Who is the judge, jury and executioner on the issue of bigotry and racism? Anything can be considered that and we see it today.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Should Legislation Be Passed Making Overt Racism a Criminal Offense?
- Thread starter NewsVine_Mariyam
- Start date
- Mar 11, 2015
- 83,437
- 50,372
- 2,645
Since posting facts that show the continuing racism of whites in America is not overt racism...We"d never see IM2 here againI would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Fortunately the United States is a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy – in our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
And there is no greater threat to liberty than government deciding what is or is not hate speech and acting on capricious, subjective criteria as to what might manifest as hate speech.
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 66,643
- 48,472
- 3,565
You are particularly shallow even for a britYou seem to have given an example yourself.......Couldn't make it up!
not letting foreigners vote in our domestic political decisions is an example of racism to you?
Thats a great example of why you should bugger off and stay out of our affiars
Oz and the Orchestra
Platinum Member
I sniff a contradiction........Fortunately the United States is a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy – in our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
And there is no greater threat to liberty than government deciding what is or is not hate speech and acting on capricious, subjective criteria as to what might manifest as hate speech.
Rule of Law is written by men!
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 665
- 140
- Banned
- #26
I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
There are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level. I voted no. Hate crime laws are precursor to what was called "thought crimes" in the old George Orwell novel 1984 . When we begin legislating on what people can and cannot think, we are returning to what the colonists came here to get away from in the first place. What happens next? Will some ugly guy say that women who won't go out with him should be jailed because he thinks those women are haters?
- Mar 11, 2015
- 83,437
- 50,372
- 2,645
Racism is about more than speech. Overt racism is illegal now, but the laws are poorly enforced, if they are enforced at all. So stronger penalties need to be assessed when there is a violation and lax enforcement should be penalized.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 83,437
- 50,372
- 2,645
BS.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
There are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level. I voted no. Hate crime laws are precursor to what was called "thought crimes" in the old George Orwell novel 1984 . When we begin legislating on what people can and cannot think, we are returning to what the colonists came here to get away from in the first place. What happens next? Will some ugly guy say that women who won't go out with him should be jailed because he thinks those women are haters?
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 66,643
- 48,472
- 3,565
Newsvine is a troll who starts a thread and then just sits back to watch the feathers flyThere are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level.
I asked a serious question to which he/she/it will never reply
Oz and the Orchestra
Platinum Member
He didn't direct his question at yanks only. Part of your problem is you assume you have an exclusive right to rule -You are particularly shallow even for a britYou seem to have given an example yourself.......Couldn't make it up!
not letting foreigners vote in our domestic political decisions is an example of racism to you?
Thats a great example of why you should bugger off and stay out of our affiars
you don't, not as long as we Brits are here!
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,665
- 69,802
- 2,330
America is so racist that we elected as President a black guy who wasn't even born in the USA!
NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #33
And your response indicates concern that you'd be adversely impacted by any such legislation (because you exhibit racist proclivitives).The fact that you even asked this shows how truly fucked up you are as a person.
NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #34
Here is an example of existing legislation
RCW 9A.36.078
Hate crime offenses—Finding.
The legislature finds that crimes and threats against persons because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disabilities are serious and increasing.
The legislature also finds that crimes and threats are often directed against interracial couples and their children or couples of mixed religions, colors, ancestries, or national origins because of bias and bigotry against the race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin of one person in the couple or family.
The legislature finds that the state interest in preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias goes beyond the state interest in preventing other felonies or misdemeanors such as criminal trespass, malicious mischief, assault, or other crimes that are not motivated by hatred, bigotry, and bias, and that prosecution of those other crimes inadequately protects citizens from crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias.
Therefore, the legislature finds that protection of those citizens from threats of harm due to bias and bigotry is a compelling state interest.
The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member.
In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror.
Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust.
Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.
The legislature also finds that attacks on religious places of worship and threatening defacement of religious texts have increased, as have assaults and attacks on those who visibly self-identify as members of a religious minority, such as by wearing religious head covering or other visible articles of faith. The legislature finds that any person who defaces religious real property with derogatory words, symbols, or items, who places a vandalized or defaced religious item or scripture on the property of a victim, or who attacks or attempts to remove the religious garb or faith-based attire of a victim, knows or reasonably should know that such actions create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the victim.
The legislature also finds that a hate crime committed against a victim because of the victim's gender may be identified in the same manner that a hate crime committed against a victim of another protected group is identified. Affirmative indications of hatred towards gender as a class is the predominant factor to consider. Other factors to consider include the perpetrator's use of language, slurs, or symbols expressing hatred towards the victim's gender as a class; the severity of the attack including mutilation of the victim's sexual organs; a history of similar attacks against victims of the same gender by the perpetrator or a history of similar incidents in the same area; a lack of provocation; an absence of any other apparent motivation; and common sense.
The legislature recognizes that, since 2015, Washington state has experienced a sharp increase in malicious harassment offenses, and, in response, the legislature intends to rename the offense to its more commonly understood title of "hate crime offense" and create a multidisciplinary working group to establish recommendations for best practices for identifying and responding to hate crimes.
[ 2019 c 271 § 1; 1993 c 127 § 1.]
NOTES:
Severability—1993 c 127: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1993 c 127 § 7.]
RCW 9A.36.078
Hate crime offenses—Finding.
The legislature finds that crimes and threats against persons because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disabilities are serious and increasing.
The legislature also finds that crimes and threats are often directed against interracial couples and their children or couples of mixed religions, colors, ancestries, or national origins because of bias and bigotry against the race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin of one person in the couple or family.
The legislature finds that the state interest in preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias goes beyond the state interest in preventing other felonies or misdemeanors such as criminal trespass, malicious mischief, assault, or other crimes that are not motivated by hatred, bigotry, and bias, and that prosecution of those other crimes inadequately protects citizens from crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias.
Therefore, the legislature finds that protection of those citizens from threats of harm due to bias and bigotry is a compelling state interest.
The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member.
In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror.
Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust.
Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.
The legislature also finds that attacks on religious places of worship and threatening defacement of religious texts have increased, as have assaults and attacks on those who visibly self-identify as members of a religious minority, such as by wearing religious head covering or other visible articles of faith. The legislature finds that any person who defaces religious real property with derogatory words, symbols, or items, who places a vandalized or defaced religious item or scripture on the property of a victim, or who attacks or attempts to remove the religious garb or faith-based attire of a victim, knows or reasonably should know that such actions create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the victim.
The legislature also finds that a hate crime committed against a victim because of the victim's gender may be identified in the same manner that a hate crime committed against a victim of another protected group is identified. Affirmative indications of hatred towards gender as a class is the predominant factor to consider. Other factors to consider include the perpetrator's use of language, slurs, or symbols expressing hatred towards the victim's gender as a class; the severity of the attack including mutilation of the victim's sexual organs; a history of similar attacks against victims of the same gender by the perpetrator or a history of similar incidents in the same area; a lack of provocation; an absence of any other apparent motivation; and common sense.
The legislature recognizes that, since 2015, Washington state has experienced a sharp increase in malicious harassment offenses, and, in response, the legislature intends to rename the offense to its more commonly understood title of "hate crime offense" and create a multidisciplinary working group to establish recommendations for best practices for identifying and responding to hate crimes.
[ 2019 c 271 § 1; 1993 c 127 § 1.]
NOTES:
Severability—1993 c 127: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1993 c 127 § 7.]
hjmick
Platinum Member
Europe is a degenerate pile of dog crap.
Who cares what you trannies try to think?
There is no "try," they are told what to think...
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 66,643
- 48,472
- 3,565
I did not say you couldnt answer the troll‘s questionHe didn't direct his question at yanks only. Part of your problem is you assume you have an exclusive right to rule -You are particularly shallow even for a britYou seem to have given an example yourself.......Couldn't make it up!
not letting foreigners vote in our domestic political decisions is an example of racism to you?
Thats a great example of why you should bugger off and stay out of our affiars
you don't, not as long as we Brits are here!
in fact it was made to order for clueless foreigners like you
I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
So, you want to look people up for holding the wrong opinions?
I knew you guys were working up to it.
It was annoying when libs pretended that PC was just about being polite, when it was obviously laying the ground work for tyranny.
How many people do you see imprisoning, if you get your way? How long will you imprison them? Until they recant?
NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #38
The actual statute
RCW 9A.36.080
Hate crime offense—Definition and criminal penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of a hate crime offense if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disability:
(2) In any prosecution for a hate crime offense, unless evidence exists which explains to the trier of fact's satisfaction that the person did not intend to threaten the victim or victims, the trier of fact may infer that the person intended to threaten a specific victim or group of victims because of the person's perception of the victim's or victims' race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disability if the person commits one of the following acts:
This subsection only applies to the creation of a reasonable inference for evidentiary purposes. This subsection does not restrict the state's ability to prosecute a person under subsection (1) of this section when the facts of a particular case do not fall within (a) through (f) of this subsection.
(3) It is not a defense that the accused was mistaken that the victim was a member of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, had a particular gender expression or identity, or had a mental, physical, or sensory disability.
(4) Evidence of expressions or associations of the accused may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the crime charged. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.
(5) Every person who commits another crime during the commission of a crime under this section may be punished and prosecuted for the other crime separately.
(6) For the purposes of this section:
(7) Commission of a hate crime offense is a class C felony.
(8) The penalties provided in this section for hate crime offenses do not preclude the victims from seeking any other remedies otherwise available under law.
(9) Nothing in this section confers or expands any civil rights or protections to any group or class identified under this section, beyond those rights or protections that exist under the federal or state Constitution or the civil laws of the state of Washington.
[ 2019 c 271 § 2; 2010 c 119 § 1; 2009 c 180 § 1; 1993 c 127 § 2; 1989 c 95 § 1; 1984 c 268 § 1; 1981 c 267 § 1.]
NOTES:
Severability—1993 c 127: See note following RCW 9A.36.078.
Construction—1989 c 95: "The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purpose." [ 1989 c 95 § 3.]
Severability—1989 c 95: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1989 c 95 § 4.]
Harassment: Chapters 9A.46 and 10.14 RCW.
RCW 9A.36.080
Hate crime offense—Definition and criminal penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of a hate crime offense if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disability:
(a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;
(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or
(c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property. The fear must be a fear that a reasonable person would have under all the circumstances. For purposes of this section, a "reasonable person" is a reasonable person who is a member of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or who has the same gender expression or identity, or the same mental, physical, or sensory disability as the victim. Words alone do not constitute a hate crime offense unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. Threatening words do not constitute a hate crime offense if it is apparent to the victim that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat.
(2) In any prosecution for a hate crime offense, unless evidence exists which explains to the trier of fact's satisfaction that the person did not intend to threaten the victim or victims, the trier of fact may infer that the person intended to threaten a specific victim or group of victims because of the person's perception of the victim's or victims' race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disability if the person commits one of the following acts:
(a) Burns a cross on property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of African American heritage;
(b) Defaces property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of Jewish heritage by defacing the property with a swastika;
(c) Defaces religious real property with words, symbols, or items that are derogatory to persons of the faith associated with the property;
(d) Places a vandalized or defaced religious item or scripture on the property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of the faith with which that item or scripture is associated;
(e) Damages, destroys, or defaces religious garb or other faith-based attire belonging to the victim or attempts to or successfully removes religious garb or other faith-based attire from the victim's person without the victim's authorization; or
(f) Places a noose on the property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of a racial or ethnic minority group.
This subsection only applies to the creation of a reasonable inference for evidentiary purposes. This subsection does not restrict the state's ability to prosecute a person under subsection (1) of this section when the facts of a particular case do not fall within (a) through (f) of this subsection.
(3) It is not a defense that the accused was mistaken that the victim was a member of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, had a particular gender expression or identity, or had a mental, physical, or sensory disability.
(4) Evidence of expressions or associations of the accused may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the crime charged. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.
(5) Every person who commits another crime during the commission of a crime under this section may be punished and prosecuted for the other crime separately.
(6) For the purposes of this section:
(a) "Gender expression or identity" means having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.
(b) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
(c) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to:
(i) Cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or
(ii) Cause physical damage immediately or in the future to the property of a person threatened or that of any other person.
(7) Commission of a hate crime offense is a class C felony.
(8) The penalties provided in this section for hate crime offenses do not preclude the victims from seeking any other remedies otherwise available under law.
(9) Nothing in this section confers or expands any civil rights or protections to any group or class identified under this section, beyond those rights or protections that exist under the federal or state Constitution or the civil laws of the state of Washington.
[ 2019 c 271 § 2; 2010 c 119 § 1; 2009 c 180 § 1; 1993 c 127 § 2; 1989 c 95 § 1; 1984 c 268 § 1; 1981 c 267 § 1.]
NOTES:
Severability—1993 c 127: See note following RCW 9A.36.078.
Construction—1989 c 95: "The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purpose." [ 1989 c 95 § 3.]
Severability—1989 c 95: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1989 c 95 § 4.]
Harassment: Chapters 9A.46 and 10.14 RCW.
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 66,643
- 48,472
- 3,565
Crimes are already against the lawThe legislature finds that crimes and threats
if one person beats up another person or vandalizes their property thats already a crime
threats however should be explicit
If someone says they hate white people, that is not an explicit threat but rather a form of free speech
And your response indicates concern that you'd be adversely impacted by any such legislation (because you exhibit racist proclivitives).The fact that you even asked this shows how truly fucked up you are as a person.
No, that you want to lock people up for holding the wrong opinions, is all about something being wrong with you.
How long would you plan to imprison people for the crime of disagreeing with you?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 1K
- Poll
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 510
- Replies
- 222
- Views
- 4K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 89
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 33
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8505
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-