Is it a hate crime? - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

undercoverbrother · 10-03-2012, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polak

Worse has been posted in the Funny Pics thread my friend.

My jokes were meant as an expression of my belief that this news article is ridiculous. It's not like they draped the buildings with Swastika flags. They made fun of a pretty minor aspect of the religion and culture. I have a hard time imagining how sensitive you'd have to be to really be offended by it.

Vandalism okay, Hate Crime? Give me a break.

What is a major aspect. I think diet is a major part of a culture and religion.

yads · 10-03-2012, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

That hate crime laws unfairly marginalize crimes against people who aren't part of identifiable minority groups?

That's one way of looking at it. A more reasonable way of looking at it, is the law punishes hate crimes more severely.

yads · 10-03-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

How about we use a not ######ed analogy then? I also never said motive doesn't matter.

Guy x gets murdered for being tall. Guy y gets murdered for being Jewish.

Under our laws the guy who killed Guy x is going to get off lighter than the guy who killed the Jewish guy (all other things being equal).

Please explain why you feel that the murder of both victims should not be met with equal punishment.

Pot meet kettle. One of these happens in reality, the other one doesn't.

Sliver · 10-03-2012, 03:34 PM

Let's be rational about this. They put bacon on the front steps of the mosque. It wasn't cool and it wasn't funny, but it didn't hurt anybody and I assume it was cleaned up in 10 minutes. Big deal. As far as I understand it Muslims can't eat pork, but I've never heard anything about it not being allowed in their presence.

Hopefully they find who did it and get a read on if the people are going to escalate things into doing something worse, but really this is small potatoes. I put a flaming bag of dog crap on somebody's front step when I was 12...that was 10x worse.

Rathji · 10-03-2012, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I agree that is what he said. It still doesn't make Rathji's ridiculous assumption any less ridiculous.

I was asking him to clarify, since his previous post indicated that it could be either. If I was to assume what his answer was, then that would have been ridiculous, but I didn't.

If his concern is that religious groups should not be protected under hate crimes legislation, which is essentially designed to allow increased sentencing protect people from being persecuted solely due to their beliefs (or race etc), then I disagree.

Despite the the reasoning that religions are founded upon fictional characters, you cannot deny that religion is one of the most common reasons for such crimes. If crimes happen against religious targets that are identical in all respects to another hate crime against another 'acceptable' group', including motive, type of action, etc, then how it is any different? The fact that you personally don't agree with them?

You mentioned a group of people out and randomly beating on people, compared to a group of hetero-bashers. There is a clear difference in those 2 things, and that's why we have hate crime laws.

HPLovecraft · 10-03-2012, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

How about we use a not ######ed analogy then? I also never said motive doesn't matter.

Guy x gets murdered for being tall. Guy y gets murdered for being Jewish.

Under our laws the guy who killed Guy x is going to get off lighter than the guy who killed the Jewish guy (all other things being equal).

Please explain why you feel that the murder of both victims should not be met with equal punishment.

You did say motive doesn't matter. Not directly, but when you dismiss the why and only choose to focus on the severity, you're doing the same thing.

With the history of the Jewish community -- the organized pogroms, targeted beatings, killings, defamation campaigns, genocides, etc. -- I think the the reasons why the punishment of a crime specifically targeting that group should be more severe than a crime targeting tall people (and the complete lack of a history of this) should be fairly obvious. A big reason would be the ability to incite real violence amongst a large number of people against the Jews compared to what could be done against . . . tall people.

Of course, the real difference is one of these things happens the world over, and one doesn't. If tall people had a history of discrimination, hatred, and pogroms against them by large numbers of people based solely on their height, then I wouldn't hesitate in saying both crimes should be punished exactly the same way.

polak · 10-03-2012, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

What is a major aspect. I think diet is a major part of a culture and religion.

They didn't make fun of their history, they didn't make fun of their stereotypes, they didn't hurt anyone.

If a joke could be played in a network tv comedy and be okay, I don't think it should be considered a Hate Crime in real life. This is ridiculous.

Rathji · 10-03-2012, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's becoming impossible to have a normal conversation with Rathji lately. He'll focus on the inconsequential minutia of a post, then pretend not to understand the larger point, then never come back when you clarify it for him.

I am sorry, next time we have a conversation about a hate-crime that occurs towards a religious group, I will try to avoid the inconsequential detail of hate crimes and how they should or should not have relevance over religion groups.

Sliver · 10-03-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am sorry, next time we have a conversation about a hate-crime that occurs towards a religious group, I will try to avoid the inconsequential detail of hate crimes and how they should or should not have relevance over religion groups.

Apology accepted.

valo403 · 10-03-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polak

They didn't make fun of their history, they didn't make fun of their stereotypes, they didn't hurt anyone.

If a joke could be played in a network tv comedy and be okay, I don't think it should be considered a Hate Crime in real life. This is ridiculous.

You seriously think that something like this could be in a network comedy and not result in outrage? What planet do you live on?

Cecil Terwilliger · 10-03-2012, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yads

That's one way of looking at it. A more reasonable way of looking at it, is the law punishes hate crimes more severely.

Uhh, that's a fact, not a more reasonable way of looking at it. Hate crimes do get punished more severely. My point is I don't agree with why we treat hate crimes more severely.

undercoverbrother · 10-03-2012, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polak

They didn't make fun of their history, they didn't make fun of their stereotypes, they didn't hurt anyone.

.

No they focused on core values of their religion. I can see this and I can't stand religion.

Nage Waza · 10-03-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polak

Worse has been posted in the Funny Pics thread my friend.

My jokes were meant as an expression of my belief that this news article is ridiculous. It's not like they draped the buildings with Swastika flags. They made fun of a pretty minor aspect of the religion and culture. I have a hard time imagining how sensitive you'd have to be to really be offended by it.

Vandalism okay, Hate Crime? Give me a break.

Your so called jokes were insulting and were meant to troll.

A group was targetted based on their beliefs; the litmus test is not how effective the insult was.

What percentage of your posts in this thread could be interpretted as rude to jews? What were you trying to prove?

valo403 · 10-03-2012, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Uhh, that's a fact, not a more reasonable way of looking at it. Hate crimes do get punished more severely. My point is I don't agree with why we treat hate crimes more severely.

You honestly think that crimes motivated by hatred against a particular group of people who are specifically targeted due to their beliefs/race etc. should be treated the same as random actions? Why? There have been many posts that talk about why hate crimes should be punished more severely, counter those points and raise your own.

V · 10-03-2012, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

What is a major aspect. I think diet is a major part of a culture and religion.

You think if some bacon was tossed on the front step of a Jewish temple this same conversation would be happening?

undercoverbrother · 10-03-2012, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Your so called jokes were insulting and were meant to troll.

A group was targetted based on their beliefs; the litmus test is not how effective the insult was.

What percentage of your posts in this thread could be interpretted as rude to jews? What were you trying to prove?

Stupidity, Ignorance?

polak · 10-03-2012, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

You seriously think that something like this could be in a network comedy and not result in outrage? What planet do you live on?

I don't know, maybe I'm crazy but I'm pretty sure I've heard jokes about kosher food on TV before.

Hell I know for a fact Community has made jokes about jews (and other racist jokes, albeit, in satire) that I would consider more offensive then leaving bacon on a doorstep.

I must be desensitized because I really have a hard time believing that anyone would give this more than an eye roll.

undercoverbrother · 10-03-2012, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V

You think if some bacon was tossed on the front step of a Jewish temple this same conversation would be happening?

I would hope so.

Nage Waza · 10-03-2012, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Uhh, that's a fact, not a more reasonable way of looking at it. Hate crimes do get punished more severely. My point is I don't agree with why we treat hate crimes more severely.

That is what makes 'us' different from the rest of the world - we heavily defend the rights of minorities. Have a look at the countries with the opposite approach, most are in states of war or serious oppression.

We have hate crimes, I am not sure if I totally support them, but as long as they help enforce the fact we are all 'equal' I am fine enforcing these laws.

Cecil Terwilliger · 10-03-2012, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rathji

I was asking him to clarify, since his previous post indicated that it could be either. If I was to assume what his answer was, then that would have been ridiculous, but I didn't.

If his concern is that religious groups should not be protected under hate crimes legislation, which is essentially designed to allow increased sentencing protect people from being persecuted solely due to their beliefs (or race etc), then I disagree.

Despite the the reasoning that religions are founded upon fictional characters, you cannot deny that religion is one of the most common reasons for such crimes. If crimes happen against religious targets that are identical in all respects to another hate crime against another 'acceptable' group', including motive, type of action, etc, then how it is any different? The fact that you personally don't agree with them?

I never said I agree with him. I have no problem with religion being included with the other categories of hate crimes.

My problem is with the concept of hate crimes all together.