Talk:Hate crime/Archive 1

message: "The U.S. Congress defined in 1992 a hate crime as a crime in which "the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals" (HR 4797)." -from hate crime wikipedia article
-But this is the text of HR 4797  from the Library of Congress online
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c103:1:./temp/~c103OAXo1R::
 103d CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4797 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for a hopper barge.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 19, 1994
Mr. LANCASTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
A BILL
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for a hopper barge.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) and section 12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel known as hopper barge E-15 (North Carolina State official number 264959).
=
more errata for you
Second, it must be shown that the defendant was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s minority status.
I don't see anything in the earlier text or letter of the law indicating that the victim must be a minority.
As of October 2001, the federal hate crime law 18 USC 245 (b)(2), passed in 1969, protects religion, race and national origin, and applies only if the victim is engaged in one of six protected activities. 
Hate crime laws were not passed in 1969.  I think Title 18 USC 45 refers to civil rights legislation, not hate crime legislation.
03:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Information

message: Shall we write in a section called "alleged hate crimes", "The seer Sollog or his fans accuse the website Wikipedia of hate crimes because of its inclusion of critical information in an article about him, which Sollog fans consider slanderous. "? Andries 23:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-notable.  I tried adding detail about Sollog's interaction with us (and in particular with Jimbo) to Sollog's own article, and it was removed.  Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sollog accuses Wikipedia of hate crimes

message: If you look at rape statistics it's pretty obvious that black men enjoy violating white women. I've always thought this should be considered a hate crime.
--Legislation that failed in Congress in 1999 tried to make rape, in general, a hate crime. Perhaps you should worry more about that.
--I believe it was Benjamin Disraeli who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". Black men are not more likely to rape a white woman, they are only more likely to arrested and convicted. I'm afraid your argument is bunk.
--I believe it was me who said you're full of it, and can't even begin to prove your (implied) assertion.  Of course black men are more likely to be arrested and convicted of rape than white men, but that doesn't support your (implied) assertion, that somehow there's a disparity between actual rapes and arrests and convictions for rape vis-a-vis race of suspect.
Check the victim surveys; blacks actually get away with rape more than whites.
--80-90% of rapes against women are committed by someone of the same racial background as the victim. (US Dept. of Justice 1994) This does not include Native American women, who are assaulted by caucasian males 78% of the time (Wikipedia, 2006).
We can banter back and forth with useless statistics some more if you'd like. Or you can tell me I'm "full of it" again, whatever that is supposed to mean. If you want to make a bigoted comment like that, at least be prepared to back it up.
:You seem rather confused. Just because black men may possibily be more likely to rape white women then black women doesn't imply any sort of bias. Given that white women are the majority, it is what we would expect if the perps ignore race. If most black rapes are of black women, there is clearly some sort of bias...
:In practice, it's a very complicated issue. A number of rapists appear to prefer richer women and white are on average richer then blacks. Also, even if blacks to specifically choose white women because of their race, this doesn't necessary imply it's a hate crime. They may do so because they feel white women are easier targets or because they otherwise prefer white women as targets. Unless their reasons are because of some degree of hatred towards whites or white women, their crimed cannot be considered hate crimes by definition. E.g. if they choose white women because they believe white women are bitches who deserve to be punished then it'll probably be considered a hate crime. If they choose white women because black women are bitches who are no fun this can hardly be considered a hate crime even if their actions and beliefs are disgusting. Of course, rapes that are hate crimes do occur and are prosecuted Nil Einne 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black on white rape - hate crime? 

message: This section was removed, and I think it should be reinstated.  Opinions?  Edits?
*Moroveus 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was "Distinguishing Features of Hate Crimes" Removed? 

message: At the moment there isn't a "See Also" section, I am adding one now (I am still working on my disadvantages section (trying to avoid directly copying my source is difficult)). I will be starting it off with Cartmans Silly Hate Crime 2000. Your thoughts? Help plz 21:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding a See Also section

message: Say you found some incoming emails on your girlfriends e-mail acount from a guy that you know who looks hispanic. Is it a hate crime if you send an e-mail back with racial comments but are motivated by him hitting on your girl quite heavily.
Replys or edits please.
*A crime must be committed for it to be considered a hate crime. Sending an e-mail with ethnic slurs in it is not a crime. Asarkees 14:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical Situation 

message: The "Against" section is non-NPOV (it doesn't actually mention the serious, contemporary criticism of hate crime legislation). Parts of it are near-nonsensical: "There are some scholarly arguments that provide reason for opposing "hate crimes" as currently imposed in some legislative forms in the United States. However, these arguments are largely theoretical and are not necessarily reflective of the respective philosophies cited for support." What on earth does that second sentence *mean*? jdb ❋ (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV the "Against" section 

message: Person A commits a violent hateful crime against a man who happens to be gay.
Person B commits a similar violent crime, specifically against the man because he is gay.
Assume both crimes show equivalent levels of malice and damage to innocent parties.
Person A gets sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Person B gets sentenced to 15 years in prison, because the crime was against both the individual and a 'societal' group.
Specifically relating to a current situation:  Say a US-born radical fundamental Muslim American decides he is angry against the United States, and then he takes out his rage by attacking a person on their way to church, specifically because they were, or he believed them to be, a Christian.  Regardless of the charges for the crime, he would additionally be charged for a hate crime.  This situation specifically where a Christian is not a minority, and the attack was against a group though perpetrated on an individual.
--141.154.80.243 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It should read more like this example: 

message: "Hate Speech" is not a crime in the United States of America. It is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. This portion of the article should be changed.
:Certain kinds of hate speech are deedmed illegal in certain parts of the US...
:California, USA laws may declare hate speech is protected in public, but allows easy prosecution for alleged hate crimes, in verbal form as well in physical form. California law claims hate speech at the workplace does not constitute as "protected speech" and employers have the right to terminate or discharge those who committed hate speech on workplace grounds.;;;
:...And outside of the US, hate speech is illegal in a great many forms in a large number of countries. The opening sentence gives a number of types of hate crime, and hate speech can indeed be a hate crime. Crimsone 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Information in this article

message: User:Ya_ya_ya_ya_ya_ya has reverted back to added in White Power to the see other links. Racism already addresses White Power, Black Power, Asian Power and so on. I don't see the point of dumping in all of the other "power" movements into this Hate Crime page, so leaving in just the White Power one is either slanted or incomplete. At the risk of starting an edit war I wish to state my intention of removing the White Power and any other "Power" movements from the See Other section. It is already amply covered under racism and is repetitive.--Saintlink 10:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Power is Redundant > Refer to Racisim Link 

message: As an Italian, I think this "hate crime" garbage is racism. What about if some black panther members decide to go out at night and murder a white lady? Is that just murder? Seems like hate to me. If we want to become a unified nation, first we must throw one sided racism like this in the garbage! Anyone ever think that a white guy or whoever is "white" in your false categorization in the US can be a murderer that happened to murder blacks? Everyone is so quick to point to race as the factor, but when it's the other way around, you can be called a racist for voicing that perhaps black panther members murdered this white lady because of her race. This is why I think it's unfair to Americans as a whole, trash it. "Latinos" aren't even a race, the US and their political correctionism is very laughable, LOL! First you consider south Americans a race when they are nothing but south Americans with some euro blood, then you call them "latino" to bluntly insult my ancestor Romans? Very nice. Crud3w4re 08:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crap