Hate crimes: How do you feel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter traillius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been quietly lurking on this thread, reading.

It seems to me that you don’t agree with hate crimes as much as you hate the Klan. Every example you use is about the Klan, every argument goes back to the Klan. 🤷
Westerby,

I apologize for jumping in here but I can’t help it.

maryjk, what exactly is your point? I’m curious? Please explain if you can.

Thanks,
Bill
 
One thing I can say is that I am glad we have freedom of speech because I think that we would be much worse off if such groups as the Klan were more or less ‘forced’ underground. At least with the freedom speech I think we are in a better position to know our neighbors (close and distant) and if they are of a mindset of hate I think we are in a better position to protect ourselves if their gatherings and speech is out in the open (even though I’m sure that such groups have secret meetings, etc- I think it would be worse if it ‘had’ to be secret).
and who in their right mind would want to bust the klan and all of its white-power lunatics, God forbid we bring down the weight of the Justice Department on that scum, jail their leaders, seize their stockpiles of weapons and hate. we might hurt someone’s feelings.

Westerby
 
and who in their right mind would want to bust the klan and all of its white-power lunatics, God forbid we bring down the weight of the Justice Department on that scum, jail their leaders, seize their stockpiles of weapons and hate. we might hurt someone’s feelings.

Westerby
Not sure what you’re saying here. Do you think the US government should jail people and seize their property because their views aren’t nice?
 
I have been quietly lurking on this thread, reading.

It seems to me that you don’t agree with hate crimes as much as you hate the Klan. Every example you use is about the Klan, every argument goes back to the Klan. 🤷
why would you “shrug” about something this serious? I could use a dozen other example besides other than the klan, which I’m obviously using as shorthand for hate mongering groups currently active in the USA. but, since literary style is a concern of yours, feel free to substitute, in place of “klan” any of the following:

All-American Protectorate, Inc.
American Front
American Nazi Party
Aryan Brotherhood
Aryan Circle
Aryan Republican Army
Assembly of Christian Soldiers
Black Legion (political movement)
Church of Jesus Christ–Christian
Council of Conservative Citizens
Counter-Revolutionary Organization on Salvation and Service
The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord
European Kindred
European-American Unity and Rights Organization
Free Society of Teutonia
Friends of New Germany
German American Bund
Hammerskins
Imperial Klans of America
Institute for Historical Review
Kingdom Identity Ministries
Knights of the White Camelia
Ku Klux Klan
Liberty Lobby
National Alliance (United States)
National Association for the Advancement of White People
National Renaissance Party (United States)
National Socialist League (United States)
National Socialist Movement (United States)
National Socialist Party of America
National States’ Rights Party
National Vanguard (American organization)
National Youth Alliance
Nationalist Movement
Nazi Lowriders
New Century Foundation
New Order (Neo-Nazi group)
The Order (group)
Phineas Priesthood
Posse Comitatus (organization)
Red Shirts (Southern United States)
Redneck Shop
Silver Legion of America
Supreme Order of Caucasians
United Klans of America
White Aryan Resistance
White Citizens Parties
White Citizens’ Council
White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
White League
White Order of Thule
White Patriot Party
White power skinhead
Women of the Ku Klux Klan
Workingmen’s Party of California

Westerby
 
Not sure what you’re saying here. Do you think the US government should jail people and seize their property because their views aren’t nice?
what, exactly, do you think the … must now be precise … the united klans of america does?

that’s not a trick or rhetorical question, I’m just curious about what you think groups like this actually do.

Westerby
 
the state makes policy decisions on what issues to address all the time in this way.
You’re avoiding the question I asked. Why should there be a law that makes it worse for person A to hit/rob/insult/kill person B than for person B to hit/rob/insult/kill person A?

Ender
 
I don’t believe that the family of someone killed because they were trying to rob them deserves justice any less than the family of someone killed because of the color of their skin, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The person is just as dead, and the family will be just as devastated.
 
and who in their right mind would want to bust the klan and all of its white-power lunatics, God forbid we bring down the weight of the Justice Department on that scum, jail their leaders, seize their stockpiles of weapons and hate. we might hurt someone’s feelings.

Westerby
Please don’t misunderstand my statements Westerby. People who belong to the Klan, I would assume, many of them on top of speading their hate also engage in acts of violence. And we all know their history where they openly murdered black men for no reason or blaming them for actions of a white man and killing them of that.

But are you suggesting we encroach upon the freedom of speech? This is a slippery slope, and for me, someone who is openly critical of the government and actually believes there should be NO government…I would be on the short list of people to round up and put in the Gulag after the people connected to violence, encouraging violence, were rounded up.

I have no such desire to be put in a Gulag.

And I think it’s quite nieve to think or assert that government doesn’t create laws with one stated intention and then use that same law to spead a net in the name of that same law over an ever widening group of poeple. If you don’t believe me I can provide examples…
 
You’re avoiding the question I asked. Why should there be a law that makes it worse for person A to hit/rob/insult/kill person B than for person B to hit/rob/insult/kill person A?

Ender
this will be the last time I explain; from this point on I’ll post, link or refer to congressional findings supporting hate crimes legislation, so we can debate facts rather than platitudes.

hate crime laws are proper when B is in a class of people that’s been demonstrably victimized by A and the particular assault on B is due to whatever attributes of B that A hates. this is done to discourage the conduct of other A types from victimizing B types, a legitimate exercise of legislative power that’s been challenged and found constitutional.

these attributes are race, religion (which should be a concern for any Catholic or a southen Baptist), disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. proof that this happens and the particular sordid details are found in many sources, and in particular published per the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, at least summaries available on line. I believe the Department of Justice maintains similar records.

Westerby
 
Please don’t misunderstand my statements Westerby. People who belong to the Klan, I would assume, many of them on top of speading their hate also engage in acts of violence. And we all know their history where they openly murdered black men for no reason or blaming them for actions of a white man and killing them of that.

But are you suggesting we encroach upon the freedom of speech? This is a slippery slope, and for me, someone who is openly critical of the government and actually believes there should be NO government…I would be on the short list of people to round up and put in the Gulag after the people connected to violence, encouraging violence, were rounded up.

I have no such desire to be put in a Gulag.

And I think it’s quite nieve to think or assert that government doesn’t create laws with one stated intention and then use that same law to spead a net in the name of that same law over an ever widening group of poeple. If you don’t believe me I can provide examples…
hang on Bill… I’ll get back to you tonight, I’ve got Fr. Barron’s Catholicism series to attend. its a cool deal, if it comes your way you ought to take it. that and I’ve got only an hour left to finish foreclosing on another orphanage before I go.

Westerby
 
Westerby,

Your thoughs are all nice and good until YOU wind up on the list of ‘bad’ people who need to be sent to camps to be re-programmed.

This is the problem with playing games with the first ammendment.

Investigating people involved in actual acts of violence and theft are another matter and one I support. But as I said before, if the gov’t starts playing games encroaching on the 1st ammendment it won’t be too long until I wind up on the short list of ‘dangerous’ people in need of ‘reprogramming’ since I am an open advocate against government. I prefer for that NOT to happen, thank you very much.
 
I voted for the second option becuse I feel that crimes motivated by hate really exist.

Onehundred and fifty years ago give or take Catholics were the victims of hate crimes. Priests and sisters murdered. churches and convents burned to the ground. This is real history.

The film Gangs of New York is fiction, but based on real historic events. The KKK killed and hates Catholics and that is also true.
 
this will be the last time I explain; from this point on I’ll post, link or refer to congressional findings supporting hate crimes legislation, so we can debate facts rather than platitudes.

hate crime laws are proper when B is in a class of people that’s been demonstrably victimized by A and the particular assault on B is due to whatever attributes of B that A hates. this is done to discourage the conduct of other A types from victimizing B types, a legitimate exercise of legislative power that’s been challenged and found constitutional.

these attributes are race, religion (which should be a concern for any Catholic or a southen Baptist), disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. proof that this happens and the particular sordid details are found in many sources, and in particular published per the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, at least summaries available on line. I believe the Department of Justice maintains similar records.

Westerby
I think everyone understands the attributes but what we are disagreeing on is whether belonging to a certain class of people is sufficient to make the application of the law different. If a while man murders another white man isn’t it just as horrible as a white man murdering a black man or a black man murdering another black man? And if different race is the criteria, wouldn’t a black man killing a white man also be a hate crime?

And since you mentioned religion, these hate crime laws when defined as you have, should really concern Catholics and other Christians. It would seem that any crime committed by a Christian on a person of a different religion would be dealth with more harshly than the same crime committed against the Christian.

As far as I’m concerned, the historical victimization of a class of people by another class is irrelevant when meeting out justice for a certain specific violent (or non-violent) act.
 
I voted for the second option becuse I feel that crimes motivated by hate really exist.

Onehundred and fifty years ago give or take Catholics were the victims of hate crimes. Priests and sisters murdered. churches and convents burned to the ground. This is real history.

The film Gangs of New York is fiction, but based on real historic events. The KKK killed and hates Catholics and that is also true.
Problem is, no one in America dares to teach about it because it’s not politically correct.
 
its hard to make heads or tails out out of that … statement.

please, spend 30 minutes of your time reading up on the klan just half an hour. you might get an insight into why some people go ballistic over their continued existence.

Westerby
I’m aware of the Klan’s history, JW. I’m aware of the history of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade too.

I think my point was I don’t get as excited over “freedom of speech” in the United States as most people nor over burning of books. I have a paperback copy of Mein Kampf by the way. It wouldn’t bother me is someone burned 100 copies of the book out on their front lawn, especially in an era of Kindle.

The Ku Klux Klan are essentially a heretical group. For whatever the oppression of the Inquisition it is fair to reason that the Inquisition would have prosecuted and punished the likes of the Nazi Party and the KKK.

The KKK in the South killed at some point - over a short span of several years - something like 5,000 Black-Americans. About roughly that number of people received the sentence of death, over the course of several hundred years, by the Spanish aristocratic authorities after being found guilty during court trial by the notorious Spanish Inquisition.

And the Inquisition lasted several hundred years throughout Latin America. Our current President is called black and not mulatto partly due to the rise of the KKK and other reactionary response to Reconstruction era. The HBCU’s (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) would have done wonders throughout Latin America. Unfortunately, in the predominately Catholic run nations south of the United States, the government response and commitment to blacks and mulattoes were less benevolent in terms of education and providing other tools for upward mobility.

However, if President Obama was half Amerindian and half white of Mexican descent, no one in the United States would call him Indian. And here’s my point, the Inquisition in a place like Mexico disproportionately tried and sentenced mestizos, mulattoes, and converso Jews (although, the slave trade throughout Latin America was predominately run by converso Jews, and consequently used to get pelted by blacks and Amerindians on their way being walked to execution). For the mestizos and mulattoes at least, this usually did not result in a death sentence. But it’s the Inquisition arguably, that helped create that vast nation of Amerindians in Mexico we call mestizos. I phrase it that way because the Amerindian population in the United States grows, often looks white or black, because we call them Indians instead of mestizos or the like.

The Inquisition throughout Brazil and Mexico probably helped create a multiculturalism hundreds of years before it became “cool” in the United States of today. This is something the Ku Klux Klan would have persecuted under their identity of the ghosts of the Confederate soldiers.

And bear in mind the white, Spanish, creoles of Latin America (in Brazil Portuguese) were more opposed to the mestizos and mulattoes than the Spanish crown - and I’m hazarding a guess the clergy in the Inquisitions.

A lot of wrongdoings can spread through freedom of speech. Take legalized abortion for example. It partly maintains it’s influence and legality - and gained those things - through freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech in the U.S. really only means the government can’t arrest you for unpopular speech and expression. But in more real and practical daily terms speech and expression are highly regulated in the United States through other means. That’s both in the private and public sector. I doubt an FBI agent can call someone the “n word” on recording and not get fired. I doubt the more liberal run newspapers would tolerate one of their journalist caught making similar remarks.

It’s probably courting disaster in any public or private job to compliment a woman on how her butt looks in a skirt.

Brazil outlaws racial hate groups and has one of the lowest racial hate crimes rate in the world. That does not mean racism - especially institutional racism - does not exist in Brazil. But it does not really nurture grounds conducive for the rise of organizations similar to the KKK.
 
and who in their right mind would want to bust the klan and all of its white-power lunatics, God forbid we bring down the weight of the Justice Department on that scum, jail their leaders, seize their stockpiles of weapons and hate. we might hurt someone’s feelings.

Westerby
I don’t think the Klan has much power and influence today. I have read that today some of the more wealthy people of the South are members of the Klan but I don’t know how true that is.

Overall I think the KKK is less a problem than some neo-nazi gangs out in California and throughout the North. In terms of homicides black and Latino gangs are a large problem.

Oh, maybe I should add the Aryn Brotherhood and some of the 1% outlaw biker clubs.
 
and who in their right mind would want to bust the klan and all of its white-power lunatics, God forbid we bring down the weight of the Justice Department on that scum, jail their leaders, seize their stockpiles of weapons and hate. we might hurt someone’s feelings.

Westerby
But if they haven’t committed any crimes, how could you do that legally? That would be a frightening abuse of power, and the next group to be targeted might be the Church.

What you are suggesting is not legal. It has NOTHING to do with anyone’s feelings being hurt.
 
I think everyone understands the attributes but what we are disagreeing on is whether belonging to a certain class of people is sufficient to make the application of the law different. If a while man murders another white man isn’t it just as horrible as a white man murdering a black man or a black man murdering another black man? And if different race is the criteria, wouldn’t a black man killing a white man also be a hate crime?

And since you mentioned religion, these hate crime laws when defined as you have, should really concern Catholics and other Christians. It would seem that any crime committed by a Christian on a person of a different religion would be dealt with more harshly than the same crime committed against the Christian.

As far as I’m concerned, the historical victimization of a class of people by another class is irrelevant when meeting out justice for a certain specific violent (or non-violent) act.
Yes. The concept of “hate crime” goes along with political correctness and trying to repair past injustices via harsher punishments today.
 
The 1st Amendment (1st article in the Bill of Rights) was meant to protect citizens who spoke out against the GOVERNMENT. By extension it also protects groups such as the Klan, Westboro Baptist Church, Code Pink, anti-abortion protesters, etc. If we start losing our 1st Amendment rights, the government will gain even more power to act against us and more of our freedoms will be lost.
that statement is so disconnected from government prosecution of hate crimes that its difficult to address. but – hate crimes require an act, not just thought. westboro members, however disgusting they are, are careful enough not to commit criminal acts. the klan, on the other hand, has a long history of blood on its hands.

Westerby
 
But if they haven’t committed any crimes, how could you do that legally? That would be a frightening abuse of power, and the next group to be targeted might be the Church.

What you are suggesting is not legal. It has NOTHING to do with anyone’s feelings being hurt.
I submit to you and to any readers that the klan has committed and will continue to commit numerous crimes against blacks because they are blacks.

Westerby
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top