Talk:Hate crime/Archive 3

Don't Bother
The discussion of this topic is rigged in favor of the pro-hate crime law position. Since there are already hate crime laws on the books with their own official justifications, there is no evidence of equal weight on the other side of the issue - there are no laws that dismiss the idea of a hate crime. Since self-evident facts and logic are not allowed on Wikipedia, it's impossible to reference the points brought up by the many people that oppose hate crime law. Wikipedia bureaucrats will ALWAYS favor the inferior position of a larger or more well-established entity, and ALWAYS reject the superior position of a smaller one. Intellectual fascism reigns supreme here. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 04:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A law is required for relevence? Uh... wow.  That's a new one. Vordabois 04:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding Kathleen Parker's Hate Crimes and Special Victims: An Un-American Story. ("The fallacy of hate crime laws — the prosecution of which requires a degree of mind-reading not yet available to most Earthlings — has been cast into stark relief the past few weeks following an interracial rape-murder that has bestirred white supremacists and led to death threats against an African-American columnist. The spark that caused the firestorm was the brutal rape-murder of a young white couple, Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, who were carjacked last January in Knoxville, Tenn. Five blacks — four men and a woman — have been charged in connection with the slayings. Because the story didn't receive national media attention, some commentators and others have asserted that the media do not treat racial crimes equally. They point out that when a black stripper charged three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team with rape, the national media grabbed the story by the ankle and wouldn't let go. Not so Knoxville." Whose evidence of hate crime, precisely, is curtly dismissed in the (short) Wikipedia entry; few, if any, interventions by Wikipedia's usual rule-obeyers who fiddle around endlessly on this (Hate Crime) page, unless it is, in the Knoxville case, to remove (almost) all evidence of a hate crime (see Channon Christian discussion page).)

Further down the the Kathleen Parker discussion page, we are appraised by a reader that "I will never forget the way the press shyed away from the truth in the brutal murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising in Sept. 26, 1999. Jesse Dirkhising's brutal death was at the hands of two homosexual predators who later confessed to using the boy as a sex toy while torturing him to death. Talk about bias and lies. This horrid crime never got the press that the heterosexual murder of Matthew Shepherd received." Even if we may not agree with the rest of what Grobie says (even if some people may indeed be repelled about what that churchgoer goes on to say), what some of us are as concerned as him (or her) with is injustice and double standards.

But, frankly, if even George Will is going to get censored (sorry, banned) by people who obviously know better, and who know more, than that Newsweek columnist does — I added the Pulitzer Prize-winner because other references had been judged insufficient by people claiming only to be acting out of good faith (I guess you have to love the way that just about each and every one of the quoted people gets a "source's reliability may need verification" betrothed next to his or her name) — there is hardly much sense in even thinking of attempting to add a reference to Kathleen Parker (who — snort! — is nothing more that another member of the Washington Post Writers Group!), is there? (Which, some would say — I'm speaking of attempts to wear down the patience of anybody even attempting to provide an opinion (nay, a hyperlink) that does not adhere to the politically correct liberal grain — is exactly the purpose here, isn't it?) Asteriks 08:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reinforcing my points.


 * You wrote: "Further down the the Kathleen Parker discussion page, we are appraised by a reader that "I will never forget the way the press shyed away from the truth in the brutal murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising in Sept. 26, 1999. Jesse Dirkhising's brutal death was at the hands of two homosexual predators who later confessed to using the boy as a sex toy while torturing him to death. Talk about bias and lies. This horrid crime never got the press that the heterosexual murder of Matthew Shepherd received." Even if we may not agree with the rest of what Grobie says (even if some people may indeed be repelled about what that churchgoer goes on to say), what some of us are as concerned as him (or her) with is injustice and double standards."


 * As David Niewert wrote in "Death on the Fourth of July":


 * the killing of Jesse Dirkhising was not a hate crime.


 * The boy's parents were friends with one of the gay men, Davis Carpenter, who wound up killing him. The boy spent weekends with Carpenter and his partner, Joshua Brown, at their home with his parents' consent; they reportedly believed he was working for them at their hair salon. It was during one of those visits to his home that Brown -- who told police he and Jesse had frequently tied each other up, though not for sexual purposes -- decided to "play a game" by sneaking up on Dirkhising from behind, binding his hands, and shoving underwear in his mouth, then wrapping it all with duct tape and then placing a T-shirt over his head. (Carpenter was present and had apparently encouraged the acts.) Brown then proceeded to rape Dirkhising multiple times with various objects, and then left him lying on the bed while he went to eat lunch. When he returned, the boy had stopped breathing, and attempts to resuscitate him failed.


 * There was, however, no evidence anywhere that the two gay men had acted out of a bias motivation against straight children, nor that Dirkhising had been intentionally selected because of his sexual preference. Neither Brown nor Carpenter had ever evidenced any animus toward straight people, and there was no indication of any desire to terrorize the straight community or "put them in their place."


 * In reality, Dirkhising's death was a relatively simple (if appalling) case of child murder -- and indeed, Brown was eventually convicted of, and Carpenter pleaded guilty to murder charges, and both were sentenced to life in prison without parole. There were 1,449 such murders committed in 1999 -- and though the media report such cases locally, they rarely make national headlines, largely because even though every child murder is by nature horrifying, there is no national debate over the wrongness of pedophilia or assaults on children, nor the propriety of stiffer penalties for them. These murders in fact are perpetrated by all kinds of people, though predominantly by heterosexuals who attack young girls. And while some are horrendous enough to catch national attention, there are too many of them to all receive splash coverage. Indeed, in the same month following Dirkhising’s killing, there were noteworthy murder/rape stories in Kansas and Wisconsin involving young girls that received about the same amount of media coverage.


 * In other words, your mention of this case only solidifies anyone's belief that you do not even know what a hate crime is (at best) or (at worst) are willingly participating in a form of gay-bashing that goes beyond rationality and common sense in attempting to equate homosexuality with child murder and child rape.


 * Oh, and I WILL be editing that wikipedia entry on Dirkhising. Thank you for making me aware of it and its soon-to-be-resolved factual omissions.


 * As for the George Will stuff, I think the facts speak for themselves. A retort that consists merely of using Pulitzer Prizes as some kind of proof that he has never written manipulative and slanted tripe at any point in his life is quite... well, absurd.  Vordabois 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Who's more slanted than you are? Black-on-white violent crimes outnumber white-on-black violent crimes by a very large ratio, but the media tend not to focus on those crimes and they are far less likely to be classified as "hate crimes."  You seem to have an authoritarian mindset when it comes to controlling which opinions and facts are addressed at Wikipedia.  George Will is hardly a right-wing yahoo... would you be willing to explicitly state where he was factually incorrect in his commentary?


 * If you don't like arguments against hate crimes posted here then add more pro-hate crimes commentaries and statistics. Censoring information you dislike doesn't serve anybody's needs here. -- Gerkinstock 00:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please look at the history of the page before adding to the discussion. Make a note of who it was that deleted what.


 * Also note that I said nowhere that George Will is a "yahoo". I merely said that Pulitzer Prizes do not suddenly make a person's partisan bullshit into fact.  The statistics were quoted, my points were validated by them, and then someone deleted the whole thing.  I don't think it was fair, however, and that edit should be undone.


 * I will have time later tonight to properly respond to posts.Vordabois 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you were not responsible for gutting the anti-hate crimes section, then I apologize. The article is clearly biased in favor of hate crimes at this point, and should at least address the fact that whites who commit crimes against non-whites or perceived non-whites are vastly more likely to be charged with hate crimes, making hate crimes themselves highly suspicious of being racist.  Also, I put the term "minority" in quotes because it is a politically charged term; Mormons, for example, are a smaller minority in the U.S. than Hispanics are, yet are not considered "minorities," despite the fact that they have had a more unique history of discrimination in this country than Hispanics (48% of whom describe themselves as White/Caucasian, supposedly a "majority" group) and have never been given privileges comparable to affirmative action or bilingual education.  I state this not because you are responsible for the changes I mention, but because they are relevant to the overall discussion.


 * P.S. -- I did not state that you called George Will a "yahoo." I will state that his partisan "bullshit" is as worthy of mentioning as the partisan "bullshit" that comes from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, NOW, GLAAD, The NY Times, Human Rights Campaign or any other Leftist group. -- Gerkinstock 00:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to first paragraph: Cite it, and name the source!! There has GOT to be some sort of verifiable study out there that makes this distinction.  And for what it's worth, hell if I, personally, would ever delete it.  That's something that's been run around on that section but not mentioned.  It needs to be there.


 * Reply to second: No one is disputing this. At all.  The problem I think you're running into is that the philosophical reasoning behind hate crime legislation is fairly easily explained using verifiable sources.  On the other side, unfortuately, a lot of the anti hate-crime legislation crowd today has devolved into this faction that focuses on particulars, turning it into an attack by zeroing-in on the "immorality" or "authoritarianism" of the pro hate-crime legislation folks.  This may be because the new controversy involves sexuality, something social conservatives are passionate about.  Nonetheless, the real, rational arguments seem to be left in the dust by this fervor. Vordabois 06:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You "WILL be editing that wikipedia entry on Dirkhising." Yes, and someone HAS continued the editing on this page, as well, as the "Opposition to hate crime laws" has now been whittled down to four arguments (it was once a list of ten!) — again (and as usual) without the perpetrator even bothering to make a record of the elements he or she removed (not to use the word "censored"). Although the arguments can hardly be called that, as the relatively-well argued presentations, with quotes, facts, figures (controversial or otherwise), and relatively lengthy argumentation have been whittled down to unmemorable bland statements. Meanwhile, the "Justifications for hate crime laws" seems to keep growing and ballooning (if only because the other section gets smaller and smaller), with well-written sentences replete with examples forming interesting paragraphs (as contrasted with the "Opposition's" simplistic and bland one-line sentences with no quotes or "spice" in its content, reminiscent of everything Miss Wormwood told us to avoid in Junior High). Whittle away, seems to be the line of reasoning here, and wear down your (alleged) opponents over time.

As for thinking "the facts speak for themselves", yes, they do: anybody, famous or otherwise, who does not support the legislation keeps getting short-shifted. If people quoted aren't well-known enough for Wikipedia, they are too ignorant for Wikipedia. And of course, should anybody think otherwise (whether a nationally-syndicated columnist — famed or other — or a simple reader trying to add an external hyperlink to a Wikipedia entry), he or she needs to be ridiculed, demonized, or otherwise castigated and shot down ("you do not even know what a hate crime is (at best) or (at worst) are willingly participating in a form of gay-bashing that goes beyond rationality and common sense in attempting to equate homosexuality with child murder and child rape").

I notice that some people — consciously or otherwise, deliberately or otherwise — have not understood the main concern of those opposed to the law, which (in case anybody happens to be sincerely interested) Kathleen Parker states in her first sentence ("The fallacy of hate crime laws — the prosecution of which requires a degree of mind-reading not yet available to most Earthlings — has been cast into stark relief"). But then, of course, the mindset that supports hate crime legislation does allow for the reading other of people's minds (and of other people's characters, and other of people's morality, etc) being quite possible (and relatively easy), and thus allows naturally for the type of judgment that says gratuitously (and unequivocally and off the cuff) that certain classes of people are ignorant or rabid right-wingers or racist to the point of gay-bashing.

In any case: thank goodness we have the watchdogs here to prevent anything remotely resembling "unorthodox" thought to enter the debate (either on this page, on the Jesse Dirkhising page, or in any other Wikipedia entry) or even be available. God forbid that you should allow the reader to even have simple links to other opinions and that you should leave the reader to make up his own mind. The line of reasoning, again, on Wikipedia, does not always seem to be discussion, debate, and a true desire for all arguments to be presented (although it is often stated that arguments of a true nature will and would be acceptable; for some strange reason, however, the "objectivists" — the supposedly more-intelligent-than-thou and more-non-partisan -than-thou pure "objectivists" — rarely add these themselves, preferring leave the chore to others). Rather, the line of reasoning seems to be: Whittle away, and wear down your (alleged) opponents over time. Asteriks 18:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It never stops! It simply never stops!!! Remember the fact that what was 10 arguments opposing hate crimes legislation lost four of those arguments overnight? The arguments opposing hate crimes legislation have now been whittled down to three! And — as usual — with no explanation whatsoever, needless to say, with the culprits not even bothering to make a record of their changes on this discussion page… If you will forgive the hyperbole, I am starting to think that this is beginning to look like Animal Farm's Seven Commandments being dropped ever so slowly over time, one by one, without benefit of any declaration and few citizens noticing or deeming it important. I was considering adding Harry R Jackson's Freedom Held Hostage, but, really, what's the point?! (Which, of course, is exactly how the Wikipedia's usual suspects (I mean, usual censors) want us to feel, along with the accompanying sense of futility of adding something not to their liking…) Asteriks 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In Why "Islamophobia" Is a Brilliant Term, Dennis Prager gives more examples of how hate crimes are inherently unfair and lead to double standards; how the terms that their champions use (homophobia, Islamophobia, etc…) are misleading (intentionally or otherwise); and what the true purpose of those types of terms are ("to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of" the subject at hand).

"What do anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia have in common?" asks Dennis Prager. "In fact, nothing. … Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. … One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist. The equation of Islamophobia with racism is particularly dishonest. Muslims come in every racial group, and Islam has nothing to do with race. … Even granting that there are people who fear Islam, how does that in any way correlate with racism? If fear of an ideology rendered one racist, all those who fear conservatism or liberalism should be considered racist. … However, the only religion the West permits criticism of is Christianity. People write books, give lectures and conduct seminars on the falsity of Christian claims, or on the immoral record of Christianity, and no one attacks them for racism or bigotry, let alone attacks them physically. …

"The fact remains that the term 'Islamophobia' has one purpose — to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of Islam. And given the cowardice of the Western media, and the collusion of the left in banning any such criticism (while piling it on Christianity and Christians), it is working.

"Latest proof: This past week a man in New York was charged with two felonies for what is being labeled the hate crime of putting a Koran in a toilet at Pace College. Not misdemeanors, mind you, felonies. Meanwhile, the man who put a crucifix in a jar of urine continues to have his artwork — Piss Christ — displayed at galleries and museums. A Koran in a toilet is a hate crime; a crucifix in pee is a work of art. Thanks in part to that brilliant term, 'Islamophobia'." Asteriks 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring saddens me
Greetings. I know that many subjects can be heated and folks invest passion into articles they edit. Please consider the work we do here will have to stand the test of time and whatever article emerges from our collective work should be accurate and well-researched. As a suggestion consider the viewpoint of folks opinions who disagree with you - what would they write? Is there some truth there that actually should be allowed for? The words "always" and "never" quickly become "sometimes" or "often." No one wins when we fight and argue and the article rarely becomes better. Disagreements can be sorted out with thoughtful dialog that avoids personal attacks and heated language. Please consider that everything you type on WP is archived, seemingly forever, so consider what you want your comments to say about you several years from now. Benjiboi 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Netherlands should be included as a Eurasian country with no hate crime laws. I'm a bit surprised to see this article locked, btw. Bentivogli 08:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I think that's incorrect. There are several articles in the Netherlands' criminal code punishing incitement to racial violence, etc.  I'll add this shortly.  Fireplace 02:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And I am tired of seeing not only the "conservative" point of view of the main article getting regularly edited down, but even the discussion page getting — in effect as well as in deed — censored. (And that is far from being hyperbole or exaggeration.) I was going to add a link to an admittedly partial point of view (albeit a well-documented one) on what can happen in a country when a hate crimes law is adopted (i.e., threats from the police and public attacks on civil liberties necessitating, at the very least, expensive defense), but after viewing the Arguments against hate laws section again get smaller and smaller, I don't really know what the point is anymore. (And needless to say, that is exactly the point of certain people on Wikipedia: to wear conservatives down until they give up in exasperation.)

So, where are we supposed to recount the travails of the elderly couple living near Blackpool in Lancashire who were visited by police officers after they expressed the desire to put Christian leaflets in a town hall that would display gay literature on its premises? After reading a newspaper article, Helen and Joe Roberts got in touch with said council by nothing more than a phone call. A few days later, if the Christian Institute is to be believed, they were visited by two policemen who accused them of being homophobic and spent 80 minutes saying that they were walking on eggshells, warning them of being "very near a hate crime", and telling them that if so convicted, they risked seven years' imprisonment. "We haven't raised our voices, we haven't been abusive, we haven't been over-critical," say Helen and Joe Roberts. "We just said that we wanted to put a Christian point of view across when they were putting the homosexual literature" in the town hall. The Wyre Borough Council and police never asked the retired couple what type of Christian literature they wanted to put out, we are told, they never asked to see the leaflets, "it was just a flat no and that was it." As their lawyer, Tom Ellis, states it, the "principle in the case was the right of Christians to express their beliefs without fear of public interference."

Forget the fact, for a moment, that it concerns gays and Christians (or gays versus Christians or whatever). Does it not belong in the hate crimes article that the law concerned (a so-called just and necessary law) runs a very strong risk of preventing not just Christians but any type of citizen (including, naturally, gays) from expressing their beliefs (whether good, bad, ugly, or otherwise)? And is it biased, prejudiced, reactionary, "reich-wing", or even simply "conservative" or plain subjective to point this out (and to add arguments and links in the article pointing this out)?!

The top box on this page states that "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hate crime article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Well and fine. Agreed for once, a thousand times agreed. Except, if: you do not state — and if you do not demonstrate (!) — that your reasons for your views are not based on partisanship but on rational thinking, on sound judgment, and on the desire for free speech, you get dismissed as being a gay-basher and/or racist with the opposition feeling free to delete your "prejudiced" additions without a second thought and nary an explanation or a record of the deed. (Something they have done repeatedly and unceasingly, as you would be able to see if you knew how to find a trace of the [lengthy] parts of the hidden discussion page.) Asteriks 19:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In regards to the elderly couple... Would you or would you not agree that that is covered by this statement?...  "Over time, these provisions might be disregarded and hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point where speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion (among others)."  I think it's pretty well covered.


 * And also, who is getting dismissed as a gay-basher? Racist?  Are you actually attempting to argue that people who support hate crime legislation believe that disagreement with hate crime laws make you these things?  That's what it sounds like to me, and that's ridiculous.  (Can you say Straw man??))Vordabois 08:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If the censored parts of this discussion were readily available, I would quote from parts in which we kept getting treated to suggestions, including by you, Vordabois, that people not attuned to the hate crimes law are (or must be) gay-bashers, reactionaries, or maniacs (or… dishonest arguers setting up straw men). (In your case you often wondered about it in (rhetorical?) question form, which I admit gives you an escape hatch for dismissing such suggestions by those of us thus labeled as nothing else than "ridiculous".)

As for whether the travails of the elderly couple near Blackpool is covered by the statement you mention, is the statement "America's three branches are for everyone and are expected to endure endlessly" covered by Lincoln's government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth? Is "British leaders think its military must continue the war" covered by Churchill's we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender? Possibly. But the quotes (and/or specific examples) give meat to the statement and thus render it better and more edible.

More to the point is the lack in balance! The same people who have been continuously submitting the "conservative" part of this article to emasculation for the past months do not see fit to do the same to the main part of the article and the (far longer and much more richly-written) points in favor of the law, with far more colorful examples. As the pro-hate laws group clearly understands, as their part of the article keeps getting longer and longer and richer and richer! Which led me once to say that it is hardly an exaggeration to say that some articles are now 90-95% to the "left" and 5-10% to the "right". What has been happening on Wikipedia is the determination of a set number of people to make their case look good and and the opposition's case (of which the legal nightmare undergone by a retired couple in Lancashire is perhaps the most compelling example) look bland, uninteresting, and harmful. As somebody sometimes described as a conservative, all I ask, all I have been asking from the beginning, is: "give everybody, give all pov, equal space!" Asteriks 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you continue to dig yourself into your hole. I have NEVER stated that anyone who objects to hate crime laws is inherently racist or a gay-basher or anything of the sort, nor have I "wondered rhetorically" about it.  I invite you to validate your claims.  The only passage I can see that could even remotely be considered as such is one where I point out that you don't know what a hate crime even is after you somehow make some sort of allusion to a totally irrelevant case.  (The Dirkhising case could not be considered a hate crime under any definition.)


 * I have, however, singled out your straw men numerous times before. So have others.  You apparently don't realize that you depend on them heavily.  In fact, it seems to whittle down to be virtually the cornerstone of your argument.  You want to include rightist editorials, people challenge their neutrality due to mischaracterizations/half-truths, omitted facts, and purposely inflammatory statements, then you assume the actual underlying argument banned.


 * That is absurd. Witness the inclusion of the underlying arguments in the article.  Finally!  (Well done, btw, folks.  After all this edit crap, it's refreshing to see some attention by impartial editors.)  Sure, they could use a little beefing-up, but they're there.  (Also witness that none of the arguments supporting hate crime legislation are provided by partisan shills.  There's a statement sourced to a governmental agency, another sourced to a judge's ruling on a case, and another attributed to the general consensus of a legislative body.  Those are the sorts of sources necessary.)


 * What all of this boils down to is this: in an encyclopedia, there is no inference.  It is factual, and what needs said should be said outright.  If you feel as though others may have grounds to rationally object to a statement you'd like to include, you're probably right to not act on that urge.  It's that simple.


 * As an afterthought, have you ever considered digging up statements written by Supreme Court Justices regarding their opposition to certain aspects of hate crime laws? Every time the Supreme Court makes a decision, they write reports explaining why they either concur or disagree with the outcome.  Seriously, that's your ticket.  No one can refute the fact that those arguments are the ones that matter.


 * Don't take this the wrong way, because I'm not trying to rile you up, here... But try not to use editorials from outlets that are blatantly right-wing.  You're just asking for deletion and doing a disservice to the arguments of people who oppose the laws.  Especially when the real, sound arguments are so readily available on the net.Vordabois 05:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You speak of "mischaracterizations/half-truths, omitted facts, and purposely inflammatory statements". Unless I am gravely mistaken, most of the authors' concern (whether sympathetic to the gay movement or otherwise) has been with the First Amendment and with free speech, along with concern that a number of examples of hate crimes provided by members in the the gay movement have been bogus, deliberately or otherwise, or at least exaggerated. (Which is hardly a sin in and of itself; any group will lionize its achievements, its goals, and the needs it claims society. But: this is something (when it occurs, or when somebody believes it is occurring) that also needs to be pointed out — unless you want all entries in Wikipedia written by the partisan groups concerned.)

In April 2007, you put matters succinctly: "If a white guy hits a black guy because he's black, it's a hate crime. As is a black guy who hits a white guy because he's white. Vordabois 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC) … just stick with switching from white to black... the equation stays the same. Is the motivation based at least in part on the color of the person's skin? If the answer is "Yes," = Hate crime. It's really quite simple. Vordabois 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)" MY point of view, and the — primary (as far as I know) — point of view of most of the writers I have quoted and/or linked (and all the writers that have been banned!) has been: NO, it is NOT that simple. There have been false examples given in the past, and the history of hate crime laws has led to of a lessening of free speech (with seemingly straightforward examples of citizens getting hounded by the government). All good and well, but his needs to be included. This is the basis of the argument.

Unless I am mistaken, the attitude of some in this debate has been, from the very first: The right is utterly despicable (or close thereto) for putting up the slightest objection to the hate crimes law, its writers (the ones I linked to or myself) are obviously morons and/or treacherous reactionaries, and all demonization of the right is not demonization, because it is (highly) warranted. In contrast (!), any charges of leftist bias are, in the final analysis, patently "absurd".

I only need to go to your very first response to one of my comments (6 April 2007): "If you want to add something in the criticism section about that ridiculously partisan BS and then source it, be my guest. Of course, you'd hafta frame it something like "Hate crime legislation is being used by the homosexuals to force society to accept their abominable, deviant behavior," but then, that wouldn't sound palatable or even rational, now would it? (Funny how so much of the right wing crapola never comes out and says what it really means.)"

Contrast that [I have no idea why the previous paragraph came out looking so weird] with your comment a few days later: "You are attempting to slant an article to the right, and that is unacceptable. … ABC news admitted what? That they were part of some leftist bias machine that got stumbled up by "the facts" and that they purposely decieved everyone? That's absurd." Apparently, there is not the slightest amount of "mischaracterizations/half-truths, omitted facts, and purposely inflammatory statements" in those sentences or from any writer (linked or otherwise) agreeing with those views.

In case you think the same (or rather the reverse) is true of me, I repeat that I have not tried to remove any text. I have only tried to add some comments that give a different perception, thereby balancing the article. (And thereby earning myself — as well as those authors — charges, direct or indirect, of idiocy, partisanship, hatred, homophobia, and what-have-you-not. And again, most of those authors' concerns have been with the First Amendment and with free speech and with the lessening of the civil right to engage therein, along with concern that the examples of hate crimes provided by members in the the gay movement have been bogus or at least exaggerated.)

Here is an article I am trying to give some balance. What do I get in return? None of my examples are good enough. The authors are not good enough. Matt Barber is not good enough. Harry R Jackson is not good enough. Even George Will is not good enough! And a straightforward example of a hate crime law turning the lives of an innocent couple (a relatively innocent couple, if you prefer) into a legalistic nightmare is not good enough either!

Now, you are suggesting that the only valid additions are texts by justices by the Supreme Court. Oh, it does not suffice that citizens wanting another viewpoint, conservative or other (most of whom are not in the law), read a short New York Times editorial (many of which are — rightly — quoted and linked all over Wikipedia). They have to search for a law case (something they are hardly used to doing on a daily basis) and then search through dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of complicated legalese to provide something worthwhile to add on this site. Suppose we do that. And then what? There is no risk that someone say that this is too legalese and that such language should be avoided on Wikipedia!? And what if we quote a majority decision or a minority decision? Won't you delete that, saying it is not good enough until we quote the dissenting opinions in order to provide balance (something that sounds reasonable until one realizes the same standards are not put on articles slanted to the left)? What happens if we quote Clarence Thomas?! Isn't he also a far-right bigot? And aren't the justices chosen by George W Bush obviously morons? You can keep up with this until the article remains the way it is now (the way it has been whittled down until now) — absolutely bland — or until conservatives get tired of this, and throw in the towel. (Which, I strongly suspect, is some people's goal — conscious or otherwise — on Wikipedia.)

The main subject here is balance (or the lack thereof). Conservatives keep getting told that we have to look for — that we have to spend inordinate amounts of time looking for — better examples, that we need to file through — that we need to spend inordinate amounts of time filing through — the stacks of the Supreme Court, or that we have to comb through — that we need to spend inordinate amounts of time combing through — liberals' previous comments to find an exact quote. (Yeah, you're right; a Google search could probably do so "easily"; if you think it is so easy, and if you are really so concerned with nothing but the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, some might be wont to ask: why don't you do it yourself?! (Surely you would have saved dozens of hours (or minutes) writing up the free-speech viewpoint yourself — with the examples — rather than inviting others to find the necessary resources.))

What in fact is occurring here is this: You keep getting to set the standards. Standards that (for some strange reason) enhance the viewpoint that you adhere to. When we happen to meet those standards, they get upped. (When we found a straightforward example of a hate crime law going kafkaesque, this is not good either, because it is covered by a — bland — statement [the sentence, "Over time, these provisions might be disregarded and hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point where speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion" (emphasis mine), as it has been made blander and blander from month to month, sounds entirely hypothetical and nonthreatening, when in the opinions of many — including mine and the authors of linked — there are numerous examples of it already happening and has already happened, notably in the EU]; in contrast to the absence of examples proving a bogus report of a hate crime or a hate crime's erosion of free speech, the article contains numerous examples of what does — apparently — constitute a straightforward hate crime.) The standards keep getting upped. Speaking of the law, you are defense attorney, the main witness, and the judge all at the same time. No judge's retraction for you, for being slanted towards one of the opponents in the courtroom.

You have constantly torn down any "conservative" additions to the article (for some strange reason, nothing anybody adds to the "liberal" view ever got removed). You have constantly said "Oh, we are willing to accept any conservative addition to this article — provided it is up to my standards." But for some strange reason, it's never good enough. At the same time, you have constantly denied that you are partisan. At the same time, you have constantly claimed that your only desire is a well-written article worthy of an encyclopedia. In that case, you should not be inviting us to find better examples; you should be the one seeking out compelling examples (conservative or otherwise) showing the law poses a threat to civil liberties and free speech. Asteriks 11:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be riddled with non-UTF characters (e.g. quotes) which need to be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.132.136 (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Arguments Against
I added the following text in the section for arguments against:


 * If it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution.

Twice this text has been removed as "unsourced soapboxing." But I'm not on a soapbox; I'm not arguing a position. I'm merely recounting a popular argument against. I'm sorry I don't have a ready source, but is it right to exclude one of the primary arguments against, for lack of a proper source? Brain Rodeo 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added sources. I think the original point could be stated more concisely. The second source doesn't look very reliable however it is written by a an Associate Professor at California State University.--J2000ca (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The logic presented in this bullet point is entirely dubious. Sure it may be sourced, but it's still extremely dubious, and in fact leads to a skewed perception of those people who oppose hate crime laws, as this would present them as naive weasely people.


 * 1) It is known that not all crimes are committed based on a motive of hate.  You just need one murder inspired by money, or protection in order to provide a counter-example for that point.
 * 2) Even why committed based on a motive of hate there is no reason to imply that they are equal to hate crime laws.  A person who kills a woman is obviously less culpable for hate crimes when he killed her for motives other than "she's just a woman."  However, in a hate-crime situation the evidence must show that any arbitrary person of that protected class would have met the same events.  Namely, if someone killed a black man because he saw the person withdraw money from an ATM, then this burden fails.  Any person not just black males could have been the target.  However, a group of three men who beat a black man to death seemingly out of random shouting obscenities such as "fucking nigger! go back to nigger land!" (excuse me for the graphic language) then that would indicate that any black man could have been the victim, not just this particular one.  Thus, the crime was committed not just on that one individual for reasons specific to that individual, but rather committed in whole against all members of that protected class as the victim was simply an arbitrary member of that class.

So, seriously, attempting to argue that all crimes are hate crimes can be disproved by patent logic. While situations in the real world typically do not lead themselves to as cut and dry situations as above, is a nature of reality from theory, not anything that could be used to attack the sound theory of hate crime legislation. --Puellanivis (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are in fact an infinite number of arguments against Hate Crimes, but pure patent nonsense is not worth the bits it requires to store it. This statement that "all crimes are hate crimes" is a similar statement to "the Medieval people thought that the world is flat."  Both are entirely wrong, unjustified, unsound, invalid, etc.  Such ideas should be given as a proper representation that the idea is not held among "learned" people, but rather is a weaselly defense against an unjustified (personal opinion) opposition to Hate Crimes.  Namely, it's a cart before the horse.  It starts with "Hate Crimes are bad" and then proceeds to contrive, alter, select, or otherwise provide support for that idea.  At that point, such an idea is a worthwhile as the idea that "I am the Christian God reborn as a second Jesus."  I can produce evidence to support that statement, but I've selectively chosen only what supports, and what does not support such an assertion, because inclusion of the opposing information would overwhelm the evidence that I am, and we'd know that it's wrong.  Such a contrived idea can be true, however much more unlikely.  This however, it patently invalid as any part of a logical argument, unless it ends with "the statement is false." --Puellanivis (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the whole point of that argument which is even a murder committed purely for money puts the criminal's personal financial gain ahead of the victim's life, which is therefore called "hateful" as it's so contemptuous for the value of the victim. It is the "coldness" of the calculated act that the argument refers to, not the thoughts of the criminal. Beyond that, it just becomes an argument over semantics. 75.16.136.29 (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds like an equivocation on "hate." Hate for the group someone belongs to is different than hate as a lack of regard for another.  Secondly, your argument is semantic, which is typical for arguments about law and punishment.  Saying that we're arguing over semantics should not be pejorative.
 * That said, this section is very weak, which leaves the whole article in question as one big straw-man.Lennythesturgeon (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This just in...
Ok, so going off the edits that were reverted, showing that the world is flat, by say... observing it from space, and that a ship going out would come back as evidence of a flat earth. Seriously, those "supports" are patently contrary to fact. It's not POV, it's not editorializing, it's "these things violate actual physical reality", let me know when it's not OK to point out that things are contrary to fundamental reality, and can be torn down quickly by even first-grader logic. Yes, Wikipedia recommends following NPOV at all times, but it's also recommended in Wikipedia to point out beliefs that are just totally against reality. Seriously, "if all crimes are motivated by contempt for the victim"... seriously... SERIOUSLY think about this. That is saying that ALL crime is committed with a motive of hate. Which entirely ignores the two other fundamental motives for murder: money, and sex. Seriously, the argument made is an inductive argument who's premise is false. Sure it's always true, because it has invented a reality within which we are made to beg the question. All crimes in such a condition would be motivated by hate, because that was a necessary factor in the setup for the argument.

Wikipedia has no compelling force to represent opinions that are contrary to fact, without noting their impossibility. --Puellanivis (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Italian-Americans
You write: "In the United States, anti-Black bias was the most frequently reported hate crime motivation. (African-Americans constitute the second-largest minority group; Hispanics are the largest).[4] Of the nearly 8,000 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 1995, almost 3,000 of them were motivated by bias against African Americans.[5] Other frequently reported bias motivations were anti-white, anti-Jewish, anti-gay, and anti-Hispanic.[5]" You forgot something. Please, can you add "Italian-Americans"? During the 1800s and early 20th Century, Italian Americans, being seen as non-Anglo and non-white, were the second most likely ethnic group to be lynched (from: Mangione, Jerre. Five Centuries of the Italian-American Experience). The largest mass lynching in American history involved the lynching of eleven Italians in the city of New Orleans.(From: Moses, Norton H. Lynching and Vigilantism in the United States: An Annotated Bibliography) Thanks... --Jackblues 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Eurasia???
Split it: It's Europe and Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.204.21 (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

kkk guys yes hate crimes bad its meant to be your going to get hurt one day get over your your self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.76.137 (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "hate crime" has no legal status in England and Wales, despite the reference in the article. Manormadman (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, it's perfectly possible to commit a crime because of hate without the hate deriving from the victim's membership of a different group. You might hate your neighbour because he plays loud music all the time and so kill him, even if you're both white heterosexual men.Manormadman (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Russia
Hate crime is rapidly growing in Russia. It is reported that there are now about 70,000 members of ultra violent Neo-Nazi skinheads, who call themselves "Nationalists." About 300 murders by this group were reported this year alone. I am surprised it is not mentioned here. Here is more info on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Russia_during_the_2000s#Rise_in_reported_hate_crimes

Australia
Is there any 'Hate Crime' type of legislation in Australia? Has the issue been discussed in parliament? Has anyone been sentenced more harshly in the courts due to their attitudes and beliefs towards certain minorties? Has their sentence been enhanced because of negative discrimination against certain races, sexual orientations, cultures etc. all motiviating them to commit a crime? Are there any added/different penalties whatsoever? (Personally i don't think there should be. Racist/... attitudes should be factored into the degree of maliciousness one has in committing a crime and the remorse one has after the crime rather than treating the 'hate' as a separate issue with separate penalties and sentences.) 203.164.52.94 (talk)

Thoughtcrime
I removed Thoughtcrime from the see-also section. Personally, I think it is a very pertinent link. But any Orwell reference is inherently a weasel word, and its inclusion here seems to be a subtle soapboxing in opposition to hate crime statutes. Maybe it's worth mentioning in the "arguments against" section, if properly referenced. ~ Booya Bazooka 17:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

political affiliation
As I noted at Talk:Ashley_Todd%27s_mugging_hoax, the given source does not support our claim in the intro that hate crime definitions are sometimes based on political affiliation. But it looks like some countries do define them that way. Since the source is a primary source, not the best kind anyway, I suggest we keep the sentence, remove the source, and keep our eyes out for a better source. --Allen (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)