an individual across town, not known to the victim, and who is probably not even aware of the crime, becomes a “victim” too. Murder, intimidation, assault and battery, vandalism and a few others, all are crimes in and of themselves, yet can be filed as “hate crimes”.
If I think you should die, what difference does it matter why? If something can be established as a motive, does it matter what that motive is other than to help prove the case and get a conviction? Why should there be a differentiation in punishment based on why I wanted to kill you?
We are currently trying to apprehend a serial rapist in this city. If he is caught, he will not be charged with a hate crime even though his actions are intimidating a group of people ( all the women in the city). Why? Because the victims have all been young White or Hispanic females and do not fall into a protected class under the circumstances of the crimes that have so far been committed. Yet, the rapist is “victimizing” a class or group of people by his crimes, and they are all (or most of them thanks to media attention) aware enough to be intimidated.
Hate crimes were enacted based on a societal goal of wiping out discrimination against certain groups of people, yet all the actions that fall under hate crimes are punishable as crimes on their own standing. The hate crime concept is usually applied as an “enhancer” to increase punishment. If they were applied across the board they might be viable, but they are only applied in certain circumstances, while identical circumstances involving victims who aren’t members of one of the “golden groups” don’t get the same consideration. Why is a crime committed against my neighbor worth more than a crime committed against me simply because of differences in our ethnic heritage, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation?
Hate crimes were enacted to empower the thought police. It’s Orwellian: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Logic is not required, so to try and dissuade ‘hate crimes’ advocates, one must demonstrate the failure of the policy since they don’t care about equality. That was never the point.
Montie,
Excellent comment (Y)
Billy said,”PC-Libs are bent on destroying the white race.”
That’s a bit over the top.
I would say many PC-Libs are bent on exorcising their collective feelings of guilt for … who knows what? Their undeserved advantages in life? The sins of their parents? Others are bent on generating an emotional high by helping those who cannot help themselves. That attitude is often destructive of those they “help.”
FYI
(Y)=Thumbs Up
“It brings to mind the defining statement I heard a while back that “liberals feel, conservatives think.—
If we ignore religion, and the fear of god.
“Actus, show me a crime where only, and only the victim is “intimidated†and not society at large”
Not society at large, but a specified group, based on a category.
“If they were applied across the board they might be viable, but they are only applied in certain circumstances, while identical circumstances involving victims who aren’t members of one of the “golden groups†don’t get the same consideration.”
That’s what I’m trying to get statistics on.
You can’t use Human because it has the sexist word MAN in it.
Hey! This sounds like a hate crime! Where’s the cops?
Actus,
If a criminal act is only directed toward one person but inadvertently causes fear in an entire group, is that a “hate crime”? If not, how do you discern between an act meant to intimidate a group by being acted out on one individual from one which has the same effect but not the same intent?
If you have never dealt with the court system from the prosecutorial standpoint of proving motive you can’t imagine how convoluted this can get.
Oh, BTW, thanks James
“If a criminal act is only directed toward one person but inadvertently causes fear in an entire group, is that a “hate crimeâ€?”
Since our definition of hate crime involves bias motivation, I don’t think inadvertence would fall under that.
“If you have never dealt with the court system from the prosecutorial standpoint of proving motive you can’t imagine how convoluted this can get.”
I have heard that bias motivation is hard to prove. That may have something to do with why it is not charged.
Montie …
could not have said it better myself in both your comment threads. Hate crime has always had for me the application of “Animal Farm” logic …. unfortunately we will almost certainly never get the other side to see our point of view or agree that we might be right since to admit one might be wrong is almost unheard of (both from their side and our side) … but then again i might be wrong.
LaShawn, forget the “bless” altogether, the word itself has become “offensive”. I can’t remember if it was the metro, or an airplane, where the PA was used to urge the passengers to “have a blessed day”. Someone objected, for crying out loud. I’m a Christian, but even if someone were to invoke Allah’s blessing or even say “the force be with you”, I’d assume they were wishing me well the best they know how, not trying to offend me. It seems to me that those who demand tolerance the loudest are those who have the least amount of grace.
Actus,
Not charging someone because you cannot prove bias as a motive factor is one thing. Not charging someone because their victim does not fall into one of the government’s groupings of protected classes is quite another.
This is why hate crimes law is so nonsensical. Regardless of how it is written, in my own personal experience, it is never applied in an unbiased way. The old analogy of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” is never in play when it comes to these laws.
“Hate crimes” are a class of legistation invented because it “feels” right, and liberals base a lot of what they do and think on how something “feels” (facts be damned).
After all, it isn’t right to be biased or discriminatory, against anybody, so if a person is committing a crime with those thoughts in his/her head, then that person should be punished more, that is, unless the death penalty results from your crime ’cause it’s awfully hard to execute somebody twice. Another exception would be if the perpetrator is from a protected class and the victim is not, because the perpetrator in that case would probably have the right to “feel” retaliatory bias or discrimination (regardless of whether the victim ever did anything to warrant those feelings, maybe someone in the victim’s “group” did).
There is a culture of people out there that hates Christians indiscriminately. And I’m not necessarily talking about Muslims. They perceive that they’ve been victimized and so they hate everyone that fits a certain stereo-type. What happened to that woman should fall into the category of ‘hate crime’.
RepJ,
The ACLU?
““Hate crimes†are a class of legistation invented because it “feels†right, and liberals base a lot of what they do and think on how something “feels†(facts be damned). ”
I suppose that any legislation that involves morality involves “feelings.”
“Another exception would be if the perpetrator is from a protected class and the victim is not, because the perpetrator in that case would probably have the right to “feel†retaliatory bias or discrimination”
to be clear, the legislation does not create classes, only categories.
I don’t think I want to be in a class OR a category. I’ll just be me.
“I don’t think I want to be in a class OR a category. ”
Firstly, you obviously have categories in the sense of sexual orientation. Everyone does. Secondly, remember, it doesn’t really matter what you are, but what the assailant thinks.
Ah. So, as I’m being beaten senseless by a thug with a brick, I should stop to consider what he’s thinking? That would definitely put me into a specific category. Maybe even into a specific class. I’m sure my family will be comforted.
“Ah. So, as I’m being beaten senseless by a thug with a brick, I should stop to consider what he’s thinking?”
I don’t get why you would stop and consider this.
“That would definitely put me into a specific category. Maybe even into a specific class.”
I think you’re still not quite getting this distinction. Sexual orientation is a category. Homosexuality/heterosexualities are two of the classes that that category creates.
Actus, I fully understand your repeated “class” and “category” classroom rhetoric; the point is that it’s all rather silly, and I want no part of it. I hope that clears up the mystery.
Let’s try this again. If I get beaten senseless by a brick wielding thug, it makes absolutely no difference what category or class of thug did it, and whatever segregated pigeonhole you assign me to makes absolutely no difference either. I’m still beaten just as senseless, and the thug is still just as guilty, no more and no less, despite whatever law school pedandicisms are attempted here.
“Actus, I fully understand your repeated “class†and “category†classroom rhetoric;”
I don’t know what you mean by “classroom rhetoric.” It’s just what it is.
“If I get beaten senseless by a brick wielding thug, it makes absolutely no difference what category or class of thug did it, and whatever segregated pigeonhole you assign me to makes absolutely no difference either.”
It really doesn’t matter who the thug is and it really doesn’t matter what I think of you either. What does matter is the bias motivation of the thug.
Actus,
“What does matter is the bias motivation of the thug.”
Why? He is just as guilty of the crime regardless of what his motivation is. As I said, the only real value to proving bias is to formulate a motive to increase the probability of conviction. It should not be the basis for another criminal charge that wouldn’t be presented if another motivating factor were to be determined.
“Why? He is just as guilty of the crime regardless of what his motivation is”
The whole point is that its not the case when its bias motivated crimes, and it assumes the answer when you say “he’s just as guilty”. Thats what we’re deciding, whether to have an aggravating factor for bias motivation. Just like we have aggravating factors for crimes committed with guns, as part of a gang, as a third strike, etc…
Actus,
What you fail to grasp is that adding an enhanced penalty for say, the use of a gun during commission of a felony, is based upon something that has enhanced the danger to the victim during the commission of the act.
Policing thought can only lead us down the road of policing speech, which would curtail this exchange we are now having. One or the other of us would be on the wrong side of the argument and thus be subject to criminal penalty for thinking and/or saying something that the gGvernment finds goes against the mainstream of societal norms.
Those other factors are provable, as well. The degree of nastiness in the mind of the perpetrator is not provable in any meaningful sense, and therefore the whole hate crime legislation house of cards comes tumbling down around a faulty foundation.
“Policing thought can only lead us down the road of policing speech, which would curtail this exchange we are now having.”
We can stop well short of that. We do right now, for example.
“The degree of nastiness in the mind of the perpetrator is not provable in any meaningful sense”
State of mind is proved everytime someone is convicted of murder.
no sense in trying to restate your point, montie. actus will have a talking point at the ready for you every time.
funny how most of the vandalism that takes place in these types of matters is always directed at someone who is conservative or voted for 43. you never much hear about conservatives vandalizing the cars of liberals.
that’s right, we’re too busy plotting our next hate crime to worry about ripping a bumper sticker off of a car.
better yet, we’re too worried about making sure blacks only have 2 voting machines at their precints while we have 10 (according to howard dean).
or, we’re too busy trying to bring back the days of segregation by nominating janice rogers brown to an appelate court position.
i’m wondering when the libs are going to come up with common sense solutions. i like them better when they vandalize and throw verbal bombs like noted above. shows how ideologically bankrupt they really are.
Chris, did you pencil in your calendar for our next VRWC meeting & potluck?
I hear tell the agenda will be to discuss ways we can reduce funding for CBC and other black vote getting and channel the money to 527s. I’m bringing a spam dish and a can of whupbutt. What’re you bringing.
I’m bringing my Minuteman chili.
“I’m bringing my Minuteman chili.”
Now that the cameras aren’t there you left the border?
Nah actus, I leave the camera hogging to people more up your alley, like the Rev. Jackson and Sharpton.
Comments on this entry are closed.