An Action note for the Interfaith Alliance
Thanks for all your great work and help on this issue.
Subject: "Fight hate crimes: help us pass H.R. 1913!"
Please call your member of Congress toll-free at 866-346-4611 today, Tuesday or Wednesday, and urge them to support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA, H.R. 1913) . If passed and signed into law, this bill will fight hate crimes and ensure safety and security for all Americans. It's supported by 26 state attorneys general and more than 300 national law enforcement, professional, education, civil rights, religious and civic organizations.
In our increasingly diverse nation, hate crimes are a persistent problem. Although there are laws on the books to deter hate crimes, protect victims, and prosecute criminals, this legislation makes significant improvements and gives local law enforcement the tools they need to enforce existing laws.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913) expands existing hate crime laws to include not only victims of crime based on race, color, religion and national origin, but also bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. H.R. 1913 also provides for federal involvement in prosecuting hate crimes in states where current laws or local resources are inadequate. The legislation makes clear that free speech is protected for everyone. The bill states, "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any activities protected by the Constitution."
Hate crimes cut across all of our communities and the LLEHCPA (H.R. 1913) is needed to ensure that all people have the right to be safe and free from physical harm and intimidation. Take action!
1. Call the Capitol switchboard toll-free at 866-346-4611, Monday-Wednesday, April 27th-29th.
2. Ask the operator to be connected to your representative's office, or give them your zip code and they will tell you who your member is and connect you to the office.
3. Tell the staff member you are a constituent once you're connected, and give them your name and address.
4. State that you want to urge your representative to support H.R. 1913 to fight hate crimes and provide safety and security for all Americans.
5. Ask to be informed of how your representative votes on this critical issue.
Be sure to tell friends, family and fellow activists to call and urge their representative to support the hate crimes prevention bill (H.R. 1913) and provide safety and security for all Americans!
Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy
President
Interfaith Alliance
www.interfaithalliance.org
Hate crime thinking by democrats:
Gender identity: Okay.
Veterans: Not so much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvFsVgiy9EA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eredstate%2Ecom%2Ferick%2F2009%2F04%2F24%2Fpedophiles%2Dbut%2Dnot%2Dveterans%2F&feature=player_embedded
Hate crime legislation is nothing but abject pandering.
Have you ever known anyone personally murdered because of their race, religion, national origin or sexual preference?
Quote from: FOTD on April 27, 2009, 02:57:18 PM
Have you ever known anyone personally murdered because of their race, religion, national origin or sexual preference?
Are you going to have a "Simple Jack" moment if I say "no" to your irrelevant question? People get murdered every day in this country, are their deaths a result of someone being less hateful? Are their deaths not as important?
Hair color. I think "they" should include hair color in the list of things in hate crimes.
I thought we already had "hate crime" laws on the books. It's no more a deterrent to crime than the death penalty. It's a political move, so people with white guilt like FOTD can feel warm and fuzzy. Nothing more nothing less.
Putting on my tinfoil hat now, it's another mind control game by the Obama Administration. ;D
I know! Let's make crimes... illegal - er!
Because just punishing someone for committing a crime is not "er" enough.
Stupid laws.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 28, 2009, 09:18:28 AM
I thought we already had "hate crime" laws on the books. It's no more a deterrent to crime than the death penalty. It's a political move, so people with white guilt like FOTD can feel warm and fuzzy. Nothing more nothing less.
Putting on my tinfoil hat now, it's another mind control game by the Obama Administration. ;D
The hate crime law currently doesn't count for sexual orientation/perceived sexual orientation. From what I gather.
Quote from: Trogdor on April 30, 2009, 09:02:42 AM
The hate crime law currently doesn't count for sexual orientation/perceived sexual orientation. From what I gather.
What Tee Dub said...
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2009, 10:01:25 AM
What Tee Dub said...
Yes I hear you. And in the case they are pushing this with I believe the killers got life in prison. My only issue is that if we are going to make laws to say that a mother can kill an attacker to save the baby. We might as well pass this one while we are trying to make things more illegaler.
I think we should have "Taste Crimes Legislation" too. An extra classification for people who commit really tacky murders, like killing someone while wearing a Tweety bird shirt.
How about "Price Crimes." That's an extra category for trampling people to death in a mad rush to buy a new DVD player at WalMart. It would automatically implicate both the store as an accomplice.
OOH! The best would be "Food Crimes." A special murder category for the owners and shareholders in restaurants that serve food that may cause obesity and death in people too stupid to realize that eating 17 quarter pound cheeseburgers a week is unwise.
Any other great ideas?
I want blanket legislation that I cannot be offended for any reason whatsoever. It's so unfair for anyone to offend another human being. I have vewwwy tender feewings. *sniffle*
Well can't the state refuse to file charges on a murder suspect?
And that decision be based on the persons lifestyle or appearance.
But then the Federal Government would then be allowed to try the individuals for murder?
This could happen in cases of Taste Crimes as well as other hate crimes.
Overall I think the limited scope of who can be tried based on the hate crime bill they are trying to pass is low. But I don't think it is a matter of illegaler as much as it is about who has the right to charge the individual.
Lawyer say something
I think that if you are white and make over 250k per year, you should be given a "get out of jail free" card with your government kickback check.
(Since all "rich" white males are obviously getting money back from the government.)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2009, 10:24:48 AM
I want blanket legislation that I cannot be offended for any reason whatsoever. It's so unfair for anyone to offend another human being. I have vewwwy tender feewings. *sniffle*
I find that offensive!
This never happened. So, why should we worry about it ever occurring?
FOTD, if you feel it's needed so you can feel better about yourself, so be it. What teeth does this law have, and how is it any more of a deterrent than the death penalty? That's been an obvious failure as a deterrent to sociopaths and psychopaths.
We've got far more pressing issues than pure politics right now.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2009, 02:37:56 PM
FOTD, if you feel it's needed so you can feel better about yourself, so be it. What teeth does this law have, and how is it any more of a deterrent than the death penalty? That's been an obvious failure as a deterrent to sociopaths and psychopaths.
We've got far more pressing issues than pure politics right now.
Yeah, like the potential for furloughs of Tulsa employees, for which aox scolded all of us for not making more of a big deal of sooner.
Quote from: FOTD on April 30, 2009, 01:25:16 PM
This never happened. So, why should we worry about it ever occurring?
This is something that happened in 1921, 88 years ago. Yes, it was a horrible moment in our history. No, we should not forget about it. However, in the time since, the world has changed. It's time we start being accountable for our own actions, not the actions of those that are either dead, or will be before too long.
Quote from: custosnox on April 30, 2009, 02:47:52 PM
This is something that happened in 1921, 88 years ago. Yes, it was a horrible moment in our history. No, we should not forget about it. However, in the time since, the world has changed. It's time we start being accountable for our own actions, not the actions of those that are either dead, or will be before too long.
Interesting though, FOTD doesn't mind a foreign policy that coddles asshat dictators who deny the holocaust ever happened:
(http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/chavez_and_ahmadinejad.jpg)
GOP Hysterical Over Hate Crimes Bill Because It Would Protect Gay People
"Apparently unbeknownst to House Republicans, a federal hate crimes law already exists: Passed in 1968, it allowed federal investigation and prosecution of hate crimes based on race, religion, and national origin. The new law would simply add sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected groups, and allow local governments to get needed resources from the federal government for investigations and prosecutions."
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/29/hate-crimes-hysteria/
Any of you know anybody murdered because they were gay?
I do not think that the punishment should be harsher for a "hate crime" and you could have the exact same issue in Federal Court. But it would seem some States would be more prone to things like the following than others.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/04/news/gay-rights-groups-hail-defeat-of-judge-in-texas.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/04/news/gay-rights-groups-hail-defeat-of-judge-in-texas.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss%20 )
"Gay rights advocates in Texas are celebrating the defeat of a judge who was censured in 1989 after he gave a convicted murderer a light sentence and later said in several interviews that he had done so because the victims were homosexuals."
Now the people could have been killed in a Non-Hate Crime and the same outcome would have happened. This law might have changed the killers sentences. But it could have happened the exact opposite way. They could have been lighter. Hopefully we are past the days when people would not be charged for Murder based on their sexual orientation. But I can still see it happening.
Quote from: FOTD on April 30, 2009, 02:58:10 PM
GOP Hysterical Over Hate Crimes Bill Because It Would Protect Gay People
"Apparently unbeknownst to House Republicans, a federal hate crimes law already exists: Passed in 1968, it allowed federal investigation and prosecution of hate crimes based on race, religion, and national origin. The new law would simply add sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected groups, and allow local governments to get needed resources from the federal government for investigations and prosecutions."
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/29/hate-crimes-hysteria/
Any of you know anybody murdered because they were gay?
Do you know anyone killed by an idiot drunk driver? Why is one life more valuable in your books than another?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2009, 03:26:55 PM
Do you know anyone killed by an idiot drunk driver? Why is one life more valuable in your books than another?
Premeditated as opposed to reckless.
Alcohol should be illegal too.....or, legalize all drugs.
Quote from: FOTD on April 30, 2009, 03:34:26 PM
Premeditated as opposed to reckless.
Again, why is one life worth more than another?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2009, 03:50:06 PM
Again, why is one life worth more than another?
Have you looked around at the Tulsa state fair?
I kid, I kid
Quote from: Townsend on April 30, 2009, 03:58:12 PM
Have you looked around at the Tulsa state fair?
I kid, I kid
SMACK!
+1
You don't even need to ride the rides. Just find a nice cozy bench without fried candy bar drippings on it.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2009, 03:50:06 PM
Again, why is one life worth more than another?
Why is one life worth less than another?
"defeat of a judge who was censured in 1989 after he gave a convicted murderer a light sentence and later said in several interviews that he had done so because the victims were homosexuals."
But I see your point, anybody who causes the death of another whether it be accidental or premeditated should be charged with the exact same charge with the same penalty.
Last time I checked... Murder is illegal no matter what the person's race, sex, color, sexual orientation, cup size, hair color (or lack thereof, or whether they gave good head.
Why make murder illegal-er?
I still have yet to see even an attempt to explain to me why a crime needs to be illegal-er when it happens to someone special.
Quote from: TeeDub on April 30, 2009, 04:20:22 PM
Last time I checked... Murder is illegal no matter what the person's race, sex, color, sexual orientation, cup size, hair color (or lack thereof, or whether they gave good head.
Why make murder illegal-er?
I still have yet to see even an attempt to explain to me why a crime needs to be illegal-er when it happens to someone special.
Already is....see above. House bill already enacted. This is a modification.
TeeDub is consistent on his illegaler stance and should be commended!
There are few things I want in the world...
1. Laws that are fair.
2. Ron Paul to quit emailing me asking for money.
We've had this discussion before, but the rationale behind hate crime legislation is that certain crimes (even murder) are committed not only against an individual (Matthew Shephard, for instance) but also constitute a crime against a portion of society (gays). I don't think it's a stretch to recognize that violence that goes unchecked or unaddressed for what it is -- which is to say violence against a class of person rather than just an individual -- is more bad, and worth addressing more than -- or separate from -- random violence.
And for what it's worth, white men can be targets of a hate crime, too.
Also, I don't buy this whole "crime against thought" BS. We judge motive all the time in criminal proceedings and it's not a problem. In fact -- so long as the burden of proof is met -- it's a pillar of the conviction. Hate crime legislation doesn't erase the burden of proof, either. You still have to prove that the guys in the bar who killed Shephard did it because they hated gays. If you can't, then it was a crime of passion, pure and simple.
Goodness FOTD, You got a turnout of the hateful Right but thankfully We vs. Us showed up to set things straight. Luckily, as the lady in Dallas told me, Oklahoma doesn't count, and some good stuff will probably come down to us from the Feds as Oklahoma fights to hang onto our wicked past.
Quote from: Townsend on April 30, 2009, 03:58:12 PM
Have you looked around at the Tulsa state fair?
I kid, I kid
Bwaaahaaa!
Quote from: we vs us on April 30, 2009, 04:45:36 PM
We've had this discussion before, but the rationale behind hate crime legislation is that certain crimes (even murder) are committed not only against an individual (Matthew Shephard, for instance) but also constitute a crime against a portion of society (gays). I don't think it's a stretch to recognize that violence that goes unchecked or unaddressed for what it is -- which is to say violence against a class of person rather than just an individual -- is more bad, and worth addressing more than -- or separate from -- random violence.
And for what it's worth, white men can be targets of a hate crime, too.
Also, I don't buy this whole "crime against thought" BS. We judge motive all the time in criminal proceedings and it's not a problem. In fact -- so long as the burden of proof is met -- it's a pillar of the conviction. Hate crime legislation doesn't erase the burden of proof, either. You still have to prove that the guys in the bar who killed Shephard did it because they hated gays. If you can't, then it was a crime of passion, pure and simple.
With all due respect, Wevus: Is there really a need to legally create a secondary class of victims (i.e. a racial or sexual orientation group) with certain violent crimes? Why not make rape officially a hate crime against women? In many of the cases it happens because the rapist has a hatred of women.
I'm sensitve to the issue of someone being killed simply because they are gay, black, transgendered, Lithuanian, etc. But adding a 15 yard penalty because the victim wasn't straight or English, or whatever simply is no deterrent. Not only is punishment supposed to teach the offender a lesson and remove he/she from being an ongoing threat to society, but it's also supposed to be a deterrent to keep others from repeating the crime. Apply murder laws equally across the board. One intentional murder is just as heinous as the next if you ask victim's families regardless of ethnic, racial, or sexual orientation.
I agree that the "hate crimes" shouldn't be "worse" than any other murder. Actually if somebody was charged with a hate crime it wouldn't necessarily have a worse sentence than Murder due to the fact that the sentencing guidelines are now voluntary instead of mandatory. This bill should be re-written to not suggest the mandatory minimum be any more than any other murder. I still believe that there are people in positions of power that would give individuals who attacked or killed people of a certain race or sexual orientation a different charge. When is murder not a murder? When it is tried as manslaughter. Passing this law would allow the Fed Gov. to try the cases as murders if somebody decided they didn't feel like prosecuting. I think this is a State's rights issue too... They should rewrite the law to remove any "increased" suggested sentencing from the books.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2009, 05:14:42 PM
With all due respect, Wevus: Is there really a need to legally create a secondary class of victims (i.e. a racial or sexual orientation group) with certain violent crimes? Why not make rape officially a hate crime against women? In many of the cases it happens because the rapist has a hatred of women.
But adding a 15 yard penalty because the victim wasn't straight or English, or whatever simply is no deterrent. Not only is punishment supposed to teach the offender a lesson and remove he/she from being an ongoing threat to society, but it's also supposed to be a deterrent to keep others from repeating the crime.
Its interesting you used a football analogy. When a linebacker comes unabated to the quarterback and smashes him in the helmet viciously, it is a flagrant or intentional foul and carries the maximum. He may even be removed from the game. However, if he fights his way through and trips on a lineman, then smashes his helmet viciously, it is only incidental contact and a lesser penalty. Both hits were vicious and damaging, but somehow intent and the vulnerability of the quarterback position made the difference. Also, if the NFL sees a lot of that kind of vicious hitting on quarterbacks they will address it with specific rules to protect the position. Meanwhile, a lowly cornerback may be getting hit the same way in an occassional manner and nobody seems too bothered.
Might have been a bad analogy for you. I'm siding with Wevus since we've all had this conversation before and all used the same arguments. At least we're consistent.
I would think that everyone in this thread would be concerned more about the inherent unfairness evidence pertaining to a hate crime would have in a criminal trial. Having a prosecutor standing in front of the jury during opening statement, pointing his finger at a person that allegedly killed a homosexual, and saying "I have evidence that this man is opposed to gay marriage or evidence someone once overheard him say that he hates f$gs" or in a case where an African American was killed, "that man once said the N word and he has a confederate sticker on his pick up" would be permissible in a hate crime trial. That evidence, without hate crime laws, would be prejudicial and inflammatory and never thought of being admitted. Now, it's relevant, probative, and almost required to be presented!
Quote from: FOTD on April 27, 2009, 02:25:43 PM
An Action note for the Interfaith Alliance
Thanks for all your great work and help on this issue.
Subject: "Fight hate crimes: help us pass H.R. 1913!"
I am against hate crime laws. If someone commits premeditated murder then that individual treated no different than any one else who commits premeditated murder regardless of his victim is a different race,religion, or some other group. Thought control charges should not be used.