Originally posted by Bardock42
Give an official source. Where did you get them from? Don't be a little pussy, debate like the grown ups do.
And see? Even you can't respond without an insult. I supposed the sources would be the respective government agencies that compiled the reports. If you want I can get the names of the reports themselves, but thats about the best I can do.
Originally posted by StarhawkWhere did you get the numbers from? And yeah, the studies and a link would probaly be reasonable.
And see? Even you can't respond without an insult. I supposed the sources would be the respective government agencies that compiled the reports. If you want I can get the names of the reports themselves, but thats about the best I can do.
Also, how does the "even you" relate to me? I am not really kwn for not responding with insults
Originally posted by Bardock42
Where did you get the numbers from? And yeah, the studies and a link would probaly be reasonable.Also, how does the "even you" relate to me? I am not really kwn for not responding with insults
Yet you did respond before with a childish insult. And I got the numbers are from government issued reports I looked up in the Law Library at the University of Western Ontario. You know, actually doing real research instead of looking them up on the net.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Yet you did respond before with a childish insult. And I got the numbers are from government issued reports I looked up in the Law Library at the University of Western Ontario. You know, actually doing real research instead of looking them up on the net.
Hmm, scans would probably do.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Yet you did respond before with a childish insult. And I got the numbers are from government issued reports I looked up in the Law Library at the University of Western Ontario. You know, actually doing real research instead of looking them up on the net.
I believe all government reports are available online from the government of Canada's website.
Like, I know the justice department posts all judicial results and laws. I've also seen lots of senate comity reports.
if that helps? 🙂
Originally posted by StarhawkBecause I don't claim that shit. You try to make an argument, but don't produce any evidence.
The library doesn't have scanners. Why don't you go out and find them yourself at your library. Not that this is about the numbers, your just trying to give me a hard time, and thats even more childish and more then a little sad.
Are you sure you study law? Are you sure you don't study.....nothing?
Originally spoken by Mike Pence
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk numbered MV_072.The amendment that I offer today makes it clear that the hate crimes bill we are considering will not affect the constitutional right to religious freedom and will ensure that future courts will not construe this statute to infringe on a person’s religious liberty.
First of all, I believe that a hate crimes bill is unnecessary and bad public policy. Violent attacks on people or property are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them, and there is no evidence that the underlying violent crimes at issue here are not already being fully and aggressively prosecuted in the states. Therefore, hate crimes laws serve no practical purpose and instead serve to penalize people for their thoughts, beliefs or attitudes.Some of these thoughts, beliefs or attitudes such as racism and sexism are abhorrent, and I disdain them. However, the hate crimes bill is broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs, and protecting the rights of freedom of speech and religion must be paramount in our minds as we consider this bill.
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” America was founded upon the notion that the government should not interfere with the religious practices of its citizens. Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion is at the core of the American experiment in democracy.
Of great concern to me is that hate crimes laws could be used to target religious groups. Of the 9,430 “hate crimes” recorded by the FBI in 1999, by far the largest group was labeled “intimidation.” The “intimidation” category does not even exist for ordinary crimes. This vague concept is already being abused by some local governments, which target speech in favor of traditional morality as “hate speech.”
The road we could be led down is one in which pastors, religious broadcasters and evangelical leaders who are speaking their own personal convictions could be prosecuted under hate crimes statutes.
For example, in New York, a pastor who had rented billboards and posted biblical quotations on sexual morality had them taken down by city officials, who cited hate crimes principles as justification.
In San Francisco, the city council enacted a resolution urging local broadcast media not to run advertisements by a pro-family group. No viewpoint should be suppressed simply because someone disagrees with it.
Finally, pro-homosexual activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign have stated their belief that an ad campaign by pro-family groups showing that many former homosexual people had found happiness in a heterosexual lifestyle, contributed to the tragic 1998 murder of homosexual college student Matthew Shepard. There is no evidence that his killers even knew about the ads, and Shepard’s killers told ABC’s 20/20 that they were motivated by money and drugs. However, the danger here is that people use a hate crimes bill to silence the freedom of religious leaders to speak out against homosexuality.
There is a real possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy law or section 2 of title 18, which holds criminally liable anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission; or one who “willfully causes an act to be done” by another.
It is easy to imagine a situation in which a prosecutor may seek to link “hateful” speech to causing hateful violent acts. For example, in a 2004 case in Philadelphia, 11 individuals were arrested at OutFest, a gay pride festival. The individuals held signs and were reading segments of the Bible. They were arrested after protesting peacefully, charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors. Their felony charges included “possession of instruments of crime” (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation (saying that homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading passages from the Bible related to homosexuality).
Whether or not a riot occurred involving the Christians was debatable, and even so they faced $90,000 in fines and possible 47-year prison sentences.
To guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws, this amendment clarifies and re-emphasizes the importance of religious freedom in our country and the respect of that freedom. It makes clear that people and groups will not have their constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom taken away.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Let us follow Mr. Jefferson’s lead and pass this amendment to make clear that this statute does not seek to criminalize religious thoughts.
"Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution."
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”Chairman John Conyers and Congressional Democrats kept evading the issue, providing reasons why they could not accept the amendment until Rep. Lundgren demanded, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”
At that point Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama candidly said, “Yes.”
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) offered an amendment to include military personnel as a protected class. He noted that troops in uniform often find themselves targets of hate and physical attack.Republicans also proposed making senior citizens a protected class, pointing to crimes against elderly people. Likewise, why not extend hate crimes protection to pregnant women, who may be battered by boyfriends or husbands when they become pregnant, Republican proposed.
Rep. Tom Feeney of Florida offered an amendment to give homeless people hate crimes protection.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Because I don't claim that shit. You try to make an argument, but don't produce any evidence.Are you sure you study law? Are you sure you don't study.....nothing?
I did, I gave him the figures he wanted. And still just nothing but insults.
And yes I am sure I study law.
Originally posted by Starhawk
I did, I gave him the figures he wanted. And still just nothing but insults.And yes I am sure I study law.
Canada commits more hate crimes then Holland we don't have that law.
In Holland 3 out of 1000 commit hate crimes in Canada it's 30...
In Belgium it's five out 1000, in Greece 1300 out of 1000...
I should know I looked them up in my library but I have no source that anybody can check so you are just going to have to accept my word for it.
When you provide statistics provide a link so we can check, it's not our job to provide the evidence for your argument. Either prove up with a link to a study a actual report or the damned figures, otherwise why would we believe you?
Defense Attorney Starhawk: Your honor, I have evidence, that supports my clients' innocence.
Judge: Can you please present this evidence to the court?
Defense Attorney Starhawk: Your honor the evidence is in the Western Ontario University Library. You'll just have to take my word for it.
Judge: ....Get out of my courtroom....
Originally posted by FeceMan
In short, Pence wanted to create an amendment to prevent the establishment of a "hate thoughts" law. He proposed adding the following to the bill:"Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution."
Democrat failure total.
I feel that it is either not wrong or wrong on the whole. Meaning that if some random stranger saying that homosexuality is immoral can be charged then a pastor saying the same should too.
Originally posted by meep-meep
Defense Attorney Starhawk: Your honor, I have evidence, that supports my clients' innocence.Judge: Can you please present this evidence to the court?
Defense Attorney Starhawk: Your honor the evidence is in the Western Ontario University Library. You'll just have to take my word for it.
Judge: ....Get out of my courtroom....
Good stuff.
In addition, I'd be a little suspect about the title "Defense Attorney Starhawk."
Originally posted by Fishy
Canada commits more hate crimes then Holland we don't have that law.In Holland 3 out of 1000 commit hate crimes in Canada it's 30...
In Belgium it's five out 1000, in Greece 1300 out of 1000...
I should know I looked them up in my library but I have no source that anybody can check so you are just going to have to accept my word for it.
When you provide statistics provide a link so we can check, it's not our job to provide the evidence for your argument. Either prove up with a link to a study a actual report or the damned figures, otherwise why would we believe you?
What part of I didn't look it up on the Internet, I got off my ass and went to an actual library is so hard for your to understand? If the figures came out on your side I think you would be a little less skeptical. I prefer information out of books or government reports since they have fact checkers as opposed to websites which do not. I don't see any of you getting off your lazy asses to find out any information.
These aren't from books, they are reports, big thick files of paper full of statistics. And comparing it to a courtroom setting is asinine. If we were face to face I would be more then happy enough to take these and literally cram them down your throats to prove my point.
But this is all just a means to try and be rude because most of you don't like me.