It’s Not About Tolerance: Prop 8 Death Threats

This certainly shows the vitriolic “tolerance” of the anti-Prop 8 crowd.  Yesterday, I parked next to a car with an old anti-Prop 8 bumper sticker on it. Even after a year, it was untouched.  I wondered how long a pro-Prop 8 sticker (or my car’s finish) would have lasted. Since I had to take my lawn signs in every night to keep them from being vandalized, I didn’t even try to display a bumper sticker.

But don’t you understand, Sue—that’s because these people have been so persecuted by bigots like us that they just *have* to issue death threats and vandalize.

They’re forced to be an intolerant society that won’t pretend to approve of their relationships.

It’s all your fault, Sue.

It seems more than passing strange that it is a hate crime when a heterosexual person commits a crime against a homosexual person but it is a lesser crime when a homosexual person commits the same crime, with identical motivation, against a heterosexual person.

If we must have hate crime laws - and I don’t think we should - shouldn’t those laws cover all crimes motivated by hate without regard to gender, race, color of skin, national origin, physical or mental handicap, or whatever other human condition or behavior the hatred is based upon.  Would it not be more logical to make certain behaviors criminal and when motivated by hatred, consider that an aggravating factor?  Stealing, motivated by hatred, would be elevated to aggravated theft.  Killing, motivated by hatred, would be elevated to aggravated murder.

Now that would be inclusive and neutral with respect to all the human conditions and behaviors.

But neutrality is not what the minority groups who have sought in the past and are now seeking such laws are looking for, is it?

Perhaps Gene can lend the Mayor his flak jacket.

It seems more than passing strange that it is a hate crime when a heterosexual person commits a crime against a homosexual person but it is a lesser crime when a homosexual person commits the same crime, with identical motivation, against a heterosexual person.

The hate crime laws are designed to deter crimes committed against someone because they are perceived to be in one of the suspect minority classes covered in the law by increasing the penalty. So if there is evidence that a crime was committed against someone because they were perceived to be heterosexual, if the crime specifically targeted them because they were perceived to be heterosexual, then it is a hate crime.

Unfortunately to be treated as a hate crime the person’s perceived minority status, the reason for which they were attacked, must be spelled out explicitly in the law. I am not aware of any hate crimes legislation that includes the suspect minority class; heterosexual.

This is my former Mayor and my Chief of Police and I will tell you right now that Pastor Franklin who is AWESOME!!! still gets threats to this day….but it does not deter him nor will you ever hear him going on media interviews and TV Shows to complain about them as another person in TEc does. And Pastor Franklin doesn’t wear bullet proof vests either and neither does former Mayor Alan Autry. Amazing the difference in godly persons who profess the Truth than those professing their truth.

Of course, in this case, David, by adding a behavior to the list, it seems more likely the intent is to begin to lay a legal framework to persecute Christians and others that subscribe to Christian morality.

Should these not be investigated as “hate crimes” under the new federal statute (or was that just the House)?  Shouldn’t the FBI and DoJ/Civil Rights Division be in the middle of this?  Or is “justice” just for one side of the issue.

Phil, I realize that you cannot be expected to read my every post, but even here I answered a query recently by Matt himself regarding Christian organizations. I believe in the right of religious groups to discriminate in their membership and employment practices, as well as in their delivery of social services as long as their social service organizations are self funded, meaning not using ratepayer (government) funding.

I am not seeing a hidden agenda of adding GLBT folks to your country’s hate crimes law(s) as an end means to persecute Christians. I see the folks wanting to add this minority class specifically because they have been in the past, and are still being, targeted by violent crimes against them for no other reason than that they are perceived to be gay.

And, David, some kids are targeted because they’re perceived to be nerds.  And, some people are targeted because they cut people off in traffic.  And, some people are even targeted because they exercise their right, in this country, to contribute to certain political campaigns and vote - which brings us back to the point of this post.  And, strangely, there isn’t any move to include any people behaving in these ways in “hate crimes” legislation.  Maybe they should be.  What do you think?

David, check out how the hate crimes equivalents have been used in Canada.  You are either naive or dissimulating to suggest all goodness and light on behalf of those you purport to support in the advancement of unnecessary laws.
Actual history in not on your side, I fear.

#8 I am not sure why this was posted, unless it was to shore up another post regarding more recent news about a recently released study, because this is a news item of a little over a year ago, OCT 2008, not recent events. So in most jurisdictions, a new law on the books would not be retroactive for enforcement.

Sorry Phil, too overly broad for me to really respond. I abhor any and all persecution. I abhor any action that causes someone to fear for their safety. Hate crimes, has a strict definition in your country, which is tied directly to the legislation. The legislation is intended to be a deterrent, not as a new source of amo to attack and offend other groups. Occasionally you have barristers who try to stretch your law in new and creative directions. Sometimes that is good, other times not so much.

But as you lot are want to do, you have steered the conversation away from its narrow focus in the original post, and are aiming shotguns loaded with scatter shot. I am addressing the finely honed focus of the post and one person’s response , #3, to that topic, nothing more.

Dr. Stroud, like you, I am often perplexed by some of the interpretations of law in Canada and even Britain. They are much broader than my limited experience in the little protection provided in my own nation’s current laws, and your country’s more broad coverage.

David (#9),

I see the folks wanting to add this minority class specifically because they have been in the past, and are still being, targeted by violent crimes against them for no other reason than that they are perceived to be gay.

Last week a Muslim killed 13 and injured dozens simply because they were perceived as either being members of the United States Army or supporting its mission.  13 killed and dozens injured!

How many police officers were murdered in the United States in 2008 and/or 2009 because they were perceived as law enforcement officers?  How many, David?

How many homosexuals have been murdered in the United States in 2008 and/or 2009 because they were perceived as homosexual (I refuse to call them gay; that word has been expropriated by them).  How many, David?

Get the numbers and then tell me what the problem is, David.  Not a technical legal answer; the law is what it is.  Give me a straight-forward, balanced answer dealing with the moral and societal issues involved.

This certainly would fit your definition of a hate crime by your own David.  Not only should those leveling the threat be charged with hate speech they should also be charged with conspiracy to commit a hate crime.  Those threatened have been marked for death by those hating their viewpoint and the viewpoint of the Divine.  But unfortunately in our benighted post-modern world, wisdom, common sense and historic western jurisprudence have been replaced by amoral touchy-feeliness.

I apologize Ol’ Bob, I am not sure where one would begin seeking that information in your country. I was speaking in general terms regarding what I believe are the efforts to add the protected class of sexual minorities to the hate crimes legislation in the USA.

One reason that statistics are not often readily available I believe is because your FBI-type agencies did not keep statistics on GLBT folks specifically because they were not covered by the federal legislation. Now they are, so now these agencies are mandated to collect the data. Perhaps a chicken & egg circular argument, folks who said do not add these minorities to the law because there are no data to back their claims of persecution & violence vs the folks who claimed that the was no data specifically because the data is not being collected because the minorities were not included as a protected class under the law.

Also, forgive me because I am perhaps out of my element for finding info in English for the USA when I am not familiar with the NGOs that may actually have this data. My posts take a little longer to make because I wish to get the English right. My assistance with the legal aspect comes from across my office. I am the psychologist. My older sister is the lawyer. We are Mexican with higher degrees from the US, but our expertise is in human resources. That has advantages some times, but avails nothing most of the time.

The mayor should have “engaged in a loving diologue through the listening process,”  just like TEC did, which solved all our problems.

Criminal code hate speech cases in Canada are not common and there are several available defenses including truth and religious beliefs.

A report from June 2009 states, “The 319(2)[Criminal Code hate speech provision for promotion of hatred] conviction rate remains low, at 11 convictions out of 44 prosecutions since 1994, despite a reluctance by attorneys-general to approve anything but the most extreme cases.” Approximately 3 cases per year with a 25% conviction rate. The attorney-general in the relevant jurisdiction must personally approve all prosecutions under 319; it is not delegated to the Crown Attorney’s offices. (State A-G vs DA in US model)

The usual tactic, though, is to go before the quasi-judicial human rights commissions where the bar is much lower and the decisions much more in favour of censorship. There is hope that the hate speech provisions in the various human rights acts will be withdrawn in the near future. Some recent judgements have been overturned because the commissions forgot about Charter of Rights guarantees of free speech until reminded by defense counsel.

“Some recent judgements have been overturned because the commissions forgot about Charter of Rights guarantees of free speech until reminded by defense counsel. “

WHAT?!  Loving practitioners of “justice” would forget that all others have the same right as they in Canada?  They must have learned “listening” and “dialogue” and “justice” from the Anglican Church of Canada, eh?  I mean, in the way the ACCanada practices it towards the Anglican Communion, of course.

Bob in Ottawa, the comment was not even in regard to hate speech, but hate crimes, which are more broad. Most speech in the USA is protected speech, no matter how hateful/filled. Hate crimes are forms of physical assault or violence against person or property based on the perception that the person(s) are members of a protected class.

The reason I have emphasized perception is provided in one example. Earlier this year two latino men were walking home in NYC. They were brothers. They were drunk. Because they had their arms around one another to try to hold one another up, passersby in a car assumed they were doing so because they were gay. They attacked the men. One was able to run away. His brother did not escape and was badly beaten and later died in hospital from his injuries. Witnesses testified to police that the persons attacking the brothers yelled antigay epitaphs as they beat them. Based on this witness testimony it is being pursued by NYC PD as a hate crime. I am unfamiliar with whether anyone has been arrested and charged with this murder.

Sorry, the item I left out in the above incident is that the brothers are not gay.

#20, we already have laws that deal with that kind of assault.

“Hate” crimes seek to penalize thought rather than actions.  Motivation can already be used in sentencing a convicted criminal, so what is the intent of the hate crime?  The shouting of epithets at people is not evidence of “class” hate, but of anger at the moment.  When a person is angry and already has such low impulse control that they are committing a violent crime, they are likely to lash out at their victim using whatever means are at their disposal - including verbal epithets.

I do not approve of “hate crimes” but I do approve if significant penalties for those who do commit crimes based on class hatred - all classes, not just “protected” ones.  So, an assult by a black person against a white person committed because that person is white should be prosecuted like any assult, but, during the sentencing phase, evidence should be included to extend the sentence towards the maximum because of the racial animus in the attack.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Sue’s note brings up an interesting experiment. One could put a pro-Prop 8 sticker on a car and then videotape it from afar.

Phil S, I am not a lawyer, so no expert in the hate crimes legislation in your country, but I am a little familiar with it and my lawyer sister more so. But I believe that you hit upon the crux of the legislation in your final comment.

during the sentencing phase, evidence should be included to extend the sentence towards the maximum because of the racial animus in the attack

If the law does not provide provision for such examination of the evidence of a reason for the crime, it cannot be pursued, it is disallowed. The original hate crime laws dealt with race, gender and religion. When someone was the victim of a crime based on hatred directed towards them that was a persecuted class not specifically mentioned in the law, the evidence could not be pursued. And there are court rulings on the books where that is what the judge said. It is not in the law, so it is inadmissible. For this reason other minority classes sought to be specifically added to the language of the law, why GLBT rights organizations began campaigning for including GLBT folks specifically in the language of the law.

Yeah, Sarah #2, that’s also like saying Jihad-motivated terrorists are just “misunderstood” or “American prosperity has driven them to lash out”. 

DUH

Four generations ago, my ancestors arrived on these shores without a dime in their pockets.  Today our family is not rich but it’s comfortable enough, and with good jobs and graduate degrees.  How did we get those?  We WORKED…anyone who can navigate the immigration procedures of this country is also welcome to find their way here, set up shop and try their hand, too, at the American dream. 

There’s not much point in getting ticked off that no one is handing it to you on a platter; thus terrorism is not an appropriate response and should be duly punished to the fullest extent of the law. 

AND, this is a FREE country, so if people want to support PROP 8, they’re entitled to. 

Anybody who doesn’t like that, well, permission granted.  You can have cheese to go with that whine…

AND, this is a FREE country, so if people want to support PROP 8, they’re entitled to.

Social Justice requires of us that we loosen our outdated love affair with “freedom.”  A free country is one that has oppressed and marginalized racial and ethnic minorities, wymen and gayz. It hasn’t been free “for the least of these.”

Through the Inclusive Church, we See the Face of God in Each Other, and what you think of as a loss of freedom and liberty is really Christ Centered Social Justice, into which we live out our Baptismal Covenant. 

UBUNTU! Ya’ll!

This has become a huge issue among socially conservative Christians that are in upper management of large businesses.  In the post Prop 8 world, they are being targeted, both financially and socially, and the effort is spreading to other parts of the nation.

Privately held businesses are being blacklisted, and senior officers in Fortune 500 companies are being investigated for signs of financial or public support of Prop 8 type initiatives. We are moving toward a time where it will be difficult for an openly evangelical or faithful Roman Catholic to serve as a CEO of a publicly traded company.  Already, executives are having to adjust their “public” positions to avoid being targeted. Being associated with forces opposing gay marriage is also being perceived as an instant disqualifier for the federal judiciary.

David, I doubt that “hate crime” laws are intended to be deterrents. Does it really make sense that someone motivated to paint swastikas on synagogues, or set a homosexual on fire, tie a black man to their pickup and drag him to his death is going to stop and say, “Oh, no! I mustn’t do that because it’s a HATE crime”?

Vandalism, assault and murder are crimes, regardless of whether the victim is a “protected” minority. The fact that these crimes are subject to fines, imprisonment and even possible execution does not deter those who commit them. Most of these are “crimes of passion” (and hate, after all is a passion) which law and criminal sanctions do not serve to deter.

In discussing the recent hate crime law with a gay man, he admitted that the law would not deter, but rather he advanced the curious argument that by “enhancing” crimes against certain protected minority, society was expressing is extreme condemnation of such crimes.

It should also be noted that prosecutors aren’t particularly inclined to prosecute a crime as a hate crime. It generally makes their case harder to prosecute. Whereas if they can prove vandalism, assault or murder, they can get a conviction without having to prove “hate”.

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…

 
I keep hearing the termprotected class bandied about.  This term is a stench in the nostrils of our founding documents as it infers a new contraconstitutional idea that some are beyond simply being equal, or should be considered supraequal based on their choices of sexual behavior.  Sorry, it doesn’t wash.

Would a hate crime law have helped Louis Pepe?

Louis Pepe was a guard in the MCC federal maximum security federal prison in New York where 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several of his colleagues are expected to be sent from Guantanamo to await trial. 

On Nov. 1, 2000, Pepe was ambushed in the cell of Mamdouh Mahmud Salim — an alleged top aide to Usama bin Laden. Salim’s cellmate, another Al Qaeda suspect, joined in the attack, which prosecutors say was an attempt to steal Pepe’s keys to the cell block to free other prisoners and take hostages.
The two had been granted permission by a federal judge to purchase hot sauce, says Pepe’s sister, which they then stored in a honey jar and used to create a blinding mace. Teaming up against Pepe, they beat and blinded him, covering the floor in his spattered blood. They then tried to rape him as he waited an entire hour for fellow guards to come to his aid, his sister said.

Read the entire article at:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575133,00.html

Crimes driven by hatred, avarice and a multiplicity of other irrational and immoral motives occur every day.  Would a hate crime law have helped Pepe?  I think not.

The blanket term hate crime laws or bias-crime laws actually covers four different types of laws on the books world-wide; (1) laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes; (2) criminal penalty-enhancement laws; (3) laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and (4) laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics. I will refer you to the Wikipedia entry for more information.

Bob, would not the crime committed against Sr. Pepe be classified as continued terrorist violence against you and your countrymen? Surely motivated by hatred, it is more an attack on your entire culture as it interfaces with the world and not so much individuals acting out their personal prejudices against specific groups within their own society.