Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: What is the point of hate laws?

In the UK, 7000 citizens signed their name to a petition to expand
hate crime laws. They want the laws to punish anyone who commits
violence because someone looks different. The petition responds to the
murder of a young Goth-dressing woman and her boyfriend in a park.
The assailants didn't know the girl. Presumably they attacked her
because she was wearing black lipstick. That's how the argument goes.
The thuggish kids who attacked her should get tripled penalties
because their violence was motivated by her weird looks.
So, it would have been less heinous had she been an upper class,
pearls-wearing babe attacked because she looked rich? What if she'd
been a gorgeous blonde cheerleader and they attacked her because they
weren't getting any? What about robbing someone of an Ipod or
scratching a Porsche because "They can afford it". The list goes on
forever.
It is hideously unjust to label the value of various victims,
stiffening penalties for some murders and not others, for some
assaults and not others, etc. Every violent crime is a tragedy to be
redressed. Endlessly add to the list of special "hate crime" victims,
and someday everybody will be on it. Then we'll be right back where we
started: equal law.
But unjust penalties for violent crimes aren't the greatest danger of
hate crime laws. Their greatest danger is that they criminalize free
speech. They criminalize certain beliefs and animosities--emotions with
which the government has no business meddling. The government has no
more right to say you can't be biased against homosexuals than to say
you can't be biased against professional athletes or workaholics or
overbearing mothers-in-law.
Hate crime laws were created by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai
B'rith, a Jewish organization committed to demonizing--and yes,
defaming --beliefs and values it opposes. Specifically, the ADL opposes
anti- Israel and anti-homosexual activism and Christian evangelism.
Hate crime laws were not created primarily to respond to violent crime
(which is, obviously, already illegal). They were created to
marginalize and then criminalize certain kinds of speech and "bias" -
primarily Christian.
http://www.rense.com/general81/sud.htm

 wrote in message 
news:e8cc3317-ca50-42e2...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
: In the UK, 7000 citizens signed their name to a petition to expand
: hate crime laws. They want the laws to punish anyone who commits
: violence because someone looks different. The petition responds to the
: murder of a young Goth-dressing woman and her boyfriend in a park.
:
: The assailants didn't know the girl. Presumably they attacked her
: because she was wearing black lipstick. That's how the argument goes.
: The thuggish kids who attacked her should get tripled penalties
: because their violence was motivated by her weird looks.
:
: So, it would have been less heinous had she been an upper class,
: pearls-wearing babe attacked because she looked rich? What if she'd
: been a gorgeous blonde cheerleader and they attacked her because they
: weren't getting any? What about robbing someone of an Ipod or
: scratching a Porsche because "They can afford it". The list goes on
: forever.
They are personal choices.  She was a white female, this wasn't her choice. 
If they attacked her because she was white or female, it would be a hate 
crime. 

Jayzizz Christ, if you are against hate crimes why don't you devote
your energy to forcing the corrupt West Yorkshire Police to resume the
hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper and to drop the Peter Sutcliffe
myth........
FIRST THINGS FIRST.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_thread/thread/2d8acdb994e43315/fc21e11d802847ef?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=england+is+not+a+democracy#fc21e11d802847ef

 FIRST THINGS FIRST.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_thread/thread/2d8acd.
..
==========
I'M JACK
==========
I'm Jack. I see you are still 'aving no luck catching me. I 'ave the
greatest respect for you, George, but Lord, you are no nearer
catching
me now than four years ago when I started. I reckon your boys are
letting you down, George. They can't be much good, can they? The only
time they came near catching me was a few months back in Chapeltown
when I was disturbed. Even then it was a uniformed copper, not a
detective. I warned you in March that I'd strike again. Sorry it
wasn't Bradford. I did promise you that but I couldn't get there. I'm
not quite sure when I'll strike again but it will be definitely some
time this year, maybe September, October, even sooner if I get the
chance. I am not sure where, maybe Manchester, I like it there,
there's plenty of them knocking about. They never learn, do they,
George? I bet you've warned them, but they never listen. At the rate
I'm going I should be in the book of records. I think it's eleven up
to now, isn't it? Well, I'll keep on going for quite a while yet. I
can't see myself being nicked just yet. Even if you do get near, I'll
probably top myself first. Well it's been nice chatting to you,
George. Yours, Jack the Ripper. No good looking for fingerprints. you
should know by now it's clean as a whistle. See you soon. Bye. Hope
you like the catchy tune at the end. Ha ha.
==========
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2006/06/343750.html