Why white on black hate crimes receive more media coverage
Aviator
anti-HC proponents that white on black hate crimes are over reported and
accuse the media of this apparent "liberal" bias. Their reporting is in
fact proportional to the number of crimes of this type committed by whites.
The following extract from the 1997 and 1998 FBI HC statistics support my
assertion
*Hate crime statistics for 1997
*Law enforcement agencies reported 8,474 known offenders to be associated
8,049 incidents recorded in 1997. Of the known *offenders, 63% were white,
and 19% were black. (See table11.)
*Hate crime statistics for 1998
*Law enforcement agencies reported 7,489 known offenders to be associated
7,755 incidents recorded in 1998. Of the known *offenders, 66% were white,
and 17% were black. (See table11.)
IPM and his ilk are not concerned with the truth, but rather use of racist
pretzel logic and excessive use of the phrase "more likely to"
The fact is simply that white racist idiots commit far more of these crimes
than black racist idiots
Stan Rothwell
Aviator <S...@tter.com> wrote in message
news:81vela$a6n$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Aviator
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:81vn5h$qn3$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Perhaps you could clarify what constitutes a hate crime...
A crime where it can be proved in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that the victim is targeted specifically because of race, ethnicity,
religion, disability or gender. Not, as IPM believes, any crime where the
victim and perpetrator are of different races.
dot...@dot.com
statistics are flawed, see the following:
(Sorry it is so long, but when I went back to check the link, I
found that it was archived already, and therefore unavailable to
many who might want to follow this discussion. I have included
the entire article with my appologies to the L.A.Times.)
Many Hate Crimes Go Unreported by Police Agencies
http://www.latimes.com/print/metro/19991129/t000108805.html
Monday, November 29, 1999 | Print this story
Many Hate Crimes Go Unreported by
Police Agencies
Bias: Some cities and school districts, striving for
bigotry-free image, fail to follow state law requiring
them to list such acts.
By PETER Y. HONG, Times Staff Writer
Politicians have declared war on hate crimes over
the last few years, vowing each time to act swiftly to
stem the rise of hate before it unravels their
communities.
But no one ever knows for sure whether hateful acts
have become more or less frequent in Los Angeles
County because many police departments and school
districts fail to consistently report them.
(note: this refers to our immediate area, but the same is true
nation wide)
After the immediate furor following catastrophic
blowups like this year's shooting rampage at the North
Valley Jewish Community Center, the day-to-day job
of tracking crimes motivated by prejudice and bigotry
falls on police chiefs, school principals and other local
officials, many of whom admit shortcomings and are
pledging to do better.
The spotty reporting of hate crimes is a national
problem, with Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi
regularly reporting, for example, that they have no
bias-based crimes.
(See! And these states fall into that group of states where one
might expect a high number of incidents, based on population and
past history. When such an area is left out of the statistics, it
tends to skew the results dramatically. To leave out three such
areas is to render the results almost unusable.)
But those who study hate crimes in Los Angeles are
especially troubled by what they believe is a lack of
diligence by officials in a county that is one of the
nation's most diverse.
Of the 45 police departments in Los Angeles
County that shared hate crime information with the
county Human Relations Commission, 19 reported zero
hate crimes in 1998. California law considers a hate
crime to be any illegal act motivated, even partly, by
race, religion, sexual orientation or physical or mental
disabilities, and requires that they be reported.
(Here is the answer to Stanleys question about what a hate crime
is. It is not, as stated, a crime proven beyond a reasonable
doubt to have been committed because of the victoms race, etc.
It is only necessary for the act to be partially motivated by
such things.)
Although some agencies, including the Los Angeles
Police Department, are known for diligently tabulating
hate incidents, other jurisdictions often ignore hate as a
crime motive. The failure by some agencies to identify
hate crimes angers local officials who risk saddling their
city or school district with a reputation as a bigotry hot
spot simply by following state law.
(Here is a new kind of "racism" for you all to mull over. The
very act of not reporting hate crimes because of the reputation a
community might get if you do, is certainly as much of a crime
against those enumerated classes as would an out right assault.
Failure to report those crimes is a violation of the law, and
therefore a crime, yes?)
"Everybody is not reporting the same kinds of
things. The reporting system is flawed and the data is
not reliable," said Ronald R. Ingels, chief of the La
Verne Police Department and a past president of the
Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Assn.
(And now a message about the reciepient of all of the "local
control" pitches by the conservatives. Remember, "local control"
of the schools will make them better schools, as LAUSD obiviously
proves.)
Even the Los Angeles Unified School District, which
after a spate of campus fights in the mid-1990s pledged
to keep better track of campus hate crimes, annually
records few hate-related incidents among its 710,000
students.
Robin Toma, assistant executive director of the Los
Angeles County Human Relations Commission, said the
dearth of hate crime information from public schools is
troubling because most hate crime victims in Los
Angeles County are minors.
Toma said better reporting, for example, would
have made district officials aware of simmering tensions
at Grant High School, which in October had a campus
fight between Armenian and Latino students. Grant
students interviewed by the commission after the
brawl--which involved as many as 200 students--said
there had been many conflicts among Latinos and
Armenians at the San Fernando Valley campus,
according to Toma.
Yet school district statistics show no hate crimes at
Grant in the past two years. The fight has not been
recorded as a hate crime. "I think it really started as an
incident between two students, and their friends joined
in," said Dan M. Isaacs, assistant superintendent of
operations.
But that view differs sharply from accounts by
students in the fight, Toma said. "When students were
asked what caused the fight, the vast majority
recognized that race was a part of it," he said. Among
44 Grant students surveyed by the commission, with
assistance from the U.S. Department of Justice, most
cited racism and racial pride as its primary cause,
followed by long-standing tensions between Latino and
Armenian students.
Since the Los Angeles school police began
collecting hate crime statistics in 1995, they have
recorded 62 hate crimes, at a rate of 10 to 20 a year.
Only a handful of hate incidents--things like
name-calling that are not serious enough to be
considered crimes, but might help to alert officials to
rising tensions--are reported by schools each year.
With nearly three-quarters of a million students at
660 schools, human relations experts--and even some
school district officials--believe many hate crimes are
not being reported by principals.
One possible reason, said Joe Hicks, executive
director of the Los Angeles City Human Relations
Commission, is that "to move up the [school district]
career ladder, a principal has to appear to be totally in
control. What most troubles me is that some principals
might feel their careers will be harmed [by reporting
hate crimes on their campuses]."
Stuart Bernstein, director of the school district's
office of intergroup relations, said principals may not
think it is important to report hate incidents to the
district after they have punished or counseled students
on campus.
The district issued a bulletin in 1998 that directs
principals to report all hate incidents and even included
a form for reporting them. But Bernstein said that at
many schools, the bulletin was probably buried in the
avalanche of paperwork he said principals face.
"We're beating the living hell out of them with
questions," Bernstein said. "They're inundated with
requests for data."
Bernstein compared hate crime reporting to the
district's first efforts to comply with state laws requiring
child abuse reporting. It took several years for
principals to diligently report suspected abuse cases,
Bernstein said.
School principals are required to review the district's
policy on child abuse reporting with school employees
twice a year. Bernstein said a similar requirement for
hate crime reporting might prompt principals to more
closely track such incidents.
Cities such as Azusa in the east San Gabriel Valley
that have faithfully reported hate crimes feel their image
has been harmed as a result. When Azusa's Police
Department recorded the highest number of hate crimes
in the San Gabriel Valley two years ago, the city found
itself identified in newspaper headlines as the region's
hate crime leader.
"We trained our officers, we devoted an investigator
[to hate crimes], and it backlashed on us," said Azusa
Police Capt. Karen Pihlak. Although she avoids naming
other police departments, Pihlak said that much larger
cities nearby reported far fewer hate crimes, despite
having comparable crime rates and similar racial
diversity.
"They're not playing by the rules. I can't get to their
numbers, but I know we're not higher than places with
more than 100,000 residents," Pihlak said.
Despite the risk of bad publicity, Pihlak said, it is
crucial for cities to accurately track hate crimes. In
Azusa, she said, the department assigned more patrols
to a neighborhood next to a park where hate crimes
were a recurring problem, and eventually solved the
problem. If the crimes had not been reported as hate
crimes--instead, say, as misdemeanor assaults--they
would not have received the same response, she said.
LAPD Det. Tom King, who oversees the
department's hate crime monitoring, agreed that
accurate hate crime data is an important tool for police.
The LAPD has been keeping hate crime statistics since
1990, and this year created an online database that
allows officers to search for reported hate crimes and
incidents by location and victims' ethnicity.
"When the chief meets with a captain, he can say 'I
see you have 10 hate crimes in your area this year,
what are you doing about it ?' " King said. The Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department this year is
implementing a hate crimes statistics system modeled
after the LAPD.
Local police chiefs recently acknowledged that they
need to catch up to such efforts. The county police
chiefs association--representing the 46 cities not
policed by the LAPD or Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department--pledged this fall to strengthen hate crime
reporting.
The final language of a memorandum of
understanding, which the chiefs have agreed to in
principle, is being written. It calls on departments to
make sure officers are trained to report hate crimes,
recognizing that such reporting is a top department
priority.
As part of the agreement, the county Human
Relations Commission will list hate crime totals in its
annual report by regions instead of individual cities. The
commission and police chiefs hope that will allow cities
to report hate crimes without the fear of being
stigmatized.
Azusa Police Capt. Pihlak emphasized that better
reporting is crucial to fighting hate crimes.
"I need the data to know where to deploy my
resources. I do not want to minimize it," he said. "I want
to know how best to address the problem, and I can't
do that without accurate information."
Aviator
<mÍkejmðmindspring¸Çom¬> wrote in message
news:CR9EOGnz=wzGnxolcr...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:12:27 -0800, dot...@dot.com laid this one on
> alt.california:
>
>
> >Of the 45 police departments in Los Angeles
> >County that shared hate crime information with the
> >county Human Relations Commission, 19 reported zero
> >hate crimes in 1998. California law considers a hate
> >crime to be any illegal act motivated, even partly, by
> >race, religion, sexual orientation or physical or mental
> >disabilities, and requires that they be reported.
>
> numerically- more hate crimes than do Whites.
>
> Anyone who has ever been out on the street knows this fact. Nobody
> believes FBI or any other government statistics. They're shit.
Thus speaks the dope smoking, cop hating anarchist. An even smaller minority
than dumb racists, and twice as stupid
>
>
>
> o | o
> _ _ _ | _ _ _ _
> / |/ |/ | | |/_) |/ | / |/ |/ |
> | | |_/ |_/ | \_/ |__/ |/ | | |_/ ©
> /|
> \|
>
> oO
> .,;');;;;;;,,.'',
> ;;;(;;;'
> ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº>
> '' '''' Today or Tomorrow??TOMATO/TOMOTTO!!
Aviator
> For some clairification on what a hate crime is, and why the FBI
> statistics are flawed, see the following:
If you bothered to read the hate crime statistics from the FBI site, you
would see that they admit that their statistics reflect only those of
co-operating agencies
Bullshit. This extract from the FBI Hate Crimes for 1998 report shows that
80% of the country is covered, representing 216 million out of 233 million
total population. You should also take note that the statistics are based on
reported hate crimes and not a thumb suck figure. The 20% of the population
not covered would hardly make a substantial impact on the trends indicated
"Participation
In 1998, a total of 10,730 law enforcement agencies in 46 states and the
District of Columbia participated in the Hate Crime Data Collection Program.
Summary and incident-based data are sent to the FBI either through
state-level UCR Programs (see Appendix) or directly from individual agencies
in states without Programs. It is important to note that the agencies
participating in the Hate Crime Data Collection Program in 1998 represented
over 216 million United States inhabitants or 80 percent of the population.
While not all agencies are participating in the Hate Crime Program, reports
from those that are offer perspectives on the general nature of hate crime
occurrence. The collection of hate crime statistics at the national level
will increase awareness and understanding of bias-motivated crimes. This
effort will enable law enforcement agencies to better quantify their needs
and allocate resources to the areas in which they are most
essential. Law enforcement agencies have historically demonstrated
progressive, professional competence in approaching criminal problems. Their
response to the hate crime legislation is no exception, and participating
law enforcement agencies are to be commended for their efforts in addressing
this issue."
You should try checking a more definitive source than the newsmedia
>
> But those who study hate crimes in Los Angeles are
> especially troubled by what they believe is a lack of
> diligence by officials in a county that is one of the
> nation's most diverse.
> Of the 45 police departments in Los Angeles
> County that shared hate crime information with the
> county Human Relations Commission, 19 reported zero
> hate crimes in 1998. California law considers a hate
> crime to be any illegal act motivated, even partly, by
> race, religion, sexual orientation or physical or mental
> disabilities, and requires that they be reported.
>
> (Here is the answer to Stanleys question about what a hate crime
> is. It is not, as stated, a crime proven beyond a reasonable
> doubt to have been committed because of the victoms race, etc.
> It is only necessary for the act to be partially motivated by
> such things.)
Another lie. maybe you should study the California Penal code.
"422.6(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall
knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any
other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person
by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, because of the other person's race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or
because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of those
characteristics. "
http://california.findlaw.com/ca01_codes/cacode.html
Nothing "partial" about that Dotty. Maybe peddling lies is the only way you
can justify your failed position
>
> Although some agencies, including the Los Angeles
> Police Department, are known for diligently tabulating
> hate incidents, other jurisdictions often ignore hate as a
> crime motive. The failure by some agencies to identify
> hate crimes angers local officials who risk saddling their
> city or school district with a reputation as a bigotry hot
> spot simply by following state law.
>
> (Here is a new kind of "racism" for you all to mull over. The
> very act of not reporting hate crimes because of the reputation a
> community might get if you do, is certainly as much of a crime
> against those enumerated classes as would an out right assault.
> Failure to report those crimes is a violation of the law, and
> therefore a crime, yes?)
No. You simply don't understand what was said. The crime was reported and
prosecuted, but not under 422.6 (b) of the penal code. It is very likely
that such incidents occur because of the possible racism of the DA or judge
Aviator
that in here too. Then we could nail your spiteful, skanky little ass for
spamming
ROFL!!
<mÍkejmðmindspring¸Çom¬> wrote in message
news:pIdDOIIXooUYki...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:05:52 -0800, "Aviator" <S...@tter.com> laid this
> one on alt.california:
>
> >
> >"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:81vn5h$qn3$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> Perhaps you could clarify what constitutes a hate crime...
> >
> >A crime where it can be proved in a court of law, beyond a reasonable
doubt,
> >that the victim is targeted specifically because of race, ethnicity,
> >religion, disability or gender. Not, as IPM believes, any crime where the
> >victim and perpetrator are of different races.
>
> Lord Haw Haw <nos...@here.net> wrote in message
> news:3826e19...@news.gte.net...
> > Three suspects still sought in men's attack
> >
>
> > North Charleston Det. Cpl. Jerry Jellico said robbery appears to be
> > the motive for the attack that came moments after shots were fired
> > outside a dance at North Charleston High School. The bicycles that
> > Knapp and Thornburg were riding were taken and the two were beaten, he
> > said.
> >
> > Jellico continued to rule out race as a reason for the attack. But he
> > told Magistrate Jack Guedalia that one of the suspects, Lafayette
> > Knotts of North Charleston, told police that as the white men rode by
> > a group of about 20 black people, Knapp cursed them and used a racial
> > slur. Jellico said none of the other suspects heard Knapp curse them
> > or use a racial epithet.
> >
> > Before the bail hearing, Jellico said that Thornburg told police
> > Monday that he did not hear any racial statements made by the
> > attackers.
> >
> > The suspects are black and the victims are white. All of them live in
> > North Charleston, and four of the suspects attend North Charleston
> > High School.
> >
> > Guedalia set bail ranging from $150,000 to $300,000 for the suspects,
> > who were also ordered under house arrest, if they are released. "This
> > is a classic case of lynching," Guedalia said. He told the suspects
> > that each of them faces up to 40 years in prison. Second-degree
> > lynching is an act of violence inflicted by a mob.
> >
> > The adult suspects and their bail amounts are: Knotts, 21, $300,000;
> > William Antonio Coaxum, 18, $200,000; Anthony R. Miller, 17, $150,000;
> > and Ivan Leashaun Brown, 19, $250,000.
> >
> > The juvenile suspects, each 16 years old, were each ordered held on
> > $150,000 bail. They are being charged as adults. They are Ihsan A.
> > Mack, Jamaal Horlbeck, Crystal Sebre Fludd and Monique Alfreda Jones.
> >
> > Police are searching for, and have warrants against, Anthony Fludd,
> > Randall Seels and a third suspect, whose name was not released,
> > Jellico said.
> >
> > Miller, Mack, Horlbeck and Crystal Fludd said they are students at
> > North Charleston High School.
> >
> > More charges could be filed against the suspects, Jellico said.
> >
> > The suspects are accused of "stomping, kicking and beating the victims
> > down," he said. Knotts is accused of hitting Knapp in the head with a
> > pipe, Jellico said. He said Knotts is also suspected of being the
> > mob's "ringleader." He allegedly said, "Let's get them" when the group
> > saw Knapp and Thornburg, Jellico said.
> >
> > Police have said that the beatings are not linked to shots that were
> > fired Friday night outside the dance at North Charleston High School.
> >
> > However, Jellico said, the beating suspects had been at the dance.
> > When police disbursed the crowd outside the dance, two groups of
> > people combined to form one group of about 20 people, he said.
> >
> > Several blocks from the school, Knapp and Thornburg were riding their
> > bikes down South Rhett Avenue and were approaching Bexley Street when
> > they met the group of about 15 to 20 black males and females,
> > according to the arrest warrants. They turned down Bexley Street to
> > try to avoid the group, the warrants said. But the group chased and
> > caught them outside a Bexley Street house, police said.
> >
> > A resident in the area, who heard the commotion outside her house,
> > yelled at the crowd and told them she was calling police, Jellico
> > said. If the woman had not yelled at them, it is possible Thornburg's
> > injuries could have been worse, he said.
> >
> > The crowd moved away from the bloodied Knapp and Thornburg, who were
> > left lying on the ground. Uniformed police officers who had been at
> > the high school on the shooting call noticed a group of people walking
> > down South Rhett and took down the names and addresses of each person,
> > police said. Many of those people are charged in the beating, police
> > said.
> >
> > Knapp was unconscious when police arrived. Thornburg told police the
> > group beat him and took his bike, according to the report.
> >
> > During the bail hearing, Sharon Zey, Knapp's cousin, held in her arms
> > a trembling Angela Knapp, who is Troy Knapp's sister.
> >
> > "There was no sense to this," Angela Knapp told Guedalia. Knapp has
> > undergone two brain surgeries, and "we don't know if he will ever wake
> > up.
>
> Aviator spouts in Message-ID:
> <800hd8$37p$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
> Appears to me that a couple of white racists excercised their abject
> stupidity by antagonising a group of blacks, and got the shit kicked
> out of
> them.
>
> Further proof that racism is not tolerated in this day and age
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
dot...@dot.com
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:12:27 -0800, dot...@dot.com laid this one on
> alt.california:
>
> >County that shared hate crime information with the
> >county Human Relations Commission, 19 reported zero
> >hate crimes in 1998. California law considers a hate
> >crime to be any illegal act motivated, even partly, by
> >race, religion, sexual orientation or physical or mental
> >disabilities, and requires that they be reported.
>
> numerically- more hate crimes than do Whites.
And your proof of that would be?????????????
>
> Anyone who has ever been out on the street knows this fact. Nobody
> believes FBI or any other government statistics. They're shit.
Ok, so let's hear your definition of fact. So far, what you have
presented as facts hardly qualify in most situations.
dot...@dot.com
>
> <dot...@dot.com> wrote in message news:3843CD3B...@dot.com...
> > For some clairification on what a hate crime is, and why the FBI
> > statistics are flawed, see the following:
>
> If you bothered to read the hate crime statistics from the FBI site, you
> would see that they admit that their statistics reflect only those of
> co-operating agencies
Sorry, but I don't really have the time to research all of your
sources. But your reply doesn't say anything that I hadn't
already said. Now you only acknowledge that their are limits to
the study. You do not explain why you didn't offer those
qualifiers with your original post. Perhaps you felt it wasn't
necessary, and that the statistics would stand on their own.
Sorry, they don't.
Hummmm. Would accept a 20% margin of error for one of your
flight tests? I hope not, for your safety. For the safety of
others, why are you willing to accept these numbers as
representing anything other than just what they are - a
compilation of the numbers available. Drawing any conclusions
from that data is questionable at best.
Also, the article that I referenced pointed out that 19 of 45
members of a reporting agency in the county of Los Angeles
reported 0 incidents. That would affect the statistics of that
reporting agency, don't you agree. If it happens here, why would
you assume that it doesn't happen other places. If you agree that
it could, then that would put even those reported statistics for
the whole country in question, yes? Makes for a pretty weak
platform wouldn't you say?
I don't know if the FBI statistics include reports from school
districts, such as LAUSD, but the numbers there are dismal at
best, again coloring the statistics of the study.
All and all, I am saying that anyone who uses these statistics as
proof of their position, either pro or con on the issue, should
at least note the qualifiers for the study, as an act of honest
reporting at the very least. I personally advocate the concept of
hate crime legislation and have posted supporting it, but I think
that proving it's need or its effectiveness with any kind of
statistics totally misses the point of the legislation.
>
> "Participation
> In 1998, a total of 10,730 law enforcement agencies in 46 states and the
> District of Columbia participated in the Hate Crime Data Collection Program.
> Summary and incident-based data are sent to the FBI either through
> state-level UCR Programs (see Appendix) or directly from individual agencies
> in states without Programs. It is important to note that the agencies
> participating in the Hate Crime Data Collection Program in 1998 represented
> over 216 million United States inhabitants or 80 percent of the population.
> While not all agencies are participating in the Hate Crime Program, reports
> from those that are offer perspectives on the general nature of hate crime
> occurrence. The collection of hate crime statistics at the national level
> will increase awareness and understanding of bias-motivated crimes. This
> effort will enable law enforcement agencies to better quantify their needs
> and allocate resources to the areas in which they are most
> essential. Law enforcement agencies have historically demonstrated
> progressive, professional competence in approaching criminal problems. Their
> response to the hate crime legislation is no exception, and participating
> law enforcement agencies are to be commended for their efforts in addressing
> this issue."
>
> http://www.fbi.com
>
> You should try checking a more definitive source than the newsmedia
The post was as an addendum to your post, and not a refutation of
it. It was not my intent to add to the scholarship of the thread
other than to add the discussion regarding the local climate.
>
> >
> > But those who study hate crimes in Los Angeles are
> > especially troubled by what they believe is a lack of
> > diligence by officials in a county that is one of the
> > nation's most diverse.
> > Of the 45 police departments in Los Angeles
> > County that shared hate crime information with the
> > county Human Relations Commission, 19 reported zero
> > hate crimes in 1998. California law considers a hate
> > crime to be any illegal act motivated, even partly, by
> > race, religion, sexual orientation or physical or mental
> > disabilities, and requires that they be reported.
>
> >
> > (Here is the answer to Stanleys question about what a hate crime
> > is. It is not, as stated, a crime proven beyond a reasonable
> > doubt to have been committed because of the victoms race, etc.
> > It is only necessary for the act to be partially motivated by
> > such things.)
>
> Another lie. maybe you should study the California Penal code.
You should try not being so defensive. There is nothing in my
statement that could even be slightly characterized as a lie.
Again, I merely clarified what you failed to do, the being that
the act need only be partially motivated by those issues to
qualify as a hate crime. Show me where I am wrong. Better yet,
get off your high horse and read the post for content before you
attack a poster. Especially me.
>
> "422.6(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall
> knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any
> other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free
> exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person
> by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of
> the United States, because of the other person's race, color, religion,
> ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or
> because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of those
> characteristics. "
> http://california.findlaw.com/ca01_codes/cacode.html
>
> Nothing "partial" about that Dotty. Maybe peddling lies is the only way you
> can justify your failed position
Dotty??? Maybe you have been getting too close to Stan and
Jafo. You seem to be picking up all of their bad manners. You
have enough of your own to ride heard on. Again, there are no
lies in what I said. If you are so sensitive to constructive
criticism, you will end up always being wrong simply for the
reason that no one will offer corrections to your observations
for fear of your response. If you disagree with my post (and I
might note here that there is nothing to disagree with, at all!)
you might take it up with the author of the article that I
posted. Those are their words, not mine. But they are the
correct interpretation of the statute, and I support the position
completely.
>
> >
> > Although some agencies, including the Los Angeles
> > Police Department, are known for diligently tabulating
> > hate incidents, other jurisdictions often ignore hate as a
> > crime motive. The failure by some agencies to identify
> > hate crimes angers local officials who risk saddling their
> > city or school district with a reputation as a bigotry hot
> > spot simply by following state law.
> >
> > (Here is a new kind of "racism" for you all to mull over. The
> > very act of not reporting hate crimes because of the reputation a
> > community might get if you do, is certainly as much of a crime
> > against those enumerated classes as would an out right assault.
> > Failure to report those crimes is a violation of the law, and
> > therefore a crime, yes?)
>
> No. You simply don't understand what was said. The crime was reported and
> prosecuted, but not under 422.6 (b) of the penal code. It is very likely
> that such incidents occur because of the possible racism of the DA or judge
You totally amaze me. I don't really pay much attention to your
posts, mostly because your positions reflect much on my own
thinking. However, I will have to change that practice in light
of statements above.
The article says that the incident was not reported as a hate
crime because of (various reasons). The important thing to note
for the purposes of the thread is that many agencies fail to
report crimes that would qualify under the statute, thus making
the statistics that so many depend on fallible.
rrcrumb
WEDNESDAY
AUGUST 18
1999
An ugly conspiracy of silence
By WALTER WILLIAMS
If there's to be racial goodwill and harmony, at the minimum we must be
willing to confront sometimes ugly truths. One of those truths has to do
with interracial crime.
We all readily condemn highly publicized racial violence, and rightly so,
such as last year's brutal murder of James Byrd by white supremacists in
Jasper, Texas. However, there's little notice and condemnation of
interracial crimes when whites are the victims.
Last June, Jared Taylor, president of New Century Foundation, in Oakton,
Va., held a press conference at Washington's National Press Club to report
on the foundation's recently released study, "The Color of Crime." Some of
the study's findings about interracial crime were surprising, so much so
that I did an independent verification of the numbers.
Since 1972, the U.S. Department of Justice has conducted a National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) to determine the frequency of certain crimes.
One category is interracial crimes. Its most recent publication (1997),
"Criminal Victimization in the U.S.," reports on data collected in 1994. In
that year, there were about 1,700,000 interracial crimes, of which 1,276,030
involved whites and blacks. In 90 percent of the cases, a white was the
victim and a black was the perpetrator, while in 10 percent of the cases it
was the reverse.
Another finding of the NCVS report is that of the 2,025,464 violent crimes
committed by blacks in 1994, 1,140,670 were against whites -- that's
slightly over 56 percent. Whites committed 5,114,692 violent crimes;
135,360, or 2.6 percent were against blacks.
In 1997, there were 2,336 whites charged with anti-black crimes and 718
blacks charged with anti-white crimes, so-called hate crimes. Although the
absolute number of white offenders was larger, the black rate per 100,000 of
the population was greater, making blacks twice as likely to commit hate
crimes.
Regardless of race, criminal violence is despicable and deserving of
condemnation. But far more destructive are the official and unofficial
attempts to mislead and conceal. Roughly 400 members of the major print and
electronic media were invited to the press conference on "The Color of
Crime." According to Taylor, several asked for advanced copies before they'd
consider sending anyone. Only 14 people stayed for the briefing and only a
couple reported on the study, most notably The Washington Times and C-Span.
One reporter said that he'd like to write a story but he doubted he could
get it by his editor.
If the facts were the other way around, everybody from The New York Times
and President Clinton to the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and the Congressional
Black Caucus would be shouting about it and demanding that something be
done. Some might want to keep silent about the facts for fear that
publicizing the true nature and magnitude of interracial crime might give,
as I've been told, "aid and comfort to America's white racists."
To the contrary, silence is perhaps one of the most effective recruitment
tools for racists. They can use our silence for proselytizing disaffected
whites with demagoguery about how hate crimes are not important unless a
black is the victim and how no one cares about blacks raping white women and
assaulting white men.
Interracial crime has other devastating effects on racial relations. Whites
are apprehensive of blacks, and blacks are offended at being the subjects of
that apprehension. Whites are less willing to live in black neighborhoods.
For the unthinking among us, these and other responses to racial disparities
in crime translate into simple racism.
Multi-ethnic societies are inherently unstable, and how we handle matters of
interracial crime is just one of the ways that we're contributing to that
instability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
WorldNetDaily contributor Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin
Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax,
Va.
© 1999 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
E-MAIL WALTER WILLIAMS | GO TO WALTER WILLIAMS' ARCHIVE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----\\\
!!
rrcrumb
Some believe UCLA art gallery theft to be hate related
Updated 12:00 PM ET November 29, 1999
By Linh Tat
Daily Bruin
U. California-Los Angeles
(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES -- Some students suspect the theft of four art pieces
depicting nudity from the Kerckhoff Art Gallery was the result of a hate
crime targeting the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
The stolen art pieces, worth a reported total of $4,125, were part of an
exhibit organized by La Familia, a Latino/a LGBT advocacy and support group.
Members of La Familia and the Undergraduate Students Association Council
said the theft, which took place on Nov. 18, constitutes a hate crime
because only artwork depicting nudity was stolen.
"It was a hate crime attacking the homosexual culture," said Wendy Sanchez,
a USAC general representative and La Familia member.
"It can't be explained any other way because other works more highly valued
weren't taken," she added.
Sanchez said she believes that more than one person was involved in the
crime, but police have no suspects, according to the UCPD report.
Police could not be reached for comment, and it is uncertain whether the
incident is being investigated as a hate crime.
Pat McLaren, division area manager of ASUCLA Student Support Services, could
not say whether the theft was a hate crime, but did not recall other thefts
occurring in her 14 years at UCLA.
"I know of no other thefts of student art from the gallery," McLaren said.
Sanchez said that the biggest concern now is the precedent this theft may
have set.
"It sets a hostile environment for queers," Sanchez said. "It's basically
saying that we don't want your art here, and we don't want you here."
Sanchez said she believes the art pieces weren't singled out for their
monetary value because one of the pieces was a $75 charcoal print, a value
small in comparison to some of the other pieces in the gallery that were
worth thousands of dollars.
The other stolen art pieces included a mural and other large canvasses that
spanned almost the entire length of the gallery walls.
Sanchez said she has proposed that a video camera be set up in the art
gallery to prevent future crimes from occurring.
"It's illogical for us to have an art gallery open and not have any security
around," she said.
But not everyone feels that the crime has warranted the implementation of
cameras.
"I really don't think it's that necessary because we have insurance forms
for the artists," said Todd Kim, a building manager for ASUCLA.
Kim said that while there is no security during the daytime, the gallery is
locked up at 7 p.m. each night and routine security rounds are made.
"Usually there aren't a lot of expensive art pieces in there at all times,"
Kim said.
While the artists lent their pieces for the exhibit, ASUCLA is responsible
for insurance coverage of the art pieces.
The artists whose works were stolen will receive monetary compensation
equivalent to the appraised value of their work, minus a $500 insurance
deductible.
The art pieces were first noticed missing the evening of Nov. 18 when one of
the exhibition organizers walked into the gallery, but she wasn't sure
whether they had been stolen or if the other organizers had removed them
from the room.
It wasn't until the next morning, Sanchez said, that she was informed of
what had happened, and they decided to notify police.
She said all four artists who had their works stolen, including one UCLA
student, were upset at the news.
"They were shocked that this happened at an institution like UCLA," she
said.
The art exhibit was, in part, an effort by La Familia to promote its Queer
Latino/a Youth Conference on Nov. 20.
"It's upsetting that it was stolen right before the actual conference, so no
one got to see it," said Nyramane Souphasith, a fourth-year sociology
student whose work was stolen.
Souphasith said he plans to re-create the $800 acrylic painting entitled
"Laotian Dancers" that was stolen.
But some said that even more important than the $4,000-plus loss is the
sentimental value of the artwork.
"The monetary value is high, but the main issue is that people's artwork is
irretrievable," said Katherine Carrido, USAC cultural affairs commissioner.
1999 Daily Bruin via U-WIRE
dot...@dot.com
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:58:01 -0800, dot...@dot.com laid this one on
> alt.california:
>
> >> numerically- more hate crimes than do Whites.
> >
> >And your proof of that would be?????????????
>
> sources of information because of the corruption whithin the Pig
> State. I'm just telling you what every person with a grain of common
> sense already knows and understands.
Well then, we'll just put that one in the "I don't know" column.
Aviator
"rrcrumb" <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PR714.4776$ZZ2....@news4.mia...
>
> Some believe UCLA art gallery theft to be hate related
> Updated 12:00 PM ET November 29, 1999
Seriously flawed thinking, Danny. How can you accuse anyone of a hate crime,
when you dont have any suspects?? The motive for stealing the paintings
cannot be determined unless you know who took them
Aviator
<mÍkejmðmindspring¸Çom¬> wrote in message
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:13:39 -0800, "Aviator" <S...@tter.com> laid this
> one on alt.california:
Sems brainless Mikey is now using the same tactics that made Dan the Thief
the laughing stock of the newsgroup
Oh well........
>
>
> Aviator spouts in Message-ID:
> <800hd8$37p$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
> Appears to me that a couple of white racists excercised their abject
> stupidity by antagonising a group of blacks, and got the shit kicked
> out of
> them.
>
> Further proof that racism is not tolerated in this day and age
>
>
>
>
>
Aviator
<mÍkejmðmindspring¸Çom¬> wrote in message
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:58:01 -0800, dot...@dot.com laid this one on
> alt.california:
>
>
> >> Blacks commit numerically, not simply proportionately, but
> >> numerically- more hate crimes than do Whites.
> >
> >And your proof of that would be?????????????
>
>
> I can't quote you a source because there are no longer any reliable
> sources of information because of the corruption whithin the Pig
> State. I'm just telling you what every person with a grain of common
> sense already knows and understands.
The Law of the Anarchist. Everyone is guilty of everything, except me.
Aviator
<dot...@dot.com> wrote in message news:38447BCD...@dot.com...
> Aviator wrote:
> >
> > <dot...@dot.com> wrote in message news:3843CD3B...@dot.com...
> > > For some clairification on what a hate crime is, and why the FBI
> > > statistics are flawed, see the following:
> >
> > If you bothered to read the hate crime statistics from the FBI site, you
> > would see that they admit that their statistics reflect only those of
> > co-operating agencies
>
> Sorry, but I don't really have the time to research all of your
> sources.
It only took 3 minutes.
But your reply doesn't say anything that I hadn't
> already said. Now you only acknowledge that their are limits to
> the study. You do not explain why you didn't offer those
> qualifiers with your original post. Perhaps you felt it wasn't
> necessary, and that the statistics would stand on their own.
> Sorry, they don't.
Oh they do, most definitely. If you added 20% to the statistics, and
attributed 60% of this number of hate crimes by black racists, and 17% to
whites, and added them to the existing statistics, it would still have
almost zero impact. Do the math
To use your logic, and based on your comment above " See! And these states
fall into that group of states where one
might expect a high number of incidents, based on population and past
history.", and considering that the three states you mentioned have a strong
history of white racism, the figures would more likely INCREASE the
percentage of white on black hate crimes in the overall statistic
If anything, your argument would prove that even more whites commit hate
crimes, which only goes to justify the medias current coverage of such
crimes
We are not dicussing safety in aviation. We are discussing the apparent
disparity of media coverage of hate crimes. The available statistics satisfy
this
>
> Also, the article that I referenced pointed out that 19 of 45
> members of a reporting agency in the county of Los Angeles
> reported 0 incidents. That would affect the statistics of that
> reporting agency, don't you agree.
Why?? Are you assuming that there are hate crimes in EVERY city in the LA
Area?? You're on extremely thin ice there. In spite of the fact that there
are hundreds of murders in LA City every year, a city like Arcadia has an
average of ONE murder a year
Does this imply that murder statistics are distorted?? I don't think so
Aviator
Hardly. The study covers 50 states, not just the few you have brought to the
argument
>
> All and all, I am saying that anyone who uses these statistics as
> proof of their position, either pro or con on the issue, should
> at least note the qualifiers for the study, as an act of honest
> reporting at the very least.
Agreed. Have I not done that??
I personally advocate the concept of
> hate crime legislation and have posted supporting it, but I think
> that proving it's need or its effectiveness with any kind of
> statistics totally misses the point of the legislation.
I agree with that argument, but the point being made was purely that the
claims that the claims of media bias in reporting of hate crimes is
bullshit. Even if there was a 10% error in the stats, whites still commit,
numerically, 3 times more crimes of this nature than blacks
Maybe so.
Again, there are no
> lies in what I said. If you are so sensitive to constructive
> criticism, you will end up always being wrong simply for the
> reason that no one will offer corrections to your observations
> for fear of your response. If you disagree with my post (and I
> might note here that there is nothing to disagree with, at all!)
> you might take it up with the author of the article that I
> posted. Those are their words, not mine. But they are the
> correct interpretation of the statute, and I support the position
> completely.
Point taken. However, the level of proof required in criminal court is
either "Clear and convincing" or "Beyond a reasonable doubt" The concept of
preponderance is used only in civil court where the level of proof is not as
high, and may be determined by that which is more likely than not. The
statute defines the crime clearly, so the idea that a person could be
convicted because of a "partial motivation"" is ludicrous. The author of the
article is clearly misrepresenting the legal requirement for conviction in
such crimes.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Although some agencies, including the Los Angeles
> > > Police Department, are known for diligently tabulating
> > > hate incidents, other jurisdictions often ignore hate as a
> > > crime motive. The failure by some agencies to identify
> > > hate crimes angers local officials who risk saddling their
> > > city or school district with a reputation as a bigotry hot
> > > spot simply by following state law.
> > >
> > > (Here is a new kind of "racism" for you all to mull over. The
> > > very act of not reporting hate crimes because of the reputation a
> > > community might get if you do, is certainly as much of a crime
> > > against those enumerated classes as would an out right assault.
> > > Failure to report those crimes is a violation of the law, and
> > > therefore a crime, yes?)
> >
> > No. You simply don't understand what was said. The crime was reported
and
> > prosecuted, but not under 422.6 (b) of the penal code. It is very likely
> > that such incidents occur because of the possible racism of the DA or
judge
>
> You totally amaze me. I don't really pay much attention to your
> posts, mostly because your positions reflect much on my own
> thinking. However, I will have to change that practice in light
> of statements above.
I re-read and misunderstood the original comment. Point taken. I apologize
>
> The article says that the incident was not reported as a hate
> crime because of (various reasons). The important thing to note
> for the purposes of the thread is that many agencies fail to
> report crimes that would qualify under the statute, thus making
> the statistics that so many depend on fallible.
True. But one can hardly ignore the greater picture generated by over 10,000
agencies nationwide. The original point being made is that claims that the
media report a disproportionate number of white on black hate crimes are
false, and even with a margin for error, I believe the point is made
As a matter of interest, if hate crimes in the southern states were reported
accurately, do you seriously believe that they would show blacks committing
more hate crimes than whites, given their history ??
I doubt it.
Aviator
No brain, no gain
<mÍkejmðmindspring¸Çom¬> wrote in message
news:tHNEOK5DoPrPhR...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:44:34 -0800, "Aviator" <S...@tter.com> laid this
> one on alt.california:
>
> ><dot...@dot.com> wrote in message news:3843CD3B...@dot.com...
> >> For some clairification on what a hate crime is, and why the FBI
> >> statistics are flawed, see the following:
> >
> >If you bothered to read the hate crime statistics from the FBI site,
>
> >Aviator spouts in Message-ID:
> ><800hd8$37p$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
> >
> >Appears to me that a couple of white racists excercised their abject
> >stupidity by antagonising a group of blacks, and got the shit kicked
> >out of
> >them.
> >
> >Further proof that racism is not tolerated in this day and age
> >
>
>
dot...@dot.com
>
> <dot...@dot.com> wrote in message news:38447BCD...@dot.com...
> > Aviator wrote:
> > >
> > > <dot...@dot.com> wrote in message news:3843CD3B...@dot.com...
> > > > For some clairification on what a hate crime is, and why the FBI
> > > > statistics are flawed, see the following:
> > >
> > > If you bothered to read the hate crime statistics from the FBI site, you
> > > would see that they admit that their statistics reflect only those of
> > > co-operating agencies
> >
> > Sorry, but I don't really have the time to research all of your
> > sources.
>
> It only took 3 minutes.
That's 3 too many.
>
> But your reply doesn't say anything that I hadn't
> > already said. Now you only acknowledge that their are limits to
> > the study. You do not explain why you didn't offer those
> > qualifiers with your original post. Perhaps you felt it wasn't
> > necessary, and that the statistics would stand on their own.
> > Sorry, they don't.
>
> Oh they do, most definitely. If you added 20% to the statistics, and
> attributed 60% of this number of hate crimes by black racists, and 17% to
> whites, and added them to the existing statistics, it would still have
> almost zero impact. Do the math
Your problem here is exactly that - doing the math. Trying to
support your position, which incidentally I agree with, by using
statistics that are flawed, is pure folly. Not only does it set
you up for a big fall when and if better statistics are
presented, but you fall into the trap of defending your very
reasonable position with the same numbers that are so easily
manipulated by the other side. Better to attack the truth and
logic of their position than to spend all the time on doing the
math.
>
> To use your logic, and based on your comment above " See! And these states
> fall into that group of states where one
> might expect a high number of incidents, based on population and past
> history.", and considering that the three states you mentioned have a strong
> history of white racism, the figures would more likely INCREASE the
> percentage of white on black hate crimes in the overall statistic
Absolutely right! The states who chose not to participate have
the reputation of not being supportive of equality on many
levels. But the fact remains that the statistics are flawed, the
reporting is flawed and the conclusions can be manipulated to
suit either side of the argument. So what have you won?
>
> If anything, your argument would prove that even more whites commit hate
> crimes, which only goes to justify the medias current coverage of such
> crimes
The media does not cover issues because they are upholding this
principal or another. They cover the issues that they believe
will attract the most readers/viewers/listners. The media is
inherently unreliable as indicators of what is really important
in the communities they cover. Remember all the time/space that
was dedicated to the Clinton/Lewinski affair? And how did the
majority of the public feel about it? If you don't know, ask a
Republican campaign manager anywhere in the US. They found out
fast.
They satisfy nothing! The numbers are flawed, and the media has
never been considered as the measure of relative truth or
importance of any issue. Ever!
> >
> > Also, the article that I referenced pointed out that 19 of 45
> > members of a reporting agency in the county of Los Angeles
> > reported 0 incidents. That would affect the statistics of that
> > reporting agency, don't you agree.
>
> Why?? Are you assuming that there are hate crimes in EVERY city in the LA
> Area?? You're on extremely thin ice there. In spite of the fact that there
> are hundreds of murders in LA City every year, a city like Arcadia has an
> average of ONE murder a year
According to the article that I posted, yes, there are hate
crimes in adjacent jurisdictions that are not reported as hate
crimes. There is no reason to believe that if it happens in LA
County, it doesn't also happen in many counties all over America.
My point was, that there are holes in the statistics, big holes.
>
> Does this imply that murder statistics are distorted?? I don't think so
Apples and oranges.
dot...@dot.com
Actually, I though it said 46 states. But the question was, did
it include school districts as part of the reporting entity.
> >
> > All and all, I am saying that anyone who uses these statistics as
> > proof of their position, either pro or con on the issue, should
> > at least note the qualifiers for the study, as an act of honest
> > reporting at the very least.
>
> Agreed. Have I not done that??
I did not think so, and I augmented your post because I felt you
relied too heavily on those other statistics.
>
> I personally advocate the concept of
> > hate crime legislation and have posted supporting it, but I think
> > that proving it's need or its effectiveness with any kind of
> > statistics totally misses the point of the legislation.
>
> I agree with that argument, but the point being made was purely that the
> claims that the claims of media bias in reporting of hate crimes is
> bullshit. Even if there was a 10% error in the stats, whites still commit,
> numerically, 3 times more crimes of this nature than blacks
The premise of the post was bull shit, as you so elegantly put
it. To say that what the media covers proves or disproves
anything, is total foolishness. I know you are passionate about
he issue, but to respond to such foolishness is a waste of
energy.
It would be easier, and more effective to attack the underlying
premise, that the news media is a predictor of anything is pure
folly. If that is the best argument they can muster, then they
have no argument at all.
So!
>
> Again, there are no
> > lies in what I said. If you are so sensitive to constructive
> > criticism, you will end up always being wrong simply for the
> > reason that no one will offer corrections to your observations
> > for fear of your response. If you disagree with my post (and I
> > might note here that there is nothing to disagree with, at all!)
> > you might take it up with the author of the article that I
> > posted. Those are their words, not mine. But they are the
> > correct interpretation of the statute, and I support the position
> > completely.
>
> Point taken. However, the level of proof required in criminal court is
> either "Clear and convincing" or "Beyond a reasonable doubt" The concept of
> preponderance is used only in civil court where the level of proof is not as
> high, and may be determined by that which is more likely than not. The
> statute defines the crime clearly, so the idea that a person could be
> convicted because of a "partial motivation"" is ludicrous. The author of the
> article is clearly misrepresenting the legal requirement for conviction in
> such crimes.
42.6b is usually used as an enhancement to another charge, not as
a stand alone charge. It might well be used that way, but I think
that that course would prove difficult. When attached to another
charge, such as vandalism, the burden of proof remains the same
for the vandalism, but the charge can be enhances if it can be
shown that any part of the hate crime legislation was part of the
decision to carry out the act of vandalism. That's why Jafo's
argument about thought control fails. The act of vandalism is
being prosecuted, and if it is motivated by hate, then the
penalty can be increased for that reason. The thoughts don't
count, but when attached to an illegal action, they can be
included in the prosecution.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Although some agencies, including the Los Angeles
> > > > Police Department, are known for diligently tabulating
> > > > hate incidents, other jurisdictions often ignore hate as a
> > > > crime motive. The failure by some agencies to identify
> > > > hate crimes angers local officials who risk saddling their
> > > > city or school district with a reputation as a bigotry hot
> > > > spot simply by following state law.
> > > >
> > > > (Here is a new kind of "racism" for you all to mull over. The
> > > > very act of not reporting hate crimes because of the reputation a
> > > > community might get if you do, is certainly as much of a crime
> > > > against those enumerated classes as would an out right assault.
> > > > Failure to report those crimes is a violation of the law, and
> > > > therefore a crime, yes?)
> > >
> > > No. You simply don't understand what was said. The crime was reported
> and
> > > prosecuted, but not under 422.6 (b) of the penal code. It is very likely
> > > that such incidents occur because of the possible racism of the DA or
> judge
> >
> > You totally amaze me. I don't really pay much attention to your
> > posts, mostly because your positions reflect much on my own
> > thinking. However, I will have to change that practice in light
> > of statements above.
>
> I re-read and misunderstood the original comment. Point taken. I apologize
Done.
> >
> > The article says that the incident was not reported as a hate
> > crime because of (various reasons). The important thing to note
> > for the purposes of the thread is that many agencies fail to
> > report crimes that would qualify under the statute, thus making
> > the statistics that so many depend on fallible.
>
> True. But one can hardly ignore the greater picture generated by over 10,000
> agencies nationwide. The original point being made is that claims that the
> media report a disproportionate number of white on black hate crimes are
> false, and even with a margin for error, I believe the point is made
Again, there is absolutely no correlation between what the news
media says, and what actually happens everyday.
>
> As a matter of interest, if hate crimes in the southern states were reported
> accurately, do you seriously believe that they would show blacks committing
> more hate crimes than whites, given their history ??
>
> I doubt it.
No, and that wasn't my point. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that
racism is more pernicious in northern states and in eastern
states than it is in the deep south. I think that the people who
live in the south have long ago come to a mutual understanding
about how they are going to live together. The exceptions are
dramatic and often very violent, but I don't think they are as
frequent as, say, job discrimination in Boston or even LA or
especially some place like Tulsa. Now there is a stink hole of
racism if ever there was one.
Aviator
<dot...@dot.com> wrote in message news:3845D916...@dot.com...
Your opinion. I dont think that statistics extracted from 80% of the whole
to be relying "too heavily"
>
>
> >
> > I personally advocate the concept of
> > > hate crime legislation and have posted supporting it, but I think
> > > that proving it's need or its effectiveness with any kind of
> > > statistics totally misses the point of the legislation.
> >
> > I agree with that argument, but the point being made was purely that the
> > claims that the claims of media bias in reporting of hate crimes is
> > bullshit. Even if there was a 10% error in the stats, whites still
commit,
> > numerically, 3 times more crimes of this nature than blacks
>
> The premise of the post was bull shit, as you so elegantly put
> it. To say that what the media covers proves or disproves
> anything, is total foolishness. I know you are passionate about
> he issue, but to respond to such foolishness is a waste of
> energy.
In your opinion. To ignore it simply allows the racist contingent to
perpetuate a lie without opposition. If a lie is repeated often enough, it
takes on the apparance of truth
Aviator
<mÍkejmðmindspring¸Çom¬> wrote in message
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:02:55 -0800, "Aviator" <S...@tter.com> laid this
> one on alt.california:
>
> >In recent times we have heard regularly from our racist
>
>
Oh the hypocrisy!! One minute you are championing the cause of free speech,
and now you are advocating censorship
Consistency is not your stong suit, Mikey
rrcrumb
By Lewis J. Goldberg
The other day I was having a discussion with an acquaintance about
hate-crime legislation. We got to that topic through a larger discussion
regarding federal government vs local control. He boasted that without the
federal government being the pro-active body that it is, we would not have
the prospect of nation-wide hate-crime legislation, he being a person that
the proposed legislation would protect. So, instead of offering the
obligatory "Amen" that would normally be appropriate when confronted with a
comment like his, I asked "why do you think hate-crimes need special
treatment?" He went on to explain that he thinks the government should
protect the underdog, which sounds fine and dandy...but, at what price?
Yes, of course I want the government to protect the weak as well as the
strong. Our constitution states very plainly that we are all created equal,
and should receive equal protection under the law. The crimes of late that
are fueling the passion for tougher hate-crime legislation, such as the
murder of homosexual Matthew Sheppard in Wyoming and the dragging death of
James Byrd, a black man in Texas, were already punishable by laws against
murder. In November of 1997, President Clinton gave a speech at the White
House on hate crime. He cited the examples of a black child nearly beaten to
death after riding his bicycle into the 'wrong neighborhood,' a homosexual
murdered as he walked home from work, an Asian who's store was firebombed,
and a synagogue emblazoned with swastikas by a hateful vandal's spray can.
All these are punishable under existing laws.
While my friend's arguments were persuasive, they ignore the other
possibility about crime and punishment. That being, maybe our punishments
are simply too lenient all the way around. Proponents of hate-crime
legislation suggest that a message be sent to any would-be committers of
acts of hate: "We will not tolerate this." Fine, let's not. But what makes
one group of people more 'protectable' than another? Should not the answer
be that we are all worthy of equal and diligent protection, and, if so,
shouldn't the penalties for all crimes be made stiffer so as to afford that
equal protection? What I suggest here is that all penalties for all crimes
may simply be too lenient. So, rather than create a separate class of people
to protect at a higher level, why not raise the bar for everyone. Are we all
not worthy of being protected to the greatest extent?
Proponents of hate-crime legislation continue to push their agenda through
revision of the 1969 federal hate-crimes law (18 U.S.C. Section 245). This
law, they say, does not go far enough because sexual orientation is not
included and because it only is in effect when the victim is at school, at
work, or four other federally protected activities. At the state level,
eight states have no hate-crime legislation at all and another 22 have no
provision in their laws for sexual orientation. Supporters want the federal
law strengthened to plug the gaps left by the states, and feel that the
tendency for local law enforcement to ignore crimes against unpopular
segments of society would be overcome. However, the proposed tougher laws
will create a new, federally unpopular segment of society, the white
Christian. This trend has already begun, evidenced by the media's collective
abrogation of the death of Jesse Dirkhising, a 13 year-old straight boy
tortured and murdered by two homosexuals...just for fun. Homosexuals are
politically popular, just as racists were politically popular in another
age, so the institutions of public opinion dare not cross their new
'massas.' To do so would be anti-gay.
My theory is that if the hate-crimes legislation advocates were truly
interested in giving the weakest members of society, they would be fighting
to strengthen the laws to protect us all. Instead, what they seek to
accomplish will further divide and segment our already fragmented society.
It is no wonder that racism, sexism, and a host of other '-isms' still
linger when we have our national politicians and media personalities showing
us how it's done.
ClockWFT
>Hate-crimes? Yeah, I hate crime
>By Lewis J. Goldberg
>
>The other day I was having a discussion with an acquaintance about
>hate-crime legislation.
clockwft wrote:
IMO, hate crime legislation is nothing more than Affirmative Action of our laws
of conduct and definition of "criminality". The reason I find such an approach
hugely offensive because part 'n parcel to such laws is the conscious intention
to exclude "whites" from that "extra protection".
Aviator
"ClockWFT" <cloc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991212140422...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
Maybe you would like to show us exactly how this ia achieved?? Kindly post
the portion of current legislation that "excludes whites". The fact that the
vast majority of hate crimes are attributable to white racists doesn't make
the law wrong. It simply shows a propensity for white racists to commit
crimes of this nature
It would be the same as saying that laws against rape are offensive, because
98% of ALL rapes are committed by men. Does this mean that rape laws are
blatantly biased in to protect women and exclude men?? That is after all,
sexism in the extreme
Your argument defies logic
The Pervert
Not at all! I have to agree with Clock on this one... to nobody's
surprise. Your known support of hate crime legislation is also not a
secret, and that's your prerogative. But your dismissing Clock's
position as 'defying logic' is gratuitous and patroninzing to say the
least. In other words, it was offensive (read: bullshit) and was
nothing more than a smokescreen. The only thing that defied logic was
your contorted example of rape. C'mon. Argue the merits of your
position if you can or are willing to. Knock off your usual attack of
the person who disagrees with you. I know you can do it because you and
I just had an excellent dialogue based on ISSUES! (You were wrong, of
course, but at least you argued the issue... in vain. :)
So let's get back to the issue at hand.
Remember when there was more blatant 'de facto' segregation in this
country? Segregation in fact (de facto). Not always as a matter of law
(de jure) but just as real and more insidious. There was a concept of
segregation known as "separate but equal" regarding public education
which was anything BUT equal! Sure, the law said it was supoossed to be
equal, but the white schools got the new textbooks, better (and enough)
teachers and proper maintenance. Black schools got the books that the
white schools no longer used. Old and obsolete, pages ripped out. Not
enough decent teachers. The black schools were in disrepair and
ill-equipped. Sure, it was equal on paper, but in reality it was
radically unequal and unjust.
The same can be said for hate crimes. Sure, there is no written
prohibition against crimes by non-whites against whites being considered
hate crimes, per se. But do you honestly think this administration
would allow such statistics to exist in significant proportion? I don't
believe so. And this president's, and this administration's honesty and
credibility is, to say the very least, highly suspect to all but the
most willfully blindest of the blind.
Labeling any crime as a "hate crime" is a judgement call at best. It is
not in the interest of certain parties to acknowlege if, or that, hate
crimes are perpetrated against whites in significant numbers by... oh...
let's say blacks, just as an example. It just doesn't make for good
public relations, and one might argue that it does not serve the greater
good. My own feeling is that the truth ultimately *does* serve the
greater good.
I'd be willing to bet my virginity that others might disagree with that
admittedly radical notion, though.
Aviator
"The Pervert" <perv...@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:385620...@spambad.yahoo.com...
You wound me, sir!! I deny having lost such a duel with you!! [In fact I
have something further to add to that discussion if you are willing]
>
> So let's get back to the issue at hand.
>
> Remember when there was more blatant 'de facto' segregation in this
> country? Segregation in fact (de facto). Not always as a matter of law
> (de jure) but just as real and more insidious.
Ahhhh Yes. Just as insidious as the real motive behind "hate crimes". The
darker agenda of intimidation rather than bodily harm, of instilling fear,
rather than just drawing blood or. I understand perfectly
There was a concept of
> segregation known as "separate but equal" regarding public education
> which was anything BUT equal! Sure, the law said it was supoossed to be
> equal, but the white schools got the new textbooks, better (and enough)
> teachers and proper maintenance. Black schools got the books that the
> white schools no longer used. Old and obsolete, pages ripped out. Not
> enough decent teachers. The black schools were in disrepair and
> ill-equipped. Sure, it was equal on paper, but in reality it was
> radically unequal and unjust.
Precisely!! You have just described the almost identical disparity between
a crime intended to deprive the victim of liquid assets, and a crime
intended to intimidate and instil fear. " Sure, it was equal on paper, but
in reality they are radically unequal "
>
> The same can be said for hate crimes. Sure, there is no written
> prohibition against crimes by non-whites against whites being considered
> hate crimes, per se. But do you honestly think this administration
> would allow such statistics to exist in significant proportion? I don't
> believe so.
Here is where I have to disagree
And this president's, and this administration's honesty and
> credibility is, to say the very least, highly suspect to all but the
> most willfully blindest of the blind.
Irrelevant. Slick had nothing to do with HC legislation, except maybe talk
about it. And as far as honesty and integrity are concerned, there are very
few administrations that weren't suspect at best
"This problem cuts across party lines, and I am glad to be joined by so many
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in proposing this legislation
today. ."
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
in the House of Representatives
THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1999
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r106WLbczD::
The legislation is a democratic process, proposed, debated, and voted on.
HB-1082 is strongly supported in congress on both sides of the aisle.
>
> Labeling any crime as a "hate crime" is a judgement call at best.
Are you sitting down?? Attaching the label "hate" to this type of crime was
the dumbest thing they did. The word "hate" is not appropriate at all.
Violence and property destruction are the tools used to send a message to
minorities, that a smaller minority of bigots intend keep them from enjoying
the liberties and freedoms extended to all citizens under the constitution,
and propagating all that shit you mentioned in the paragraphs above. Hate
crime legislation may not be the perfect solution, but it is a start
It is
> not in the interest of certain parties to acknowlege if, or that, hate
> crimes are perpetrated against whites in significant numbers by... oh...
> let's say blacks, just as an example. It just doesn't make for good
> public relations, and one might argue that it does not serve the greater
> good. My own feeling is that the truth ultimately *does* serve the
> greater good.
But you haven't shown your hypothesis to be the truth. It is but a
hypothesis. The only facts we have are FBI stats to base an argument on. The
rest is just speculation
>
> I'd be willing to bet my virginity that others might disagree with that
> admittedly radical notion, though.
I agree with that notion completely. One problem though. What is the truth??
>
ClockWFT
>>>>>Hate-crimes? Yeah, I hate crime
>>>>>By Lewis J. Goldberg
>>>>>sion with an acquaintance about hate-
>>>>>crime legislation.
>>>>
>>>> clockwft wrote:
>>>> IMO, hate crime legislation is nothing
>>>>more than Affirmative Action of our laws
>>>>of conduct and definition of "criminality".
>>>>ly offensive because part 'n parcel to such
>>>>clude "whites" from that "extra protection".
>> >
>>>Maybe you would like to show us exact-
>>>ly how this ia achieved??
clockwft wrote:
Okie doke. For those non-Rocket scientists among us, here goes....
...by the clearly conscious and blatantly uneven implementation of such laws...
>>>The fact that the vast majority of hate crimes
>>>are attributable to white racists doesn't make
>>>the law wrong. It simply shows a propen-
>>>sity for white racists to commit crimes of this nature
>> >
This, of course, is assuming that similarly thorough attention is given to
crimes which are motivated by anti-white racism.
>>>It would be the same as saying that laws against rape are offensive,
>>>because 98% of ALL rapes are committed
>>>by men.
>>>
>>>Does this mean that rape laws are blatant-
>>>ly biased in to protect women and exclude men??
It does, if implementation of that law clearly shows that claims by men that
they were raped by women are routinely downplayed or ignored.
>>>That is after all, sexism in the extreme
>>>
Very good.....:o)
>>>Your argument defies logic
>>
>>"pervert" wrote:
>>I have to agree with Clock on this one... Your
>>known support of hate crime legislation is
>>also not a secret, and that's your preroga-
>>tive. But your dismissing Clock's position
>>as 'defying logic' is gratuitous and patroni-
>>zing to say the least.
Something along the lines of "swiss-cheese like" also comes to mind...:o)
>In other words, it was offensive (read: bull-
>>shit) and was nothing more than a smoke-
>screen.
You have a way with words, sir.
>>The only thing that defied logic was your con-
>>torted example of rape.
But it was amusing whatching his tortured efforts to make it work.
>>C'mon. Argue the merits of your position
>>if you can or are willing to. Knock off your
>>usual attack of the person who disagrees
>>with you. I know you can do it because you
>>and I just had an excellent dialogue based
>>on ISSUES!
Really? Then congratulations to both of you. It's not easy to follow through on
this basis when surrounded by so many "nyah!, nyah!" sandbox-mentality
cat-fights.
>>(You were wrong, of course, but at least you
>>argued the issue... in vain. :)
>
>You wound me, sir!! I deny having lost such
>a duel with you!! [In fact I have something fur-
>ther to add to that discussion if you are willing]
>>
>> So let's get back to the issue at hand.
>>
>> Remember when there was more blatant
>>'de facto' segregation in this country? Seg-
>>regation in fact (de facto). Not always as
>>a matter of law (de jure) but just as real and
>>more insidious.
>
Ie. the manner in which certain laws are applied/implemented as opposed to
their legislative language.
>Ahhhh Yes. Just as insidious as the real motive
>behind "hate crimes". The darker agenda of
>intimidation rather than bodily harm, of instill-
>ing fear, rather than just drawing blood or. I un-
>derstand perfectly
>
Then, since you do "understand" The Pervert's point, I take it you don't agree
that "implementation" (ie. recognition, recoprding and investigating) of "hate
crimes" is conducted unevenly?
>>
>>The same can be said for hate crimes. Sure,
>>there is no written prohibition against crimes
>>by non-whites against whites being consid-
>>ered hate crimes, per se. But do you hon-
>>estly think this administration would al-
>>low such statistics to exist in significant pro-
>>portion? I don't believe so.
>
>Here is where I have to disagree.
>>And this president's, and this administra-
>>tion's honesty and credibility is, to say the
>>very least, highly suspect to all but the most
>>willfully blindest of the blind.
>
>Irrelevant. Slick had nothing to do with HC legis-
>lation, except maybe talk about it.
I beg to differ. IMO the overarching words that eminate from the leader of the
Democratic Party, as well as from the party itself , *do* have a profound
effect on the motivations of those seeking to put such laws in place, which in
turn has a direct effect on the "selectivity" with which such laws are applied.
>And as far as honesty and integrity are con-
>cerned, there are very few administrations that
>weren't suspect at best
>
Irrelevant. The fact that earlier administrations made errors and/or were
"suspect" in areas in NO way either mitigates or justifies the those of the
present one.
The Pervert
> The Pervert wrote:
> > Knock off your usual attack of
> > the person who disagrees with you. I know you can do it because you and
> > I just had an excellent dialogue based on ISSUES! (You were wrong, of
> > course, but at least you argued the issue... in vain. :)
> You wound me, sir!! I deny having lost such a duel with you!! [In fact I
> have something further to add to that discussion if you are willing]
So, you're wounded. It happens sometimes when you lose a duel, whether
you're in denial about it or not. :)
And I think we sufficiently flogged that one to death. Another item on
which we'll agree to disagree... and another item where you're WRONG,
WRONG, WRONG!!!!!
> > Remember when there was more blatant 'de facto' segregation in this
> > country? Segregation in fact (de facto). Not always as a matter of law
> > (de jure) but just as real and more insidious.
> Ahhhh Yes. Just as insidious as the real motive behind "hate crimes". The
> darker agenda of intimidation rather than bodily harm, of instilling fear,
> rather than just drawing blood or. I understand perfectly
> > There was a concept of
> > segregation known as "separate but equal" regarding public education
> > which was anything BUT equal! Sure, the law said it was supoossed to be
> > equal, but the white schools got the new textbooks, better (and enough)
> > teachers and proper maintenance. Black schools got the books that the
> > white schools no longer used. Old and obsolete, pages ripped out. Not
> > enough decent teachers. The black schools were in disrepair and
> > ill-equipped. Sure, it was equal on paper, but in reality it was
> > radically unequal and unjust.
> Precisely!! You have just described the almost identical disparity between
> a crime intended to deprive the victim of liquid assets, and a crime
> intended to intimidate and instil fear. " Sure, it was equal on paper, but
> in reality they are radically unequal"
That makes almost no sense at all! Does ANY assault, for instance, not
intimidate and instill fear? Tell that to my mother who was mugged
several years ago! Was it a hate crime because the mugger was black and
he picked on my mother because she was older? Likely. Did he single
her out because she was white? I don't know. I don't give a rat's ass
why he did it, nor do I particularly care what color he was! He was a
punk and by now is probably doing hard time in prison if somebody hasn't
whacked him by now. So tell me. Is the assault against my mother any
less intimidating or traumatic than an assault against an approved
minority member? Or are they so radically different... on paper.
> > The same can be said for hate crimes. Sure, there is no written
> > prohibition against crimes by non-whites against whites being considered
> > hate crimes, per se. But do you honestly think this administration
> > would allow such statistics to exist in significant proportion? I don't
> > believe so.
> Here is where I have to disagree
Translated: Here's where I going to be wrong again.
> And this president's, and this administration's honesty and
> > credibility is, to say the very least, highly suspect to all but the
> > most willfully blindest of the blind.
>
> Irrelevant. Slick had nothing to do with HC legislation, except maybe talk
> about it. And as far as honesty and integrity are concerned, there are very
> few administrations that weren't suspect at best
In certains areas, of course. Some more than others. Johnson, Clinton,
and Nixon come to mind first.
> "This problem cuts across party lines, and I am glad to be joined by so many
> of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in proposing this legislation
> today. ."
Translation: I'm glad I'm not the only blatant whore for votes in
Congress.
> HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
>
> in the House of Representatives
>
> THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1999
>
> The legislation is a democratic process, proposed, debated, and voted on.
> HB-1082 is strongly supported in congress on both sides of the aisle.
See? Republicans CAN be wrong on some issues!
> > Labeling any crime as a "hate crime" is a judgement call at best.
>
> Are you sitting down?? Attaching the label "hate" to this type of crime was
> the dumbest thing they did. The word "hate" is not appropriate at all.
> Violence and property destruction are the tools used to send a message to
> minorities, that a smaller minority of bigots intend keep them from enjoying
> the liberties and freedoms extended to all citizens under the constitution,
> and propagating all that shit you mentioned in the paragraphs above. Hate
> crime legislation may not be the perfect solution, but it is a start
The *message* sent (why the hell are we so obsessed with messages that
don't mean squat?) is that if you complain enough and argue loud enough
that you're a *victim,* somebody will creat a label that will make you
feel like a *special* victim! Take a look. Absolutely everybody either
is, or wants to be, covered under hate crime legislation, except white
males, of course. And frankly, it's de rigeur to be the victim of white
people, and it's also trendy to blame conservative white guys for every
evil that ever happened in the entire history of civilization!
It's a bad start and a bad solution. A murder victim is dead regardless
of the motive of the murderer. The rather cold-hearted and insulting
label of 'hate crime' makes one victim more important than another,
which, by necessity, must make another victim *less* important (at least
to the warm-and-fuzzy crowd) based on arbitrary parameters chosen by the
caprice of the times.
> It is
> > not in the interest of certain parties to acknowlege if, or that, hate
> > crimes are perpetrated against whites in significant numbers by... oh...
> > let's say blacks, just as an example. It just doesn't make for good
> > public relations, and one might argue that it does not serve the greater
> > good. My own feeling is that the truth ultimately *does* serve the
> > greater good.
>
> But you haven't shown your hypothesis to be the truth. It is but a
> hypothesis. The only facts we have are FBI stats to base an argument on. The
> rest is just speculation
We might argue about how factual the FBI stats are. Or we might not.
Considering the dearth of integrity in our President and her husband,
I've become somewhat skeptical.
> One problem though. What is the truth??
No problem at all. The truth is just what is so, regardless of how we
choose to perceive it. Ergo, I can really speak only my honest
perception (opinion) of the truth.
Aviator
> >>>>>Posted by rrcrumb:
> >>>>>Hate-crimes? Yeah, I hate crime
> >>>>>By Lewis J. Goldberg
> >>>>>sion with an acquaintance about hate-
> >>>>
> >>>> clockwft wrote:
> >>>> IMO, hate crime legislation is nothing
> >>>>more than Affirmative Action of our laws
> >>>>of conduct and definition of "criminality".
> >>>>ly offensive because part 'n parcel to such
> >>>>clude "whites" from that "extra protection".
> >> >
> >>>Maybe you would like to show us exact-
> >>>ly how this ia achieved??
>
> clockwft wrote:
>
> Okie doke. For those non-Rocket scientists among us, here goes....
>
> ...by the clearly conscious and blatantly uneven implementation of such
laws...
Clock, firstly, you show nothing to prove this theory, and secondly it
doesn't prove or even indicate "the conscious intention to exclude "whites"
from that "extra protection""
>
> >>>The fact that the vast majority of hate crimes
> >>>are attributable to white racists doesn't make
> >>>the law wrong. It simply shows a propen-
> >>>sity for white racists to commit crimes of this nature
> >> >
>
> This, of course, is assuming that similarly thorough attention is given to
> crimes which are motivated by anti-white racism.
The assumption being made by you is that hate crimes are being unfairly
prosecuted. It is after all, just an assumption, and nothing more
>
> >>>It would be the same as saying that laws against rape are offensive,
> >>>because 98% of ALL rapes are committed
> >>>by men.
> >>>
> >>>Does this mean that rape laws are blatant-
> >>>ly biased in to protect women and exclude men??
>
> It does, if implementation of that law clearly shows that claims by men
that
> they were raped by women are routinely downplayed or ignored.
Uhhh, sorry. That doesn't cut it. On the face of it, the law is being
unfairly applied, based on the fact that we only see men being prosecuted
for rape. This is exactly how you are arriving at your conclusions regarding
hate crimes
Now, try and and give us something more substantive to back up your
assumption
>
> >>>That is after all, sexism in the extreme
> >>>
> Very good.....:o)
Of course!
>
> >>>Your argument defies logic
> >>
> >>"pervert" wrote:
> >>I have to agree with Clock on this one... Your
> >>known support of hate crime legislation is
> >>also not a secret, and that's your preroga-
> >>tive. But your dismissing Clock's position
> >>as 'defying logic' is gratuitous and patroni-
> >>zing to say the least.
>
> Something along the lines of "swiss-cheese like" also comes to mind...:o)
>
> >In other words, it was offensive (read: bull-
> >>shit) and was nothing more than a smoke-
> >screen.
>
> You have a way with words, sir.
And like you, Perv has based his reasoning on appearances rather than
proveable facts
>
> >>The only thing that defied logic was your con-
> >>torted example of rape.
>
> But it was amusing whatching his tortured efforts to make it work.
>
> >>C'mon. Argue the merits of your position
> >>if you can or are willing to. Knock off your
> >>usual attack of the person who disagrees
> >>with you. I know you can do it because you
> >>and I just had an excellent dialogue based
> >>on ISSUES!
>
> Really? Then congratulations to both of you. It's not easy to follow
through on
> this basis when surrounded by so many "nyah!, nyah!" sandbox-mentality
> cat-fights.
>
> >>(You were wrong, of course, but at least you
> >>argued the issue... in vain. :)
> >
> >You wound me, sir!! I deny having lost such
> >a duel with you!! [In fact I have something fur-
> >ther to add to that discussion if you are willing]
> >>
> >> So let's get back to the issue at hand.
> >>
> >> Remember when there was more blatant
> >>'de facto' segregation in this country? Seg-
> >>regation in fact (de facto). Not always as
> >>a matter of law (de jure) but just as real and
> >>more insidious.
> >
> Ie. the manner in which certain laws are applied/implemented as opposed to
> their legislative language.
Yet you are not willing to show us how this law is being unfairly applied.
Something more substantial than appearances, if you please.
>
> >Ahhhh Yes. Just as insidious as the real motive
> >behind "hate crimes". The darker agenda of
> >intimidation rather than bodily harm, of instill-
> >ing fear, rather than just drawing blood or. I un-
> >derstand perfectly
> >
> Then, since you do "understand" The Pervert's point, I take it you don't
agree
> that "implementation" (ie. recognition, recoprding and investigating) of
"hate
> crimes" is conducted unevenly?
Show me specific instances of uneven application of the law. Your
impressions and opinions hardly form a sound basis for such a claim
> >>
> >>The same can be said for hate crimes. Sure,
> >>there is no written prohibition against crimes
> >>by non-whites against whites being consid-
> >>ered hate crimes, per se. But do you hon-
> >>estly think this administration would al-
> >>low such statistics to exist in significant pro-
> >>portion? I don't believe so.
> >
> >Here is where I have to disagree.
>
> >>And this president's, and this administra-
> >>tion's honesty and credibility is, to say the
> >>very least, highly suspect to all but the most
> >>willfully blindest of the blind.
> >
> >Irrelevant. Slick had nothing to do with HC legis-
> >lation, except maybe talk about it.
>
> I beg to differ. IMO the overarching words that eminate from the leader of
the
> Democratic Party, as well as from the party itself , *do* have a profound
> effect on the motivations of those seeking to put such laws in place,
which in
> turn has a direct effect on the "selectivity" with which such laws are
applied.
What are you talking about?? The hate cime bill was proposed by Ted Kennedy,
and has been strongly supported by both houses. HB-1082 has 186 co-sponsors,
and is probably the most non-partisan piece of legislation of recent times.
Your last comment would have us believe that when a new administration takes
office, DAs, cops and other law enforcement personnel are suddenly replaced
with members more politically sympathetic to the new President. Reality
check!
>
> >And as far as honesty and integrity are con-
> >cerned, there are very few administrations that
> >weren't suspect at best
> >
> Irrelevant. The fact that earlier administrations made errors and/or were
> "suspect" in areas in NO way either mitigates or justifies the those of
the
> present one.
No one said it did. what is irrelevant is the the questioning of the
integrity of the the administraton, when the law in question enjoys the full
support of both houses. Did someone mention the word "smokescreen" a while
back??
Aviator
> Aviator wrote:
>
> > The Pervert wrote:
>
> > > Knock off your usual attack of
> > > the person who disagrees with you. I know you can do it because you
and
> > > I just had an excellent dialogue based on ISSUES! (You were wrong, of
> > > course, but at least you argued the issue... in vain. :)
>
> > You wound me, sir!! I deny having lost such a duel with you!! [In fact I
> > have something further to add to that discussion if you are willing]
>
> So, you're wounded. It happens sometimes when you lose a duel, whether
> you're in denial about it or not. :)
>
> And I think we sufficiently flogged that one to death. Another item on
> which we'll agree to disagree... and another item where you're WRONG,
> WRONG, WRONG!!!!!
Actually I wasn't. The radio station, whose right to refuse KKK advertising
was upheld by a Federal judge, is in fact part of a public college, Missouri
U. Judge Mummert held that the publicly owned station was NOT a public
forum. The highway is even less of a "public forum", so i was in fact RIGHT,
RIGHT, RIGHT!!!!
Chew on that one Perv.
Not to a specific segment of a community. It doesn't send a message that
further violence is to be expected. It doesn't say "Get out or DIE!!
Interesting that you recognize de facto segregation, but not de facto
terrorism
Tell that to my mother who was mugged
> several years ago! Was it a hate crime because the mugger was black and
> he picked on my mother because she was older? Likely. Did he single
> her out because she was white? I don't know. I don't give a rat's ass
> why he did it, nor do I particularly care what color he was! He was a
> punk and by now is probably doing hard time in prison if somebody hasn't
> whacked him by now. So tell me. Is the assault against my mother any
> less intimidating or traumatic than an assault against an approved
> minority member? Or are they so radically different... on paper.
Your mother was terrorized and intimidated, not her the folks neigbourhood
Consider your own dejure/de facto argument. Racists assault and terrorize
specifically for one reason. An attempt to force their failed ideology on
others and to intimidate the minorities they refuse to accept out of "their"
neigbourhoods. That is the de facto crime, not the simple assault
It would appear that you defend their right to overturn the will of "we the
people"
Who cares?? They represent "we the people" If you object, vote for someone
new, and if you fail, don't bitch
>
> > HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
> >
> > in the House of Representatives
> >
> > THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1999
> >
> > The legislation is a democratic process, proposed, debated, and voted
on.
> > HB-1082 is strongly supported in congress on both sides of the aisle.
>
> See? Republicans CAN be wrong on some issues!
Not if their constituents tell them that they want HC legislation.
Remember, they are representatives, not gods
>
> > > Labeling any crime as a "hate crime" is a judgement call at best.
> >
> > Are you sitting down?? Attaching the label "hate" to this type of crime
was
> > the dumbest thing they did. The word "hate" is not appropriate at all.
> > Violence and property destruction are the tools used to send a message
to
> > minorities, that a smaller minority of bigots intend keep them from
enjoying
> > the liberties and freedoms extended to all citizens under the
constitution,
> > and propagating all that shit you mentioned in the paragraphs above.
Hate
> > crime legislation may not be the perfect solution, but it is a start
>
> The *message* sent (why the hell are we so obsessed with messages that
> don't mean squat?)
Do you not believe terrorism and intimidation to be crimes then?? All they
are are messages. "Conform with my ideology or suffer the consequences".
is that if you complain enough and argue loud enough
> that you're a *victim,* somebody will creat a label that will make you
> feel like a *special* victim!
Again you seem to be defending the right of racists to force their ideology
on others with apparent impunity. It wasn't the law that targeted
minorities, it was the intolerant racists. The amusing thing is that in
Wisconsin v Mitchell, it was the white community who were howling for
special treatment, not the minorities. That was the landmark decision for HC
legislation, where a couple of black kids attacked a white kid purely
because he was white
And now we have idiots like William Scott whining that the law specifically
targets whites
Sorry, but that *special* victim theory is doesn't fit the facts
Take a look. Absolutely everybody either
> is, or wants to be, covered under hate crime legislation, except white
> males, of course.
Just proved as junk above. It was WHITES who started the whole thing. Get
over it
And frankly, it's de rigeur to be the victim of white
> people, and it's also trendy to blame conservative white guys for every
> evil that ever happened in the entire history of civilization!
Once again, refer Wisc. v Mitchell
>
> It's a bad start and a bad solution. A murder victim is dead regardless
> of the motive of the murderer. The rather cold-hearted and insulting
> label of 'hate crime' makes one victim more important than another,
> which, by necessity, must make another victim *less* important (at least
> to the warm-and-fuzzy crowd) based on arbitrary parameters chosen by the
> caprice of the times.
And to think, a white community demanded it! Refer Wisc v Mitchell
>
> > It is
> > > not in the interest of certain parties to acknowlege if, or that, hate
> > > crimes are perpetrated against whites in significant numbers by...
oh...
> > > let's say blacks, just as an example. It just doesn't make for good
> > > public relations, and one might argue that it does not serve the
greater
> > > good. My own feeling is that the truth ultimately *does* serve the
> > > greater good.
> >
> > But you haven't shown your hypothesis to be the truth. It is but a
> > hypothesis. The only facts we have are FBI stats to base an argument on.
The
> > rest is just speculation
>
> We might argue about how factual the FBI stats are. Or we might not.
> Considering the dearth of integrity in our President and her husband,
> I've become somewhat skeptical.
Be that as it may, do you have any other stats to offer??
>
> > One problem though. What is the truth??
>
> No problem at all. The truth is just what is so, regardless of how we
> choose to perceive it. Ergo, I can really speak only my honest
> perception (opinion) of the truth.
OK. The truth is the white community screamed for the legislation in Wisc. v
Mitchell, yet in every argument against hate crime, opponents continually
cite *special* treatment for minorities. They got what they wanted, and it
is about time whites accepted responsibilty for their own demands
Recommended reading:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/wisconsin.html
>
The Pervert
> > > Precisely!! You have just described the almost identical disparity
> between
> > > a crime intended to deprive the victim of liquid assets, and a crime
> > > intended to intimidate and instil fear. " Sure, it was equal on paper,
> but
> > > in reality they are radically unequal"
> >
> > That makes almost no sense at all! Does ANY assault, for instance, not
> > intimidate and instill fear?
>
> Not to a specific segment of a community. It doesn't send a message that
> further violence is to be expected. It doesn't say "Get out or DIE!!
> Interesting that you recognize de facto segregation, but not de facto
> terrorism
You know, I think you're starting to lose your common sense. Crimes are
committed against persons. Prosecute the criminal who commits a
specific crime against a specific victim.
> > Tell that to my mother who was mugged
> > several years ago! Was it a hate crime because the mugger was black and
> > he picked on my mother because she was older? Likely. Did he single
> > her out because she was white? I don't know. I don't give a rat's ass
> > why he did it, nor do I particularly care what color he was! He was a
> > punk and by now is probably doing hard time in prison if somebody hasn't
> > whacked him by now. So tell me. Is the assault against my mother any
> > less intimidating or traumatic than an assault against an approved
> > minority member? Or are they so radically different... on paper.
>
> Your mother was terrorized and intimidated, not her the folks neigbourhood
Therefore according to you, she was the victim of a hate crime! Duh!
SHE was mugged, not the neighborhood! The gay guy in Wyoming was
murdered not his neighborhood. The guy in Jasper Texas was murdered,
not his neighborhood.
> Consider your own dejure/de facto argument. Racists assault and terrorize
> specifically for one reason. An attempt to force their failed ideology on
> others and to intimidate the minorities they refuse to accept out of "their"
> neigbourhoods. That is the de facto crime, not the simple assault
>
> It would appear that you defend their right to overturn the will of "we the
> people"
That's bullshit and personally insulting and offensive.
> > > And this president's, and this administration's honesty and
> > > > credibility is, to say the very least, highly suspect to all but the
> > > > most willfully blindest of the blind.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. Slick had nothing to do with HC legislation,
I neglected to note that very dry observation. Jafo would appreciate
that one. :)
> > Translation: I'm glad I'm not the only blatant whore for votes in
> > Congress.
>
> Who cares?? They represent "we the people" If you object, vote for someone
> new, and if you fail, don't bitch
And since when do you advocate purely mob/majority rule? The rights of
the minority (even conservative white males) are protected as well as
the rights of non-white minorities.
Actually, since I *do* vote, I do get to bitch. Or don't you extend to
1st ammendment rights to those who disagree with you? Indeed, even if I
did not vote I'd get to bitch about the stupidity of elected
representatives. That same 1st Ammendment applies to those who don't
vote as well as to those who do, whether you approve or not.
So to answer your question of "who cares?" The Constitution of the
United States cares and so do I. Deal with it.
> >
> > > HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
> > > in the House of Representatives
> > > THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1999
> > > The legislation is a democratic process, proposed, debated, and voted
> on.
> > > HB-1082 is strongly supported in congress on both sides of the aisle.
> >
> > See? Republicans CAN be wrong on some issues!
>
> Not if their constituents tell them that they want HC legislation.
> Remember, they are representatives, not gods
Representatives are sworn to defend the Constitution against all
enemies, foreign and domestic. Such enemies include opportunists who
would subvert the intent of the Constitution for their own purposes and
agendas. Recall that many years ago, thw majority of the people wanted,
or at the very least tolerated, slavery. Years ago in the South wanted
blacks treated as less than second class citizens and afforded unequal
rights and protections under the law. Do you advocate elected
representatives pass segregation legislation simply because their
constituents want it?
I have the radical notion that leaders should lead, not simply follow
the bleatings of some constituencies. That wouldn't make them gods, it
would make them leaders.
> Do you not believe terrorism and intimidation to be crimes then?? All they
> are are messages. "Conform with my ideology or suffer the consequences".
No. Intimidation is not a crime. Under what section of the penal code
is the crime of intimidation covered? And do you have felony
intimidation and misdemeanor intimidation?
Assault is a crime. Murder is a crime. Intimidation is not a crime. I
was intimidated by bigger players when I was playing football. Their
being bigger and stronger (and intimidating) did not constitution a hate
crime even though I suffered physical (and maybe emotional) trauma as a
result their actions.
I used to be intimidated by beautiful women. I felt terrorized by
them. I got the "message" that I was a dork. Whether or not that was
(and may still be) true, would that terror and intimidation be a felony
or misdemeanor? Or would I simply be guilty of puberty?
Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, et al seek to intimidate and send a
message "Agree with me or be called a racist." IS he guilty of hate
crimes for his message and intimidation?
> is that if you complain enough and argue loud enough
> > that you're a *victim,* somebody will creat a label that will make you
> > feel like a *special* victim!
>
> Again you seem to be defending the right of racists to force their ideology
> on others with apparent impunity. It wasn't the law that targeted
> minorities, it was the intolerant racists. The amusing thing is that in
> Wisconsin v Mitchell, it was the white community who were howling for
> special treatment, not the minorities. That was the landmark decision for HC
> legislation, where a couple of black kids attacked a white kid purely
> because he was white
I do not advocate any racist forcing any ideology. That's bullshit and
you know it. Let me know when you want to re-establish your
credibility.
> And now we have idiots like William Scott whining that the law specifically
> targets whites
Then call me an idiot. Although I don't say that the law targets whites
per se, I do suggest that the law declines to be applied equally to
non-whites.
> Sorry, but that *special* victim theory is doesn't fit the facts
Sorry, but I believe that it does. I'm getting old. You'll have to
remind me of when the last time a big media hoo-ha was made over a black
hate crime against a white person. Oh, that's right! They don't
happen! Crimes committed by blacks against whites are merely excusable
crimes of racial rage or targets of opportunity! Silly me.
> > Take a look. Absolutely everybody either
> > is, or wants to be, covered under hate crime legislation, except white
> > males, of course.
>
> Just proved as junk above. It was WHITES who started the whole thing. Get
> over it
Whites are capable of doing stupid things and of bowing to political
pressure from the racist agendas of certain minority so-called leaders.
Deal with it (reality, that is).
> > And frankly, it's de rigeur to be the victim of white
> > people, and it's also trendy to blame conservative white guys for every
> > evil that ever happened in the entire history of civilization!
> Once again, refer Wisc. v Mitchell
> > It's a bad start and a bad solution. A murder victim is dead regardless
> > of the motive of the murderer. The rather cold-hearted and insulting
> > label of 'hate crime' makes one victim more important than another,
> > which, by necessity, must make another victim *less* important (at least
> > to the warm-and-fuzzy crowd) based on arbitrary parameters chosen by the
> > caprice of the times.
> And to think, a white community demanded it! Refer Wisc v Mitchell
Because some whites wanted it, that makes it automatically a good
thing? And you say that with a straight face? But I note (without
surprise) that you declined to answer the substance of my objection.
Refer to common sense. But I'll concede that common sense is not a
point of law.
> > We might argue about how factual the FBI stats are. Or we might not.
> > Considering the dearth of integrity in our President and her husband,
> > I've become somewhat skeptical.
> Be that as it may, do you have any other stats to offer??
No, I don't. I stand by my skepticism and increasing distrust of the
government and some of their stats... be that as it may.
> OK. The truth is the white community screamed for the legislation in Wisc. v
> Mitchell, yet in every argument against hate crime, opponents continually
> cite *special* treatment for minorities. They got what they wanted, and it
> is about time whites accepted responsibilty for their own demands
Whites seem to be the only ethnicity willing (perhaps even obsessed
with) taking responsibility for their own ethic group's negative
actions. Maybe that's why I have such respect for people like Larry
Elder, Sheby Steele, Walter Williams, et. al., and such disdain for
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Danny Bakewell, Rita Waters, Chip Murray,
Louis Farrakhans, Kweisi Mfumis (sp), William Gray, Al Rangels, Earl
Ofari-Hutchinson, Leo Turrell, ad infinitum.
Until I see some measure of balance from other ethnic political
advicates, I'll retain my skepticism.
Aviator
> Aviator wrote:
>
> > > > Precisely!! You have just described the almost identical disparity
> > between
> > > > a crime intended to deprive the victim of liquid assets, and a crime
> > > > intended to intimidate and instil fear. " Sure, it was equal on
paper,
> > but
> > > > in reality they are radically unequal"
> > >
> > > That makes almost no sense at all! Does ANY assault, for instance,
not
> > > intimidate and instill fear?
> >
> > Not to a specific segment of a community. It doesn't send a message that
> > further violence is to be expected. It doesn't say "Get out or DIE!!
> > Interesting that you recognize de facto segregation, but not de facto
> > terrorism
>
> You know, I think you're starting to lose your common sense. Crimes are
> committed against persons. Prosecute the criminal who commits a
> specific crime against a specific victim.
That is your opinion, obviously not shared by law professors
>
> > > Tell that to my mother who was mugged
> > > several years ago! Was it a hate crime because the mugger was black
and
> > > he picked on my mother because she was older? Likely. Did he single
> > > her out because she was white? I don't know. I don't give a rat's
ass
> > > why he did it, nor do I particularly care what color he was! He was a
> > > punk and by now is probably doing hard time in prison if somebody
hasn't
> > > whacked him by now. So tell me. Is the assault against my mother any
> > > less intimidating or traumatic than an assault against an approved
> > > minority member? Or are they so radically different... on paper.
> >
> > Your mother was terrorized and intimidated, not her the folks
neigbourhood
>
> Therefore according to you, she was the victim of a hate crime! Duh!
> SHE was mugged, not the neighborhood! The gay guy in Wyoming was
> murdered not his neighborhood. The guy in Jasper Texas was murdered,
> not his neighborhood.
"Remember when there was more blatant 'de facto' segregation in this
country? Segregation in fact (de facto). Not always as a matter of law (de
jure) but just as real and more insidious."
"Sure, it was equal on paper, but in reality it was radically unequal and
unjust"
Maybe you forgot your own words. Bill King made it clear that he planned to
kill a black to gain respect from white racist groups and intimidate blacks.
The crime was in fact "just as real and more insidious"
>
> > Consider your own dejure/de facto argument. Racists assault and
terrorize
> > specifically for one reason. An attempt to force their failed ideology
on
> > others and to intimidate the minorities they refuse to accept out of
"their"
> > neigbourhoods. That is the de facto crime, not the simple assault
> >
> > It would appear that you defend their right to overturn the will of "we
the
> > people"
>
> That's bullshit and personally insulting and offensive.
I apologise if you feel offended, but your argument does give that
appearance
>
> > > > And this president's, and this administration's honesty and
> > > > > credibility is, to say the very least, highly suspect to all but
the
> > > > > most willfully blindest of the blind.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. Slick had nothing to do with HC legislation,
>
> I neglected to note that very dry observation. Jafo would appreciate
> that one. :)
And I thought you missed it.
>
> > > Translation: I'm glad I'm not the only blatant whore for votes in
> > > Congress.
> >
> > Who cares?? They represent "we the people" If you object, vote for
someone
> > new, and if you fail, don't bitch
>
> And since when do you advocate purely mob/majority rule?
I do not
The rights of
> the minority (even conservative white males) are protected as well as
> the rights of non-white minorities.
>
> Actually, since I *do* vote, I do get to bitch. Or don't you extend to
> 1st ammendment rights to those who disagree with you? Indeed, even if I
> did not vote I'd get to bitch about the stupidity of elected
> representatives. That same 1st Ammendment applies to those who don't
> vote as well as to those who do, whether you approve or not.
Oh, I agree. We all have that right. But if you have voted, and your
representative either isn't elected, or supports an issue you are against,
what is the point of complaining about it??
>
> So to answer your question of "who cares?" The Constitution of the
> United States cares and so do I. Deal with it.
>
> > >
> > > > HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
> > > > in the House of Representatives
> > > > THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1999
> > > > The legislation is a democratic process, proposed, debated, and
voted
> > on.
> > > > HB-1082 is strongly supported in congress on both sides of the
aisle.
> > >
> > > See? Republicans CAN be wrong on some issues!
> >
> > Not if their constituents tell them that they want HC legislation.
> > Remember, they are representatives, not gods
>
> Representatives are sworn to defend the Constitution against all
> enemies, foreign and domestic. Such enemies include opportunists who
> would subvert the intent of the Constitution for their own purposes and
> agendas.
You mean like racists and their anti-government bretheren??
Recall that many years ago, thw majority of the people wanted,
> or at the very least tolerated, slavery. Years ago in the South wanted
> blacks treated as less than second class citizens and afforded unequal
> rights and protections under the law. Do you advocate elected
> representatives pass segregation legislation simply because their
> constituents want it?
I support the principle, not the example. It is called democracy. The
country belongs to the people, and not few intellectuals or elitists.
>
> I have the radical notion that leaders should lead, not simply follow
> the bleatings of some constituencies. That wouldn't make them gods, it
> would make them leaders.
That would make them dictators. What happened to government "for the people,
by the people"??
>
> > Do you not believe terrorism and intimidation to be crimes then?? All
they
> > are are messages. "Conform with my ideology or suffer the consequences".
>
> No. Intimidation is not a crime. Under what section of the penal code
> is the crime of intimidation covered? And do you have felony
> intimidation and misdemeanor intimidation?
>
> Assault is a crime. Murder is a crime. Intimidation is not a crime. I
> was intimidated by bigger players when I was playing football. Their
> being bigger and stronger (and intimidating) did not constitution a hate
> crime even though I suffered physical (and maybe emotional) trauma as a
> result their actions.
>
> I used to be intimidated by beautiful women. I felt terrorized by
> them. I got the "message" that I was a dork. Whether or not that was
> (and may still be) true, would that terror and intimidation be a felony
> or misdemeanor? Or would I simply be guilty of puberty?
>
> Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, et al seek to intimidate and send a
> message "Agree with me or be called a racist." IS he guilty of hate
> crimes for his message and intimidation?
Thank you for this most illuminating definition of the word "intimidation",
but you missed terrorism, which a tad more serious than intimidation. [I
agree intimidation is not a crime]
>
> > is that if you complain enough and argue loud enough
> > > that you're a *victim,* somebody will creat a label that will make you
> > > feel like a *special* victim!
> >
> > Again you seem to be defending the right of racists to force their
ideology
> > on others with apparent impunity. It wasn't the law that targeted
> > minorities, it was the intolerant racists. The amusing thing is that in
> > Wisconsin v Mitchell, it was the white community who were howling for
> > special treatment, not the minorities. That was the landmark decision
for HC
> > legislation, where a couple of black kids attacked a white kid purely
> > because he was white
>
> I do not advocate any racist forcing any ideology. That's bullshit and
> you know it.
Of course I know it is bullshit. I said you SEEM to be defending that
position. I am not implying or accusing you, only pointing out how it
appears
Let me know when you want to re-establish your
> credibility.
>
> > And now we have idiots like William Scott whining that the law
specifically
> > targets whites
>
> Then call me an idiot. Although I don't say that the law targets whites
> per se, I do suggest that the law declines to be applied equally to
> non-whites.
Based on your previously admitted sceptism of proffered statistics, one
would be hard pressed to find a basis for your suggestion
>
> > Sorry, but that *special* victim theory is doesn't fit the facts
>
> Sorry, but I believe that it does. I'm getting old. You'll have to
> remind me of when the last time a big media hoo-ha was made over a black
> hate crime against a white person.Oh, that's right! They don't
> happen! Crimes committed by blacks against whites are merely excusable
> crimes of racial rage or targets of opportunity! Silly me.
So is it your contention that failure of the media to report crime to your
satisfaction is some indicator that the law is being unfairly applied?? The
media reports what sells papers and gets TV ratings. That is how they do
their business. Even though you may be sceptical of FBI stats, I would
trust their offering more than the perception of the media. To whit, in '98
66% of hate crimes were committed by whites and 17% by blacks. Contrary to
your sarcastic response I have never claimed that blacks didn't commit hate
crimes.
>
> > > Take a look. Absolutely everybody either
> > > is, or wants to be, covered under hate crime legislation, except white
> > > males, of course.
> >
> > Just proved as junk above. It was WHITES who started the whole thing.
Get
> > over it
>
> Whites are capable of doing stupid things and of bowing to political
> pressure from the racist agendas of certain minority so-called leaders.
> Deal with it (reality, that is).
Digressing doesn't change the fact that your comment was incorrect
d it's also trendy to blame conservative white guys for every
> > > evil that ever happened in the entire history of civilization!
>
> > Once again, refer Wisc. v Mitchell
>
> > > It's a bad start and a bad solution. A murder victim is dead
regardless
> > > of the motive of the murderer. The rather cold-hearted and insulting
> > > label of 'hate crime' makes one victim more important than another,
> > > which, by necessity, must make another victim *less* important (at
least
> > > to the warm-and-fuzzy crowd) based on arbitrary parameters chosen by
the
> > > caprice of the times.
>
> > And to think, a white community demanded it! Refer Wisc v Mitchell
>
> Because some whites wanted it, that makes it automatically a good
> thing? And you say that with a straight face?
Nope. It is my response to continual claims that hate crime laws are biased
againsed whites
But I note (without
> surprise) that you declined to answer the substance of my objection.
This thread has become so disjointed that it becomes difficult to see the
substance of your objection anymore. You reject the concept of hate crimes,
even thought the same concept has historically been applied to a plethora of
different crimes. The concept of enhanced sentences based on intent and
motive is not new, yet you still rail against it. Am I close??
"(b) In determining what sentence to impose, sentencing judges have
traditionally considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence
bearing on guilt, including a defendant's motive for committing the offense.
While it is equally true that a sentencing judge may not take into
consideration a defendant's abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most
people, the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the admission of
evidence concerning one's beliefs and associations at sentencing simply
because they are protected by the First Amendment."
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/wisconsin.html
> Refer to common sense. But I'll concede that common sense is not a
> point of law.
>
> > > We might argue about how factual the FBI stats are. Or we might not.
> > > Considering the dearth of integrity in our President and her husband,
> > > I've become somewhat skeptical.
>
> > Be that as it may, do you have any other stats to offer??
>
> No, I don't. I stand by my skepticism and increasing distrust of the
> government and some of their stats... be that as it may.
If you distrust govt. stats, then I would be interested to know what you
base your argument. The press, maybe??
>>The white community screamed for the legislation in Wisc. v
> > Mitchell, yet in every argument against hate crime, opponents
continually
> > cite *special* treatment for minorities. They got what they wanted, and
it
> > is about time whites accepted responsibilty for their own demands
>
> Whites seem to be the only ethnicity willing (perhaps even obsessed
> with) taking responsibility for their own ethic group's negative
> actions. Maybe that's why I have such respect for people like Larry
> Elder, Sheby Steele, Walter Williams, et. al., and such disdain for
> Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Danny Bakewell, Rita Waters, Chip Murray,
> Louis Farrakhans, Kweisi Mfumis (sp), William Gray, Al Rangels, Earl
> Ofari-Hutchinson, Leo Turrell, ad infinitum.
>
> Until I see some measure of balance from other ethnic political
> advicates, I'll retain my skepticism.
In which case, you have nothing more than your scepticism to base your
argument, that the laws are unequally applied, on. After all, all crime
statistics are produced by government agencies.
>
infin...@my-deja.com
According to Department of Justice figures, in 1993
there were 1.4 million crimes involving interracial
violence nationwide. Eighty-five percent of them were
committed by blacks against whites. A white is 50
times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime
committed by a black person than the other way
around. Not surprisingly, the first hate-crime conviction
to be appealed to the Supreme Court involved a black
perpetrator and a white victim. The politically
righteous, who are pushing the current legislation, will
be in for some surprises should the law they are
proposing go into effect.
Full text:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
www.salon.com
Right On!
---------
BY DAVID HOROWITZ
Two weeks ago, Matthew Shepard was tortured and
left to die on the high plains of Wyoming simply
because he was gay. On June 7, a similar attack was
made against James Byrd Jr., a black man in Texas.
Both murders were followed by outpourings of grief
and public rage, expressed in editorial comments and
from political pulpits across the nation. These were
appropriate if extraordinary responses to crimes against
ordinary citizens, whose untimely deaths would
otherwise have been unremarkable because they are all
too common.
It was the fact that the perpetrators and victims were
set apart by communal bigotries, for which the crimes
served as particularly violent expressions, that made the
acts seem so important. The enhanced sense of human
depravity that colored the public reactions to these
incidents lies in our shared conviction that their nature
as hate crimes made them an outrage to the nation's
sense of self, as well as a threat to its communal future.
Well and good enough. These responses are signs of
health in the body politic, the presence of a will to
summon the better angels of our nature, and to keep
the savagery that lurks beneath the surface of any
civilized society firmly at bay.
But these expressions did not exhaust the public
response to the two crimes. While libertarians and
conservatives looked on in dismay, a coalition of
radical and liberal activists, led by Congressman
Barney Frank, D-Mass., and other gay spokesmen,
mounted the Capitol steps in Washington to pressure
Congress into passing a bill that would extend existing
federal hate crimes legislation to also cover the
categories of gender, sexual orientation and
handicapped status, and to make all such crimes easier
to prosecute. They were joined in the call by the
president himself.
Legal concerns were immediately voiced by
nonparticipants about the civil liberties implications of
the proposed legislation. Probing the intentions of any
perpetrator, and especially those involved in crimes
against victims who were already the targets of
community prejudice, posed troubling issues. For
example: the temptation offered to aggressive
prosecutors to postulate such intentions where none
might exist. In a sobering column, George Will recalled
a recent example of perverse legal reasoning when
applying the hate crime standard. In 1989, a white
female jogger was raped and beaten into a coma by a
gang of black and Hispanic youths on a "wilding"
rampage. The act was not deemed a "hate crime" by
prosecutors, and the perpetrators did not suffer
enhanced penalties under the law, "because they also
assaulted Hispanics that evening. They got more lenient
treatment because of the catholicity of their barbarism."
Of course, the act they committed -- rape -- could be
characterized as a hate crime in and of itself.
In the emotional melodrama unleashed by the murder
of Matthew Shepard, the left has once again found its
political oxygen. Temporarily thrown by feminist
hypocrisies around the Clinton scandal, the left has
recovered its balance with the prospect of once again
rallying behind society's victims and against their
victimizers. The absence of conservatives and
libertarians among the Capitol protesters only serves to
confirm the enduring sense of righteousness that fuels
the progressive agenda.
This politics of the left is what George Will calls "a
sentiment competition," which is "less about changing
society than striking poses." The proposed
multiplication of hate-crime categories, which stipulate
that some crime victims are more important than
others, would be what Will calls "an imprudent
extension of identity politics." It would work against,
not for, the principle of social tolerance.
A little more than a year before the attack on James
Byrd in Texas, three white Michigan youngsters
hitched a train ride as a teenage lark. When they got off
the train, they found themselves in the wrong urban
neighborhood, surrounded by a gang of armed black
youths. One of the white teenagers, Michael Carter,
14, was killed. Dustin Kaiser, 15, was brutally beaten
and shot in the head, but eventually survived. The
14-year-old girl (whose name has been withheld) was
pistol-whipped and shot in the face after being forced
to perform oral sex on her attackers.
Though the six African-Americans responsible for the
deed were arrested and convicted, their attack was not
prosecuted as a hate crime. Though they were all
legally adults, ranging in age from 18 to 23, none of
them received the death penalty. More to the point,
most of the nation never knew that the crime had taken
place. It was not reported on page one of the national
press, and there was no public outrage expressed in
national editorials or in the halls of Congress. Indeed,
the few papers that reported the incident nationally did
so on their inside pages.
Beyond the Michigan region, the stories often failed to
mention the races of the participants at all. The crime
took place on July 21, 1997, but among the readers of
this column, there will not be one in a hundred who has
even heard of it before. That is because as a hate crime
it was in a sense politically incorrect. To notice that
black people, as well as whites, can be responsible for
vicious crimes of hate, is simply improper. Hate crimes
can only be committed by an oppressor caste; therefore
what happened in Michigan was not a hate crime at all.
Two years ago, the most celebrated trial of the century
was about a black man accused of murdering two
whites in what was apparently an act of blind rage. The
idea that O.J. Simpson might have murdered his wife
and a stranger because they were white was never even
hinted at by the prosecution, although this was a case
that was turned into a circus of racial accusations
against whites by the defense.
The fact is that it is not OK in America to hate blacks,
but it is OK in our politically correct culture to hate
white people. Entire academic departments and college
curricula are based on this idea. White people are the
oppressors of minority communities and cultures. That
is America's true legacy. There is even an academic
field of "whiteness studies" to parallel black studies and
women's studies. But the parallel is an inverted one.
Blacks are celebrated in black studies and women are
championed in women's studies. But whiteness studies
(notice how the adjective has been modified) are
devoted to the subject of how whites construct the idea
of race to enable them to oppress others. Academics
working in whiteness studies have their own magazine
published out of Cambridge, Mass., home to Harvard
and MIT and one of the most liberal communities in
America. The name of the magazine is Race Traitor,
and its motto proclaims, "Treason to whiteness is
loyalty to humanity." Under the influence of the left,
our universities have become purveyors of racial
poisons, but the rest of the country cannot notice this,
because the targets of the hatred -- whites -- are not
politically correct victims.
Hollywood understands this rule of progressive
etiquette. A new film, "American History X," will for
the umpteenth time feature white neo-Nazis as the
villains of a homily about racial bigotry. The idea is that
race hatred is synonymous with "skinheads" who are
white. But a few years ago a sensational mass murder
trial in Miami spotlighted a black cult leader named
Yahweh Ben Yahweh, who required his cult members
to kill whites and bring back their ears as proof of the
deed. There was no Hollywood scramble for the rights
to the Yahweh cult story, and -- partly as a result --
few Americans are even aware that it ever took place.
Last week a German tourist was shot to death in Santa
Monica, Calif., in front of his wife and children. The
trigger for the killing seems to have been his failure to
understand the English commands of his attackers. The
crime was committed by three African-Americans,
though one would never know this from reading the
Los Angeles Times or AP accounts. (I had to verify
their racial identities by calling the Santa Monica police
department directly.) The word "hate crime" never
surfaced in connection with the deed, either in the
press accounts or in editorial commentaries that
followed. Now suppose that three whites had gone to a
Hispanic neighborhood to rob inhabitants and had
murdered a Hispanic immigrant because he could not
speak English. Does anyone imagine that the press
accounts would hide the identity of the attackers or fail
to question whether it might be a hate crime?
According to Department of Justice figures, in 1993
there were 1.4 million crimes involving interracial
violence nationwide. Eighty-five percent of them were
committed by blacks against whites. A white is 50
times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime
committed by a black person than the other way
around. Not surprisingly, the first hate-crime conviction
to be appealed to the Supreme Court involved a black
perpetrator and a white victim. The politically
righteous, who are pushing the current legislation, will
be in for some surprises should the law they are
proposing go into effect.
How many of the interracial violent crimes committed
by blacks and other minorities are actually hate crimes?
In fact, there is no real way to tell. Of course, the leftist
university, which gave us the concept of political
correctness, has a ready answer for the question: Only
whites can be racist. The alleged reasoning behind the
assertion is that in our society only whites have power.
This is an obvious absurdity that only an intellectual
could think up. Forget the thousands of public officials
great and small, police chiefs, judges, administrators
and members of Congress, petty bureaucrats, corporate
executives and military officers, who are now drawn
from the ranks of minorities. At the most elemental
level, a black outlaw with a gun -- and there are many
-- has the power of life and death over an unarmed,
law-abiding citizen of any race or color.
The doctrine that only whites can be racist is itself an
instigation to commit hate crimes. Moreover, it has
now apparently spread to the secondary school system.
Last week, a Seattle father called in to a national radio
talk show that I happened to be on, and told the
audience that his son's class in junior high school had
been discussing the hate crime concept because of the
Shepard killing. During the discussion, the teacher
informed the class that only heterosexual whites could
be racists. Responding to this idea, the caller's son
brought up the savage beating of Reginald Denny
during the Los Angeles riots by a group of black gang
members. Surely, he suggested, this was a hate crime.
But his teacher corrected him. Even though Denny was
pulled from his truck solely because he was white, and
then beaten within an inch of his life, he could not be
the victim of racial poisons. The attempted murder of
Reginald Denny was actually an act of rebellion by
people who were themselves the victims of a white
racist system, and therefore the act they committed
could not be considered a hate crime.
That is why I will not join Rep. Frank and the left in
promoting politically correct hate crime legislation,
creating a few more specially protected categories
among us as a kind of human "endangered species" act.
Sorting Americans into distinctive racial, ethnic and
gender groups, and designating whites and
heterosexuals to be "oppressors" -- and therefore
legitimate targets of hate themselves -- becomes a way
of exacerbating rather than curing the hate problem.
It is time to go back to the wisdom of the Founding
Fathers who wrote a Constitution without reference to
ethnic or gender groups. They did so in order to render
us equal before the nation's system of law. This was an
imperfectly realized ideal then, but that should be no
excuse for maintaining a system of racial preferences
now. We need to end the vicious libels of political
correctness that have percolated into our mainstream
culture from our benighted university campuses. The
vast majority of white people do not hate or oppress
black people, just as the vast majority of heterosexuals
do not hate or oppress gays. We need to single out the
individuals who do for condemnation and social
ostracism. And for the rest of us, it is time to go back
to treating all Americans as individuals first, and as
members of groups only secondarily, if at all.
SALON | Oct. 26, 1998
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
infin...@my-deja.com
Gov Stats: Blacks Attack Whites FIFTY Times More Often Than Vice-Versa
Excerpt from Salon e Magazine Article:
Yno
I THINK BLACK PEOPLE ARE REALLY COOL
AND I ALSO THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD OWN ONE
SIGNED,
LARGEBLACKCOCK