Hurray!!!! Its Gay Pride Month!!!!

[okie52]

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-LGBT-Pride-Month

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/GAyflag.jpg

[olevetonahill]

http://transfernation.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/media/misc/funny/ss_size1/imsofrog.jpg

[okie52]

http://transfernation.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/media/misc/funny/ss_size1/imsofrog.jpg

:very_drunk:

[badger]

I am a lot of things, and my sexual orientation is not really something to take pride in, IMHO.

It's not like it's an accomplishment. Depending on your viewpoint, it's either how you're born or how you choose to be. Either way, pride in it?

I was attracted to boys ever since puberty, and probably long before (dolls were never my thing). It's just the way that I am.

[Chuck Bao]

Ummm, why do any of you care so much?

[okie52]

Ummm, why do any of you care so much?

I'm jealous of you having your own month and crimes.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm jealous of you having your own month and crimes.
I'm pretty jealous of their eye for proper color coordination.

Seriously though -- I think having a month dedicated to a sexual orientation is pretty outrageous, but I could not possibly care less if someone is the gay.

[Chuck Bao]

What crimes? What a strange comment! I'm 100% certain that I never committed any crimes besides driving in the US without a seat belt on or riding my bike in Thailand without a helmet on.

[okie52]

I'm pretty jealous of their eye for proper color coordination.

Seriously though -- I think having a month dedicated to a sexual orientation is pretty outrageous, but I could not possibly care less if someone is the gay.

I feel the same way only I am more outraged by PC and the stupidity that is always attached to it.

[okie52]

What crimes? What a strange comment! I'm 100% certain that I never committed any crimes besides driving in the US without a seat belt on or riding my bike in Thailand without a helmet on.

Nah, your own hate crimes...you know, where if I kill you because I don't like you then its murder but if I kill you because your gay then its murder and a hate crime.

[yermom]

I am a lot of things, and my sexual orientation is not really something to take pride in, IMHO.

It's not like it's an accomplishment. Depending on your viewpoint, it's either how you're born or how you choose to be. Either way, pride in it?

I was attracted to boys ever since puberty, and probably long before (dolls were never my thing). It's just the way that I am.

you also don't have to hide your sexuality or feel like you should be ashamed of it due to growing up in an environment that makes you fear being shunned by family and friends if they found out about it.

[yermom]

also, that's from 2009. it was 30 years after the Stonewall riots. i don't see anything about it being an annual thing

[Chuck Bao]

I'm pretty jealous of their eye for proper color coordination.

Seriously though -- I think having a month dedicated to a sexual orientation is pretty outrageous, but I could not possibly care less if someone is the gay.

Sic'em, you do realize that you said "outrageous" and "could not possibly care less" in the same sentence. It is not as if there is any significant taxpayer money spent on this.

[Midtowner]

Nah, your own hate crimes...you know, where if I kill you because I don't like you then its murder but if I kill you because your gay then its murder and a hate crime.

I tend to agree with this. Punishing intent is too Orwellian to me. I just can't separate it from 1984's thoughtcrimes, which everyone 'cept perhaps the most Authoritarian folks around would agree are dangerous to a free society.

The counter, I suppose is that murder is probably the worst thing to use to illustrate the effect of this law. Let's say just simple assault and battery. If I see some fella I deem to be a fairy prancing down the sidewalk and I just kick the living **** out of him, that's aggravated assault. I might be able to plead out to a small amount of time to do or just get a totally suspended or deferred sentence, or even plead to a lesser included if I'm not a repeat offender (or even if I am). Such a crime though, if done to intimidate an entire minority community is very arguably more than just an plain 'ol aggravated assault. It's also an assault on the freedom of minorities to be out in public without fear of having the **** kicked out of them simply because they are who they are. One could arguably get away with such a thing if not for the hate crime laws.

So I can see why they exist and can argue for them, but I still can't get past the thoughtcrime aspect of punishing one intent over another.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sic'em, you do realize that you said "outrageous" and "could not possibly care less" in the same sentence. It is not as if there is any significant taxpayer money spent on this.

That's true enough. What I find outrageous is giving special consideration to a particular group of people based on an innate trait or characteristic (like sexual orientation, race, gender, height, eye color, hair color, etc. etc.) This is to differentiate it from, say, Veterans Day which celebrates people who choose to be in the armed forces or National Bike Riders day which celebrates people who choose to ride bikes. In other words, people should not be excluded from a national holiday or day of recognition based on something they had no choice in choosing.

UNLESS you believe that sexual orientation is a choice which I doubt you do and neither do I.

[Chuck Bao]

Nah, your own hate crimes...you know, where if I kill you because I don't like you then its murder but if I kill you because your gay then its murder and a hate crime.

You must be drinking and there is nothing wrong with that, especially since it is Friday. I don't know why some of you refuse to understand hate crimes. If you don't like me and decide to murder me, it is not a hate crime. But if you indiscriminately kill a gay (hopefully not me) to spread terror and send a message to all gays just because you want all of us to either die or move away, then that is a hate crime.

[okie52]

also, that's from 2009. it was 30 years after the Stonewall riots. i don't see anything about it being an annual thing


Clinton Declares June 2000 Gay & Lesbian Pride Month


http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/blgaylesproc.htm


Oh some dem president is always declaring it.

[okie52]

You must be drinking and there is nothing wrong with that, especially since it is Friday. I don't know why some of you refuse to understand hate crimes. If you don't like me and decide to murder me, it is not a hate crime. But if you indiscriminately kill a gay (hopefully not me) to spread terror and send a message to all gays just because you want all of us to either die or move away, then that is a hate crime.

Which is still BS. Matthew Sheppard shouldn't/wouldn't have been a hate crime...it sure wasn't to spread terror among gays in Laramie (all 2 of them). But all of the Laramie mentality was for it being a hate crime and the outrage that it wasn't available at trial time.

I find it just as repugnant that any hate crimes exist.

[Chuck Bao]

I tend to agree with this. Punishing intent is too Orwellian to me. I just can't separate it from 1984's thoughtcrimes, which everyone 'cept perhaps the most Authoritarian folks around would agree are dangerous to a free society.

The counter, I suppose is that murder is probably the worst thing to use to illustrate the effect of this law. Let's say just simple assault and battery. If I see some fella I deem to be a fairy prancing down the sidewalk and I just kick the living **** out of him, that's aggravated assault. I might be able to plead out to a small amount of time to do or just get a totally suspended or deferred sentence, or even plead to a lesser included if I'm not a repeat offender (or even if I am). Such a crime though, if done to intimidate an entire minority community is very arguably more than just an plain 'ol aggravated assault. It's also an assault on the freedom of minorities to be out in public without fear of having the **** kicked out of them simply because they are who they are. One could arguably get away with such a thing if not for the hate crime laws.

So I can see why they exist and can argue for them, but I still can't get past the thoughtcrime aspect of punishing one intent over another.

I like these questions and key points based on arguments of the law. Yeah, if you see me prancing around on the street, you could assault me if you have any other reason to assault me besides my prancing around on the street. Here's a clue: take my billfold, watch and just call it a mugging. Intent is pretty hard thing to prove. So, why should anyone be so concerned about the whole hate crime issue, unless...

[Chuck Bao]

That's true enough. What I find outrageous is giving special consideration to a particular group of people based on an innate trait or characteristic (like sexual orientation, race, gender, height, eye color, hair color, etc. etc.) This is to differentiate it from, say, Veterans Day which celebrates people who choose to be in the armed forces or National Bike Riders day which celebrates people who choose to ride bikes. In other words, people should not be excluded from a national holiday or day of recognition based on something they had no choice in choosing.

UNLESS you believe that sexual orientation is a choice which I doubt you do and neither do I.

Gay Pride month is not a national holiday. The most spent on it is closing a few streets in a few big cities for us to have a parade and feel good about ourselves. We have ethnic parades as well, such as St. Patrick's Day or Cinco de Mayo. If the blonds of the US wanted to do a parade, they could. Should this really stress anyone too terribly?

[Chuck Bao]

Which is still BS. Matthew Sheppard shouldn't/wouldn't have been a hate crime...it sure wasn't to spread terror among gays in Laramie (all 2 of them). But all of the Laramie mentality was for it being a hate crime and the outrage that it wasn't available at trial time.

I find it just as repugnant that any hate crimes exist.

Are you really suggesting that there were only 2 gays in Laramie? Matthew Sheppard was baited and then brutally murdered in a planned attack and then left to send a message to all gays that they can't ever come out or be themselves in public in Laramie.

See, you won't ever be convicted of a hate crime unless that intent is clear, as Midtowner said. Just don't tease a gay man in the promise of sex and then kill him. I just don't see why you or anyone else would be so offended by this.

[okie52]

Are you really suggesting that there were only 2 gays in Laramie? Matthew Sheppard was baited and then brutally murdered in a planned attack and then left to send a message to all gays that they can't ever come out or be themselves in public in Laramie.

See, you won't ever be convicted of a hate crime unless that intent is clear, as Midtowner said. Just don't tease a gay man in the promise of sex and then kill him. I just don't see why you or anyone else would be so offended by this.

I'm offended by an elevated status of rights for one group over another...which is exactly what hate crimes do.

I can tease a woman in the promise of sex then kill her and guess what...no hate crime. I can even tattoo I hate women on her forehead and say death to all women and don't ever come out of your houses.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I'm jealous of you having your own month and crimes.

Okie, in the old days, gay men got married to women and had kids to hide their gayness.

I would think you should be thrilled that gay acceptance makes it less likely more kids are born into this world.

[Chuck Bao]

I'm offended by an elevated status of rights for one group over another...which is exactly what hate crimes do.

I can tease a woman in the promise of sex then kill her and guess what...no hate crime. I can even tattoo I hate women on her forehead and say death to all women and don't ever come out of your houses.

ํYou are never going to get this, so I don't know why I keep trying. Hate crimes are indiscriminate crimes against a minority for the sole purpose of creating terror within that community - or otherwise a terrorist. It is not any crime committed against that community for personal reasons. There is no protected status, so just drop the self righteousness ****.

[SicEmBaylor]

Gay Pride month is not a national holiday. The most spent on it is closing a few streets in a few big cities for us to have a parade and feel good about ourselves. We have ethnic parades as well, such as St. Patrick's Day or Cinco de Mayo. If the blonds of the US wanted to do a parade, they could. Should this really stress anyone too terribly?

Aye, I didn't say it was a national holiday. That's why I also included days/months of observation (which this is) in my example.

I also didn't say that a gay pride parade was necessarily wrong. In this case, the parades are being organized by gays themselves and everyone should have the right to organize/parade/demonstrate.

My issue is with the President declaring a particular month or day to specially recognize a group that identifies itself by an innate trait and/or characteristic.

[Midtowner]

So, why should anyone be so concerned about the whole hate crime issue, unless...

That's kind of the 'ol trite "you shouldn't be concerned about this law unless you're a criminal" thing. I think you misunderstand me. I'm in favor of equality of all persons under the law. My big problem here is punishing certain mental states. Not only are proof issues very subjective, the whole idea of punishing an idea, even one I don't agree with is pretty repugnant.

[Midtowner]

Are you really suggesting that there were only 2 gays in Laramie? Matthew Sheppard was baited and then brutally murdered in a planned attack and then left to send a message to all gays that they can't ever come out or be themselves in public in Laramie.

See, you won't ever be convicted of a hate crime unless that intent is clear, as Midtowner said. Just don't tease a gay man in the promise of sex and then kill him. I just don't see why you or anyone else would be so offended by this.

That's the counterargument. I'm really on the fence (no horribly politically incorrect pun intended) on this one. There are really strong arguments going both ways.

[Chuck Bao]

Aye, I didn't say it was a national holiday. That's why I also included days/months of observation (which this is) in my example.

I also didn't say that a gay pride parade was necessarily wrong. In this case, the parades are being organized by gays themselves and everyone should have the right to organize/parade/demonstrate.

My issue is with the President declaring a particular month or day to specially recognize a group that identifies itself by an innate trait and/or characteristic.

Why? Politicians do that all the time. Surely someone as savvy in terms of election campaigns know that. I find that pandering as distasteful, but they all have to do it.

In this case, it is historic and I know that you love that ****. This is the first POTUS who supports equality of marriage. God bless him!

[Chuck Bao]

That's kind of the 'ol trite "you shouldn't be concerned about this law unless you're a criminal" thing. I think you misunderstand me. I'm in favor of equality of all persons under the law. My big problem here is punishing certain mental states. Not only are proof issues very subjective, the whole idea of punishing an idea, even one I don't agree with is pretty repugnant.

Okay, I'll concede this point to you if others on this board would concede that acts of terrorism are just ordinary crimes and subject to our judicial system. It may or may not be a coincidence that terrorists are not afforded our typical constitutional rights since they are deemed enemy combatives. But, I counter that the far, far bigger threat to our way of life would be home-grown terrorists who hate on a particular group of Americans. Can you seriously say that indiscriminately murdering gay people to create terror is just another murder crime?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

I'm jealous of you having your own month and crimes.
Kind of like the gay panic defense?

[cleller]

Reminds me of Morgan Freeman's chat with Mike Wallace about Black History Month. Freeman thought it was unnecessary.

"Is there a white history month?"

"Do you want one?"

I'm not in favor of a left-hander's month, either, though I am left handed.

[Chuck Bao]

Reminds me of Morgan Freeman's chat with Mike Wallace about Black History Month. Freeman thought it was unnecessary.

"Is there a white history month?"

"Do you want one?"

I'm not in favor of a left-hander's month, either, though I am left handed.

Notice that he didn't say that he was offended by a Black History Month. Well, have your white, heterosexual left-handed history month if you feel like it is important to you. That BJ and Steak day is pretty much the same thing, right? I'm really sorry that some of you don't really get it.

[hawaii 5-0]

I wish it were called Gay Awareness Month.

Many people are clueless about gays and the issues they have to deal with that others take for granted.

I'm proud to say I have many Gay friends of both sexes.

5-0

[nighttrain12]

Does Gay Pride month mean we can openly watch all the lesbian 'pron' we want without being ridiculed by all the femi-nazis out there?

[cleller]

Notice that he didn't say that he was offended by a Black History Month. Well, have your white, heterosexual left-handed history month if you feel like it is important to you. That BJ and Steak day is pretty much the same thing, right? I'm really sorry that some of you don't really get it.

Did I miss BJ and Steak day again?

[Midtowner]

Okay, I'll concede this point to you if others on this board would concede that acts of terrorism are just ordinary crimes and subject to our judicial system. It may or may not be a coincidence that terrorists are not afforded our typical constitutional rights since they are deemed enemy combatives. But, I counter that the far, far bigger threat to our way of life would be home-grown terrorists who hate on a particular group of Americans. Can you seriously say that indiscriminately murdering gay people to create terror is just another murder crime?

I am also uncomfortable with the thoughtcrime aspects of our anti-terror laws. In most cases, we would be just fine with civilian courts (assuming they had jurisdiction) trying, for example 150+ counts of attempted murder for that shoe bomber fella. The FBI basically took down the KKK without these thoughtcrime laws, so what we had on the books has been proven effective.

And if you indiscriminately murder a gay person to create terror, that's going to likely be a capital crime or at the very least send you away for a very long time. I don't see what the added benefit of the hate crimes statutes are except that it allows the feds to prosecute what should be a state crime. The feds ought to be focusing on securities violations and things like that. Let the states deal with run-of-the-mill felonies. It's not like the South prior to the 1960s and before where murders would go uninvestigated and unpunished if it was a white-on-black crime.

Once we start this business of punishing intent, looking forward, that's a hell of a Pandora's box we've opened. I'd rather shut the SOB and punish the crime rather than the intent (aside from mens rea aspects).

[okie52]

Kind of like the gay panic defense?

I don't know...have you used it a lot?

[olevetonahill]

I don't know...have you used it a lot?
He just flutters his little hands, Panics then faints

[okie52]

ํYou are never going to get this, so I don't know why I keep trying. Hate crimes are indiscriminate crimes against a minority for the sole purpose of creating terror within that community - or otherwise a terrorist. It is not any crime committed against that community for personal reasons. There is no protected status, so just drop the self righteousness ****.

A hate crime could be an act of terror.... or not Chuck. Try to stay objective about your elevated status.


But absent specific acts of conspiracy, or conscious and active planning to target a community, Conyers’s larger charge is an innovative interpretation of criminal responsibility. It is a leap from a specific attack to a generalized accusation of terrorism with no necessary evidentiary link and with no specific individuals as objects of incitement or participants in conspiracy, nor specific individuals victimized by incitement or conspiracy. It is charging a crime (that is, the theoretical future violent acts inspired by the real, immediate attack) before it has occurred.
We should know better by now. It is this kind of expansion of the concept of conspiracy that has led to some of our most ill-conceived adventures in the application of the law, from the Alien and Sedition Acts to the Palmer Raids, from the McCarran-Walter Act to warrantless wiretaps. These were responses to the reality that there are many people who despise our constitutional order—and among the people whose lives were touched by these undertakings, there were undoubtedly some who could have and would have done it harm. Yet as worthwhile as the goal may be (preventing anticonstitutional subversion, catching terrorists, expressing society’s disgust for bias) the damage done by such measures is always greater than any benefit. See “Slope, slippery.”


HOW DOES ONE determine the beliefs of an attacker, anyway? In the many cases in which motivation is ambiguous and would require some effort to establish in order to meet the statutory definition of a hate crime, prosecutors might look at a defendant’s associates, institutional affiliations, magazine subscriptions, or library records. As many legal scholars have pointed out, such investigations would raise serious First Amendment issues. Hate crimes are also highly political, offering many temptations to ambitious prosecutors, who may feel intense popular pressure to charge (or not charge) a particular crime as a hate crime.

Real life can be complicated. Most statutes define a hate crime as occurring when a victim is targeted for belonging to a protected identity category. It doesn’t matter if the motivation is actually hate. But even those who support the concept of hate crimes legislation might have problems with this definition. Is someone who targets old women for muggings in the belief that they will be easy to overpower really committing an age- or gender-based hate crime, or just a particularly repugnant ordinary crime? The motivational affect matters in hate crimes law only when it can contribute to establishing hate (and enhancing punishment). When it does the opposite, it is irrelevant.



MAKE NO MISTAKE: hate crimes laws do set us up for hate speech laws. At present all of the model guides for hate crimes laws require an “underlying” crime—there is no suggestion that speech or thought alone should create legal liability. But if speech or thought produces extra liability when paired with an underlying violent crime, it is but a small step to unpairing them, preserving the criminal liability of hate alone. Couldn’t happen here? Canada, where I grew up, offers a very clear demonstration of how it does happen. The issue of free speech has been finessed by the Canadian Supreme Court ruling in R. v. Keegstra, which held that “harmful expressive activity” damages individuals and communities sufficiently to be itself considered a criminal action, thereby explicitly erasing the distinction between hate speech and hate crime. [3]

This spirit has been reflected in many Canadian laws and institutions, most notably in the infamous federal and provincial Human Rights Tribunals, informal bodies outside of the official courts systems, which nevertheless enforce laws against exposing any group or individual to “hatred and contempt.” These tribunals can impose heavy fines, and even require defendants to publicly retract statements found to be offensive. Plaintiffs’ costs are borne by the public; defendants’ costs are not, a model for censorship-by-bankruptcy. And truth is no defense. It would be theoretically possible to convict a journalist for writing about the Armenian genocide if a Turkish complainant took offense. [4]

The institutions of a free country do not operate like this. Yet Canada is heir to the same traditions of British common law and intellectual liberty that gave rise to our First Amendment. The price that Canadians have been willing to pay for an enforced and artificial sense of social harmony should be a warning to us.


But don’t we want to outlaw hate? Wouldn’t we be a better society if we did? Well, we could outlaw war, too, at the stroke of a pen.

There is much that we can do, through individual, collective, and governmental action, to heal the wounds of an unjust and hateful past. But the legitimacy of the law rests, among other things, on its application to the specific case. Punishing a bigot for hate, in historically determined categories, creates a scapegoat for our society’s collective historical crimes. Perhaps that is why it makes us feel better.

If we are not concerned with policing a fraught relationship with the past, and if we view thought as outside the purview of law or any other authority, we are yet able to judge, punish, and prevent acts that cause harm. For this we do not need to speculate as to the motivating beliefs of criminals. We need only to recognize and appropriately punish their actual crimes. A self-confident, mature democracy that trusts its own capacity for public debate can afford to leave the policing of mind and tongue to the North Koreans. And, sadly, to the Canadians.


http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=2449

Enjoy your month Chuck.

[okie52]

He just flutters his little hands, Panics then faints

LOL

[LiveLaughLove]

Hate crimes is very important to them because it is how they will silence the church. By criminalizing the Bible as hate speech.

[Midtowner]

Now that's dumb. Hate speech alone cannot be a crime unless it's accompanied by some actual crime.

At any rate, let's look at the Matthew Shepherd Act. One of the aspects of the Act allows prosecution for perceived gender. Anyone have any idea why every single rape isn't a hate crime under this definition? I'm not a rapist, so I'm not speaking from experience here, but it seems like perceived gender might be a major deterministic factor in a rapist selecting a victim.

[pphilfran]

Now that's dumb. Hate speech alone cannot be a crime unless it's accompanied by some actual crime.

At any rate, let's look at the Matthew Shepherd Act. One of the aspects of the Act allows prosecution for perceived gender. Anyone have any idea why every single rape isn't a hate crime under this definition? I'm not a rapist, so I'm not speaking from experience here, but it seems like perceived gender might be a major deterministic factor in a rapist selecting a victim.

Damn, Mid, don't give em any f'n ideas...

[LiveLaughLove]

Now that's dumb. Hate speech alone cannot be a crime unless it's accompanied by some actual crime.

At any rate, let's look at the Matthew Shepherd Act. One of the aspects of the Act allows prosecution for perceived gender. Anyone have any idea why every single rape isn't a hate crime under this definition? I'm not a rapist, so I'm not speaking from experience here, but it seems like perceived gender might be a major deterministic factor in a rapist selecting a victim.

It's not dumb. Hate speech will be used as inciting hate crimes. The Bible already is considered hate speech by the homosexual agenda folks. They are pushing even now, to silence it. Nothing dumb about it. Just what is currently happening around the western world.

It's dumb to not recognize it for what it is.

[TitoMorelli]

The criminalizing of "hate speech" will never happen in industrialized western nations such as the US or Canada.....

[SCOUT]

The criminalizing of "hate speech" will never happen in industrialized western nations such as the US or Canada.....Now England on the other hand...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381305/Kung-Fu-Fighting-composer-Carl-Douglas-defends-racist-pub-singer-Simon-Ledger.html

[LiveLaughLove]

The criminalizing of "hate speech" will never happen in industrialized western nations such as the US or Canada.....

Funny you mention Canada. They have a human rights commission that attempts to do just that. While they don't always succeed, they do make the defendant spend big bucks and time defending themselves.

Ask Mark Steyn.

[TitoMorelli]

Funny you mention Canada. They have a human rights commission that attempts to do just that. While they don't always succeed, they do make the defendant spend big bucks and time defending themselves.

Ask Mark Steyn.

Yep.

That's why I tailed off the comment with .... - should have used [/sarc]

[okie52]

Okie, in the old days, gay men got married to women and had kids to hide their gayness.

I would think you should be thrilled that gay acceptance makes it less likely more kids are born into this world.

I don't have a problem with gays marrying...or not. I don't care what kind of sexual activity they have with each other or alone. I don't care if they live next door to me...He11, gay tenants I've had in my rent houses were the very best tenants. Paid timely, kept the house and yard neat, made the home easy to show when I chose to sell it. I should have run more ads in the Gazette.

But Gay Pride month? Hate crimes? PC is so nauseating.

[LiveLaughLove]

Yep.

That's why I tailed off the comment with .... - should have used [/sarc]

Ah, gotcha. Sorry my sarcasm meter is malfunctioning. Flat out exhausted. Sorry.

[olevetonahill]

Ah, gotcha. Sorry my sarcasm meter is malfunctioning. Flat out exhausted. Sorry.

You just tired from alt that Ghey hatin

[cleller]

Now England on the other hand...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381305/Kung-Fu-Fighting-composer-Carl-Douglas-defends-racist-pub-singer-Simon-Ledger.html

That story is mind-blowing. Deserves its own thread. If you didn't take the time to click on it, in England a man was arrested for singing Kung Fu Fighting in a bar/restaurant. Some Chinese patron complained about it.

[Midtowner]

That story is mind-blowing. Deserves its own thread. If you didn't take the time to click on it, in England a man was arrested for singing Kung Fu Fighting in a bar/restaurant. Some Chinese patron complained about it.

That's Europe for you. This is exactly why I'm so iffy about even recognizing hate crimes. It opens the door to garbage like the above. I think our First Amendment jurisprudence would probably protect most intentionally inflammatory speech or religious speech, but to even have a law where such an arrest would be plausibly possible is insane.

That said, before we go into an outrage circle jerk, this is just an arrest. I would be shocked if it led to any sort of conviction of any kind. The state would be wise to dismiss unless they want to see a public backlash against human rights legislation in the UK.

[Chuck Bao]

This thread quickly devolved from Gay Pride Month to hate crimes, hate speech crimes, banning the Bible and banning the singing of Kung Fu Fighting. Congratulations on bringing such hyperbole and scare propaganda into the discussion.

I already did concede to Midtowner that his concerns about proving hate crimes were legitimate.

Every gay-related thread seems to go into "what ifs" and "therefores" in attempts to associate some really bad stuff to ordinary people who just happen to like the same sex. Some of this just borders on the silly.

Concerning Mark Steyn, the case was dismissed. Freedom of speech goes up to some point, at least stopping before yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. You really don't have to look very far on the internet to find all kinds of hate speech, advocating riots, mayhem and subversion and drunky trains (Hi Olevet!).


The federal Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the Canadian Islamic Congress' complaint against Maclean's in June 2008. The CHRC's ruling said of the article that, "the writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike." However, the Commission ruled that overall, "the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature, as defined by the Supreme Court.

Concerning the Kung Fu Fighting case, was the singer, Mr Ledger, really arrested or just taken in to be interviewed by police? I don't suppose that there is a lot of crime on the Isle of Wight and the police are duty bound to investigate every complaint. Hell, I was called into the Thai SEC office numerous times just because some investor who lost money complained about my department's research recommendations. Is there any follow up on this story since April 28?


Mr Ledger was last night due to be interviewed by police following the incident at the Driftwood Beach Bar in Sandown, Isle of Wight. Police sources suggested there was more to the allegation of racially aggravated harassment than just his performance.

I think that it is really silly for anyone to suggest that the Bible, the Torah or the Quran would ever be banned because of hate speech. Okay, I did get a cheap giggle out of that.

[olevetonahill]

Now Chuck Ya can attack just about anything But leave my Durnky Trains alone :very_drunk:

[Chuck Bao]

Now Chuck Ya can attack just about anything But leave my Durnky Trains alone :very_drunk:

Heh! You're the biggest subversive for me, but I love your still.

[olevetonahill]

Heh! You're the biggest subversive for me, but I love your still.

Since we aint got the TGs no Mo I done retired it
Its Hiding in the woods a few miles away now

[Chuck Bao]

Sorry to hear that. It is a great pity. How much for the lot and a few instructor courses? I have my own shack in the woods as well as a deer camp. And, I will be looking for something to do when I move back to the US next month.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Hate crimes is very important to them because it is how they will silence the church. By criminalizing the Bible as hate speech.
You aren't persecuted, you want to be but you aren't, get over it. I'd like to see these "homosexual agenda" folks trying to criminalize the bible, do they have any widespread support? Or are they just the other side of the coin from WBC?

[olevetonahill]

Sorry to hear that. It is a great pity. How much for the lot and a few instructor courses? I have my own shack in the woods as well as a deer camp. And, I will be looking for something to do when I move back to the US next month.

You get back give me a call, WE get together and Ill hook ya up with the Bees and a OVJ machine and get ya set up.

[Chuck Bao]

You get back give me a call, WE get together and Ill hook ya up with the Bees and a OVJ machine and get ya set up.

Deal!

[olevetonahill]

Deal!

When Ya gonna get here?

[Chuck Bao]

When Ya gonna get here?

My condo sale is supposed to be completed by June 15 and I have two weeks to clear everything out. So, sometimes at the first part of July. I haven't booked the plane tix yet.

[olevetonahill]

My condo sale is supposed to be completed by June 15 and I have two weeks to clear everything out. So, sometimes at the first part of July. I haven't booked the plane tix yet.

Cool keep me posted