Schwarzenegger signs hate crimes law [protecting gays, transgendered]

PlanetOut Network via Yahoo! News ^ | 9/24/04

[Cracker72]

PlanetOut Network

SUMMARY: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) signed a hate crimes bill on Wednesday that includes crimes motivated by a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a hate crimes bill on Wednesday that includes crimes motivated by a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

It was the second time this month that Schwarzenegger, a Republican, signed legislation that protects the rights of LGBT residents in the state. He signed a law on Sept. 13 that required insurance companies to provide coverage to registered domestic partners.

Known as the Omnibus Hate Crimes Act of 2004 (or SB 1234), the new law creates a uniform definition of a hate crime that includes offenses based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also covers crimes against victims based on their associations with people who are gay or transgender.

"California is working to unify its citizens as others attempt to divide us," Cheryl Jacques, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. "We hope this welcome development acts as a beacon to Congress to take similar steps in protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans from the scourge of hate crimes."

The U.S. House of Representatives was expected to begin considering a similar national hate crimes law, known as the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (LLEEA, S. 966/H.R. 4204), later this week.

The Log Cabin Republicans (news - web sites), the nation's largest gay and lesbian GOP group, reacted to the new law as a victory for the moderate side of the Republican Party.

"We can be the party of the Gov. Schwarzenegger that includes equality for the LGBT community, as part of a mainstream Republican message of hope, not fear, or we can be the party of Lou Sheldon and Alan Keyes (news - web sites), that divides our families by preaching intolerance and hate," said Jeff Bissiri, chairman of Log Cabin California.

California's new hate crimes law was written by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and sponsored by Equality California, the statewide LGBT rights group.

[Fatalis]

The point of a penalty is to deter crime.

No, penalties also provide a means for society to separate criminals from law-abiding citizens.

Which deters crime. LOL! That's the point. You are in circles.

[Bush2000]

LOL then they aren't treated equally are they? You can't have it both ways but that's all you're trying to do.

Society doesn't owe you anything as a victim. That's not why crimes are prosecuted. Society prosecutes crimes in order to defend itself and its citizens against harm and punish criminals. You don't get to choose your justice. Society recognizes that some crimes are more heinous than others. It has that right. You don't.

[Fatalis]

Society doesn't owe you anything as a victim. That's not why crimes are prosecuted. Society prosecutes crimes in order to defend itself and its citizens against harm and punish criminals.

LOL Don't you see your own contradictions? Society is protecting itself by protecting its citizens from being victims when it prosecutes criminals. Criminals are prosecuted on behalf of the victims. Before the institution of laws victims and their families exacted their own retributions.

Society recognizes that some crimes are more heinous than others.

Yah well I see that's your point. You want to protect some victims more than others.

And then you want to pretend that you don't.

[Bush2000]

Criminals are prosecuted on behalf of the victims.

Criminals are not prosecuted on behalf of victims. They're prosecuted on behalf of society.

[Fatalis]

Criminals are not prosecuted on behalf of victims. They're prosecuted on behalf of society.

You don't read your sentences from one to the next.

Society prosecutes crimes in order to defend itself and its citizens against harm and punish criminals.

Citizens who have been victimized by criminals are protected by the prosecution of those criminals. Citizens who weren't victimized are also protected. If there are no penalties there are no protections. Penalties bring protections.

If you determine that one class of victims warrants more protections by way of higher penalties than you would grant to another class, than you are giving the first class more protections than the second class.

That is what you are doing with hate crimes but you don't want to admit it.

[Bush2000]

How, exactly, are you being protected less? Be specific.

[Squealer]

How, exactly, are you being protected less? Be specific.

If a homosexual or minority attacks me, they only get charged with assault. If I attack a homosexual or minority, however, I get charged w/ assault and a "hate"/thought crime because of my ethnicity and sexual preference. This is unequal protection and you know it. No true conservative would support these totalitarian thought-crime laws.

Thank God the straight White-males that founded this country gave us the 2nd amendment, because it looks like it'll be needed very soon.

[Squealer]

If you determine that one class of victims warrants more protections by way of higher penalties than you would grant to another class, than you are giving the first class more protections than the second class.

Bush2000 said in an earlier post that straight White-males object to these though-crime laws because we think the "universe revolves" around us. LOL! Talk about adding insult to injury.

[Squealer]

Judges. Juries. Evidence.

Are judges, juries and evidence going to be used to convict "minorities" and homosexuals of "hate" crimes or will straight White-males be the only ones subjected to these witch hunts?

[Bush2000]

If a homosexual or minority attacks me, they only get charged with assault. If I attack a homosexual or minority, however, I get charged w/ assault and a "hate"/thought crime because of my ethnicity and sexual preference.

Wrong. It has to be proven that you acted primarily as a result of hate. Just committing a crime against a homosexual isn't sufficient. Nice try.

[Squealer]

Wrong. It has to be proven that you acted primarily as a result of hate. Just committing a crime against a homosexual isn't sufficient. Nice try.

Nice try, Bush2000. Once again, you suggest that only crimes against homosexuals, and not crimes against straight White-males, would be subject to "hate crimes" laws. You must be one of those biases hate-filled DU shills posting on FR.

[Bush2000]

Look, you've consistently tried to sell the fear that merely committing a crime against a homosexual is evidence of a hate crime. You're simply wrong. The bar is much higher than that. So, feel free to call me a "DU shill", if you like, but it won't change the fact that you simply don't know what the Hell you're talking about...

[spodefly]

Look, you've consistently tried to sell the fear that merely committing a crime against a homosexual is evidence of a hate crime. You're simply wrong. The bar is much higher than that.

How high does the bar have to get before someone other than a straight white male would be charged with a hate crime/thought crime?

[Squealer]

Look, you've consistently tried to sell the fear that merely committing a crime against a homosexual is evidence of a hate crime. You're simply wrong.

Then you admit that hate/thought crime laws are subjective; so how can you support them? You can't have it both ways.

[Squealer]

Oh, almost forgot...

You never answered my question from post #129:

Are "judges, juries and evidence" (your words) going to be used to convict "minorities" and homosexuals of "hate" crimes or will straight White-males be the only ones subjected to these witch hunts?

[Squealer]

How high does the bar have to get before someone other than a straight white male would be charged with a hate crime/thought crime?

Good question! I wonder if "Bush2000" would support these hate/thought-crime laws if straight white-males were protected and only "minorities" and homosexuals were subjected to futher punishment beyond the original crime?

"Bush2000" stated in his previous post that I'm trying to sell "the fear" that merely committing a crime against a "minority" or homosexual would certainly lead to a hate/thought crime conviction. It's not the punishment for the original crime that I'm arguing, it's the possible, additional sentence that only straight white-males would face.

"Bush2000" is simply wrong, and he knows it.

[KCrider]

It makes no sense, create a law of tolerance to promote intolerance. This is no more than reverse discrimination. I agree that we should not hate homosexuals, but I disagree with the idea that we must have a law to say this. The law in California protects certain people against hate crimes, while removing the freedom of speech of others. The US Constitution says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I guess this is not the case anymore. It's absurd to jail a person for being intolerant of values in which he/she doesn't agree with. What has happened to America? I suppose the government has decided that the only way to achieve tolerance of certain views is by enacting intolerance of opposing views. It's like shut up or we'll shut you up.