Well then, you'll be happy to know that under the Michigan law Christians DO get the same protection as non-christians, which the harrassement is motivated by hate for Christians. The only reason why I mentioned non Christian is because Christian hate groups are so prolific and active in America ... Jews make up 2.4% of the US population, and are the victims of 60% of hate crimes, for example. Muslims and Sikhs combined make up 1.2% of the US population, and account for 20% of hate crime victims. But yeah ... those poor Christians.
why in your fantasy world is any victim treated differently by the government because of their religion? Shouldn’t we protect the scales of Justice from your thumb, or anyone else’s thumb?
Huh? You need to improve your reading skills. I said the "Christian victims --->DO<---- get the same protection as non-Christians" under this law. Shouldn't we protect the internet from people who can't read and comprehend?
oh, I get it now. So what you’re saying is that all of the groups are treated the same, correct? That is awesome! But then that begs the question: why does there even have to be protected groups if everybody is treated the same? but….but…..but…………
You can't be this uniformed, can you? This is a HATE LAW... for when the crime is motivated by hate against specific groups.... therefore, they have to list the groups that are covered. That seems pretty basic. I'm surprised you so confused by this. If your neighbor punches you face for being a jerk, he can be charged with assault. If your neighbor punches you in the face for being jewish, then can be charged with assault and have "hate crime" tacked on. If you have to ask why we need anti hate crime laws, see the stats I post above. Looks like 80% of hate motivated crimes are against Jews, Sihks, and Muslims, even though they make up about 3-4% of the population. Crazy stat, huh? When I see stats that like, it tells me the "same treatment" isn't working. Hopefully these laws act as a deterrent to the sick right wing nut jobs who are driving those stats.
you seemed to have glossed over the point you keep acknowledging: if all groups are covered, then why have any groups? Are all groups protected by your hate laws? If so, then why have the law with groups when there already is a law in place? If no, then why the different treatment? The point of this diverted discussion is that everyone should be treated equally. When a poster brought up Christians you pounced: proudly proclaiming that Christians are covered too. As you and others have eluded to, no one should be subjected to “hate”. I agree with the sentiment but vehemently disagree with criminalizing “hate” as the solution. Hate is an emotion based upon an opinion. It is as elusive as a Joe Biden acknowledgment of his 7th grandson.
Can you post the part where I said, or the law says, " all groups are covered"... I because I don't think I said that. I said christians are also covered if the crime is motivated by hate for Christians. Need to work on your reading skills if you that that's the same as saying everyone is covered.
The irony here is you questioning my reading comprehension, while simultaneously reposting my questions to you, which you once again failed to answer. Just out of curiosity, is wardamngator, French for circular? This monologue that you’re having is probably boring the shit out of everybody. so, I will give you another chance to respond to my either/or question. Either all groups are covered, or, all groups are not covered. Tell me which one it is, and most important, tell me why. Then we can have a discussion. Otherwise, you really are just boring me with your circular mumbo-jumbo.
Yes ... everyone who is a victim of a hate crime is covered by this hate crime law. Why wouldn't they be? I'll tell you what, why don't you give me some examples of how you think someone could be a victim of a hate crime and not be covered by this law, since you are the one trying to make some sort of point about that. Or is it that you just think hate crime laws should exist? Why don't you just start with that, instead of embarrassing yourself by insisting that people will go to prison for calling a Satan worshipper a Buddhist, and whatever other nonsense you were claiming. I'll at least give you credit for moving away from that stupidity.
OK, thanks for actually answering my question. Now, as someone who has actually written legislation, I will ask you the next obvious question on this journey. If everyone is covered by this proposed “anti-hate” legislation, then, why do they list groups within the bill? There would be no need to list any group if everyone was covered, so tell us why this bill lists groups. I am asking this question in a civil way, not as my normal snarky response, so you can understand the process that I think everyone should undertake when looking at new legislation. Provide me a civilized answer, and I will engage in a civilized dialogue.
Because it's a HATE CRIME bill ... the point of the bill is to give steeper punishments for people who commit crimes based on hatred for certain groups -- so they have to specify the groups. And when I say everyone is covered, it's because everyone has a sex, age, race, etc., and therefore can be a victim of a hate crime ... that doesn't mean every group is covered. I mean, model train enthusiast are a group, but they are not mentioned. It also doesn't mean that every example of a crime is covered. Someone getting attacked during a dispute over a parking space is different than getting attacked for being black or gay. So why a steepper punishment for the same crime -- attacking some? I say because a fight over a parking spot is probably a one-off crime likely not to be repeated, whereas attacking someone based on your ideology is a deep-rooted sickness that seems likely to be repeated.
But everyone and every group is not covered. That is one of the problems. Only listed groups are covered. People have hate and commit crimes on a whole bunch of groups not covered. If antifa attacks a guy at a Trump rally while yelling “F Republicans” that is not a hate crime under this bill, but everyone would agree that ANTFA hates republicans. What do you say to that victim? If a religious zealot bombs an abortion clinic… that’s not a hate crime either. I could go on for pages. How is that equality under the law?
Who’s not covered by the law? The law lists age, race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc … seems like everyone has those qualifications…. If you are a straight, white, middle aged, male, American, you are protected by the law if anyone every assaults or harasses you based on those reasons… But you are right, political party affiliation is not covered, so if a Proud Boy attacks a democrat at a Biden rally, the Proud Boy also wouldn’t have additional charges under this law.. See… it’s equal.
You ask who’s not covered? I told you the list of the shit out of luck crowd would be everyone not included in section A-I of section 147(b)(2) of the bill. This was/is my point. The law, if enacted, would give special protection to a small select group of people. The a-holes in Michigan are putting their thumbs on the scales of Justice. there does not appear to be any verifiable data on violent crimes against trans people because of being trans. I found one link Posted below, which suggest 50 trans people were murdered in 2021 in the entire USA, with no suggestion that the murders were related to gender. The city of Detroit had 303 murders in 2021. In July 2021 there were 150 people shot and 18 killed in Chicago in just one weekend! So you want to make a minute portion of our population (less than 1/2 of 1%) get “special consideration” from the law if they subjectively feel threatened while entire generations of families are being wiped off the earth by violence and narcotics. Unequal Justice. Fatal Violence Against the Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Community in 2022
