Posted By:
Captain Al
in Alberta, Canada May 07, 2005
A Belgian man has made an application for James Randi's $1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge. The applicant, Siegfried Verbeke, claims he will be able to survive exposure to Zyklon B gas for 15 minutes. This, he says, will prove that the extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis during WWII was a hoax. He would like to use the restored gas chamber at Auschwitz to conduct the test. The exchange between Verbeke and Randi's agent, Kramer, has to be read to be believed. And even then you may not. Amazing suicidal applicant
If I remember correctly, Randi talked about this in his weekly column a while back. He said that he would NOT accept this application for the Prize as it would result in a death. Gee, you think so?
but a jail sentence for being stupid enough to think that the holocaust didn't happen and persistently denying it...
That seems a bit fanatical as well...
and is enough to make my disgust with America MUCH more palatable!"
Yes, he's a racist asshole but his sentence wasn't handed down in America. I believe it was in Belgium.
As a First Amendment kind of guy, yeah, I have to agree that, while what he advocates is vile and disgusting, he would and should have the right to say it in the U.S.
Who wouldn't think that it was a Belgian thing? Not me, which is why I referred to such a government action as a little fanatical in itself.
My "disgust" with America comes from my opinion of the USA and its' recently skewed "way" of doing things... like for instance I don't think we (USA) have the right to deny (philosophically) the rest of the world nuclear weapons proliferation when we ourselves still do it. I, as an American taxpayer, often get disgusted with America and its' actions. BUT, seeing someone get jail time for merely being a crack-pot and stating their theories, essentially believing what they want, makes me appreciate my First Amendment that much more!
Get me now?
LaMa
in Europe Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 01:42 AM
Denying the Holocaust is against the law in many European countries and will get you a sentence, just like using or wearing Nazist symbolism in public. Simply because in Europe, who unlike the US actually got occupied by the nazi's and saw 2 million of its inhabitants disappear in the concentration camps, these things are much more sensitive.
As far as I am concerned, I am very happy to see this scumbag go to jail.
As for seeing this scumbag go to jail... I wouldn't say that I disagree with that because he's obviously WAY off. But not being able to "believe" what you choose seems a little overboard.
But at the same time I can obviously see where these actions come from. The "Red" scare in the 50's here in the U.S. resulted in people being brought to trial simply because of what they "might" have believed in... like Communist ideas.
But why waste time worrying about trying to legislate things such as what people believe in? Along those same lines of legislating, if the right people are elected, it's possible to say that someone might get jail time for not being Catholic (religious) or Conservative as opposed to liberal.
I'm not saying it's wrong... to regulate what someone is "allowed" to believe in or say, just that it seems odd. Because I have no idea how I, or we as a country, would deal with the history that Europe and its' people have had to deal with...
Like I said earlier though... it makes me appreciate my First Amendment all the more.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 05:21 AM
"But not being able to "believe" what you choose seems a little overboard."
...And that's why we live in America. We're allowed to 'believe' whatever we want.
Although, they did invent French Fries...but I don't think they call them that.
We have hate-crime laws here in Canada. Although they mean well, it is a bit disturbing to know you can be convicted for your beliefs. I think a person should be able to believe whatever they want, no matter how crazy those beliefs are. Isn't is better to know who your enemies are?
The other problem is, if I can be charged with promoting hatred against Jews, can I also be charged with promoting hatred against Nazis? Who gets to decide which groups are exempt?
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 07:58 AM
I wondered that. Like that kid that got beat up & killed a few years ago...Shepard...Mike, Matt, something like that. It was b/c he was gay. BUT those other guys were just expressing their belief...not that I agree w/ them, but if they had been beaten up, would the gay kid have been charged w/ a hate crime against...rednecks?
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 08:01 AM
I don't think that "hate-crimes" should be labled as such. This still puts you into a category. If someone beat up someone b/c they were Jewish, then the government is saying that there is a specific group of people who are Jewish...and not the other way around. It's not Jews who are people, but people who are Jewish...
It makes sense in my head...but I don't think I made it make sense here...
Blanton
in CA
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 08:13 AM
When you get into hate crimes it gets touchy. I don't think it is fair that if there are two guys walking down the street and one is straight and one is gay, and one is attacked, that the perp will get less time in jail for attacking the straight guy. Just doesnt seem right
Andy
in Brookln, NY
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 09:01 AM
Re: Hate Crimes:
Hate Crime laws will probably make some sense if you think of them as analagous to the familiar classifications for criminal homicide (1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder, Manslaughter, etc.)
The difference among the various categories is based on such factors as premeditation, the intent of the perpetrator, state of mind of the perpetrator, other related crimes committed as part of the act, and other mitigating factors. Thus, a man who kills a man to steal his money would be considered quite differently under the law from a man who kills another man whom he just caught in bed sleeping with his wife.
Now apply this to hate crime laws: a criminal offence becomes much more severe if the motivation for that offence is based on the vicitms race, gender, religion, disability, national origin, or sexual orientation (or perception of race, gender, etc.) (Keep in mind that these laws will vary widely among different localities, states, and within the federal system.)
Thus, as per Blanton's example, if two guys are walking down the street, and one is attacked in the commission of robbery, then Hate Crimes laws are not an issue: it makes no difference under the law whether the vicitm is gay or straight for the purpose of determining criminal intent; the penalty under the law will be the same. However, if one guy is attacked solely for or partially for the reason that he is perceived as being gay, than it becomes a "hate crime" under most statutes and the perpetrator can have his penalty increased for that reason. (This also means that there is an additional element that must be proven at trial: the prosecutor must show evidence of the attacker's motivation for the hate crime to be considered by the jury.)
And Maegan, the name you are searching for is Matthew Shepard. And yes, to oversimplify your argument, if a gay man beats up a redneck with the motivation of the redneck's perceived racial or religious group as a factor in determining criminal intent, it very much could be considered as a hate crime under the law. And the law makes no distinction between "Jewish people" and "People who are Jews"; all that matters is whether the vicitm's religion or national origin (or perceptions of those categories) is a motivational factor for determining the elements of the crime.
And for clarification, I am not a lawyer; I'm a professional musician who studies constitutional law as a hobby...
Jonas
in Toronto
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 09:33 AM
Blanton wrote:
"I don't think it is fair that if there are two guys walking down the street and one is straight and one is gay, and one is attacked, that the perp will get less time in jail for attacking the straight guy. Just doesnt seem right"
You're right, of course, but that's just not how hate crime laws work (at least, not here in Canada). An attacker will not get a longer sentence for assaulting someone who just happens to belong to a group protected under the law (someone who is Black, queer, female or Jewish, for example). If that were the case, all crimes against women would be hate crimes, because sex and gender are protected categories (although there is good reason to consider all rapes and sexual assaults inherently misogynist and therefore hate crimes against women, this is not how they are treated by the justice system). In order for the term "hate crime" to be applied, along with the resulting increase in sentencing, the prosecution must be able to proove conclusively that prejudicial hatred was not only a motive, but a primary motive for the crime. If a man is gay-bashed, for example, and his attackers make their homophobia apparent through name-calling, but also steal his wallet in the process, the defence can argue that the primary motive for the crime was robbery and that the homophobia was secondary. Thus, while Canadian hate crime law aims to be fairly inclusive (gay-bashing was still not legally a hate crime in the U.S. the last time I checked, though my information is a few years old), convictions with the stiffer hate crime sentences are rare, as the hate element is extremely different to proove.
Jonas
in Toronto
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 09:44 AM
Oops, didn't mean to mostly repeat Andy, I must have been typing while you posted (I was interrupted, so it took me a while).
I will add my own clarification that I am not a lawyer either, but I spent several years as a volunteer doing anti-homophobia education in schools (from an anti-oppression perspective, so we were well trained on issues of racism, ablism, sexism, etc.) and I am currently a student of women's studies and equity studies at the University of Toronto, where I have addressed hate crimes in several courses (and where my girlfriend is currently studying gender and sexuality in the law).
Andy and Jonas,
it all sounds good on paper but how does it work in practice? We are talking about voicing an opinion, not assault. If I were to create an anti-Nazi website here in Canada tomorrow, would the police beat a path to my door? It seems to be one of those laws that are not enforced unless someone complains (and gets their name in the newspaper). I bet the police will do nothing. That sets a dangerous precedent.
Andy
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 01:57 PM
Captain Al:
In the US, for a crime to be considered a hate crime, it must be a crime first. It is not illegal to voice an opinion on a website, provided that you confirm to the guidlines set by Schenck vs US (i.e., you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater) and its descendents (including the famous case of National Socialist Party vs. Skokie, IL, which trebucheted the ACLU into the national spotlight). Thus, if you were to create a neo-Nazi website in the US, the FBI (or HSA or any other government agency) would not beat a path to your door, provided you did not post anything that could reasonably considered an overt threat. However, don't be surprised if your name then goes onto some sort of "watch list" and you start having to deal with increased security everytime you try to board a commercial airplane.
The law is quite different in Canada and in Europe (not to mention many other countries around the world.) There is no "first ammendment" in Canada, so it is theoretically possible for the mere creation of a neo-Nazi website there to be a violation; however, Canada has signed onto many international treaties (which are enforcable in the Canadian courts) which generally prohibit the government from criminalizing unpopular speech.
In Germany, exceptions to those treaties have been given broad leeway in the German court system, so criminal prosecutions for displaying Nazi paraphernalia are quite common.
And, in case you were wondering, US (and not foreign) courts have jurisdiction in the US, so if you create a neo-Nazi website in the US, the Mounties can't come on down and arrest you for violating Canadian law.
Hope that helps.
Andy
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 02:10 PM
Re: Jonas
To clarify; sexual orientation is not considered a category under federal hate crime statutes; however, many states (and localities within states) do include it within their laws. (Maegan's home state of Florida has a limited protection for sexual orientation, which many cities and counties like Miami-Dade can then choose to strengthen.) And not all states have hate crime laws to begin with.
