Quote:
Originally Posted by shinerbock
My point is not that we should establish some sort of protection for white people (from minority inflicted crimes), rather that hate crime legislation doesn't serve the purpose of reducing crime.
|
Seriously? The data say white people need to be protected from each other.
But you aren't the only white person who believes that whites need protection from the big-bad black people who attack them in dark alleys (
). That's why they let their guard down and end up attacked and killed by their white family, friends, or acquaintances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shinerbock
I value a reduction in frequency foremost.
|
Hate crime legislation isn't about protecting anyone based on frequency but these crimes aren't uncommon enough to ignore them. Plus, we didn't wait for terrorist bombings on domestic soil to be a common occurance before we took a closer look at foreign terrorism (which has been argued to be a massive hate crime based on Nationalism, among other things). It was about infringement on rights and safety. Similar applies to domestic terrorism (of which hate crimes and hate groups are often labeled).
Quote:
Originally Posted by shinerbock
What, in your opinion, is the overriding purpose of hate crime legislation? Note, I'm not referring to charges like "ethnic intimidation," I think thats a whole other issue to tackle.
|
So that people of whatever race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation can live their lives without being schemed on and targeted solely because of these demographics.