Comments on: LaBarbera’s Incoherence on Hate Crimes

By: Johno

Johno — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:29:23 +0000

These laws protecting race and religion, to which LGBT’s only want to be added, have been on the books since 1969. I would like Peter to show me how they have been used to prosecute “thought crimes” in the last 40 years, while he’s getting to work on that campaign to have his own special protections revoked.
Part of Peter’s argument is that people should only be charged with crimes they actually committed, not those they intend to commit. So should we also do away with Attempted Murder, Intent to Sell, and restraining orders?

By: cany

cany — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:37:22 +0000

Tortured logic is right! Good grief!

But it just reveals how unstable and unintelligible those that utter this nonsense are.

I don’t know if a class in logic could even work this puzzle out!

By: UU Shooting Prima Facie HATE CRIME « Mcgiffert’s Weblog

UU Shooting Prima Facie HATE CRIME « Mcgiffert’s Weblog — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 02:07:01 +0000

[...] clipped from http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com [...]

By: Jane Know

Jane Know — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:11:50 +0000

One other point is that The Peter seems only concerned with hate crimes from a “how the media portrays gay people” standpoint. The true purpose of a hate crime is to deter people from committing it in the first place. If hate crimes laws are not needed, then why are gay people and supporters of gay people still being attacked and killed on the basis? Peter’s focus on media attention is a mere distraction.

By: JJ in Chicago

JJ in Chicago — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:43:56 +0000

Good points made…

I got a theory why Pete goes bonkers over hate crime laws that include sexual orientation or gender identity.

He wants to denigrate all of us with impunity, both on his website and at his periodic press conferences (where about 6 people show up).

In other words, if an act of violence based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity were to occur and it could be traced back to AFTAH, he could liable (or so I believe he may think).

Whether he would truly be criminally liable, I don’t know. But civil penalties certainly could be levied.

Often times, during a hate crime attack, words are spoken that indicate the bias, and he’s very aware of that.

It’s people like Peter LaBarbera who fuel the bias against gay and trans people. He’s quick to distance himself from physical violence, but he continues the lies and distortions that fuel the raw hatred, as if that absolves him of any liability. This is a very passive/aggressive behavior.

He knows that hate crimes are linked between the violent acts and the words that may have driven the act to occur (and by extension, the person who spoke the words, such as Pete).

My $.02 …