Not signed in (Sign In)
-
Options
Categories
- Main Junction
- London Zoo
- Warren's Pub Table
- FREAKANGELS
- Music
- Printheads
- Art And Moving Pictures
- Internet
- Mad Science
- Fantastika!: SF & The Weird
- Blogs
Welcome, Guest
Vanilla is a product of Lussumo:
Documentation and Support.
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
London Zoo: Politics - When does the talk stop, and violence begin?
Bottom of Page-
-
CommentAuthormister hex
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
@brianwood - Let's say I rob you, take your wallet. And I call you a nasty name while I do it. Does that count as a hate-crime?
I'd prefer racists and bigots to be able to speak their odious minds and not become false martyrs to "political correctness."
On the gun issue, I'd love to have one but like I said, I'm Canadian. We're (by and large) not allowed to have them. Although the super in my building found a sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun hidden in the rafters last week. -
-
-
CommentAuthorVal A Lindsay II
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
@ Mister Hex
I'm only making supposition, but I believe the true nature for the hate laws is more revealing at sentencing of a crime. If you can show a defendant killed someone simply because he was black, gay, etc. it shows a lack of compassion that would justify a first degree homicide over a lesser charge. You don't have to worry about bigots and racists holding back their opinion, least ways not around here... -
-
(Kosmopolit is my personal Whitechapel hero...)
-
@master hex - if you targeted me in advance because of my race or sexual orientation, yeah, it could potentially be a hate crime. If you just hollered names at me from across the street, probably not, no.
-
Re: Hate Speech
Could just be going out on a limb here, but my understanding of hate speech laws were to prevent hateful expressions directed toward a particular minority. The thought was, if we could make it socially unacceptable to tell a gay man or woman that they were going to burn in hell/should die/etc etc of horrible things, then it would be less likely that people would commit acts of violence. Sort of, change the cultural norms, right? -
-
CommentAuthorVal A Lindsay II
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
Ah, here we go...1969 Federal Civil Rights Law
The 1969 Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.
Persons violating the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law face a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both. If bodily injury results or if such acts of intimidation involve the use of firearms, explosives or fire, individuals can receive prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty.[1] U.S. Courts provide for criminal sanctions, but only victims of gender-motivated hate crimes can "seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief".[2]
[edit] Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994)
Main article: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes.[3]
[edit] Matthew Shepard Act
Main article: Matthew Shepard Act
On October 28, 2009 President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.
So yeah, it's not slandering verbally. It's literally "I dragged the guy to death because he was gay, therefor deserved it". I'm ok with this law... -
-
The cultural norm, at least where I am, is that it is unacceptable. Some people still do it and they are considered extremists. However, if hate speech laws prohibited that, I would be worried that their hatred would fester under the surface and manifest in worse ways. They would also probably become more politically active and agitated more than they already are: it might give them impetus. I would rather they remained less active. It is also nice to know who the people that have these kinds of beliefs are. If hate speech laws were introduced, they would be more likely to keep their mouths shut, yes, but I wouldn't want to associate with people who hold such hateful opinions. Furthermore, if somebody holds an opinion, they should be able to say it provided they are not attempting to incite violence/harm (ignoring the emotional) against another. I fully believe it is their right to hold/express such opinions if they hold them and that it is important to have them out there if only to remind us how repugnant such hatred is and that we need to guard against it.
With regard to "burn in hell/should die/etc", I am sure that many of the same people who believe gays should burn in hell believe that I should burn in hell, and will tell me so, although it will be based on lifestyle choices I make or have made (rather than inherent traits - I don't want to get into determinism here), yet I will not have the same protection under the law. Point is hate speech will remain out there, and so will hateful thoughts, it will perhaps just be fewer people hearing the hate speech. So in my view, hate speech laws do not solve the problems of hate speech.
Finally, I feel that distinguishing between "hate" crimes and "regular" crimes is a quagmire. Often motivation can be hard to discern, so some people may be, for lack of a better word, unfairly treated. As well as this, the actual severity of the crime is not changed by their feelings on the matter (a case may be made for feelings ex post, but that is typically already had under law: remorse v. lack of, etc). Someone may beat an old person to death in their home. Another may beat a gay person to death in their home. It does not make sense that the person who beats an old person to death receives a lesser sentence because it does not come under the jurisdiction of a "hate crime".
If you are suggesting minorities need protection with "hate crime" laws because they are more often targets for crime, it should be noted that by the time a "hate crime" is committed, it is too late to deter, and the people committing hate crimes typically will not be deterred by the penalties regardless of what they are, unless they are significantly steeper perhaps (but that significance would probably have to be far out of proportion to the crime and therefore legally unjust), as they are usually not operating on a rational level: their personal cost-benefits are heavily skewed by their irrational beliefs.
@roadscum: thank you for calling me rational! I try. -
- CommentAuthorBOODOFFSTAGE
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010 edited
@MARTY "I'm on the Right because the means in which they want the country to prosper make more sense to me (Free market solutions and limited government involvement)"
Hey, Marty. Please don't take like im picking at you or anything. I have no problem with the right wing ideals that you believe, nor am I going to take the stance that I am an expert when it comes to American Politics, far from, in the end, I still feel that I am missing a lot of important information. Despite that, I find it hard to believe that even intelligent people like yourself fail to see just how little emphasis the Republican Party takes on these right wing ideals. So I'm hoping you can try to answer the following questions and try to make me understand why you think they are a party worth supporting.
First, what has the republican party done to promote Free Market Solutions, I don't care what they've said, talk is cheap, what solutions have they been attempting to pass that would help this country as whole? Because, as far as I can see all they've done is criticize and sabotage the efforts of the current left wing attempts at solutions.
Second, How does the Republican Party justify themselves as being for "limited government involvement" when many of it's representatives go to the trouble, money and energy to pass laws that make the government to make it illegal for a group of people to get married based on their sexual orientation? It seems to me that the republican party are not following the ideals you, and like minded people like you believe in, yet it seems they continure to follow that party blindly(again my opinion)
Me personally, I don't see any idealogical or even physical difference at this point between the democratic and republican party. In my own, uninformed and simplistic opinion, the only differece i see is that one party is being paid a lot of money to be ineffectial and the other is being paid to insure the interests of the very rich and powerful.
And please, don't think that I'm following some ridiculous conspiracy theory, me personally, conspiracy theorists tend to give certain people way too much credit. In the end, i just feel that greed and power is the current heart of our political system.(I know, in politics, these two vices have always played a part, i just think nowadays, they are now considered virtues and ideas like, cooperation, common good, providing sensible, realistic solutions are not only vices, but childish)
That's my two cents any ways. I encourage the smarter and more informed members in this board to relieve me of my ignorance. Just no name calling, i'm very sensitive. Although, I don't mind being called a liberal. -
@JiveKitty
Well, the norm might be that its unacceptable now, but that wasn't always the case. The LGBT rights movement (for example) has had a long, hard fight, but considering some of the beliefs and practices that are still out there, I think a little protection is in order. I'm personally glad of anything to curb that sort of talk; some red-neck retard spouting off about "faggots" or "towelheads" is enough to ruin my whole day.
As far as the "hate" vs. "regular" crimes - I'm all for the distinction. Its like putting a sex offender tag on a rapist; its about creating a social stigma. If I can't convince a guy that he shouldn't beat on people just because they're different from him, maybe attaching a negative label to him for the rest of his life will work as a better deterrent.
@Val
I could be wrong, and don't have time to look it up, but I believe in Canada we do have a hate speech law, though the Canadian approach to law is somewhat different than the American approach. We place great emphasis on the discretion of both police officers and judges - for example our marijuana laws. Pot is still technically illegal, and could land you in jail for several years, but it has been made policy, without changing the laws, that simple possession (less than an ounce) should not result in charges unless there is clear intent to distribute. I guess the difference is that we are looking for intent, and allow for more flexible interpretation within our legal tradition. I've yet to hear of that law being abuse, anyway.... -
Hate speech, now there's a tough one, a favourite tool of my hypothetical 'string pullers', used to fire people up and kick things off. Pick your target and accuse them of being evil baby eating scum who steal our houses, jobs and women. Hell, they even piss upstream of our watering hole. We should lock them all up/send them 'home'/cleanse the land of their taint with fire and sword. Leave that sort of thing long enough and the rabble are roused and things get unpleasant - Yugoslavian even.
So, what's to do? Ban people from talking about such things? How far do you go? Stopping people from inciting murder is an obvious start but even something as apparently simple as that is open to abuse, how far do you go? Making it illegal to say that all 'Bongolians' should be strung up is one thing, stopping someone from encouraging kids to go to Bongolia to fight against your army of liberation is slightly different and preventing them from questioning the righteousness of the war in Bongolia is a step too far. But a very small step. And then look where you are.
The real problem is not the shit on the soapbox, it's the audience. They wouldn't be standing there listening if all was going well for them, they are unhappy with their lot, they have grievances, genuine ones, and they feel no-one is listening to them. They are looking for someone to blame and they can't be arsed to look very far.
I live in Barking, the town is almost unrecognisable from the one i knew as a child. It was a predominantly poor, white, working class town. The council housing has now mostly been sold off to the occupants who promptly sold up and moved somewhere a little nicer. Foreigners moved in, it was and still mostly is the cheapest place to buy property in the whole of Greater London. If i stand outside the station today i rarely hear a native English voice, most of those left are the ones too poor to get out, occupying the nastiest, scabbiest of the remaining council housing. Many are poorly educated, in the past they might have earned enough to get by doing manual labour in factories, those jobs have gone now and the few that remain, and the menial jobs that replaced them, barely pay enough to cover the cost of the rent. Pay rates at the bottom of the labour market have barely moved in the last couple of decades, the gap between rich and poor has widened vastly and the poor are, in absolute terms, much poorer. Those in slightly better jobs have suffered too, job security is a barely remembered myth, you must work harder for longer, you must be 'flexible' or your job, even the entire company, could be outsourced to cheaper sites abroad. And yes, while you're bending over, here's a broom.
So, the menial jobs are filled by cheap foreign labour who can survive on the piteous pay by clubbing together to rent a house and sleeping two to a room (at least, that's what the ones downstairs to me do). They work hard. Some study, get qualifications and move on to better things, some manage to save a little money and go back home. The pay rates for menial jobs are kept low and the smouldering resentment of the uneducated native dregs increases.
Last time i looked, almost half of our local councillors were BNP. Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP is standing for MP in the forthcoming election.
There's your problem. Do something real to improve the lot of the poor and ignored and they won't feel so shat upon that they turn to scum like Griffin as their saviour. They may not all be 'nice people', they may not all be 'deserving', but if you ignore them and leave them to rot, there'll be trouble. Not an easy problem to solve, not easy at all, the important ones rarely are.
Me, i'm thinking of voting for him, i believe the BNP want to send all the immigrants and their children 'home'. My dad told me a lot about Poland when i was young and it sounded like there was some lovely countryside there. I imagine it's changed a bit over the years but it's still got to be a better bet than Barking under the BNP, especially if they're paying for my ticket.
(In case you're wondering, that last paragraph was intended as a bit of a joke, dad being Polish and all that. You can put the eels away... Please!) -
-
CommentAuthorRootfireember
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
All the 'haters' aren't just poor and undereducated. A lot of the people where I am who seem to thrive on hatespeech and teaparty-ism are people who had good jobs, and are retired and survived the stock market crash with a nice cushion. While economic class certainly plays a part, I think it's more how susceptible people are to fear-mongering that plays the greater role.
How afraid are you? How threatened do you feel?
How blinded are you by those emotions?
If you're afraid, and all you talk to are people who are also afraid, and all you listen to are news about how bad it is and how bad it's gonna be, how can we expect these people to think otherwise? They feed on their own kind, creating an ever-increasing level of fear and paranoia. -
-
I'm wondering if Stygmata checked out of this since it veered swiftly into the No Man's Land of name-calling and fact-checking?
To answer his original query:When, if at any point, are you prepared to take up arms to defend what you believe is your vision of democracy and civilization?
After the military and police fail to do their jobs and bullets are flying in my neighborhood.
I can easily predict the sorts of comments that might elicit, but I'll stand by it as an honest representation of my personal proclivities.
I don't like guns. And though I seethe as much as the next guy about all manner of injustices both major and minor, I think the myth of redemptive violence locks this particular discourse into a cartoonishly narrow view of reality. I won't even attempt to weigh in on some of things mentioned before since some people upthread have already done a better job than I could. I will add the small point that some countries' styles of communism/socialism have a lot to do with their style of culture rather than socialism per se (I'm thinking of China here specifically. A culture that I am relatively familiar with because of my education.)
Oh and quoting Ayn Rand will never endear me to anyone or cause me to stop and give their point of view additional consideration. As far as I'm concerned both her philosophy and prose-style are quite startlingly immature.
The end. -
@root: sorry, i drifted off into a bit of a rant about the fragrant, picturesque jewel of the east that is my home, what i intended to say was:
Hate speech, if banned, just goes underground and fosters a sense of victim-hood in the audience and perpetrators. It can only effectively be countered by calm, reasoned and surgically sharp counterargument. And lots of it. Shouting and ranting just gives the 'haters' the chance to denigrate the opposition and i wish some of the opposition to the BNP here would realise that.
As far as fear and paranoia goes, NICK BLOODY GRIFFIN IS STANDING FOR MP IN MY BLOODY TOWN! I am not happy about this. -
@roadscum, I believe you've neatly brought this discussion around full circle. usually, yes, hate speech's best antidote is to call people on their bullshit-- openly, loudly and constantly. but it's a lot harder to counter when the people spewing it are openly armed and obviously irrational. unfortunately, as Celan and others point out, there's not much that can be done to stop it until the shooting actually starts and the police can step in. the decision whether to hide or join in rests with each individual, I think.
-
@celan - I'd like to claim principled indignation, but really I just got busy at work. The last few posts have drawn a neat line under what I think the real stakes are here, though.
-
I like the idea of a polite society because we're armed to the teeth to defend personal freedoms in theory. However, if the bullets start flying because you hate me, the way I think or my supposed religious beliefs, then we're pretty screwed.
-
@roque: The US and UK are very different places and i don't pretend to understand how things are on the other side of the pond. I do frequently despair of any real possibility of turning round the increasingly grim state of affairs both here and overseas. But i won't stop trying till the bullets start flying and i hope i'll be able to carry on even then. Unless i'm locked up and put in a camp. I might still be able to do something there, for a while at least.
Rabid and irrational they may be, the 'bad guys' usually do have genuine gripes of some sort or another. To complicate matters further, their real gripes are often not what they perceive or are told they are. It is still possible to try to find the roots of their grievances and try to do something about them. Not at all easy and it may involve difficult and unpalatable choices. Better though to try everything before it all goes to hell than pick up the pieces after. Over-simplistic i know, but that's my take on it.
As for what you do if the shooting starts? That's between you and your conscience. Personally i don't think fighting usually improves things in the long or short term. -
- CommentAuthorKosmopolit
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010 edited
"@Kosmopolit. I'm not calling your intelligence into question, but I think you're going off of faulty data. You and I are never going to agree on anything political," Marty Nozz
The level of the American public debt is public knowledgel
Your claim that Obama increased it by more in one year than Bush did in 8 is not political opinion. It is a statement of objective fact which is either objectively true or objectively false.
I've provided my data source, which you claim is faulty.
Provide your source and we can compare the two. -
-
CommentAuthorRootfireember
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
sorry, i drifted off into a bit of a rant about the fragrant, picturesque jewel of the east that is my home.
@ Roadscum
Seems like bad crud's hit pretty much everywhere; but my dirt poor area locals seem to be not getting angry so much as hiding behind sex and lots and lots of drugs, trying to find some pleasure in a rather shitty world. I don't know what to do about these different angry and scared groups we're dealing with
In America it seems like there's a class divide that the American idealism makes worse. We assume everyone can make it if they work hard enough, and if they aren't, well, obviously it means they are lazy. This separates "us" from "them" a bit more than it appears and makes it harder to have sympathy or to be willing to help the downtrodden. Added to that the poor seem to be taught that the rich are nothing but liars and crooks and untrustworthy, so they have no reason to try to bridge the social gap that way....and when things are bad, it's always the other person's fault and they should be punished.
Everyone feels like the victim. Everyone feels threatened. And everyone thinks everyone else is somehow out to get them.
The more I think on it, the more I think the American culture feeds on distrust of the other guy, whoever that person or group is. Than again I might just be extrapolating ideas and crud wrong from reading too much psychology and philosophy as of late; I'm not a professional. I'm just a girl in the middle of nowhere.
Logically, I don't think there'll be shoot outs in the street, but sometimes I do worry.
People who are terrified aren't thinking straight, and I don't trust those who would use scare tactics to herd a population into doing who knows what. -
-
Hate speech, if banned, just goes underground and fosters a sense of victim-hood in the audience and perpetrators. It can only effectively be countered by calm, reasoned and surgically sharp counterargument.
Hate speech, if not banned, may be broadcast and printed: at which point, because it's not a dialog, it can't necessarily IMO be "countered", because of La La La I can't hear you.
You might as well say that theft, if banned, just goes underground and fosters a sense of victim-hoom etc.: because although that might be true to a slight extent, IMO it's an insufficiently good reason to permit the crime, and it's in the public interest/good to be able to prosecute/prevent it.
Banning hate speech isn't the only thing, of course, that's needed to make people's lives worthwhile: but I think that life is better when you're not exposed it, and when your neighbours aren't exposed to it.
I admire too the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Equitable Portrayal Code. Here's an extract:
The CAB Equitable Portrayal Code reflects the responsibilities of licensees, under the Broadcasting Act,to ensure that their programming and broadcast services achieve the highest standards, and demonstrates the private broadcasters’ commitment to the equitable portrayal of all persons in their programming.
Clause 1: Equitable Portrayal
...etc...
Clause 2: Human Rights
Recognizing that every person has the right to the full enjoyment of certain fundamental rights and freedoms, broadcasters shall ensure that their programming contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.
Clause 3: Negative Portrayal
...
Clause 4: Stereotyping
Clause 5: Stigmatization and Victimization
Clause 6: Derision of Myths, Traditions or Practices
Clause 7: Degrading Material
Clause 8: Exploitation
Clause 9: Language and Terminology
Clause 10: Contextual Considerations
Broadcasts may fairly include material that would otherwise appear to breach one of the foregoing provisions in the following contextual circumstances:
a.Legitimate artistic usage: Individuals who are themselves bigoted or intolerant may be part of a fictional or non-fictional program, provided that the program is not itself abusive or unduly discriminatory;
b.Comedic, humorous or satirical usage: Although the comedic, humorous or satirical intention or nature of programming is not an absolute defence with respect to the proscriptions of this Code, it is understood that some comedic, humorous or satirical content, although discriminatory or stereotypical, may be light and relatively inoffensive, rather than abusive or unduly discriminatory;
c.Intellectual treatment: Programming apparently for academic, artistic, humanitarian, journalistic, scientific or research purposes, or otherwise in the public interest, may be broadcast, provided that it: is not abusive or unduly discriminatory; does not incite contempt for, or severely ridicule, an enumerated group; and is not likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against an enumerated group.
I take it that a broadcaster who repeatedly violated this code could get their license pulled by the CRTC (and/or individuals might be presecuted under hate speech laws).
There are other codes, for example the CAB Code of Ethics, which include:
Clause 5 – News
It shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to ensure that news shall be represented with accuracy and without bias
Enforcement of these codes may be slow and imperfect, but they're an auxilliary to the actual hate speech laws, and IMO serve to suppress extreme speech.
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.