a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by user-inactivated
user-inactivated  ·  4635 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: 100 Real Tweets from Homophobes Who Would Murder Their Gay Child
Honestly I first browsed that and thought it's fake, too big to be true. I had to check it on some individual's wall to believe it. Shouldn't hatred to some people's nature (being gay) get punished/forbidden the same way as other hatred to some people's nature (skin color)? Collateral question: is hatred to e.g. Dawn's sufferers punished/forbidden?




winston  ·  4634 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Hate crimes as they relate to disability

this may shed some light on your question.

user-inactivated  ·  4634 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Not sure: a crime is a crime, whether the person is disabled, colored, gay or none of those. That's different from hate speech towards a certain type of people.

According to Wikipedia:

- in the US "laws prohibiting hate speech outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words are unconstitutional"

- in France (where I'm from) "hate speech laws are matters of both civil law and criminal law, protecting individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because they have a handicap."

winston  ·  4632 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I tend to think that all violent crimes are "hate" crimes.
user-inactivated  ·  4631 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Alright but the distinction I make is between hating one person (maybe for a lot of reasons) and hating a group of people based on some common factor.
winston  ·  4631 days ago  ·  link  ·  
There's no doubt that there are people that hate groups and there are people that hate individuals. Either way, the result is hate. When you beat a man to death because you hate that he didn't do your taxes properly is it different than if you do so because he's a Protestant? It should be the same punishment either way and the same definition imo.
user-inactivated  ·  4631 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Alright, that's what I meant too, saying "a crime is a crime, whether the person is disabled, colored, gay or none of those". But still, even before committing a crime, there is a difference between hating a particular person you know for having done (or not) something you can not generalize to a whole group vs. hating equally all members of a population segment. Put my original comment a different way: why do those tweeters feel allowed to publicly hate gays while it would be probably less accepted if they would publicly hate blacks?
winston  ·  4630 days ago  ·  link  ·  
There is a difference, no doubt about it. I'm just not sure how that difference plays in to our judicial process.
gnome19  ·  4634 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Do you think the french people are going to remain tolerant of religious freedom in the face of radical muslim extremists terrorizing them?
cgod  ·  4633 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Is this really what you think is happening? Do you have any idea of the history of French colonialism in the Muslim world?
gnome19  ·  4633 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I am aware of French Colonialism in the Muslim world, just as I am aware of American Imperialism there. My question was in response to this statement regarding french law ...."protecting individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion,". I posed the question in light of the recent terrorist attack in france: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/24/us-france-shooting...

I'm not sure what you were referring to as what I "think is happening"? I'm aware of the history. I'm also aware that in response to such terrorist attacks western nations tend to abandon their tolerance of the associated religions, regardless of how loose the association may be.

user-inactivated  ·  4633 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Hello gnome19 I understood where your question was coming from and even if that's not much related to my initial comment about the thread, that's quite an interesting (and broad) question and I could talk hours about it. I'll try to make it short.

First and before anything, I think the biggest part of the society has quite ambivalent ideas on freedom of religion, probably due to our "1905" law on the separation of church(es) and state. For 100 years the families have learnt to let their religion at home and not to display it. Then immigrants from everywhere have a hard time understanding or adapting, so a normal reaction from a French to seeing a veiled lady is somewhere between: "may she look the way she wants" and "can't she just dress like anybody" (and I'm not even talking about "is she forced by her husband or father to wear that"). That makes the freedom of religion a complicated one: you don't get problems for following a religion but for displaying it (so still because of your religion, really). I hope you can grasp this particular shape of french society.

Now I think that the events in Toulouse shook and shocked the country, who then wanted to reconcile/reunite: see the big gatherings that happened in memory of the victims. It's still a bit early to observe but the polls at one month of the presidential election show an interesting trend: the far-right (hate-based speech) decreasing while the far-left (unification-based speech) increasing.

So all in all tolerance and terrorism have really different paths in France, and hopefully the society remains clever enough to understand the distinction.

gnome19  ·  4632 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Thank you for the response, I appreciate you taking the time to write this. Let me send you my condolences for having endured such an attack. You hope that "society remains clever enough to understand the distinction", is a noble hope.

It's an unusual thing to grasp that the french people want to keep religion something that is separated from the state completely. Does this include christians too? The reason I say it's unusual to grasp is that in the US the people that want to unify church and state tend to be the christians. And we have many of them here. They want religion included in schools but when asked about including other faiths: Muslim, Hindu etc they are opposed.

Personally, I've had it up to my ears with religion. I'm tired of it and wish it would either go away or stay "at home" as you put it.

user-inactivated  ·  4631 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I know it's quite different in the US (especially due to baptists/pentecostists maybe?) so that's why I felt important to explain it. In Germany too you can find for example crucifixes in cafes, hotels...

Until 1905 we used to be officially a catholic country so catholics are especially the ones who have learnt early to keep their beliefs quiet. Except obviously in religious institutions, it feels disturbing to see any religious display. But the ambivalence shows the situation is not yet ideal either.

gnome19  ·  4606 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I was reminded of this conversation as I read this article on Mitt Romney and the his faith: http://go.bloomberg.com/political-economy/2012-04-19/romney-...

I think religion is going to play a major role in the upcoming US Presidential election. I wish it wouldn't.

barradarcy  ·  4561 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I totally agree with you gnome; Religion is causing quite a lot of trouble in the world and it would be nice to have it 'kept at home' but I think the problems arise more from this attitude than any other. People like those Christians in the US who want to unify the church and state; are all for the expression of their way of thinking and seeing the world but feel offended by the way of other faiths. While the religious they feel offended by are made unhappy by the fact they are unable to express their faith as openly as the Christians are allowed to.

The whole problem is not so much the people who believe the religions, as the governments who run the law and the institutes.... it would be better if they left religion to people and did away with 'churches' and 'temples' and solid places of worship. Being Irish, I see far too many churches around the place, and went to a school where religious education was more or less orientated around Christianity....there is no room in schools here for anybody else. The answer in my oppinion is either do away with state regulated religion and keep religion out of government...or teach something like Philosophy; where almost every view is embraced and there is no room to form a prejudice.

barradarcy  ·  4561 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Sorry if that offended anyone:-/
gnome19  ·  4504 days ago  ·  link  ·  
No offense taken. at all.
Raxyn13  ·  4354 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Well, that's the problem inherent to the first amendment, isn't it? People are generally allowed to say what they want. I don't like people being hateful anymore than the next guy, but I think people's right to speak their mind should be protected. Even if their opinions are as hateful as these folks.