You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2007.
There were a total of 1,367,009 violent crimes against persons in 2004, of which 774 were allegedly motivated by “hate.”
The FBI reported 16,137 murders in 2004, of which 5 were allegedly “hate” crimes; it reported 94,635 forcible rapes, of which 4 were allegedly “hate” crimes; and it reported 854,911 aggravated assaults, of which 765 were allegedly “hate” crimes.
Overall, the FBI reported that 15.6% of hate crimes were motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim.
[ 16% of 765 = 122 is the total reported enormous epidemic of alleged aggravated assault “hate crimes” regarding sexual orientation. If we take into account the evidence of several faked hate crimes, we know that the figure is smaller.]
[And if you will remember another post on the subject of crimes stats, the FBI does not consider male rape, “rape,” as it defines rape only if there is vaginal intercourse. Forced sodomy, therefore, does not even appear in FBI crime statistics. What does this tell us about American society and how much it wants to deal with homosexual violence? ]
650,000 gay men are annually battered in the US alone
The disparity between 650,000 and 122 is nothing short of monumental.
Hate Crimes –
Criminal Law and Identity Politics
by James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter
This book places in socio-legal perspective both the hate crime problem and society’s response to it.
From the outset, Jacobs and Potter adopt a skeptical if not critical stance. They argue that hate crime is a hopelessly muddled concept and that legal definitions of the term are riddled with ambiguity and subjectivity. Moreover, no matter how hate crime is defined, the authors find no evidence to support the claim that the US is experiencing a hate crime epidemic–nor that the number or rate of hate crimes is at an historic zenith. Furthermore, assert the authors, the federal effort to establish a hate crime accounting system has been a failure.
The underlying conduct that hate crime law prohibits is already subject to criminal punishment. Jacobs and Potter maintain that there is no persuasive rationale for saying that hate crimes are “worse” or “more serious” than similar crimes attributable to other anti-social motivations.
Also, they argue that the effort to single out hate crime for greater punishment, in effect, is an effort to punish some offenders more seriously because of their bad beliefs, opinions, or values, thus implicating the First Amendment.
Jabobs and Potter show that the recriminalization of hate crime has little (if any) value with respect to law enforcement or criminal justice. Indeed, enforcement of such laws may in fact exacerbate intergroup tensions rather than eradicate prejudice.
I haven’t read the above book, but everything in the summary review says what I also see happening in society and encompassing the legal theoretical and political criticisms I put forth regarding hate crime legislation.
Below is a textual excerpt that delineates part of the problem that I was referring to here: (All violent crimes are not “hate crimes,” because I would argue the definition of “hate crime” is selectively myopic and it enforces unequal protection and status under the law. I would even go further and argue that the concept of a hate crime is completely senseless, like saying pigs can fly, because it’s flawed in its fundament. )
Engendering Hate Crime Policy: Gender, the “Dilemma of Difference,” and
the Creation of Legal Subjects – Valerie Jenness – Dr. Valerie Jenness is Chair and Professor of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California, Irvine.
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/againsthate/Journal2/GHS101.PDF
“Who should be represented in hate crime law? Why? On what grounds?”
To emphasize the political, rather than legal nature of this question, Laurence Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard University, informed lawmakers that the question of which status provisions to include in hate crime law presents no constitutional problem. As he explained in U.S.
Congressional hearings on hate crime:
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution prevents the Government from penalizing with added severity those crimes directed against people or their property because of their race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, and nothing in the Constitution requires that this list be infinitely expanded.34
If, as Tribe suggests, legislators had considerable latitude, how did they proceed to demarcate status provisions in hate crime law?
In reading JJ’s sister’s blog, which has various passages just pulsating with life, I found this:
My days are mine
Even though the context where this phrase was found is not a poem, I found that the phrase alone is extremely poetical.
I am robbed, robbed of my days and I hate it. And every day I curse it, and pray that someday I can have a day that will be mine.
This excerpt from comments generated at a discussion of same-sex marriage at Justin Katz’s. (I can’t find the link to Justin’s original post).
My comment (where I copied some text from my previous post on the subject of homosexual violence):
Regarding the discussion on whether to normalize first, and consequently legalize, homosexual marriage:
Estimate for homosexual male domestic violence: 650,000 gay men are annually battered in the US alone
Is it a surprise that modern American society concentrates its energy in Pride Parades and normalizing homosexual marriage instead of looking at how enormously violent homosexuals are?
The day same-sex marriage activists spend even 10% of the same-sex marriage propaganda energy on disseminating info on how violent homosexuals are, they will show that even the most ignorant, dubious people can rise above the gutter.
(Domestic violence in gay male relationships is the third largest health problem for gay men in America today.)
Domestic violence is also prevalent in the gay and lesbian communities, occurring with the same or even greater frequency than in heterosexual communities (Barnes, 1998; Friess, 1997; Island, 1991; Renzetti, 1992). The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that 25% to 33% of all same-sex relationships include domestic violence.
And if they all batter so much, it is clear that homo and bisexuals have very high rates of sexual harassment behavior, including towards heterosexuals. It’s all part of the same web of sexual violence towards others.
p.s.: This book came out more than 15 years ago. From which we conclude: a society that is intent on homosexual propaganda has a profound closet, with an enormous quantity of statistics skeletons therein. You call young black female athletes some normalized denigrating hip-hop term and you hit the scandal circuit. You publish data about how criminal and diseased the minds of homosexuals are and the entire media becomes suddenly deaf and dumb, not for a week, but for decades.
I will clarify my point: I am not discussing in this comment why same-sex marriage is unequal to heterosexual marriage. I am pointing out that there is a concerted effort to censor and dismiss discussion about how violent homo and bisexuals are at the same time that there is enormous talk of the subject of homosexual marriage.
In other words, we see that topics about violence make people uncomfortable, since it disrupts their idealized stereotypes and simplistic accounts of social “reality,” therefore a continuous dismissal and resistance is found regarding these very topics, which are nevertheless key to understanding society at a more realistic and responsible level.
===================================
The day same-sex marriage activists spend even 10% of the same-sex marriage propaganda energy on disseminating info on how violent homosexuals are, they will show that even the most ignorant, dubious people can rise above the gutter.
(Domestic violence in gay male relationships is the third largest health problem for gay men in America today.)
Domestic violence is also prevalent in the gay and lesbian communities, occurring with the same or even greater frequency than in heterosexual communities (Barnes, 1998; Friess, 1997; Island, 1991; Renzetti, 1992). The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that 25% to 33% of all same-sex relationships include domestic violence.
And if they all batter so much, it is clear that homo and bisexuals have very high rates of sexual harassment behavior, including towards heterosexuals. It’s all part of the same web of sexual violence towards others.
========================================
p.s.: This book came out more than 15 years ago. From which we conclude: a society that is intent on homosexual propaganda has a profound closet, with an enormous quantity of statistics skeletons therein. You call young black female athletes some normalized denigrating hip-hop term and you hit the scandal circuit. You publish data about how criminal and diseased the minds of homosexuals are and the entire media becomes suddenly deaf and dumb, not for a week, but for decades.
I will clarify my point: I am not discussing in this comment why same-sex marriage is unequal to heterosexual marriage. I am pointing out that there is a concerted effort to censor and dismiss discussion about how violent homo and bisexuals are at the same time that there is enormous talk of the subject of homosexual marriage.
In other words, we see that topics about violence make people uncomfortable, since it disrupts their idealized stereotypes and simplistic accounts of social “reality,” therefore a continuous dismissal and resistance is found regarding these very topics, which are nevertheless key to understanding society at a more realistic and responsible level.
===============================================
alessandra:
I don’t know what book you got those numbers from, if from a bigot’s, or from some liberal activist who (being a liberal) exagerates problems so as to have something to fix, the kind of liberal who also finds that over half of women get “raped” in their lifetime. The truth is just the opposite of what you say. Gays are typically less violent individuals than straights. Everyone knows that. It is, actually, for their less aggressive natures that more “manly” men hold them in contempt.
Posted by arturo fernandez at April 25, 2007 12:45 AM
Alessandra, domestic violence is a serious problem in both heterosexual and homosexual communities.
So?
I know straight folks who have been battering victims, and gay folks who have been.
Why should that prevent anyone who does not assault someone from marrying?
Posted by DRettmann at April 21, 2007 6:23 AM
============================
That’s not the question. The question is why so many people lie about how violent homosexuals are or keep silent about it.
Is it because if you don’t lie so much about how violent homosexuals are, you won’t achieve your homosexual normalization quest?
(Domestic violence in gay male relationships is the third largest health problem for gay men in America today.)
Why are such a huge number of homosexuals so violent?
Why are you not debating how to make homosexuals a less brutal and violent group of people?
I think it is a higher priority for society to have less epidemic levels of violence than any same-sex marriage.
If you had two homo neighboring couples, one couldn’t get a marriage license, and in the other, there were constant episodes of brutal violence – which one would you think deserved a priority of attention? Of regulation? Of media spotlight?
Anyone who turns a blind eye to the violent couple and effuses concern about the marriage issue shows how disgusting their system of values is. And voilà 95% of our society!
Posted by alessandra at April 27, 2007 2:35 PM
oh look, a troll!
======================
alessandra:I don’t know what book you got those numbers from,
[you can click on the link and find out]
if from a bigot’s,
[what is your definition of a bigot?]
or from some liberal activist who (being a liberal) exagerates problems so as to have something to fix, the kind of liberal who also finds that over half of women get “raped” in their lifetime. The truth is just the opposite of what you say.
[Arturo on his soapbox is here to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and…]
Gays are typically less violent individuals than straights. Everyone knows that.
[Or so you like to fool yourself. ]
It is, actually, for their less aggressive natures that more “manly” men hold them in contempt.
[So you are saying that being a homosexual and perpetrating domestic violence are two things that are biologically determined? What about bank robberies? White collar crime? Are you saying heterosexual men just can’t help battering women because it’s in their nature? Did you know 50 years ago people denied heterosexual domestic violence just like you deny homosexual violence? Same sweeping statements as you like to use, “EVERYONE knows that domestic violence is very rare…” Isn’t it interesting that people like you don’t like to face how violent homosexuals are? What about bisexuals? Are they half as violent as heterosexuals or not?]
Posted by arturo fernandez at April 25, 2007 12:45 AM
=========================
As much as you hate reading books, Arturo, you would be better off reading them, instead of relying on gossip for your information on personal violence issues.
Posted by alessandra at April 27, 2007 2:59 PM
In other words, we see that topics about violence make people uncomfortable, since it disrupts their idealized stereotypes and simplistic accounts of social “reality,” therefore a continuous dismissal and resistance is found regarding these very topics, which are nevertheless key to understanding society at a more realistic and responsible level.
==========================
Arturo our latest most precise example.
Posted by alessandra at April 27, 2007
This excerpt from an old drawn-out discussion. I’m posting because I gave a nice example that contradicts the claim that the only possible motive for expressing disagreement with a liberal sexual ideology is hate. “K” thinks all Christians hate homosexuals, and in looking a particular statement from a church, she offers this as proof of how much these Christians “hate!” (Read on to be shocked regarding vileness! Depravity! Brutality!)
“We believe the Bible is clear; the intimacy of sex is reserved for a man and woman who make a life-long commitment together in the sacrament of marriage”
“K” then adds: “I love the part about hating gays in love (in a loving way, that is, not hating “gays in love”). It’s against the will of god, and damaging, but gosh darn it, we love you! And won’t you come break bagels with us?”
My reply:
There is no hate above. Religion, in this case, is not a cover for anything [e.g. hate], it is already bared. It stipulates sex should be reserved for within marriage. Saying they hate homosexuals is the same falsity as saying they hate heterosexuals (unmarried ones who are sexually active, that is).
Only someone who refuses to read would say they hate.
Just a cheap distortion to defame them because they understand human behavior should be based on different values and rules. You´ve construed a fake hate stake for you to burn them at.
In context, the violent crimes against persons allegedly because of “hate” pales in comparison to the over-all figures.10 There were a total of 1,367,009 violent crimes against persons in 2004, of which 774 were allegedly motivated by “hate.”
The FBI reported 16,137 murders in 2004, of which 5 were allegedly “hate” crimes; it reported 94,635 forcible rapes, of which 4 were allegedly “hate” crimes; and it reported 854,911 aggravated assaults, of which 765 were allegedly “hate” crimes.
Overall, the FBI reported that 53.8% of “hate” crimes were motivated by the race of the victim, 16.4% were motivated by the religion of the victim, 15.6% were motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim, and 13.3% were motivated by the ethnicity of the victim.
It is noteworthy that the numbers reported 9 represent alleged hate crimes, not proven hate crimes. That means the statistics include crimes like the murder of Matthew Shepard, which according to a 2004 ABC 20/20 Report, was related not to his sexual orientation, but to the perpetrators’ interest in money and drugs. “New Details Emerge in Matthew Shepard Murder,” ABC News, November 26, 2004 (see http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685).
The 2007 statistics will likely include the recent natural death of Andrew Anthos, an elderly man in Michigan. Mr. Anthos’ death was initially reported to be the result of a hate crime, but was later determined by the medical examiner that conducted his autopsy to be the result of natural causes. “Medical Examiner: Spinal Disease Killed Andrew Anthos,” Detroit News, March 30, 2007 (see http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070330/METRO/703300308/1003). “Hate” crime advocates refuse to accept the physical evidence that there was no crime.
by prejudice based on race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of state, local or tribal hate crime laws.
I wonder how the bright light bulbs who came up with the H.R. 1592 Bill consider a case where a black man offends a black woman (saying “ho”), than she calls him a “good-for-nothing nigger.” Do we have two hate crimes here? Or do they think if some one commits a hate crime, then you can commit a hate crime back and it’s OK? You noticed, in my example, she didn’t simply call him “trash” (so blasé) or another non-victim-group-based insult, she went for the horrible, the denigrating and racially based term “nigger,” that is, a HATE crime word.
Then you have a situation where a homo rubs against someone in a purposeful harassment action, and the victim says, “You homo shit!” The homo will sue for hate crime, evidently.
You have a heterosexual guy call a woman a “bitch,” and she calls him back “a sexist pig,” then we have two hate crimes ( they are both insults based on gender!)
I find the topic of “hate crimes” so amazingly fascinating, nothing, NOTHING could be more Orwellian in an Animal Farm way (and that goes for many countries, the U.S. being one of many foremost examples).
CWA: ‘Hate Crimes’ — Unequal Protection Under the Law
WASHINGTON, April 26 /Christian Newswire/ —
“Hate crimes” bill H.R. 1592, which is on the fast track to passage in Congress, will officially give homosexuals and cross dressers special elevated status in society based upon their chosen sexual behaviors and/or wardrobe. Under H.R. 1592, the victims at Virginia Tech would officially be considered less valuable to society than homosexuals and cross dressers who are the targets of insults, intimidation, simple assault or other “violent acts.” The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees “equal protection under the law” for all citizens — regardless of their sexual preference. “Hate crimes” legislation flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. Such legislation would require the government to invest more resources in the investigation and prosecution of crimes against homosexuals than it would the victims at Virginia Tech. It is an irrefutable fact that H.R. 1592 would treat certain citizens unequally from others.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) asks Congress to grant equal government resources, concern and respect to the victims at Virginia Tech and their families as they do to the demands of liberal homosexual activists by reaffirming the precepts of the 14th Amendment and voting NO on this dangerous and discriminatory piece of legislation.
“If Seung-Hui Cho’s horrific actions were not an act of ‘hate,’ then what where they?” asked Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with CWA. “All violent crimes are ‘hate crimes.’ By H.R. 1592’s definition, Cho’s actions would have constituted a ‘hate crime’ except for the fact that he targeted his victims with the wrong kind of bias. In this case, Cho ‘perceived’ his victims to be ‘rich kids.’ However, under H.R. 1592, ‘rich kids’ are not a specially protected class like homosexuals, so Cho’s crime is second tier and would be considered less egregious.
“The FBI’s latest statistics show that there were zero ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against homosexuals or those perceived to be homosexual in 2005; yet we already know of thirty-two so-called ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against perceived ‘rich kids’ in a single day. But under H.R. 1592, those ‘rich kids’ would be denied the same protections and justice as homosexuals. The whole ‘hate crimes’ concept really places logic and reason on its head,” concluded Barber.
“If Seung-Hui Cho’s horrific actions were not an act of ‘hate,’ then what where they?”
“All violent crimes are ‘hate crimes.'”
First a word on mischaracterizing Cho’s outburst as a hate crime: I disagree. I think Cho’s mental state simply deteriorated more and more into mental illness over the years, reaching an inordinate mixture of despair, loneliness, hurt, powerlessness, and possibly incapacity in correctly deciphering various aspects of people and reality around him from a psycho-emotional perspective. He displayed severe introspection and a huge defensive by withdrawal behavior. Several of his recorded statements express enormous, profound hurt and despair, and abandonment. And then there is the gigantic anger and frustration that is the product of all this, which turns into a volcano of rage. To me, Cho’s rampage was more an expression of his own desolateness, his own suffering, his own despair, his own reaching a point where he saw no light, no way out, nothing. At a point like that, he could have decided he was going to end it all, but he felt he wanted to take out part of his anger at a blind target on the way.
All violent crimes are not “hate crimes,” because I would argue the definition of “hate crime” is selectively myopic and it enforces unequal protection and status under the law. I would even go further and argue that the concept of a hate crime is completely senseless, like saying pigs can fly, because it’s flawed in its fundament. (more on this later)
“In this case, Cho ‘perceived’ his victims to be ‘rich kids.’ However, under H.R. 1592, ‘rich kids’ are not a specially protected class like homosexuals, so Cho’s crime is second tier and would be considered less egregious.”
This is in itself one of the horrible injustices of having a “hate crime” law, but it also points to how the idea of privileging so-called “hate victim” categories is conceptually at fault from a law philosophy and legal rights standpoint.
But this is where the bill gets horrid:
Under the bill, the United States Attorney General could provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance if an incident constitutes a crime of violence, constitutes a felony under state, local, or tribal laws, or is motivated by prejudice based on race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of state, local or tribal hate crime laws.
The bill provides for penalties from 10 years to life imprisonment, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, such as whether or not bodily injury or death was caused, or sexual abuse, or kidnapping occurred.
Remember this?
The Associated Press story showing that of 1,115 people convicted of sexually abusing children in New York City between 1993 and 1995, only 44 percent went to jail. More than 30 percent received probation and 20 percent received conditional discharges.
So, if this H.R. 1592 bill passes, basically what we will have is a country in which we will continue to have an epidemic of child abuse, where the majority of such victims DO NOT get any support, technical, forensic, prosecutorial or any other form of assistance, and where the overwhelming majority of criminals roam around scott-free, because they aren’t even prosecuted, much less convicted. Why? Because children have no worth or voice in a society obsessed by homosexuality. A crime of torturing a child clearly merits secondary importance compared to the so-called “hate victims” groups.
or is motivated by prejudice based on race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of state, local or tribal hate crime laws.
So let’s take the following hypothetical example:
A couple sexually abuses their child, the child gets little or no assistance, nothing happens. Later as an adult, wants to sue parents, gets no government support, technical, forensic, prosecutorial or any other form of assistance.
A homosexual sexually harasses and carries out predatory behavior towards male adolescents. Victims get no government help in any way. Homo predator enters luxury rehab center and nothing happens.
A lesbian professor sexually harasses a student. Student wants to sue, but gets no government support, technical, forensic, prosecutorial or any other form of assistance.
Now a law-abiding person who has never committed a crime, who disagrees with normalizing homosexuality, expresses their views against the liberal conception of equating homosexuality to heterosexuality, and public money and energy will be used up to prosecute this person.
All things being equal, it means that if a 5-foot-2-inch grandmother is violently attacked on the street (such as the highly publicized incident videotaped in New York earlier this month where a 101 year old woman was brutally assaulted) she is less worthy of justice than a 6-foot-4-inch homosexual man who is attacked by the same assailant while leaving a ‘gay’ bar.
Unequal valuation under the law
Unequal measure of worthiness
Unequal protection
Unequal assistance
Unequal access to justice
It.Is.Barbaric.
See this ancient post for more on hate crime conceptual problems.
http://alessandrab.blogspot.com/2004/08/barbaric-societys-idea-of-hate.html
They go into alcohol rehab at 5-star luxury resorts disguised as treatment facilities, they wait awhile until the media radar for scandal and sensationalism passes, then they return to their leisure life of cruising for underage male teens. In the meantime, they also sack the coffers of their leftover campaign cash to pay expensive law firms to try to avert the justice system for condemning them.
Florida authorities are considering whether to charge Mark Foley as an Internet sex predator as a result of lurid online messages he sent a male teenager from a hotel room in Pensacola, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.
Foley, then 52, was campaigning for a Senate seat in 2003 when he sent the high school student and former congressional page a string of online messages describing sexual acts, a clear violation of Florida’s law on Internet sex predators.
“This type of activity would fall under Florida law’s criminal statute,” said Maureen Horkan, the director of the Child Predator Cybercrime Unit in the Florida Attorney General’s office. The law states that “any person who knowingly utilizes a computer online service or Internet service to seduce, solicit, lure, entice or attempt to seduce a child” would be committing a third degree felony and could receive a jail sentence of up to five years.
ABC’s The Blotter says Foley has begun to “re-emerge publicly” in Palm Beach: “He was seen last week bicycling along South Ocean Boulevard wearing a helmet and bike racing outfit.”
Some of the senior House Republicans who were witnesses during the various inquiries into former Florida representative Mark Foley’s inappropriate contact with young House pages also reported hefty legal bills.
Former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who still represents an Illinois district though he is no longer in leadership, reported paying his lawyers nearly $70,000, and carrying over $20,000 in unpaid bills. Foley, who resigned from Congress last year, reported more than $200,000 in legal fees.
Disgraced congressman using campaign cash to pay bills
Former congressman Mark Foley is using leftover campaign cash to pay for the huge legal bills he’s racking up defending himself in the congressional page scandal that led to his resignation.
Foley spent $206,000 in campaign cash on attorneys from November to January, according to recent filings with the Federal Election Commission. That left about $1.7 million in the Florida Republican’s campaign account March 31, even after he returned more than $110,000 from donors.
Reflections, Reflections by Alessandra 
You must be logged in to post a comment.