Hate Crimes Against Santa Cruz Forest Activist Televised at 5 and 6 PM

I realize that you're disappointed with the predictable lack of public concern for any such assault, but must you resort to the misappropriation of already silly terms?

The concept of a "hate crime" is nothing more than racist pro-minority groups trying to tell me that it's worse if they get beat up than if I do, just because Im white. You're convicting the attacker on not just his actions, but his thoughts! "Thought crime", anyone?

Next you'll be trying to link it to Freedom of Speech issues, just because the victim was talking when it happened.

This is like a cop planting evidence at the scene of an otherwise legitimate bust, just for the PR value. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

It's an assault. An attack. These terms are already well-established in their meanings, and far more accurate and credible than "hate crimes".

Otherwise, the story is fine.

*Sj,
insensitive bastard.

"The concept of a "hate crime" is nothing more than racist pro-minority groups trying to tell me that it's worse if they get beat up than if I do, just because Im white."

Hate crimes legislation covers more than just race. And some would argue that racism has less to do with racial prejudice and more to do with who has the power and how that's used systmatically, across the board in regards to racial oppression. Oh, and in america, the minorities comprise the majority so time to re-think that one, dear. Next?

"You're convicting the attacker on not just his actions, but his thoughts! "Thought crime", anyone?"

Well, the last time I looked, the KKK is still around, free to spread their "thoughts" and I don't see them being prosecuted for hate crimes for having rallies. It's just when they beat someone to death, like they're apt to do (right, Spider?), is it that the proponents of HC legislation asks that ideology or prejudice which may have been the prime factor in the violence be taken into consideration.

"It's an assault. An attack. These terms are already well-established in their meanings, and far more accurate and credible than "hate crimes"."

True, but HC legislation was intially an effort to address the fact that certain crimes are committed because of the actual identity of the victim, who is commonly recognized through social opinion and statistics as a victim of hate-based crimes and separate from common, two guys getting into a fight. The effort was to attempt to end or curb the frequency of hate-based crimes. Unfortunately, the legislation, in my view, relies to much on law enforcement to solve our social problems and encourages our society to become more punitive, while problems like racial profiling, police occupation of urban, non-white neighborhoods, and homophobia in sentencing often take a back seat. But that's a whole other debate. Not surprisingly, I often see the opposition against HC legislation come from the haters themselves, which makes it hard to have a real debate on it's effectiveness and legitimacy when the victims and targets of hate are so polarized towards support of it and the haters, naturally, so opposed to it.

We are now just in the beginning stages to form a socially progressive view that is critical of HC legislation as it stands without engaging in the type of myopic, reactionary ad hominem that best describes Spider's post.