Hate crime bill passes House

Discussion in 'Politics' started by windcatcher, Apr 30, 2009.

  1. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    While we're being distracted by fly flu, the plot thickens against our freedoms::tear:


    U.S. House passes "hate crime" bill that Bush opposed -- On a vote of 249-175, the House passed and sent to the Senate a bill backed by the new Democratic White House to broaden such laws by classifying as "hate crimes" those attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.
     
  2. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==This bill has been addressed in a different thread (SEE HERE). The bill refers to physical violence against another person and not words/speech. So it does not take away our freedoms since no person has the right to physically hurt another person. In my opinion it is a stupid bill, but we don't need to make it into something it is not. We will face restrictions on freedom of speech in this country, sadly that is coming, but this bill does not do that. This bill refers only to physical violence.
     
  3. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hate crime legislation is stupid legislation...


    Hate crimes are a judicial train wreck because...

    1. They elevate the life of one person (be it black, gay, handicapped, left-handed, white, whatever) over another. Generally, the "empowered" party is worth less than the "powerless."
    2. They are essentially crimes of thought, which cannot be proven. We can only prove crimes of action...and if we'd enforce the laws already there, we wouldn't have to crawl around inside someone's brain, looking for prejudices.
    3. They are unequally enforced. In Alabama, you will never see a black-on-white crime listed as a hate crime." The reverse is not true. I am for equal justice under the law. A white man who kills a black man should be penalized the same as if the race of the victim/perp were reversed.
    4. They clog up the justice system needlessly. If someone's on trial for life, why try separate the hate-crime separately?
    5. They begin erosion of rights: now instances of offensive speech is considered "hate crime." If you preach against homosexuality, get ready...you're next.
    6. They are, at their core, unneccessary. If you gave people who murdered, for instance, the death penalty, no hate crime legislation would be needed. If you castrated rapists, that would just about do it right there.
    7. It is a logical fallacy. Who ever commits "love crimes?" All crime comes from hate.
     
  4. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Better commit violence against those groups quick before you lose your freedom to do so!
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Crime is already illegal. Passing another bill won't make it more illegal. This is just misguided political correctness. If we treat all people like people, we don't need this nonsense.
     
  6. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0

    Sometimes statutes are interpreted in unexpected ways by the courts. This bill also needs to be read in the context of the section of the U.S.C. that it amends.


    The text of the bill was radically altered since it was first introduced. The bill that passed is here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1913rh.txt.pdf

    This part is interesting:

    REQUIREMENT.—No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be under taken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that—

    ‘‘(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and

    ‘‘(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regard
    ing the prosecution and [COLOR=red]determined that—[/COLOR]
    [COLOR=black]‘‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or [/COLOR][SIZE=4]does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=4][COLOR=black]‘‘(B) the State has requested that the Fed[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=4][COLOR=black]eral Government assume jurisdiction;[/COLOR][/SIZE]
    [SIZE=4][COLOR=black]‘‘(C) the State does not object to the Federal[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=4][COLOR=black]Government assuming jurisdiction; [/COLOR][COLOR=red]or[/COLOR][/SIZE]
    ‘‘(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.


    Does that mean that the feds can try someone again if they don't like how the state trial came out?​
     
  7. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right.

    And as I said earlier...it goes a step worse: it makes it "more illegal" to harm what the government deems a "minority." Suddenly, a gay man's life is worth more than a straight man's.

    How is that "equal justice under the law?"
     
  8. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==That is true and that is why I think we need to be more concerned about the Patriot Act. That was a law written by the US Government to say that it does not have to obey the law of the Constitution. The "hatecrimes" law that was passed dealt soley with physical violence. As such it does not affect our preaching against any sin. However, and you can mark this down, these type of laws in connection with the Patriot Act will be used against us, our preaching, and our constitutional rights in the future.
     
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good post! :thumbsup:

    Ed
     
  10. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I knew it would pass by the responses I received back from my Senators and Congressmen. :(
     
  11. BigBossman

    BigBossman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    0
    While this may refer to physical viloence it still judges a person according the way they feel prior to committing the crime. A person's feelings when they commit a crime is irrelevent to them committing it.

    I don't like homosexuality, which I don't hide that fact. What if I were to get into a physical altercation with a homosexual. It would be very easy for them to slap a hate crime to that. Even though I hate the act of homosexuality, people in this day & age would take it as if I hate the homosexual.

    Let's take it a step further. Suppose I were at fault & brutally murdered that person. Obviously, I would deserve the death penalty alone just for the murder. How would they carry out a hate crime sentence on someone who is receiving the maximum penalty? Would they kill them, bring them back to life, & then kill them again?

    There was a case in the late 1990's (in Texas) where a balck male was dragged behind a person's truck intentionally. It was confirmed to be a racial (or hate based) crime. The three men involved received all received the death penalty for that horrific crime. What really got me is even though the three men were found guilty & were sentenced to death, there were people who were wanting to pursue hate crimes against those three. Why would you want to do something like that when you've already won your case? All it would do is prolong their worthless existence. The truth is they wanted those three to be executed for murdering a black man rather than murdering an innocent human being.
     
    #11 BigBossman, May 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2009
  12. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. A person belonging to any minority can smack us, steal our purse/wallet, mug us, or make a pass at us and if we react the way we should have the right to do, it will be labeled a 'hate crime'. We dare not touch them or even yell at them.

    I am getting sick of hearing the word 'discrimination' used where there is none!

    Our freedoms are slipping away faster than I thought...

    When will the government start collecting guns house to house so a man cannot even protect his family? The guarantees of the constitution will be stripped, or changed, one by one until they are useless to us.

    God will be our only protection. Even so, Lord, Jesus, come...
     
  13. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a guess but they may have been pursuing the hate crime just in case the other convictions were overturned. This is not an uncommon tactic.
     
  14. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The worst part of this is the trashing of "discrimination," which means choosing the best.
     
  15. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's sad is...I sent my rationale for opposing hate crimes to my rep...his staffer agreed with my logic but said he was "undecided."

    How's that for courage? We now have congressmen who will agree with you that you are correct...but they lack the...er...spine to stand up for it and vote their conscience.
     
  16. Jon-Marc

    Jon-Marc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even though this bill might not include free speech against homosexuality, I have no doubt that could be included some time soon. Homosexuals won't be satisfied until they have removed ALL our rights to say anything against this perversion.
     
  17. abcgrad94

    abcgrad94
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Technically, they might not take away our right to say it, just punish us severely for saying it. They'll CLAIM we have free speech, but if a pastor speaks against it and someone commits a crime, they will charge the pastor with "inciting" a hate crime.
     
  18. Jedi Knight

    Jedi Knight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,935
    Likes Received:
    45
    If you put a frog in boiling water he will jump out. If you put a frog in cool water and gradually turn up the heat he will eventually boil to death. "he cannot discern the gradual change". I see that "clean up the closet instead of coming out of the closet" is behind us.
     
  19. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    This oft-used illustration is not true. CLICK HERE
     
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,357
    Likes Received:
    789

    Snopes ? Really?
     

Share This Page

Loading...