Posted on 09/14/2005 4:28:18 PM PDT by COEXERJ145
WASHINGTON, Sept 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday unexpectedly backed a measure to expand federal hate crime protection to gay people, a measure that House conservatives had blocked for years.
The Senate has passed similar legislation, which also expanded protections for the disabled, several times in recent years but House conservatives had argued that these cases should be dealt with on a local or state level without additional federal intervention.
This time the hate crime measure was attached to a bipartisan bill known as the Children's Safety Act aimed at tightening reporting requirements for child sex offenders. Companion legislation has not yet moved through the Senate, so the ultimate fate of the gay protection provision is uncertain.
Still backers were jubilant.
(Excerpt) Read more at alertnet.org ...
Homosexual activists have made it clear that the next step after "hate crimes" crap is "hate speech". It's all lined up, ready to go. In their minds.
And, apparently, our elected Republican representatives have already bent over and grabbed their ankles.
Sickening.
BTTT
I was born in 1945 and believe me we hollered on gun control, abortion, the lord's prayer, you name it. Like now not enough listened, like now they where too busy making a living and thinking nothing would change that would affect them.
We where just a bunch of blue collar greedy union working gun nuts, who forced our wifes to stay at home and take care of our kids while we worked and provide them with food, clothing , a decent home, health insurance, a car, boat, vacation once a year and a retirement nest egg.
Of course we paid all our taxes and there where no food stamps and such. The education we had was high school but we where skilled craftsmen who worked in all those terrible factories that allowed us to have the highest standard of living and the brightest future for the most people the world has ever seen.
We provided the world with all the things they now provide us with. That's why our wives could stay home. But then when business invested their money they had incentives to invest it in this country and they where patriots also not just the people.
Also we did not have the advantage of the INTERNET that you have today.
All we had was three channels on TV, the news reels at the drive in theater if you where lucky enough to have a TV and a newspaper. We got our News from Walter Cronkite and AP.
Remember that race in Ohio where the most conservative seat was almost lost to a Democrat Iraqi war veteran? Well, newly elected Congresswoman Jean Schmidt makes me proud with her dedication to vote for anything placed in front of her. I talked to her this past week and she said "I've been able to 'push the button' several times so far" referring to her new ability to vote.
Republicans judges I know are often appologetic, accomodating to women and if not gayish.
The only reason I somewhat cynicaly believe they are conservative is because it allows them to be thrifty, look good and proper without having to shed blood for children and families which do it all the time.
Oh, and I suspect a lot of congress higher ups are either gay, have had same sex or have kids in that situation. They are heavily blackmailed and want to protect their own, damn it if it promotes pedophiles to shout discrimination if we keep them out of kids coz they're "gay", or to shout hate crime coz we punch them in the face when they "hug" your kids.
The whole burden of proof lays on our shoulders.
Government people are also miserable people who feel inherently entitled to their looting rights of tax payers mutualy blackmail with life waster and children looting rights. Democracy is like trying to get recruits to go to war by promising rape once they conquer.
Is that a justification, or...?
Not at all. The motive behind any crime is as important as the crime itself. It helps us figure out if it was accidental or malicious, lets us find an appropriate way of punishing (and possibly rehabilitating) the offender, among other things.
Classifying hate crimes are done so because the minorities that *typically* (not all the time) are the victims, are *typically* (again, not all the time) targeted more than the "people with blue eyes, people who are short, people who walk with a limp, people with acne, etc. etc. etc." because they are perceived to be different in a way that often scares the offender.
I totally disagree. How are you going to determine a person's mindset at the time a crime is committed? Are homosexuals more valuable than the rest of us? If a person is assaulted, what is the difference what the motive is? Obviously the victim is a victim regardless of the motive of the perpetrator. Why are some people special but others aren't?
In about 10 years.
And as far as someone's mindset... that is something that is of prime importance in any crime; if that wasn't the case, then everyone would be tried (and punished) the same, regardless of mental illness, age (ie "who cares if the 8 year old didn't know what was right or wrong), and circumstances such as accidents, temporary loss of judgement, or cold calculated victimization.
Never is the question "is a homosexual person more valuable than a heterosexual person" asked. It's "is this particular group of people more susceptible to being a victim than this group of people." Given that being homosexual is generally less than popular, it's a pretty safe assumption that they're more likely to be a target of abuse than a heterosexual person who is (other than sexuality) exactly the same.
Yes, the victim is a victim regardless of motive... but without motive, we're judging based on the archaic thought that everyone is evil.
Example: two white men (of similar social backgrounds) cause two deaths in traffic accidents. Man 'A' accidentally runs a red light, and crashes into another call, killing another white man. In another situation, man 'B' purposefully runs a red light, crashing into another car, and kills a black woman because he saw her and willfully crashed into her. Both men caused an accident, through fault of their own... both killed another person. Any just and reasonable person would lament man A's situation; he did not intend for anything to happen, and would more than likely feel horrendous at his actions. And man B, who intended to cause harm to his victim, would feel no remorse for his actions, regardless of their ramifications.
In this example, why should the two men be tried and punished in the same way? They should not; one was an accident, and the other was a hate crime. This is precisely why our legal system recognizes a 'hate crime' as something altogether different than something non-malicious.
Just want to thank you for taking the time to put the whole conyers amendment in perspective.
JMO and FWIW, this was a little gimme vote for some jelly boned RINO's that is basically meaningless.
"Example: two white men (of similar social backgrounds) cause two deaths in traffic accidents. Man 'A' accidentally runs a red light, and crashes into another call, killing another white man. In another situation, man 'B' purposefully runs a red light, crashing into another car, and kills a black woman because he saw her and willfully crashed into her. Both men caused an accident, through fault of their own... both killed another person. Any just and reasonable person would lament man A's situation; he did not intend for anything to happen, and would more than likely feel horrendous at his actions. And man B, who intended to cause harm to his victim, would feel no remorse for his actions, regardless of their ramifications."
Your example is logically invalid. You're presupposing the hyperthetical. What if man (A) and man (B) roles were reversed? The problem with hate-crime legislation is NOT in just and fair punishment, it is in subjective interpretation. How do you prove intent in the case oif man (B), if he was once in the KKK in his college days but now as a 50 year old contributing member of society happens to run-down and kill the black lady? His "past" will spawn motive, even though his intent was not to kill and was completely an accident. Under this legislation he would likely be convicted of a hate-crime, and suffer a more harsher sentence. The problem with subjective interpretation in law is that it shifts the burden of proof on the defendant, to prove innocence. How does one prove that they no longer ascribe to the views of the KKK??
D
Yes, in Canada you can.
"How would you rank this episode on the hate crime scale"
This is a perfect example of a situation where the motive isn't clear, and it's one of the reasons why hate crime laws are problematic. You didn't give enough information to infer any motive other than robbery.
If the schoolteacher had been shot because of his race, for instance, it would qualify. About the only way that could be determined would be if there were witnesses to threats against him that made reference to his race.
It is definitely possible for a black person to commit a hate crime against a white person, or a gay person to commit a hate crime against a straight person. If memory serves correctly, there was a D.C. bar that was recently charged for discriminating against straight patrons (a different, but related issue).
They have shown themselves for what ther are - Politicians. Why should we be surprised? I know that sounds cynical, but what else can explain the phenomenon?
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.