Far-Right Groups Twist Hate Crimes Language to Defend Bigoted Views


As part of SIECUS’ on-going opposition monitoring, we recently took a deeper look at how right-wing organizations are increasingly co-opting language related to "hate
crimes" to defend the promulgation of their own divisive rhetoric. 
The process of defining and establishing the parameters of hate crimes
and hate speech has been increasingly adopted by some right wing groups
who perceive that their own civil liberties are being infringed. Emerging
legislation defining hate crimes tends to focus on acts that are expressly
violent or threatening and based on a particular quality, such as sexual
orientation, race, or religious identity.  Yet, as these legal protections
take root, right-wing groups are twisting this framework in an attempt
to justify and protect anti-homosexual positions.    

For example, in the United Kingdom,
the Coroners
and Justice Bill 2009

was introduced to the House of Commons in January 2009 and, subsequently,
the House of Lords in March.  The bill "aims to deliver more
effective, transparent and responsive justice and coroner services for
victims, witnesses, bereaved families and the wider public."  It has
sparked considerable controversy and outrage among religious conservatives
over one of the provisions which expands protections for persons based
on sexual orientation.    

In one such instance, the UK-based
organizations, Christian Concern for our Nation and the Christian Legal
Centre, launched a campaign to challenge the proposed change. The sample
letter to lawmakers the groups disseminated as part of their advocacy kit clearly outlines their concerns:  

If
the clause is removed, such words would be likely to prompt the police to investigate their speaker, even if the speaker was a pastor who
had criticised homosexual conduct in the context of an address to
believers.    Whilst Christians do not
believe that hatred should be stirred up against people on the grounds
of sexual orientation, it is reasonable to allow debate on the subject
of Biblical texts and sexual ethics without those who oppose homosexual
practice being made to feel that they cannot criticise it without infringing
the criminal law.  This is the "chilling effect" on free speech that
is likely to result from the removal of the free speech clause.  The free speech clause is
needed to protect orthodox, traditional Christian beliefs on sexual
ethics not to mention the freedom of speech of other raditionalists.

In the United States, newly introduced
federal hate crime legislation and a recently released report from the
Department of Homeland Security have elicited cries that freedom of
speech, among other liberties, is under threat.  On April 7, 2009 the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sent a memo to law enforcement
offices entitled "Right-wing
Extremism:  Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence
in Radicalization and Recruitment
." 
The report identifies extremists that may be hate-oriented, anti-government,
against those of a particular race, religion or ethnicity, or those
dedicated to single issue such as abortion.  This last item has the opposition
to sexual and reproductive health and rights up in arms.   

Within days, The Thomas Moore Law Center
filed a complaint against DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano and
U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, on behalf of several plaintiffs,
including Gregg Cunningham, executive director to the anti-choice organization,
Center for Bio-ethical Reform.  

Richard Thompson, President and Chief
Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated: 

This is not an intelligence
report but a diatribe against those who oppose the policies of the Obama
administration.  It is a declaration of war against the American people
and our constitution.  It is a prelude to extreme gun control legislation
and hate speech laws targeting Christian churches and others who oppose
abortion and same sex marriage.    

Secretary Napolitano countered the
charge, stating that:  

    At
    the very edge are the extremist groups that have committed violent crimes. They’ve committed bombings
    and the like. And that is where you cross from constitutionally protected
    free speech, freedom of assembly, all the rights we cherish, into homeland security
    and law enforcement.  

However, such outrage from the right
only continued in the U.S. following the introduction of the Local
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 
by Michigan Congressman,
John Conyers on April 22, 2009.  If passed into law, this bill would
authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute a specific
set of hate crimes motivated by a real or perceived sexual orientation,
gender, gender-identity, or disability.  This builds on the existing
jurisdiction of hate crimes legislation that provide protections based
on race, color, religion and national origin.  Opposition to this bill
is mounting from those who fear presents opportunity for religious persecution. 
For example, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission calls laws against
hate crimes "one of the gravest threats to religious liberty and freedom
of speech," and the Commission and other organizations are organizing
the opposition.  

The sensationalist rhetoric continues
to reach laughable and hyperbolic heights.  "Your pastor could be
prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a hate crime if it passes and become
[sic] law," cried Andrea Lafferty, Executive Director of the extreme
right-wing Traditional Values Coalition. "This so-called ‘hate
crimes’ bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework
to investigate, prosecute, and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible
teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth pastors — you name it — or
anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truth found
in the Bible."  

Too busy fear-mongering about infringement
of free speech and religious freedom, the many right-wing voices are
ignoring the grave injustices, resulting in injury and, in some cases,
death which are the core target of these hate crime laws.  Their sensationalist
and overinflated claims of persecution draw the focus away from the
any genuine dialogue about free speech.  In truth, the distinction between
expressing dissent and inciting harm is clear.  It is our job as advocates
to bring the focus away from any false claims and back to those communities
that are most vulnerable to hate-based attacks.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • progo35

    I’m not against hate legislation that focuses on acts, but this post does not establish that the freedoms of religious people will not be infringed upon, it just expresses the opinion that people concerned with this possibility are not expressing valid concerns.

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • invalid-0

    The right-wingers never had a valid argument against this one. They’re using talking points against hate-speech laws, when this is a proposed hate-crime law (i.e. acts, not words, are targeted). The First Amendment alone makes all their concerns moot, as does the continued legal existence of White-supremacy groups and the like.

  • invalid-0

    Well, then, what are those valid concerns? As Ms. Childs Graham points out, there is a pretty clear difference between expressing a dissenting opinion and inciting violence. I disagree vehemently with both of the following statements, but clearly there’s a world of difference between someone in a position of influence saying, “Our religious tradition does not condone homosexual behavior,” and “God wants you to kill gay people.” One is a theological opinion, which is not of interest to hate crimes laws, and one is an instruction to incite violence against a group of people for their sexual orientation, real or perceived.

  • progo35

    The valid concern can, I believe, be summed up in what happened to Catholic Charities in 2005 when they refused to place children with gay couples-the state of MA forced them to close their agency. This was the state of MA and gay rights activists infringing on the religious freedom of this organization and hurting children in the process.

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • invalid-0

    The valid concern can, I believe, be summed up in what happened to Catholic Charities in 2005 when they refused to place children with gay couples-the state of MA forced them to close their agency.

    Massachusetts did not force them to shut down. They shut themselves down voluntarily because the archbishop could not stand the fact that they were (quietly) placing children with same-sex couples.

    This was the state of MA and gay rights activists infringing on the religious freedom of this organization and hurting children in the process.

    Religious freedom does not give you a pass to discriminate however you like. It means that you can require someone to be a true believer in order to serve as a church officer. It does not mean that you can hold a bake sale that excludes Blacks, or Jews, or some other group you don’t like. Catholic Charities was a state-licensed adoption agency. They served the public. They were not some Church-internal department that had nothing to do with the outside world.

    and hurting children in the process.

    They certainly hurt children by no longer placing them with loving same-sex couples. I’m not aware what effects the closing of CC had (the children were transferred to another agency as I recall), but that falls entirely on the Church, and not state nondiscrimination laws.

    In any event, this has nothing to do with hate-crime laws; this is about nondiscrimination statutes. My view on this is very simple: For any given circumstance, if a religious organization can legally discriminate against Blacks and Jews, then they can freely discriminate against LGBT folks and whoever else they like. If they can’t do the former, then any bellyaching about the latter is just the sound of social progress.

  • colleen

    MA contracted with Catholic Charities to provide the service of placing difficult to place children in adoptive homes. The state of MA had a law on it’s books forbidding the practice of discriminating against gay families who wish to adopt. The Church tried to convince the governor and then the legislature to grant them an exemption which would allow them to continue to discriminate. When Catholic Charities (minus several board members who were so disgusted by the Church’s policy of discrimination that they quit) discovered that they would not be able to legally discriminate and also that organizations like United Way would be unable to make financial contributions because of their own antidiscriminatory policies they decided to get out of the adoption business entirely. The state contracted with another organization. No children were hurt in the process.

    So you’re saying that in a democracy religious organizations should be able to

    a.) contract with states to perform a service and

    b.) break state laws with impunity in performance of said service because

    c.) to do otherwise would infringe on their religious freedom.

     (?)

    Does ‘religious freedom’ mean that men and women can do anything in the name of religion?

  • progo35

    As far as I know, CC never placed children in a LGBT household and that definitely wasn’t in their original contract with the state, because at the time that CC started, LGBT adoptions weren’t being faciliated by anyone. I have no problem with gay adoptions when they are done voluntarily, I just feel strongly that CC had a right to decide whether or not placing children with LGBT couples violated thier religious beliefs. They didn’t shut themselves down because MA made them choose between violating their religious beliefs and continuing their agency, so, rather than do something they felt was in conflict with their beliefs, they closed. 

     

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • progo35

    Well, as far as I know, CC was doing just fine until MA made them shut down in 2005. Whatever law on the books obviously was ignored or not in place until a few gay activits decided that they had to be allowed to adopt from that particular organization in order to make a point. It disgusts me. I don’t like the ACLU’s policies toward handicapped people, but if I were trying to change those policies, I wouldn’t go after charity organizations affiliated with the ACLU. It’s just beyond the pale because of third parties involved. 

     

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • colleen

    Whatever law on the books obviously was ignored or not in place until a
    few gay activits decided that they had to be allowed to adopt from that
    particular organization in order to make a point.

    Well, no, CC was not doing just fine. There is a shortage of households willing to adopt a foster child….there are tens of thousands of foster children looking for permanent placement at any given time and not only was refusing prospective households on the basis of sexual orientation ILLEGAL and discriminatory, it made no sense.  

    They weren’t trying to "make a point", they wanted to adopt a child in need of a loving and supportive home and were being denied the opportunity.

    What does this have to do with hate crimes? Or the ACLU?  I mean besides being an excellent example of the title’s meaning 

     

  • progo35

    Coleen-I don’t know if it does have to do with hate crimes. Like I said, I don’t oppose hate crime laws/penalties, but I think that that’s the fear-that the legislation will lead to classifying certain policies of religious organizations as "hateful." This may be a correct interpretation of the laws, or it may not be. The reason I support such legislation is that I’m trusting in good faith that it really is about protecting LGBT and other people from violence, etc, and I support equality for such individuals.
    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • invalid-0

    Well, as far as I know, CC was doing just fine until MA made them shut down in 2005. Whatever law on the books obviously was ignored or not in place until a few gay activits decided that they had to be allowed to adopt from that particular organization in order to make a point.

    The timeline of events was as follows:

    • Catholic Charities was chugging along, doing what it does. This included, yes, placing children with same-sex couples. (The agency was largely operated by secular folks, as I recall.)
    • The Boston Globe did a story on CC, noting the fact that they were doing same-sex placements.
    • People started talking. Some folks said, “Whoa, the Catholic Church is cool with gay couples! That’s wicked cool!” Others said, “Oh my God, the Catholic Church is okay with gay couples!? That’s wicked evil!”
    • The archbishop hears all this ruckus, it won’t go away, and so he decides to put his foot down: no more same-sex placements.
    • Uh oh, that directive conflicts with state nondiscrimination laws! He asks Governor Romney for a waiver to let this happen.
    • Romney can’t give the waiver, and the Legislature sure as hell won’t.
    • Seeing no other alternative to nondiscrimination, the archbishop decides to shut CC down altogether.

    (The CC board resignations that Colleen cited happened somewhere along the line as well, but I’m not as familiar with that part of the story.)

    So you see, Progo35, the whole issue was always in the diocese’s court, and they decided to take their ball and go home. You could put some blame on the Globe, for shining a spotlight on CC’s quiet bending of Catholic rules and thereby forcing the archbishop to act. But the shutdown of CC falls entire on his shoulders.

  • invalid-0

    Classification of religious-organization policies as “hateful” would not happen in a hate-crimes law; that would happen in the tax code (i.e. rules for tax exemption), which no one’s touching for now. That law does make specific mention of racial discrimination, and one day, it may be expanded to include sexual orientation. When that day comes, that’s when questions like this would come into play.

  • progo35

    Well, I feel very strongly that adhering to certain beliefs is NOT hateful and does not make it okay for the government to decide that that group in question is being “political” and taxing it if it is a religious institution or charity. People do not get to choose what’s in their religious texts.

  • invalid-0

    Most religious organizations are “hateful”. “Anyone who doesn’t believe like they do is, wrong, evil, sinful, wicked, ickey”, take your pick. As long as they keep to themselves they can believe and say whatever they want. As soon as they take it into the world at large it’s open to other peoples’ interpretation, whether they like it or not. As far as I’m concerned the greatest evil this world has ever known is religion.

  • invalid-0

    The problem with all “hate crimes’ legislation (proposed, or passed into law) is that it seperates people into “protected classes” and (apparently) “unprotected classes”. Sorry, whine and thrash if you must, but this has been the pattern where these laws have been adopted (such as Canada, Europe and Australia, for example). “Protected classes” get to say what they want, while they monitor “unprotected classes” for speech they dislike. Then, the “protected” whistle for the attack dogs of government to attack the “offensive”.

    The 14th Amendment secures equal protection under the law for ALL, not just the “protected” (read that as, “priviledged elite”). Hate crime laws are unconstitutional. Well, until Prez. B.O. appoints judicial activists who will crap on the 14th ammendment AND the rights of the “unprotected”. At that point, watch for a severe backlash. The whinny types who claim a need for special protection because they claim that they are hated, haven’t begun to see what real hatred can bring. If “hate crimes” laws are passed, sooner, or later they will bring a real (not perceived) wall of flaming hatred upon their own heads and they will get no sympathy from me.

    • think4urself

      This law would not make some people "protected" and others "unprotected", it ensures that everyone get equal rights/treatment. From the age of 12 my nephew was picked on in school because he was believed to be gay. During his years in school he was kicked, hit, spat on, singled out by teachers for different rules and punishments, called names, told he was going to burn in h ell and even had his life threatened. Did you endure that during school? I was picked on in school but no where near this extent and I doubt you were either. But my nephew did, all because he was gay and all this started before he "came out" (at the age of 16). Even when teachers and his fellow students had no real proof of his sexual orientation he was singled out for different treatment by others simply because they THOUGHT he was gay. ALL people deserve to be able to live life without fear of harm or discrimination from anyone else whether the person has proof that they are different or not.

       

      ~Never let others do your thinking for you~

      • invalid-0

        Sorry, but you need to study this issue more. I’ve been following this issue for about five years, when a Swedish minister was criminally prosectuted (persecuted) for preaching from the Bible regarding homosexuality, Soddam and Gamorah, etc. The fact that your nephew was picked on is no reason to ditch the U.S. Constitution in favor of some facist thought/speech police who drag people away, when they say things that make others ‘feel uncomfortable’. The 14th Amendment secures equal protection under the law. Your response strikes me as presumptuous as hell. What makes you believe that you know what I’ve endured in my lifetime? You don’t even know me. I did not threaten your nephew and I’m not putting up with the government threatening me with prison, or fines, or both, simply because you assert that your nephew was threatened by others.

  • invalid-0

    “Your comment is illegal and unlawful and full of hate. Place your hands against the wall!!!!”

    How do you like Soviet style “hate speech” laws, now?

  • invalid-0

    I don’t think Steve’s confused at all. Protected class = aristocracy and things seldom work out well long term for an aristocracy. I’m sorry your nephew had such a terrible time in school Thunk4UrSelf. It seems to me any teacher treating him differently should have been brought to the attention of the principal and the school district. As for the other students, maybe if they knew that complaints against them would be included in their records for ALL college applications they’d think twice. Certainly not a perfect idea but maybe a start. Also if you really are in favor of hate crimes legislation, you might want to have a chat with the growing number of Know Nothings writing for your site.

  • think4urself

    My site? I didn’t know I owned RHRealityCheck.org Cmarie. I speak only for myself as does each person that posts here. Just because I’m a member doesn’t mean I speak for everyone here at this site. As for my nephew, we live in an area that the majority of the population is Roman Catholic. When problems were reported they were blown off or we were told that unless it was witnessed by others that were willing to come forward they could do nothing about it. Bruises were not considered proof that he was hit by another student. So short of carrying around a video camera every day to get such proof, he was dismissed as being overly sensitive, a liar and a drama queen.

     ~Never let others do your thinking for you~

  • invalid-0

    Obviously Think4UrSelf the only part of my message addressed to you was the mention of your nephew. Obviously the mention of the Know Nothings was addressed to those who DO run the site.

  • invalid-0

    I’ve been following this issue for about five years, when a Swedish minister was criminally prosectuted (persecuted) for preaching from the Bible regarding homosexuality, Soddam and Gamorah, etc.

    SteveinAZ, please read up on the not-so-subtle difference between “hate speech” and “hate crime” laws. Here’s a hint: the former are what you see in Europe, and the latter is what’s being proposed here. Hate-speech laws wouldn’t even fly here, thanks to the First Amendment.

    Oh, and if you’re against hate-crime laws, then where’ve you been all these years that Blacks and Jews have been protected classes? Remember, it’s not just about gays—if you don’t like these laws, then you have to advocate for getting rid of all protected classes.

    (I hear the Ku Klux Klan is working on that… you may want to contact them to see where you can help their efforts along)

  • invalid-0

    Wow, “Anonymous”, you’ve got a spell checker. I’m happy for you. Sorry, but ‘hate crime’ laws are also one-sided. If a ‘Christian’ gets beaten up, or killed by a ‘Jew’, while the ‘Jew’ shouts anti-Christian bigotry, will the ‘Jew’ be charged under “Hate Crimes” statutes? — HELL NO!!! The same goes for blacks who attack whites, because of skin color. An example of this is a horendous double rape and murder of a white woman and her white boyfriend who were singled out by a gang of blacks. “No “Hate Crime” there, folks.” — Yeah, right. Go google it, yourself.

    All of this goes back to my original posting regarding “protected classes” and “unprotected classes”. This is right out of “Pig Farm”, by George Orwell. From that book: “All animals are equal, it’s just that some are more equal than others.”

    I say, get rid of all laws that seperate people into classifications and treat all equally under the law, per the 14th Amendment. Even ‘Anonymous’ a$$holes. If you push for ‘protected classes’ that exclude heterosexual white males, don’t be shocked, if the damned Klan sees a surge in membership. That’s my point, you dunce! I want everyone equal under the law. You clearly, don’t.

  • progo35

    Hate crime laws should be applied equally. If someoene commits a crime against a Jewish person because he or she is Jewish, than the perpetrator should be charged with a hate crime. If someone commits a crime againt a Christian because he or she is a Christian, the perpetrator should be charged with a hate crime.  

     

     

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

    • invalid-0

      ……..the people who push ‘hate crimes’ laws, don’t want them applied equally. They want the laws to use as bludgeons against those who are not in the ‘protected classes’. THAT’S the point! This has been demonstrated time and again, wherever ‘hate crimes’ laws have been enacted. It’s all about: “I can say whatever I want, but you’ll go to jail, if I don’t like what you say, because I’m in a ‘protected class’ and you aren’t. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah!”

    • invalid-0

      The Obama Administration’s ‘Justice’ Department has forced prosecutors to drop charges against members of the New Black Panthers in Philidelphia who threatened voters on election day. They wore uniforms, brandished clubs and hurled racial slurs at at least on white, while standing right outside a polling station. A clear violation of law has just been sanctioned by Eric Holder’s ‘Justice’ Department. The question is, ‘Why?’. Could the answer be that the defendents are …………..(drum roll, please)…….black? We all know the answer. In a Klu Klux Klan court, the guilty white defendent goes free. In an Obama court, the guilty black defendent goes free. Watch for gangs of these New Black Panther / Acorn thugs at every polling station on the next election day. Welcome to Zimbabwe, folks.

  • invalid-0

    Sorry, but ‘hate crime’ laws are also one-sided. If a ‘Christian’ gets beaten up, or killed by a ‘Jew’, while the ‘Jew’ shouts anti-Christian bigotry, will the ‘Jew’ be charged under “Hate Crimes” statutes? — HELL NO!!! The same goes for blacks who attack whites, because of skin color.

    Hate crime laws should be applied equally. If someoene commits a crime against a Jewish person because he or she is Jewish, than the perpetrator should be charged with a hate crime. If someone commits a crime againt a Christian because he or she is a Christian, the perpetrator should be charged with a hate crime.

    I love it when people who aren’t minorities equate their position in society to that of minorities. You are so blind to your own privilege that you truly believe a Black man and a White man, or a Christian and a Jew, are on such equal footing that a race/religious-based hate crime against either is the same thing.

    All I can really say is, if you don’t like hate-crimes laws, that ship has sailed a loooong time ago. I wish I could explain to you why these laws are needed, and a Good Thing(tm) in general, but that would require empathy on your part, which is evidently in very short supply.

    • invalid-0

      You know nothing about me, but you presume everything. That’s called racism. You wish you could explain (yeh, if you had a brain and a valid argument) why I should kow tow to people who tan better than I do. The bottom line is this: you don’t want equality. You want to be in a position of dominance over people who have different skin color than you. You are a racist and, apparantly, a hypocrite, too. You are no better than a Klansman.

    • progo35

      Anon-as far as I am concerned, you can shut up, because I am disabled and therefore am a minority protected under the recent hate crime legislation that was filed to include both LGBT issues and people with disabilities (finally). Equality is something we prize in America, and that equality should apply to hate crime laws. 

       

      "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • invalid-0

    What if hate crimes applied to all groups? Like if an Asian guy hated white guys and beat a bunch of them up, that should be considered a hate crime too. It shouldn’t just apply to minorities or protected classes. Then maybe we could agree that hate crimes (crimes directed at a segment of society not just the individual) are worse than regular crimes. I totally support hate crime legislation, by the way. I was just sort of trying to come to a middle ground; somewhere between my views and the views of conservatives and religious types. And we’ve got to be certain to clarify that it is hate CRIMES not hate SPEECH that we’re talking about here. Some people seem confused.

  • invalid-0

    My point is: They don’t and they won’t. They NEVER will. Hate crimes laws are bludgeons used against ‘unpopular’ classes of people by people who are part of the “in crowd” as defined by politicians. Oh, and “hate crimes” will always cover “hate speech” sooner, or later. “Hate crimes” are the pushy salesman’s foot in the door. Go check it for yourself. It’s happened elswhere, like in Canada, for example.

    • invalid-0

      How do you know that? You psychic? This isn’t Canada or anywhere else. This is the USA and if we want to change things, we can and will. And we could certainly legislate that a direct action (and not just talking about it) is necessary for a hate crime to have been committed. You haven’t given any evidence to the contrary, just a lot of opinions and negativity.

      • invalid-0

        A perfect example of what I’m saying is the case of columnist, Mark Styne. He was to ‘stand trial’ in a ‘human rights’ (kangaroo) court for ‘hate speech’ acusations brought against him by Muslims. The ‘charges’ were finally dropped after a ton of negative publicity, becuase he’s a ‘high visibility’ person. The truth is, however, that many other ‘little people’ got dragged into that kangaroo court and they lost thousands of canadian dollars in fines, etc. for other ‘hate speech’ ‘crimes’.

  • invalid-0

    Anon-as far as I am concerned, you can shut up, because I am disabled and therefore am a minority protected under the recent hate crime legislation that was filed to include both LGBT issues and people with disabilities (finally).

    Oh, so you’re in one minority category, and therefore that gives you a complete understanding of what it is to be any of many other minorities in this country, who have experiences and challenges completely different from yours. Is that right?

    Progo35, please show at least some more sense than SteveinAZ here, and acknowledge that you know what you don’t know. You may want to browse Derailing for Dummies a bit, to get a taste of what informed discussion would look like. I’d also suggest Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, for good measure.

    The thing about the experience of minorities that makes it difficult to talk about with others, is that by its very nature, it’s invisible to those in the dominant culture. Which makes it very easy for people like SteveinAZ here to completely deny its existence. They see public policy like affirmative action, and see it only as reverse discrimination; they do not see the enormous social cancer that it is working to overcome. Same deal with hate-crime laws. It’s very easy to fail to see why these laws are needed, if you yourself are not in a minority with a history of being attacked for who you are.

  • progo35

     Anon-all you’ve said here about me and my supposed lack of understanding of what it means to be a minority has nothing to do with our respective positions on hate crime legislation, which I’ve made clear that I support as long as it is applied equally. Also, I find your title belittling. I am a minority protected under the hate crimes legislation and am speaking about hate crime legislation on this thread. I have not, and do not, speak for anyone else’s experience as somoene who is of a different race, sexual orientation, etc. 

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • invalid-0

    Anon-all you’ve said here about me and my supposed lack of understanding of what it means to be a minority has nothing to do with our respective positions on hate crime legislation, which I’ve made clear that I support as long as it is applied equally.

    Your “applied equally” qualifier—that would consider a Black man who attacks a White man for being White guilty of a hate crime—shows that you do not understand why these laws exist in the first place. You may think that your membership in a protected class gives you the insight you need to know this, but trust me when I say it certainly hasn’t. If I were you, I would walk away from this thread, and do some reading on the subject, before I crack open another egg on my face.

  • progo35

     Hate crime laws aren’t there to protect people from being attacked based on the color of their skin, no matter what color it is? Then, could you please tell me what they are there for? It’s just to protect Jewish people from being attacked because of their faith/nationality, and not for Christians or other religious people who are attacked based on their faith? Than no, I don’t support hate crime laws, because then they aren’t hate crime laws. They’re hate crime laws as recognized by society at the current time. If a bunch of disabled people beat up a nondisabled person because he
    was a nondisabled person, I would support prosecuting them. I stand my ground: hate crime laws should be applied equally, regardless of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or handicapped status.

     

     

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • invalid-0

    Hate crime laws aren’t there to protect people from being attacked based on the color of their skin, no matter what color it is? Then, could you please tell me what they are there for?

    No, because you can perfectly well Google the answer yourself. There’s a fine line between lobbing the ball back in a discussion, and asking people to outright create personalized Web content for you, and you’ve flown over that line in a 747.

    I stand my ground: hate crime laws should be applied equally, regardless of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or handicapped status.

    *facepalms*

    You know, there is a case for not delving deeper on this subject. Because then, you will never know the withering embarrassment you would feel at reading the above comment from a more knowledgeable position.

    All I can say is, you’re like a fish that refuses to see that she is swimming in water. I’m just glad that you are not in a political position of power, because that sort of ignorance can be very harmful when it affects public policy.

    • invalid-0

      …go back to ‘Rev. Wright’s’ “22nd Street G’damn the White Man” church and go dance around, cursing “chalkies” wearing your “Tan Klan” black hoods and robes. I can’t help you. You are an ignorant racist and a hypocrite, to boot.

  • invalid-0

    our rights as christains have been on the chopping block for centuries.now our bill of rights and constitution is now in jeopordy.when the right wing nuts and christian bashing liberals get done with us,lets see if we can still talk outside in earshot on political and social issues that we dont agree on the liberal side,execution or long term imprisiment.

  • http://www.b2bcfo.com/part-time-cfo/tatum-vs-b2b-cfo/ invalid-0

    I don’t always agree with the articles written on this site but I always learn something new. Thanks for posting a thought provoking article.