Woman charged in Fort Hood-related hate crime:

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The term "could" is always thrown in there just as an FYI. Everyone currently out of prison on probation "could" be in prison serving their actual sentence, but that doesn't mean that happens even the majority of the time.

Yeah really. It seems rather unlikely that she'd get a custodial sentence for that.

[justashooter 430]

the entire concept of enhanced penalties for crimes against "protected classes of persons" is a slap in the face of common law. enhanced penalties for crimes against sevants of the law is called for, as they are the law, embodied. a black woman on welfare wearing a black scarf, on the other hand, is just an ignorant peson looking for something to be a part of so that she can have an identity, after failing to earn one of her own.

the very categorisation of certain crimes as "hate crimes" and enhancement of penalties for their enactment is a debasement of the system, which is based upon a concet of law without prejudice. lady liberty wears a blindofld as she balances the scales of justice for a reason...

in any reasonable court this is disorderly conduct, a summary offense with options of a $25-$400 fine, and up to 90 days in jail. probable outcome? $200 fine with no time.

[merijan 0]

I did a quick search and apparently alot of banks either have a policy where they consider the hijab to not be a "hat" (though in this instance I think they would still request that the glasses be removed.) Or the person must enter a high security area to bank.

???????????? what are u talking about??? i go to the bank alllllllllll the time in Hijab.. NEVER had a prob...and sometimes i even wear sunglasses...ohhh the irony...

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

the entire concept of enhanced penalties for crimes against "protected classes of persons" is a slap in the face of common law. enhanced penalties for crimes against sevants of the law is called for, as they are the law, embodied. a black woman on welfare wearing a black scarf, on the other hand, is just an ignorant peson looking for something to be a part of so that she can have an identity, after failing to earn one of her own.

the very categorisation of certain crimes as "hate crimes" and enhancement of penalties for their enactment is a debasement of the system, which is based upon a concet of law without prejudice. lady liberty wears a blindofld as she balances the scales of justice for a reason...

in any reasonable court this is disorderly conduct, a summary offense with options of a $25-$400 fine, and up to 90 days in jail. probable outcome? $200 fine with no time.

I agree 100%. I believe when something like this is labeled a "hate crime" the law itself discriminates. What she did is in fact either harassment (civil court issue) or disorderly conduct (criminal court issue)

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

a black woman on welfare wearing a black scarf, on the other hand, is just an ignorant peson looking for something to be a part of so that she can have an identity, after failing to earn one of her own.

lol reread justaashooter's post and i'm deducting 15% from my level of agreement because of the above comment. I now agree at an 85% level.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

the entire concept of enhanced penalties for crimes against "protected classes of persons" is a slap in the face of common law. enhanced penalties for crimes against sevants of the law is called for, as they are the law, embodied. a black woman on welfare wearing a black scarf, on the other hand, is just an ignorant peson looking for something to be a part of so that she can have an identity, after failing to earn one of her own.

the very categorisation of certain crimes as "hate crimes" and enhancement of penalties for their enactment is a debasement of the system, which is based upon a concet of law without prejudice. lady liberty wears a blindofld as she balances the scales of justice for a reason...

in any reasonable court this is disorderly conduct, a summary offense with options of a $25-$400 fine, and up to 90 days in jail. probable outcome? $200 fine with no time.

#######???? Shooter, hate crimes apply to all people. If you were wearing a big cross on your chest and someone firstly said Christians are murderers and then later pulled your cross that would be a hate crime. We are an enlightened society and that nonsense will not be tolerated. Your idea that a "black woman on welfare wearing a black scarf, on the other hand, is just an ignorant person looking for something to be part of so that she can have an identity, after failing to earn one of her own," is so insane, so racist, so ignorant that most people on VJ would rather look at you as some kind of nut than engage in trying to set the record straight. What does race have to do with it? Who cares if the victim was white, black, Chinese, whatever? In this case the woman was not African or African-American not that it matters in the least. What if she was a Chinese Muslim (there are 20 million of them)? A crime is a crime, period. A hate crime is the same as the difference between murder 1 and murder 2. Did you have a plan or enmity before the crime was committed? Here it is clear that the perp did, which is evidenced by her previous comments. Though the victim was not on welfare, who cares? Do poor people have no rights? The law is the law. Equality means justice for all. The victim is ignorant, explain how? Based on your post the only ignorant person is you. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's upset about something so he's just venting, he didn't mean it. I keep trying to find a reason for your post, but I'm starting to wonder. The victim is shopping in a supermarket and as part of her expression of her faith she wears the hijab. Would we say the same thing if someone wore a cross or a Star of David? As for identity, what are you talking about? Those nice people in Africa that you seem to have a problem with, had identities but we "invited" them to be our "guests" and "convinced" them to change their lifestyles. How do you earn an identity? You don't make any sense. Hate crimes serve a very valuable role, deterrence is the idea. We enhance penalties for people who attack peace officers not because they are the law but because they act maintain order in society and represent The People. Cop killers go to the chair. If we allow hate crimes, it will be tantamount to saying your religion means nothing and hate crimes require some aspect of malice aforethought. Deck a priest, that's simple assault unless you were heard saying something such as, "priests are child molesters, I'm going to deck a priest." Equality before the law means Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." This also means not allowing citizens to prevent anyone else from practicing their religion either by physical confrontation or influence (i.e. threats/terrorism). Before you try to point out that many Africans who were brought over against their will were Muslim and we forced them to convert or we forced Native Americans to become Christian, all I can say is you're are right. We didn't follow the US Constitution. I'd like to believe we've changed and we trying to never let that happen ever again. That would be a real debasement of Justice.

I've already discussed sentencing guidelines so I won't rehash my arguments on what an appropriate penalty is.

Edited November 22, 2009 by IR5FORMUMSIE

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't think you got what he was saying. He's saying its a crime but he is saying that taking people's religion, race, or creed into consideration regarding the punishment is tantamount to discrimination.

Here's an example.

A white christian male throws two punches at another white christian male. Before he does that he yells "I F*ing hate you! You took my job away!"

He is charged with assault and gets x days in prison.

A white christian male throws two punches at a white muslim male. Before he does that he yells "I hate you muslim!"

He is charged for assault and its considered a hate crime. He gets (x)2 days in prison.

In both cases there is hate. In both cases there is maliciousness and forethought. In both cases there is violence.

Why does the muslim victim get a "higher degree of justice (if you want to call it that)" then the christian because the hate was related to a religion and not a job? Why is that fair?

The whole idea of "hate crimes" makes a mockery of our justice system because it diminishes the weight of "normal" crimes. All crime should be equal in the eyes of the law no matter the race, creed, sex, religion or sexual orientation of the perp. and victim.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Sousuke

[Nizzy 1]

I did a quick search and apparently alot of banks either have a policy where they consider the hijab to not be a "hat" (though in this instance I think they would still request that the glasses be removed.) Or the person must enter a high security area to bank.

???????????? what are u talking about??? i go to the bank alllllllllll the time in Hijab.. NEVER had a prob...and sometimes i even wear sunglasses...ohhh the irony...

I think it depends on the bank. The bank I worked for did not allow hats and sunglasses and we requested people to take them off before entering.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I don't think you got what he was saying. He's saying its a crime but he is saying that taking people's religion, race, or creed into consideration regarding the punishment is tantamount to discrimination.

Here's an example.

A white christian male throws two punches at another white christian male. Before he does that he yells "I F*ing hate you! You took my job away!"

He is charged with assault and gets x days in prison.

A white christian male throws two punches at a white muslim male. Before he does that he yells "I hate you muslim!"

He is charged for assault and its considered a hate crime. He gets (x)2 days in prison.

In both cases there is hate. In both cases there is maliciousness and forethought. In both cases there is violence.

Why does the muslim victim get a "higher degree of justice (if you want to call it that)" then the christian because the hate was related to a religion and not a job? Why is that fair?

The whole idea of "hate crimes" makes a mockery of our justice system because it diminishes the weight of "normal" crimes. All crime should be equal in the eyes of the law no matter the race, creed, sex, religion or sexual orientation of the perp. and victim.

With all due respect I don't think you got what I was saying in response to shooter. Your analogy is faulty. A more apt analogy would be one of a Muslim perp and a Christian victim. Why you would use the example of "white Christian" males? If a crime is perpetrated with an eye to threaten or influence another person on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. then it is not enough to say that it is only one victim. The object of the crime is to foment hatred or might foment hatred and instill fear in the victim as well as the general population or at least the targeted segment of the population. In your example there was personal animosity, i.e. I hate you, not all white Christian males but you specifically because you stole my job. In race crimes (although it applies to other similar types of crimes), the perp. targets a specific type of person, i.e. I hate you Muslim not a specific person but anyone of that type. It's not a case of "Joe you stole my job I'm gonna kick your azz." The idea of higher degree of justice is false. If you want to argue that there should be stricter sentencing guidelines in all cases, that's fine but targeted attacks must be given special consideration because of the nature of the aberrant behavior and the broader repercussions of the heinous nature of the acts.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't think you got what he was saying. He's saying its a crime but he is saying that taking people's religion, race, or creed into consideration regarding the punishment is tantamount to discrimination.

Here's an example.

A white christian male throws two punches at another white christian male. Before he does that he yells "I F*ing hate you! You took my job away!"

He is charged with assault and gets x days in prison.

A white christian male throws two punches at a white muslim male. Before he does that he yells "I hate you muslim!"

He is charged for assault and its considered a hate crime. He gets (x)2 days in prison.

In both cases there is hate. In both cases there is maliciousness and forethought. In both cases there is violence.

Why does the muslim victim get a "higher degree of justice (if you want to call it that)" then the christian because the hate was related to a religion and not a job? Why is that fair?

The whole idea of "hate crimes" makes a mockery of our justice system because it diminishes the weight of "normal" crimes. All crime should be equal in the eyes of the law no matter the race, creed, sex, religion or sexual orientation of the perp. and victim.

With all due respect I don't think you got what I was saying in response to shooter. Your analogy is faulty. A more apt analogy would be one of a Muslim perp and a Christian victim. Why you would use the example of "white Christian" males? If a crime is perpetrated with an eye to threaten or influence another person on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. then it is not enough to say that it is only one victim. The object of the crime is to foment hatred or might foment hatred and instill fear in the victim as well as the general population or at least the targeted segment of the population. In your example there was personal animosity, i.e. I hate you, not all white Christian males but you specifically because you stole my job. In race crimes (although it applies to other similar types of crimes), the perp. targets a specific type of person, i.e. I hate you Muslim not a specific person but anyone of that type. It's not a case of "Joe you stole my job I'm gonna kick your azz." The idea of higher degree of justice is false. If you want to argue that there should be stricter sentencing guidelines in all cases, that's fine but targeted attacks must be given special consideration because of the nature of the aberrant behavior and the broader repercussions of the heinous nature of the acts.

I used "white" and "male" on both the perp and victim so that they are a "non" issue...ie they match. I could have also used "african" and female so long as the perp. and victim are the same. Your use of a muslim perp versus a christian victim would be useless in my analogy.

Using your logic your effectively saying the person is guilty of "thought crime". The fact is that any crime could be connected to a community. The job issue could be related to anyone who works in the same corporation for instance.

Your saying that if a person doesn't like a race or religion and attacks an INDIVIDUAL they have attacked all members of that community and that is utter rubbish. That is effectively prosecuting thought crime. Society should only prosecute for the crime that occurred not "implied" or "potential" victims.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I don't think you got what he was saying. He's saying its a crime but he is saying that taking people's religion, race, or creed into consideration regarding the punishment is tantamount to discrimination.

Here's an example.

A white christian male throws two punches at another white christian male. Before he does that he yells "I F*ing hate you! You took my job away!"

He is charged with assault and gets x days in prison.

A white christian male throws two punches at a white muslim male. Before he does that he yells "I hate you muslim!"

He is charged for assault and its considered a hate crime. He gets (x)2 days in prison.

In both cases there is hate. In both cases there is maliciousness and forethought. In both cases there is violence.

Why does the muslim victim get a "higher degree of justice (if you want to call it that)" then the christian because the hate was related to a religion and not a job? Why is that fair?

The whole idea of "hate crimes" makes a mockery of our justice system because it diminishes the weight of "normal" crimes. All crime should be equal in the eyes of the law no matter the race, creed, sex, religion or sexual orientation of the perp. and victim.

With all due respect I don't think you got what I was saying in response to shooter. Your analogy is faulty. A more apt analogy would be one of a Muslim perp and a Christian victim. Why you would use the example of "white Christian" males? If a crime is perpetrated with an eye to threaten or influence another person on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. then it is not enough to say that it is only one victim. The object of the crime is to foment hatred or might foment hatred and instill fear in the victim as well as the general population or at least the targeted segment of the population. In your example there was personal animosity, i.e. I hate you, not all white Christian males but you specifically because you stole my job. In race crimes (although it applies to other similar types of crimes), the perp. targets a specific type of person, i.e. I hate you Muslim not a specific person but anyone of that type. It's not a case of "Joe you stole my job I'm gonna kick your azz." The idea of higher degree of justice is false. If you want to argue that there should be stricter sentencing guidelines in all cases, that's fine but targeted attacks must be given special consideration because of the nature of the aberrant behavior and the broader repercussions of the heinous nature of the acts.

I used "white" and "male" on both the perp and victim so that they are a "non" issue...ie they match. I could have also used "african" and female so long as the perp. and victim are the same. Your use of a muslim perp versus a christian victim would be useless in my analogy.

Using your logic your effectively saying the person is guilty of "thought crime". The fact is that any crime could be connected to a community. The job issue could be related to anyone who works in the same corporation for instance.

Your saying that if a person doesn't like a race or religion and attacks an INDIVIDUAL they have attacked all members of that community and that is utter rubbish. That is effectively prosecuting thought crime. Society should only prosecute for the crime that occurred not "implied" or "potential" victims.

How you can take what I wrote and so mangle the meaning and the context to such an extent amazes me. It is not a thought crime nor am I suggesting that. The perp doesn't see the victim as an individual or a human being even but as part of a homogeneous mass. Your analogy is faulty as I said. Your further clarification about comparing a job issue to a race/religion/sexual orientation issue is odious dissembly and nothing more. That you would even try to compare the two suggests that my time would better spent in more a industrious manner and not trying to have a conversation with you.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't think you got what he was saying. He's saying its a crime but he is saying that taking people's religion, race, or creed into consideration regarding the punishment is tantamount to discrimination.

Here's an example.

A white christian male throws two punches at another white christian male. Before he does that he yells "I F*ing hate you! You took my job away!"

He is charged with assault and gets x days in prison.

A white christian male throws two punches at a white muslim male. Before he does that he yells "I hate you muslim!"

He is charged for assault and its considered a hate crime. He gets (x)2 days in prison.

In both cases there is hate. In both cases there is maliciousness and forethought. In both cases there is violence.

Why does the muslim victim get a "higher degree of justice (if you want to call it that)" then the christian because the hate was related to a religion and not a job? Why is that fair?

The whole idea of "hate crimes" makes a mockery of our justice system because it diminishes the weight of "normal" crimes. All crime should be equal in the eyes of the law no matter the race, creed, sex, religion or sexual orientation of the perp. and victim.

With all due respect I don't think you got what I was saying in response to shooter. Your analogy is faulty. A more apt analogy would be one of a Muslim perp and a Christian victim. Why you would use the example of "white Christian" males? If a crime is perpetrated with an eye to threaten or influence another person on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. then it is not enough to say that it is only one victim. The object of the crime is to foment hatred or might foment hatred and instill fear in the victim as well as the general population or at least the targeted segment of the population. In your example there was personal animosity, i.e. I hate you, not all white Christian males but you specifically because you stole my job. In race crimes (although it applies to other similar types of crimes), the perp. targets a specific type of person, i.e. I hate you Muslim not a specific person but anyone of that type. It's not a case of "Joe you stole my job I'm gonna kick your azz." The idea of higher degree of justice is false. If you want to argue that there should be stricter sentencing guidelines in all cases, that's fine but targeted attacks must be given special consideration because of the nature of the aberrant behavior and the broader repercussions of the heinous nature of the acts.

I used "white" and "male" on both the perp and victim so that they are a "non" issue...ie they match. I could have also used "african" and female so long as the perp. and victim are the same. Your use of a muslim perp versus a christian victim would be useless in my analogy.

Using your logic your effectively saying the person is guilty of "thought crime". The fact is that any crime could be connected to a community. The job issue could be related to anyone who works in the same corporation for instance.

Your saying that if a person doesn't like a race or religion and attacks an INDIVIDUAL they have attacked all members of that community and that is utter rubbish. That is effectively prosecuting thought crime. Society should only prosecute for the crime that occurred not "implied" or "potential" victims.

How you can take what I wrote and so mangle the meaning and the context to such an extent amazes me. It is not a thought crime nor am I suggesting that. The perp doesn't see the victim as an individual or a human being even but as part of a homogeneous mass. Your analogy is faulty as I said. Your further clarification about comparing a job issue to a race/religion/sexual orientation issue is odious dissembly and nothing more. That you would even try to compare the two suggests that my time would better spent in more a industrious manner and not trying to have a conversation with you.

Is it really necessary to be so rude? I don't think I've said anything offensive or rude to you have I? I suppose your rudeness implies you have a prejudice against people with differing views and do not like hearing their arguments. I would suggest that perhaps this forum is not the place for you if you cannot accept other's arguments.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Sousuke

[zqt3344 21]

John

Sad screwed up thing is, if any of us went to a Muslim country in middle east and tried to practice our religion there, we would be thrown in jail immediately, or shot, or beaten or whipped or given lashes. We as Americans are stupid to sit here and think muslims are peaceful and kind and accepting of others, that is not true. The only reason muslims are tolerant of any one in the USA is because of our laws and culture here now, but if given their way you can bet on a New York minute they would put sharia law in place immediately and ban all other religions in the USA. They cannot help themselves it is in their teachings and religion to do this to infidels such as you and I and any other American that does not belong to the muslim religion. The lady grabbing at the woman is an assualt plain and simple, not a hate crime, nice try by the muslim chapter to push that as hate crime, this case will get reduced down to an assault at best. Was it right to attack someone like that, no it is not. But would you and I be afforded the same protection from the government law in a muslim based country, NO we would not. And that I Am sure is what upsets so many Americans when they see this total hypocrisy by muslims around the world that come to the USA and live and then cry backlash or hate crime card.

An Illinois woman is charged with a hate crime for berating a Muslim woman about the Fort Hood shooting and then pulling at her headscarf. The charge could lead to three years in prison: justice or prosecutorial overkill?

Atlanta - In the days after the Ft. Hood shooting, mosques around the country bolstered their security in anticipation of a backlash from Americans angry about a Muslim man alleged to have killed American soldiers on their own turf.

Since then, only one alleged hate crime against Muslims has been directly tied to the Fort Hood rampage.

Two days after the rampage by an alleged lone wolf jihadist killed 13 in Texas, a Tinley Park, Ill., woman grumbled about the massacre and tugged the headscarf of a US-born Muslim woman, Amal Abusumayah, standing in line at a local grocery store.

Reaction was swift and, as prosecutors announced this week, serious: The alleged scarf-puller, Valerie Kenney, is charged with a hate crime, and she could face three years in prison and a $25,000 fine if convicted.

The incident shows that prosecutors are increasingly serious about throwing the book at even small infractions of state and federal hate-crime laws. Yet three possible years in prison in this case, critics say, is overkill, and could serve to cheapen the definition of a hate crime.

"Look, if Kenney did what she's accused of doing, it was a nasty thing to do, and it's certainly a Stupid Crime," writes Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper. "But jail time? How about an apology, forgiveness, some kind of community service and everybody moves on?"

The Pew Research Center reported in September that Americans believe US Muslims face more discrimination than any other major religious group.

Incidents against Muslims spiked after 9/11, but soon dropped back down. And of 1,477 religiously-based crimes in 2007, 68 percent were against Jews while nine percent were aimed at Muslims.

But for many Muslims, the headscarf incident in Tinley Park – a town recently voted by BusinessWeek magazine as the best place in America to live and work – is "exactly the type of thing we worried about happening," Christina Abraham, the civil rights director of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told Medill Reports, a student-written news service in Chicago.

"Usually after incidents like Fort Hood, there tends to be a spike in hate crimes. Current events cause people to act out in bigotry," she said.

According to police reports, Ms. Kenney, a bank teller, walked up to Ms. Abusumayah and shouted, "The guy that did the Texas shooting, he wasn't American, and he was from the Middle East!" (The alleged shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, is a US citizen born in Virginia.)

After being ignored, Kenney allegedly walked up behind Abusumayah and pulled her hijab, the traditional headscarf worn by many Muslim women in public.

Kenney posted a $5,000 bail, but has not yet made a plea. She is scheduled in court on Dec. 3.

"Attacking our headscarf is essentially trampling on the pride that we hold so dear," Chicago CAIR's Amina Sharif told Medill Reports. "An attack on the hijab is an attack on dignity and faith of God."

Others say both CAIR and prosecutors in the case are being overly sensitive.

"There's no defending Kenney's alleged behavior, which sounds like disorderly conduct at least, but the charge and prospective penalty are grotesquely disproportionate unless there is more to the story," writes the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1120/p02s24-usgn.html

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I don't think you got what he was saying. He's saying its a crime but he is saying that taking people's religion, race, or creed into consideration regarding the punishment is tantamount to discrimination.

Here's an example.

A white christian male throws two punches at another white christian male. Before he does that he yells "I F*ing hate you! You took my job away!"

He is charged with assault and gets x days in prison.

A white christian male throws two punches at a white muslim male. Before he does that he yells "I hate you muslim!"

He is charged for assault and its considered a hate crime. He gets (x)2 days in prison.

In both cases there is hate. In both cases there is maliciousness and forethought. In both cases there is violence.

Why does the muslim victim get a "higher degree of justice (if you want to call it that)" then the christian because the hate was related to a religion and not a job? Why is that fair?

The whole idea of "hate crimes" makes a mockery of our justice system because it diminishes the weight of "normal" crimes. All crime should be equal in the eyes of the law no matter the race, creed, sex, religion or sexual orientation of the perp. and victim.

With all due respect I don't think you got what I was saying in response to shooter. Your analogy is faulty. A more apt analogy would be one of a Muslim perp and a Christian victim. Why you would use the example of "white Christian" males? If a crime is perpetrated with an eye to threaten or influence another person on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. then it is not enough to say that it is only one victim. The object of the crime is to foment hatred or might foment hatred and instill fear in the victim as well as the general population or at least the targeted segment of the population. In your example there was personal animosity, i.e. I hate you, not all white Christian males but you specifically because you stole my job. In race crimes (although it applies to other similar types of crimes), the perp. targets a specific type of person, i.e. I hate you Muslim not a specific person but anyone of that type. It's not a case of "Joe you stole my job I'm gonna kick your azz." The idea of higher degree of justice is false. If you want to argue that there should be stricter sentencing guidelines in all cases, that's fine but targeted attacks must be given special consideration because of the nature of the aberrant behavior and the broader repercussions of the heinous nature of the acts.

I used "white" and "male" on both the perp and victim so that they are a "non" issue...ie they match. I could have also used "african" and female so long as the perp. and victim are the same. Your use of a muslim perp versus a christian victim would be useless in my analogy.

Using your logic your effectively saying the person is guilty of "thought crime". The fact is that any crime could be connected to a community. The job issue could be related to anyone who works in the same corporation for instance.

Your saying that if a person doesn't like a race or religion and attacks an INDIVIDUAL they have attacked all members of that community and that is utter rubbish. That is effectively prosecuting thought crime. Society should only prosecute for the crime that occurred not "implied" or "potential" victims.

How you can take what I wrote and so mangle the meaning and the context to such an extent amazes me. It is not a thought crime nor am I suggesting that. The perp doesn't see the victim as an individual or a human being even but as part of a homogeneous mass. Your analogy is faulty as I said. Your further clarification about comparing a job issue to a race/religion/sexual orientation issue is odious dissembly and nothing more. That you would even try to compare the two suggests that my time would better spent in more a industrious manner and not trying to have a conversation with you.

Is it really necessary to be so rude? I don't think I've said anything offensive or rude to you have I? I suppose your rudeness implies you have a prejudice against people with differing views and do not like hearing their arguments. I would suggest that perhaps this forum is not the place for you if you cannot accept other's arguments.

I don't think that I was particularly rude, bilious perhaps, but certainly not rude. I am sorry if I gave that you took umbrage from my commentary, that was not my intent. I stand by my position on the matter however. For a hate crime there must be mens rea (guilty mind) and actus rea (guilty act) directed towards the targetted group. Assault is not a hate crime. Attacking someone, anyone, on the basis of race/creed/sexual orientation is a hate crime. Attacking an individual is assault. I, more than most, appreciate a good debate when the argument is based on fact and not hyperbole.

Edited November 23, 2009 by IR5FORMUMSIE

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Thanks for coming back. So lets get to the brass tax. Why can't it simply be a crime? Why must our society create a whole level higher?

It seems to me that its done to make an example of that person.