NationStates Jolt Archive

"Matthew Shepard Act"

"After years of unconscionable delay, the House has approved legislation that would, for the first time, extend federal hate-crimes law to give substantive coverage to gay people. The act would be an important step forward in protecting all minorities from violence and a tribute to a young man whose life was cut short by bigotry..."

"His death galvanized a national movement to extend hate-crimes protection to gay men and lesbians, but it has also galvanized stiff opposition. Two years ago, a hate-crimes bill that included gay people stalled after President George W. Bush threatened to veto it...

After the House’s strong vote — 249 to 175 — in favor of the bill, the Senate needs to follow. Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, has introduced the companion bill, which has bipartisan support. Harry Reid, the majority leader, should quickly schedule a vote."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/opinion/06wed3.html?_r=1&em

I'm thinking the whole concept of the "Hate Crime" is fundamentally flawed and unnecessary.

Matthew Shepard died because he was gay. He was struck out against, violently, as part of an ideological act of violence. It seems to me, we already have a name for that type of crime.

They should remove "Hate Crimes" from the canon completely. Clearly, these acts of idological violence should be considered "terrorism", and tried as such.

I agree with you here, that a hate crime law is fundamentally flawed in a nation concerned with equality. I also find it treads on ground that juries and judges should tread on.

At the same time i understand why it exist.
1st as a deterant.
2nd to equalize prison time non-minorities and minorities get.

I have such mixed emotions about hate crimes. On the one hand, It is particularly heinous to assault, torture, kill and otherwise target people simply because they are a <insert label here>. On the other hand, I don't think the same crimes are any less horrible when people do it because the victim is convenient. Is our system so dysfunctional that the only way the public can feel satisfied that a criminal got what he deserved is to tack on some extra sentence for motive?

That being said, gays and lesbians deserve as much(or as little) protection from hate-crimes laws as blacks, christians or women.

That being said, gays and lesbians deserve as much(or as little) protection from hate-crimes laws as blacks, christians or women.

Or whites or straight men ??

Or whites or straight men ??

Oh please. A group of angry gay men could never figure out what color and style of rope to use to match the straight man's outfit in order to lynch him properly.

Oh please. A group of angry gay men could never figure out what color and style of rope to use to match the straight man's outfit in order to lynch him properly.

Sigged.

Or whites or straight men ??

No, they pretty much deserve what they get.

;)

A more serious answer: Non-whites already get disproportionately longer sentences on average for the same crimes than white already. Hate-crimes legislation is probably redundant.

Oh please. A group of angry gay men could never figure out what color and style of rope to use to match the straight man's outfit in order to lynch him properly.

saved by my lack of Fashion sense again.

Oh please. A group of angry gay men could never figure out what color and style of rope to use to match the straight man's outfit in order to lynch him properly.

It's so hard to keep up with rope fashion. :p

It's so hard to keep up with rope fashion. :p

Tell me about it. I've been trying to read about it, but every time I get a magazine that discusses rope fashion and modern rope usage and techniques, I get put on an FBI watch list.

Ever tried to find ropes that matches with the colors of your bedroom? Impossible, you'd might as well make your own rope.

Tell me about it. I've been trying to read about it, but every time I get a magazine that discusses rope fashion and modern rope usage and techniques, I get put on an FBI watch list.

I think they can only put you on it once. That's why I haven't concerned myself with it for years. :)

Any violent crime is technically a "hate crime" It require hate to kill someone!

Ugh...Political correctness stupidity is stupid.

Ugh...Political correctness stupidity is stupid.

*sigh*

I'm not even going to bother this time.

*sigh*

I'm not even going to bother this time.

lol. I had to do it.

Terrorism? I never thought of it that way, but that label does apply to hate crimes. With GLBT people, the message behind these attacks is "stay hidden, refuse to act on your feelings, or suffer the consequences"; with racial minorities, it is "don't get 'uppity,' don't assert your rights, or you'll be punished." Makes perfect sense. Not that I'd propose that hate crimes be tried as "terrorist" acts legally, but they are essentially a version of terrorism targeted at scaring a subgroup of pepole into submission.

As for the arguments against hate crimes presented here, I would have to disagree that all crimes should be tried the same regardless of intent. When a criminal carries out an attack on another person out of a desire to harm that person due to his or her status as a member of particular subgroup of people, he or she is committing an act that functions to harm an entire group of people. Though this not true on an individual basis, as a whole, hate crimes have worked throughout history to oppress minority groups. One need look no further than the violence committed by the KKK, and the killing of homosexual men in "fag drags" as example. These actions have had the effect of scaring people whom belong to these groups to the point where they have been afraid to assert themselves politically and socially. Thus, the individual "hate crime" being committed, be it assault, murder, or any other such act, concerns more than just the individual victim: it concerns an entire group of people and their status in society. Therefore, hate crime legislation is necessary to a) dissuade bigots from committing these crimes and causing harm to an entire group of people and b) to punish these criminals for their contribution to the oppression of an entire group of people.

It's so hard to keep up with rope fashion. :p

I hear Bravo has a show coming up for just that problem: How Not to Hang.

Double entendre, ftw.

I hear Bravo has a show coming up for just that problem: How Not to Hang.

Double entendre, ftw.

I am tempted to sig that, but I feel something better coming along from you.

I have such mixed emotions about hate crimes. On the one hand, It is particularly heinous to assault, torture, kill and otherwise target people simply because they are a <insert label here>. On the other hand, I don't think the same crimes are any less horrible when people do it because the victim is convenient. Is our system so dysfunctional that the only way the public can feel satisfied that a criminal got what he deserved is to tack on some extra sentence for motive?

That being said, gays and lesbians deserve as much(or as little) protection from hate-crimes laws as blacks, christians or women.

When I thought that hate-crime laws were just about making the punishment stiffer when the victim was a minority I felt the same way. Then I realized that the purpose of hate-crime laws is about making sure that laws get enforced in communities where discrimination is so rampant that people who commit crimes against members of a particular group are unlikely to face prosecution.

I remember there was a story discussed on this forum in which a police officer sexually assaulted a stripper and the judge dismissed the charges because as a stripper she provoked the cop's behavior. After Katrina middle-class white people were shooting black people more-or-less for sport and there was no effort to prosecute. Communities that didn't respect the rights of these groups doesn't frown on crimes against them.

Hate crime legislation is about making sure that when unpopular groups are persecuted that the aggressors get prosecuted when they otherwise wouldn't.

That said I think No True Scotsman makes a great point with his suggestion. Why bother with a whole new law for each and every group that some idiot gets it in his head to go after, and social vagaries decide to condemn for no reason. We're never going to get "Strippers" included in the hate-crime system. Nail that cop for terrorism against women.

After all. The justice department gets to decide for itself what constitutes a forbidden drug, and has already claimed it should get the same latitude in deciding terrorism.

Oh please. A group of angry gay men could never figure out what color and style of rope to use to match the straight man's outfit in order to lynch him properly.

Bwhahahah, very funny, but rather too general huh. I know swathes of gay men that couldn't give a fuck about fashion.

This argument was made on Feministing a few days ago. I think there's a distinction here that's worth noting, though.

If I, say, detonate a bomb on a subway to protest a same-sex marriage bill, that's obviously terrorism and should be prosecuted as such.

But if I assault a same-sex couple in the street because I hate queers and how disgusting they are, I don't obviously have any political or ideological objectives by doing so: I'm not a fanatically devoted ideologue who thinks the ends justify the means, I'm just a hateful and violent bigot.

That said I think No True Scotsman makes a great point with his suggestion. Why bother with a whole new law for each and every group that some idiot gets it in his head to go after, and social vagaries decide to condemn for no reason. We're never going to get "Strippers" included in the hate-crime system. Nail that cop for terrorism against women.

After all. The justice department gets to decide for itself what constitutes a forbidden drug, and has already claimed it should get the same latitude in deciding terrorism.

That though is where the worry is, specificly about anti terror laws. That they can and will be used in circumstances where terror is not the issue.

I think the problem is the term "hate crime," when what we're really talking about is terrorism.

Hate crimes are crimes in which the act was intended not only to harm the victim, but to impose fear upon an entire population. Mathew Shepard wasn't murdered because he was Mathew Shepard, he was murdered because a bunch of worthless idiots felt that fags are subhumans who should be brutalized. It was an act not just against an individual but against a population. That's who they were really attacking.

I'm personally tired of how brown-skinned people from other countries can be called terrorists, but white Americans can't.

Torturing a gay man because he is gay is no different than lynching a black man because he's black, or blowing up American civilians because they're American. It is an act of terrorism intended to cause an entire population to fear for their lives and safety. "Hate crime" is a lame-ass way of trying to pretend that there's any fundamental difference between the thugs who killed Shepard and the thugs who blow up buildings.

This argument was made on Feministing a few days ago. I think there's a distinction here that's worth noting, though.

If I, say, detonate a bomb on a subway to protest a same-sex marriage bill, that's obviously terrorism and should be prosecuted as such.

But if I assault a same-sex couple in the street because I hate queers and how disgusting they are, I don't obviously have any political or ideological objectives by doing so: I'm not a fanatically devoted ideologue who thinks the ends justify the means, I'm just a hateful and violent bigot.
I see no difference beyond that of numbers. In my eyes you'd just be a terrorist who has killed fewer people.

Any violent crime is technically a "hate crime" It require hate to kill someone!

Ugh...Political correctness stupidity is stupid.
While I am, as always, amused at how some people seem unable to grasp extremely basic terminology, I am also, as always, confused by why you'd choose to advertise your ignorance so aggressively.

Is this one of those religion things? I know the Bible says that God hates people who eat from the Tree of Knowledge or whatever, but do you actually interpret that to mean that God will be happy if you brag about how stupid you are?

I see no difference beyond that of numbers. In my eyes you'd just be a terrorist who has killed fewer people.

Morally? Certainly. In the sense that I have terrorized people? Certainly also.

But the motive is not the same, and as far as the legal distinction between hate crimes and domestic terrorism goes, that's what matters.

Morally? Certainly. In the sense that I have terrorized people? Certainly also.

But the motive is not the same, and as far as the legal distinction between hate crimes and domestic terrorism goes, that's what matters.

In what way is the motive not the same?

The people that killed Matthew Shepard harmed him because of their ideology - their position on his sexuality, and how that placed him in their 'world order'. And the fact that they DID attack him because he was homosexual means it wasn't JUST a crime against Matthew Shapard - it was an attack on 'a homosexual', and it could just as easily have been anyone that (they thought) fit the bill.

If someone from Saudi Arabia was attacking Americans BECAUSE they were from America, we'd be labelling them terrorists. If someone from America attacks gay people because they are gay...?

That though is where the worry is, specificly about anti terror laws. That they can and will be used in circumstances where terror is not the issue.

When homosexuals (in this case) fear for their safety, how is terror not the issue?

When homosexuals (in this case) fear for their safety, how is terror not the issue?

Because people always fear for their safety when hearing about a crime that could threaten them. That doesn't suddenly make the crime one of domestic terrorism.

This point about terrorism, not something I've heard before. I can certainly see the reasoning behind it though.

Any violent crime is technically a "hate crime" It require hate to kill someone!

Not necessarily.



Also, someone on a different forum posted an email I believe he got from a lobby group that supports the Matthew Shepard Act. Copypasta powers go!
Dear ,

You're not going to believe what they're saying about the Matthew Shepard Act, S.909.

Yesterday, far right groups launched their latest attacks: action alerts and online videos with outrageously false claims that the Matthew Shepard Act would "give legally protected status to pedophiles."

Senate offices are being blasted with calls trying to pawn off these ridiculous lies and scare senators.

We need you to call your senators to make sure that they are hearing from fair-minded people like you.

It takes about 45 seconds to call each one of your senators – and each one of them needs to hear from you today. So set yourself a reminder on your computer. Make the call on your way to lunch. Or stop reading this and do it right now. Whatever you do, make sure to CALL YOUR SENATORS TODAY.

If you've never called Congress, let me assure you, it's easy.

1. Before 5 p.m. ET, call Sen. Bennet at (202) 224-5852 and Sen. Udall at (202) 224-5941.
2. Most likely, one of your senator's interns will answer and ask where you're calling from and why. You're calling to urge the Senator to support the Matthew Shepard Act (S. 909). Most calls end right there. But if you like, you can add:
* Sexual Orientation is already defined in Federal law and clearly does not include any of the criminal acts right wing groups are claiming it does.
* In fact, hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are on the rise. One out of every six hate crimes is because of the victim's sexual orientation.
* Hate crimes have more than one victim. They are intended to create an atmosphere of fear and terrorize entire communities.
3. IMPORTANT: After you hang up,click here to let us know you made the call?. Don't skip this step! It helps us track our progress.

We have the truth on our side – and we need you to speak the truth today to counter our opponents' outrageous lies. Please make your phone calls right now.

Then, please pass this email on to your friends and family.

Thank you for taking action.

Warmly,

Joe Solmonese
Joe Solmonese
President

Don't know if anyone actually made such claims about the law protecting paedophiles, but there you are.

Hmm, you make a compelling argument, Bottle.

Perhaps we could finally get the KKK listed as a terrorist organization?

Hmm, you make a compelling argument, Bottle.

Perhaps we could finally get the KKK listed as a terrorist organization?

Associating them with Al Qaeda would certainly piss the KKK off no end. Worth it for that alone.

Hmm, you make a compelling argument, Bottle.

Perhaps we could finally get the KKK listed as a terrorist organization?

Wait... the KKK goes around killing people as a group in an attempt to terrorize people now? I thought they mostly gave that up.

This point about terrorism, not something I've heard before. I can certainly see the reasoning behind it though.



Not necessarily.



Also, someone on a different forum posted an email I believe he got from a lobby group that supports the Matthew Shepard Act. Copypasta powers go!


Don't know if anyone actually made such claims about the law protecting paedophiles, but there you are.
Specifically it's from the Human Rights Campaign, and I was the one who got it. Also, the senators listed are Colorado senators, so you'll need to find your state's senator's phone numbers.

Any violent crime is technically a "hate crime" It require hate to kill someone!

Ugh...Political correctness stupidity is stupid.

Not really.

The phrase "cold blooded murder" comes to mind.

Not really.

The phrase "cold blooded murder" comes to mind.

Indeed, a not insignificant number of murders are committed for very instrumental motives that have nothing to do with hate. In fact it's arguable that most 'crimes of passion' are not related to 'hate' so much as anger during that particular situation. Often you will find the murdered doesn't hate their victim - they may feel ambiguous or conflicted but few actually have hatred.

Hmm, you make a compelling argument, Bottle.

Perhaps we could finally get the KKK listed as a terrorist organization?

The problem is the KKK is not a national organization anymore.
The last national KKK got sued out of existence and the victims mother owns all their property now.
They intentionally are local with no connection with other groups.

The people that killed Matthew Shepard harmed him because of their ideology - their position on his sexuality, and how that placed him in their 'world order'.

Well, because of their animosity toward the group to which he belonged. That's what a hate crime is.

And the fact that they DID attack him because he was homosexual means it wasn't JUST a crime against Matthew Shapard - it was an attack on 'a homosexual', and it could just as easily have been anyone that (they thought) fit the bill.

And, again, that's what a hate crime is: a crime motivated by animus toward a particular group.

But was it in any sense political? Was the message, "This is what you get if you support gay rights?" Hardly. It was not terrorism. It was a hate crime.

If someone from Saudi Arabia was attacking Americans BECAUSE they were from America, we'd be labelling them terrorists.

Actually, no. If someone from Saudi Arabia attacked Americans because he or she hated Americans for being sinners, I'd be inclined to call that a hate crime, too (well, there is probably no such legal category there, but you get the point).

If someone from Saudi Arabia attacked Americans as an act of protest and opposition to US forces there, or to the Iraq War, or to US policy in the Middle East, I'd be inclined to call that terrorism.

Perhaps we could finally get the KKK listed as a terrorist organization?

The KKK, at least as far as its violent activities went, was always a terrorist organization. Unlike Matthew Shepard's murderers, it always had quite explicit political objectives, and used its violent tactics to promote them.

Because people always fear for their safety when hearing about a crime that could threaten them. That doesn't suddenly make the crime one of domestic terrorism.
Which brings us back to motive.

People who murder gays because they want want to hurt GAY PEOPLE are different from people who kill a gay man simply to take his wallet and had no idea that he was even gay. This is because of something we call "motive." It is used frequently to decide the nature of a crime and the punishment that the guilty should receive.

Which brings us back to motive.

Indeed it does.

A person who kills a gay person in order to intimidate or scare other gay people (a stated goal) is, in fact, a terrorist.

A person who kills a gay person because he's gay and he hates gay people is not a terrorist. He's a murderer - the same as a person who kills a black person because he's black, a jew because he's a jew, or that guy because he's smoking a cigarette.

Terrorism?

Not gonna happen. No western country wants to have home-grown terrorist on their soil. It would look really bad. Hence, "hate-crime".

Terrorism?

Not gonna happen. No western country wants to have home-grown terrorist on their soil. It would look really bad. Hence, "hate-crime".

On the contrary. It makes you look tough on crime, something politicians have had a serious hard on now for a looooooong time.

Or whites or straight men ??

Whites and straight men are equally covered by hate crimes laws. After all, they have an ethnicity, a gender, and a sexual orientation.

The difference is that minorities are most often the people targeted specifically for those traits, so you're less likely to hear about a hate crime against a heterosexual WASP male.

Which brings us back to motive.

People who murder gays because they want want to hurt GAY PEOPLE are different from people who kill a gay man simply to take his wallet and had no idea that he was even gay.

That is why it's classified as a hate crime.

The problem is the KKK is not a national organization anymore.
The last national KKK got sued out of existence and the victims mother owns all their property now.
They intentionally are local with no connection with other groups.

Terrorist cells. The bastards. *nod*

Tell me about it. I've been trying to read about it, but every time I get a magazine that discusses rope fashion and modern rope usage and techniques, I get put on an FBI watch list.

check with the Japanese... they could probably tell you which types of ropes are best for typing people up... down to what knots to use. :tongue:

Whites and straight men are equally covered by hate crimes laws. After all, they have an ethnicity, a gender, and a sexual orientation.

The difference is that minorities are most often the people targeted specifically for those traits, so you're less likely to hear about a hate crime against a heterosexual WASP male.

Which makes it all the more ridiculous when white heterosexual men bitch about how "unfair" these hate crimes laws are. They complain it is unjust that fewer people are prosecuted for hate crimes against white men...overlooking the possibility that this might be because fewer such crimes are COMMITTED.

While I am, as always, amused at how some people seem unable to grasp extremely basic terminology, I am also, as always, confused by why you'd choose to advertise your ignorance so aggressively.

Is this one of those religion things? I know the Bible says that God hates people who eat from the Tree of Knowledge or whatever, but do you actually interpret that to mean that God will be happy if you brag about how stupid you are?

Ahh, how I love the smell of flaming in the... *checks time* Afternoon.

Tell me about it. I've been trying to read about it, but every time I get a magazine that discusses rope fashion and modern rope usage and techniques, I get put on an FBI watch list.

http://xkcd.com/576/

Frankly this was quite funny and fits with the topic so... :p

A person who kills a gay person because he's gay and he hates gay people is not a terrorist. He's a murderer - the same as a person who kills a black person because he's black, a jew because he's a jew, or that guy because he's smoking a cigarette.

Someone who was raised by shitty parents and never went to school might end-up stealing to support his kids, and in that robbery the victim might fight back, causing the robber to panic, leading to the victim's death.

This is utterly different from a man killing a woman because he hates women.

Someone who was raised by shitty parents and never went to school might end-up stealing to support his kids, and in that thievery the victim might fight back, causing the robber to panic, leading to the victim's death.

This is utterly different from a man killing a woman because he hates women.

Granted, and I don't dispute that. However, note the distinction in my post:

Indeed it does.

A person who kills a gay person in order to intimidate or scare other gay people (a stated goal) is, in fact, a terrorist.

A person who murders someone with the stated goal of striking fear into other people of that gender/race/religion/creed/sexual orientation is a terrorist.

A person who kills a gay person because he's gay and he hates gay people is not a terrorist. He's a murderer - the same as a person who kills a black person because he's black, a jew because he's a jew, or that guy because he's smoking a cigarette.

A person who murders a person because he hates them is a murderer (and possibly guilty of a hate crime, under current law).

Granted, and I don't dispute that. However, note the distinction in my post:


A person who murders someone with the stated goal of striking fear into other people of that gender/race/religion/creed/sexual orientation is a terrorist.

Possibly. Not what we are debating here, though.

A person who murders a person because he hates them is a murderer (and possibly guilty of a hate crime, under current law).

Yes, a man who kills someone merely for her race (not necessarily to spread terror, just out of spite) is a totally different type of criminal than the robber I just mentioned. They should be judged under separate laws.

Possibly. Not what we are debating here, though.

Someone hasn't read the conversation I was responding to. :p

It was being kicked around here, and I responded to it.

Yes, a man who kills someone merely for her race (not necessarily to spread terror, just out of spite) is a totally different type of criminal than the robber I just mentioned. They should be judged under separate laws.

Hmm, maybe. The wide latitude in available sentencing should cover it, I would think... but I didn't come to debate that.

Hmm, maybe. The wide latitude in available sentencing should cover it, I would think... but I didn't come to debate that.

But you said it on a public debate board.

Judges are often pressured into maximizing sentences to keep their jobs; we need this category. These two kinds of criminals should not be classified as the same.

Whites and straight men are equally covered by hate crimes laws. After all, they have an ethnicity, a gender, and a sexual orientation.

The difference is that minorities are most often the people targeted specifically for those traits, so you're less likely to hear about a hate crime against a heterosexual WASP male.

I've heard that hate crimes legislation has actually been used disproportionately to prosecute blacks committing crimes against whites.

But you said it on a public debate board.

Judges are often pressured into maximizing sentences to keep their jobs; we need this category. These two kinds of criminals should not be classified as the same.

Look buddy. I came in here to say that it was a ridiculous notion to get hate crimes reclassified as terrorism, which was previously stated in this thread. That is it. That is all. Thank you. Have a nice day. :rolleyes:

I've heard that hate crimes legislation has actually been used disproportionately to prosecute blacks committing crimes against whites.

I hadn't heard that, but it certainly could be true. I'm just bugged by the fact that so many people think it couldn't possibly be used that way.

This is because of something we call "motive." It is used frequently to decide the nature of a crime and the punishment that the guilty should receive.

Is it? I'm not being difficult, but I've really never heard this. If I rob a bank to feed my starving family, will I get a lighter sentence than if it's to feed my heroin addiction?

Also, stripped from the hallowed halls of Wikipedia, the definition of terrorism under the Federal criminal code:
…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…."
"Intimidate or coerce a civilian population" seems about right, but I guess motive would be harder to prove than if, say, these men belonged to an organization that published a newsletter railing against gays.

That is why it's classified as a hate crime.No, in most jurisdictions it isn't.
This thread is mostly talking about murders, but in those cases it hardly matters whether a "hate crime" designation exists on the state level (the federal hate-crimes bill is about providing financial and investigatory assistance: the Mathew Shepard case practically bankrupted Laramie, Wyoming), since the sentence is likely to be life without parole (or death) in any case. The typical "hate crime" is on the level of vandalism or assault. The hope is that punishing vandals will deter them from escalating to the level of assault, and punishing assaulters will deter them before they escalate to murder. In Michigan, as in most states, someone who spray-paints "ALL YIDS MUST DIE [swastika]" on a Jewish cemetary or "ALL NIGS MUST DIE [noose]" on the A.M.E. church has committed a "hate crime" and the judges have a harsher range of sentences to choose among than in the case of someone who spray-painted "I [heart] U MARCY 4EVER" on the freeway overpass; however, someone who sprays "ALL FAGS MUST DIE [baseball bat cracking skull]" on a gay nightclub has not committed a "hate crime" and the judge is not allowed to sentence more harshly than he would Marcy's boyfriend.

I, for one, support classifying hate crimes as terrorism.

I, for one, support classifying hate crimes as terrorism.

It just makes more sense to me.

I, for one, support classifying hate crimes as terrorism.
It depends on the crime. Another poster was saying writing hateful things on a black church or a Jewish cemetery would be a hate crime, which makes sense, but couldn't really be classified as terrorism. Violent hate crimes could certainly be called terrorism, though.

It depends on the crime. Another poster was saying writing hateful things on a black church or a Jewish cemetery would be a hate crime, which makes sense, but couldn't really be classified as terrorism. Violent hate crimes could certainly be called terrorism, though.

Oh, yeah. Sorry, should have clarified. ^That.

It just makes more sense to me.

No true scotsman agrees with me.

Heikoku2, why does your name box say you are offline? Have you learned the magic of the Mods, which allows them to pass through these forums unseen by mortal eyes?

Heikoku2, why does your name box say you are offline? Have you learned the magic of the Mods, which allows them to pass through these forums unseen by mortal eyes?

Yup. It allows me to decide on when people see me online or not.

*gasp*

burn the warlock!

*gasp*

burn the warlock!

HAHAHA! YOUR FLAMES WON'T HARM ME! I AM INVULNER*Gets shot*

I, for one, support classifying hate crimes as terrorism.

That's absurd.

A hate crime only rises to the level of terrorism if the intent of the perpetrator is to strike fear or terror (hence the word "terrorism") into the public. Whether it actually happens or not is irrelevant - it's about intent.

That's absurd.

A hate crime only rises to the level of terrorism if the intent of the perpetrator is to strike fear or terror (hence the word "terrorism") into the public. Whether it actually happens or not is irrelevant - it's about intent.

So, when we punish a 'terrorist', we're punishing them NOT for their criminal actions, but for their thoughts?

So, when we punish a 'terrorist', we're punishing them NOT for their criminal actions, but for their thoughts?

No we're punishing them for their intent, if they wanted to kill ten people and thats it then they're a serial killer but if they wanted to kill two and cause a massive panic then they are a terrorist.