Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: GroinkTropin on February 16, 2007, 11:15:54 PM
-
I find this article VERY disturbing, its pretty obvious the homosexuals benefit from being called "gay" and not homosexual which is what they are. This would be akin to straights being called "elated" as opposed to straight, it fosters a more positive mental reaction. If something like this happens here, I will fucking lose it. The homosexual mafia hard at work to further their agenda....
WND Exclusive LAW OF THE LAND
Diss a 'gay'? Go to jail!
Activists warn Christians targeted under new 'hate crimes' proposal
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Two Christians in Australia have been indicted for criticizing Islam, and another for criticizing Zionism. A filmmaker has been threatened with arrest for using the word "homosexual" rather than "gay." Now a German priest faces jail time for publicly criticizing abortionists, and in Holland, "fornicators" and "adulterers" are protected classes and cannot be criticized.
All courtesy of the concept of federal "hate crimes" legislation, which unless defeated soon could be mandatory in the United States, warns a rising chorus of critics.
"All that matters are the delicate feelings of members of federally protected groups," said Michael Marcavage, director of RepentAmerica.com "Truth is not allowed as evidence in hate crimes trials. … A homosexual can claim emotional damage from hearing Scripture that describes his lifestyle as an abomination. He can press charges against the pastor or broadcaster who merely reads the Bible in public. The 'hater' can be fined thousands of dollars and even imprisoned!"
All this, he noted, to attack incidents that according to the FBI's 2005 Uniform Crime Report make up on one-fifteenth of 1 percent of all crimes.
The language is in a new proposal pending in Congress, H.R. 254, or the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act. That, according to Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network, starts out with a federal police state enforcement of "anti-hate" laws but would, as it has in other parts of the world, "lead inexorably to the end of free speech."
The plan, proposed by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, is "stealth legislation at its most devious," Pike has written in a campaign to alert people to the potential problems. He said people respond with, "This bill just wants federal power to prosecute bias-motivated violent crimes in the states – what's wrong with that?"
"There's plenty wrong with that!" he said. First, the Constitution does not grant federal government the "police state privilege" of being your local law enforcement. "Unless the government finds evidence of slavery in the states, jury tampering, voter fraud, or crimes involving interstate commerce (where jurisdiction is unclear), the Constitution's message to the federal government is blunt and emphatic: 'Butt out of local law enforcement!'"
However, Pike said the authors of the new legislation have been clever, inserting in the proposal assertions that because five states do not have hate laws, the federal government has "no choice" but to "enhance federal enforcement of hate crimes." That includes new ranks of federal agents to address the "serious national problem" that exists.
Worse yet, there are some key phrases that open doors wide that many people don't want opened. For example, Pike said, the bill is to "prevent and respond to alleged violations," meaning "the government does not even have to wait until a hate crime has been committed but may act pre-emptively to 'prevent' crime."
Such cases already have developed in other nations, where the "progressive" effort to "advance" anti-discrimination laws are further down the road, he noted.
Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, noted that in Canada and France both, legislators have been fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. Three years ago, a Swedish hate crimes law was used to put Pastor Ake Green, who preached that homosexuality is a sin, in jail for a month.
"And recently, a British couple told how they were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian faith might 'prejudice' them against a homosexual child put in their care," LaBarbera added.
Already in the United States, Catholic Charities of Boston halted all adoption operations in the state after being told under Massachusetts' pro-'gay' nondiscrimination law, only agencies that placed children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state.
Pike said to get around the U.S. Constitution's demands for certain circumstances to exist before the federal government can intervene, the legislation blatantly adds the statement that hate crimes actually are "slavery."
"Violence motivated by bias is a relic of slavery that can constitute badges and incidents of slavery," the proposal proclaims.
Additionally, Pike notes, another "absurd ruse" is that "hate criminals affect interstate commerce, by terrorizing their victims into traveling across state lines – or not."
"Considering the pervasive influence of interstate commerce upon our lives, how often can the government meddle in local hate crimes enforcement? Any time," Pike wrote. "In fact, this ridiculous argument could be used to justify federal intervention in a crime of any kind, since any crime victim might be scared into different spending or traveling choices."
He said America's justice system requires proof of physical tangible damage before an arrest, but H.R. 254 changes that. "It seeks to establish a different 'bias motivation' justice system, which will be defined in courts by judges, as has happened in Canada."
"Judges will establish legal precedents – precedents that protect groups such as homosexuals not only from physical bias-motivated violence but also from 'verbal violence,'" Pike warned. "This will include the 'hate speech' of Bible-believing evangelical Christians.
"H.R. 254 thus does more than violate states' rights in law enforcement. It also leads inexorably to an end of free speech!" he wrote.
The plan, being supported by "the powerful Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith" is the seventh attempt to get such legislation turned into law just since 1998, Pike said. The bill is pending in the House Judiciary Committee, and is a streamlined version of earlier proposals that passed in the U.S. House.
LaBarbera noted that in "post-Christian England," the government even has set out to prosecute "homophobic" speech.
"It is almost inconceivable that the same country that gave us the rule of law and limited government – and powerfully gifted Christian preachers like George Whitfield who helped shape America – now bows down to the homosexual revolution of organized sin masquerading as 'civil rights,'" LaBarbera said.
"Is it progress to empower a legal and cultural revolution that criminalizes the common sense idea that society should put the welfare of children first by favoring natural parenting (mom and dad) over an experimental version (dad and male lover) that models perversion to innocent children in their own home?" asked LaBarbera.
He suggested a visit to www.StopHateCrimesNow.co m to hear the testimonies of those who have had first-had experience with so-called "hate crimes" laws. A 75-year-old grandmother describes how she was jailed for testifying about the Bible, in the United States.
"Prime Minister Tony Blair unwittingly cut to the nub of how 'sexual orientation' laws inevitably destroy religious freedom when he said that Britain's 'gay'-inclusive nondiscrimination laws should not exempt Catholic adoption agencies that refuse, for reasons of faith, to place children in homosexual households:" said LaBarbera.
“There is no place in our society for discrimination. That’s why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination," Blair had said.
Jackson-Lee's proposal states that "the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived … sexual orientation … of the victim poses a serious national problem," and that "disrupts" communities. Since "existing federal law is inadequate" and "such violence affects interstate commerce" and "violence motivated by bias that is a relic of slavery can constitute badges and incidents of slavery," the thought police plan is needed.
Members who commented on a blog expressed alarm.
"This lays the groundwork for the 'thought police,'" said "onlymom," while "curveboy" said, "the implications of such a bill would put dissent of the government under hate speech and (offenders could) be arrested and thrown into detention camps... hate bill legislations needs to be dealt with in a fine line. once crossed there won't be any freedom of speech...."
"Citrine89" was more terse, "Scary stuff." And "Mochamoma" said, "Hurt someone's feelings? Shall we arrest the 6th graders now or later?"
At www.FaithAndFreedom.us a writer warned it was another attempt to "create new special rights for homosexuals."
And Mary Starrett, communications director for the Constitution Party, said "only strong public outcry and a Republican controlled Congress kept this type of legislation from becoming law" earlier. Now that Republican controlled Congress is gone.
"H.R. 254 would make certain types of speech a federal offense. So-called 'hate crimes' legislation is dangerous for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the blatant unconstitutionality of such laws. 'Hate crime' laws would allow federal 'thought police' to interfere in the law enforcement authority of states and localities - something our founders were clear was NOT to be allowed," she said.
"H.R. 254 would require every state to pass and enforce 'anti-hate' laws. It would outlaw stating a 'bias' against certain 'federally protected' groups such as homosexuals," she said.
Jim Clymer, national chairman of the party, has warned such legislation "could mean the Bible would be considered 'hate literature'' and preaching from it would be 'hate speech' because of references to religious teachings on homosexuality or other behaviors. The Orwellian implications of these types of laws mean Bible-believing Christians could become criminals simply because they spoke out about their beliefs."
Starrett noted in Canada and some European countries, it already is a crime to use the Internet to criticize "federally protected" groups such as homosexuals and Muslims. "In England, two men who called Islam 'wicked' were indicted … and now face seven years in prison."
A report by Concerned Women for America said the bill "sends the message that it is more hateful to kill a homosexual than a little child."
"This bill sets the table, and places us on a slippery slope toward religious persecution," said Matt Barber, CWA's policy director for cultural issues. "If it becomes law, it can easily be misapplied and used as a hammer against free speech.
"This bill attempts to get into the mind of the offender and penalize him for his thoughts. Are the bill's proponents going to now lobby for a Federal Department of Thought Enforcement?"
Repent America, some of whose members already have served jail time simply for proclaiming the biblical message, is joining in sounding the alarm.
"Having been charged under Pennsylvania's hate crimes law for declaring the truth about homosexuality, I can assure you that if this bill is passed and signed into law, it will be used to put Christians behind bars," said Marcavage.
-
Dude, who believes anything from worldnetdaily. They are biased nutjobs...
-
Dude, who believes anything from worldnetdaily. They are biased nutjobs...
Thats actually reassuring, I've never heard of them before this article.
-
WorldNetDaily are crackpots...
Also, you're wrong about the usage of the word "gay." It didn't derive from a liberal plot to twist the original meaning of the word.
The word started to acquire sexual connotations in the late 17th century, being used with meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations". This was by extension from the primary meaning of "carefree": implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". By the late nineteenth century the term "gay life" was a well-established euphemism for prostitution and other forms of extramarital sexual behaviour that were perceived as immoral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
-
Two Christians in Australia have been indicted for criticizing Islam
This is entirely true, MM.
The two Christan pastors in question were indicted by Victoria's highly controversial Racial and Religious Vilification Act. The party that brought this to the attention of the tribunal were two Muslims in the audience of the pastors surmon, who had the sole intention of brining attention to what they (and the Victorian government) considered to be vilification of Islam. They were there for this reason only.
But here's the best part - what was said about Islam that was so terrible that these two pastors should endure such embarassing allegations?
VCAT's Justice Michael Higgins in December ruled that Scot in particular had broken the Government's vilification laws by quoting the Koran in a way that got "a response from the audience at various times in the form of laughter".
Read more about this joke of a decision. I have to live in Victoria while we have such backwards laws, it's nothing short of a joke.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20240491-25717,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20240491-25717,00.html)
-
Gay Bashing, in any form through media, should be punishable by law just as racist slurs.
These should all go under some form of discrimination law.
The amount to pay in fines is another issue. But discriminating guys are just as bad "regular" discrimination.
BUT:
We also live in real world. All that fags want I suppose, is to not feel afraid and discriminated.
They want to be able to be as open as any of us hetero's with their choice of partners.
And why shouldn't they? Anyone who lives in a Western Civilized Democracy should acknowledge their rights to do just that, and oppose any hate crimes against guys.
Why fags are fruity in general, frequently speaks with a lisp et al, is a completely different topic, but I won't let that extremely irritating fact cloud my judgement.
-Hedge
-
Gay Bashing, in any form through media, should be punishable by law just as racist slurs.
These should all go under some form of discrimination law.
The amount to pay in fines is another issue. But discriminating guys are just as bad "regular" discrimination.
BUT:
We also live in real world. All that fags want I suppose, is to not feel afraid and discriminated.
They want to be able to be as open as any of us hetero's with their choice of partners.
And why shouldn't they? Anyone who lives in a Western Civilized Democracy should acknowledge their rights to do just that, and oppose any hate crimes against guys.
Why fags are fruity in general, frequently speaks with a lisp et al, is a completely different topic, but I won't let that extremely irritating fact cloud my judgement.
-Hedge
In total agreement with you 100%
-
This is entirely true, MM.
The two Christan pastors in question were indicted by Victoria's highly controversial Racial and Religious Vilification Act. The party that brought this to the attention of the tribunal were two Muslims in the audience of the pastors surmon, who had the sole intention of brining attention to what they (and the Victorian government) considered to be vilification of Islam. They were there for this reason only.
But here's the best part - what was said about Islam that was so terrible that these two pastors should endure such embarassing allegations?
VCAT's Justice Michael Higgins in December ruled that Scot in particular had broken the Government's vilification laws by quoting the Koran in a way that got "a response from the audience at various times in the form of laughter".
Read more about this joke of a decision. I have to live in Victoria while we have such backwards laws, it's nothing short of a joke.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20240491-25717,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20240491-25717,00.html)
Very disturbing, why do the people let this sort of thing happen?
-
Very disturbing, why do the people let this sort of thing happen?
This seems to be an older case, and in today's political climate, it's likely that the people won't, in fact, let this sort of thing happen. As of December '06, this is the skinny on the Australia case.
Two Australian pastors who were convicted of "vilifying" Muslims when they quoted from the Quran during a seminar on jihad have had their appeals upheld by the Victorian Supreme Court.
And while that means they will return to a lower court for another trial, that actually is a good result, according to a new report from Voice of the Martyrs.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53526
That's from the same crackpots by the way. ;)
As far as "hate laws" go, you seem very badly informed (as you were about the origin of the usage of the word "gay" to describe homosexuals). Most westernized countries have them. You should google "hate laws" "holocaust revisionism" etc... Although the intention of these laws is basically good, there are arguments that they can easily be abused to squash intellectual dissent. But I don't think that's the intention of your thread.
As far as the crackpots go, LOL, they've ALSO posted an article which claims that homosexuality is caused by drinking soy milk as babies. If that's the case, then homosexuality is a medical handicap, rather than a selected deviant lifestyle. You wouldn't vilify people who are relegated to wheelchairs, or who are diabetic, would you?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327
Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!)
-
Gay Bashing, in any form through media, should be punishable by law just as racist slurs.
I absolutely disagree. We have freedom of speech here in America. People have the right to think, believe, and say what they wish. And others have the right to disagree, and consider the person an idiot for his discriminatory beliefs.
To make speech a criminal act simply because you disagree with the content is wrong and evil and unconstitutional.
-
I like worldnetdaily ;D
-
To make speech a criminal act simply because you disagree with the content is wrong and evil and unconstitutional.
Isn't it a crime to *say* the holocaust was fake, in Germany?
-
Isn't it a crime to *say* the holocaust was fake, in Germany?
I believe so. The Europeans gave up the concept of "free speech" long ago. The US is really the only relatively free country left, and if we aren't vigilant that will change too.
-
I believe so. The Europeans gave up the concept of "free speech" long ago. The US is really the only relatively free country left, and if we aren't vigilant that will change too.
I wonder if it's also a crime to point out discrepencies in the *official story* of death counts, and the recent evidence showing those numbers to be scientifically impossible.
(Cue: Bruce declaring that questioning the 6 mil number = helping saddam)
-
I wonder if it's also a crime to point out discrepencies in the *official story* of death counts, and the recent evidence showing those numbers to be scientifically impossible.
(Cue: Bruce declaring that questioning the 6 mil number = helping saddam)
I'm not sure about that... but have read in several places that the official numbers have been revised... wouldn't want to be quoted though. It is definitely a crime in Germany and France to deny the holocaust.
-
To make speech a criminal act simply because you disagree with the content is wrong and evil and unconstitutional.
I'm inclined to agree, specifically with regard to religious hate laws, but then what do you do about something like this? Or does that fall under the heading of "incitement to riot?"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1984530,00.html
-
I'm not sure about that... but have read in several places that the official numbers have been revised... wouldn't want to be quoted though. It is definitely a crime in Germany and France to deny the holocaust.
In any other war/slaughter, history is very open to revising the numbers as new evidence comes to light.
Except with WWII, which coincidentally would undermine the cause/cry of "we deserve israel".
Cause it wouldn't have been *awarded* with 5,000 deaths. It would have been awarded to them for 6 million deaths. The real number lies somewhere in the middle, of course. But the motive is there to stretch it, and it's very curious they would put people in jail for questioning it.
(PS - anyone who starts the anti-semite accusations can go ahead and kiss my ass up front. That knee jerk reaction to this topic - when all other topics are open for discussion - disgusts me and makes you look like you're in on the information suppression.)
-
Gay Bashing, in any form through media, should be punishable by law just as racist slurs.
These should all go under some form of discrimination law.
The amount to pay in fines is another issue. But discriminating guys are just as bad "regular" discrimination.
Using a racial slur isn't a crime (depending on how and where it's done). That's why Kramer isn't being prosecuted for any kind of crime.
In fact, wouldn't most homosexuals consider "guys" a slur? :)
-
Using a racial slur isn't a crime (depending on how and where it's done). That's why Kramer isn't being prosecuted for any kind of crime.
It is in Europe, and if certain people get their way will be in the US, in violation of the Constitution. Good thing Kramer wasn't performng in Stockholm or Berlin.
-
I'm inclined to agree, specifically with regard to religious hate laws, but then what do you do about something like this? Or does that fall under the heading of "incitement to riot?"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1984530,00.html
I think you answered your own question. This is covered by existing laws. Actively encouraging someone to commit a crime of violence is already against the law. That's not what we're talking about here, where you can be jailed simply for stating your opinion or using a word or words certain people don't like.
-
I think you answered your own question. This is covered by existing laws. Actively encouraging someone to commit a crime of violence is already against the law. That's not what we're talking about here, where you can be jailed simply for stating your opinion or using a word or words certain people don't like.
Yes, but I was thinking about the crackpots... clearly their worry is that Rushdoony or whatever his name was, and some of the other fundamentalist christians who still call for "mandating the death penalty for homosexuals" etc... would be prosecuted. Is there a difference between that and the situation in the UK? And if you accept one, shouldn't you accept the other?
-
I absolutely disagree. We have freedom of speech here in America. People have the right to think, believe, and say what they wish. And others have the right to disagree, and consider the person an idiot for his discriminatory beliefs.
To make speech a criminal act simply because you disagree with the content is wrong and evil and unconstitutional.
I agreee 100% with this guy.
I wonder if it's also a crime to point out discrepencies in the *official story* of death counts, and the recent evidence showing those numbers to be scientifically impossible.
(Cue: Bruce declaring that questioning the 6 mil number = helping saddam)
didn't I see a story awhile back about a Rabbi writing a book who said the number was much less, something like 300,000? I may be wrong but I think he caught alot of shit for writing that ???
-
didn't I see a story awhile back about a Rabbi writing a book who said the number was much less, something like 300,000? I may be wrong but I think he caught alot of shit for writing that ???
i believe scientifically, there wasn't even the fuel needed to incinerate the bodies in some of the places.
Remember the deatiled films of the horrors? Some believe these were used to justify the number to set up camp in the middle east for the jewish and american access for later wars for oil. They knew in 1945 that the oil we had would run out, we just didn't know when. that is why its taboo to question anyting about the legitimacy about ISR - they're holding the door open for us aggression there in the future. And it's also why any event is history is allowed for discussion - but you question the holocaust numbers - and people go apeshit. Cause it would unravel the justification for setting up ISR.
-
These is an official revision... not part of the holocaust denier revisions. Still a tragedy though.
In July 1990, the Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum, along with Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative revised toll of 1.1 million Auschwitz dead.
Y. Bauer, "Fighting the Distortions," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), Sept. 22, 1989; “Auschwitz Deaths Reduced to a Million," The Daily Telegraph (London), July 17, 1990; " Poland Reduces Auschwitz Death Toll Estimate to 1 Million," The Washington Times, July 17, 1990.
-
To keep it simple... If you wanna "diss" gay people... that's your right as an individual... the Government shouldn't do it, but any individual should be able to say whatever they wanna say. (I say this a very open minded person when it comes to your sexual preference... because I just don't give a damn)
If some group is trying to outlaw free speech in any way in the US, then I'd say this is fucked up... I can't imagine this bill passing.
Speaking of, who was the jackass who presented the bill?
I'd like to slap his head off.
-
agreed a horrible tragedy.
but to make any analysis of the numbers, any vocal questioning of it a crime?
Speaks volumes along the lines of a coverup.
Four million to 1.1 million at Auschwitz alone? Damn, that would cut the SIX million number in HALF.
-
agreed a horrible tragedy.
but to make any analysis of the numbers, any vocal questioning of it a crime?
Speaks volumes along the lines of a coverup.
Four million to 1.1 million at Auschwitz alone? Damn, that would cut the SIX million number in HALF.
The worst part is that it goes in line with the President of Iran's thoughts on the Holocaust... Who would want to agree with that guy?
*sigh*
Still, even if it's 1 million or 2 million, does the fact that any group was exterminated "less than though" based upon their religious beliefs or their looks make it any less atrocious?
Just wondering.
-
Gay Bashing, in any form through media, should be punishable by law just as racist slurs.
-Hedge
Oh brother...
There's nothing wrong with racial slurs. People should have the right to be racist, it should be legal. What shouldn't be legal is them using their prejudice to deny other people, or impede their freedoms.
-
Oh brother...
There's nothing wrong with racial slurs. People should have the right to be racist, it should be legal. What shouldn't be legal is them using their prejudice to deny other people, or impede their freedoms.
I was not aware that racial slurs were illegal.
I was under the impression that the KKK uses slurs in print media all of the time (not that I've ever SEEN it).
I don't see too many of them going to jail for it.
-
The worst part is that it goes in line with the President of Iran's thoughts on the Holocaust... Who would want to agree with that guy?
Still, even if it's 1 million or 2 million, does the fact that any group was exterminated "less than though" based upon their religious beliefs or their looks make it any less atrocious?
It's a horrible thing.
But who knows what the numbers would end up being if peolpe WERE allowed to talk about it. It just went from 6 mil to 3 mil. Why would they exaggerate it? If they didn't why wouldn't they be open to searching for more accurate numbers? That's 50% of the total removed by one study. Imagine what 100 more studies would show? but they would label anyone who wanted to do that has in bed with iran.
-
I was not aware that racial slurs were illegal.
I was under the impression that the KKK uses slurs in print media all of the time (not that I've ever SEEN it).
I don't see too many of them going to jail for it.
Did I say they were? I was making my point to Hedge that racial slurs should never be illegal.
There was history channel special about the KKK and they were saying stuff like "naggers, kikes, spics." But their right to free speech was protected by the mayor of Cleveland, who btw was black.
-
Did I say they were? I was making my point to Hedge that racial slurs should never be illegal.
There was history channel special about the KKK and they were saying stuff like "naggers, kikes, spics." But their right to free speech was protect by the mayor of Cleveland, who btw was black.
I somehow misread the intent... no big.
I agree with anyone protecting the freedom of speech... at all costs.
-
agreed a horrible tragedy.
but to make any analysis of the numbers, any vocal questioning of it a crime?
Speaks volumes along the lines of a coverup.
Four million to 1.1 million at Auschwitz alone? Damn, that would cut the SIX million number in HALF.
To be fair though, no info about Auschwitz was available for a long time, since it was located in an eastern bloc country and the Soviets had their own reasons for wanting the numbers to be up there.
Still, even if it's 1 million or 2 million, does the fact that any group was exterminated "less than though" based upon their religious beliefs or their looks make it any less atrocious?
No, definitely not! And I think that's a great part of the reason Europeans are more sensitive about racism, what is hate crime, etc... But they have born the brunt of the worst of two World Wars, so perhaps there is a point to it from their POV.
It does seem that there is a growing backlash to the info-stifling though... if you say something on the internet vis-a-vis hate propaganda from your home in Druckessville USA, and then step foot in one of several European countries, you could be prosecuted, regardless of your nationality and the fact that you hated from another country. This may be contributing to the backlash.
-
To be fair though, no info about Auschwitz was available for a long time, since it was located in an eastern bloc country and the Soviets had their own reasons for wanting the numbers to be up there.
True... The Soviets lost so many during world war II, they can make up any number they want to.
No, definitely not! And I think that's a great part of the reason Europeans are more sensitive about racism, what is hate crime, etc... But they have born the brunt of the worst of two World Wars, so perhaps there is a point to it from their POV.
It does seem that there is a growing backlash to the info-stifling though... if you say something on the internet vis-a-vis hate propaganda from your home in Druckessville USA, and then step foot in one of several European countries, you could be prosecuted, regardless of your nationality and the fact that you hated from another country. This may be contributing to the backlash.
I'm sure... It doesn't really affect me as I am not a hateful person at all, but I don't think it's at all right to be prosecuting people for speaking their minds.
-
It does seem that there is a growing backlash to the info-stifling though... if you say something on the internet vis-a-vis hate propaganda from your home in Druckessville USA, and then step foot in one of several European countries, you could be prosecuted, regardless of your nationality and the fact that you hated from another country. This may be contributing to the backlash.
Why in god's name would some Euro-trash country think they have jurisdiction over that?? They may be able to control what I do while I'm in their country, but what I type into my computer sitting in my living room in Houston, TX is none of their business, period.
-
It is in Europe, and if certain people get their way will be in the US, in violation of the Constitution. Good thing Kramer wasn't performng in Stockholm or Berlin.
That's insane. Another reason to cherish living in this great country.
-
Gay Bashing, in any form through media, should be punishable by law just as racist slurs.
These should all go under some form of discrimination law.
The amount to pay in fines is another issue. But discriminating guys are just as bad "regular" discrimination.
BUT:
We also live in real world. All that fags want I suppose, is to not feel afraid and discriminated.
They want to be able to be as open as any of us hetero's with their choice of partners.
And why shouldn't they? Anyone who lives in a Western Civilized Democracy should acknowledge their rights to do just that, and oppose any hate crimes against guys.
Why fags are fruity in general, frequently speaks with a lisp et al, is a completely different topic, but I won't let that extremely irritating fact cloud my judgement.
-Hedge
it won't cloud you judgement until on eof those FAGS rapes your son...then you will see the light. Have you ever seen a gay parade??? SINFUL to say the lease. Exhibitionism at its worst..glorification of ANAL SEX is all that is promoted...what kind of messsage does that send and what benefit to society does it bring?
-
it won't cloud you judgement until on eof those FAGS rapes your son...then you will see the light. Have you ever seen a gay parade??? SINFUL to say the lease. Exhibitionism at its worst..glorification of ANAL SEX is all that is promoted...what kind of messsage does that send and what benefit to society does it bring?
You do realize that almost ALL pedophiles are "heterosexuals" right?
-
Let's not confuse the issue here by turning this into a debate on homosexuality or racism... this thread is about free speech and how it is currently under attack by the "PC" crowd.
-
You do realize that almost ALL pedophiles are "heterosexuals" right?
You've seen statistics that say this?
What about members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association? (I think that's the name.)
-
it won't cloud you judgement until on eof those FAGS rapes your son...then you will see the light. Have you ever seen a gay parade??? SINFUL to say the lease. Exhibitionism at its worst..glorification of ANAL SEX is all that is promoted...what kind of messsage does that send and what benefit to society does it bring?
Have you ever been to the sex board on Getbig? ;D
-
Let's not confuse the issue here by turning this into a debate on homosexuality or racism... this thread is about free speech and how it is currently under attack by the "PC" crowd.
YES goatboy let's not forget this thread is about my right to say things like ni66er and fag without some PC asshole sticking his gay black nose into my rights!! 8)
-
You've seen statistics that say this?
What about members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association? (I think that's the name.)
Hey, dont' get me wrong... I don't agree with pedophilia at all.
http://www.bluegrassfairness.org/pages/TP-pedophilia.asp
Sources are cited.
-
Why in god's name would some Euro-trash country think they have jurisdiction over that?? They may be able to control what I do while I'm in their country, but what I type into my computer sitting in my living room in Houston, TX is none of their business, period.
It's teh law, Goatboy. :-\
Can an American citizen be subject to criminal charges abroad for sending or posting material that is illegal in other countries?
In most countries, hate speech does not receive the same constitutional protection as it does in the United States. In Germany, for example, it is illegal to promote Nazi ideology, and in many European countries, it is illegal to deny the reality of the Holocaust. Authorities in Denmark, France, Britain, Germany, and Canada have brought charges for crimes involving hate speech on the Internet. While national borders have little meaning in cyberspace, Internet users who export material that is illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution under certain circumstances. American citizens who post material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if they subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of that country or of another country whose extradition laws would allow for arrest and deportation. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.
-
YES goatboy let's not forget this thread is about my right to say things like ni66er and fag without some PC asshole sticking his gay black nose into my rights!! 8)
It may not even be that.... it's also about my right to legitimately discuss whether it was actually 4 million, rather than 6 million jews killed in the holocaust, my right to say the word "homosexual" rather than "gay", and my right to put a .gif cartoon of Cartman dressed as Hitler in my profile avatar, all without being hauled off to jail!
-
It may not even be that.... it's also about my right to legitimately discuss whether it was actually 4 million, rather than 6 million jews killed in the holocaust, my right to say the word "homosexual" rather than "gay", and my right to put a .gif cartoon of Cartman dressed as Hitler in my profile avatar, all without being hauled off to jail!
yes that is the point!!!! Freedom of speech should be just that, free. I fyou don't like what some has to say turn the channel, walk away, join in debate, do something besides whine like a girl on the rag!!!!
-
It's teh law, Goatboy. :-\
Can an American citizen be subject to criminal charges abroad for sending or posting material that is illegal in other countries?
In most countries, hate speech does not receive the same constitutional protection as it does in the United States. In Germany, for example, it is illegal to promote Nazi ideology, and in many European countries, it is illegal to deny the reality of the Holocaust. Authorities in Denmark, France, Britain, Germany, and Canada have brought charges for crimes involving hate speech on the Internet. While national borders have little meaning in cyberspace, Internet users who export material that is illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution under certain circumstances. American citizens who post material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if they subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of that country or of another country whose extradition laws would allow for arrest and deportation. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.
I still question the jurisdiction. How an I "exporting" anything if I make a posting from Texas, to Getbig's server which is in California, and a person in France later accesses Getbig's California server and reads what I had to say? Is it now incumbent on every internet user to know the laws of all 200+ countries in the world (many of which conflict with each other), just to post on the internet from their own living room to a domestic server? Everyone except your average Euro would agree that that's absurd!
-
yes that is the point!!!! Freedom of speech should be just that, free. I fyou don't like what some has to say turn the channel, walk away, join in debate, do something besides whine like a girl on the rag!!!!
We are fortunate enough to live in a land that has complete freedom of speech (well, except for yelling fire or threatening the president), but even "free" countries around the globe are not completely free.
-
We are fortunate enough to live in a land that has complete freedom of speech (well, except for yelling fire or threatening the president), but even "free" countries around the globe are not completely free.
Which is why we need to zealously guard that freedom, since we seem to be the last bastion of freedom left, and since fascists like Sheila Jackson-Lee (the congresswoman from the original post) try to whittle away at that freedom all the time.
-
Which is why we need to zealously guard that freedom, since we seem to be the last bastion of freedom left, and since fascists like Sheila Jackson-Lee (the congresswoman from the original post) try to whittle away at that freedom all the time.
Agreed 100 percent...
-
Hey, dont' get me wrong... I don't agree with pedophilia at all.
http://www.bluegrassfairness.org/pages/TP-pedophilia.asp
Sources are cited.
Thanks. From the link:
The vast majority of pedophiles and child molesters are heterosexual males.Pedophilia is the sexual attraction of an adult to a child. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction of an adult to an adult of the same gender.
This myth plays right into the fears of parents for their children, but the facts don't support this nasty, divisive ploy. Sex abuse crimes are a major problem. Sex abuse criminals should be vigorously prosecuted. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of sex abuse criminals are heterosexual males.
"The empirical research on adult sexual orientation and molestation of children does not show that gay men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children."
I don't have any basis to disagree with this, but it does seem like a number of male pedophiles molest female and male children.
-
I still question the jurisdiction. How an I "exporting" anything if I make a posting from Texas, to Getbig's server which is in California, and a person in France later accesses Getbig's California server and reads what I had to say? Is it now incumbent on every internet user to know the laws of all 200+ countries in the world (many of which conflict with each other), just to post on the internet from their own living room? Everyone except your average Euro would agree that that's absurd!
Getbig haters are probably safe. :) I think the problem arises if you have some kind of holocaust denier/white supremicist website with a European e-mailing list for example. Not being a hater myself, I only know vague details, and even that's only because it's been on the Canadian news in the past. I agree it's frightening though. Europa is fuc-kayed, as they say in French, in many ways, with regards to the hate crime issue...
-
Thanks. From the link:
The vast majority of pedophiles and child molesters are heterosexual males.Pedophilia is the sexual attraction of an adult to a child. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction of an adult to an adult of the same gender.
This myth plays right into the fears of parents for their children, but the facts don't support this nasty, divisive ploy. Sex abuse crimes are a major problem. Sex abuse criminals should be vigorously prosecuted. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of sex abuse criminals are heterosexual males.
"The empirical research on adult sexual orientation and molestation of children does not show that gay men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children."
I don't have any basis to disagree with this, but it does seem like a number of male pedophiles molest female and male children.
That certainly may be true... I don't see homosexuality in the same regard as pedophilia myself... pedophilia by it's nature of preying on those who are weak is disgusting... being gay in and of itself is not "preying" at all.
-
Which is why we need to zealously guard that freedom, since we seem to be the last bastion of freedom left, and since fascists like Sheila Jackson-Lee (the congresswoman from the original post) try to whittle away at that freedom all the time.
I agree with this too. I never did like that woman. She did some shady stuff. Cannot believe they keep sending her back to Congress.
And regarding "hate crime" laws, I think they are really unnecessary. We have laws on the books that prohibit assault, rape, murder, etc. If someone commits a crime like that, regardless of their motivation, they need to be punished. I doubt these hate crime statutes are much of a deterrent.
-
That certainly may be true... I don't see homosexuality in the same regard as pedophilia myself... pedophilia by it's nature of preying on those who are weak is disgusting... being gay in and of itself is not "preying" at all.
I agree. On the other hand, a male who molests a male child is a homosexual in my book.
-
I agree. On the other hand, a male who molests a male child is a homosexual in my book.
I would not necessarily disagree with that, but I would still say heterosexual pedophilia is much higher than homosexual pedophelia... Unless the group in question is the catholic palpacy.
-
And regarding "hate crime" laws, I think they are really unnecessary. We have laws on the books that prohibit assault, rape, murder, etc. If someone commits a crime like that, regardless of their motivation, they need to be punished. I doubt these hate crime statutes are much of a deterrent.
I absolutely agree. Murder, assult, rape, whatever are all illegal already! By creating a "hate crime" statute, what you're really doing is further penalizing someone for what is in their mind. While I agree that anyone who commits murder or assult needs to go to jail period, I'm not big on "though police" enhancements that criminalize their motivation as well as their actual crime.
-
I absolutely agree. Murder, assult, rape, whatever are all illegal already! By creating a "hate crime" statute, what you're really doing is further penalizing someone for what is in their mind. While I agree that anyone who commits murder or assult needs to go to jail period, I'm not big on "though police" enhancements that criminalize their motivation as well as their actual crime.
I agree... it's like saying well, if you murder someone just because you hate them... it's ok, as long as you don't hate them for their race, creed, color, national origin, or sexual orientation.
WTF... murder is murder and assault is assault.
-
Getbig haters are probably safe. :)
That's good to know. However, whenever someone creates an objectionable law, and tries to mollify my objections by saying I'm not their "target", I'm reminded of this famous passage:
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
-
That's good to know. However, whenever someone creates an objectionable law, and tries to mollify my objections by saying I'm not their "target", I'm reminded of this famous passage:
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
That's why I stand up for everyone.
-
And regarding "hate crime" laws, I think they are really unnecessary. We have laws on the books that prohibit assault, rape, murder, etc. If someone commits a crime like that, regardless of their motivation, they need to be punished. I doubt these hate crime statutes are much of a deterrent.
Some people, including me, feel that hate crimes are crimes of terrorism and therefore different than regular crimes, since a whole group of people are "assaulted" instead of an individual.
Let's say I am one of ten women living in a village of men who don't want us there, because their religious beliefs hold that we as a group are an abomination and should be expelled, executed, etc... if they murder one of the women to "send a message" wouldn't I be affected, i.e. frightened, intimidated, silenced? Wouldn't that encourage me to get out of dodge to avoid the same fate? I think that's the basic difference.
When a government institutes hate crime laws, it validates the precept that no group should be marginalized... but rather included and protected under its laws.
-
Some people, including me, feel that hate crimes are crimes of terrorism and therefore different than regular crimes, since a whole group of people are "assaulted" instead of an individual.
Let's say I am one of ten women living in a village of men who don't want us there, because their religious beliefs hold that we as a group are an abomination and should be expelled, executed, etc... if they murder one of the women to "send a message" wouldn't I be affected, i.e. frightened, intimidated, silenced? Wouldn't that encourage me to get out of dodge to avoid the same fate? I think that's the basic difference.
When a government institutes hate crime laws, it validates the precept that no group should be marginalized... but rather included and protected under its laws.
Deedee if the woman in the group was murdered, the person who committed the crime would face the maximum punishment under the law: either life in prison or death (depending on the state they're in). And if the person committed the crime in Texas, he would actually be executed (if he committed the crime in California he's spend at least twenty years on death row). This is why hate crimes legislation doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. We cannot execute the person twice. We don't need an enhancement to punish someone when there are laws on the books to deal with these crimes already.
I think these thought crime laws are designed to appease a small but vocal segment of our society.
-
Deedee if the woman in the group was murdered, the person who committed the crime would face the maximum punishment under the law: either life in prison or death (depending on the state they're in). And if the person committed the crime in Texas, he would actually be executed (if he committed the crime in California he's spend at least twenty years on death row). This is why hate crimes legislation doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. We cannot execute the person twice. We don't need an enhancement to punish someone when there are laws on the books to deal with these crimes already.
I think these thought crime laws are designed to appease a small but vocal segment of our society.
I agree with the Bum... Murder is murder... assault is assault... doesn't matter the reason for it.
-
I don't necessarily agree with hate crime legislation... just stating why I "think" countries have them.
I do however, believe that hate crimes *exist* and that they are different from other crimes, for the reason I stated above. I think these crimes are on par with terrorism. If I murder my husband because we argued, no other person or group needs to fear me or anticipate any further act of violence from me. However, if I kill someone in the name of anti-semitism, or because I hate white men, many people are given the message that they need to fear me. These are totally different kinds of crime.
I grew up with stories of Marc Lepine, who killed 14 female students in a classroom after letting the men go, because he hated women, obviously, and blamed *all* of them for his problems. I think if you find yourself in a "vulnerable" group, you have more of sensitivity to that sort of crime.
-
I don't necessarily agree with hate crime legislation... just stating why I "think" countries have them.
I do however, believe that hate crimes *exist* and that they are different from other crimes, for the reason I stated above. I think these crimes are on par with terrorism. If I murder my husband because we argued, no other person or group needs to fear me or anticipate any further act of violence from me. However, if I kill someone in the name of anti-semitism, or because I hate white men, many people are given the message that they need to fear me. These are totally different kinds of crime.
I grew up with stories of Marc Lepine, who killed 14 female students in a classroom after letting the men go, because he hated women, obviously, and blamed *all* of them for his problems. I think if you find yourself in a "vulnerable" group, you have more of sensitivity to that sort of crime.
In that context I can see a difference the reason behind the crime, but should the punishment be different for it?
Just tossing it out there.
-
In that context I can see a difference the reason behind the crime, but should the punishment be different for it?
Just tossing it out there.
Well, that's where the reasoning breaks down. As BB says, you can't mete out more punishment than the maximum, so ultimately, that's that. The only value, might be a judge reiterating the reprehensible nature of the crime specifically as a hate crime... but it's not like the average person is privy to the Judge's last words before he sentences someone.
-
Well, that's where the reasoning breaks down. As BB says, you can't mete out more punishment than the maximum, so ultimately, that's that. The only value, might be a judge reiterating the reprehensible nature of the crime specifically as a hate crime... but it's not like the average person is privy to the Judge's last words before he sentences someone.
Only in the most high profile of cases do we hear the judges words...