[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Why should you be punished more for murdering someone out of hate than murdering someone to take their money?

[/ QUOTE ]
Beats me.

(Excuse the pun.)

[ QUOTE ]
2. How is it feasible to determine what is a hate crime and not?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't think of a way. The legislation leaves the door open for serious abuse by the judiciary, or the law enforcement agencies.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Doesn't it just make sense to punish people for their actions which abridge other peoples' rights, instead of punishing them for their emotions?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. Anything else is the think end of the wedge that brings in totalitarianism.

Passing judgement on thought should be absolutely forbidden. In fact, we should be taking extreme pains to avoid it, even if that means losing on something else in civil rights.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Has anyone heard of any cases of a minority attacking a white person and getting charged with a hate crime?

[/ QUOTE ]
Whites/Caucasians are the master race, in many ways -- and I'm referring strictly to economic and political powers (or is this a redundancy?) and I trust we do not need to debate this too much!

The minorities will always need special protection to protect themselves against the potential for abuse by the majority, just as the weak against the strong, and this redressing of balance necesserily limits certain privileges or intrudes in certain rights of those that hold the high ground. (To tax more money out of a "richer person" is to operate under that very principle.)

But legislating against thought should NEVER be one such measure !