[alyasa]

What's really sad is that it takes all the might of the most powerful government in the world to stop children from being bullied... They're almost as bad as paedophiles...

Originally Posted by swa(y)

ignorence is thinking that a bunch of people marching in the street is going to actually make someone who hates gays stop hating them.

thats ignorent, and thats stupid.

im not saying people shouldnt protest, but i am saying protesting towards such a cause isnt going to do much. not yesterday, not now, not tomorow, not ever. people are always going to hate gays. yr always going to have people that hate people of other races...always always always.

just think...WWII was how long ago? and WE STILL GOT FUCKING NEO NATZIS THAT STILL AGREE WITH HITLER"S SHIT. < and alot of them are stilllllll very violent individuals. im sure yr well aware.


hey lets go march so theyll know we dissagree with em? sound like a good idea? think itll change anything?

personally, id rather not waste my time.

Ignorance rebukes the desire to fight for your right to exist, that's for sure. As for marches in general, there are certainly many that fail to make themselves taken seriously, I agree, but there are also some that are necessary and come with organized thinking/action behind. I doubt you know what you seem so keen to argue about. With your type of thinking and attitude, you'd let anything and anyone shit on you on a daily basis.

I doubt that you have all that much to worry about, judging by the amount of time that you seem to spend on here fighting pointless fights. Go and re-read your post and tell me if it doesn't come across like you're trying to say that all demos or political activism are pointless and then come back with a more thoughtful reply.

[val-holla-ing]

Originally Posted by ThePits

Are people not protected by the very fact that violence against the person is already illegal?

obviously not. the shit still happens.

[ThePits]

Originally Posted by val-holla-ing

obviously not. the shit still happens.

So does burglary, murder and stealing cars and everything else thats illegal

Name me one crime that is on the statute books that never gets committed

Once something is illegal you can't make it "more" illegal by tagging on specific categories of people

Illegal is illegal

What this type of legislation does is give the impression that its worse to assault a homosexual for being homosexual than it is to hospitalise someone because you are drunk and just don't like the look of them

It isn't, its wrong to assault anyone period

We should be condemning violence as a whole not elevating specific groups above the general population

There is adequate legislation already to punish violence, take the reason for the violence into account on sentencing and lets get back to common sense law not this absolute nonsense designed to keep certain high flying law firms in business

Well, yes, that's true but it simply doesn't happen that way. Of course violence towards any individual should be punished, regardless of their ethnic origin or sexuality. The reality is different, though, and people do get assaulted because someone doesn't like their perceived effeminate body language or the colour of their skin, amongst other things.

[girlgun]

Originally Posted by ThePits

So does burglary, murder and stealing cars and everything else thats illegal

Name me one crime that is on the statute books that never gets committed

Once something is illegal you can't make it "more" illegal by tagging on specific categories of people

Illegal is illegal

What this type of legislation does is give the impression that its worse to assault a homosexual for being homosexual than it is to hospitalise someone because you are drunk and just don't like the look of them

It isn't, its wrong to assault anyone period

We should be condemning violence as a whole not elevating specific groups above the general population

There is adequate legislation already to punish violence, take the reason for the violence into account on sentencing and lets get back to common sense law not this absolute nonsense designed to keep certain high flying law firms in business

i agree with this. i have a lot of problems with hate crime laws.... just punish the crime.

Hmm, what about rape then?

[girlgun]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Hmm, what about rape then?

what do you mean? rape itself is a crime.

[ThePits]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Well, yes, that's true but it simply doesn't happen that way. Of course violence towards any individual should be punished, regardless of their ethnic origin or sexuality. The reality is different, though, and people do get assaulted because someone doesn't like their perceived effeminate body language or the colour of their skin, amongst other things.

I am not saying it doesn't happen for those reasons, all I am simply saying is violence is violence is violence

You can't legislate to make it "more" of a crime, its already illegal!

By legislating separately for a group or groups and stating its a more serious offence to assault them, you, by default, make it less of an offence to assault someone outside of those groups thus devaluing them as a member of society

Girlgun summed it up best "punish the crime"

Originally Posted by girlgun

what do you mean? rape itself is a crime.

Exactly, but how many cases have to be re-assested because it is not always clear what seems to constitute rape for a court of justice? Wouldn't you have to treat such cases specifically like a crime that involved rape, rather than general GBH?

[girlgun]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Exactly, but how many cases have to be re-assested because it is not always clear what seems to constitute rape for a court of justice? Wouldn't you have to treat such cases specifically like a crime that involved rape, rather than general GBH?

i didn't realize there were a lot of instances of rapes being hate crimes. rape is an act of violence in the first place... a hate crime against women?

i do realize there are reasons hate crime laws were put into place, but i do believe they are better in theory than in practice though.

Originally Posted by ThePits

I am not saying it doesn't happen for those reasons, all I am simply saying is violence is violence is violence

You can't legislate to make it "more" of a crime, its already illegal!

By legislating separately for a group or groups and stating its a more serious offence to assault them, you, by default, make it less of an offence to assault someone outside of those groups thus devaluing them as a member of society

Girlgun summed it up best "punish the crime"

Well, we are all saying the same thing, basically, but violence happens to be also case-specific and different cases need a different type of approach to assest that the crime has taken place, so that's why you need to make a clear separation with some of them. Again, of course violence is abberant in any shape or form.

Originally Posted by girlgun

i didn't realize there were a lot of instances of rapes being hate crimes. rape is an act of violence in the first place... a hate crime against women?

i do realize there are reasons hate crime laws were put into place, but i do believe they are better in theory than in practice though.

Well, thanks, I've already said that with my previous post. And many cases of rape are hate crimes against women.

[floatingslowly]

the real issue here is being avoided.

the hate crime laws already exist and they are attempting to prevent "sexual orientation, gender, disability" from being included.

a discriminatory anti-discrimination law is bunk at it's foundation.

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by girlgun

i do realize there are reasons hate crime laws were put into place, but i do believe they are better in theory than in practice though.

this can apply to almost any law though.

"hate crime laws" were put into place so that inviduals who were obviously committing a crime that WAS more severe (due to the actions and reasoning behind it), could be adequately prosecuted as such.

(non-violent) example:

Tagger_X spray paints "Tagger_X wuz here" on the side of a convenience store.

Hitlers 'lil Helper paints "ALL JEWZ MUSST DIE!" on the side of a synagogue.

one is obviously worse than the other, yet previously, both would be simply vandalism. they ARE NOT the same crime, yet no law existed that defined them as different (mostly because nobody gave a fuck what people thought of "jews and niggers", and STILL DON'T care about "gays and women").

[HaydenAsche]

What a moron. What an absolute idiot.

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

the real issue here is being avoided.

the hate crime laws already exist and they are attempting to prevent "sexual orientation, gender, disability" from being included.

a discriminatory anti-discrimination law is bunk at it's foundation.

Absolutely. In the UK at least, the government started sending letters to people with mental disabilities that allude to the fact that new laws are being introduced to make them go back into employment unless they can prove that they are physically crippled. Some of those people that the government have already targeted include people with HIV because of the advancements in the treatment of this virus with things like combination therapy. What they completely (and purposely) fail to take into account is the fact that combination therapy is such a strong cocktail of drugs that it does affect the mental stability of a person living with the virus to the extent that they might find themselves incapable of overcoming mental issues that arise because of this.

[ThePits]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

this can apply to almost any law though.

"hate crime laws" were put into place so that inviduals who were obviously committing a crime that WAS more severe (due to the actions and reasoning behind it), could be adequately prosecuted as such.

(non-violent) example:

Tagger_X spray paints "Tagger_X wuz here" on the side of a convenience store.

Hitlers 'lil Helper paints "ALL JEWZ MUSST DIE!" on the side of a synagogue.

one is obviously worse than the other, yet previously, both would be simply vandalism. they ARE NOT the same crime, yet no law existed that defined them as different (mostly because nobody gave a fuck what people thought of "jews and niggers", and STILL DON'T care about "gays and women").

The crime taking place in the example you give here would be one of criminal damage in the UK

Once guilt had been established in court you could fine Tagger_X for being a self publicity seeking asshole and jail Hitlers lil helper for being a hate mongering bigot

So tell me wtf you need two separate laws to deal with what can already adequately be dealt with in sentencing under one?

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by ThePits

Once guilt had been established in court you could fine Tagger_X for being a self publicity seeking asshole and jail Hitlers lil helper for being a hate mongering bigot

I don't know much about UK law, but in the US they BOTH would have got fined and released (if even arrested at all).

I'm a "less law the better" kind of guy, but people who were committing disproportional crimes were essentially getting off due to lack of any type of law to describe their actions (and I still insist Tagger_X and Hitler's 'lil Helper did not commit the same type of crime).

surely UK law is decades ahead of us poor colonial types. it wasn't all that long ago that discrimination was actually encouraged by the state here (and apparently still is in Louisiana).

besides, I don't think that we are seeing much abuse of the "hate crime laws" on the side of the police here. if they were, there would be a lot more nazi's seeking dates on http://www.meet-an-inmate.com/ (as opposed to the mostly black male prison population).