Second, and most importantly, the Matthew Shepard Act does not exclusively protect gays and lesbians. It protects everyone. If some psychotic gay person goes out and starts murdering straight people just because they're straight, that too would be a federal hate crime.
If you want to claim that the law would disproportionately protect gay people, maybe that's because straight people aren't targeted and murdered just because they're straight.
Ever think of that? Jerk.
===========================================
I do understand and appreciate the argument that murders and crimes should be punished equally, regardless of who the target is.
But hate crime legislation isn't really about the direct victim of the crime being prosecuted.
Hate crime legislation is about crimes committed with particular intent, and as such are about the mindset of the criminal in question, and ability to create a climate of fear amongst a particular group of individuals.
So, yes, we should prosecute all crimes equally. But to deny that hate crimes don't exist, or that they don't have a broader intent, is to deny reality. It is fundamentally different to say "Lets go beat up some fags/chinks/paddies/etc" from saying "Lets go find someone to beat up"
============================================
Final note, hate crimes are innately about discrimination. The fact that hate crime legislation recognizes that reality is not creating discrimination. The discrimination already exists out in the populace.
I agree 10,000%. But actually calling someone a jerk takes a bit of legitimacy off of your post. The cluebat is best served cold and dispassionately, IMHO.
Fair enough. I agree in general principle (and the thought occurred to me as i was hitting "reply").
What i don't like is the presumption that homosexuals, or members of minority groups enjoy special favor under the law, when in many cases they do not.
I find more frustrating the fact that people seem to assume that it is law that creates discrimination, and that things would be fine if there were no laws which recognize discrimination.
But it's not the opinion being expressed that i find offensive. People are perfectly entitled to be wrong (and i will dispassionately argue against their incorrectness). What incenses me so, is the presumption, and assertion of opinion as fact. Trying to seize the grounds on which a discussion takes place (which could also be called "framing") is obnoxious/rude/etc and indicates either a serious lack of consideration or an attempt to argue in bad faith.
So i'm sorry to anyone who i pissed off (hee, half-hearted apology), yes the point could have been made w/o the ad hominem. I did however want to indicate my derision, beyond the fact that dude was wrong on the facts.
What? People are targeted for reasons A, B, C, D all the way up through triple Z. The problem, so obvious that I'm ashamed to even bother typing it, is that A is not morally superior to B, even if the media frames it that way. Group membership should never suddenly allow one's self unequal protection under the law.
But it does, of course. With great, brain-dead righteousness it does.
mynameishere, i believe is an American, and the reference he's making sounds very American.
So in the context of the original post, the Matthew Shepard Act is not relevant. The details of hate crime legislation, and it's application is universal enough to be relevant.
Why does it seem that political gays are all about the feds? One would think they'd be in the states rights camp by now and pursuing things at the state level.
That said, hate crimes legislation is a horrible, destructive idea. Any deviation from the idea that we all are equal individuals with the same protection under the law is bound to lead to bad things.
Both are happening. However, basic employment protections are near impossible to gain in some states, such as the deep south.
On hate crimes, however, I disagree. A hate crime is not about targeting one particular individual; it is a terrorist act designed to instill fear in a community. A burning cross, a lynching is to create fear in black people, for example. "Don't date white women" was one in the 60s south. Attacking someone in front of a gay establishment is a clear message to invoke fear of congregation in the gay community.
It's too subjective. With enough imagination and the right judge and lawyer almost anything can be spun into a hate crime. History indicates that would inevitably happen. Look at the ridiculous applications of RICO and Patriot Act.
And it's all pointless. Assaulting people (instilling fear of physical harm) is already a crime. There's just no need to complicate it.
Now, I'm against employment protections period. But if I weren't, I certainly wouldn't want the feds involved. Inviting the federal government into an area has typically proven to get you far from what you want. People should focus on state laws. If you're in a state with laws you don't like, then move.
I don't know about legal advantages, more like social. Consider a hypothetical bar brawl: if a gay guy gets punched, he can throw in hatecrime charges even if no gay slurs were proferred - just because he can. And that is completely acceptable in mainstream Western society, even if running deep against our principles (just punishment). The other way around, no hatecrime is suspected. No such thing as hate against the silent majority.
Note that I'm not insinuating that discrimination against gays does not exist - it does and it's ugly - slurs are thrown around in 99% of bar brawls and they're just the tip of the iceberg.
And his location is probably irrelevant - Western society is so much alike, the variations are much like ripples.
You clearly do not understand hate crime legislation.
I am not gay. If the Matthew Shepard Act became law, and someone calls me a fag, and then beats me up, such a case would STILL be prosecutable under hate crime legislation, because of the INTENT, not because of the actual target.
They would be perpetrating a hate crime, because they are trying to beat me up because they think that i am gay, regardless of how good they are at actually determining whether or not i am actually gay.
If someone beats up a gay guy, unless there is SOME evidence that they were beaten up because they were gay, a prosecutor should not be able to bring hate crime charges (this is why we have grand juries after all).
EDIT: No, really? Is that what you want, because that's where the discrimination is.