Federal Hate Crime Legislation [Archive]

Long Duck Dong

May 8, 2009, 4:37 AM

I understand what vegan is saying and yes I can understand the rights to protection from hate crimes..... I agree, people should not live in fear.... but the hard part is how do you draw the line without getting accused of discrimination on the grounds of sexual desire....or protection of sexual deviants...

or as the following will show..... the accusations of biased cos of sexual identity...in the face of repeated sexual deviant behievour ( in short... the claim that a prisoner is being discriminated against cos they are gay.... even they are a repeat child sex offender and having their rights infringed upon by not being released from prision even tho they have shown that if releashed, they will reoffend

The Government is considering a United Nation's Human Rights Committee ruling it breached the rights of a repeat child sex offender in the handling of his parole application.

The case taken by lawyer Tony Ellis involves the sentencing of Allan Dean who was handed down a sentence of preventive detention after he put his hand on the crotch of a 13-year-old boy while in a cinema in 1995.

Prior to this he had received 13 convictions for various indecency offences over 40 years and had been warned on two previous occasions that he faced preventive detention.

In 1995 he was sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum 10-year non-parole period,

Mr Ellis took the case to the UN committee complaining numerous breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Among other things Mr Ellis complained that Dean had been discriminated against because he was a homosexual, that he had not been offered rehabilitation treatment and there was undue delay in the hearing of his appeal.

The committee said this was not true and that Dean had refused rehabilitation.

Mr Ellis also said the sentence was excessive for the offence.

The committee said Dean had a long history of offending and had committed the offence for which he received preventive detention within three months of leaving prison for a similar offence.

However, the committee did find by a majority that he should have been offered a parole hearing three years earlier than he was in 2005 as the maximum sentence for the offence he committed was seven years.

This was a violation of Dean's right to approach a court for a ruling on the lawfulness of his detention period.

The committee said the Government was obliged to offer a remedy for the breach and should respond to the committee within 180 days about what it had done.

Mr Ellis said in a statement that the only effective remedy was compensation.

A spokesman for Justice Minister Simon Power said the committee's report was being considered

rissababynta

May 8, 2009, 7:47 AM

Wouldn't the world be nice if everyone could just get along?! Or at least mind their own business? Then we would not have to worry about crimes occuring out of hate. World Peace damn it!

I should be Miss America....grrr...

I suppose I'm just a cockeyed optimist....hmmm

I have no idea if I just made any sense at all or if it seems as though I'm just babbling like a fool at the moment...I'm a bit tired...

curious44

May 8, 2009, 7:52 AM

rissababynta

May 8, 2009, 8:01 AM

curious44

May 8, 2009, 9:28 AM

I take it you have never heard of a hate crime or why people are motivated to do them.

Just look at Matthew Shepherd for one example of a hate crime, or Teena Brandon and Gwen Araujo too, and there are other examples where the person was not GLBT at all.

Are you completely closeted or just ignorant?

Nobody deserves to be murdered and the fact that the hate crime bill for GLBT people was shot down yet again just proves how we are second class citizens.

I guess it's just ignorance because I don't understand why it's less of a crime for two guys to tie me to a fence, beat me to within an inch of my life and leave me for dead than it is to do the same thing to Matt Shepherd.
You're right about one thing, NOBODY deserves to be murdered-period.

Falke

May 8, 2009, 9:28 AM

rissababynta

May 8, 2009, 10:00 AM

Seriously, how hard is it NOT to kill someone?

For some people...you'd be surprised haha.

For normal people, not that hard.

Long Duck Dong

May 8, 2009, 10:05 AM

oh can I claim to be gay to see somebody get jailed for longer ???

fuck me... people...... are we seriously trying to fuck off people and make them hate us ???

do people think that passing a law making hate crime illegal is gonna change anything....???? lets see... we made drugs illegal... we made drink driving illegal.... hell we really made complimenting a female illegal ( sexual harassment ) and in NZ they made discliplining your kids illegal

and it worked.... the world is now drug free, no body drinks and drives... females are fully respected and your kids are well behaving without discipline.....
so life here on pluto is wonderful.... marvelous.... fantastic.... hey guys.... guys ... where are you......???

making a hate crime illegal will not stop it.... it means the guilty will get punished if and when they get caught....AFTER the crime..... but their victim is still dead or seriously injured....

its not gonna stop hate crime.... its telling people that groups are protected from hate crimes legally.... and it will be seen as political correctness pandering to people yet again

let me tell you something.... in NZ.. if a female hits a male... its common assault, 6 months in jail max sentence.... if a male hits a female... its male assaults female 2 years behind bars..... not hate crime I know..... but PC gone made.....
is that what people want ??? different groups having the ability to claim hate crimes ??? accusations of hate crimes.... that could fuck up your life, your employment... your marriage.....

what is the accusations are not true, its a assumed crime of hate.... do you wanna deal with the fact that you face being accused of hate crime / hate speech for saying the wrong thing to another person in a moment of passion... imagine being at a bar and a fight starts... and you get hit... is it a accident... or a hate crime cos you are gay ????

the moment we accept protection from hate crimes cos we are gay, lesbain bi transgender, a different race, creed, culture, age, gender etc...... we are saying that we must be respected and pandered to more than other groups because we are who we are..... and that immediately is sticking more of a bullseye on us.... cos people are seeing us using that single aspect as a way to manipulate issues and events in our favour......

hate crime is hate crime.... and by any other name, its still a crime of hate.... but to use a single aspect to make a crime, seem more horrific or wrong.... is a very stupid move

if something like this law was passed... the next time anybody hit me, its not a case of assualt... its a hate crime...cos i can claim I am gay as I am known to have been intimate with males.....and who knows.... maybe I deserved a smack in the face cos I was mouthing off... or being a asshole.... and offending people..... but its still a hate crime cos they hit me and I can squeal that I am gay.... so its gay bashing hate crime.....

now tell me... who is the real criminal

12voltman59

May 8, 2009, 2:25 PM

I could never understand this whole "hate crime" thing. If I kill the two gays who live on our block just because they are gay and then kill the married couple that lives next door just because, what makes killing the gays more of a crime? I would be guilty of 4 murders, period.
Now let's put the shoe on the other foot. I'm just a white guy taxpayer so I don't get to be in one of these politically correct protected classes. If the gays kill me for whatever reason, what makes it less of a crime than if I killed them? "Hate Crimes", what a crock.

I don't have a problem with there being "enhancements" to the way crimes are charged--having a "hate crime" "enhancement" available to charge a defendant in a criminal case is no different from there being "enhancements" for use of a firearm or other similar sorts of things of that nature that have been placed into law in the past few decades at both the state and federal levels.

Such enhancements serve several purposes---a few of which include the following: hopefully first and foremost to serve as a deterrent to committing a hate crime that targets someone for some reason like "race" or sexual orientation----and more so---to have more charges against someone in order to make them more amenable to pleading out to lessor charges in order to get a conviction and hopefully avoid the necessity of trial---

I think it is fine that the statutes would allow for charging someone whose motives to attack someone was because of the victim's status---whatever that status is---"racial," sexual or whatever--anything that can serve as a deterrent to commission of such a crime--or to make for a longer, more severe prison sentence--especially when it the crime is a violent one---I think that is all well and good!!!!

Having there being "hate crimes" is not a crock--it is yet one more tool--HOPEFULLY A BIG HAMMER--in the panoply of "tools" (the selection of ways to charge crimes available to local, state and/or federal prosecutors).

The goal is try try to make someone think twice when they target a victim ---- performing an act of violence against the victim when the motivation is based on the grounds the victim is "something" the perp doesn't like--they will "have to pay an even higher price" for commission of such an attack--since unlike an attack on someone that "just sort of happens" out of something like "the heat of passion"---if a person attacks another because the other has some special status--that shows there is a premeditated, preplanned reason the attack took place--and to charge someone for a more serious crime in such instances is fully within the scope and tradition of the law----we have gradations in the way homicides are charged based on the "mens rea" (state of mind of the perpetrator)--this is not something new--this is an longstanding aspect of criminal law.

The reason I have insight into the way prosecutors charge cases as they do--came from sitting four months a few years back on my county grand jury-----when I was a probation officer--I just got the cases when the the various charges had already been decided upon----and they were being adjudicated in some fashion--it was very interesting to learn from the prosecutors at the indictment stage of "the system" why and how they decide to charge criminal defendants---it was quite a learning experience and for me---very interesting. I would urge anyone who gets the chance to sit on a Grand Jury--don't try to get out of it--serve on the jury and see how the system works----and then perhaps you might be able to make your decisions about such things as this with some knowledge and understanding of the system--and also to gain a appreciation of it.

bityme

May 8, 2009, 2:50 PM

curious44

May 8, 2009, 3:35 PM

12voltman59

May 8, 2009, 6:49 PM

12voltman59,
If I'm pissed off enough, stupid enough, hateful enough and/or just plain evil enough to kill somebody I'm not going to be bothered by some "enhancement" to the penalty to the point that I'm going to reconsider my actions. Did the countless people who have committed these crimes in the past take it in to consideration? Obviously not.
The only time they do any good is appealing to a constituency, properly identified by a focus group, while on the campaign trail running for re-election.

In reality---do any laws really stop anyone from committing the crimes they do?? NO

If that was the case--no one would take drugs or commit murders of any sort since we have more and more strict prison sentences and all of that----but speaking from a prosecutorial side of things-----to have things like special specifications and such for using firearms in the commission of a felony, RICO type laws regarding what constitutes being involved in criminal conspiracies----they do help in prosecuting cases and getting lengthier prison sentences and such, applying these specifications to make a person face "three strikes and you're out" laws--things of that sort----hate crime specifications fall into this category of such specifications and enhancements as well.

I guess it does speak to something that in most cases--since legislators (e.g. politicians) seem to have no problem creating all kinds of new specifications for things like gang activity, drug sales, weapons possession, "terrorist activities" and the like when they draft the legislation---it is a sad commentary that they didn't extend protection of this sort for "hate crimes."

Now--who is playing politics????!!!!!!!!

This is all "hate crime" provisions are---simply an extension of what is being done in many other areas of "THE LAW!"

12voltman59

May 8, 2009, 7:20 PM

Let me go one step further and restrict the discussion to the use of "hate crime" "enhancements" when it was first applied to those who set out to kill their fellow man---namely white suprememist groups like the KKK, the skin heads and such groups who targeted blacks, Jews and other racial and ethnic groups simply for the fact that of their ethnicity or whatever.

When those laws took effect and the federal government--via use of the FBI, ATF, Secret Service and other federal law enforcement agencies targeted the racist groups---that--along with tough minded federal prosecutors of the US Dept of Justice who went full boat after those groups----it was a major deterrent against those groups that had been engaged in murdering and committing acts of terrorism against blacks and other minority groups.

Just as it was a powerful message that the full force of the US government was going to come down on you if you targeted blacks and other minorities--it would send the same powerful message if we had "hate crimes" designation for those who would specifically target someone because of their gender or gender identity.

The fact is--with hate crimes designation for cases where someone targets a person because they are trans or gay or lesbian----it is not exactly like it was during the civil rights era where you had organized groups like the Klan lynching blacks and others working on civil rights----with these sorts of crimes--it is more a case of an individual or maybe a small impromptu group who commits an act of violence against a GLBT person and for the reason the victim is--it really does make these circumstances more of the charges being filed being "enhancement charges"--much like if one commits robbery with mere threats--it is simply robbery--but when one uses a hand gun--it becomes "armed or aggravated robbery with the use of a firearm"---it is really a more of a legal distinction that allows the prosecutors to carry a big hammer in stacking up charges against the defendants----and like I said--that can be used as a bargaining tool in discussions over plea bargains----in most cases---a prosecutor can tell the defendant's attorney something like this: "with the hate crimes enhancement--I get a conviction--your client does a minimum mandatory 25 to 50 years---and that means a minimum of 25 years till he is eligible for parole----but if he pleads out to agg second degree assault---he gets 10 to 15 years with parole eligibility in eight years!"

Whatcha think the perp is going to do if the evidence is strong???--with it not being uncommon these days--security cameras caught the perps in the act and they also have emails and such with them or the one saying things like "I am gona kill that motherfucking freako faggot man-woman!"

The hate crimes provisions are just another tool for the prosecutors to use, if they would get approved and put into place!!!

12voltman59

May 8, 2009, 8:02 PM

In reality---do any laws really stop anyone from committing the crimes they do?? NO

If that was the case--no one would take drugs or commit murders of any sort since we have more and more strict prison sentences and all of that----but speaking from a prosecutorial side of things-----to have things like special specifications and such for using firearms in the commission of a felony, RICO type laws regarding what constitutes being involved in criminal conspiracies----they do help in prosecuting cases and getting lengthier prison sentences and such, applying these specifications to make a person face "three strikes and you're out" laws--things of that sort----hate crime specifications fall into this category of such specifications and enhancements as well.

I guess it does speak to something that in most cases--since legislators (e.g. politicians) seem to have no problem creating all kinds of new specifications for things like gang activity, drug sales, weapons possession, "terrorist activities" and the like when they draft the legislation---it is a sad commentary that they didn't extend protection of this sort for "hate crimes."

Now--who is playing politics????!!!!!!!!

This is all "hate crime" provisions are---simply an extension of what is being done in many other areas of "THE LAW!"

PS----Forgot to add the biggest and most popular addition of these sorts of "enhancements" in recent times---sexual offender status!!!

Long Duck Dong

May 8, 2009, 10:41 PM

I am curious.... is there any cases of hate crimes against heterosexuals.... straight people...... any cases that end up in court cos a straight person was targetted in a hate crime......

is it cause they were straight....??? or cos of their mouth and behievour....

cos to be honest, in a search through google, I am constantly seeing the same pattern.... if its a person that is of color or alternative gender / sexuality.... the first few words I read, is hate crime.... but I am still trying to uncover or find cases of white / caucasian / heterosexual / undefined sexuality people targeted in hate crimes....

they are out there... but they are not handled or worded in the same way... its more likely to be called unprovoked attack, gang style bashing, brutal and senseless beating......

how about hate groups.... yes we all know about the KKK, the skin heads, the storm troopers.... white supremacists..but how many people know about the black supremacists.... and yes, they do exist....but you never hear about their hate crimes / attacks on white / caucasian people... and they do happen.....

the issue at stake is not the aspect of making hate crime law become law... but will it be directed as a blanket rule for everybody..... and do we seriously believe that it will be enforced equally.... or will it become yet another law that is seen as protecting groups in society...

or another level of protection for people to use as a weapon..... * I was punched in the face... I am gay = intended hate crime *..... * I heard person say they do not support same sex marriage... I am gay = discrimination against gays *..... * people said that person acts like a raving drama drag queen.. I am gay = hate speech against gays *

for the average joe blogs.... it would mean yet another way of saying, * speak not, write not, think not, for a moments expression in passion, could be a week in court, being labeled a person of hate *

Doggiestyle

May 9, 2009, 1:47 AM

Awwwwwww man were hittin my HOT button :mad: Now instead of whinning about how they were bein mistreated. Why don't the "gay community" learn how to defend themselfs??? Look at the benefits you would gain by doin this. :)

First the physical health side of it. You would get a real workout that would compare to any "aerobic with the music" type exercise. You would keep your body "all limbered up" to where your body will not have as bad a problem with artritis that you would have sittin around on the couch or wherever you get into the park position. You would feel younger (and probably look younger too) feel like you have more energy, and would want to do more things too, instead of sittin and goofing around and not really doing anything. Shure it'll seem kinda tuff at first, but after a while you'll like it a lot. If you have a fat ass and you get serious about "self defense" you WILL lose that fat ass and become more coordinated and shure footed. If you step on a slick spot and your foot skates out from under you. Then you'll be able to catch yourself and not splash on the floor, or the icy steps, or wherever. Or if something falls then you will be quick enough to dodge it.

Second the mental health side of it. You will have more self confidence in yourself. You will feel better about yourself cause you are better.In other words no punks will intimidate or shame you. You'll just laugh at them and if they come after you then you will be able to "back em down" and walk away without any worry's.

Third, learn to take care of yourself. In other words why expect the Govt to pass laws to protect you when you will be more reliable in protecting yourself. Laws?? You gotta be kidding me!! since when did a dumbass punk worry about any laws? We got all kinds of gun laws and has it stopped any gun related crimes, or stopped any punk hoodlum from commiting any gun related crime???? Oh yeah when and where??? If your in a "predicament" who is gonna protect you? You or some law? Believe me youre more reliable than the law. If your gonna rely on the law, then make shure you have somebody that can enforce them with you at all times. The law only can prosecute after it happened. Self defense can prevent it from happining. Especially if you consider the hassel of prosecution, the going to court, answering all the stupid questions, ETC. To me it's not worth it. Toooooooo much "drama"

So everbody, stop :banghead: and start a "self improvement campaign" and do a routine several times a week. Be faithful and stay with it. Your first battle will be with a invisible force that tries to stop you. Keep it up, don't give in, whip that M-Fs ass, several times a week (not every day, to much) do your exercises. You do not need a total gym or a bunch of exercise equipment, a waste of money. I like walk real briskly with leg and arm weights, swinging and kicking at a pre-focused, imaginary target, bugs, whatever? for anywhere between 1 - 2 hours usually, sometimes longer. And if you don't want to enroll in a self defense class (much better) or get some books on self defense and at least dedicated 3 partners (4total) to help figgure out and perform the various moves. If your really serious about it, in about a years time you will be able to defend yourself against most anybody. Now a self defense program is nice but if youre ever into a confrontation and they know a few moves (a lot of them do), then you could have some problems. So to overcome that problem the thing to do is to enroll into some kind of Martial Arts course. I myself like kickboxing. After several dedicated years of that you will be able to defend yourself against most anybody and that would include dis-arming them also (except maybe a gun) Or if the right moment came you could dis-arm a person with a gun. That one would require great care and knowledge.

And girls and girley boys take notice!!! Wouldint it be nice that if some punk or several punks came up to you to force their will or desire on you, and you slapped them so goddam hard that their whole neighborhood felt it. Wouldin't it be nice to tell them "boy when you get up you better be walkin away from me". Now i'me3 not talkin about bein a "Chuck Norris type" It would take many of years of hard training to be as good as he is. I am talkin about brushing off a few punks. That level of learning, in a few years, could be possible. I know that the "invisible force" that holds you back and keeps you from exercising regularly. Will be your biggest threat. REMEMBER, ANYBODY CAN DO IT. JUST TAKES PRACTICE, PATIENTCE AND DEDICATION.

So now i'll get off this :soapbox: and try to return to normal, or at least as normal as I usually am.... Your friend, Doggie....:doggie:.....:bipride:

FalconAngel

May 10, 2009, 1:15 AM

The thing that many people are not understanding here is that hate crimes have no logical basis.

If someone robs a store and they shoot the clerk, that is not a hate crime, but if someone robs a particular store and shoots the clerk because of the race, gender, sexuality or religion of the store owners/operators, that would be a hate crime. That store and the individuals were not a "target of convenience", they were targeted because of a particular aspect of who/what they are.

That is what separates the common crime from the hate crime. The common crime targets no one in particular, while the hate criminal is like a serial criminal; their target fits a specific and very limited profile, be it religion, gender, sexuality or whatever.

On the issue of supposedly protecting pedophiles, that was covered quite clearly in other laws as well as the Mathew Shepherd Act, since pedophilia is not a sexuality based crime, but a crime against children. Pedophiles were not given any protection in that act.

Long Duck Dong

May 10, 2009, 2:09 AM

lol.... read the post ealier in the thread from nz.... where a convicted repeat sexual offender is claiming discrimination against them cos they are gay..... and you tell me thats not somebody twisting things and using their sexuality as a excuse to get released, when they have proven that if released, they will reoffend.....

in the US, exists the defence that a straight person can be regarded as temp insane if they are * touched * by a gay person.....but does the same defence exist for gays.... NO.....there is no temp insanity defence if a straight person * touchs * a gay person...

common law crime and hate crime is the same dammed thing.... its the target that defines the ruling..... thats why you hear about gay hate crime... but not straight hate crime..... hate crimes against people of color, but not hate crime against people of european descent....
there are ethnic, cultural, sexuality and racial crimes.... and they are the same crime.... we define them by the race, ethic, cultural or sexuality of the victim....

the same justice for all should exist.... and yes I know it doesn't... but it should..... however... we perfer the * omg gay bashing * over * OMG another person was beaten badly *...

the sexuality, race, gender, culture etc should never make a crime any worse, than the same crime committed against ANY person.....

I never stated pedophilia is a sexuality based crime... but that in the news site article, I posted.... that a convicted sex offender... is claiming discrimination on the grounds of sexuality and its been upheld.... cos he is gay..... and ignores the fact he is a repeat sex offender... that will reoffend, based on past behivour and offending....

my point there... is that the catch phrase is I am gay and its discrimination against me cos I am gay..... not I am a sex offender with a history of offending and a high risk of reoffending....
so you can see that the * I am gay, its discrimination * is becoming a catch phrase for many circumstances, were sexuality plays no part at all.... bit it gets more sympathy and attention.......

its430am

May 10, 2009, 2:48 AM

Maybe I am not thinking properly (it being early in the am and all) but it seems to me that most crimes involve hate of some kind. The most obvious would be something like driving over your wife's new guy with your SUV, but I can see hate as a motivating factor in even the simplest of robberies. Some teenager who is low on cash and hates that others have more than him bashes in the window of a currently uninhabited second home--he hates the owners for having that second home and feels good about relieving them of their goods. A person stealing money for drugs might hate the dealer for charging so much and hate himself for needing it. A kid stealing a road sign might hate the police for one reason or another. I'm actually having a hard time coming up with a crime that doesn't involve hate (maybe drunk driving, but you still could be drunk because you hate somebody).

Soph

Long Duck Dong

May 10, 2009, 5:05 AM

I will agree there 4.30am.... and my knowledge doesn't come from books or webpages.. it comes from the heart and mind of a person with a past that I would rather forget....

if I was to punch a gay person, it would not be cos I hated them.... but cos of a aspect of their behievour or their mannerism, attitude or lifestyle that annoyed me ( it doesn't have to be offensive ) and the same with a straight person.....

many of the people that refer to hate crimes and gay bashing, most likely have never been on the recieving end of a fist, or the one to throw one.... but they like to use wording that gets the best reaction and emotional response.....and play on the conscience of people.....and that adds a twist to the crime

to me ( I am a ex fighter and yes, convicted of assualt... ) a hate crime is a crime that is intentional, deliberate and targets a person for no other reason other than the intention to hurt, harm or indeed kill them because in my eyes, they have been allowed to live and society is permitting them to have more freedom and rights than me and infringe on my rights.....

things like I am gonna go and rob a store and then shoot the clerk cos they are gay... is not what I regard as a hate crime... but a crime with intention to inflict harm.....but we would still label it a gay hate crime cos a gay clerk was shot.... but would we label it a straight hate crime if I was to go rob a store and then shoot the clerk cos they had a gf and were straight..... no, we would call it a armed robbery.....

I view the terms of hate crime so narrowly, not cos I am denying hate crimes... but cos we define hate crimes according to the victim.....

the name matthew sheppard is paraded like a trophy and a prime example of a hate crime against a gay man....but is there any proof that they sat down for a couple of weeks and plotted the actions against matthew, with details....????.... according to the details of the case....no.... they were targeting a gay man cos of the understanding that it would be easier to rob them and beat them cos of the understanding that gay men of a feminine nature, were easy likely to be able to fight back or defend themselves.....

last i knew... we have gay martial artists, gun holders, weight lifters and body builders etc, that were clearly able to defend themselves.... so the crime was not a hate crime against gays but a crime targeted at a certain of person... a person not likely to be able to defend themselves and a person that they understood, that society looked down upon.... a gay person.... so there was less likely to be a back lash...... but like any violent crime... it got out of hand fast, and a mixture of adrenaline, emotions and the * thrill * of the crime.... resulted in the loss of a human life... not a gay man... a person... not a homosexual, a male......

but the lgbt has managed to take matthew, a male and turn them into a gay person, a victim and a name to shout out about and wave banners about at protests.....

to me matthew was a human male, that was tragically taken at a young age, not for being gay / homosexual / feminine... but being a suitable target for a couple that were intent on a criminal act...... and if they had found some straight male that fit the required *guidelines* for their intended target....then the LGBT would not raise their name at protests... and rallies.... cos they are straight... and the LGBT requires gay bashing / gay hate victims to draw attention to hate crimes .....

so we make the crime * fit * the criteria...and matthew is no longer matthew the gentleman, and a victim of a crime that should have never happened..... and becomes matthew the victim of a gay bashing hate crime... cos its serves the purpose of the LGBT to have his legacy be that he was gay and the victim of a crime....not matthew the guy many loved, and tragically taken at a young age.....

elian

May 10, 2009, 9:12 AM

was gay and the victim of a crime....not matthew the guy many loved, and tragically taken at a young age.....

..and if we lived in a society that valued the basic human rights of each person equally I would agree with you..we would be focusing on the person and not who they choose to love.

Historically people of dubious, immature or questionable moral character have always preyed upon those who they believe are on the fringe of society. Oh, I do believe they selected a target but I think maybe it wasn't so much "this guy is easy to rob" as "who will care if we beat up this fag?"

I grew up in an area about 40 minutes from where Sheppard was going to school. Believe me people interchangeably use the words "faggot/pussy/gay" in a derogatory way - up until the point right after they beat the shit out of this kid I bet they thought the fact that he loved men was a little extra "incentive" to justify their actions. Enacting legislation to make sexual preference a class will take away that "little extra incentive".

People (on the outside of a group looking in) are definitely valued more or less in our society based on their perceived position, power and wealth in our society. Ever wonder why you drive through the poorest section of town and you can bust an axle on some of the potholes?

If they didn't enact civil rights legislation in the 1960's do you think we would be having this conservation right now? Would I even know who you are? Would this site exist?

What pisses me off the most is that idiotic people think that because I want protection to love another consenting adult that translates into me wanting to marry my bedpost or something...ridiculous shit that a five year old would say... "OOooh, they're talking about SEX it must be DIRTY.."

Even WITH hate crime protection - do you really think that will prevent hate crime from occurring "under the radar" ? There are still all kinds of discrimination going on for the "protected" classes right now - it's just not as blatantly obvious as it used to be.

It might take 40 more years to get to the point where what it says on paper is the reality but still I'd like to live in a place that at least formally acknowledges that ALL people have basic human rights.

elian

May 10, 2009, 9:29 AM

Even with the global nature of this site, I still stand by my comments. Everything else being equal if they didn't enact civil rights legislation here in the US I think things would be different - if not for anyone else in the world - definitely for the folks in the US.

Long Duck Dong

May 10, 2009, 10:31 AM

It might take 40 more years to get to the point where what it says on paper is the reality but still I'd like to live in a place that at least formally acknowledges that ALL people have basic human rights.

darling.... I would love to see that.... and its happening in new zealand.... strangely enuf.... its happening cos what i said for so many years.... got done.... we dropped the labels and the rights for groups and put everybody on the same level.....it did not cure all the issues but by hell, it removed or lessened a lot of them....... and thats why I preach so much about it in bisexual.com..... people can have their labels and their pride etc.... but they need to let go of the lgbt rights and start with the equal rights for all regardless of culture, race, creed, sexuality and gender.....

I live in new zealand.... and I will admit that we do have a good record on human rights equality with the civil union bill ( the so called gay marriage bill that was actually for all people who wanted the rights of marriage but not a marriage itself, tho it still give gays the rights to have a recognized union )

finally the LGBT community got it through their thick heads, to stop pushing for lgbt bars and night clubs.... so that there could be places to meet.... when they realised that the gay bars and cruise bars were closing.... lack of support....not cos of hate crimes or gay bashings... but cos the lgbt communities found that home meeting groups and social groups were on the rise..... as people enjoyed the more friendly and social gatherings more....

they realised that pushing for LGBT health care and treatment was a waste of time as there were already doctors and clinics that catered for them and every body else..without the need for the LGBT friendly label...

and they finally and I still can not believe this one... they realised that the anti discrimination laws in NZ, were not lgbt specific... they were nz wide... regardless of race, gender, culture, sexuality...... without needing to be specific......

with the realisation that NZ treated us all as equals.... the activists have disappeared.... most likely eating humble pie after their rants about our needs and wants and desires......

and that was the key to it all.... we removed the division, the labels, the groups.. etc....and put everybody on the same level.... and removed any chance of people saying but its catering for one group more than the next..and favouring them..... and by that. we removed the fuel for the hate crime / gay bashing fire.....and now it smoulders........

elian

May 10, 2009, 6:22 PM

Have always hoped that we wouldn't NEED activists here - if that really is the way in NZ then it seems a very enlightened place. There are so many groups of people here with vested interests .. <sigh>

Thanks for your point of view - I think in the bottom of my heart I've always wanted it to be the way you describe.

-E

darling.... I would love to see that.... and its happening in new zealand.... strangely enuf.... its happening cos what i said for so many years.... got done.... we dropped the labels and the rights for groups and put everybody on the same level.....it did not cure all the issues but by hell, it removed or lessened a lot of them....... and thats why I preach so much about it in bisexual.com..... people can have their labels and their pride etc.... but they need to let go of the lgbt rights and start with the equal rights for all regardless of culture, race, creed, sexuality and gender.....

I live in new zealand.... and I will admit that we do have a good record on human rights equality with the civil union bill ( the so called gay marriage bill that was actually for all people who wanted the rights of marriage but not a marriage itself, tho it still give gays the rights to have a recognized union )

finally the LGBT community got it through their thick heads, to stop pushing for lgbt bars and night clubs.... so that there could be places to meet.... when they realised that the gay bars and cruise bars were closing.... lack of support....not cos of hate crimes or gay bashings... but cos the lgbt communities found that home meeting groups and social groups were on the rise..... as people enjoyed the more friendly and social gatherings more....

they realised that pushing for LGBT health care and treatment was a waste of time as there were already doctors and clinics that catered for them and every body else..without the need for the LGBT friendly label...

and they finally and I still can not believe this one... they realised that the anti discrimination laws in NZ, were not lgbt specific... they were nz wide... regardless of race, gender, culture, sexuality...... without needing to be specific......

with the realisation that NZ treated us all as equals.... the activists have disappeared.... most likely eating humble pie after their rants about our needs and wants and desires......

and that was the key to it all.... we removed the division, the labels, the groups.. etc....and put everybody on the same level.... and removed any chance of people saying but its catering for one group more than the next..and favouring them..... and by that. we removed the fuel for the hate crime / gay bashing fire.....and now it smoulders........

TheBisexualProfessor

May 11, 2009, 7:09 AM

Actually, at the risk of being tarred and feathered here, I have to say that I'm against ALL HATE-CRIME LEGISLATION!

The reason is simple: laws concerning violence should be punished in the most appropriate way, and that's based upon the harm and injury done to someone. I don't think how a person **feels** should be brought into the discussion at all! It's a very dangerous thing to start punishing people based upon how you believe they happen to feel about their victim. We cannot read one another's minds!

I would think that most minority groups (racial, sexual, cultural, religious) would prefer it this way because it means that they are being treated equally and that their humanity is being recognized as of equal value to all members of society. :2cents:

Long Duck Dong

May 11, 2009, 7:19 AM

sing it professor..... get up in the pulpit and sing it....... cos thats exactly how I feel too

its too easy to copy / paste comments and posts and threads and interpret the meaning ....and specially knowing how blogs do not carry emotion that well.......

a crime is a crime.... judge the criminal according to the crime... not the blog or the post on myspace....lol

curious44

May 11, 2009, 7:56 AM

bisexualprofessor,
tared & feathered? Hardly. You said it perfectly and I agree 100%. The comments on this thread seem to be divided about 50/50.

rissababynta

May 11, 2009, 10:28 AM

I must say, I pretty much agree with that too...

Long Duck Dong

Oct 14, 2009, 1:00 AM

if any law was passed that stated that hate crimes against LGBT people carried a higher penalty cos its a hate crime.....then regardless of the fact of what I am ( bisexual ) I will alter my lifestyle to the point that i no longer identify as bisexual or support the LGBT community in any way......

the reason is simple..... we may be LGBT but we are human.... there is no LGBT and the rest of the human race.... there is the human race which can be LGBT / straight etc.... and I am getting sick of the LGBT community saying that we are human too, treat us like the rest of the human race.... but then treat us differently than the rest of the human race because we are LGBT

yes hate crimes do exist, yes people do get beaten up.... but omg it can happen to ANYBODY, its not a LGBT exclusive event.....

read back over what I have posted earlier in this thread to where I posted about the inbalance in the nz justice system... and how assault on a female carries a higher penalty than assault on a male...... so much for being equal and treated equal....

I will stand with the rest of the human race and if the LGBT community are gonna gain exclusive status not afforded to the rest of the human race, after their demands for equal rights and treatment... than the LGBT community is not a group I will stand with.... I will stand with the rest of the human race that gets treated equally without exclusive protection and rights

Long Duck Dong

Oct 14, 2009, 2:28 AM

let me spell it out simply and clearly.... assault is assault, murder is murder..... your sexuality doesn't change that...... nor does it make it ANY worse or painful... the reason of the attacker or their attitude may ring in your ears... but it doesn't change the fact its assault or murder of a human being.....

I am not a elitist or a seperatist.... if somebody assaults me, I want them charged for assault... not for hate crimes, not for person assaults LGBT, but for assault.... my sexuality should never entitle me to added * benefits * in the justice system when a person is charged with a crime against me

I bleed, bruise and die the same as the rest of the human race.... and as long as that is the case, then I should enjoy the same rights as the rest of the human race, and not elitist or elevated status * crimes* because I may be bisexual..... I should not be able to say that hitting me is a hate crime, lock them up for life... but that person only hit a hetero, give them 25 years....

now LGBT are targeted because they are living, breathing people.... criminals generally do not mug and assault trees or concrete paths... they assault humans.....strangely enuf... heteros are living breathing people... they get assaulted too.... why is there no call for a hetero hate crime....only the standard assault crimes for heteros..... are heteros not equal to LGBT and entitled to the same protection under the justice system... or do they rate as a second level class of people because of their sexuality ??

as I have said, I am human first, bisexual second, a heterosexual and ANY other gender should have the same rights and protection as me under the justice system... who they are attracted to, should never be used as a reason to justify a seperate form of justice to me

as for the remark about me being a white male and partnered with a female ??? snorts... read about me in other threads.... a ex street fighting male, with military experience and expert in martial arts, with a history of assualt charges...... now when I talk about being treated as every body else... I am speaking as a former fighter... a person that has been through the justice system cos of past crimes.....and as I have posted in the past.... hitting a hetero or lgbt person is no different.... you are assaulting a person regardless of the reason.... treat it as a equal crime regardless of the reason..... or drop the fucking " we want equality as lgbt " bullshit.... cos if the lgbt want " elitist " style crime ratings based on sexuality... then we do not want equality.... we are saying treat us differently than the rest of the human race, because we are lgbt, so we deserve EXTRA status

roy m cox

Oct 14, 2009, 3:35 AM

maybe this will help people think about hate crimes i hope

http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8029

:2cents:

Long Duck Dong

Oct 14, 2009, 3:36 AM

in nz, there is no such law as anti hate crimes.... and the reason is simple... its illegal to discriminate on the grounds of race, gender, creed, religion, age etc

question ? how do you have hate crimes laws that mention specific groups but not every people in general, without discriminating between groups

answer ? you can't, you can only have one justice for all or discriminating justice for seperate groups....

question ? how can the LGBT community have anti hate crime legisation for crimes committed against LGBT people without discriminating against non LGBT people

answer, you can't, by exempting various groups from legisation surrounding hate crimes, you are discriminating against various groups

question ? how do you stop crimes against lgbt people ?

answer, ? the same way you stop crimes against every person..... you can't... you can only hope you catch the criminals and justice is served

question ? how can we get justice served in a biased system ?

answer ? not by demanding biased laws that only benefit select groups like LGBT and ignore groups like heterosexuals

question ? what is your advice to resolve the situation in a balanced way ?

answer, ? stop making excuses for life, face reality.... there will be discrimination, there will be biased, there will be opposition and it starts with you, not the rest of the world..... remember, you are the one saying * hate crime, lgbt phobia etc, you are the one labeling it that and making it a issue "
when you post * anti lgbt threads * in bisexual.com... you give the other place more publicity and fuel the fire.....
a hate crime happens when we call it a hate crime, a crime happens when a criminal acts against property or people in a illegal manner....

if we want to stop hate crimes, stop calling them hate crimes.... call them crimes.....

roy m cox

Oct 14, 2009, 4:08 AM

Long Duck Dong

Oct 14, 2009, 4:41 AM

so what would you call it if some one beats the hell out of you and calls you a fagot and more ,,

a love crime ?_? cuzz getting beat up for being a different color or sexual preference or any thing diff about you is not love it is hate any way you spell it :2cents:

i have been beat up before and called a fag and gay Wade and some other nasty things just for walking down my street by some skin heads ,, not funny the cops did nothing about it just looked at me and say to me they cant do any thing about it cuzz i probably deserve it and drove off hmm don't sound rith to me :mad: i think they need to be in jail don't you

I would call it name calling .... not a hate crime.... cos I have seen the same thing happen to straight people... and thats not a hate crime either... cos the person was not LGBT, they were straight.... so under hate crime legislation, the straight person would only be able to cry * assault * not hate crime..... as non lgbt people, they would have no anti hate crime protection.... talk about discrimination

if you were assaulted, then yeah I believe the police should have acted on the complaint, not cos you were called a faggot and gay wade, or cos of your sexuality, but simply cos you were assaulted, with is a illegal action against you....

but honestly, the legal and justice system is only as good as the police, the lawyers, the judge and the jury.... and I am realistic about that.... watching people get off criminal charges cos of technicalities....
adding a hate crime legal loophole is not the answer.... all a person would need to say, is I was not aware they were gay and presto, no hate crime....

remove the defence of provocation in crimes, thats the key... and you remove peoples ability to say I attacked them cos they hit on me and they are lgbt....

we had a case recently in nz where a man was killed by another man, the defence was that the gay man made gay moves on the straight man.... the judge said " you drunk with the man at a gay bar, you went back to his house with him, you stayed and drunk with him.... then killed him for touching you ????, you were not able to leave the house ????? do not hand me that bs, you are getting sentenced as a man that committed murder, the defence of provocation is not accepted as a defence....
the gay man was beaten senseless then had the neck of a banjo rammed down his throat, causing bleeding that played a part in the mans death.....
it was not a gay hate crime or provocation, it was pure, simple murder.... NOBODY, lgbt or otherwise, deserved to die like that

there is currently a move in nz by the government to remove the defence of provocation in serious crimes....

believe me, I am a simple, hard line person.... treat every criminal equally but in nz, there is not enuf of it.... you can drive a car, crash, kill somebody and depending on the judge, either get locked up or given community service and a fine......

but by adding different grades of laws for the same types of crimes, we have a unbalanced justice system.... now in the usa, there used to be a black / white justice, black man kills a white man, he hangs from the neck till death... white man kills a black man, he just had to justify it in a few words....the us people demanded justice and equal justice for all..... and never got it.... and now the LGBT does a u turn and wants anti hate crimes against the LGBT and not equal justice for all ????

curious, if a LGBT man / woman hits a LGBT man / woman... is it a hate crime ??? cos the victim is LGBT ???

12voltman59

Oct 14, 2009, 11:16 AM

Hate crimes laws such as what we are talking about would not have been necessary had the authorities in jurisdictions in places large and small all over America had done their jobs by doing what was required of them by both the Federal and state constitutions--namely--to fully and fairly investigate, arrest, prosecute, try, convict and sentence those who make attacks on those who are some form of "the other." (the other being anyone who was not a "good white Christian American!" as was often the case in the early days of hate crimes laws with the perpetrators most often being "a good white Christian American!")

Authorities in many places for years and in far too many places across this "great" land turned a blind eye if a victim of a beating or murder was (HIGHLY OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE WARNING!!!!) "a nigger, spic, rag head, sand nigger, Kike, Wop, beaner, faggot, queer, butt fucker, etc. etc, ect!!!!!"

Such negligence on the part of local authorities to take seriously their duties to deal with such attacks sadly continues to this day in far too many places in our country depending on the status of what the victim is.

Hate Crimes Laws are an attempt to try to correct this serious failure of "the system" and even if the authorities of a local governmment fail to do their Constitutionally mandated duty to "protect and preserve" by fully investigating and prosecuting people who attack and kill others because the victim was "one of those others!"--there can be some measure of justice meeted out to the perpetrators of such acts.

In a perfect world---the law should apply equally and fully to all---but we don't live in a perfect world----so justice does not always gets served as it should.

If a hate crime law deters just one perpetrator from targeting someone just because the victim is "a _________"--then the law has done its job and for those it fails to deters----that they might get some punishment because they attacked someone just because "he or she was a _______" then I say "YEAHHH!!!"

Donkey_burger

Oct 14, 2009, 11:18 AM

I haven't read all the posts, so forgive me if this has been stated before.

Maybe hate crime laws are kind of an apology because somebody, who is PERCEIVED as a minority, is at risk for a crime. It's like saying "You know, this person didn't target you for money, or get his/her jollies out, but because he/she wants to rid the world of people like you. She/he will stay in jail longer for it." This is especially true for people who can't really defend themselves well, or for whom death is expected or will be excused as "Their pain is now over" (children, senior citizens, people with disabilities).

Just a thought. :2cents:

DB :flag4:

12voltman59

Oct 14, 2009, 12:45 PM

curious, if a LGBT man / woman hits a LGBT man / woman... is it a hate crime ??? cos the victim is LGBT ???

No LDD-the way these laws work, that the victim was simply had the status of being one of the specified classes of "victim" does not kick the law in. What is the operative aspect is the reason why the perpetrator of an attack or murder of a person was because the victim fell into one of those categories.

Going back to the early days of these laws--especially down south--like some scene out of a bad movie---it was often the case that a bunch of southern white, Klan "boys" would get together to (OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE WARNING) "go kill us a coon---and I don't mean no damn coon that walks on four legs-- I mean the ones that can stand upright even though they are only a bunch of goddammed monkeys--We gonna kill us a NIGGRA!!! Yooohooo!!! Let's go git us one boys--YYYYYYEEEEEE HHHHHAAAWWWWWW!!"

It has certainly been the case that not only was this sort of thing true when it came to lynchings of blacks by whites in the south--in many cases of attacks on "gays"-it was proven via police investigation that the "perps" set out to (OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE WARNING) "go kick the ass of or kill some butt fucking faggot, queer assed mother fucker!!"

So-to be clear--these laws go to the motivations of the perpertrator-the MENS REA or state of mind of the attacker as to why and how he or she selected the victim or victims of the attack---if one of the prime motivations in selecting a victim was because that person was a "faggot, nigger" or whatever --that kicks in these sorts of laws.

As I said in my post above--these laws would not have been necessary had the local authorities in such cases done their duty and pursued these sorts of cases with the same due dilligence they might with the murder of say, the daughter of the biggest banker in town!!

Nope--very often--these cases were put on the low priority rung by the police and even if an arrest were made--the charges filed by prosecutors were often the least they could charge--with minimal jail or prison time available for sentencing and with the prosecutions being less than vigorous.

Since we are talking federal law here--even if the person was murdered by the perps---since in many such cases---the local prosecutors often fail or failed to pursure murder charges---as I understand the law, all the feds can do in these cases is to charge the perpetrators of such crimes as a "hate crime" with its own punishments--they cannot prosecute them as murder cases since there are only a relative handful of circumstances the Federal government can file murder charges----even though that number has grown in recent years.

I did go research what the specifics of these laws are---they really don't provide for all that strong degree of punishment--they are as much there to allow the victims or families of victims of such crimes to go after the "perps" civilally. The laws also in some cases only set up gathering of crime statistics of hate crimes in various catagories and didn't allow for prosecutions.

Some states are on their own accord are enacting legislation that puts some teeth in such laws that allow for actual criminal prosecutions for hate crimes that range from misdemeanors at the low end up to and including captial murder charges at the high end.

For those who are motivated enough---I found this document I have provided a link to below that was prepared by the Congressional Research Service that gives a history of "hate crimes legislation" from its early days up to the date of its release in July of this year---with the passage of the newest bill---I don't know the language that is in it---so I don't know if moves in the past that would allow for things like life imprisonment or even the Federal Death penalty that have been proposed and either defeated or withdrawn in previous Congresses made it throught this time.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33403_20090724.pdf

Long Duck Dong

Oct 14, 2009, 6:41 PM

I fully understand what you are saying, voltman..... in nz its slightly different... the judgement on any criminal is decided by the judge....and depending on the judge, it varies greatly.....

we have more of a narrow minded law system here.... with the exception of a few areas....

we have common assault, assault, aggravated assault, assault with the intent to cause grevious bodily harm, attempted murder, manslaughter and murder.....
the exemption is male assaults female, which carries a a 2 year jail sentence
the reverse sentence for a female assaulting a male is 3 months jail....

there is no difference between a lgbt beating and a hetero beating.... they are treated as the same thing so its not that common to hear about gay bashing crimes in nz.... but you will have the defence of provocation in some cases......
the goverment is working to overturn the defence of provocation due to a recent case of a man stabbing a woman 218 times and using the defence of he was provoked... the judge threw the defence out of court

the womans rights groups are demanding that the legal defence of battered woman syndrome remains as a legal defence.... that a female that can prove that she is in a abusive relation and murders her partner, does so in self defence and is not legally responsible for their actions

again its becoming a aspect of justice for 2 seperate groups....

now the maori of nz are demanding the right for seperate justice system for maori with different sentences and the right to have all their cases spoken in maori.... the cost to the nz taxpayer is huge.....

when the goverment said oh hell no, they were immediately slammed for their biased and close minded attitude that was not respectful of race....

the nz public said, GOOD, one justice for ALL, let every man stand in the dock equally and be judged equally...... unfortunately, its the judges themselves that are the major system failure.... a number of criminals whose actions have results in severe injury or death have recieved non custodial sentences, making a mockery of the nz justice system

however, we do live in a country of non discrimination, and the justice system reflects that in the legal system, hence we have no hate crime legislation

for crimes that may be classed as hate crimes, the charge of aggravated assault or assault with intent to injure, is used, as there is clear intent to hurt the victim, regardless of race, creed, age, gender or sexuality

thats how I look at the justice system

I am safe in the knowledge that I as a LGBT person can be assured that in the case of a assault on me or my straight partner, the charge against the person will be equal and that my sexuality will not be used as a bargaining chip

a criminal has the right to plead innocent or guilty or ask for trial by jury, the charges are decided by the police prosecutor, there is no bargaining between lawyers and DA's to get a plea bargain

it may be the difference between the us legal system and the NZ legal system that is really the issue for me in regards to hate crime legislation.... but living in a society, where LGBT are not automatically * victims * I tend to see things differently to the way people in other countries may see things

12voltman59

Oct 14, 2009, 8:52 PM

Well LDD--just llike it is with "gay marriage" or marriage being allowed between blacks and whites----"hate crime laws" came to be in our system since our system did not live up to its own basic standards of "Equality and Justice For All!"

People who were not of the "majority" (straight, white people) were very often ill served by our vaunted American Legal System----

In so many cases---the legal system responded to attacks on black people as "well, boys will be boys" meaning that the white guys who did the attacks were somehow simply doing something "normal" in attacking "nigras" or when it has been attacks on gays,lesbians,bis or trans people----the attitude has been: "Well those weirdos are queers--it is only natural that they would upset normal people--they must have made a pass at the normal guys so they deserved to get beat up or killed" so in cases of this sort---it was more or less--if you were a white, straight person (depending on the relevancy of those factors) who attacked a minority person--it was "no harm, no foul!" and you bascially got a pass from the legal system in many locales.

Long Duck Dong

Oct 14, 2009, 9:33 PM

thats something I do have a big issue with......

I would expect to face the same charges if I was to hit a female, a male, a trans person etc of any color, race etc.... and as strange as this is gonna sound, if hate crime offenses existed in nz and a person was charged with assault of a hate crime nature, for hitting me because I was LGBT, I would actually fight against the charge on his behalf in court and demand he is charged with the same charge I would be charged with, if I hit him

I have noticed in gay bashing crimes in the us, that there is always reference to the attacker calling the person faggot, and queer etc etc, but knowing the LGBT community the way I do, we are no angels and we do provoke the general public with our actions and deeds, but in the case of matthew sheppard, we may never know exactly what happened and if matthew had acted in any way to enflame the situation or not and could he has done anything that made the difference between life and death
it doesn't excuse what happened or justify it, but I am curious, could have it turned out differently ?

there was once in town when a few Lgbt friends went to town, and encountered a group of rowdy young guys with a lil too much to drink, the young guys did mouth off a lot with offensive remarks, and my first reaction was to say, * for gods sakes, don't react or provoke them " unfortunately, a couple of my friends decided to act all flirtly and blow kisses at the guys.... immediately all hell broke loose..... and I simply walked off.... much to the horror of my friends....

not all cases are like that, there is gay bashing that is unprovoked and I do accept that, but I have also seen a lot of provocation by the LGBT community in the face of the general public.....

as a late teenager, I used to drink at a gang pub, that has a lgbt bar at the back of the gang pub, we hardly ever had any trouble... it was like a symbiotic relationship, the LGBT drinkers helped keep the place going, and as thanks, the gang ( the mongrel mob ) looked after the lgbt and protected them while they were in the bar drinking......

but in the times i have been to the lgbt parades in nz, I have watched some of the LGBT community delibrately provoke the hell out of religious and non religious groups and people, with remarks, actions and behievour so offensive, that as much as I hate to say it, they deserved a smack in the chops.....

it is known in nz quietly as the KKK neighborhood mentality.... a person of colour moving into a KKK neighborhood then quoting their rights to protection from discrimination and how they have human rights etc etc to their kkk neighbours
its something you just don't do.... reqardless of the law or your rights....

now it can be argued that there should be no discrimination and yeah I agree.... but we are fools to think that a hate crime law change will stop a lot of the issues and give us protection

like the case in nz recently of the gay guy bashed severely and then had the neck of a banjo stuffed down his throat because he supposedly made moves on a straight man.....
it has been held up as a gay bashing hate crime in nz.... but nobody has pointed out that the gay man went to a LGBT bar, picked up a stranger, took him home, drunk with him and MAY have acted in a amorous manner towards the straight man......
that is a aspect of personal responsibility, the gay man did place himself in a dangerous situation by taking a complete stranger home.... but that would be the same for any person that does the same
that aspect of the case has been ignored and the focus is only on the gay bashing aspect.... as a hate crime....

in that respect, I hold both parties responsibility for their individual acts... but I am outspoken in the NZ LGBT community for that opinion.....but that is not surprising to me.... after all, the LGBT community is not happy that the government is not doing more to force people to disclose their hiv status...and again, I say to the LGBT, so fucking random strangers and placing yourself at risk and they immediately say, its the other persons fault for not revealing their hiv status so I can choose not to sleep with them

so yeah I do accept that hate crime does exist... but I hold the LGBT community responsible equally with the offenders and criminals that do hate crimes against the LGBT... and that is based on personal observation of members of the LGBT community

FalconAngel

Oct 15, 2009, 2:31 AM

Here's the flaw in the logic against hate-crime legislation. It is in the actions, beyond the basic act.

Yes there are laws, world wide, that already exist in the case of any person hitting/assaulting any other person.

However, when you use that person's race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. as your reason to commit the violence in the first place. For instance, if a black man is attacked by a bunch of guys screaming racial epithets at him, attacking him/her because of their gender or sexuality or religion, then that is what qualifies as a hate crime.

More often than not, those who commit violence against another under the definition of a hate crime, will almost always demonstrate their reason for the attack in their words and other actions, beyond the actual attack.
That indicates the person/group's belief that any excuse is a good one to commit violence against another, when the majority of people need a more solid and socially acceptable reason to commit a violent act against another, not their religion, gender, sexuality, etc.. Things that are generally considered to be beyond their control.

But there will always be instigators in every group. That is never going to go away, but those that incite, encourage and act violently, based on what a person's gender, religion, sexuality, race, etc. are will have to be handled in a manner consistent with reasonable attempts to curb escalation beyond "harmless" name-calling.

thats something I do have a big issue with......

I would expect to face the same charges if I was to hit a female, a male, a trans person etc of any color, race etc.... and as strange as this is gonna sound, if hate crime offenses existed in nz and a person was charged with assault of a hate crime nature, for hitting me because I was LGBT, I would actually fight against the charge on his behalf in court and demand he is charged with the same charge I would be charged with, if I hit him

I have noticed in gay bashing crimes in the us, that there is always reference to the attacker calling the person faggot, and queer etc etc, but knowing the LGBT community the way I do, we are no angels and we do provoke the general public with our actions and deeds, but in the case of matthew sheppard, we may never know exactly what happened and if matthew had acted in any way to enflame the situation or not and could he has done anything that made the difference between life and death
it doesn't excuse what happened or justify it, but I am curious, could have it turned out differently ?

there was once in town when a few Lgbt friends went to town, and encountered a group of rowdy young guys with a lil too much to drink, the young guys did mouth off a lot with offensive remarks, and my first reaction was to say, * for gods sakes, don't react or provoke them " unfortunately, a couple of my friends decided to act all flirtly and blow kisses at the guys.... immediately all hell broke loose..... and I simply walked off.... much to the horror of my friends....

not all cases are like that, there is gay bashing that is unprovoked and I do accept that, but I have also seen a lot of provocation by the LGBT community in the face of the general public.....

as a late teenager, I used to drink at a gang pub, that has a lgbt bar at the back of the gang pub, we hardly ever had any trouble... it was like a symbiotic relationship, the LGBT drinkers helped keep the place going, and as thanks, the gang ( the mongrel mob ) looked after the lgbt and protected them while they were in the bar drinking......

but in the times i have been to the lgbt parades in nz, I have watched some of the LGBT community delibrately provoke the hell out of religious and non religious groups and people, with remarks, actions and behievour so offensive, that as much as I hate to say it, they deserved a smack in the chops.....

it is known in nz quietly as the KKK neighborhood mentality.... a person of colour moving into a KKK neighborhood then quoting their rights to protection from discrimination and how they have human rights etc etc to their kkk neighbours
its something you just don't do.... reqardless of the law or your rights....

now it can be argued that there should be no discrimination and yeah I agree.... but we are fools to think that a hate crime law change will stop a lot of the issues and give us protection

like the case in nz recently of the gay guy bashed severely and then had the neck of a banjo stuffed down his throat because he supposedly made moves on a straight man.....
it has been held up as a gay bashing hate crime in nz.... but nobody has pointed out that the gay man went to a LGBT bar, picked up a stranger, took him home, drunk with him and MAY have acted in a amorous manner towards the straight man......
that is a aspect of personal responsibility, the gay man did place himself in a dangerous situation by taking a complete stranger home.... but that would be the same for any person that does the same
that aspect of the case has been ignored and the focus is only on the gay bashing aspect.... as a hate crime....

in that respect, I hold both parties responsibility for their individual acts... but I am outspoken in the NZ LGBT community for that opinion.....but that is not surprising to me.... after all, the LGBT community is not happy that the government is not doing more to force people to disclose their hiv status...and again, I say to the LGBT, so fucking random strangers and placing yourself at risk and they immediately say, its the other persons fault for not revealing their hiv status so I can choose not to sleep with them

so yeah I do accept that hate crime does exist... but I hold the LGBT community responsible equally with the offenders and criminals that do hate crimes against the LGBT... and that is based on personal observation of members of the LGBT community

12voltman59

Oct 15, 2009, 10:30 AM

Once again--I go back to some things LDD said in some subsequent posts---sure Long--there are going to be some individuals in these various "hate crimes catagories" who might have been a bit unwise in the way they reacted to some provocation by the person or persons that went on to attack them---but really----such cases of this has been rather rare.

Certainly in the Civil Rights era of the late 50s through the early to mid-60s--most of the attacks done by those knuckle draggin', neatherdal Klansmen on black folks were only justified if you held to their standard that "we don't want them uppity n-----s to get any ideas about their rights!"

Those four little girls attending Sunday school who got killed in that church in Birmingham after the Klan bombed it sure didn't do anything other than be black to incite their attackers.

Same goes for those two white college students and one black from up north who came down to Mississippi to work for voting rights for blacks in the south who got killed by the Klan. None of them were really "good white folks" (by the reckoning of the perps of that horrid crime that was part of the storyline of the movie "Mississippi Burning")---since both of the whites were "Jew Boys!" (Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman) and they were "N----r Lovers!" to boot.

Going to the issue of sexual orientation/gender identity---and referencing the report summarizing the history of Hate Crimes Legislation for the Congress that I linked to--the person making the report made a point that I have talked about too---that transgender people seem to raise the ire of some people to violence is not that uncommon.

For people like our trans friends like Marie Delta, Mellissa Maven and others---just that fact that they are what they are--is enough reason for some people to feel they have a right to beat or kill them----it really freaks some people out that someone would change their gender or at least live as a gender other than what it appears that person "should be"

Obviously--we are not going to agree about this LDD----but I as I keep saying--I have no problem with the creation of "hate crime" laws for the reasons I have stated and restated in my previous posts and that GLBT people are finally included and provided some protection under those laws as well.

While the audio is not the best--here is a viral video of a performance by the Carrsboro NC Bluegrass group--Chatham County Line doing one of their songs, "Birmingham Jail," about the Birmingham church bombing that killed those four little girls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvZ-0k7lQYI&feature=PlayList&p=16AEEB43E5D31B82&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=28

Long Duck Dong

Oct 15, 2009, 9:19 PM

LongDuck-We are not talking about the New Zealand criminal justice system or about New Zealand at all, but about the United States so why are you comparing the two?
It's like comparing Apples to Oranges.

Like it or not hate crimes do go on in America and other countries too and people will use the old "He/She came onto me and would not take no for an answer!" defense and then get a slap on the wrist instead of being charged with murder. I'm sure this has happened in New Zealand before too.

Yes this still does happen today. Do not so be ignorant or blind to think that it somehow does not. I'm going to post and link a summary to an article where this happened.

This is why a federal law against hate crimes and GLBT people is important and why it's needed.

When the United States does this other countries will soon do this and follow us.

cos I am showing that a country can exist with equal justice without the need to have the * hate crimes * legal aspect.....

adding the * hate crime * law, just makes it look more and more like the law is pandering to a select few, and not all equally.....

I can post a link to a recent NZ murder case, where the defense of provocation was thrown out of court as a defence and the case was judged over as a case of murder... pure and simple.....
or you can use google and look for yourself.....

as I have posted, the nz goverment is looking at removing the provocation defence.... to make any * LBGT fear * defence, not admissible in court....

this is different to justifiable self defence, ( armed intruder in your house / attacker in the streets ) etc etc

in many countries, they have the LGBT fear defence.... and the opposition of that, is the LGBT hate crime..... two extreme ends of the scale

I post about nz, cos I live in nz, and I live in a country where the justice system is working to put all people on the same footing, equally.... and not pandering or favouring one group over another....

if you had read what I have been posting, you would see that I have been saying REMOVE the defence of LGBT fear...its a BS defence .....the ability to walk away from a LGBT person is in everybody.... but not the ability to kill LGBT people, thats actually a choice....