Reply
Fri 4 May, 2007 07:26 am
CNN wrote:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House has threatened to veto a bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday that expands hate-crime laws to include attacks based on sexual orientation or gender.
Under current law, hate crimes are subject to federal prosecution only if the acts of violence are motivated by race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors get involved only if the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting or participating in interstate commerce.
The White House says there is no need for the expanded bill because state and local laws already cover the crimes it addresses, and there is no need for federal enforcement.
In addition to allowing greater leeway for federal law enforcement authorities to investigate hate crimes, the House bill -- which was passed on a 237-180 vote --provides $10 million over the next two years to aid local prosecutions.
A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate, but no date has been set for a vote.
Addressing freedom of speech
Critics of the bill say it would have a chilling effect on clergy who preach against homosexual behavior.
"We believe that this legislation will criminalize our freedom of speech and our ability to preach the gospel," said Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Lanham, Maryland.
Supporters disagree. The bill, they say, applies only to violent crime and, in fact, specifically addresses freedom-of-speech issues.
"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution," the bill says.
Intense debate on the House floor
House representatives got into a heated exchange Thursday as they debated the bill.
"They [hate crimes] are more serious than a normal assault because they target not just an individual, but an entire group," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York.
Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Florida, said it is unfair to single out specific groups for protection under the law.
"What it does is to say that the dignity, the property, the life of one person gets more protection than another American. That's just wrong," he said.
Both sides cited the case of Matthew Shepard of Wyoming, whose brutal 1998 murder was linked to his sexual orientation.
"Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes," said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, the only openly lesbian member of the House of Representatives.
But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, argued that Shepard's killers got harsh sentences without hate-crimes provisions.
"Those perpetrators that did that horrible act -- both got life sentences under regular murder laws," he said.
If President Bush vetoes the bill, it would mark the third veto of his presidency. His second came Tuesday, when he vetoed a $124 billion war spending bill that included a deadline for U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq.
This is ridiculous. I personally like the republican who stated that it wouldn't be fair to give more protection to specific groups. Apparently this marvel of intellect has not read the current hate crime legislation. Women and african-americans are specific groups! Seriously, how did we end up with so many complete idiots running our country ?
corruption for all! and thinking is obsolete?
The issue is not as obvious as it may seem. I'm not sure I agree with the whole "hate crime" idea. If a kid gets bashed because he's gay, is he due more redress than a kid that gets bashed for having buck teeth? I dunno...I'm undecided on this.
The issue at hand for hate crimes legislation is that when one person is violently assaulted due to his/her religion, sexual orientation, race, gender, etc., it doesnt just victimize that one person it assaults the entire group. Harsher federal punishments are given to reflect the number of people that this crime has affected.
What I find interesting is it is the religious right that are vehemently opposed to this legislation. A form of legislation that already protects them and their interests!
I say if it can't be used to protect homosexuals/transgendered then get rid of it in its entirety. Im sure Pat Robertson and James Dobson will be up in arms saying it leaves their organizations open to antireligious attacks.
BDoug wrote:The issue at hand for hate crimes legislation is that when one person is violently assaulted due to his/her religion, sexual orientation, race, gender, etc., it doesnt just victimize that one person it assaults the entire group. Harsher federal punishments are given to reflect the number of people that this crime has affected.
What I find interesting is it is the religious right that are vehemently opposed to this legislation. A form of legislation that already protects them and their interests!
I say if it can't be used to protect homosexuals/transgendered then get rid of it in its entirety. Im sure Pat Robertson and James Dobson will be up in arms saying it leaves their organizations open to antireligious attacks.
If you ask me... I don't think we have enough anti-religious attacks.
"The issue is not as obvious as it may seem. I'm not sure I agree with the whole "hate crime" idea. If a kid gets bashed because he's gay, is he due more redress than a kid that gets bashed for having buck teeth? I dunno...I'm undecided on this."
Way to completely miss the point. Anyone opposing this bill is nothing more than a bigot. Period.
Hate crime laws are meant to increase punishment to deter violence against those that are more susceptible to being attacked.
EXAMPLE: People DON'T walk around looking to attack others because of their buck teeth. Some people DO walk around looking to attack others because of their skin color, gender, sexual orientation. Therefore, to further discourage these rednecks from attacking people in these vulnerable groups the gov't has increased the potential jail sentence for such a crime.
It's a pretty simple concept if you're not blinded by a racist/misogynistic/bigoted view point.
BubbaGumbo wrote: Anyone opposing this bill is nothing more than a bigot. Period.
The irony is so obvious it's hardly worth responding.
How much extra time in prison would you give a black man who bashes a KKK member?
BDoug wrote:The issue at hand for hate crimes legislation is that when one person is violently assaulted due to his/her religion, sexual orientation, race, gender, etc., it doesnt just victimize that one person it assaults the entire group. Harsher federal punishments are given to reflect the number of people that this crime has affected.
Crimes
always affect more than just the direct victim of that crime. In that respect, "hate crimes" are no different from any other crime. If the legislature's purpose is to stem the hatred against minority groups, it would do better to change the social conditions that breed the hate. Imposing harsher penalties for crimes that are spurred by that hatred is addressing a symptom, not the disease.
BubbaGumbo, since you appear to be back on the boards, I'd love to continue this conversation.
I am all for legislation against hate crimes, but I dont' liek the curent approach. Designating certina groups as designated targets trivializes many other smaller minorities. We should not base what a hate crime is on what kind of population it directly affects.
For instance. Being Obese is not a protected clause, but I'm positive that many obese people have recieved cruel and even violent treatment for not reason other than there apperance. I think that equally qualifies as a hate crime, but it's hard to define fat.
also, I'm here in sunny San Diego currently, and in a lovely suburban community in La Mesa by SDSU. the other day someone spraypainted: "Kill all Niggers" on the street in front of a black families home. This was called in, and certainly as current law is a defined hate crime. However, it's not only the black community that is alarmed or threatened by such a crime is it?
The problem is that we are defining hate crimes by popular affect, not by the nature or motive of the crime. By my meter, a hate crime is any malicious action taken, especally violent action, that imposes a threat to a person or persons based on a persons appearance, beliefs, or preferances.
While I don't personally think any hate crime perpetrator should receive a harsher sentence, due to the "hate" crime, I do believe that there should be a component of the sentence that includes "service" to the group that received the hate crime. For example, a hate crime against a minority group member would result in a sentence that included "service" to that specific minority group's community.
This might just be a greater disincentive to perpetrate a hate crime than a jail sentence. Most people, I believe, don't like to show deference to the people they dislike. In effect, the potential for forced humility may prove to be a great deterrent.
I like it Foofie. Welcome to A2K.
I think it should be passed only a) if it's referring to violent crimes and b) if it adds religious groups also.
If it takes away free speech like someone in the article was worrying about, then Bush should veto it. (Does it distinguish between being morally opposed to homosexuality and speaking out against it and actually attacking/hurting homosexuals?) And if there are harsher sentences for gay-bashing, then there should be harsher ones for violence toward religious groups, too. (The middle east could definitely use that law.)
....and how about even harsher penalties for those who attack people who don't belong to any particular group, and therefore lack any community support!
@USAFHokie80,
it shouldn't even be an issue. anyone who gets harmed by another, for whatever reason and regardless of status or orientation, should have the same access to justice as anyone else!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace