7 ms·

Agreed 100%. In this instance, the apology is to stop discriminating based on sexuality.

mynameishere 17y ago
So...you want to remove the added legal protections homosexuals have? EDIT: No, really? Is that what you want, because that's where the discrimination is.
- sanswork 17y ago
  Which additional legal protections do homosexuals have where you are? (And where are you?)
  - ovi256 17y ago
    I don't know about legal advantages, more like social. Consider a hypothetical bar brawl: if a gay guy gets punched, he can throw in hatecrime charges even if no gay slurs were proferred - just because he can. And that is completely acceptable in mainstream Western society, even if running deep against our principles (just punishment). The other way around, no hatecrime is suspected. No such thing as hate against the silent majority. Note that I'm not insinuating that discrimination against gays does not exist - it does and it's ugly - slurs are thrown around in 99% of bar brawls and they're just the tip of the iceberg. And his location is probably irrelevant - Western society is so much alike, the variations are much like ripples.
    - knowtheory 17y ago
      No, no he can't. You clearly do not understand hate crime legislation. I am not gay. If the Matthew Shepard Act became law, and someone calls me a fag, and then beats me up, such a case would STILL be prosecutable under hate crime legislation, because of the INTENT, not because of the actual target. They would be perpetrating a hate crime, because they are trying to beat me up because they think that i am gay, regardless of how good they are at actually determining whether or not i am actually gay. If someone beats up a gay guy, unless there is SOME evidence that they were beaten up because they were gay, a prosecutor should not be able to bring hate crime charges (this is why we have grand juries after all).
      - ovi256 17y ago
        Oh I see - you are right, I was completely missing the essential intent part - mens rea and all that. Just the fact that I put out such a misunderstanding reveals something - the question is if only about me or if more about society.
      - kingkongrevenge 17y ago
        Let's be realistic, now. In practice it would afford extra legal weapons to gays. The whole idea is stupid. Assault and battery is assault and battery. Why the heck complicate things?
- knowtheory 17y ago
  If you're referring to hate crime legislation that makes it a federal crime to perpetrate crimes against homosexuals, you should know two things: First, the Matthew Shepard Act that would extend hate crime laws to sexual orientation STILL HASN'T BEEN PASSED. :P It's been stymied under 5 congresses, which you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act#111th_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act#111th_Congr... Second, and most importantly, the Matthew Shepard Act does not exclusively protect gays and lesbians. It protects everyone. If some psychotic gay person goes out and starts murdering straight people just because they're straight, that too would be a federal hate crime. If you want to claim that the law would disproportionately protect gay people, maybe that's because straight people aren't targeted and murdered just because they're straight. Ever think of that? Jerk. =========================================== I do understand and appreciate the argument that murders and crimes should be punished equally, regardless of who the target is. But hate crime legislation isn't really about the direct victim of the crime being prosecuted. Hate crime legislation is about crimes committed with particular intent, and as such are about the mindset of the criminal in question, and ability to create a climate of fear amongst a particular group of individuals. So, yes, we should prosecute all crimes equally. But to deny that hate crimes don't exist, or that they don't have a broader intent, is to deny reality. It is fundamentally different to say "Lets go beat up some fags/chinks/paddies/etc" from saying "Lets go find someone to beat up" ============================================ Final note, hate crimes are innately about discrimination. The fact that hate crime legislation recognizes that reality is not creating discrimination. The discrimination already exists out in the populace.
  - danw 17y ago
    I'm not sure the american Matthew Shepard Act applies in the UK.
    - knowtheory 17y ago
      Yes, that's absolutely true. mynameishere, i believe is an American, and the reference he's making sounds very American. So in the context of the original post, the Matthew Shepard Act is not relevant. The details of hate crime legislation, and it's application is universal enough to be relevant.

So...you want to remove the added legal protections homosexuals have? EDIT: No, really? Is that what you want, because that's where the discrimination is.

sanswork 17y ago
Which additional legal protections do homosexuals have where you are? (And where are you?)
- ovi256 17y ago
  I don't know about legal advantages, more like social. Consider a hypothetical bar brawl: if a gay guy gets punched, he can throw in hatecrime charges even if no gay slurs were proferred - just because he can. And that is completely acceptable in mainstream Western society, even if running deep against our principles (just punishment). The other way around, no hatecrime is suspected. No such thing as hate against the silent majority. Note that I'm not insinuating that discrimination against gays does not exist - it does and it's ugly - slurs are thrown around in 99% of bar brawls and they're just the tip of the iceberg. And his location is probably irrelevant - Western society is so much alike, the variations are much like ripples.
  - knowtheory 17y ago
    No, no he can't. You clearly do not understand hate crime legislation. I am not gay. If the Matthew Shepard Act became law, and someone calls me a fag, and then beats me up, such a case would STILL be prosecutable under hate crime legislation, because of the INTENT, not because of the actual target. They would be perpetrating a hate crime, because they are trying to beat me up because they think that i am gay, regardless of how good they are at actually determining whether or not i am actually gay. If someone beats up a gay guy, unless there is SOME evidence that they were beaten up because they were gay, a prosecutor should not be able to bring hate crime charges (this is why we have grand juries after all).
    - ovi256 17y ago
      Oh I see - you are right, I was completely missing the essential intent part - mens rea and all that. Just the fact that I put out such a misunderstanding reveals something - the question is if only about me or if more about society.
    - kingkongrevenge 17y ago
      Let's be realistic, now. In practice it would afford extra legal weapons to gays. The whole idea is stupid. Assault and battery is assault and battery. Why the heck complicate things?
knowtheory 17y ago
If you're referring to hate crime legislation that makes it a federal crime to perpetrate crimes against homosexuals, you should know two things: First, the Matthew Shepard Act that would extend hate crime laws to sexual orientation STILL HASN'T BEEN PASSED. :P It's been stymied under 5 congresses, which you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act#111th_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act#111th_Congr... Second, and most importantly, the Matthew Shepard Act does not exclusively protect gays and lesbians. It protects everyone. If some psychotic gay person goes out and starts murdering straight people just because they're straight, that too would be a federal hate crime. If you want to claim that the law would disproportionately protect gay people, maybe that's because straight people aren't targeted and murdered just because they're straight. Ever think of that? Jerk. =========================================== I do understand and appreciate the argument that murders and crimes should be punished equally, regardless of who the target is. But hate crime legislation isn't really about the direct victim of the crime being prosecuted. Hate crime legislation is about crimes committed with particular intent, and as such are about the mindset of the criminal in question, and ability to create a climate of fear amongst a particular group of individuals. So, yes, we should prosecute all crimes equally. But to deny that hate crimes don't exist, or that they don't have a broader intent, is to deny reality. It is fundamentally different to say "Lets go beat up some fags/chinks/paddies/etc" from saying "Lets go find someone to beat up" ============================================ Final note, hate crimes are innately about discrimination. The fact that hate crime legislation recognizes that reality is not creating discrimination. The discrimination already exists out in the populace.
- danw 17y ago
  I'm not sure the american Matthew Shepard Act applies in the UK.
  - knowtheory 17y ago
    Yes, that's absolutely true. mynameishere, i believe is an American, and the reference he's making sounds very American. So in the context of the original post, the Matthew Shepard Act is not relevant. The details of hate crime legislation, and it's application is universal enough to be relevant.