Hate Crime Bill Sparks Controversy
by Lema Baha Broadside October 15, 2007


COLLEGE REPUBLICAN ALLEGEDLY BEATEN BY LIBERAL THUGS

Bill Attempts to Fight Terrorism at Home

The Hate Crimes Bill, which is also known as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is named in honor of Matthew Shepard, a gay college freshman, who was beaten into a coma in 1998 in Laramie, Wyoming because of his sexual orientation. He died five days later, and since then, his tragic death has been used as an example of the crimes hate can cause. The Hate Crimes Bill was passed by the House of Representatives in a vote of 237 to 180 in May 2007. The bill then moved on to the Senate, where it was passed with a vote of 60 to 39 on Aug. 27, 2007. Co-sponsors of the bill, Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) attached the bill to a massive defense spending bill. They felt it was appropriate to attach the Hate Crimes Bill to a defense funding bill because both combat terrorism, abroad and at home. Kennedy says that the Hate Crimes Bill was added to legislation concerning defense funding because, “The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas…This [bill] is about terrorism in our neighborhood. We want to fight terrorism here at home with all of our weapons.” Some feel that this is a far stretched comparison and that it is an inappropriate time to raise such a special interest bill. Sen. John Corny (R-Texas) said, “I think it’s shameful we’re changing the subject to take care of special interest legislation at a time like this,” meaning at a time where there is urgency for troop funding. President Bush’s administration has publicly stated that the president will veto a Hate Crimes Bill, which is why some politicians oppose its attachment to the defense funding bill. President Bush has stated that he believes that, “all people should be protected from violent crimes,” but that the Hate Crimes Bill is unnecessary. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that, “We believe that state and local law enforcement agencies are effectively using their laws to the full extent they can,” and also that states have their own hate crimes laws that are stricter and more efficient than the ones being proposed. The Hate Crimes Bill allows the federal government to be more involved and have greater power in investigating alleged hate crimes. It allows the Justice Department to help states in prosecuting those who have committed violent crimes against people based on their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.

The majority of opponents to the bill are Christian organizations, who fear that the Hate Crimes Bill will inhibit leaders from speaking out against the sins of homosexuality, even if it is done in a peaceful fashion. Christian leaders have used examples of hate crime laws in England, Sweden and Canada, where Christians have been prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality. They claim that this bill violates the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion and that there have been instances of this with existing state laws. For example in 2005, police in Philadelphia arrested 11 members of a Christian group, known as Repent America, while they peacefully protested at an Outfest gay pride festival. Charges were dropped, but the damage had been done in raising concerns among pastors concerning the extent of protection homosexuals receive by the government. One of the leading groups opposing the bill is a Christian activist organization, known as the Traditional Values Coalition. Chairman of this organization, Reverend Lou Sheldon, says that a core part of the opposition comes from the idea that, “Homosexuality is not genetically based, but is considered politically correct and is wrongfully considered the last frontier of discrimination. There is a problem with using the law to protect a lifestyle which is one’s own individual choice, as opposed to laws that protect people based on things out of their choice such as race and ethnicity.” There are also other opponents of the Hate Crimes Bill who question it on not a religious aspect, but feel that it is unconstitutional and unnecessary. They feel that it gives the federal government too much power to interfere with authorities that should be given to the state and local governments. Some feel that state laws are already dealing with hate crimes. For example, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) points out that, “Those who perpetrated the Shepard murder in Wyoming are already sentenced to death or in prison for their lives under state law…There is no evidence that state governments are incapable of prosecuting these crimes or that they are failing to do so.”

At the same time, there are many supporters of the Hate Crimes Bill who feel it is necessary to ensure that homosexuals are protected under the law and that the bill will help prevent hate crimes. Proponents of the bill claim that hate crimes deserve a higher punishment because they not only victimize one individual, but an entire group of people based on their beliefs. After the Senate passed the Hate Crimes Bill, the Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solomonese said, “For over a decade our community had worked tirelessly to ensure protection to combat violence motivated by hate and today we are the closest we have ever been to seeing that become a reality. Today, the U.S. Senate had sent a clear message to every corner of our country that we will no longer turn a blind eye to the anti-gay violence in America.” said Kennedy during a speech on the Senate floor. “Hate Crimes are increasing. They are not diminishing in the United States of America. Local officials do not have the tools to deal with the most vicious kinds of attacks.”

According to recent FBI statistics, the number of hate crimes against a person because of their sexual orientation have been increasing, and it is estimated that over 40 percent of homosexuals and bisexuals have been attacked because of their sexual orientation sometime during their life. Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) is the House of Representatives’ only open lesbian and she supports the Hate Crimes Bill saying, “This legislation offers federal protection for victims of hate crimes targeted because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identit, or disability. These characteristics are included in the hate crimes legislation not because they deserve special protection, but because of a history of particularly heinous and violent crimes committed against individuals based on these characteristics.”

Supporters of the bill also argue that the bill does not violate constitutional rights, and that the sponsors have amended the bill to make it clear that it doesn’t affect First Amendment rights. They feel that it is important for people to realize that no one can be convicted under the Hate Crimes Bill, unless they actually physically commit a crime, so even if a pastor gives a strong sermon condemning homosexuality and a member of his congregation commits a hate crime against a homosexual, the pastor cannot be prosecuted because of his protection by the First Amendment. Charles Haynes, who is a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center says, “The First Amendment protects all kinds of controversial speech for and against homosexuality, religions and otherwise. Moreover, the danger of hate crimes laws to free expression isn’t supported by our experience of lining under such laws. Under the present federal hate-crimes law nobody has been convicted of a hate crime solely on the basis of though, belief or speech.” Proponents of the bill feel that the real argument may be stemming from the fact that some members of society are not ready for the federal government to so readily protect homosexuals and accept them into mainstream society. Though President Bush has reassured his supporters that he will veto the bill, members of Congress remain hopeful that the president will respond to pressure from civil rights organizations and sign the bill. If the bill is signed, it will be the first formal piece of federal legislation that specifically protects homosexuals.


Source: Broadside

I hate 'hate crime'. I wonder if it's a punishable offense under the law to hate both hate crime and the law that punishes hate crime? Or maybe they have two separate laws for that..

Can you say...
1984...?

Frankly, hate crime legislation is mind control, because the basis of hate crime legislation is your motive. If your motive is based in hate, you aren't guilty of hate crime.

You know how you handle hate crime? You hit people with the full weight of the book with the laws that are already there. You don't need a special law that says you can't beat on gay people for being gay, because it's already illegal to beat on people period. Just hit them with the full weight of the book if the motive for the crime is something disgusting like hatred of gay people.

Macai,
I hear what you're saying and agree that 'hate crime legislation' is mind control. Hate crime = thought crime, or is one form of it.

I don't even think it's necessary to make the punishment any different for a so-called hate crime than any other crime. Even that leads to thought control because, again, the motive is being punished, rather than the crime itself.

Fuck hate crime legislation!

And fuck this government.

If I get arrested as a terrorist for saying this..get it into the papers, k, guys?

Very well put.

You dont have to be worried about getting arrested as a terrorist for saying this. You will have to worry when they declare marshal law and round all of us up who have said this and place us in thos nifty concentration camps they have built all over the country

Heh, yeah.. that, too.

I really am having an almost constant panic attack about getting the hell off of this planet. I think they're holding bets now on what will destroy us first. This administration, world war III, or global warming. Oh yeah, the first two are related.

Crimson, check this out The New World Order, Forged in the Gulf - Iran and America's Imperial Playground

It's long, I only read a little bit of it. But it's very informative and eye opening. I said something to you as a reply to the article.

Margie

Okay, guys, this is an example of why I think hitting so-called hate crime with the full weight of the book is also a bad idea. Because in the end it is the same thing as having hate crime legislation.

Please see this:
Two charged in violent hate crime against deli clerks


What these two did to the shopkeepers and the way they acted and talked was fully obnoxious. At least by my standards. However, they got 9 months in prison for throwing some punches and making racial remarks. Think about it. What message is the system throwing out to us if it jails us harshly for what we say, and worse than that, what we think?

These are all good thoughts on the subject...now I'll throw my mental noise into the mix 8^)

I agree with just about everything posted here - especially what Macai says; there are laws on the books already; prosecute those who break them to the fullest extent.
The only thing these hate crimes laws are going to do (IMO) is to weaken our inalienable rights (freedom of speech is what I'm thinking of).

Do I think that it's heinous and repulsive to make bigoted comments about someone because of their ethnicity/gender/religion/etc? Of course, and whenever I hear that sort of thing I try to do what I can to help people smarten up (though I'm not implying that I'm some sort of a saint either). Granted, the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from being arrested for disturbing the peace (which I realize can be a slippery slope, though I think the laws are necessary) so if the bigot decides to start yelling publicly at his victims about his hatred, haul him off to jail for a misdemeanor - maybe he'll have some time to think about his issues...not sure why I'm assuming the bigot is a he

Sure, the 'disturbing the peace' charge is ripe for abuse, but I think if there is a general attitude of respecting people's right to free speech (which there really isn't nowadays) then it's not as likely for the public servants to overstep their boundaries...as I've said before, I'm an eternal optimist.

Wolf Star - I can totally relate; I've actually been having those near-panic feelings for over a decade...I've been fortunate enough to kind of massage the near-panic into more of a steadfast determination...now I just have to put my plans into action.

I've been planning/dreaming/scheming for most of the last 10 years to build a self-sustainable home, probably somewhere in the rolling hills of the VA/NC area. More recently, I've started to become familiar with the concept of ecovillages, and have visited and/or worked at 2 of them in the last year.

Someday (hopefully soon) I hope to get some more hands-on building experience (straw bale, basic carpentry/post-n-beam, greywater recycling, solar power, etc) get my piece of land and start building the dream home...

Not that running to the hills will keep the world's problems at bay...but I think it's a good idea to become as self-reliant as possible (plus, that sort of lifestyle probably has it's own benefits as well).

OK, enough rambling from me...

well we should fight crimes, i think as a person we have the right to protect our human rights


________________________
Orange County's best criminal attorneys