To Phoenix:
IMHO, ability to give to the common human values priority higher than to the tribal ones is one of the parameters of the civilized and developed society. Unfortunately, Western civilization involuntarily keeps monopoly on this (take, for example, integrative processes in Europe). Societies being on the lower stages of development prefer family/clan/tribal solidarity. This explains high level of nepotism in the Third world countries; it accounts for majority of problems of the African countries; and this explains irrational hatred of the Arab world toward Israel and West. If the only obstacle to peace were the Jewish settlements on the West Bank, they would have been dismantled long ago, just as all the settlements were dismantled on the Sinai Peninsula when the prospects of peace with Egypt became real. Arabs do not tolerate Israel since it represents the Western civilization in their area.
About expatriate Muslims living in the USA. If and when they show that they are first of all Americans, and just after this Muslims (Arabs, Pakistanis, etc.), then the hate crimes rate against them will steadily decrease until such an ugly phenomenon disappears at all
It seems to me that religion is more responsible for most atrocities than primitive, or tribal, societies. History is filled with horror stories stemming from radically narrow religious beliefs and the hunger for power so typical of their religious leaders.
There are sects in this country that are just as radical as the Taliban. In a way, their isolation effectively turns them into tribal societies with a mindless mob mentality.
Pat Robertson, a fundamentalist Christian and a former presidential candidate, made a statement to the effect that this country deserved what it got on 9/11 because of our tolerance for homosexuality and alternative lifestyles, and this is a man who is considered fairly mainstream by a large segment of our society.
I agree, Diane, although sects. especially the radical ones, don't have any influence here in Germany.
On the other hand, however, I think, there are quite a few societies, not only, in so-called develloping countries, who prefer family/clan/tribal solidarity (eg. this is part of the program of the biggest party, the "CDU" in Germany).
CDU and Tribal/Family Values
Of course, any conservative party supports family values, but this does not make it tantamount to Taliban. CDU does not promote values of any specific family among millions of German families, it promotes values that are common to all the families, and not only in Germany, but in whole Europe, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
CDU is Christian party by definition, but it does not have a goal to baptize all the German population (put aside the global one).These are the main differences between the civilized (like CDU, Tories, GOP) conservatives and the savage ones from Taliban/Al Qaeda/Hamas/Hizballah. Yes, technically these organizations belong to the conservative part of spectrum, but their differences with GOP/CDU are the same as differences between President Clinton and Prime-Minister Stalin, both being in the left part of political spectrum.
Hate Crimes
It is certainly true that, throughout the world, many crimes are done against people based on the fact or perception (on the part of the criminal) that the victim is a member of some hated group. However that is not necessarily a sufficient reason for the law to treat such crimes differently from others involving the same criminal act.
The rights of human beings are a consequence of their humanity, not their membership in this or that group. Once we attempt to have the law specify protected groups, we begin to unravel a much more important principle of the individual worth of all people. Moreover the question of whether a crime motivated by rage or greed is any better or worse than one motivated by hate is far from clear. Society and government has an interest in limiting the reach of all such motives, but cannot eliminate any of them.
Education is certainly a key element of the answer to all such motivations. However I believe it is much more important for that education to emphasize the equal rights of all human beings as opposed to the special rights of favored and protected groups. We have far too much political correctitude and far too many limitations on free speach and expression as it is.
A very interesting response.
Based on your wording george, I'll presume you are opposed to Hate Crimes Legislation which makes creates a "class of crimes' for these things. (If I misread please correct me there..)
Are you opposed to the motives being used in the sentencing phase?
Another interesting response made. Fishin', sort of "in mitigation," but to the possible detriment of the individual convicted?
Yeah, pretty much. I think the "Hate" issue is a motive and that is usually considered with the type of charge and the sentencing but it doesn't make for a whole new crime. 1st degree murder with a firearm or of a law enforcement officer usually carries a heavier sentence than 1st degree murder with your fists or with a poison. Why not do the same with "hate crimes"? I don't think we need new crimes defined for this. I think we need better sentencing guidelines.
You murder someone because they stepped in front of you you go to prison for 12-17 years. You murder them because of their race, religion, etc.. you go away for 15-25, etc..
fishin,
It is indeed an interesting question.
Yes I am generally opposed to any legislation designating 'hate' crimes of any kind.
My basic reason is my belief that a fundamental pillar of our system of justice is that it punishes only deeds or actions that were prohibited before the act was committed, and that conviction must somehow be based on objective facts establishing that the proscribed action occurred. In general the state is not considered to be competent in determining the content or the value of one's thoughts any more than it is competent to determine the overall value of one's life. If we were to allow the state to intrude upon the thoughts or motives of its citizens we would open the door for all the mischef that totalitarian regimes have done throughout history.
Certainly motive is a factor in many crimes,. particularly including conspiracy. However note that the system asks only for the establishment of some motive indicating intent: it does not attempt to differentiate one motive from another. The crime is determined by the act done (or in the case of conspiracy, planned) and not the specific reason for doing it.
My secondary reason would relate to the argument in my earlier post. In identifying 'protected' classes of people for whom 'hate' is either prohibited or a factor in determining the severity of a criminal act, the state must inescapably identify other classes of people for whom hate is acceptable and against whom criminal acts are judged as less severe. This violates our basic concepts of justice.
It seems very odd to me that in an increasingly secular age we are becoming more and more obsessed with enforcing virtuous thought and action. Worse what constitutes 'virtue' often has more to do with the effectiveness of well-organized advocacy groups than it does with any self-consistent body of thought or ethics. I often wondered how, in the midst of the Renaissance in Florence, one such as Savonarolla could (for a while) enforce his narrow views on a compliant populace. Sadly we can see that Savonarolla lives on - only today his narrow morality is called "politically correct".
There is some bias that may be observed in media and private opinion when the hate crimes are being referred. To my mind, the attack on the World Trade Center on 09/11 is a classical hate crime. And attacks on Muslims that followed it more resemble repercussions of it, and these reercussions were caused by behavior of Muslims that did not unanimously condemn the attack and tried to find any rational explanations of it: from condemning the USA for her support of Israel to accusing her in global poverty.
It's hard to comment without wearing their shoes. c.i.
