The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Hate Crime Legislation

Hate Crime Legislation

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
"The Criminalization of Christianity"

For those who think I'm 'hysterical' over some issues, you may wonder about how I and fellow Christians feel about this:

IF.... the hate crimes legislation being considered by the US Congress is passed by the next president, the following could happen in regard to Christian broadcasters.

1/ Denouncing homosexual behavior would be a 'hate crime'.
2/ Describing non Christian religions as 'false' would be a 'hate crime'.
3/ The re-instatement of a broadcasting 'fairness' rule would mean that a Christian broadcasting body would have to provide free of charge, "equal time" for anti Christian material, to balance what was said by Christians.

Presumably, the same would apply to Muslim broadcasts ? Or Hindu Broadcasts? and Homosexual broadcasts?

Would it be EQUALLY a hate crime to denounce those who denounce homosexual behavior?
Would it EQUALLY be a hate crime to denounce those who denounce Christianity?

One would surely hope so, but given the track record of such legislation in Victoria and my extreme cycnicsm about the real objectives of "secularists" (who are sometimes driven by other groups)
I'm not very optomistic.

According to Justice Renquist (US Supreme court)

"bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

ER..sure, bias motivated CRIMES..but to criminalize CREEDS which do not advocate criminal or violent behavior? is treading on dangerous ground.

I DO support the criminalization of creeds which support and advocate violence (communal or domestice) and child sexual abuse.

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR. I've always maintained that the Gay agenda is NOT about 'equality', but 'power'.

Step 1 "Legalize Homosexual behavior"
Step 2 "Criminalize criticism of homosexual behavior"

They go together likes peas in a pod.

For Christians, the NEXT step might be "Statements made in everyday conversations.. sharing of faith, which include negative statements about various behaviors(which may include 'idol worship') would be criminalized"

How close are we to Orwellian 1984 social control right now with this?

So, if you wonder why people are passionate and speak in 'warlike' terminology at times.. this is one rather contemporary reason.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 10 March 2008 10:08:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy, it's hard to make an informed comment without knowing exactly what legislation you're talking about. Are you referring to the so-called Matthew Shepard Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act)?

If not, please provide a link so we can discuss this on an informed rather than emotive basis.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 10 March 2008 11:21:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz I am sure people have told you this before but people dont choose to be gay. I didn’t choose to be straight it just happened that way.

Your attacks on gay people real are a cross to bear for your religion as it lowers its status to that of a stone age tribe. If you want to be respected be critical of things people can change about themselves not of things that are to them human nature.

Besides I think being gay is great! Less competition means more pretty girls for me! Actually I think I should encourage men to be gay!

Yes I know its not the topic at hand but I thought I would comment anyway.
Posted by EasyTimes, Monday, 10 March 2008 11:42:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it must be that one CJ.

Here's a link to the text which, I strongly suspect, Boaz hasn't actually read.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592

If he had, he might have noticed this:

"SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

So his "concerns" are nothing more than an excuse to let us know, yet again, that he is anti-gay. Much like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I suppose, once again showing that there are more similarities between Christianity and Islam than there are differences.

For a start, Boaz, your concerns over being summarily despatched to chokey for "denouncing" anything would seem to be misplaced. You can "denounce" anything you damn well please.

What you should not be allowed to do is to use your religion as a pulpit from which to incite hatred and fear of other people, a stricture that you find extremely difficult to live with for some reason.

>>So, if you wonder why people are passionate and speak in 'warlike' terminology at times.. this is one rather contemporary reason.<<

Here's another challenge, Boaz.

I fully expect that it will go the way of all the rest - you will bluster about a bit, change the subject, introduce a Wookie then fall silent - but it should be good for you just to attempt an answer.

Given that you now have access to the text of the Bill, would you please quote verbatim from that Bill, and tell us exactly what it is that you disagree with?

Your time starts... now.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 10 March 2008 1:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given that we rapidly hurtling toward a totalitarian regime of thought police, I thought I might take my last opportunity to say, loud and proud, I don't understand people who don't like poofs. Oftentimes, it's enough to put me off them entirely.

To be honest, at least Boazy has a reason. God hates fags, it's true, he jotted it down in his silly book.

My favourite dumb reasons for hating fags is thusly: "Once you give them their rights, they'll lower the age of consent (because they'll rule the whole country by then, presumably) and make it legal for them to have sex with six year old boys!"

Closely followed by:

"They'll try to have sex with me in public toilets."

Boazy: "I've always maintained that the Gay agenda is NOT about 'equality', but 'power'."
Yes Boazy, you have always maintained that, haven't you? It's never worried you that you're entirely wrong?
Posted by Vanilla, Monday, 10 March 2008 3:43:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed.. the legislation is found here. (Highlights)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1592&tab=summary

It specifically states that the bill is against VIOLENT acts.

It ends with this:

Section 8 -
Provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit expressive conduct or activities protected by the First Amendment.

FREE SPEECH protected?

You could be forgiven for thinking so. So why am I 'hysterical' about this?

Its all in the 'interpretation/implementation'. Just as for the RRT2001 in Vic.. which was applied and interpreted in very surreal ways.

It's only a very short step from 'violent' hate crimes to 'spoken' hate crimes. The whole concept of 'hate crimes' is rediculous. If violence is carried on another person..its called 'assault' no matter what the reasons were. Some people assault others simply because they don't like their look. Hate crime ?

2 Grannies were arrested and Jailed over night for their activities at a gay rally in Pennsylvania. There activities included sharing the Gospel with passers by.

The Conservative press jumped on this and portrayed it as "Grannies arrested for sharing the Gospel on sidewalk, face 47 yrs jail"

The Liberal press points out, that the Grannies were arrested because they refused to move to the perimeter/edge of the gathering.

Fox news made the statement 'equal time for anti Christian voices' etc.. so its egg on their face if the story turns out to be baseless.

We should not forget where 'hate crime' laws can lead. The USA is not the only one making them. Sweden has them, and a pastor HAS been jailed for denouncing homosexual behavior from the pulpit of his own church.

So, in summary, I am absolutely opposed to the idea of 'hate crimes' because of where they will in all likelihood 'lead'.

It cannot be said that "the law will only prevent violence" when in other places in the world, it also covers speech.

Lets say "In the USA free speech is constitutionally protected"..but what about Australia? After all, this is where I live.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 10 March 2008 4:03:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One more bit.. specially for CJ Morgan.. err CJ.. was it your partner who wrote this? I sure hope so :) its good to see someone with the name 'Morgan' on my side for a change.

http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/1/25

"Whether or not a person is recognized as a hate crime victim in US statutes has been shown to be heavily influenced by the strength of social movements based on politicized identities." Jo Morgan.

'strength of social movements.... politicized identities'.

Vanilla.. seriously.. you don't understand me.

The terminology you use 'God hates fags' and suggesting I have it somehow jotted down special.. is very far from the mark.

The Bible is very clear on how certain 'behaviors' are viewed.. a Man laying with a man as with a women, is just one of a number.
The bible is equally firm on incest, and bestiality, and adultery.

The quote above, about the strength of social movements, is what determines public opinion and its re-shaping. If there was a "Paedophiles are ok" mob out there brave enough to campaign ... and 'out' high profile identities they know have been fooling around with 'underage children' you can bet your last dollar that the Government would be scrambling to relevancy and revising legislation... (maybe thats a bit of a leap :)

But ask them about Child abuse or Domestic violence in the Quran? or.. even raise the subjects here..and look what happens. (to me).. according to Pericles I'm 'inciting hate'....

BIBLICAL TEACHING ON HOMOSEXUALS (for the record)

1/ God loves all of mankind. (Including homosexuals)
2/ God gives man till his last breath to align his/her heart and life with the Creators will.
3/ People who exit this life out of step with Him, will have a rather serious discussion about that fact when they meet Him.

BIBLICAL TEACHING ON HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR.
Leviticus_18
Romans_1
1Corinthians_6
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 10 March 2008 4:24:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe Boaz that the harder the humanist try and silence God's people the louder they will become. Look how silly the Victorian Government looked after charging 2 Pastors for speaking the truth about Islam. The fruits of secular humanism is being clearly seen (immorality, drug usage, drunkeness, homosexuality etc etc.
It could well be God allowing His people to choose between God's wisdom and man's foolishness. Where Christians are persecuted in places like China the church as never been stronger. Maybe we need a purging and refining to bring proud arrogant men to Christ in this nation. God used harsh foolish leaders o refine Israel. Maybe it is our turn.
Posted by runner, Monday, 10 March 2008 4:29:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amen Runner.

The sooner brothers and sisters realize that the rather horrific events recorded in Acts could be reality for us if we are not vigilant, and use the democratic process to protect freedom; the better!

Anyone who thinks the gay lobby would stop at 'violent' hate crime legislation only, is deluded. "verbal" hate crime is already in place regarding 'race or religion'... its just a matter of time before 'sexual orientation' is included.

The perinicous RRT2001 is the thin edge of the wedge. It would take only ONE minor addition to turn it into an Orwellian nightmare.

"Vilification is a public behaviour that incites hatred against, serious contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule of another person or group of people because of race or religion."

Add "or sexual orientation" to that..and bingo.. '1984'.

You see.... Justice Higgins, simply did not understand the Christian mindset, and wrongly interpreted 'laughter' in a purely secular sense of 'mocking' based on ill will, rather than 'a group of people seeing the funny side of something due to irony, self contradiction or whatever'.

Section 9 of the RRT is the most evil and unbalanced:

9. Motive and dominant ground irrelevant
(1) In determining whether a person has contravened
section 7 or 8, the person's motive in engaging in
any conduct is irrelevant.

How the HELL is 'motive' not relevant?(x100)

Motive IS relevant in cases of killing!

Killing with intent=Murder
Killing by accident=Manslaughter.

This section is present in my view to place a huge chunk of 2 x 4 into the hands of people wishing to attack others
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 5:19:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy's hysteria about the American legislation is clearly caused by his fear that similar legislation might be drafted here. That might curtail the activities of people like him who get their jollies out of whipping up hatred and violence against people whose beliefs, ethnicity or sexual orientation they don't like.

Wouldn't that be terrible?

While I don't agree with any legislation that prevents people from saying what they think, there must be legal means available to members of minority groups to seek redress against those whose utterances or acts incite harm against them. People should be allowed to say what they think, but should also be held to account for their hateful ideas and acts.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 6:55:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz, once again, with the greatest respect, you have failed to answer a direct and simple question with a direct and simple answer.

>>...would you please quote verbatim from that Bill, and tell us exactly what it is that you disagree with?<<

As I predicted, you chose to answer an entirely different question. Which - since this is your thread, and you introduced the topic by referring to this specific piece of pending legislation in the US - is a pretty poor performance, wouldn't you agree?

Your understanding of how the world works outside your extremely narrow field of vision is sadly limited, as we all know, but that does not excuse your misuse of the English language in order to make a point.

"How the HELL is 'motive' not relevant?(x100)
Motive IS relevant in cases of killing!
Killing with intent=Murder
Killing by accident=Manslaughter."

"Intent" and "accident" are not motives, I'm afraid, they describe circumstances. Motive is far more personal.

motive n. An emotion, desire, physiological need, or similar impulse that acts as an incitement to action

What the legislation is pointing out to you is that if your whack-a-mozzie tendencies cause damage to your targetted victim, claiming that your motives were pure and Christian is not going to be an adequate defence.

If you incite mob violence against homosexuals, for example, or inflame a band of white-supremacy thugs to do your dirty work for you, arguing that the Bible allows it won't be a protection in law.

Seems eminently reasonable to me.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 8:12:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Boaz I am sure people have told you this before but people dont choose to be gay."

It would be good to see some proof to back up this statement. I understand that a very small percentage of the world's population - around 1% - is homosexual because of biological defects, and the other 17% claiming to be homosexuals are perverts or people who have serious psycological problems.

As for 'hate crime' legislation, it would automatically ban the Koran if the legislators were serious.
Posted by Mr. Right, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 10:51:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is it that the world of free expression of thoughts is being challenged by restrictive laws on expression; while the world of secret thoughts want to cry their ideas in the streets? Would it be that some have things they want hidden?
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 10:57:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Typical BOAZ, generating hate and fear through misinformation and deliberate distortion: “IF.... the hate crimes legislation being considered by the US Congress is passed by the next president, the following could happen in regard to Christian broadcasters.

1/ Denouncing homosexual behavior would be a 'hate crime'.
2/ Describing non Christian religions as 'false' would be a 'hate crime'.
3/ The re-instatement of a broadcasting 'fairness' rule would mean that a Christian broadcasting body would have to provide free of charge, "equal time" for anti Christian material...”

BOAZ is unashamedly lying. The Bill defines hate crimes as willfully causing:

“bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person” or “because of the actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person”

The proposed law allows for imprisonment for up to ten years for injury, but if the offence causes death or involves kidnapping or aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, you could get life imprisonment.

So is BOAZ arguing that it’s OK to incinerate a person, blow them up, shoot them, kidnap them, or sexually abuse them because you don’t like their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability?

Not even BOAZ - despite his hatred of Muslims and gays - would be honest enough to admit that; so what’s he up to?

“So”, he says, “I am absolutely opposed to the idea of 'hate crimes' because of where they will in all likelihood 'lead'.”

The normal BOAZ fear-mongering by conflation of totally unrelated facts: Sweden has anti-hate laws and a pastor was allegedly gaoled for denouncing homosexuality; elsewhere, anti-hate laws allegedly ‘cover speech’; and in Victoria there’s “a track record of such legislation...” pandering to “the real objectives of ‘secularists’ (who are sometimes driven by other [unspecified] groups”.

BOAZ opposes US proposals to criminalise violent hate-based crimes on the spurious grounds that his own Christian hatred might be criminalized here.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 11:16:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess I don't learn but here goes...

Mr Right,

"Boaz I am sure people have told you this before but people dont choose to be gay."

"It would be good to see some proof to back up this statement."

You yourself believe that some homosexuality is attributable to "biological defects", "serious psychological problems" or perversion albeit not in that order of frequency. People don't choose to have psychological problems or perversion or biological problems. Your post is self contradictory. What is the point of proving something to you that you disagree with?

"I understand that a very small percentage of the world's population - around 1% - is homosexual because of biological defects,"

You conjure up a picture of parents using prenatal screening. No biological cause has been located.

"and the other 17% claiming to be homosexuals are perverts or people who have serious psycological problems."

The entire frequency percentage of homosexuals is typically considered to be 2.4% subject to calculations about homosexual suicides for which purpose it is considered to be 10%. Thus there isn't a 17% available. Or are you suggesting that many people claim to be homosexuals but really aren't? ("claiming to be homosexuals")
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 11:23:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Didn't you know that the heterosexual, anglo, moderate male christian was to blame for everything David?.

Everyone else can say what the hell they want because this is a free country with freedom of speech, but if a 'HAMMC' voices their opinion it's called ignornace, bigotry, hate and intolerance.
Posted by StG, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 2:53:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I mean what is the point of challenging some to prove something to you that you already agree with.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 3:10:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
challenging someone

I really need to proof read first and post later.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 3:11:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FRANK... no, I'm not lying... I am reporting "according to Fox news" I should have mentioned that.

See my reply to Pericles regarding your quote of the Bill which outlaws 'violent' acts. (which are already outlawed under assault laws)

PERICLES... you asked a simple question.. and here is my answer.

In terms of the 'literal' form of the legislation, I have no quarrel, other than that I see no reason to have 'hate' crime legislation unless it is EQUALLY applied to minorities or deviants who committ the same against what it usually termed the 'majority'.

My main concern, is how close it comes to 'verbal' hate crimes. Canada is already there... (but they don't have a 1st amendment do they?)
Australia is ALready there.. with the RRT2001.(Vic)

There must be something more than the HR1592 that Fox are alluding to, and it probably relates to things heard or said in the congressional context, though not neccessarily the wording of the bill.

I'm trying to sus that out futher.

Speaking of misrepresentation.. CJ and FRANK are right up there on this.... again.. a-gain..claiming I'm inciting violence against people.... now what's the lesson in those statements? It is this:

Mentally, you are already "there" by regarding the attacking of radical ideas of Religous violence, child abuse, domestic violence as 'inciting violence'.. so.. my point is VERY well made by such irrational responses.

STEP ONE. I am saying 'hate crime legistlation is dangerous' because the next step is to criminalize the criticism of ideas.

STEP TWO.. you blokes are condemning me for criticizing ideas already, and saying it incites violence.

Do you know that the RRT reached out to NSW a while back and 2 people are now in a Victorian JAIL for 9 months for exposing a particular cult!

Here is the story.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/couple-jailed-for-contempt-in-vilification-case/2008/02/20/1203467183354.html

Is it possible some OLO contributors are in fact members of this group? (the cult)of course it is.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 4:42:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes: - do make a point of reading the article that is linked to above. Instead of promoting worthwhile discussion about civil liberties or any other of the myriad ways in which we all seek to make sense of our world
this article highlights clearly the depth of this thread.

Having read the article, go back and read again DBs comments with fuller knowledge of where he's coming from.

Yet we continue to get sucked in to these infantile and time-wasting diversions! Joke's on us, I guess.
Posted by Romany, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 8:00:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree, we don't need laws that may incriminate hysterical, rabid, Christians for their acts of persecution and crucifixion against others. It’s not what Jesus would want and he should know.
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 8:19:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the heads-up, Romany.

Er, Boazy - I'm no fan of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, but frankly this case looks like a good argument for it. These idiots clearly wanted to be jailed, probably in some kind of narcissistic ego trip.

I'm interested that you've lambasted the the alleged Muslim terrorists on trial in Melbourne for disrespecting the Court, but that is precisely why these dingbats were penalised so heavily.

Are you saying that there are different standards of respect for authority required of Muslims than for other Australians?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 8:38:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day Boazy,

I researched the article and the links provided and can't justify your concerns. The legislation draws a clear 'thick' line between freedom of speech and supporting (or inciting) hate crimes.

Reality is few groups focus on promoting fear of the other as the key attraction to keep the masses under control.
The religious right in the US today is heading in the same direction as German religious right in 1922. I think this legislation should be globalised, prevention is less painful than cure.

peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 10:17:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm very sympathetic to BOAZ_David's position here. I believe in free speech without much if any reservations.

However, it gives me some amusement to hear a christian outraged at these suggestions, in light of their constant and often successful attempts over the decades to impose their religious views on others.

For example, GAY MARRIAGE.

BOAZ, if you can teach your religious people to mind their own business (in a very short time), you may earn the right to tell the government to go to hell. This of course means cease all religious lobbying in exchange.

That's some irony. If religious people had advocated for more freedom and less government interference in society, rather than repression (eg, gay people, pornography), then they may have been in a situation where they can do what they please. However I don't think this proposed US law would pass
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 1:22:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Frank

I don't oppose the criminalization of violence. It's already criminalized. 'hate based' violence? No Frank..I absolutely support the criminalization of such violent crimes.

What I DO oppose, is the closeness of 'hate crime' legislation to 'hate speech' legislation.

I apologise if it seemed like a red herring.. I react rather passionately to anything even hinting of reduced freedom of expression.

FH.. I hope the above clarifies my position :)

Steel.. I don't think we can avoid any kind of lobbying mate.. democracy means the whacko Christians (and the normal ones) along with the secularists can do it. cheers.

CJ.. you have no idea how gratified I am to see your basic agreement about the RRT. "I'm no fan of it"

RRT2001.. lets go a step further and see exacly why I get so paranoid about this(and 'hate speech' laws or anything approaching them)

CASE STUDY. "Ordo Templi Orientis"

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/couple-jailed-for-contempt-in-vilification-case/2008/02/20/1203467183354.html

"Vivienne Legg and Dyson Devine posted on their website claims that an occult group, the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO), was really a pedophile ring in Victoria.."

KEY POINT. This couple were in NSW! They were arrested, and extradited to Vic and were sento JAIL!

They were originally sued by OTO for having an article by this anti Child abuse campaigner on their web site. She was also sued.

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/vic/content/2003/s1150668.htm

There remains a very important question. WHY.. was an investigation in to a child abuse case by a high profile TV executive suddenly 'squashed without explaination' by Vic police?

All of this, is because of 'hate crime' legislation which has leaked over into 'hate speech legislation'.

Then, when you consider that 'strings are pulled by powerful people' over cases...... hopefully you can see my point.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 5:56:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ

So you don't oppose the criminalisation of violence, just "the closeness of 'hate crime' legislation to 'hate speech' legislation". So when was murder, kidnapping or sexual abuse a curtailment of free speech? When was rape, blowing people up or shooting them close to taking away free speech? You could do with a course in ethics. And one on logic.

The case of the NSW couple may have been initially, in your view, about free speech - or false accusations, depending which side of truth you're on - but the action you detested was the consequence of the couple's contempt of court. Do you think it's OK for people to disobey court orders - if they are Christians? I wonder how you would depict the case had the couple been Muslims?

Next, what has all this got to do with an interview on Stateline in 2004 about allegations that powerful people may have been let off the hook when they were allegedly under investigation for alleged child abuse?

"All of this," you say, "is because of 'hate crime' legislation which has leaked over into 'hate speech legislation'. Then, when you consider that 'strings are pulled by powerful people' over cases...... hopefully you can see my point."

Frankly BOAZ, I don't see your point at all. Are you saying we shouldn't have laws because powerful people might pull strings to avoid prosecution? Let anarchy rule then.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 10:18:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person” or “because of the actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person”

So I’m curious. Why extra legislation criminalizing people injuring other people (something that is already criminalized)? Why are those motives worse than injuring someone because eg. you hate left wing activists or right wing activists or prostitutes? If they are worse then why not just add them as aggravating circumstances in existing criminal legislation rather than introduce a hate crime bill?

I assume Boazy shares my view that it seems like a strange approach. Apparently to explain the strange approach Boazy has developed a theory that it is the thin edge of the wedge for future legislative prohibitions on speech. More particularly he is concerned that such legislation will prohibit criticizing same sex attracted behaviour pursuant to religious belief.

This concern is apparently based on hate speech legislation in other jurisdictions and his beliefs about its interpretation by courts and the parallels in the proposed legislation. What other theories are there for the proposed legislation or do you consider that introducing separate legislation for this has no significance and is just due eg. administrative clumsiness?
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 10:43:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously, states enact laws that prohibit criminal acts that are motivated by hatred of people because of their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, because the legislatures of those states wish to curtail overt criminal acts based on hatred. It is also a clear statement that such hatred is not condoned by those states.

I don't have any problem with that, except when such laws provide the perpetrators of hateful acts with a platform to play the martyr - as in the case of the Catch the Fire Islamophobes and these other ratbags that Boazy seems to be defending.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 11:15:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan,

But injuring people is already prohibited... It seems to just add to the penalty.

My particular concern is that if you hate the right group and injure them you get a lesser penalty. Only 8 categories attract a higher penalty and a few are very similar (eg. race, colour and national origin) so many hated groups are left out. Further, does an increased penalty deter criminal behaviour?

In any case why not add those motives as an aggravating factor in existing legislation to make the clear statement it is extra bad or whatever? Wouldn't that achieve the purpose without a whole new bill that probably has a much higher risk of dying on the parliamentary vine than achieving the same thing with an amendment.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 11:53:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla,

Your first post on gays is Hilarious! I agree.

Though I must admit I hate, and cant understand camp accents. It seems so put-on to me. Why would a mans voice tone and accent change so much just because they are turned on by other men. I know many gay guys who don't talk like this, and I'm a bit of an introvert so I suppose I hate all this theatrical goings on of really camp guys.

BOAZ_David,

You should read 'Blind Faith' by Ben Elton. I think you'd like it:-)
Posted by Whitty, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 12:59:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb,

One possible explanation: legislation can be educative. That is, legislators are keen to make overt the point that you can't commit a crime against another simply on the grounds that they are gay, black, female, disabled or follow a particular religion that you don't agree with.

mjpb, says: "Only 8 categories attract a higher penalty and a few are very similar (eg. race, colour and national origin) so many hated groups are left out." As with all these types of law, the offence is committed if it is committed because of the attribute - whether negatively or positively. That is, for example, if you commit an act of violence against a person because he is black or not black, gay or not gay, disabled or not disabled, a member of the Muslim faith or not a member, and so on. So the penalties are not stronger if you assault or murder a black, for instance, than if the victim were white.

Incidentally the words, 'race, colour and national origin' are usually inserted together because of the difficulty of defining these terms absolutely at law (despite the certitude of racists when it suits them).

In any event, whatever the explanation for the proposed new law, what harm is done by reinforcing existing legislation against violence?

Believe it or not there are still people who believe that it's OK to bash up blacks or incinerate their house because they are black, and therefore don't deserve to live in your neighbourhood. Who remembers the torching of Asian restaurants in WA not so long ago?

And we've had instances of people 'of Middle Eastern appearance' being assaulted on the streets of Melbourne for no apparent reason other than their assailants didn't like the look of 'people like them'.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 3:22:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Frank....

2 points.

1/ I don't know why you said the NSW couple were Christians? I have no idea about that, but from what I gather, they are not. I came across the case indirectly, and did not bring it to the forum to highlight specifically "Anti Christian" actions by the government or others.

2/ Legislation is "Educative" aaah.. now this is a hot potato and favorite of mine. Would it not be better mate.. to bring into our education system "values" education which counters the kind of crime we are discussing? I know I'm barking up a pretty tall tree here to ever think that what I'd like to see implmented would ever be, because it is faith based. So.. in the final analysis I do accept that the foundation for values taught in a secular education system will not include "Because God has ordained it".

That wouldn't be much of a problem IF... at a community and family level, our society was drenched and soaked in Gods love and values.
Then..education could simply be equipping young people for the practical tasks of life.. all good.

Whitty.. 'blind faith' ? :) mate.. say more of what you mean please..

<<Ben Elton's dark, savagely comic novel imagines a post-apocalyptic society where religious intolerance combines with a confessional sex obsessed, self-centric culture to create a world where nakedness is modesty, ignorance is wisdom and privacy is a dangerous perversion.>>

Whitty..sounds like poor Ben had an overbearing 'Brother' at his catholic boarding school :) See what happens when you build a religious structure based on falsehood? (celibacy).. it comes out in all manner of weirdness and distortion..

How about considering Jesus approach ? "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly" Or.. "The truth will make you free, and if the truth makes you free, you will be free indeed"

Bens book, kind of underlines why Jesus said "My kingdom is not 'of' this world"

Religious 'rules' based society, without the 'relationship' side ...would become a nightmare worse than Elm Street.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 13 March 2008 5:30:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ

The NSW couple have now been released from gaol following remission of the rest of their sentence for contempt of court. They were NOT imprisoned for violating Victoria's religious vilification law. They have made public statements that litigation (the Victorian case was not their only court case) has ruined them financially. They need to get on with their lives, so I will say no more about them.

As for values education, as ever you see things in stark oppositional terms. But it's not a choice between values education in school OR education through legislation. It can be both and more. There are many ways to educate people and schools are but one - and there is some evidence that the hidden curriculum (the way teachers teach and schools' organisational practices) is more powerful than the overt curriculum (what is on syllabuses).

And if we must rely on the schools, why must values education be faith-based? Why do you assume that religious people are the only ones interested or expert at values education? There are countless good people who act in an ethical and principled way who do so because of humanistic beliefs and who want their children to learn to do do so too.

Having had an education, as you put it "drenched and soaked in Gods love and value" and witnessed and experienced so-called Christian educators at work, I have no faith in that approach to values education - unless you want kids to learn hypocrisy, lust, viciousness, cruelty and suppression of individuality.

You can hand your kids over to that system BOAZ, but I prefer that they grew up with love, personal integrity and respect for the truth.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 13 March 2008 5:07:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear frank

point taken about the basis for the imprisonment, but this a little bit like semantics.

The couple is from NSW, the court called them to VICTORIA and the reason it called them was based on alleged vilification under the RRT.
So... its a little splitting of straws to say it was just for contempt that they were imprisoned.

I totally agree about the values in both education and legislation, I don't see it any other way. I guess the challenge is to pick 'which' values.
The usual ones which divide 'progressives' from 'conservatives' (although I'd choose the adjectives rather differently) are:

-Gay 'rights'
-Abortion/Choice
-Censorship
-Gender issue.

Now.. I don't think we are going to resolve those differences any time soon, unless Christians apostatize themselves or atheistic socialists are suddenly born again.

I wish there was some pithy phrase which summed it up simply.

Well..there is in reality "Do for others as you would have them do for you"

How would this translate into the issues mentioned above ?

I suppose if we use just 'one' as an example (the first).. we might ask "Would gay people feel happy for conservatives to teach their adopted children at school that it is 'evil' and degenerate for men to have sex with men?"

I fear they would not. Ok.. next step. The same question applies for how conservatives might feel for homosexuals to be teaching their children that "men who have sex with men are quite normal and acceptable"

My suggestion here, is not to declare 'evil' something which is only defined so by religion, but to look more to 'normality'..and by any judgement 'heterosexual behavior' is clearly 'normal' and homosexual is not.
It should never be the case that we teach 'hate' of people who practice non normal lifestyles, but rather, emphasise the law and legality or not of something. This in turn brings us back to democratic influence....does it not?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 16 March 2008 12:48:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just for once, BD, put yourself in the other person's shoes.

I feel very comforted by the fact that I would incur serious legal sanctions if I were to whip a mob into a frenzy and then suggest to them that anyone with the online name BOAZ_David deserves to be kicked to death.

I feel further comforted by the fact that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act reaches beyond Victoria when such incitements are made online.

Doubtless I don’t have sufficient charisma to do this kind of incitement, even if I were so inclined. However charismatic individuals throughout history have been able to incite others to acts they wouldn’t otherwise commit. It's not sufficient to hold these individuals to account for their incitement after someone has been kicked to death.

Just as the kicking is a crime, so is the incitement of others to do it. Hate crime legislation is needed to stop people from doing the incitement, irrespective of whether or not others follow their message.
Posted by w, Sunday, 16 March 2008 4:35:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It should never be the case that we teach 'hate' of people who practice non normal lifestyles, but rather, emphasise the law and legality or not of something. This in turn brings us back to democratic influence....does it not?"

It's not illegal for men to have sex with men. It is also normal, if we use the dictionary definition of "usual, typical and expected." Homosexual people have always existed, so they're hardly unexpected, are they? So I don't see why you use that as an example.

Meanwhile, reading over your posts lately, I have to say your values really sadden me, Boaz. Christianity, as you practice it, is a nasty little religion.
Posted by Vanilla, Sunday, 16 March 2008 5:30:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hate is an emotion of exclusion and disgust and expressions as Vanilla has posted here identify her hatred of Boaz. Quote, "Meanwhile, reading over your posts lately, I have to say your values really sadden me, Boaz. Christianity, as you practice it, is a nasty little religion. - Posted by Vanilla"

Under the Victorian laws even to discuss displeasure of another religion falls under the vilification [shari'ah] laws. Boaz you might have a case here. On the other hand being Christian means turning the other cheek, blessing those that persecute you and say all manner of evil against you, love your enemies. Christians are vunerable to the laws as they stand as even disgussion makes one a violator, as in the case of the two Dannys.

Christians uphold "love the sinner hate the sin", but Vanilla is incapable of determining the difference.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 17 March 2008 3:46:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C'mon though. Wouldn't it be fun for me and Boazy to be on opposite sides of the courtroom, like a bitter divorced couple, him shaking his fist at me like a good Christian, me sipping on a martini and letting my slip show and making eyes at the judge like the heathen I am?

I'm up for it Boazy, if you are.

I would point out the obvious distinction I made. I don't hate Boazy, but yes, his views make me sad. I think it's true to say that I hate the brand of Christianity that Boazy advocates. I like other flavours though. I don't mind Foxy flavour.

"Christians uphold "love the sinner hate the sin", but Vanilla is incapable of determining the difference."

Actually, I can see the difference, but I've always found that particular Christian tenant extremely offensive. It's basically a way of hating or punishing someone while pretending (to God) that you love them, thereby getting off the hook.

As I have said in another thread, I believe in facing up to other people's behaviour, no matter how evil we find it. As Fractelle has pointed out, God is fundamentally immature. The mature approach is to look someone straight in the face and deal with what you see there, no matter how frightening. To my mind, if they are Stalin, then hate may be necessary — plus a realistic approach to preventing further atrocities. If they are simply gay, we need to double the love to make up for the prejudices of religion.

Separating people and behaviour is intellectually and morally lazy.
Posted by Vanilla, Monday, 17 March 2008 8:26:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo says: "Hate is an emotion of exclusion and disgust." That actually defines the rather insipid emotion of elitism. You know, the sort of feelings that BD throws around a lot.

Hate is defined as hostility, animosity or detestation. Its synonyms are execration, loathing, abhorrence, abomination. It's a much more intense, dark, eroding emotion. Its serious. The word is bandied about on this forum as lightly schoolchildren use it, which devalues its actual dark and sinister meaning. Its a grown-up emotion. Its nasty and evil. And I firmly believe that any legislation that seeks to limit its corrosive effects is a good thing.

To accuse Vanilla of "hating" someone - anyone - on a thread like this is therefore somewhat insulting in itself. Admittedly I know nothing more about Vanilla that what one picks up from peoples threads; but I'm almost sure that if she was really going to poison herself by harbouring such an emotion, she wouldn't waste it on BD!
Posted by Romany, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 12:07:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Course I don't hate anyone. My general attitude to the world around me and the people who inhabit it has much in common with a cocker spaniel's.

Lovely description of hatred there, Romany. If that's not an oxymoron.
Posted by Vanilla, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 12:40:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy