Hate Crime Legislation

[cholland]

Now that President Obama has included sexual orientation within the definition of a hate crime, I wonder what the next revision will include. I don't see 'age' on the list yet.

Is it healthy that the courts have to act like a psychiatrist in order to determine the level of punishment?

At what point do we stop the list? Pres Obama: "Time and again weve been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which were all free to live and love as we see fit."
Is there any end to "love as we see fit?" Why should one be prosecuted for "loving" a 12 year old girl if she is consenting? Why should one be prosecuted for polygamy if all wives involved are consenting?

[Miles]

Now that President Obama has included sexual orientation within the definition of a hate crime, I wonder what the next revision will include. I don't see 'age' on the list yet.
Is it healthy that the courts have to act like a psychiatrist in order to determine the level of punishment?

And just why would the courts have to act like a psychiatrist in order to determine the level of punishment? Has it been proposed that punishment for hate crimes concerning sexual orientation be psychiatricly determined? As it now stands under Federal sentencing guidelines, hate crime sentencing is automatically increased by three levels. So all that has to be determined is if an offense qualifies as a hate crime.

At what point do we stop the list?

Probably when all hate crimes have been addressed.

Is there any end to "love as we see fit?" Why should one be prosecuted for "loving" a 12 year old girl if she is consenting?

Because a 12 year-old is not considered able to give informed consent.

Why should one be prosecuted for polygamy if all wives involved are consenting?

In other words, why do we have such laws? I would imagined it's because of the Judeo-Christian dictates that were in heeded at the time the law was created.

• "Each man should have his own wife (singular), and each woman her own husband (singular). [I Corinthians 7:2]
  
  "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well." [I Timothy 3:12]

Personally, I find this to be a specious basis at best. If a man wants two or more wives, let him.

[cholland]

And just why would the courts have to act like a psychiatrist in order to determine the level of punishment? Has it been proposed that punishment for hate crimes concerning sexual orientation be psychiatricly determined? As it now stands under Federal sentencing guidelines, hate crime sentencing is automatically increased by three levels. So all that has to be determined is if an offense qualifies as a hate crime.

They have to determine the defendant's intent. Was he simply mugging the person or was it because the victim was homosexual? See cnorman18's post above.

At what point do we stop the list?

Probably when all hate crimes have been addressed.

So all crimes? Basically just make punishments for all crimes more severe?

Because a 12 year-old is not considered able to give informed consent.

Why not?

In other words, why do we have such laws? I would imagined it's because of the Judeo-Christian dictates that were in heeded at the time the law was created.

• "Each man should have his own wife (singular), and each woman her own husband (singular). [I Corinthians 7:2]
  
  "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well." [I Timothy 3:12]

Personally, I find this to be a specious basis at best. If a man wants two or more wives, let him.

Exactly my point. Is there any end to "love as we see fit?" Polygamous relationships? Pornography to all? Prostitution? Pedophilia? At what point do we say "ok, that right there...too far."

[MagusYanam]

Why not?

Because a child cannot understand the responsibilities or consequences involved in sexual activity. Adults (one hopes) can.

Exactly my point. Is there any end to "love as we see fit?" Polygamous relationships? Pornography to all? Prostitution? Pedophilia? At what point do we say "ok, that right there...too far."

There is, and it's a simple one. Love ends where the relationship becomes unequal. Then it becomes possession or exploitation - both of which should be prohibited by law. Human beings should not be allowed to own or exploit other human beings (though we are allowed to own pets and we have certain ethical responsibilities to our pets, one hopes - like not to use them as objects of sexual gratification). Paedophilia is always exploitative, and socially and psychologically destructive to the child and her family. Polygamy and prostitution are almost always unavoidably exploitative and destructive in practice (however much social liberals love to make up perfect hypothetical utopian scenarios in which both are not, conveniently ignoring pre-existing social norms and stigmas and economic inequality).

One thing the social liberals have right, though, is that homosexual relations are not necessarily exploitative or socially or psychologically destructive, and that stable, equal and loving partnerships have been proven sociologically to exist between two men or two women.

[Miles]

They have to determine the defendant's intent. Was he simply mugging the person or was it because the victim was homosexual? See cnorman18's post above.

Excuse me, but you only asked about the level of punishment, not whether or not a hate crime was committed. The commission of a hate crime was already implied in your question:
"Now that President Obama has included sexual orientation within the definition of a hate crime, I wonder what the next revision will include. I don't see 'age' on the list yet.
Is it healthy that the courts have to act like a psychiatrist in order to determine the level of punishment?"

That cnorman chose to read more into your question than what is there was his choice.

Probably when all hate crimes have been addressed.

So all crimes? Basically just make punishments for all crimes more severe?

PLEASE read me as I have written: "Probably when all hate crimes have been addressed."

Because a 12 year-old is not considered able to give informed consent.

Why not?

Why not what? Why are 12 year-olds incapable of giving informed consent? Or why do we consider such lack of capability to be reason enough to deem it relevant?

Exactly my point. Is there any end to "love as we see fit?" Polygamous relationships? Pornography to all? Prostitution? Pedophilia? At what point do we say "ok, that right there...too far."

In my opinion it goes too far when it infringes on the legal rights of others. Think the illegality of some act is goofy, then change the law.

[cholland]

Because a child cannot understand the responsibilities or consequences involved in sexual activity. Adults (one hopes) can.

And what magical age is the cutoff?

There is, and it's a simple one. Love ends where the relationship becomes unequal. Then it becomes possession or exploitation - both of which should be prohibited by law. Human beings should not be allowed to own or exploit other human beings (though we are allowed to own pets and we have certain ethical responsibilities to our pets, one hopes - like not to use them as objects of sexual gratification). Paedophilia is always exploitative, and socially and psychologically destructive to the child and her family. Polygamy and prostitution are almost always unavoidably exploitative and destructive in practice (however much social liberals love to make up perfect hypothetical utopian scenarios in which both are not, conveniently ignoring pre-existing social norms and stigmas and economic inequality).

One thing the social liberals have right, though, is that homosexual relations are not necessarily exploitative or socially or psychologically destructive, and that stable, equal and loving partnerships have been proven sociologically to exist between two men or two women.

Ok, you just described every relationship known to man...not equal. The most obvious - should we prohibit all marriages based in middle eastern cultures? Divorce is also socially and psychologically destructive to the child and family. Should we prohibit divorce?

Excuse me, but you only asked about the level of punishment, not whether or not a hate crime was committed.

I don't see the distinction. The government has to determine whether or not a "hate crime" was committed in order to seek a harsher punishment.

PLEASE read me as I have written: "Probably when all hate crimes have been addressed."

Please give an example where a person is beaten to death and the crime was not motivated by hate.

Why not what? Why are 12 year-olds incapable of giving informed consent? Or why do we consider such lack of capability to be reason enough to deem it relevant?

Why are they incapable?

In my opinion it goes too far when it infringes on the legal rights of others. Think the illegality of some act is goofy, then change the law.

So Polygamous relationships, pornography to all (including children), prostitution, and pedophilia are all fair game? I don't see and human rights being violated if all parties are consenting.

[East of Eden]

Children are deemed to be legally not able to consent. We have protected the rights of gays in Canada for some time now and I have not seen an increase in calls to legalize pedophilia. Linking the two is simply a smear campaign tactic.

NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assn.) is to some extent a subset of the gay rights movements. They were members of the International Lesbian and Gay Assn. until they were forced out because of the bad publicity. Interesting that Obama's gay education czar had no problem with an underage student being sexually involved with an adult:

"President Obama's "safe schools czar" Kevin Jennings said Wednesday he "should have handled [the] situation differently" when he didn't report an underage student told him that he was having sex with an older man.

Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when a sophomore boy confessed an involvement with a man in Boston. He told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."

In a statement, Jennings said: "Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities." "

Here's an interesting story on one of the founder's of the gay rights movement and his involvement in pedophilia:


Father of Gay Rights Dies; Media Ignore NAMBLA Connection
Harry Hay Was Sexualized Early, Defended Pedophiles to the End

By Peter J. LaBarbera, CWA, 10-30-2002

In noting the passing of Harry Hay " the man who first organized homosexuals as a political minority " no mainstream media outlets reported that Hay was an advocate of pedophile rights and the notorious group NAMBLA.

NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association, a group that advocates for the legalization of sex between men and boys, and an end to all age of consent laws.

Hay, who died on October 24, at age 90, formed the first American homosexual activist group, the Mattachine Society, in 1950. He conceived of the idea of organizing homosexuals at a time when most were afraid to even be discovered as such. Hay was also a committed Communist who married to hide his homosexuality so that he could join the Party.

He went on to found The Radical Faeries, a shamanistic spirituality movement for homosexual men. Gay pride parades frequently include local contingents of Faeries " semi-naked men prancing and dancing in variations of Native American rituals.

Hay strongly opposed the notion that gays should assimilate into larger straight culture. Thus, in the eighties and nineties, when homosexual activists began banning NAMBLA from gay pride parades to clean up their public image, he and other gay liberationists were outraged.

In 1994, Hay, then in his eighties, was among the signers of a Spirit of Stonewall proclamation that argued that efforts to ban NAMBLA from the New York pride parade violated the spirit of the original Stonewall rebellion, which is revered by homosexual activists as the spark of the modern gay rights movement. (In 1969, homosexuals and others then regarded as deviants rioted in response to a police crackdown of the Stonewall Inn in New York City.)

The Spirit of Stonewall (SOS) declaration read in part:

Stonewall was the spontaneous action of marginal people oppressed by the mainstream " of teenaged drag queens, pederasts, transsexuals, hustlers, and others despised by respectable straights and discreet homosexuals.

SOS is an ad hoc committee of lesbian, gay and other individuals and groups formed to bring Stonewall 25 [celebrating the 25th anniversary of the riots] back to the principles of gay liberation. We focus on one of the most glaring departures from those principles: the attempt to exclude [NAMBLA] .

NAMBLAs record as a responsible gay organization is well known. NAMBLA was spawned by the gay community and has been in every major gay and lesbian march. NAMBLAs call for the abolition of age of consent is not the issue. NAMBLA is a bona fide participant in the gay and lesbian movement. NAMBLA deserves strong support in its rights of free speech and association and its members protection from discrimination and bashing.

In 1986, Hays pro-NAMBLA activism had a role in what became known in homosexual circles as the Harry Hay incident. As part of a protest against the Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, Hay taunted organizers for excluding the North American Man/Boy Love Association by wearing a sandwich board that read, NAMBLA Walks with Me. This event is chronicled by Hays biographer, homosexual writer Stuart Timmons, in The Trouble with Harry Hay: Founder of the Modern Gay Movement. The book includes a photo of Hay in the NAMBLA sandwich board.

More recently, Hay wrote an essay for the pederasty magazine GAYME, according to a queer magazine Web site. GAYME is a magazine for men who are sexually into boys, according to one Web reviewer. It is produced by former NAMBLA Bulletin editor Bill Andriette.

Timmons sympathetic biography of Hay reveals that he had his first homosexual sexual encounter at age nine, with another boy. At age 14, in a grove of trees, he discovered his first [homosexual] lovemaking with a 25-year-old sailor named Matt. Hay refused to describe the experience as molestation, according to Timmons, to make the point of how sharply gay life differs from homosexual norms. The account continues:

As a child, [Hay] explained, I molested an adult until I found out what I needed to know. Far from being an experience of molestation, Harry always described it as the most beautiful gift that a fourteen-year-old ever got from his first love!

A Nexis database search of Harry Hay obits in over 30 print news outlets " including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Associated Press and Time Magazine " turned up no mention of his pro-NAMBLA advocacy.

[JoeyKnothead]

Children are deemed to be legally not able to consent. We have protected the rights of gays in Canada for some time now and I have not seen an increase in calls to legalize pedophilia. Linking the two is simply a smear campaign tactic.

NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assn.) is to some extent a subset of the gay rights movements. They were members of the International Lesbian and Gay Assn. until they were forced out because of the bad publicity. Interesting that Obama's gay education czar had no problem with an underage student being sexually involved with an adult:

"President Obama's "safe schools czar" Kevin Jennings said Wednesday he "should have handled [the] situation differently" when he didn't report an underage student told him that he was having sex with an older man.

Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when a sophomore boy confessed an involvement with a man in Boston. He told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."

In a statement, Jennings said: "Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities." "

Here's an interesting story on one of the founder's of the gay rights movement and his involvement in pedophilia:


Father of Gay Rights Dies; Media Ignore NAMBLA Connection
Harry Hay Was Sexualized Early, Defended Pedophiles to the End

By Peter J. LaBarbera, CWA, 10-30-2002

In noting the passing of Harry Hay " the man who first organized homosexuals as a political minority " no mainstream media outlets reported that Hay was an advocate of pedophile rights and the notorious group NAMBLA.

NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association, a group that advocates for the legalization of sex between men and boys, and an end to all age of consent laws.

Hay, who died on October 24, at age 90, formed the first American homosexual activist group, the Mattachine Society, in 1950. He conceived of the idea of organizing homosexuals at a time when most were afraid to even be discovered as such. Hay was also a committed Communist who married to hide his homosexuality so that he could join the Party.

He went on to found The Radical Faeries, a shamanistic spirituality movement for homosexual men. Gay pride parades frequently include local contingents of Faeries " semi-naked men prancing and dancing in variations of Native American rituals.

Hay strongly opposed the notion that gays should assimilate into larger straight culture. Thus, in the eighties and nineties, when homosexual activists began banning NAMBLA from gay pride parades to clean up their public image, he and other gay liberationists were outraged.

In 1994, Hay, then in his eighties, was among the signers of a Spirit of Stonewall proclamation that argued that efforts to ban NAMBLA from the New York pride parade violated the spirit of the original Stonewall rebellion, which is revered by homosexual activists as the spark of the modern gay rights movement. (In 1969, homosexuals and others then regarded as deviants rioted in response to a police crackdown of the Stonewall Inn in New York City.)

The Spirit of Stonewall (SOS) declaration read in part:

Stonewall was the spontaneous action of marginal people oppressed by the mainstream " of teenaged drag queens, pederasts, transsexuals, hustlers, and others despised by respectable straights and discreet homosexuals.

SOS is an ad hoc committee of lesbian, gay and other individuals and groups formed to bring Stonewall 25 [celebrating the 25th anniversary of the riots] back to the principles of gay liberation. We focus on one of the most glaring departures from those principles: the attempt to exclude [NAMBLA] .

NAMBLAs record as a responsible gay organization is well known. NAMBLA was spawned by the gay community and has been in every major gay and lesbian march. NAMBLAs call for the abolition of age of consent is not the issue. NAMBLA is a bona fide participant in the gay and lesbian movement. NAMBLA deserves strong support in its rights of free speech and association and its members protection from discrimination and bashing.

In 1986, Hays pro-NAMBLA activism had a role in what became known in homosexual circles as the Harry Hay incident. As part of a protest against the Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, Hay taunted organizers for excluding the North American Man/Boy Love Association by wearing a sandwich board that read, NAMBLA Walks with Me. This event is chronicled by Hays biographer, homosexual writer Stuart Timmons, in The Trouble with Harry Hay: Founder of the Modern Gay Movement. The book includes a photo of Hay in the NAMBLA sandwich board.

More recently, Hay wrote an essay for the pederasty magazine GAYME, according to a queer magazine Web site. GAYME is a magazine for men who are sexually into boys, according to one Web reviewer. It is produced by former NAMBLA Bulletin editor Bill Andriette.

Timmons sympathetic biography of Hay reveals that he had his first homosexual sexual encounter at age nine, with another boy. At age 14, in a grove of trees, he discovered his first [homosexual] lovemaking with a 25-year-old sailor named Matt. Hay refused to describe the experience as molestation, according to Timmons, to make the point of how sharply gay life differs from homosexual norms. The account continues:

As a child, [Hay] explained, I molested an adult until I found out what I needed to know. Far from being an experience of molestation, Harry always described it as the most beautiful gift that a fourteen-year-old ever got from his first love!

A Nexis database search of Harry Hay obits in over 30 print news outlets " including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Associated Press and Time Magazine " turned up no mention of his pro-NAMBLA advocacy.

If we're gonna consider all homosexuals in terms of NAMBLA, where does that leave pedophile priests and their protectors? Must we now consider all priests and theists in amongst the bad apples?

[East of Eden]

If we're gonna consider all homosexuals in terms of NAMBLA, where does that leave pedophile priests and their protectors? Must we now consider all priests and theists in amongst the bad apples?

You'll have to find a protector of the pedophile priests - I'm not one of them. BTW, this is as much a homosexual problem as a pedophile one, as almost all the crimes were male on male.

[Miles]

Excuse me, but you only asked about the level of punishment, not whether or not a hate crime was committed.

I don't see the distinction. The government has to determine whether or not a "hate crime" was committed in order to seek a harsher punishment.

YOU said: "Is it healthy that the courts have to act like a psychiatrist in order to determine the level of punishment?" Guilt and punishment are NOT the same thing. Right!? Well, you weren't addressing any determination of guilt, only the determination of punishment. Punishment can only come after a determination of guilt, so if one is trying to determine the punishment, as you have here, the guilt must have already been arrived at, which is why it is taken as a foregone event in your statement.

PLEASE read me as I have written: "Probably when all hate crimes have been addressed."

Please give an example where a person is beaten to death and the crime was not motivated by hate.

As distinguished from crimes that are NOT called "hate crimes," true "hate" crimes

• "(also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation."
  
  Wikipedia

Then there are all those crimes committed by want, such as want of money, want of drugs, want of an object.

Why not what? Why are 12 year-olds incapable of giving informed consent? Or why do we consider such lack of capability to be reason enough to deem it relevant?

Why are they incapable?

Because they have yet to develop the ability to make sound, mature decisions. Surely you have heard of the word, "immaturity." Decision making, like almost all other abilities, does not happen all at once at birth, but continually develops and improves as time passes, and it has been concluded that for most people the ability to make sound, mature decisions takes a good 18 years to develop.

In my opinion it goes too far when it infringes on the legal rights of others. Think the illegality of some act is goofy, then change the law.

So Polygamous relationships, pornography to all (including children), prostitution, and pedophilia are all fair game? I don't see and human rights being violated if all parties are consenting.

Right now they are not.
As to these particular issues; child pornography is excluded because children are not considered able to give informed consent, and such participation may hurt them. Adult pornography is already legal. Prostitution among consenting adults should be legal everywhere. Pedophilia is in the same class as child pornography.

[cholland]

YOU said: "Is it healthy that the courts have to act like a psychiatrist in order to determine the level of punishment?" Guilt and punishment are NOT the same thing. Right!? Well, you weren't addressing any determination of guilt, only the determination of punishment. Punishment can only come after a determination of guilt, so if one is trying to determine the punishment, as you have here, the guilt must have already been arrived at, which is why it is taken as a foregone event in your statement.

You are correct. I meant determination of guilt.