Does it seem reasonable to you that two committed progressives can disagree on hate crimes laws?

[bryant69]

Cards on the table, this issue has always seemed to me to be the poster child for issues that good well meaning people can disagree on.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Buzz Clik]

1. The fascinating thing about progressives is they are self-defined.

Certain core beliefs exist, but not every progressive embraces every core value. Similarly, we prioritize them differently.

As such, differing on something as complicated and politically messing as hate crime laws seems only natural.

[IndianaJones]

2. I do not consider myself a progressive...how can there be disagreement on hate crimes legislation..

between "well meaning people"?

[bryant69]

3. what do you mean?

Some well meaning people can oppose hate crimes legislation while other well meaning people can support hate crimes legislation.

Bryant

[IndianaJones]

4. What are the arguments of well meaning people that oppose hate crimes legislation? nt.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

11. See post #5

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

6. I generally dont favor 'hate crime' laws..

A crime is a crime if the guy hates me because I buy foreign cars (which I dont) or because I married outside my race (which I did) in the end its his actions that are to be punished, not the thoughts.

I know this is a rather unpopular opinion among many of my friends and I am sure ppl here but its one I hold..

[IndianaJones]

7. do you consider yourself a progressive? nt.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

9. Yes...

Should the fact I think that the rights of two people who are mugged are equal disqualify me from that?

[IndianaJones]

10. just curious. nt.

[rucky]

5. Two progressive values are clashing, here:

Equal protection under the law: For the victims of non-hate crimes, why should their crime be of any lesser value than an exact same crime committed under motives of hate? Hurt is hurt. Killed is killed.

There is also an urgent need to stop hate groups from inciting and committing acts of violence.

My opinion is that the threat of stiffer penalties will not deter such crimes, and we need to examine the root of the problem, and early intervention similar to gang programs in schools that have been effective in reducing gang violence.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

8. You stated it very well

"There is also an urgent need to stop hate groups from inciting and committing acts of violence."

There are already crimes against inciting violence, everything from conspiracy, to criminal threats, to RICO (given that terrorist groups fall under 'criminal groups')..

[noamnety]

13. Confusion over who the victims are.

For the victims of non-hate crimes, why should their crime be of any lesser value than an exact same crime committed under motives of hate?

They aren't. That's not the issue.

In a hate crime, there are two victims/sets of victims. One is the directly affected by the criminal. They either are or aren't dead, they are or aren't attacked, you are right about that.

The other victims are the people who are affected because the crime is an act of terrorism against people of their identity. I wish they would just call it terrorism, because the effect is no different than that of terrorists - to change society by terrorizing people. If they attack gay people or black people or latin@s for being in a particular neighborhood, the message to ALL people of that identity is that they must not be there or they will risk getting attacked. It sets up second class citizenship in the same way that women learn that they are not allowed to be in certain areas at certain times. Think about how women - even those who are not rape victims - are affected by the crime of rape. That's how hate crimes work.

[rucky]

14. Racism victimizes society. Crime victimizes society.

But the larger-scale victimization is not from a single crime, but from a collective mindset that a single crime may be indicative of, or spur discussion of. It's a different problem - no less serious - that requires a different solution. More along the lines of the early-intervention end of things I brought up.

Look at the murder rates in death-penalty states and it will show that stiffer penalties are not an effective deterrant.

[noamnety]

15. I suppose you could make the same argument

about any form of terrorism - that terrorism as a crime really doesn't exist.

Not sure what purpose it serves, though. I think most people who are oppressed minorities - minorities that have been victims of genocides based on their identities - understand why hate crimes are a form of terrorism, and why painting racist hate slurs is different than painting J.S. + L.M. in a cutesy heart on the side of a person's house. Both are just paint, just graffiti. They are the same, but they are entirely different.

[blondeatlast]

12. We can disagree on whether the Pope is Catholic. If posted in GD/P,

no doubt someone would find a reason to say he isn't--and that he's supporting HRC/BO/JE for all the wrong reasons.