See other Resistance Articles
Title: The Case Against Hate-Crime Laws
Source:
LRC
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff95.html
Published: Aug 18, 2006
Author: Michael S. Rozeff
Post Date: 2006-08-18 20:27:30 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 3574
Comments: 76
Basics of hate crime law The term "hate crime" is new. The laws against hate crimes are new. Are they a good development or not? Hate crimes seem superfluous. Why should the traditional crimes such as assault or arson be supplemented by new crimes such as hate-assault and hate-arson? The victim receives the same injuries in either case. If the damages are greater and juries know this, the remedies can be altered accordingly. Why go through the added difficulties of proving that the motivation of the crime was to injure someone because of hatred? Is anything gained beyond labeling the criminal as a person who hated? Hate crimes carry greater penalties. Hate in and of itself becomes an additional crime when it occurs in conjunction with an ordinary crime. Arson is a crime. The new crime is Hate + Arson. If you intend arson, don’t do it because you hate the person who owns the building. Do it because you like fires or want to collect insurance money. Hatred is deemed punishable whereas liking fires or wanting to collect insurance money fraudulently are not punishable. Does this make sense? Why is hatred special? Why should the law punish hatred? Externality theory One theory behind hate crime legislation is that hatred harms others who are not direct victims of the criminal’s crime. There is an externality. If someone paints a swastika on a synagogue, if someone paints a corpse on an abortion clinic, or if someone shoots a Mexican immigrant, all synagogues, all abortion clinics, and all Mexican immigrants are said to be victimized. They are said to be intimidated. The crime is greater, and so the penalty should be greater. That’s the theory. The state does not have to prove that the crime is greater in the sense of harming many others. It only has to prove that hatred is present. The law automatically assumes that many others have been harmed because it assumes there is an externality. There is no way to prove harm to others because there is no physical injury to them or their property. The extension of the crime to others is supposedly an implication of the fact that it was motivated by hatred. The externality argument does not hold up. By this theory, an arsonist who sets fires is not presumed to scare other property owners that their property may be next to be burned. A robber who has held up 5 people in a neighborhood, motivated by the desire to get their cash, is not presumed to scare or intimidate anyone else in the neighborhood. Related distinctions of the law Suppose hatred is the sole motivation of a crime. So what? A crime is a crime as far as the victim is concerned. Its severity is what it is and justice must deal with that fact, no matter what the motivation was. As against this, motivation or similar considerations seem to be important in many areas of law. More accurately, who the perpetrator is and what his background is may shed light on whether the crimes were premeditated or not. If a drunken driver kills a child, the child is just as dead as if a serial killer did the deed. The state’s law distinguishes these crimes. Should it? Should an accident count the same as an intentional crime? Probably not. But while there is no guilty mind (no intent or no malice aforethought) in a drunk driver who kills, there is severe damage, as bad as it can get, and justice has to consider both. These cases are not easy. Perhaps the best answer is to let the jury decide the remedies. Don’t let legislators tie the hands of jurors. Are these situations analogous to hate crimes? Suppose two arsons are premeditated. The motive for one is psychological gratification and the motive for the other is hatred. It seems impossible to argue for a hate-arson and not a gratification-arson. This means that defining a crime by motivation is a false distinction or one that lacks generality and consistency. It would seem that what is done in other areas of the law to examine intent does not apply to hate crimes. Intent and motivation are two different things. Arguments against hate crime laws There are quite a few other reasons to be skeptical of hate laws. (1) Proving that hatred is a motivation is costly and difficult. (2) Attributing motivation to a specific emotion can be quite subjective. It allows a jury or a judge to penalize criminals on subjective grounds. This can be a source of injustice. (3) Harm to others than the actual victim is not actually proven. It is presumed, and the criminal is punished for this unproven crime. This is unjust. (4) The externality theory is faulty because all sorts of crimes may intimidate non-victims or potential victims. If people are to be punished using a theory of crime, that theory should be broad enough and accurate enough to be fair over all similar cases. (5) Restitution to victims is typically disregarded by our criminal justice system. Hate crime legislation continues this feature. It adds to it by focusing on added penalties. (6) Over time, as laws and cases multiply, people can eventually be accused of libelous or seditious hate crimes involving vehement speech when they are biased against a group or merely do not like it or its policies. People can eventually be accused of hate crimes when they use hateful speech. Hate crimes laws are a seed that can sprout in new directions. (7) Perhaps hatred as a motivation will eventually be used as grounds for letting the criminal off the hook. Some clever lawyer will argue that the person’s hatred was uncontrollable or instilled by forces beyond his control. I’d add that there is no limit to the number of human groupings one can think of by characteristics. At present some groups are covered by hate crime laws and others are not. This unequal treatment of the law will predictably generate pressure for extension of hate laws to more and more groups. Even now, hate laws can be very broadly written so that the hatred is directed against people who vary by such characteristics as race, sexual preference, religion, ethnic group, marital status, political ideology, age, and parental status. Hate laws are a veritable Pandora’s Box. They can be used to tack on additional penalties or to gain leverage over suspects by threatening additional charges of "hate." It is rather easy to fake the appearance of a hate crime, apparently to gain sympathy for one’s group. The number of these incidents is on the rise. Should a columnist write a vitriolic essay against some figure, he might face not only libel charges but also hate crimes charges. Should someone make an obscene gesture toward someone else, the results may be hate crime charges. In one case in Philadelphia, Christians who were preaching to homosexuals at an outdoor homosexual event were arrested under the Pennsylvania hate crimes law. Suppose that Mel Gibson had taken a swipe at an officer, or suppose an officer had said that he had taken a swipe at him. This combined with Gibson’s remarks would have landed him in an even deeper hate-crime mess. Suppose that Lew Rockwell, like Murray N. Rothbard, writes that he hates Max Lerner, or that he hates the state, which Rothbard also wrote. What if some enthusiast burns down Lerner’s house in a hate crime? With the existing crazy laws in which responsibility falls upon distant parties, Rockwell may be accused of complicity in a hate crime. Or suppose the state begins to use conspiracy theories combined with hate crime laws. He may be accused of conspiracy to create a hate crime. A theory of hate crime laws The externality theory is simply a clever rationalization. It doesn’t explain why we have hate crime laws because it is clearly a flawed theory. I hypothesize that hate crime laws are in good measure politically motivated. In my theory, power and political considerations explain the laws. There are many avenues for political factors. (1) Some groups feel better having these laws on the books. (2) Leaders of these groups benefit by pointing to these laws as some sort of accomplishment. Their standing as leaders rises. (3) These laws are a way of cementing a group politically and raising its overall influence on other laws and lawmakers. (4) If a gay group obtains legislation favoring gay marriage, this can cause more crime against gays. This in turn raises their demand for protection in the form of hate crime laws. (5) Hate crime laws become part of an overall political agenda. Homosexual and racial groups or their leaders, for example, will push for these laws to attain and cement political power both within their groups and over legislators who respond to voting blocs. Under this theory, when pro-abortionists, Jews, the aged, Catholics, or some other groups get around to it, and some already have, they’ll seek these types of laws too. Legislators who are entrepreneurial and looking for voting blocs to support them will pander to blocs by proposing hate crimes laws that single out these groups. The political process is a two-way street. Conclusion Hate laws are a patch. They do not really reform the law in favor of the victim as they pretend to. If groups that have problems want real and lasting remedies, they have to go about it in a different way than by hate laws. For example, if gays wish to marry, the long-term solution is to get the state out of the marriage business. Failing this, if the state confers tax or economic privileges on married people and won’t recognize gay marriage, then the solution is to push for civil unions that give couples the same privileges. Or perhaps smart lawyers can dream up contracts that create units with tax privileges. If any group is faced with hatred, it is extremely doubtful that hate crime laws will ameliorate the problem. Most hatred is not manifested by outright crimes. Such laws will not stop speech. But they are clearly a move in that improper direction. Hate laws are not socially healthy. Hate laws institutionalize society’s divisions. They perpetuate the faulty system by which pressure groups obtain special interest legislation. They build upon faulty legal theories, and we surely do not need more of those. They exacerbate society’s ever-present divisions. They have a host of problems and potential downsides. The criminal justice system is already an under-performing segment of our society, and hate crime laws promise to drag it and society down further.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-29) not displayed.
.
.
.
#30. To: Dakmar (#29)
Or conversely, Incarceration = (produces) Hate.
No, hate is a product of inferior thinking. Good people simply manage to outmanuever their rivals.
Quit bogarting that peace, Herbert!
I'd argue that hate is a normal reaction to the obscene.
You'd be right to hate me then for suggesting the obscene idea that only the lower classes are capable of hate, but that's what I think I just did. I attempted to lace it with sarcasm, I assure you.
Quit bogarting that peace, Herbert!
The mere fact that you plugged people into classes is hateful. Read anything by Marx for further details.
So now I'm officially the "hater" class? Cool!
Quit bogarting that peace, Herbert!
Yep, please send me your mailing address and $395,000.00 for S&H, and I'll send you your very own official HATER lapel pin.
You must be doing your Foster Brooks imitation tonight. ;0)
"Never has so much military and economic and diplomatic power been used so ineffectively, and if after all of this time, and all of this sacrifice, and all of this support, there is still no end in sight, then I say the time has come for the American people to turn to new leadership not tied to the mistakes and policies of the past." Richard M. Nixon
Hi all- Like Neoconservatism and the kosher tax, "hate crimes" are a purely Jewish invention. They're not nor have they ever been part of American law. Sedition, libel, slander and other forms of "illegal" speech have always been part of the picture, but "hate speech" as part of a larger "hate crimes" concept is utterly foreign to American jurisprudence. In Jewish tradition is the idea of "lashon hara", literally "evil tongue": Lashon hara has the same gravity in Jewish law as murder does in ours. It's a religious precept of Judaism. Hate crimes/hate speech are ideas that supposedly come from the secular left, yet they're merely rabbinical, Pharisaical Judaism repackaged and shoved down the sheeples' gullets in another form. Part of lashon hara is what's known as "telling derogatory truths". This would explain why people are prosecuted, fined and/or jailed for "Holocaust denial" and other absurdities as rabbinical law doesn't allow the truth as a defense. "The truth is no defense" as a legal hook has already been established for Germany and other European countries as well as Canada. It's most likely already here in America. Once upon a time, a subject couldn't speak freely on the topic of his monarch. Those Jews and Noahides that adhere to the idea of lashon hara like a slug sticks to a sidewalk back these "hate crime/hate speech" laws as a method of protecting their King, the Jews themselves. We can thank B'nai B'rith, the ADL and the SPLC for this state of affairs. They've always been on the front lines of trying to silence, stifle, gag and choke any dissenting opinion on the topic Jewish power in America. The best defense is to talk a little more loudly. This is still America, dammit, no matter what the commissars think it is. best to all- bluegrass "We can make a natural alliance through the ownership of the great industries of the world and through the sharing of their profits." -Lord Charles Beresford, in a 1903 speech to the (Anglo-American-Jewish) Pilgrims Society.
Why are you at a place called Freedom Forum?
"We can make a natural alliance through the ownership of the great industries of the world and through the sharing of their profits." -Lord Charles Beresford, in a 1903 speech to the (Anglo-American-Jewish) Pilgrims Society.
Leo Frank was a bisexual pedophile and a drug addict who was constantly sexually harrassing both boys and girls. He raped and strangled Mary Phagan, who was 12, not 13, and got exactly what he deserved. Too bad he didn't suffer more...coal dust was found underneath Phagan's fingernail, showing she was still alive as she was dragged around.
"Benjamin Franklin was shown the new American constitution, and he said, 'I don't like it, but I will vote for it because we need something right now. But this constitution in time will fail, as all such efforts do. And it will fail because of the corruption of the people, in a general sense.' And that is what it has come to now, exactly as Franklin predicted." -- Gore Vidal
What a unique view of America and our history Foxman has. Let’s also remember why the Christian Right is so friendly to Israel: not because it’s a democracy, or because of the Holocaust, or because they value Judaism as such. No, they are friendly to Israel because they believe that it has an important role to play in Armageddon. The Jews must be preserved so that they can be converted at the end. With friends like these, who needs enemies? True, and yet I know of no scripture that admonishes Christians to "help Israel" in any way. I think they had to invent that idea. Article is no longer on Foward. From what I gather (sorry, no "proof"), the Zionist Christian leaders, in editorials in major newspapers, essecially said, "no money to Israel if Christian Zionist attacked." My 2 cents (now worth 4 cents). I think that's worth more than 4 cents. There was a distinct change in the mood of some christian leaders after it became known that the christian sections of Lebanon were being bombed by Israel. They still did not condemn Israel's actions, sad to say, but they were not promoting the actions anymore.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers We now have "selective" enforcement for certain minorities. Case in point..Most people use and see no harm in the term "white trash". No one has ever gone to jail for using it. Yet this term was coined by the black people of the south as a demeaning and derogatory put down for poor whites that had to work in the cotton fields. Can you imagine what would happen if we used the term "black trash"??????? amen, brother.
i'm so damn sick of these lying revisionists.
i agree.
Part of lashon hara is what's known as "telling derogatory truths". This would explain why people are prosecuted, fined and/or jailed for "Holocaust denial" and other absurdities as rabbinical law doesn't allow the truth as a defense. "The truth is no defense" as a legal hook has already been established for Germany and other European countries as well as Canada. It's most likely already here in America. Noahide laws which scalia advocates?
I never heard that before. I wonder why it was so important to erase his record and crimes? All they did was call attention to it.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers I forgot about Scalia's role in this mess... Every US Putzident from Reagan onward has also advocated the Noahide laws.
"We can make a natural alliance through the ownership of the great industries of the world and through the sharing of their profits." -Lord Charles Beresford, in a 1903 speech to the (Anglo-American-Jewish) Pilgrims Society.
Isramerika.
Reagan also granted amnesty to the illegals. How conservative.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers Usurael. Ezra Pound called it 'Yankee Judea'.
"We can make a natural alliance through the ownership of the great industries of the world and through the sharing of their profits." -Lord Charles Beresford, in a 1903 speech to the (Anglo-American-Jewish) Pilgrims Society.
We can also thank Reagan for the foothold he gave to the Neocons in the Federal jungle gym.
"We can make a natural alliance through the ownership of the great industries of the world and through the sharing of their profits." -Lord Charles Beresford, in a 1903 speech to the (Anglo-American-Jewish) Pilgrims Society.
Oh my!
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers I suppose that explains the special place of honor he holds among so-called conservatives. I just remembered, Reagan came from Hollywood. Was he chosen from an audition? He wasn't particularly bright, and despite having two good speechwriters (Noonan and Buchanan), it was clear his abilities were very limited. And now we have Smirk.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers PC police, ma'am. Don't let that happen again or we'll be forced to run you in.
:P
I prefer The United States of Israel, U.S.I. It just seems more accurate to me.
Get practice for your masterbaiting skills elsewhere, sport. I gave my opinion, and I will listen to yours and your reasons for it when you give it. Baiting I don't need, and it just shows very graphically that you come from the angle of hatred and intolerance primarily. Have a nice day.
Bullshit. You are full of conspiracy theory, and the 'dirty Jews' are your favorite bugaboo to pin blame on generically. Hate crimes have a special problem as the hatred and intolerance that spawns them compel more and worse crimes of their nature because unlike thieves or violent people who act primarily for and in their own interest, their is a social bonding and peer reinforcement and bonding pertaining to them. The deserve the status as a special class of crimes that need extra effort and penalties to eradicate them. Now, you insult me although I have read, discussed and even written a paper for a class at the University of Oregon pertaining to hate crimes in getting my degree. You ask me "why am I at this forum" to paraphrase your bait post to me. I don't care if you don't like me, and I don't care if you don't like my opinions, I am here to give mine, listen to other opinions and discuss why and where I disagree with others. Bottom line.
A statement such as above causes one to wonder what has fostered such an extremist view, far from the mainstream of rational thinking, a view that should be considered as dangerous for those of us that love freedom and liberty.
SO what Mike is actually saying is that some of us are more equal than others. Orwell wrote a neat book based on that concept.
Jethro... Review Mikes NR 58... The entire post consists of undisguised anger with vulgar street language thrown in. Anyone that has ever paid attention in class knows full well that anger is HATRED. Anger, resentment and rage all are the foundation for hatred. Anytime I see the word "eradicate" used in human terms, a warning flag goes up.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/anderson1.html "Whatever doesn't kill you... hurts like hell, but it doesn't kill you" -- generic TV character from short-lived, generic TV show
Incorrect. I just don't subscribe to coincidence theories as methods to describe the history we need to understand to know where we are now. the 'dirty Jews' are your favorite bugaboo to pin blame on generically I hope you're not inplying that there are no dirty Jews along with their slimeball counterparts hiding in organized Christianity and organized Islam. Oddly, we're free to discuss dirty Christians (Mel Gibson) and dirty Muslims (Yassir Arafat) without being accused of "hate", but dirty Jews (Abe Foxman) are off limits. I discuss dirty Jews precisely because by and large, most Americans don't think they're "allowed" to do so. The ADL's long history of censorship and manipulation of police methods attests to the true character of their mission and is a topic that should be front and center in any discussion of the loss of liberty for American citizens, along with the discussions of the Bush mob, the Clintonistas, the Saud Haus, etc. Hate crimes have a special problem as the hatred and intolerance that spawns them compel more and worse crimes of their nature because unlike thieves or violent people who act primarily for and in their own interest, their is a social bonding and peer reinforcement and bonding pertaining to them. Congratulations. You've just described Zionism. The deserve the status as a special class of crimes that need extra effort and penalties to eradicate them. When do Foxman, Feith, Perle and Zakheim go on trial? I have read, discussed and even written a paper for a class at the University of Oregon pertaining to hate crimes in getting my degree. That's proof of my earlier statement: "Hate crimes/hate speech are ideas that supposedly come from the secular left, yet they're merely rabbinical, Pharisaical Judaism repackaged and shoved down the sheeples' gullets in another form." Academia is a gianormous part of the secular 'left'. You ask me "why am I at this forum" to paraphrase your bait post to me. It wasn't a bait. I truly want to know why a self-professed monitor of discussion boards is at a site called Freedom Forum. I saw what other monitors did to Free Republic and tried to do to Liberty Forum. "Hate infractions" of any type are antithetical to liberty, freedom and their forums. I don't care if you don't like me I actually have no problem with you. I'm sure you're a well-intentioned fellow. I'd even buy you a beer... and I don't care if you don't like my opinions ...but I HATE your opinions as methods of law or governance. They're another repulsive form of tyranny over the minds and words of others and are despised by all who value their God-given birthright. That doesn't mean that I hate you, merely your opinions. You have every right to hate mine should you be so inclined. I am here to give mine, listen to other opinions and discuss why and where I disagree with others. Bottom line. By supporting "hate crime" laws, you're leaving the door wide open for the opinions of others to be suppressed while you retain the right to express yours. Like it or not, fascism and Bolshevism both depended on the same mechanism.
"We can make a natural alliance through the ownership of the great industries of the world and through the sharing of their profits." -Lord Charles Beresford, in a 1903 speech to the (Anglo-American-Jewish) Pilgrims Society.
That means you failed the Holocaust brainwashing. The brainwashed only get the red flag when word 'eradicate' is used in conjunction with 'Jews' or 'Israel'. The actual eradicated populations are ignored.
"We can make a natural alliance through the ownership of the great industries of the world and through the sharing of their profits." -Lord Charles Beresford, in a 1903 speech to the (Anglo-American-Jewish) Pilgrims Society.
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
Exactly so. Hate crime laws are the inverse of the Nuremberg Race Laws that the Nazis imposed.
"We can make a natural alliance through the ownership of the great industries of the world and through the sharing of their profits." -Lord Charles Beresford, in a 1903 speech to the (Anglo-American-Jewish) Pilgrims Society.
From the site you referenced, the link to LBJ and Lady Bird's possible crypto-Jewish roots is rather engrossing.
"We can make a natural alliance through the ownership of the great industries of the world and through the sharing of their profits." -Lord Charles Beresford, in a 1903 speech to the (Anglo-American-Jewish) Pilgrims Society.
Except judging by your use of really vulgar racial epithets very casually in your posts, I would say you believe that all Americans are equal, but some are more equal then others. You calling my views problematic means nothing in light of your obvious bigotry.
Interesting you mention this as I just used Animal Farm by Orwell in a response th the same person before seeing this post. I believe all Americans are equal - which goes against the views of the power elite that puts people as evil as Reagan and the Bush boys in power. Hate crime law help protect people that are targeted as the focus for special hate by those who use fear and mis-understanding of them as the focus in wedge issue building. People who seek to make others suffer by trying to make others fear and hate them to sell their agendas deserve the special attention they bring on themselves with this mis-guided effort. Hate crime law helps remind people that everyone is equal under the law, and that merely because someone is not a particular race, religion, or because they belong to some traditionally targeted demographic group it is fair game to declare open season on them. And this is done usually to sell the snake oil of an agenda they normally would not without the hysteria and fear wedge issue building works to achieve.
Obvious bigotry?? Would you care to cite specific examples and perhaps you care to share your personal definition of the term bigotry?
Comments (71 - 76) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHate = Incarceration?
#31. To: Jethro Tull (#30)
#32. To: Dakmar (#31)
#33. To: Jethro Tull (#32)
#34. To: Dakmar (#33)
#35. To: Jethro Tull (#34)
#36. To: Dakmar (#35)
cage goes into salsa, shark's in the salsa. Our shark! - Dakmar Quint
#37. To: Dakmar (#15)
relenqhueshinging
#38. To: christine, Itisa1mosttoolate, Jethro Tull, Esso, robin, Cynicom, Ferret Mike, Dakmar, rack42, scrapper2, BTP Holdings (#0)
Lashon Hara Lit.: Evil tongue. Harmful gossip. Lashon Hara is forbidden no matter if the gossip is true or false.
Proud hatespeaker since 9/11/2001
#39. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
I support hate crime laws
#40. To: Cynicom (#21)
#41. To: rack42, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#20)
In a telephone interview, Foxman said he raised the alarm because he sees a “mood change” nationally in which talk of God and religious values has been replaced with talk of Jesus and Christian values. This Christian “arrogance” is threatening traditional church-state separation in a variety of areas, he said, citing the controversy over Christian proselytizing at the U.S. Air Force Academy and a case recently won by the Salvation Army.
#42. To: Cynicom (#11)
It should never have been started. We did fine without them.
#43. To: Cynicom (#21)
One thing ADL and others never mention...There were 12 or more women that worked for Frank that got on the stand and testified he had molested or tried to molest them...His defense lawyers did NOT cross examine a one of them, not one.
#44. To: scrapper2 (#24)
We are all supposed to be considered equal in the eyes of the law in this country, so why are some groups, some religions, some genders considered more valuable and more in need of extra legal protections? Why are some criminals penalized more for inflicting crimes against aforementioned? Isn't my life, my group, my religion, my gender worth as much as the next American's?
#45. To: bluegrass (#38)
Lashon hara has the same gravity in Jewish law as murder does in ours. It's a religious precept of Judaism. Hate crimes/hate speech are ideas that supposedly come from the secular left, yet they're merely rabbinical, Pharisaical Judaism repackaged and shoved down the sheeples' gullets in another form.
#46. To: Cynicom (#21)
One thing ADL and others never mention...There were 12 or more women that worked for Frank that got on the stand and testified he had molested or tried to molest them...His defense lawyers did NOT cross examine a one of them, not one.
#47. To: christine (#45)
Noahide laws which scalia advocates?
#48. To: bluegrass (#47)
Every US Putzident from Reagan onward has also advocated the Noahide laws
#49. To: bluegrass (#47)
Every US Putzident from Reagan onward has also advocated the Noahide laws.
#50. To: christine (#48)
Isramerika
#51. To: robin (#49)
#52. To: bluegrass (#50)
Ezra Pound called it 'Yankee Judea'.
#53. To: bluegrass (#51)
(Edited)
#54. To: christine (#42)
amen,
brother brutha.
cage goes into salsa, shark's in the salsa. Our shark! - Dakmar Quint
#55. To: Esso (#54)
#56. To: christine (#48)
Isramerika.
cage goes into salsa, shark's in the salsa. Our shark! - Dakmar Quint
#57. To: bluegrass (#39)
"Why are you at a place called Freedom Forum?"
#58. To: bluegrass (#38)
"Like Neoconservatism and the kosher tax, "hate crimes" are a purely Jewish invention."
#59. To: Ferret Mike (#58)
The deserve the status as a special class of crimes that need extra effort and penalties to eradicate them.
#60. To: Cynicom, Ferret Mike (#59)
#61. To: Jethro Tull (#60)
SO what Mike is actually saying is that some of us are more equal than others.
#62. To: Cynicom, Jethro Tull, bluegrass, esso, robin, christine (#61)
Hate crime legislation not only is unnecessary, it is harmful to the pursuit of universal justice. Like so many laws and regulations before them, hate crime laws are tools wielded by the political classes to create and then destroy their enemies. By interpreting what really are crimes against individuals to attacks upon politically-favored groups, hate crime legislation strips justice of what should be the characteristic of equality under law. Such laws do not protect us from tyranny. They are tyranny. -- William Anderson, 1999
#63. To: Ferret Mike (#58)
You are full of conspiracy theory
#64. To: Cynicom (#61)
Anytime I see the word "eradicate" used in human terms, a warning flag goes up.
#65. To: bluegrass (#64)
#66. To: Nintendo of the Gods, Cynicom, Jethro Tull, Esso, robin, christine (#62)
...hate crime legislation strips justice of what should be the characteristic of equality under law.
#67. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#65)
#68. To: Cynicom (#59)
"A statement such as above causes one to wonder what has fostered such an extremist view, far from the mainstream of rational thinking, a view that should be considered as dangerous for those of us that love freedom and liberty."
#69. To: Jethro Tull (#60)
#70. To: Ferret Mike (#68)
You calling my views problematic means nothing in light of your obvious bigotry.
.
.
.