Bush will veto hate crimes bill

[Centexfarmer]

^ Not only that, needed funding to prosecute and investigate hate crimes against us can be provided to assist law enforcement, and prosecutors. Without our inclusion, we don't exist as far as the federal government is concerned.

 

[Lostlover]

Re: White House opposes hate crime bill

Where are the republican gays? I want to hear them explain this one...

 

[Lostlover]

Re: White House opposes hate crime bill

Uh, pardon me. Unless I'm seeing something that doesn't exist, but hate crime legislation does already exist, but it currently doesn't cover gender and sexual orientation. BTW, most states doesn't have laws that cover this either.

Txgoodoldboy said that his friend was murdered because he was gay, and the convicted assalents were only sentenced to 5 years in prison. That sounds like a slap on the wrist to me.

But whatever, you 3 have your opinion and I have mine. I guess some of you guys are A'OK with hate crimes committed against minorities.

Yeah just as long as those brownies and blackies are being beaten up and killed that's fine to the people here.

Can't forget, people here defended Imus and then bitch when Bush doesn't include gays in the hate crime legislation. What goes around comes around?

Pretty pathetic huh?

 

[Lostlover]

You know what they're going to say right??? "Being gay isn't all that I am... I am a person first (blah blah blah)"... or "this legislation means little because the law is very effective in dealing with criminals".

I want to hear what Mary "Turkey Baster" Cheney has to say about all this.

I don't like playing the moral card, but the republicans gays should really be embarassed with themselves for voting for a party that would do this and then use them as a tool to gain votes from closed minded people.

 

[iman]

Re: White House opposes hate crime bill

Yeah just as long as those brownies and blackies are being beaten up and killed that's fine to the people here.

Can't forget, people here defended Imus and then bitch when Bush doesn't include gays in the hate crime legislation. What goes around comes around?

Pretty pathetic huh?

We have Freedom of Speech not Freedom from being Offended.

 

[radical matt]

Well, it's actually been a quandry to me for quite some time why hate crime legislation IS even needed. I mean, if someone commits murder, they have taken another life. We have a law against murder that (USUALLY) carries with it stiff penalties, such as life imprisonment or even death. If the person who did the murder hated the person he/she murdered, it doesn't change the fact that this person comitted murder.

An additional problem is how one defines a hate crime. For instance, blacks can hate whites too, but I've never heard of even Black Panthers being charged with hate crimes. That is, as far as the racial laws are concerned, only white people can commit hate crimes. Is this saying only white people can hate? Well, I guess since only white people can be racist...

Further, there's a difficulty in determining hate for sure. I mean, some people write things on their walls or yell things as they commit the crime, or do it in a most heinous of ways...but if you stop and thing about it, these are usually things we associate with insanity; everyone remember in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective when Ace goes to Ray Finkle's house and finds that "Die Dan" and "Dan Die" is written/painted/sewen into EVERYTHING? See, hate crimes can even be commited by a person of a race/sexual orientation/gender against "their own", and, in fact, baring accidental or random shooting deaths, almost ALL murders/assaults/beatings are because one person hates the other. Yet this is NOT defined as a hate crime, even though it is fueled by hate.

Most things that ARE decided as hate crimes are so because of findings in the person's journal/home that show a deep rooted hatred of the intended target. But if you think about it, these are usually signs of insanity; an illogical fixation on someone/something as the source of all your ills. So if anything, HATE crimes, that is, what we consider hate crimes, should all really be excused as cases of non-temporary insanity. After all, it certainly isn't "normal" behavior, and the illogical fixations are, when not being used in a hate crime, usually viewed as unhealthy and potentially signs of insanity.


That the hate crime legislation isn't across the board (again, crimes against whites are NEVER considered hate crimes, regardless of the motivation behind them), almost all crimes ARE crimes driven by hate to begin with (at least, assaults/murders), and there already exists laws against those things...so instead of introducing more laws and stiffening penalties, the existing ones simply need to be inforce. Like 5 years for murder? That's rediculous! Murder should have a manditory 20 year penalty AT LEAST (with the only exceptions being defense, but then that isn't murder...)

 

[MrJason]

Well, it's actually been a quandry to me for quite some time why hate crime legislation IS even needed. I mean, if someone commits murder, they have taken another life. We have a law against murder that (USUALLY) carries with it stiff penalties, such as life imprisonment or even death. If the person who did the murder hated the person he/she murdered, it doesn't change the fact that this person comitted murder.

An additional problem is how one defines a hate crime. For instance, blacks can hate whites too, but I've never heard of even Black Panthers being charged with hate crimes. That is, as far as the racial laws are concerned, only white people can commit hate crimes. Is this saying only white people can hate? Well, I guess since only white people can be racist...

Further, there's a difficulty in determining hate for sure. I mean, some people write things on their walls or yell things as they commit the crime, or do it in a most heinous of ways...but if you stop and thing about it, these are usually things we associate with insanity; everyone remember in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective when Ace goes to Ray Finkle's house and finds that "Die Dan" and "Dan Die" is written/painted/sewen into EVERYTHING? See, hate crimes can even be commited by a person of a race/sexual orientation/gender against "their own", and, in fact, baring accidental or random shooting deaths, almost ALL murders/assaults/beatings are because one person hates the other. Yet this is NOT defined as a hate crime, even though it is fueled by hate.

Most things that ARE decided as hate crimes are so because of findings in the person's journal/home that show a deep rooted hatred of the intended target. But if you think about it, these are usually signs of insanity; an illogical fixation on someone/something as the source of all your ills. So if anything, HATE crimes, that is, what we consider hate crimes, should all really be excused as cases of non-temporary insanity. After all, it certainly isn't "normal" behavior, and the illogical fixations are, when not being used in a hate crime, usually viewed as unhealthy and potentially signs of insanity.


That the hate crime legislation isn't across the board (again, crimes against whites are NEVER considered hate crimes, regardless of the motivation behind them), almost all crimes ARE crimes driven by hate to begin with (at least, assaults/murders), and there already exists laws against those things...so instead of introducing more laws and stiffening penalties, the existing ones simply need to be inforce. Like 5 years for murder? That's rediculous! Murder should have a manditory 20 year penalty AT LEAST (with the only exceptions being defense, but then that isn't murder...)

Just to clarify this bill is not about stiffening penalties for hate crimes, that's already the law. It's about opening up federal resources to state and local officials working with hate crimes.

 

[oceanmachine]

Well, it's actually been a quandry to me for quite some time why hate crime legislation IS even needed. I mean, if someone commits murder, they have taken another life. We have a law against murder that (USUALLY) carries with it stiff penalties, such as life imprisonment or even death. If the person who did the murder hated the person he/she murdered, it doesn't change the fact that this person comitted murder.

An additional problem is how one defines a hate crime. For instance, blacks can hate whites too, but I've never heard of even Black Panthers being charged with hate crimes. That is, as far as the racial laws are concerned, only white people can commit hate crimes. Is this saying only white people can hate? Well, I guess since only white people can be racist...

Further, there's a difficulty in determining hate for sure. I mean, some people write things on their walls or yell things as they commit the crime, or do it in a most heinous of ways...but if you stop and thing about it, these are usually things we associate with insanity; everyone remember in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective when Ace goes to Ray Finkle's house and finds that "Die Dan" and "Dan Die" is written/painted/sewen into EVERYTHING? See, hate crimes can even be commited by a person of a race/sexual orientation/gender against "their own", and, in fact, baring accidental or random shooting deaths, almost ALL murders/assaults/beatings are because one person hates the other. Yet this is NOT defined as a hate crime, even though it is fueled by hate.

Most things that ARE decided as hate crimes are so because of findings in the person's journal/home that show a deep rooted hatred of the intended target. But if you think about it, these are usually signs of insanity; an illogical fixation on someone/something as the source of all your ills. So if anything, HATE crimes, that is, what we consider hate crimes, should all really be excused as cases of non-temporary insanity. After all, it certainly isn't "normal" behavior, and the illogical fixations are, when not being used in a hate crime, usually viewed as unhealthy and potentially signs of insanity.


That the hate crime legislation isn't across the board (again, crimes against whites are NEVER considered hate crimes, regardless of the motivation behind them), almost all crimes ARE crimes driven by hate to begin with (at least, assaults/murders), and there already exists laws against those things...so instead of introducing more laws and stiffening penalties, the existing ones simply need to be inforce. Like 5 years for murder? That's rediculous! Murder should have a manditory 20 year penalty AT LEAST (with the only exceptions being defense, but then that isn't murder...)

You should read this post.

The purpose of a federal hate crimes law is to allow the federal government to prosecute hate crimes when local law enforcement and/or bigoted juries elect to look the other way. Although things have improved in this country since the '60's when crimes by white racists in the South against blacks were not prosecuted, I think gay people still need some recourse if they are denied justice by local authorities. The Republikkkan (couldn't resist given the context) comment about adding old people and veterans is absurd because there is no reason to think that vicious violent crimes against such people are given short shrift by prosecutors, in fact quite the contrary.

Also I find it quite silly you're citing a comedy movie as an example.

 

[iman]

Well Radical Matt, black people usually commit crime to get get some money. It is mostly only dumb white people that commit crimes for recreation. Hate crime legislation is about telling such people that recreational crime is not acceptable. Don't you see a difference between getting robbed and getting beaten just for being gay?

All one has to do is look at the number os people in jail to know that laws are being enforced. Enforcement is a red herring, this has nothing to do with enforcement.

 

[radical matt]

Indeed, but it was an example I figured most people would be familiar with. If someone does things like that, they are obviously NOT right in the head, ergo, insane. The reality is, all that recognizing a hate crime as a "hate crime" should really do is let the person off as mentally insane and remand them to the appropriate institution.

The purpose of a federal hate crimes law is to allow the federal government to prosecute hate crimes when local law enforcement and/or bigoted juries elect to look the other way.

This is the reasoing? Look...why CAN'T the federal government do this ANYWAY? WITHOUT the need for "hate crime" legislation? If a crime is comitted and the locals "look the other way", the federal government should be able to come in anyway. Why can't they? Why do they have to call it "hate crime" to come in and investigate? Why can't they investigate ANY crime that the locals let go?

Here's a question though; what if there's a white guy who's fat that beats up a white guy that's skinny becaue the fat guy hates skinny people? Shouldn't this be a "hate crime" too? But it's not.

The greatest problem with hate crime legislation is that it never takes account of everything, and instead institutes a racial tilt onto everything (just like affirmative action.) This is never a good thing. Last I checked, the woman with the scales was supposed to be wearing a blindfold...you people DO understand what that means, right?

 

[radical matt]

Well Radical Matt, black people usually commit crime to get get some money. It is mostly only dumb white people that commit crimes for recreation. Hate crime legislation is about telling such people that recreational crime is not acceptable. Don't you see a difference between getting robbed and getting beaten just for being gay?

All one has to do is look at the number os people in jail to know that laws are being enforced. Enforcement is a red herring, this has nothing to do with enforcement.

Okay, let me get this right...when black people commit crime, it's because they "need" money (for their drugs and stuff, right? No, for their new Nikes? No, wait, that's not right...OH! They're poor and need the money to feed their 15 starving brothers and sisters, pay for their poor mother's surgery and their old grandmother's medicine...right?), but when white people commit crime, it's because they're bored and just want to commit crime because they enjoy it. Have I got that right? Is that what you're trying to say?

In case you are unaware, this is a racist statement; painting two groups in brod strokes using just the color of their skin as your reference frame. Martin L. King Jr. would be so proud of you.


As for your second paragraph; if I'm reading that right, you're saying that the laws are already being enforced. The people that commit the crimes are put to "justice", found guilty, and they are serving their sentences in jail.

...so where's the problem here? According to this reasoning, if a person commits a murder, whether they hate or not, they're in jail for murder. I see no problem with this. What, a white guy kills a black guy, so instead of one lifetime sentence without possibility of parole, you're going to add a second one because it was a hate crime? Well, when they reincarnate, I'll let you go and find the baby when it's born and take it to jail then. I mean, honestly, if you're serving one life sentence with no parole, what more are you going to add because they "hated" the person they killed? If it's a deep rooted hatred, you should call it insanity and put them in an asylum rather than a prison...oh, but that would make SENSE...

 

[radical matt]

Your post evokes memories of all the tortured posts here during the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. All the extremists were popping-off their odd and strange definitions of torture, their own standards for what constituted acts of torture. They even re-interpreted and tried to re-write the Geneva Conventions' language concerning prisoners of war and their rights.

While I don't disagree with your entire post, you fall into the same trap as our extremists as they schemed to rewrite carefully crafted international treaties and laws. That is, you don't get to write the definitions and criteria as to what is a hate crime, and neither do I. That's all done, that was taken care of by the legislative and judicial branches after much tussling and study. After all, that's their job: the legislative writes the law, the judicial branch does its magic. Then, Whammo! Law.

We cannot presume to nitpick at these things, I feel, because we really haven't studied them in the enormous depth required to comprehend it. Just as we, lay-persons in these matters, cannot define hate crimes to the levels and layers of granularity needed to become a law, we cannot really say if organ failure isn't torture, but water-boarding is. What we can do is refer to the intent of the law, and then observe the consequences of it, good or bad. The intent is right and reasonable, in my view as a citizen.

Geeze...are you feeling alright man? Your posts as of late (at least some of them) have been things I can, at least largely, agree with...


Something I would caution you on, though; politicians do not know as much as you seem to be inclined to think. Consider that 99+% of all politicians are lawers by trade...not scientists, engineers, teachers, soldiers/generals, psycologists, health care workers, ect. No, they were ambulence chasers and the like.

Now, while they often call in professionals to give them input, that input is filtered through the mind of a lawer, not of a "normal" person or of a specialtist that understands the field they are talking about. This is seen in the way politicians sometimes pass things that make NO SENSE to anyone in the related field.

...and, in the case of hate crimes, how the crime is defined is VERY important. If a black guy calls me a white ho and I called him a nigger, then he lunges at me (intending to stop and just trying to make me jump), but I deck him on the way in, then would it be considered a hate crime because I said a racial slur before hitting him, even though to me, it would seem to be a defensive action when he lunged? What if he called me a cracker or something derogatory and then hit me, would that mean HE comitted a hate crime, or would the mere fact that he's black make it impossible for him to be racist? These are important things to consider. What MAKES a hate crime a hate crime, as opposed to being just a normal crime?


But alright, that caution stated, let's play it your way. What IS the intent and what ARE the consequences?

The intent I'm not sure of, but the consequences are...bothersome. As I said, a person who doesn't really hate and isn't a racist could be accused of comitting a hate crime if people read or took his words out of context (most people have said SOMETHING racial in their lifetimes, even if they aren't racist and were just joking or trying to prove a point.) That hate crimes are NEVER prosecuted as hate crmes if the victim is white is also problematic, as the intent of the legislation, that is, to decrease racially motivated crimes, doesn't actually play out. This creates injustice, which is NEVER a fair thing.

Again, the woman with the scales, Justice, is supposed to be blind. Hate crime legislation brings race INTO the courts, which is exactly the WRONG direction to go. Justice should always be blind with respect to race, gender, sexuality, ect. The only thing justice should take notice of is, perhaps, age and sanity/intelligence (if the person actually knows they're doing something wrong, and/or that the consequences, to themselves and to others, are as grae as they turn out to be. A 2 year old shooting someone with a loaded gun isn't a murderer, for example.) That hate crime legislation tends to be biased, in practice, against a group of peopl (whites) based on their race is NOT a good thing.


Again, as for the intent...I'm not sure WHAT the intent is, really. If a crime is comitted, Lady Justice, blind to the physical atributes of the one that comitted the crime, despenses a punishment. There isn't really a need to "add" to that punishment, which is all that I've ever seen hate crime legislation used for. As such, it is redundant at best, and injust at worst.



Oh, and for what it's worth, Alfie, I never encourage or condone torture (it's the ONE thing that McCain and I agree 100% on...)

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: White House opposes hate crime bill

If the religious organizations feel so strongly about not having gays or the disabled included maybe they should offer to have their classification removed from the protection.

As a religious person... I am in full agreement!

I know of an instance where a church was burned down, and it was found to be because it was a church. No one there made any objection to having the hate crime laws invoked.
But it was an anti-gay place, and if hate laws applied to gays, you think they wouldn't protest?

Idiots.

 

[Sausy]

T-Zero,I do understand what you are saying,and agree that hate speech and hate crimes are not the same.I don't support the breakdown of criminal penalties into ethnic,racial,sexual or other group connotations...there should be no place for interjecting any of that into criminal law.We have to push for the harshest penalties for the most depraved and heinous crimes period,no matter what the motive.Yes Caucasians have benefited from denial of equal priotection to many groups,and to our dishonor and discredit as a nation...but a future America the situation of ethnic composition may be different and the laws you support implimenting now MUST accept that possibility that the aggrieved may one day cause denial of rights to those who once denied them.In history,victims often have become victimizers in time...no one is free from darker and inhumane impulses.

I even stated in my previous post that records of hate based crimes,not thoughts,be kept in terms of tracking such incidents and having a full understandiing of their prevalence and prosecution records.But not having encoded policies of race,gender,and group based hate crime statistics.Our efforts should be to promote equal civil rights applications to everyone,not to constantly apply gender,race and group chasracteristics to our laws.If a black man is attacked because of his race,the perpetrator should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law.Same as a gay masn or lesbian,Latino or Asian.The person's ethnicity or group should not be a consideration.For what?You punish the crime,not bureaucratize the criminal code to remedy injustices against aggrieved groups....that's not the role of our legal system...justice is blind,knowing no color,gender or group .

If you say in sarcasm the law has not always been applied fairly,yes that is so and it is WRONG .I have no doubt my position is unpopular here,but that doesn't concern me.But you fight for equal protection under the law by fighting for actual equal protection under the law,not damned bureaucratic complexity that categorizes new criminal categories and penalties.I brought affirmative action in before as a concept that bureaucratized social policies,not forward real integration and equality under the law.Sandra Day O'Connor,in her twisting Solomonic eventual accepotance of the concept of affirmative action believed one day these laws would have served their purpose and no longer be constitutionally defensible.Same applies to hate crimes...who defines them,for how long?If we work to do what is just,if we really looked to protect the rights of others to be secure in their own persons,we do it across the board and apply equal consideration under the law to ALL Americans.That may not exist today,but that is what I fight for,not what is being presented here.I am not defending haters,but have contempt for them.I cannot match you in eloquence,but that your viewpoint,well intentioned as it is,and good person that you are,does not make it the only opinion one can sensibly conclude.Same with all who cannot go beyond their comfortable ideological perspective here and in the nation.

If this makes me conservative,then that is what I am.But I am a true classic liberal,supporting application of our laws,and fighting my damnedest when it isn't applied fairly.But never substituting group civil rights considerations into the equation,which is moving far from what America at its best aspires to and strives to reach.Crimes are crimes and subjective political add ons are a fundamentally unconstitutional idea.

 

[Kulindahr]

Matt, you drew a connection between murder and hate, claiming that most murders are because of hate. Actually, last I checked, most murders are over economic matters -- most specifically, matters of drugs, in the violence caused by all prohibition laws. Many are done in fits of anger, with no hate involved. In movies and TV, murders almost always involve hating someone, but I don't see the numbers supporting that.
But if it is done out of hate... then it's a legitimate question whether having a special law for that only in case of listed protected classes is a good thing. I'd say it isn't, and to those who object on the grounds that the law is just adding to special classes, I say "Good for you!"


As for the racial aspect.... When sexual harassment laws first went into effect, it was always women as victims, and men as harassers. It took a while, but now the law is applied evenly; it doesn't matter what gender a person is, he or she can be guilty of sexual harassment. So while the race equation runs pretty much one way for the present, that will also change. It's a learning curve, and I expect that just as the Women's Libbers screamed in protest when women started being charged with sexual harassment, so our racial minorities will scream as well once the laws begin to be applied in a fair and balanced fashion.

 

[Sausy]

Matt, you drew a connection between murder and hate, claiming that most murders are because of hate. Actually, last I checked, most murders are over economic matters -- most specifically, matters of drugs, in the violence caused by all prohibition laws. Many are done in fits of anger, with no hate involved. In movies and TV, murders almost always involve hating someone, but I don't see the numbers supporting that.
But if it is done out of hate... then it's a legitimate question whether having a special law for that only in case of listed protected classes is a good thing. I'd say it isn't, and to those who object on the grounds that the law is just adding to special classes, I say "Good for you!"


As for the racial aspect.... When sexual harassment laws first went into effect, it was always women as victims, and men as harassers. It took a while, but now the law is applied evenly; it doesn't matter what gender a person is, he or she can be guilty of sexual harassment. So while the race equation runs pretty much one way for the present, that will also change. It's a learning curve, and I expect that just as the Women's Libbers screamed in protest when women started being charged with sexual harassment, so our racial minorities will scream as well once the laws begin to be applied in a fair and balanced fashion.

Certainly so.That's why I don't subscribe to vast,far-reaching ethnic,gender,sex preference or whatever group -centric policies.Laws should be tailored to fit the specific offense,not a general group grievance.Apply laws fairly,don't add considerations about terrorizing or intimidation factors,that is not what the law is supposed to represent,feel good as it may seem.Where is it constitutional that we must determine penalties thrugh socio-economic,political considerations of intent?You apply the maximum sentence to the worst ,most depraved crimes...if currently not enough fight for tougher ones.Make the system work,not politicize and bureaucratize it for aggrievement redress.

 

[Kulindahr]

I can't approve of racial quotas at universities, or anywhere else; I find the hiring of minority-owned companies just because they're minority-owned venal and reprehensible; I find even the presence of a line for "race" on a job application vile and contemptible.

But....




"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...."

That word "equal" jumps out -- to me, at least.
Take the four things mentioned here -- "equal", "Life", "Liberty", and "Happiness". Each of them, according to Jefferson's eloquent words, belongs to each and every person. And each of them is to be protected; laws are one way we do that, by punishing those who tread on these things. It's pretty evident where most laws come in -- murder, for example, is a violation of the right to Life -- and for at least two of these, Life and Liberty, it isn't difficult to see what things violate them, and to fashion laws to deal with such violations.

But what of "equal"? Here a difference creeps in. Seeing how a violent assault impinges on the right to Life is simple enough, but how do we tell if an action impinges on someone's right to be treated equally?
Hate crimes is one, albeit clumsy, approach. If a gay man and a female neighbor are both killed, they are equal in the violation of their right to Life; yet if one was killed because he or she was regarded as inferior, as not equal, there is a crime against equality -- and that crime, too, begs punishment.
The same crime reaches into the realm of Happiness, for a person who has to worry about being singled out for attack merely because of gender or race or anything else has a reduced enjoyment ("pursuit") of Happiness because of the constant level of stress. Society (however mythical a being that is) thus owes such persons an added level of attention, that their chance at Happiness might stand on an even playing field.

Indeed, it could be argued that such laws are the only ones the Federal Government has any business establishing. There is no provision for laws concerning a person's choice of recreation ("War on Drugs", among other things), or concerning a person's choice of association (regulations concerning what's allowable as a domestic partnership, e.g. marriage), or quite a few other things presently on the books. But if the Constitution has any purpose at all, it has that of guarding those self-evident gifts of equality, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness -- and any law directly bearing on those things, as pertains to particular individuals, is certainly the proper realm of federal law.

Much of the law we are saddled with from Washington is without foundation, is contrary to freedom, and/or treads heavily, even tramples, on the Constitution. But hate crimes laws, I think, are not such.

 

[Kulindahr]

Certainly so.That's why I don't subscribe to vast,far-reaching ethnic,gender,sex preference or whatever group -centric policies.Laws should be tailored to fit the specific offense,not a general group grievance.Apply laws fairly,don't add considerations about terrorizing or intimidation factors,that is not what the law is supposed to represent,feel good as it may seem.Where is it constitutional that we must determine penalties thrugh socio-economic,political considerations of intent?You apply the maximum sentence to the worst ,most depraved crimes...if currently not enough fight for tougher ones.Make the system work,not politicize and bureaucratize it for aggrievement redress.

I think that attacking someone because of his or her aspects, chosen or inborn, is a specific offense. We have distinctions between different levels of murder, different levels of assault, and so on; hate crime laws are merely a new distinction to be applied.

Yet they are misused and misconstrued. If a black girl is set upon at a remote beach and raped by a pair of whites, because of the fact that she's black, that is both a crime of rape, and a crime of hate. What it absolutely is not is an offense against all women, or all blacks, or all black women -- however much a number of black "leaders" would like to use claims that it is in rhetoric to serve their own agendas. It is a crime, a pair of crimes, against a specific person, not against a group.

And there is part of where James Dobson and his ilk get it wrong. Consider a Sunday morning, one that a thousand and more churches have agreed they will preach against homosexuality. In each of two of those churches, a gay young man is present. Both are angered, embittered, and feel humiliated by the preaching. In one church, the young man stands up, announces he is gay, and that the people there are full of hate and not love -- and the people stare at their feet as he walks out. In the other, the young man there stands up and does the same... but a half-dozen men of the church seize him, throw him to the center aisle, drag him out and shove him down the stone steps, spitting on him.
The first is not a hate crime; the second is.
Both churches were free to preach as vociferously and forcefully as they pleased against homosexuality -- but neither was free to physically manhandle the young man because he was gay.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Yet you believe tax cuts for the hyper-wealthy are in the best interests of even the poorest. How sad. How terribly, terribly sad.

Spinning fantasies again, I see.

Can we stick to reality, please, and not your imagination?

 

[Kulindahr]

Sorry, I screwed my former and latter up in the original post.

This should have read:
And again, the crime of a hate crime isn't the actual attack it's the the act to terrorize to deprive a civil right. The civil crime (to use the word loosely in this context) and the crime of violence are two separate types of crime for which one is being charged. The former is a crime against the state (wherein the state means the enitre embodiment of laws which define civil rights and also is representative of being all citizens rather than a particular government regime or system of government), the latter is a crime against the individual. It is this conjoining of the two crimes that distinguish hate crime cases from the standard assault case, for example.

I don't believe in this fiction of "crime against the state", or its partner in deception, "The State and People of New York (or whatever) vs. .... ). Only one thing qualifies as a crime against a "state", and that's treason.
Crimes are against individuals -- no one else, nothing else. They may be against more than one individual at a time -- for example, if Agamemnon Hardfarter blew up a dam, his crime would be against everyone who, or whose property, was affected by the resultant flood or disappearance of the reservoir, but against them as individuals, and against them alone.