NationStates Jolt Archive

I have proposed a resolution in the U.N. that I hope will greatly reduce the proliferation of prejudice throughout the world. The legislation is entitled the Hate Crimes Act of 2005. If it passes, all member states will increase the prison term for hate crimes to a minimum of 25 years and or create educational programs aimed at eliminating the various forms of prejudice which exist in their nations. I would like to debate the wisdome of this proposal in this forum.

We the people of the United Nations are appalled by the numerous acts of violence to persons and properties caused merely by prejudice. Therefore, we are resolved to eliminate such crimes from the face of the earth. In accordance with this resolution all member states shall put into law at least one of the following acts:
1. The penalty for hate crimes shall be severely increased.
2. Educational programmes shall be formed with the purpose of reducing the various types of prejudice which afflict the nations or such programmes that already exist shall be strengthened.
Furthermore, the United Nations shall encourage any just and necessary means of attaining this purpose.
A Hate Crime shall be defined as an act of violence to persons or properties which supresses a kind of people through intimidation.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/modedit.jpg copied new proposed text from lower in the thread to avoid confusion - Frisbeeteria

Also, I would like any U.N. Ambassadors to support the legislation by giving it their official approval.

Please post a copy here so lazy people like me can see what it is you have proposed without having to go through the queue. Much thanks.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/modedit.jpg This version has been replaced by author. See post #1 - Frisbeeteria

For everyone's viewing.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: French States

Description: Whereas, the people of the United Nations are appalled by the numerous acts of violence to persons and properties caused merely by prejudice, and whereas, we find entirely just and responsible the notion of increased international effort against such crimes, we the people of the Republic of French States humbly submit the following proposal for the approval of the member states of the United Nations:
That all member states shall Increase the punishment for hate crimes to a minimum of 25 years in prison, and/or create educational programmes for the purpose of eliminating racial, ethnic, national, lingual, sexual, relious, class based, and sexual orientation based prejudice within society. Furthermore, the United Nations shall actively encourage the acceptance of any just and necessary measures for the achievement of this purpose.

Approvals: 12 (Consors, Jonathalia, Cowschickens, Der Mannia, Liberal Fascism, WZ Forums, Jamesburgh, North Central America, Black Reading, Predatorica, Clint the mercyful, Gaiah)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 139 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Mar 25 2005

We have two beefs with this proposal.

1. It doesn't define what a hate crime is.

2. We in Fass like our freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Thus, we don't like this proposal.

2. We in Fass like our freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Thus, we don't like this proposal.
The Frisbeeterian Corporate States will always fight against the introduction of any hate crime legislation. Crimes are commited as actions, not thought.

We specifically exclude the concepts of criminal conspiracy or criminal intent, where they can be proven via prior actions. We won't be second-guessing intent otherwise, nor will it add to the sentence.

The legislation clearly refers to hate crimes as "acts of violence to persons or properties caused merely by prejudice." Secondly, the legislation does not limit freedome of speech or thought. It merely gives longer prison terms to hate criminals on the basis that they are more difficult to rehabilitate because of the animosity which caused their crime. Finally, remember that there is a second option for member states involving educational programmes to eliminate prejudice.

The legislation clearly refers to hate crimes as "acts of violence to persons or properties caused merely by prejudice." Secondly, the legislation does not limit freedome of speech or thought. It merely gives longer prison terms to hate criminals on the basis that they are more difficult to rehabilitate because of the animosity which caused their crime. Finally, remember that there is a second option for member states involving educational programmes to eliminate prejudice.

We prefer to let the workers in the prison system evaluate prisoners' readiness for release on a case-by-case basis. It is utterly absurd to presume that all such criminals everywhere take at least 25 years to rehabilitate.

Sentences should be based on the crimes themselves, and since we don't illegalise prejudiced thought, we aren't going to sentence people to longer terms because they did something offensive but perfectly legal that was associated with their real crime.

And we don't go in for re-education classes. The state is not there to tell citizens what to think.

The legislation clearly refers to hate crimes as "acts of violence to persons or properties caused merely by prejudice."
As opposed to "acts of violence because somebody cut you off in traffic", or "acts of violence because somebody chatted up your girlfriend in a bar"? What makes prejudice any different than any other irrational reason for commiting a crime? They did it, the law says "X years in jail", and that's it. Your intent is irrelevant in most cases.
create educational programmes for the purpose of eliminating racial, ethnic, national, lingual, sexual, relious, class based, and sexual orientation based prejudice within society.
Never gonna happen. NEVER. As long as people are different, there will be prejudices against those who are different. Even a nation of identical clones would develop prejudices based on postion, location, or something. It's part of the human condition and can't be legislated away.

Hate Crimes legislation is nothing but feel-good political correctness. We'll always fight it.

If intention does not matter in your nation, then does an accidental gun death get the same penalty as a premeditated murder?
If everyone fought against ideas simply because they did not believe they would work we would not be able to fly.

If intention does not matter in your nation, then does an accidental gun death get the same penalty as a premeditated murder?
If everyone fought against ideas simply because they did not believe they would work we would not be able to fly.

The real issue is that you're trying to discriminate between motives - to punish hate crimes more severely is tantamount to saying that it isn't as bad to kill someone for money or another motive as it is to kill them because of a personal prejudice.

Exactly. And, in Olwe anyway, killing someone for money is considered worse (because of the government's anti-capitalism stance).

But I don't see why we should clog up jails with murderers anyway. The death penalty has proven to be a very effective deterrent in Olwe.

All in all, I applaud your honorable intentions but have severe reservations about endorsing such a proposal.

The real issue is that you're trying to discriminate between motives - to punish hate crimes more severely is tantamount to saying that it isn't as bad to kill someone for money or another motive as it is to kill them because of a personal prejudice.
Right on the money!!

The real issue is that you're trying to discriminate between motives - to punish hate crimes more severely is tantamount to saying that it isn't as bad to kill someone for money or another motive as it is to kill them because of a personal prejudice.

But the law ALWAYS discriminates between motives. Murder is penalised less if there are extenuating circumstances, if it is committed in hot-blood (??) as opposed to cool-blood, if it is a mercy killing or a violent attack.

Beating someone for their money is one thing. At least their is a reason for it.
Beating someone because they insulted you, etc, is not justified, but there is reasoning behind it.
Beating someone because you hate them for being gay, for their inherent being, is something else entirely. There is no purpose for it other than to hurt that person.

I have to say I'm divided on the issue of hate crime legislation, but possibly slightly more in favour of it. The fact that it can be defined suggests that it does exist as an identifiable and unique crime, and thus can be penalised differently as seen fit.

HOWEVER, I think how this crime is defined and penalised shoould be down to the individual nation, especially since other resolutions already protect gay rights.

Our citizens hate rapists. Rapists are a social group. Ex-con rapists are often assaulted in our streets. I can't allow my citizens to be jailed for hating and assaulting rapists.

Our citizens hate rapists. Rapists are a social group. Ex-con rapists are often assaulted in our streets. I can't allow my citizens to be jailed for hating and assaulting rapists.

Rapists are different- they have committed a crime, and a detestable one at that.

Gay people have not committed a crime. They have not "done" anything. They just "are" gay.

Comparing the two is useless and offensive.

Edited to say: Plus, while hating rapists is one thing, it should not be legal to assault anyone, whether they are a rapist or not.

The Nation of Sorabia is against this proposal, even though there is extremely small chance that any "hate crimes" could be comitted on our soil, since we are ethnicly homogenous nation. Youth crime in our state is "non-existent", which I can proudly say.
Besides, "hate crimes" (even though we have not be given a thorough explanation as to what this may be) are crimes like any other, and we can not give them priority. Our nation believes in equality of rights, obligations and punishments.

Dimitrije Ljotic,
Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Holy Empire of Sorabia

I am withdrawing my own support of this legislation. It does not adequitly define the term "hate crime". Secondly, the manditory 25 year prison sentance was a rash decision. I do, however, find hate crimes more morally reprehensible than normal acts of violence. Crimes motivated by the hate of a particular group are often specifically aimed at supressing that group though fear. Supression is a crime in itself and therefore these hate crimes qualify as two offenses. The definition of "hate crime" that I use in my next proposal will only include acts of violence which supress a group of people through fear.

I find crimes commited for reasons of prejudice (hate crimes) morally despicable. I recommend vigilante or mob justice in instances of blatant hate crime.

I also find thought police legislation despicable. I warn you that I consider this proposal a repellent attempt at thought control over my citizens, and may consider it an act of war if it passes.

But the law ALWAYS discriminates between motives.


No. If you kill the President, it's treason. Period.



Murder is penalised less if there are extenuating circumstances, if it is committed in hot-blood (??) as opposed to cool-blood, if it is a mercy killing or a violent attack.

We would suggest you not come to Vastiva. Murder is a death penalty offense, and we much don't care "why" you did it.



Beating someone for their money is one thing. At least their is a reason for it.
Beating someone because they insulted you, etc, is not justified, but there is reasoning behind it.
Beating someone because you hate them for being gay, for their inherent being, is something else entirely. There is no purpose for it other than to hurt that person.

All are "Assault with Intent". All merit the same penalty.



I have to say I'm divided on the issue of hate crime legislation, but possibly slightly more in favour of it. The fact that it can be defined suggests that it does exist as an identifiable and unique crime, and thus can be penalised differently as seen fit.

HOWEVER, I think how this crime is defined and penalised shoould be down to the individual nation, especially since other resolutions already protect gay rights.

We of Vastiva simply enforce the law against those who break it. Hurling insults is not an offense. Hurling a brick is Assault, possibly "attempted murder" to "murder", and is dealt with accordingly.

We do not recognize "hate crimes" at all. We do recognize "Failure to be a Responsible Steward", which means the Sultan takes back everything he owns from you (ie: everything) and we toss you out of the country. But such is life - the rules are available everywhere.

Our citizens hate rapists. Rapists are a social group. Ex-con rapists are often assaulted in our streets. I can't allow my citizens to be jailed for hating and assaulting rapists.

Rape is a physical assault on someone else. That is a crime.

"Being" something is not a crime. You cannot commit a crime on yourself.

Pawnmania could never support such a proposal. It is tantamount to convicting people of a thought crime. And how would motive be determined? Suppose someone who is racist kills someone of another race. Once taken into custody, they confess and say they did it for the money, because the victim flipped them off, some reason other than race to plea-bargain their time down? Or, on the other hand, suppose someone assaults a member of a different race for an entirely different motive, but is then convicted of a hate-crime?

No, we do not go in for thought-police in Pawnmania.

Until there are clearer and more detailed definitions for "Hate Crimes" it shouldint be allowed to pass.

If there are problems with hate crimes in your nations may I suggest more of a social aproch to the problem?

Hate Crimes Act of 2005
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: French States

Description: Whereas, the people of the United Nations are appalled by the numerous acts of violence to persons and properties caused merely by prejudice, and whereas, we find entirely just and responsible the notion of increased international effort against such crimes, we the people of the Republic of French States humbly submit the following proposal for the approval of the member states of the United Nations:

That all member states shall Increase the punishment for hate crimes to a minimum of 25 years in prison, and/or create educational programmes for the purpose of eliminating racial, ethnic, national, lingual, sexual, relious, class based, and sexual orientation based prejudice within society. Furthermore, the United Nations shall actively encourage the acceptance of any just and necessary measures for the achievement of this purpose.

There are some good things you do in this, such as: being specific in the "whereas" paragraph, and actually propose legislation for members. But there are ways to sharpen this up, too.

First, as just a presentation technique, many proposals place capitalized verbs at the beginning of each clause. This executes transparently when a proposal becomes a resolution and specifies the strength of the clause. Let's dissect the active and declarative clauses in your proposal.

Active in red; declarative in green.


Whereas, the people of the United Nations are appalled by the numerous acts of violence to persons and properties caused merely by prejudice,

whereas, we find entirely just and responsible the notion of increased international effort against such crimes,

we the people of the Republic of French States humbly submit the following proposal for the approval of the member states of the United Nations:

all member states shall Increase the punishment for hate crimes to a minimum of 25 years in prison,

and/or create educational programmes for the purpose of eliminating racial, ethnic, national, lingual, sexual, relious, class based, and sexual orientation based prejudice within society.

Furthermore, the United Nations shall actively encourage the acceptance of any just and necessary measures for the achievement of this purpose.

Then you just put verbs in front of the clauses, capitalized (so they attract attention) to illustrate the severity and direction of each clause. I'll assign some arbitrary ones just to illustrate the idea. You don't have to use them (not that you have to take any of my suggestions, actually):

APPALLED/OBSERVINGthe people of...

FINDING/DETERMINING we find entirely...

PROPOSES we the people of...

REQUIRES all member states...

OR REQUIRES and/or create...

ENCOURAGES Furthermore, the United Nations...

Obviously, you'd have to change the wording around, which I didn't do in this one because I want to address it now.

I like your declarative clauses. You OBSERVE hate crimes being committed; you're APPALLED by them; you FIND it worth action; so you PROPOSE some things. That isn't exactly how you say it, but all the elements are still there. I suggest that change to the first three clauses. Plus, I think you should drastically change the PROPOSES clause. We don't get a chance to edit proposals when they enter the UN annals as resolutions, you have to write proposals like a resolution you want others to read. It shouldn't reference "proposal", "submit", or the proposal author. This is great when arguing the proposal, but once it becomes a resolution it's just an ugly oversight. So I propose these changes to your first three clauses:

The United Nations:

OBSERVING, in member nations, acts of violence to persons and properties caused by prejudice,

APPALLED by these acts, or "hate crimes", and the prejudice underlying them,

FINDING it entirely just and responsible the notion of increased international effort against such crimes,

ENACTS the following international laws in member nations:

And that sets up your active clauses, which make member nations do stuff. There are a couple of things I changed which I didn't discuss before. First, I added "The United Nations" to the top. This I did because resolutions are supposed to read like a very long run on sentence. There are commas between all the declarative clauses, and, as we'll see in a second, there are semicolons [;] between all the active clauses, a period at the very end. We need a subject for all these verbs we're sticking in there, so we choose "The United Nations". The sentence basically reads "The UN OBSERVES..., the UN, APPALLED by...,The UN ENACTS..." and so forth.

Second, I changed your PROPOSES statement to something more formal, such as ENACTS. Other words would fit equally well, but I chose that one because it doesn't hurt your ability to be severe or mild in the following active clauses. If, for example, you put "REQUIRES the following" it would be harder to have a mild clause later. Also, I left lots of white space between clauses, too. This draws attention to the individual clauses and makes the whole more comprehensible.

Okay, I like your active clauses for the most part, but I have some proposed changes:


1. STRONGLY RECOMMENDS all member states shall Increase the punishment for hate crimes to a minimum of 25 years in prison and that consideration for parole and ascertainment of rehabilitation be altered likewise.

2. REQUIRES member nations create educational programs for the purpose of eliminating racial, ethnic, national, lingual, sexual, religious, class based, and sexual orientation based prejudice within society.

3. ENCOURAGES the acceptance of any just and necessary measures for the achievement of reducing "hate crimes".

There are other things you need here, too. You need to define "hate crimes". so adding a clause "DEFINES a 'hate crime' as physical harm or damage of property caused by one person or groups perceived superiority to another person or group..." it would do well.

Also, and this is the big thing I want to discuss with you, is that there's a need in the UN for anti-discrimination legislation. The resolution "Gay Rights" has long been blindly accepted as providing protection from discrimination. But under careful scrutiny, it fails to do so at all. I think you should add some clauses, definitions and protections against discrimination to this, too. You could rename it "Discrimination and Hate Crimes", or something. I have some ideas of what would be needed for an anti-discrimination proposal, let me get back to you on that.

Anti-discrimination is really needed in the UN. I hope you'll be willing to help us out. Other than that, feel free to use any of my changes, to not use any of my changes, and to change beyond what I changed. It's your proposal, you have the helm.

Oh, one more thing, reconsider the category (especially if anti-discrimination is added), I think it might belong in Human Rights.

We would suggest you not come to Vastiva. Murder is a death penalty offense, and we much don't care "why" you did it.

Wow. I have something in common with Vastiva? :o

For some reason that sares me.


Also, and this is the big thing I want to discuss with you, is that there's a need in the UN for anti-discrimination legislation.

Discrimination should be punished with discrimination (in other words, exile). If you don't have a suitable place to exile people to, Olwe is prepared to accept your exiles in the Great Desert.

We the people of the United Nations are appalled by the numerous acts of violence to persons and properties caused merely by prejudice. Therefore, we are resolved to eliminate such crimes from the face of the earth. In accordance with this resolution all member states shall put into law at least one of the following acts:
1. The penalty for hate crimes shall be severely increased.
2. Educational programmes shall be formed with the purpose of reducing the various types of prejudice which afflict the nations or such programmes that already exist shall be strengthened.
Furthermore, the United Nations shall encourage any just and necessary means of attaining this purpose.
A Hate Crime shall be defined as an act of violence to persons or properties which supresses a kind of people through intimidation.

I believe that this new version of the legislation responds to the problems discussed in this forum concerning the former proposal. I sincerely thank all of you for your constructive input and ask for your support for this new proposal.

It doesn't matter why you harm/kill someone. Any attack on another, committed intentionally (except in instances of self defense), is equally wrong, and merit the same punishment. How is it worse to kill a man for his wallet, than because of the color of his skin? He is still dead either way, and the killer still deserves the same penalty (death, imo)


Of course the easiest way to make people safer from crime is ensure that they can be armed if they so desire. Just make the penalties for illegal use of weapons (i.e. robbery, murder, assault, etc.) very harsh so that self-protection is the only legitimate use.

ACraig, read the new version of the legislation. Hate crimes are defined as only those acts of violence which supress a kind of people. This supression makes these acts entirely different and more reprehensible then normal acts of violence.

WE, The People of The Holy Empire of Seelenkrieg are against this proposal. We don't think that there are any differencies between usual crime and crime with prejustice. A crime is a crime in our country and all perpretators should be treated the same way.

Anyway, I would ask you several questions about this preposal.

The first one is: How do you think to recognize which criminal act is the "hate act" and which one not? Because crime with prejustice is not enough good explanation for me. Ok, they are maybe obvious crimes with prejustice, but most of them are not so obvious.

For example: Let's say that fight occurs between heterosexual and homosexual. And it all happened because one offended the other for something that is not based on prejustice, and that heterosexual don't even know that homosexual is what he is. And that case come to the court and homosexual says that it is the hate crime, that heterosexual attacked him because he is homosexual. How can heterosexual convince the court that it isn't the hate crime? Because, not all crimes between homosexuals and heterosexuals are "hate crimes".
And are heterosexuals allowed to sue homosexuals for "hate crime", too?

Not to say that I am obsessed with homosexuals, allow me to give you other example: Some employer employed different color person to work for him. It came out that employee wasn't doing his job as he should be, and get dismissed. After that, employee appeal on court and says that this was a crime with prejustice. The employer would lose lots of money to show that the employee was lazy if he even can prove it, because maybe the theme is about wash-disher and there is no paperwork about how many dishes he was washing by the day. How can you know that the employer had or hadn't prejustice?

Are you going to create some kind of hate crime police or something? Because I don't understand... You know, these 'hate crimes' proposal can be used by some individuals, but that using can occur very often. That's what I am afraid of.

Then, don't you think that this proposal is going to get hate between different groups even bigger? Because, even the smallest incident is now going to be treated as a hate crime.(isn't obligated to happpen but in most cases will)

Again, example: Children were playing basketball, and they started to fight about some bad foul or lost ball or anything similar. So, it happened that had started a fight between different colours or different ethical groups children. Maybe, only between two of them. After that, they just calmed down and continued to play basketball. But one child went home with bruises, and his father asked him what happened. Kid told him that that was because, for example, bad foul in the game. Father asked him with whom he had a fight, and the kid said it was with some guy of different ethical group. Then dad decided that it had happened because the other guy hates him because he is different and that this is hate crime. Earlier he would only punish his kid because he had a fight in the game. Now, he is given opportunity to conclude that any incident between ethincal groups can be hate criminal.

Don't people on that way start beeing paranoid about everything and start hateing the others?

You see there are many reasons to be against this proposal, and I see it as not good enough. Maybe you should try dealing with that on some other way, which were suggested earlier to you by some other Nations on this forum.

But, again, this is only oppinion of my People, my Authorithies and my Leader. I don't want to tell you what to do.

Thank you for your time,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Holy Empire of Seelenkrieg,
Vannia Shmaug

We don't think that there are any differencies between usual crime and crime with prejustice. A crime is a crime in our country and all perpretators should be treated the same way.

Anyway, I would ask you several questions about this preposal.

The first one is: How do you think to recognize which criminal act is the "hate act" and which one not? Because crime with prejustice is not enough good explanation for me. Ok, they are maybe obvious crimes with prejustice, but most of them are not so obvious.
Not only is the difference clearly defined in the proposal as only those acts of violence which are supressive to a group of people, but also the fact that only suppressive acts qualify as hate crimes makes the difference so great as to justify harsher penalties for hate crimes.

For example: Let's say that fight occurs between heterosexual and homosexual. And it all happened because one offended the other for something that is not based on prejustice, and that heterosexual don't even know that homosexual is what he is. And that case come to the court and homosexual says that it is the hate crime, that heterosexual attacked him because he is homosexual. How can heterosexual convince the court that it isn't the hate crime? Because, not all crimes between homosexuals and heterosexuals are "hate crimes".
And are heterosexuals allowed to sue homosexuals for "hate crime", too?

Not to say that I am obsessed with homosexuals, allow me to give you other example: Some employer employed different color person to work for him. It came out that employee wasn't doing his job as he should be, and get dismissed. After that, employee appeal on court and says that this was a crime with prejustice. The employer would lose lots of money to show that the employee was lazy if he even can prove it, because maybe the theme is about wash-disher and there is no paperwork about how many dishes he was washing by the day. How can you know that the employer had or hadn't prejustice?
The rule of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt still applies in this situation. Any money the employer lost due to the case brought to court by the employer could be regained by filing a tort for economic damages related to the case filed by the employee. Secondly, that kind of discrimination is not an act of violence and therefore the employer could not be charged with a hate crime.

Are you going to create some kind of hate crime police or something? Because I don't understand... You know, these 'hate crimes' proposal can be used by some individuals, but that using can occur very often. That's what I am afraid of.
There is no plan to create a "hate crime police."


Then, don't you think that this proposal is going to get hate between different groups even bigger? Because, even the smallest incident is now going to be treated as a hate crime.(isn't obligated to happpen but in most cases will)

Again, example: Children were playing basketball, and they started to fight about some bad foul or lost ball or anything similar. So, it happened that had started a fight between different colours or different ethical groups children. Maybe, only between two of them. After that, they just calmed down and continued to play basketball. But one child went home with bruises, and his father asked him what happened. Kid told him that that was because, for example, bad foul in the game. Father asked him with whom he had a fight, and the kid said it was with some guy of different ethical group. Then dad decided that it had happened because the other guy hates him because he is different and that this is hate crime. Earlier he would only punish his kid because he had a fight in the game. Now, he is given opportunity to conclude that any incident between ethincal groups can be hate criminal.

Don't people on that way start beeing paranoid about everything and start hateing the others?
The same applies for other crimes. For example, sexual harassment and attempted murder (in some cases). This fact does not mean that these actions should not be crimes.

There is no plan to create a "hate crime police."

How does this proposal not turn every police force into a "hate crime police"? I fail to understand.

p.s. I've read that the comment quoted in your signature is mis-attributed to Voltaire, and that the actual coiner was Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

How does this proposal not turn every police force into a "hate crime police"? I fail to understand.

My point was that no special police force will be necessary in the case of hate crimes. It was my impression that this is what Seelenkrieg was asking in his post.

Not only is the difference clearly defined in the proposal as only those acts of violence which are supressive to a group of people, but also the fact that only suppressive acts qualify as hate crimes makes the difference so great as to justify harsher penalties for hate crimes.

It may just be me, but that definition seems astonishingly vague. What are you trying to say?