Sadly...well said.

It seems that Europe is sunk into a pathology of self hatred that has spiralled into a need for self destruction.

No one hates himself it seems, so much as he who believes he does not deserve his success.

This is horrifying.

I wonder if your oversensitve epileptic reader will have her feelings hurt by these references. Perhaps she'll write to Susanne Winters, or better yet, the Austrian authorities - to indicate her support of the "justice"? :)

And the world thinks less of Israel than they do North Korea.
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/04/al-beeb-says-world-would-love-us-if.html
Pathetic

"the Prophet was capable of having a "revelation" that happened to suit his short-term needs."

Joseph Smith did the same thing, especially when he met a woman he wanted to make one of his wives.

Including his own sons wife

It is indeed horrifying. Most of Europe has laws like this on the books, that are used more-or-less at the whim of the political figures.

For example, anyone who questions that the Holocaust happened just as its written in the history books can go to jail. This doesn't just mean Holocaust deniers, who are generally nut-cases, but anyone who thinks any aspect should be re-examined.

Of course, the US is really not much, if any, better off. The existence of laws against "hate crimes" are very much the same sort of subjective law.

What is particularly disturbing about this case is that some of the statements she will be prosecuted for saying are simply observations of fact. She didn't say that Mohammed was a child molester. She said that "by today's standards" he would be considered a child molester. Which is simply true.

It's bad enough that one can be prosecuted for expressing an opinion, but for stating simple truths?

Well, this cuts both ways.

If she can get evidence admitted into court that Mo-man was a pedophile and then the court rules that he was a pedo, then where does that leave the Islamists?

If she does go to jail, then she becomes a symbol: "Letters from a Vienna Jail."

We are still waiting for the the EU to wake up. They still do not have their John Brown.

Mohammed apparently had more than a few standards for Moslems that he himself didn't think applied to him. Most wives a Moslem can have? Four. Number of wives belonging to Mohammed? Seven.

What's so disgusting about all this is that it's capitulating to a bully. By persecuting someone for a soi-disant attack on Mohammed, but not applying the same standard to someone who attacks Jesus, you're letting yourself be intimidated and pushed around.

But something worse than an inequitable application of law is going on here. Apparently, a declaration of a particular faith confers special status. What happens now if a Muslim attacks the Christian faith? By the standards being applied now, nothing. But what happens when a Christian attacks the Muslim faith? Well, not only is the Christian going to be prosecuted, but Moslems can threaten the Christian's life with impunity, one of the points that was overlooked in your article. Not only is their religion getting special protections, but apparently citing the magical word "blasphemy" allows them to make death threats.

Of course, the US is really not much, if any, better off. The existence of laws against "hate crimes" are very much the same sort of subjective law bradley13).

The US has true freedom of speech. Europe and Canada don't.

I have to disagree with you Jeff. Any 'hate crime' law is based on punishing people for what they were thinking when you committed a crime. While I'm all for prosecuting crime, I am totally against prosecuting thought, even if it was associated with a crime. Sooner or later, if you believe in criminalizing the thought with the crime, you will eventually criminilize the thought by itself. That is what we are seeing in this case. This womans only crime was expressing her opinion. Speech is the expression of thought and opinion. There was no real crime associated with it except that she 'offended' somebody. Now while I agree that shouting fire in a crowded theatre is illegal and should be, this is not the same thing. For one thing, there is plenty of evidence to back up what she said. Another thing is that if you hamstring yourself by saying that anything offensive shouldn't be said, I'll find offense in anything that I don't like and prosecute you for it. This is the result of effectively outlawing certain opinions. There is no right to "not be offended" in the Bill of rights. If you think about it, the recent case of that lawyer up in Canada who had to respond to a kangaroo court over his statements on Islam was a prosecution over his opinion. This is an untenable standard that will eventually break down into a facist civil war and a real fear of speaking ones mind. This is why the founding fathers recognized freedom of speech as such an important concept and a needed right.

Bikerken writes: I have to disagree with you Jeff. Any 'hate crime' law is based on punishing people for what they were thinking when you committed a crime. While I'm all for prosecuting crime, I am totally against prosecuting thought, even if it was associated with a crime.

Laws on the books have punished thought this nation had laws. That's why crimes like murder are categorized, first degree, second degree, etc.

I could talk about overthrowing the U.S. government, and even if I've done exactly nothing to bring this about, I can still be charged with sedition.

People talk about "hate crime legislation" as "punishing thought" as if it's something new. And it's not.

While no one presumes to read the minds of Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, the fact that they called their victim a "faggot" repeatedly as he was being pistol whipped into a coma is a pretty good indicator that their crime was prejudicially motivated.

So your punishing their motivation? I don't care what their motivation is, we have crimes against actions, ACTIONS, not motivations. Motivation is only used as a means to convice a jury of guilt. By the way, (and I am not a lawyer here), the degrees of murder are not based on motivation, they are based on the intention (were you really trying to kill someone or just hurt them badly) and degree of which you carried out your actions.

Just to bounce off your example Patrick, if those to guys had simply used the word faggot and not touched the guy at all, should they be prosecuted? If so, for what?

Exactly. People's interior lives are their own beeswax

Fact of the matter is I've got to agree with Bikerken on this one.

Hate crime legislation is punishment of thought.

Come on, just look at the name: HATE...hate is an emotion, emotion is a reflection of thought, sometimes a thought in & of itself.

How can a democratic society punish someone for THOUGHT? Whatever their action while thinking it...let us be reasonable.

ACTIONS should be the only thing punishable, not thoughts. There are plenty of thoughts which are utterly reprehensible, without merit or virtue of any kind. But a free society cannot remain free if it punishes even those thoughts which we universally despise.

Punish the actions which wreak physical harm or put others in physical danger, not thoughts.

> No one hates himself it
> seems, so much as he who
> believes he does not
> deserve his success.

But I've always admired people born to wealth who acknowledge the the power of good luck in their lives. Malcolm Forbes comes to mind as someone who was always good about that.

Europeans educated enough to take a longer-than-20-minute view of things probably realize that the relative peace and security that they've enjoyed since the 2nd World War have been a gift from the American taxpayer and soldier... Their "success" is not really a function of their own courage or sacrifice.

And speaking of Europe, there's a pretty good batch of LRB personals up this week. Follow this link quickly... The good ones come in waves and then we get ten weeks of humorless horndogs.

Somebody ask nice and I'll comment a couple dozen of their greatest hits.

"Europeans educated enough to take a longer-than-20-minute view of things probably realize that the relative peace and security that they've enjoyed since the 2nd World War have been a gift from the American taxpayer and soldier..."

Old school S. Koreans realize this. Good times with good people been meaning to go back.

Take me with you. You can ditch me at the train station.

Well, thank God Crid was here to inject his usual common sense into the discussion.

Exactly. People's interior lives are their own beeswax

Do you have some reason to believe that it could possibly be any other way? Does the government have some device that picks up on your brainwaves, prompting you to tinfoil your head daily?

Our interior lives are our business, not because of the national dialogue on ethics, but because that's the only way it could possibly be.

It's when people open their mouths and vent these inner monologues in front of witnesses or video cameras that we now have this information on motivation.

Bikerken writes So your punishing their motivation? I don't care what their motivation is, we have crimes against actions, ACTIONS, not motivations. Motivation is only used as a means to convice a jury of guilt. By the way, (and I am not a lawyer here), the degrees of murder are not based on motivation, they are based on the intention (were you really trying to kill someone or just hurt them badly) and degree of which you carried out your actions.

Yes, we're punishing motivation. That's why first degree murder is punished more severly than second degree murder. And degrees of murder are not based on intention -- all degrees of murder are based on the same intention, to kill someone -- they're based on the amount of planning. First degree is premeditated.

Off to work now. Back later.

> Do you have some reason to believe
> that it could possibly be any other
> way?

Your exact phrase was "prejudicially motivated," which smells pretty thought-police-y.

When I was stage manager for the production of Moliere's "The Misanthrope," I learned something about actors: give them a chance to misinterpret something (such as a rehearsal schedule, not a script), and they will.

I believe when I said, prejudicially motivated, I was referring to the fact that Matt Shepard was beaten into a coma by two thugs who were not acquainted with him prior to that night, and were calling him a faggot. Does it truly take a rocket scientist to reasonably infer their motivation? Is it so "thought police-y" to guess what prompted these two 180 pound thugs to beat a 105 college student given all that they laid out on the table for all to see? What exactly do you need? Signed statements from both of them saying, "Yes, we beat that guy into a coma because we hate faggots"?

Regarding Bikerken's question, if Henderson and McKinney simply called their victim a "faggot," and not otherwise harmed him, I don't believe anything should be done to them. I'm not sure why you might have expected me to answer any differently. The only way I think such things might be actionable is if, for example, they were following him around repeatedly calling him a faggot, haunting his neighborhood, etc., effecting his personal and emotional life. Such things might be chargeable as harassment, but that's taking name calling to an extreme.

But now that I've answered that question, let me ask one of my own. Do you think a crime of murdering someone who committed some horrible offense against you, such as murdering or harming a close personal relative, should be punished the same as murdering someone you don't even know, based on a personal prejudice?

To answer my own question, no, I don't think they should be punished the same. The crime of harming someone who has harmed you in some unspeakable manner is at least somewhat understandable, even defensible. But the act of harming someone who has never thought, said or did you any harm, just because you may not like some perceived difference is the worse of the two offenses.

The whole Susanne Winter case is actually quite ironic. The law against degradation of religious doctrines (not symbols) is enforced only if someone files a complaint. Unless I missed something, the last time it was enforced was nearly exactly 25 years ago, when one Herwig Nachtmann filed a complaint against Herbert Achternbusch's movie Das Gespenst. The court agreed with him and banned the movie; it is still illegal to show it in Austria, or to print the script.

The irony is that Herwig Nachtmann anf Susanne Winter are birds of a feather. He was then the chief editor of Die Aula, something like the official paper of Winter's Freedom Party, more exactly of its corps student right wing. Ten years later he was replaced after he was convicted of Holocaust denial. Susanne Winter writes articles for Phoenix, whose chief editor, Walter Ochensberger, was convicted of Holocaust denial.

Technically, of course, Susanne Winter will now be tried for incitement, not for degradation of religious doctrines. Incitement holds the higher penalty, two years, degradation of religious doctrines only six months. Unlike the latter, incitement is a post-WWII law.

The other irony is the free speech thing. Indeed Austria does not have "true" free speech. Apart from the fact that freedom of speech is an American, not European concept (the Austrian constitution mentions freedom of the press, of opinion, of conscience, and, since 1982, freedom of the arts, but not freedom of speech), we don't have it because we're not allowed to. Austria is still legally bound by the 1955 treaty ("Staatsvertrag") with the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and France, which specifically enumerates some sorts of speech we have to suppress.

> the act of harming someone who
> has never thought, said or did
> you any harm, just because you
> may not like some perceived
> difference

I think this is horribly wrong. You're the Brain Police that Zappa wrote those songs about and Orwell wrote those books about.

Last night after reading your comment I realized that I had no idea what "prejudicially motivated" means... It's not a legal principle that's famous among laymen or anything. If you google it, it's a phrase most popular in discussion about gays. Maybe some famous gay rights speaker used it in a speech once and it took root or something. But I don't think there's anything to admire about it.

And there doesn't seem to be any hidden meaning logically. Dictionary says prejudice is "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." So calling someone prejudiced may only mean that [A] they decided the meaning of something before it occurs (deciding which burger to order before getting to McDonald's) or [B] a simple disagreement about facts.

So there's an implicit presumption in "prejudicial motivation" that other people are wrong, and that they're wrong because they didn't walk into a circumstance with a completely blank mind about how another person will think or behave.... Or maybe that if you could just take control of people's minds, you'd be able to solve all the world's problems. Your use of the word "perceived" is a wonderful example of this. If you could just sit behind their eyeballs and tell them what all these "differences" really mean, then all our problems would be over.

I think this is kinda feminine, and not just because it's gays who are saying it. Prager once said that the hazard of feminine nature is that women tend to believe that their feelings and the feelings of their loved ones are of paramount importance. In any case, the rest of the world is never going to count on your loving heart to tell us what it all means.

So let's talk about Matthew Shepard. He was not a dim little queer hillbilly: He was educated in Switzerland and had traveled Europe extensively in his late teens. He was probably as erotically sophisticated as a young man could be... If there was anyone in the world who'd be alert to the threat of gay-bashing good ol' boys in fucking Wyoming, he'd probably be the one. And then there's the evidence that what actually happened was a drug deal gone wrong.

But that narrative isn't as fun to try to put on poster on a Saturday afternoon rally in West Hollywood. (Among other problems, drugs and well-policed perceptions are mutually antagonistic.)

A man killed after a game of poker is just as dead as one who dies in a gay-bashing.

If Europe is supervising its own destruction, the UK appears to be starting with their transit system.

Here we have a Muslim convert stopping the bus and telling people to get off so he can pray:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article976258.ece

>>>A man killed after a game of poker is just as dead as one who dies in a gay-bashing.

Crid is right. Regardless of why Sheppard was beaten to death, it was a crime of murder. I don't see why the motivation should be that important. If one man shoots another dead because he was sleeping with his wife and anoter man commits murder for the purpose of robbery, you still have two cases of murder. Everybody has a motivation behind a crime. Why is one motivation more sympathetic than the other? Is it political correctness? Do you remember that woman who shot a man dead in the court room who was molesting her son? She was tried and convicted for murder and I totally sympathized with her reason to do it. But once you delve into devining who's motivations are ok and who's are not, you open a whole new can of worms as far as the law goes. By the way, what demographic is charged and convicted the most for hate crimes? Anyone? Anyone? Black people. Yet in LA a couple years ago, nine black girls beat up three white girls in front of a whole crowd yelling "white bitch" and "honky" and the DA wanted nothing to do with any hate crime charges. They all got off with probation for assault. This motivation garbage is politics. Dangerous politics. Look at what is happening in Canada now where a minister in a church can be arrested for preaching that homosexuality is wrong. Well, that's his opinion, but now, just saying that, is a crime.

Not to recant or anything... But I'm certain that noble law, both ancient and contemporary, takes sensible interest in intentions and motives when judging guilt.

I am not a lawyer. Last time we talked about this here, we asked any passing attorneys to give us a quick & broad outline, but none stopped to do so.

(Amy, there was a Michelle commenter lawyer, right? And also a Michelle artist, and it was hard to tell 'em apart.)

But I think what's in people's hearts doesn't mean much. If doesn't matter to me if the carnival barker for your skull-side monologue is hurtful, biased, cowardly, unfair, petty, shallow, ill-considered, racist, sexist or even violent. If you treat people well, we're going to get along just fine.

It would be good to really know why Shepard was killed, if only to keep other people off the path of everyone involved. On the basis of very little evidence, I think gay-rights types have picked a melodramatic narrative that doesn't quite convince.

And when they announce that "prejudicial motivations" are going to be scrutinized, I smell busybodies.

Gog, seriously, what's the deal with your name?

Sigh. Now I remember why I got fed up with posting here. Crid, could you at least try to lose the coy "I'm as dense as depleted uranium" act? I'd really rather not get into having to repeat myself over and over again because you like to pretend to miss obvious points.

"prejudicially motivated"? God, I thought I just made it up. I had no idea that this was some profound phrase requiring a meaning apart from the words themselves. Prejudicially motivated means "motivated by prejudice." Not hard.

Also, regarding your magical stigmatizing wand which you call "brain police" but which Orwell calls "thought police," cut the bullshit, Drama Queen. I don't police thoughts. I can't. And to the best of my knowledge, neither can anyone else. But as the saying goes when you hear your Miranda rights read, "anything you SAY can and will be used against you in a court of law." If you ever hear that Crid, are you going to shriek "THOUGHT POLICE!" I'm guessing probably.

So, when you decide to air your thoughts, yes, they will be used against you. And no, I don't think man who murders someone who raped his sister needs to be punished as severely as someone the sick thugs who dragged James Byrd to death behind their pick up truck.

Regarding Amy's question, what if I just hate you but don't get physically violent with you, I flatly refuse to get into answering the same questions again and again. I believe I addressed it above when Bikerken asked me what if Henderson and McKinney called their victim a faggot and let it go at that. My thought is, so what? No one's forcing you to be around them. And no one's forcing you to place so much store in their opinions.

Bikerken, I never said one motivation was "okay" to commit murder. Some might be more sympathetic than the other. I don't condone murdering someone, even if they do rape your sister. On the other hand, the hatred is directed towards one individual rather than a category.

Drug deal gone wrong...blah, blah, blah. If I had a dime for every variation I heard of this story...Supposedly Matthew made a pass at one of them (so, what? You tell him "not interested" and get over it), supposedly it was a robbery, now it's a drug deal.

If Henderson and McKinney had kept their mouths shut, fine. No evidence that the attack was motivated by hatred of gays. Unfortunately for them, they decided to air their point of view for all to see. Crid, it seems, would rather pretend he didn't hear it.

The problem patrick, is that once you start punishing motivation for a crime in addition to the crime, you ARE criminalizing thought.

Unless Patrick...you can explain a way by which motivation is NOT thought.