Posted on 06/11/2002 3:30:08 PM PDT by Glutton
Expand hate-crimes law: Smith, Kennedy sponsor bill enlarging protections
A Register-Guard Editorial
|
|
|
They'll be wrong.
It was more than two years ago after the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student, that Smith became one of a handful of congressional Republicans to champion an amendment adding violence motivated by gender, sexual orientation and disability to the roster of federal hate crimes. "We just need to be big enough in our hearts, our laws and our minds to be concerned about people who are vulnerable," Smith said at the time.
He was right. So was President Bush when he reminded the nation after Sept. 11 that hate crimes have no place in America today. That's true whether it's Muslims who are being attacked because of their religion, race or national origin, or gays and lesbians who are being attacked because their sexual orientation.
Under the current hate crimes law, the federal government can prosecute hate crimes only in cases where the victim was engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting, or if the crime occurred on federal property. The new bill would remove those limitations and allow federal investigators and prosecutors to pursue hate crimes wherever they occur, and under whatever circumstances.
The current 34-year-old law also allows only race, color, religion or national origin to be the basis of a federal hate-crime case. The Smith-Kennedy bill would expand the ability of federal law enforcement agencies to investigate violent crimes motivated by actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender and disability.
The bill is expected to come up for a vote this week. With Smith's support, the bill appears likely to pass in the Democratic-controlled Senate, as it has two times already, only to be blocked in the Republican controlled House. This time Congress should heed the president's post-Sept. 11 exhortation and approve the hate crimes bill.
Opponents argue that the bill gives gays and lesbians special rights and isn't needed. But that ignores the hard reality that gays remain the third-largest hate crime victim group and that they were the target of 16 percent of all hate crimes in 2000.
Opponents also argue that hate crimes legislation criminalizes socially unacceptable beliefs and ultimately punishes people for what they think. But hate crime laws don't criminalize socially unacceptable beliefs; they increase the penalties for crimes committed out of those beliefs.
The Kennedy-Smith bill would do nothing to infringe on the right of Americans to think the most vile and despicable thoughts about gays and lesbians, blacks, Arabs, Jews - or any other subgroup of society. But when it can clearly be established that extreme views caused an assault or killing, then the new law would make it a matter of established motive - and motive has long been accepted as a determining factor in meting punishment.
Hate crimes legislation recognizes the difference between crimes against individuals and crimes intended to terrorize an entire group of people, whether it's gays or people with disabilities. The Smith-Kennedy bill should be approved by both the Senate and House with no further delay.
As Smith observed this week: "I would say to folks on my side, this should not be a Republican-Democrat issue. This is an issue of the heart."
Copyright © 2002 The Register-Guard
 |
My heart tells me that this is a Trojan Horse.
The only allowance I'd make for any kind of hate crime legislation is under a circumstance where a judge would rule something to the effect of "since the victim was (fill in your favorite victim group) I can understand why the perpetrator attacked him. He gets a light sentence."
And that rarely happens, doesn't it?
It's not a stance I would expect from him otherwise.
What a watery puke this Smith person is.
So that's what they call a Republican, eh?
And these guys are gonna do better than than the other morons. Right!
Smith is a Republican who has to survive politically in Oregon. That is mainly why he is like he is politically.
This is an issue about over-reaching Government. You will not find any Constitutional justification for this. You will not find any moral justification for singling out these sentiments as aggravating crime, when other negative sentiments do not. You will not find any compassionate--of the heart--reason for this venture into implicit thought control.
This sort of gamesmanship is what makes our youth more and more cynical. It is this pretense of protecting rights, when you are really diminishing freedom, that discourages many from public service. Even worse, it confuses perceptions of the nature of our unique form of Government; creating a fog that obfuscates the wonderful symmetry of legacy no longer widely understood.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Hate Crimes Bill Dealt a Setback
WASHINGTON.- Senate Republicans blocked action on a hate crimes measure Tuesday, refusing to cut off debate on a bill that would make a federal crime of violent attacks prompted by victims' sexual orientation or disabilities.
Democrats, pushing the measure in an election year, said they would try again.
You can read the rest at:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-cong/2002/jun/11/061101954.html
EXACTLY! And while we're at it, let's outlaw "hate speech," too. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword and words can terrorize just like the fist. So anyone who says anything hateful about gays or minorities or people with disabilities needs to be punished!
And since we all know that children must be taught to hate, let's make it a crime to teach children that homosexuality is bad. A parent who teaches his or her child to hate is performing the most disgusting form of child abuse there is. Take the child away until the parent has successfully undergone re-education camp.
I also simply do not buy the statistic quoted that 16% of hate crimes are against homosexuals. Look below the surface and you often find risky behavior was the cause. Often the victim was placing him/herself at risk by being in the wrong environment at the wrong time.
vaudine
EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW Not "Gays got more rights than straights!"
I'll take your word for it. Unfortunately, that's substantially the complaint. ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.