NationStates Jolt Archive

I would appreciate criticism from the keen minds of the UN forum of this resolution proposal before it is made:

-----
Prevention of Hate Crimes
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant


Definition: A hate crime is an action which illegally deprives, or an incitement to illegally deprive, the members of any racial, ethnic, or religious group of their lives or legally guaranteed liberties, due to their membership of that group. This definition excludes groups mentioned in Article 3 below.


Recognising that the freedom of speech is among the fundamental rights of humanity,

And that freedoms may be abused by a vocal group for their own ends,

And that among the greatest atrocities in the past have been atrocities caused by hatred of a racial, ethnic, or religious group,

Article 1. We of the United Nations condemn hate crimes in all nations.
Article 2. We resolve to criminalise hate crimes in all member nations.
Article 3. If a group's policy be to illegally deprive other people of their lives or legally guaranteed liberties, the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 do not apply to that group.
Article 4. The exclusion of any group in the definition of Hate Crimes above is not an endorsement of the deprivation of the rights of that group. If the definition of Hate Crimes be changed by a successful United Nations resolution, the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 will apply to any group mentioned in the new definition.
-----

Suggestions for improvement are welcome. As far as I can see, no resolution has been passed which covers the same ground as this one, except perhaps Religious Tolerance, which promotes greater understanding of different religious groups.

I would appreciate criticism from the keen minds of the UN forum of this resolution proposal before it is made:

-----
Prevention of Hate Crimes
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant


Definition: A hate crime is an action which illegally deprives, or an incitement to illegally deprive, the members of any racial, ethnic, or religious group of their lives or legally guaranteed liberties, due to their membership of that group. This definition excludes groups mentioned in Article 3 below.


Recognising that the freedom of speech is among the fundamental rights of humanity,

And that freedoms may be abused by a vocal group for their own ends,

And that among the greatest atrocities in the past have been atrocities caused by hatred of a racial, ethnic, or religious group,

Article 1. We of the United Nations condemn hate crimes in all nations.
Article 2. We resolve to criminalise hate crimes in all member nations.
Article 3. If a group's policy be to illegally deprive other people of their lives or legally guaranteed liberties, the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 do not apply to that group.
Article 4. The exclusion of any group in the definition of Hate Crimes above is not an endorsement of the deprivation of the rights of that group. If the definition of Hate Crimes be changed by a successful United Nations resolution, the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 will apply to any group mentioned in the new definition.
-----

Suggestions for improvement are welcome. As far as I can see, no resolution has been passed which covers the same ground as this one, except perhaps Religious Tolerance, which promotes greater understanding of different religious groups.


I vote yes :)

Catholic Europe supports this resolution. Hate crimes are a terrible thing and we support any resolution which seeks to stop them from occuring.

Hate Crime: A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group

From Dictionary.com

A hate crime is committed in disregard for whatever actions the victim has done. All that matters to the perpetrator is that the victim is a member of a particular social group, whether that be race, sexuality, gender, or even the honor society.

Hate Crimes are different from any other act of violence. They treat the victim as a member of group, rather than an individual. They tacitly include violations of a person’s civil rights. Hate Crimes should be punished severely. However, one cannot seek to eliminate the thoughts that provoke hate crimes though punishment. Citizens should have the right to believe whatever they like; it is only when they act on beliefs that violate a person's civil rights that they have committed a hate crime.

Murder and assault should not be the only instances of hate crimes. Discrimination is a hate crime, Bullying at school is often a hate crime, some instances of rape are a hate crime. The label must be applied to all crimes that strip the individual of their identity and treat them only as members of a particular social group.

Lubria strongly supports this proposal

This is a retarded idea. This is an immoral idea. This is an evil idea. This really is a retarded idea.

You punish people for what they DO, not what they THINK.

This is punishing for DOING! i am in full favor! What page is it on?

No. For instance, killing someone is killing someone. This bill aims to introduce an added penalty because of what you think, and for no other reason.

Anyone who would support this is either evil, an idiot, or both.

So, it's worse for me to kill a black man than for me to kill a white man. Is that really what this resolution is advocating, a crime is a crime regardless of the motives which will always me flawed and wrong.

So, it's worse for me to kill a black man than for me to kill a white man. Is that really what this resolution is advocating, a crime is a crime regardless of the motives which will always me flawed and wrong.

So, it's worse for me to kill a black man than for me to kill a white man. Is that really what this resolution is advocating, a crime is a crime regardless of the motives which will always me flawed and wrong.

So, it's worse for me to kill a black man than for me to kill a white man. Is that really what this resolution is advocating, a crime is a crime regardless of the motives which will always me flawed and wrong.

So, it's worse for me to kill a black man than for me to kill a white man. Is that really what this resolution is advocating, a crime is a crime regardless of the motives which will always me flawed and wrong.

So, it's worse for me to kill a black man than for me to kill a white man. Is that really what this resolution is advocating, a crime is a crime regardless of the motives which will always me flawed and wrong.

Firstly, I fear this proposal could be used to infringe upon freedom of speech. If any incitement to commit hate crimes is itself a hate crime, a clearer definition of "incitement" is required before I will believe that freedom remains secure.

Secondly, I gather that what we're trying to establish here is that it's A-OK to kill someone, just as long as you don't hate them?

I don't think this proposal is going to do much, either. Why? Becuase it really leaves the definition of a hate crime up to each individual nation. You may wonder how I can say that, but notice that the definition included in the proposal says, "A hate crime is an action which illegally deprives..." which sets allowance for the deprivation of rights in some cases and gives each nation near ultimate discretion as to what a hate crime really is. At that point, isn't the proposal rendered moot?

Also note that this proposal does nothing other than "condemn" and "criminalize" hate crimes. Well. I'm sure glad to know that the UN hates criminals, now let's actually discuss proposals that do something, shall we? In some nations, this would result in life inprisonment; in others, it will result in a fine which ultimately amounts to pocket change. Specific language is required.

I take issue with Article 3, as well. If a group is not protected by the law, they will have less reason to respect it. Freedom must be free for all.

Isn't murder and deprivation of civil rights already illegal? Why make it "more" illegal when it's commited against particular people? Isn't the crime inherently illegal and wrong, no matter who the victim?

And, after a fashion, doesn't this proposal itself move to reduce the freedom of certain people merely because they belong to a particular group?

With regard to the concept that a hate crime bill will equate killing minorities as worse than murder, the Lone Star Republic submits that hate crime laws punish the act of killing or depriving rights of minority groups out of prejudice and hatred. This does not make the "killing of a black man by a white man" a worse crime than a same-race murder. Rather, hate crime laws seek to deter hate groups from ACTING upon their ideas; most importantly, they make it clear that the government itself cannot tolerate hate crimes (like those carried out by the Third Reich and those currently tolerated by the former Soviet Republic of Georgia).

What this bill is targeting are the CRIMES of hate, not the THINKING or the creeds of hatred that still breed in free countries. Hate groups will not be attacked by this bill; they simply cannot kill or deprive rights because of their hate. Are you against that?

Although we feel the scope should be broadened to include governments themselves (as offenders), The Lone Star Republic will support this hate crime resolution.

As much as I hate racism, I have to point out that murder in general is based on hate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Hate crime laws are noting more than submitting to political correctness, and have nothing to do with reducing hate or reducing crime.

Frisbeeteria stands firmly AGAINST this and any hate crime legislation, especially on an international level.

Killing people is illegal regardless of the reason (except for self-defense, of course). This is merely adding punishment simply because of what the offender is thinking, and for no other reason.

Yes it is Letila, but the difference between murder and "hate crime" murder, is that in the former, the individual is the source of the hate, and in the latter, the group the individual belongs to is the source of the hate.

Allow me to spin a little tale.

Mr. Smith, a normally cherry man, goes to buy a car one day. His salesman happens to be wearing a yellow tie on the day Mr. Smith came in. Mr. Smith buys a car, and two weeks later, it breaks down. Mr. Smith tries to return the car, but the Salesman in the yellow tie refuses to give him a refund, citing that his warrantee had already expired. Mr. Smith associates the anger of his buying experience with the color of his salesman's tie, and any times he sees a man in a yellow tie, he tends to treat them badly, regardless of the yellow tie wearers actions.

Mr. Smith is guilty of a hate crime. It is not the existence of hate that makes a hate crime so, but rather the nature of it. It has nothing to do with the individual, but rather the individual's membership (or perceived membership) in a social group.

It is not a hate crime to say you hate men in yellow ties, it is certainly not one to think that. But it is a hate crime to bash someone over the head with the tire iron from your broken down car because they are wearing a yellow tie.

Ignoring that the individual is more than his social status makes the act of violence more immoral. It is not a different kind of violence, just a degree worse.

It is not necessarily more immoral for a white man to kill a black man; it is more immoral if the white man killed the black man because he is black.

However, Lubria respects that our opinions are not necessarily shared by the rest of the assembly. Therefore, we see no reason to call for regulation on an international level.

So there are people who commit hate crimes because of the color of one's tie?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Not that I know of, but there are people who commit hate crimes for equally stupid reasons, say because the victum was gay, or of another religion, or of another race. The yellow tie was merely a representation.

So now you, like so many others, have demonstrated that murder is a terrible crime. Glad you could join us. Now I have a question for you that not many people consider: Since you evidently view such motives as stupid or illogical, couldn't it be argued that the people who believe them are mentally incompetent? And then couldn't it be argued that you're attempting to punish the mentally retarded for their disability?

The thing is, murder is murder. I don't see the reason to make a distinction at the international level, and I especially don't see the reason to make this particular distinction, which seems rather pointless when read literally.

And I still haven't seen most of my previous points addressed.

Not that I know of, but there are people who commit hate crimes for equally stupid reasons, say because the victum was gay, or of another religion, or of another race. The yellow tie was merely a representation.

It was a very good analogy, Lubria. We of the Grand Atoll are similarly appalled by hate crimes, but could not find so elegant a way to phrase it as you did.

Nevertheless, we of the Grand Atoll are undecided at this time about whether we will support this proposal. On one hand, hate crimes are crimes against the whole human family. On the other, we do not want the potential of thoughtcrime being pursued by the UN.

We of the Grand Atoll will hear the arguments of our learned sister nations, before making our decision.

Murder is Murder. And the punishment for Murder must be assessed on each individual basis.

What you're saying with a Hate Crimes law is that a man who murders me because I'm in his parking space will receive a lesser punishment than a man who murders me because I'm of a particular ethnic or social group. And that is just wrong.

We are in fact punishing thought when we introduce Hate Crimes into the justice system. How can you possibly say otherwise?

The only difference between the person who killed me for being in his space, and the one who killed me for my ethnicity is what he was thinking when he did it.

Our justice system isn't perfect, and Lord knows in the past it has been incredibly unfair to minorities. But to create a system that is unfair to the majority is just as unfair.

Please do not introduce a wrong to correct a wrong.

The Holy Republic of Dalichae stands FIRLMY AGAINST this proposal.

Well, beyond the obvious problems with this as legislation (format, grammar, clarity, etc.), it has serious content issues. First of all, the UN is not here in order to make the laws under which the member nations run; that's why we have legislatures (or the equivalent in each member nation). As important, I personally disagree with the idea of punishing hate crimes as worse than normal crimes, or at least making that statutory. For example, I have no problem with a judge taking motivation into consideration when determining the sentence within the statutory range (for example, if the normal sentence is 3-5 years, he could give 5 years if it were racially motivated), but putting additional penalties into legislation is just an unneeded way for politicians to pander to minorities and the politically correct. Absolute bull.

Well, beyond the obvious problems with this as legislation (format, grammar, clarity, etc.), it has serious content issues. First of all, the UN is not here in order to make the laws under which the member nations run; that's why we have legislatures (or the equivalent in each member nation). As important, I personally disagree with the idea of punishing hate crimes as worse than normal crimes, or at least making that statutory. For example, I have no problem with a judge taking motivation into consideration when determining the sentence within the statutory range (for example, if the normal sentence is 3-5 years, he could give 5 years if it were racially motivated), but putting additional penalties into legislation is just an unneeded way for politicians to pander to minorities and the politically correct. Absolute bull.
The leader of Rethelanium agrees to this view. I condemn crimes based on hate in general, but political correctness issues raise a lot of questions that stand in the way of my approval for such general classification. Although someone of one group may of course harm a member of another, that does not neccessarily mean that the murder had been motivated by differences in race, ethnicity, etc. Also, from personal observation I find that if the defendant belongs to a "majority" group, that person has a much higher chance of getting accused of hate crime (regardless of the circumstances) than if the defendant belongs to a "minority" group.

I'm afraid the nation of Lubria does not see it as a matter of political correctness, but moral correctness. This is not a political issue, but a moral one.

Santin, yes, I suppose such an argument could be made, but then they would need to spend time in a mental institution, overcoming their irrational fears and hates. However, I doubt any hate crime perpetrator would be willing to seek an insanity defense; denial is so strong. Lubria has always been committed to the rehabilitation of criminals.

Murder is not murder, otherwise, why do we have so many degrees of it. Premeditation, acts of passion, genocide. We already attribute different degrees of immorality to these forms of murder.

I am not arguing for this resolution. Lubria dislikes any unneeded form of international regulation. We are arguing that our fellow states should establish hate crime laws themselves.

Dalichae, yes he will and should. His crime was committed with less malice than that of a group of teenage boys dragging a college student to a fence, crucifying him, and beating him to death because he was gay. Guns make killing so easy. Those who use their hands to kill their fellow man show a marked degree of hate.

We are not punishing thought, we are punishing acts. In the instance of a hate crime, we must prove that in addition to the perp committing the murder, that he did so primarily because of the victims member status in a social group. Did the perp know the victim was gay, did he murder him? Yes, Yes? Hate Crime. Simple. It is harder to prove a hate crime than a normal one, as it should be.

The oppressed and the disenfranchised deserve and need your so called "pandering". It's called equality in law. Non-discrimination laws, suffrage rights, Equal Opportunity Legislation, Affirmative Action, this is all "pandering", and at times it is necessary to right the wrongs inflicted on the minority by the majority.

Though the Confederacy of Caligatio strongly supports equal rights for all, to create a special class of citizens, which this bill leads to, cannot be allowed.

If a man injures another man, and is convicted of doing so in a court of law, justice should be served accordingly with time in prison. However, if it turns out that the other man happened to be a homosexual, or was black, should the first man's sentence be greater?

No. It shouldn't. A crime is a crime is a crime. That is fundamental. By making the sentence greater, you effectively create a special class of citizens, instead of equality.

Equality cannot be enforced without a complete destruction of civil liberties. Therefore, the Confederacy of Caligatio strongly opposes this bill unless some greater clarification can be made.

Todd M.

Response to Lubria: Does a group who has the right to sue for every single tiny thing that someone from a majority group does that doesn't satisfy them qualify them as oppressed? ((sorry, using the US as a model here)). And equality before the law means they have the same rights, not more rights because of the wrongs done to them, otherwise they advocate the very injustice they complain about.

Caligatio, I misspoke in my post, one would also have to show that the victim was murdered because he was a member of the social group. If the victim only happened to be a member of the social group, and it was shown that the murder happened for other reasons, then of course, there is no hate crime. Hate Crimes should be hard to prove.

On so called "special" rights. There are many different "special" classes of criminals. The mentally ill have the "special" right of not going on trial, because they do not understand the difference between right or wrong. Normal, sane criminals are not afforded this right.

A hate crime occurs because the perp had a problem with the victim's social status. I'm sorry to continually use the example of Matthew Shepherd, but it is the most apt, and the most appropriate to me. I cannot believe that his murderers would have done what they did if Mathew were straight. There was no reason, except that he was gay. Mathew Shepherd was not an individual to those boys, he was a member of a group. They didn't care about him, except that he was gay. The Hate crime is a violation of civil rights, not human rights. Social groups are civil, not natural, constructs. Humanity chooses to put a line between gay and straight, black and white.

Of course murder is wrong, it is one of the most heinous acts a human being can do to another, but if the murderer broke into the victims apartment, we also charge him with B&E. We don't dismiss that charge because of a greater crime. Hate Crimes are a form of civil discrimination, and they deserve to be included in the list of charges against a suspect. The Jury should know that not only did the boys crucify and beat this college student till he was dead, but that they did it because he was gay. It should matter that they didn't care that his name was Matthew, or that he had a mother who loved him. It should matter that they only cared that he was gay, and that was why they killed him.

Yes their special rights, granted to special people. Victims. They have suffered wrongs at the hands of others. The Justice system is there to determine guild, and punish crimes, all crimes. This is a crime, as valid as any other. Let the bailiff read, that the suspect is charged with murder in the second degree, and doing so with regard for the victim’s membership in a social group. Let us stamp out discrimination. In all forms, in all ways. In employment, in marriage, in crime. Killing a random person is bad, but killing someone because they happen to be gay, is worse in my opinion. I’d be confused at the reasons for the former crime, I’d be sick to my stomach at the reasons for the latter.

"Dalichae, yes he will and should. His crime was committed with less malice than that of a group of teenage boys dragging a college student to a fence, crucifying him, and beating him to death because he was gay. Guns make killing so easy. Those who use their hands to kill their fellow man show a marked degree of hate."

The crime here is dragging a college student to a fense, crucifying him and beating him to death. That is a greusome and horrible offense that in my mind warrants no less than life enprisonment and as much as a swift, merciless death.

The crime was not hating the man for being gay. This motive is absolutely reprehensible, and thoroughly inexcusable, and it is certainly something that would give a jury a reason to show the criminals as much mercy as they showed the student. But the fact that it was racially motivated should not send it into a different classification of crime.

You argue that a racially motivated crime is commited with more malice than other crimes. Let me ask you, though, what if those same murderers had picked someone at random from the street, say your typical WASP, dragged him to a fense, crucified him and beat him to death, just because that's how they get their kicks? Is the gay man entitled to more justice than the WASP?

And to take it a step further, which is more evil? Committing a violent act out of unreasonable hate or doing so just because you feel like it? To me, crime without reason is as evil as it gets.

Regardless, each individual state should have the right to institute or reject hate crimes in their own nation. The people of the Holy Republic of Dalichae however will not stand for different standards of justice among our population.

And such is the right of your holy republic to do so. Again, I am no advocating the passage of this legislation.

I have already said that the random act of violence, though incomprehensible, does not turn my stomach as the calculated one does.

History has also shown that some of the greatest attrocities were commited for twisted, though systematic, reasons. The holocaust comes to mind. There was murder on a grand scale, and with scientific reasoning behind it. They had percentages and family trees, and it was all ver exacting and cruel. It was the reduction of people to classifications, nothing more. Walking up to a random person on the street and painting the wall with their brains, though gruesome, seems to require less malice than planning and ploting the extermination of an entire group of people, or in this case, the death of one of a group's members.

Murder is a crime against Humanity. Discrimination is a crime against society.

Yes the crime is a gruesome murder of a college student, but the motive is that he was gay. It wasn't because he owed these kids money. It wasn't because he got into a fight with them. He did nothing to them. He was something to them. He was an enemy to them. It was an act of genocide on a small scale. One at a time, but I have little doubt, that unrestrained, those boys may have gone on to kill other homosexuals. They can hate the man because he was gay, nothing can stop that, and hate crimes legislation doesn't stop that either. What it does stop is acting on that hate. I can think about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater all I want, but I can't act on that thought, or else I've violated a crime.

"What it does stop is acting on that hate."

Adding a hate crime distinction will not stop the action any more than making the ownership of firearms illegal will stop criminals from using them to commit crimes. I highly doubt the creatures (called such because you must have humanity to be human in my book) that murdered Matthew are any more ashamed or sorry for their deed because it now is considered a "hate crime." And I also doubt it would ever stop them from doing it again.

Reasonable people will look at the motives for crime, and that will determine the severity of punishment. The important thing here is that all crime be punished appropriately in commisseration with the motivation of the criminal and the way the crime was carried out.

Just another tool to allow others to make policy within my nation. I'm against it.

I agree with the spirit of this but can't agree with it as it stands.
The action or crime is wrong, punishment for the motivation behind the crime brings in too high a degree of subjectivity.
If a member of one tribe kills another, how long do we spend finding out if the hatred for that person was because they drove too slowly of because they were a member of the other tribe? Then which is worse hating some one because they are a member of that tribe or because they drive too slowly?
Then you get to defining what an ethnic group is.
The whole thing is a system to help defence lawyers write cheques.
This type of legislation may also produce an unfortunate backlash from certain groups that feel their beliefs are being made illegal. Despite more legislation than ever before, Britain’s far right is experiencing a rapid growth. This is because the major parties aren’t tackling the concerns of normal people and they see this as the only alternative. (simplified I know)
Education rather than legislation!
:?

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint views a crime committed against one citizen as severe as the same crime committed against another, regardless of the social or economic standing, race, religion, sexual orientation, favorite sports franchise, height to weight ratio, etc of the victim, or the motivation of the criminal to commit the act in the first place.

We view this legislation as mere pandering to the so-called minority lobbies who feel they deserve something from society based on an accident of birth or a conscious choice on their part, and as an attempt to divide our society along lines that are currently not even an issue.

Our laws are in place to protect every citizen equally.

We will not support this proposal.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

Would religions that believe homosexuality to be a sin be forced to change their docterine under this law? Where can we draw the line between oppressor and oppressed?

I'll definitely be voting yes on this one!

Thanks to all for the analysis and criticism!

On one point, REP asks about homosexuality. For one thing, sexual preference isn't mentioned in my draft. For a second, as long as the religion tries to ban it using legal methods, the religion would be safe.

The post that most hurt me (okay, the only post that hurt me) was the post about mistakes in "grammar". I can accept that I might have formatted it wrongly, but may I be enlightened on where I strayed from proper grammar? (Although it is a relief to see "grammar" spelled correctly for once.)

I won't be proposing this. Sorry if anyone got hot-headed about it, but frankly, I'd rather annoy you now for a few minutes than annoy you and the entire UN for four days if it got enough endorsements. (Yeah, right.)

I think there's potential in a hate crimes resolution, but if any such proposal can be written, I'm not the man to do it.

I guess I'll stick to programming my GNP calculator from now on!

No. For instance, killing someone is killing someone. This bill aims to introduce an added penalty because of what you think, and for no other reason.

Anyone who would support this is either evil, an idiot, or both.

I agree. Hate crime is based on what the arresting officer THINKS you were thinking while commiting a crime. This resolution is utterly ridiculous.

I'd rather annoy you now for a few minutes than annoy you and the entire UN for four days if it got enough endorsements.
For this you deserve out thanks. The concept of previewing Draft versions of proposals is an excellent one, and to be encouraged.

Our principle problem with this resolution had nothing to do with your authorship, and everything to do with the concept of hate crimes itself. We won't reiterate the points made above, but we do encorage Thrace-Tailteann to continue to propose draft proposals on heartfelt issues. Everyone wins in an open debate, moreso when rancor is left aside.

The Lone Star Republic concurs--This proposal should be brought to the UN. We believe that crimes of hate should be combated by international efforts. Consider the threat of terrorism--Is that not a ring of hate that the international world is trying to punish? And why? Because governments are responsible for harboring hate groups.

Perhaps it is not clear to many that "hate" refers, not to an individual's dislike of others, but the perpetuation of ignorance and intolerance by the general populace.

Please submit this proposal. The debates and votes should reveal much about how serious other nations are about stopping hate crimes for good.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint does not view so-called 'hate crimes' as any more or less repulsive than any other crime. We see no difference between a fix-craving junkie assaulting or killing a man for his money and an ignorant racist killing a man because his skin is the 'wrong color'.

The United Nations does not need to be wasting its time making certain crimes 'more illegal' based on the supposed thought processes of the criminal or the ability of a left-leaning prosecutor to pigeon-hole the victim into an alleged 'minority' group.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs