Dateline Washington… news via Log Cabin Republicans.
Senate Approves Anti-Gay Hate Crimes Bill 60-39 – All Headline News
Senate Democrats on Thursday morning passed by a 60-39 vote a hate crimes bill attached to the critical defense appropriations bill funding the Iraq War and Pentagon.
The bill incorporates violent crimes against gays into the federal hate crimes laws.
The hate crimes bill had key bipartisan support from co-sponsors Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.).
“We cannot fight terror abroad and accept terror at home,” Smith was quoted by the Associated Press as saying.
“The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas…This (bill) is about terrorism in our neighborhood,” Kennedy said according to the AP.
However, many Republicans viewed it as inappropriate.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said that violent crimes against homosexuals did not constitute terrorism and adding such a bill to the defense authorization amounted to a “hijack” of the bill, which includes a pay raise for troops during war time, the AP reports.
Analysts had said that adding the hate crimes bills lessened the chances the defense appropriations bill will be passed.
But delaying passage of the defense authorizations bill buys time for Democrats to muster more Republican support to develop a plan to withdraw from Iraq, according to The Hill reports.
We have mixed feelings here at GayPatriot on the hate crimes legislation. I would have much preferred a full-court press on Employment Non-Discrimination legislation than his close-to-borderline infringement on the First Amendment. And I certainly think it is a mistake to put this legislation onto the Defense Appropriations Bill!!
Reax from Hypocrite Rights Campaign’s Panderer In Chief….
For over a decade our community has worked tirelessly to ensure protections to combat violence motivated by hate and today we are the closest we have ever been to seeing that become a reality. Congress has taken an historic step forward and moved our country closer to the realization that all Americans, including the GLBT community, are part of the fabric of our nation. The new leadership in Congress fully understands that for too long our community has been terrorized by hate violence. And today, the US Senate has sent a clear message to every corner of our country that we will no longer turn a blind eye to anti-gay violence in America.
By the way, does the hate crimes legislation do something useful like make illegal the efforts to publicly “out” gay Americans against their wishes? That would be a nice amendment….
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
“By the way, does the hate crimes legislation do something useful like make illegal the efforts to publicly “out” gay Americans against their wishes? That would be a nice amendment….”
That’d be fine, as long as it includes an option to allow the outing of gay congressional staffers who actively work on anti-gay legislation.
[GP Ed. Note: Uh, no. Such McCarthyite tactics should be outlawed by “hate crimes” legislation regardless of who the gay American is or what their job is. That was my whole point. Duh.]
So if a straight guy beats up another straight guy he hates, that’s covered right?
For over a decade our community has worked tirelessly to ensure protections to combat violence motivated by hate and today we are the closest we have ever been to seeing that become a reality.
You don’t represent me, HRC, and you can’t force me into your collective by words.
Did you see the quote by Kennedy that said that it was appropriate to add this to the defense bill because military people commit hate crimes?
Well, it was more like, of course most of those in the military are great people BUT…
I don’t think the disclaimer means much.
It’s really hard to convince straight America that we don’t want special privileges when we want the penalty for assaulting someone because he’s gay to be greater than the penalty for assaulting someone because you want his wallet.
This is perilously close to thoughtcrime.
Just let me keep my personal weapons, and forget the “hate crime” statutes.
http://www.pinkpistols.com
It ain’t the first time they’ve attatched it to a defense bill. The same was done in 2000 and probably other times as well.
Don’t we already take motive and intent into account when a crime is prosecuted?.
If I drive over someone becuase I’m messing with the radio, the crime is “less” than it would be if I drive over someone because they took my parking spot. In either case, someone is dead.
Likewise, a judge or jury might take into account my motive if I steal $50 to buy medicine for a sick child in handing me a lesser sentence than if I steal $50 for cigs and beer.
So, with or without a hate-crime law, a jury would be free to impose a maximum sentence for A&B on a person because he’s gay. Likewise, a jury could impose a minimal sentence for the same reason.
And if the jury is inclined to let someone off easy for assaulting someone for being gay, couldn’t the jury just find the perp not guilty on the hate-crime charge?
I don’t think a hate-crime law will dissuade someone from committing the crime if laws currently on the books don’t dissuade them.
Assuming that Matthew Shepard’s killers commited the murder because Matthew was gay, the suspects were looking at the death penalty until Shephard’s mother intervened. Can’t get much more severe than death or life-without-parole.
1: (Ed: comment) No, sorry….if you want to stay in the closet and aren’t bothering anyone, then your own privacy is your own business. However, if you want to use your position to hurt other gay people, then you’re fair game – just like any other hypocrite who should be exposed; whether they be liberal or conservative. Ya know…like those alleged pro-family, anti-gay conservatives who carry on affairs with male prostitutes, toe-tap in airport bathroom stalls, etc., etc. Sorry if y’all see people like Roy Cohn as some kind of iconic hero….
Sorry, Kevin, but that just doesn’t fly.
Because you have nothing to say when your leaders like Hilary Rosen or Joe Solmonese of HRC support, endorse, and push people who support the FMA and state constitutional amendments which you shriek are “antigay”.
Instead of confronting your own hypocrisy in supporting FMA and state constitutional amendment supporters, you project it onto other people.
6: That would be all well and good if our country didn’t have a history of judicial leniency for certain types of crimes, such as crimes against gays and lesbians. Look back to the history of our country: Should the 14th ammendment be necessary? Not really, but it was needed (and in some cases is still not even applied). Is the Civil Rights act necsary? Again, in a perfect world no it shouldn’t have been needed – but it was. so, there you go.
Kevin, the 14th Amendment applies equally to the entire citizenry. You can’t really believe that the Hate Crimes Bill is just as broad in scope, can you? If not, it certainly would prima facie violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
#12
There’s no equal protection here with this legislation. When you get special treatment just becuase you’re gay over those who aren’t, that’s not equality.
12: Kevin,
You’re right. The 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act were passed because they addressed the eradication of specific, wide-spread societal ills that were ingrained in our society. As our society began to reject slavery and discrimination on a moral basis, the laws followed to ensure that the real world we live in would reflect our rejection of these abominations and those laws were highly effective in their purpose–slavery is an archaic (and shameful) chapter in America’s past and compelled segregation has vanished.
And your argument analogizing the “need” for a federal hate crimes law with the “need” we had for the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act sounds great. However, it all falls apart when we look at what you say the law “needs” to remedy.
Kevin, where did you come up with the idea that this country has a “history of judicial leniency for certain types of crimes, such as crimes against gays and lesbians”? What is that statement based on? Is it possible that 1% of it is a story you saw on Dateline 10 years ago where some guy murdered a gay man and got a slap on the wrist from a stupid judge, and that the other 99% of it is just your personal feelings that gays have been treated this way? I am unaware of our court system having the long and shameful history regarding the vindication of crimes against gays that you imply exists. Where is it Kevin?
10: Also, Kevin, regarding your commitment to exposing “hypocrites” (and gay congressional staffers in particular), it is time for you and many others to actually look up that word in the dictionary–Because you are clearly under the impression that it means “other gay people who disagree with me.” Ann Coulter has said it best in her column about Senator Craig:
Liberals don’t even know what they mean by “hypocrite” anymore. It’s just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like “extremist” — or, come to think of it, “gay.” How is Craig a “hypocrite,” much less a “blatant hypocrite”? Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he’s in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk! Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I’m not seeing the “hypocrisy.”
Kevin why try to reason with a bunch of self hating homos? Man the denial is pathetic. It is a …I’m not worthy-I will take whatever you straights decide to give me. So pathetic, so whiny , and so self serving. While you guys whine here, waiting for your WASPY peers to give us rights-REAL gays are out demanding them. You pathetic Queers just prove my point, that every movement has its “Uncle Tom’s.”
I think you’ve got it backward, Dave. While your “real” gays are out there whining and demanding that WASPY peers give them rights, there are a whole lot of people who realize that rights aren’t given as gifts from other people, they are simply lived. Day by day.
As a WASPY straight person I can’t give you a right to anything. I’m not your mother.
It’s got nothing to do with acceptance or self-hatred but about opinions about how the world works. Politics and world-view. Do you really think that no one can disagree with you about world-view without hating himself?
Is it impossible for a homosexual to be, for example, a libertarian? An objectivist? Fiscal conservative? Capitalist? What? A Federalist? Could a homosexual be war supporter? A warrior?
Opposing a thought-crime element to criminal law doesn’t require hating gays if you’re straight or hating yourself if you’re not. It has to do with criminalizing thought. Nothing about being homosexual determines how a person ought to believe when it comes to criminalizing thought.
#14 There’s no equal protection here with this legislation. When you get special treatment just becuase you’re gay over those who aren’t, that’s not equality…………..
What about the special treatment given to people because of their sex, race, or religion? A Hate Crimes Law is already on the books, a law supported by most of the Republicans in Congress when it was passed. All this proposed amendment does is add sexual orientation to the Hate Crimes Law already in existence. So already, there is no equality, right? When will all who oppose adding protection to gays, propose to cancel the law that gives special treatment to women, blacks and religious people?
Dave,
I live in California. In this state I have the right to enter into a domestic partnership with my partner. Filing a simple one-page declaration with the Secretary of State’s office confers on me and my partner every right enjoyed by heterosexual “spouses” under the law, including community property rights, custody rights, eligibility for family/medical leaves, etc. The only “right” that I can see that I don’t have is the right to enter into a domestic partnership with a non-citizen, and I believe that there should be some federal law to remedy this. (Incidentally, I am happily partnered with a U.S. citizen and have no need for this federal protection, but I believe it should be available to others who need it.)
I don’t see where I am being denied anything. Do I believe that gays in all 50 states should have these same rights? Absolutely. And that is happening all over the country, much faster than the angry gay left will admit.
I am not waiting for straights to give me anything. Nor am I whining or in denial about anything. And most of all, I am not “self-hating,” although I’ve called that plenty of times by guys like you simply because I have absolutely no reason to play the angry, bitter, pathetic, powerless victim that you would prefer.
It is a …I’m not worthy-I will take whatever you straights decide to give me.
Sorry. We’re not gay liberals who bite the pillow for DOMA, DADT and sodomy laws from fellow liberals while dumping thousands of dollars of support on those politicians who fcuked us. Talk about self-loathing. You may take that bullshit and shove it up left.
You pathetic Queers just prove my point, that every movement has its “Uncle Tom’s.”
What could possibly be more pathetic than to suck on the c*ocks of those that have actually legislated against you? Talk about Uncle Tom? You haven’t got the balls to tell your liberal massuhs “No suh!” and step off the plantation. To do so, you just might have to give up your perpetual victimhood.
And that, my pathetic, sorry a$$, friend is pathetic. Enjoy your misery, but don’t you dare try to bring everybody else down with you. That’s lower than a snake’s a$$ in a wagon rut.
So already, there is no equality, right? When will all who oppose adding protection to gays, propose to cancel the law that gives special treatment to women, blacks and religious people?
It’s much hardo to unmake a law than to block one. All thought-crime law should be unmade, but there is no easy way to do that since it practically writes its own “raaaacist” meme.
Its a good thing Dinner Jacket did his tour already, we might have had to arrested him for Hate Speech against gays!
I think Kevin’s position can be summed up as, “People who disagree with me forfeit their rights.”
That was pretty much the attitude that led to The Killing Fields.
What a strange question. I propose, in fact, that America and all states do just that.
I-ve never heard of a love crime; passion, yes, but love no. What felonious crime is not a hate crime? Violence against another is rooted in hate. Hate rooted in race, sexual orientation, an unfaithful wife or a lover, women, especially prostitues, and society in general have been vistims of violence and often death. Even white collar crime is a hate crime. An employee who doesn´t receive the raises he feels he deserves siphons off a million dollars from the company. He hates his boss for not recommending the raises and he hates the company for not permitting him to challenge his bosses reviews.
With those thoughts in mind I try to avoid places and people that could be dangerous to me. I like to feel comfortable with the person I invite for an intimate adventure. I keep myself armed, just in case I made en error in judgement.
It is thoughtcrime. All the actual crimes (ie assault, battery, murder) are already illegal. This makes it EXTRA illegal if they dont like your thought process. And if you speak out against it, the ministry of truth wil impose a “fairness doctrine” to make sure you cant be heard.
double-plus ungood :^(
Just goes to show how completely programmed and devoid of any critical thought the left has become. Anti-gay violence is already illegal. If anti-gay violence is going unpunished now, which Ive seen no evidence that is the case, there is nothing in this law that will change that. Brought to you by the same idiots who think the answer to gun violence is passing more laws against gun violence.
Oh, we dont, I think most of us realized there is no reasoning with liberals a long time ago.
…he whined.
What you fail to understand Dave would fill the internet to bursting, but let me begin with this. I already have every right that God gave to Man — they belong to me and I exercize them daily. I have the right to speak my mind, i have the right to worship when where and how I see fit, I have the right to assemble with whom i choose, and I have the right to spend my life with whomever I want, and I have the right to defend myself and my rights with force from anyone who would try to take them from me without due process of law.
And when I find the right guy, I also have the right to hold a wedding ceremony (even in any number of churches that would have us), we have the right to enter into a whole slew of legal contracts designating everything from power of attorney to inheritance rights.
In other words I have the same rights as anyone else.
What i dont have, nor do even straight people have is a “right” to force my neighbor to approve of or subsidize my relationship. That is not a “right” for anybody. It is a set of incentives afforded by society to encourage a behavior they deem beneficial, namely encouraging as many children as possible to be born into a legally binding relationship between their fathers and their mothers.
Claiming you have a “right” to the same set of incentives when your relationship is by definition incapable of performing the same service to society is tantamount to trying to claim a tax credit for buying a prius when you bought a ford explorer.
Now are committed gay relationships ALSO beneficial to society? And should taxpayers similarly encourage them? I think so. But neither I, nor any of the courts that have heard the cases (some of the most liberal courts in the country) are stupid enough to believe that gay relationships perform the same function for society as straight relationships.
Now, as far as your claim of self-loathing… who is more self loathing, the person who is secure in their rights, has a thorough understanding of them and leads a happy productive life excercizing all his God given rights regardless of what other people think of him?
Or a person who not only doesnt understand their rights, but doesnt understand the definition of what a right is, feels vicitmized by others for no legitimate reason, and is desperately and hysterically seeking validation from government and total strangers?
I’ll give you a hint….grab a mirror.
Ya know, there really ought to be a law against crime.
And “movement” is the perfect word, Dave, because what you seem to believe in is indeed a load of crap.
Unless you’re a Branch Davidian and Clinton’s around.
I am not miserable-you guys just wished I wallowed in self misery. You pathetic little homos do! Just lurking in the putrid musk of your White, Republican Masters just waiting for any little morsel of their approval. Stupid idiots-I know the Dems are not perfect, and can be cowardly on many gay issues, but they are way better than Republicans.
Okay, Dave. I stand corrected.
By the way, can I offer you a Kleenex?
BTW, does anyone else find it interesting that Dave’s comment (#31) has now dropped any reference to “rights” and instead uses the word “approval”?
Dave…er…Sniffles, I wish you good luck in your noble crusade for government “approval.”
As Sen. Gordon Smith said a few months back, unless you plan on physically harming someone due to their sexual orientation, this bill will have no effect on you.
One’s motive for a crime has always been considered in American jurisprudence when dispensing punishment. This bill allows prosecutors an added enhancement if the sole motive for a crime is to harm someone due to their sexual orientation.
OH! I didn’t see this part initially…
Talk about infringing free speech! That would be a unquestionable infringement and very quickly struck down by the courts.
youre the one seeking approval from governement and from society. not us.
Hate crimes legislation harm everyone who doesnt belong to the protected-class du jour. As we have already seen hate crimes laws are not equally applied. A gang of black people can be beating the life out of a white man while yelling racial epithets and not be charged with a hate crime.
also anything that purports to treat us a groups instead of individuals is indeed harmful to the fundamental principles our nation was founded on.
Only in terms of whether a crime is intentional or accidental has any motive ever been criminalized before. Juries or judges may consider motive in sentencing, but that is an entirely different matter altogether.
lol. you guys crack me up
I am sorry if you homos don’t think you are worthy of protections against discrimination, but I do. This law may not make a damn bit of difference in how people think, but it is symbolic of a larger issue-That gays are on par with other minority groups deserving of protection. I celebrate this. I am sorry that you guys don’t. I am sorry that you guys do not feel part of the gay community, but instead feel isolated and resentful, and have this disconnect. I do not consider myself part of some Gay Borg collective, I have many fiscally conservative ideologies, but they take second place to my socially liberal views. I will not sell my people out for anything or anybody!
I am sorry that you guys do not feel part of the gay community,
And I’m sorry that you believe in such a fantasy land. I’m sorry that you’d rather others be forced to accept you rather than accept you based on your own merits. I’m sorry that you feel it’s necessary to have somebody else make other people like you. And why, in God’s name, would you want to keep working for somebody who doesn’t like you? And where does it stop? If you get big government to force people to like you, what else are you going to get them to do for you? Wipe your victim ass?
What’s more, I’m truly sorry that you’re so worried about whether other people like you. Must be a miserable existence.
Dave,
When you first chimed in (#16) it was to advise Kevin that he shouldn’t bother trying to reason with “a bunch of self-hating homos.” People on this site have taken the time to respond to your shrill, wildly-emotional attacks by trying to explain to you exactly why we do not share your bombastic, bitter agenda-of-rage. Yet you keep coming back with “arguments” that only prove the points that have been made and reveal that it is, in fact, YOU that feels isolated and resentful. YOU that is self-hating. YOU that is incapable of reason.
Dave, what specifically (if anything) in these comments has given you cause to conclude that us “homos” don’t think we are worthy of protection from discrimination? And how exactly would a hate crimes law protect you from discrimination? If you are murdered for being gay and a straight man is murdered for money, and your killer gets 5 extra years tacked onto his sentence, how does that protect you from discrimination? Discrimination occurs in the workplace, in housing and in access to public accommodations. As I’ve mentioned before, I live in California where discrimination in the workplace against gays is prohibited by law.
In 2002, 12 states had laws prohibiting workplace discrimination against gays. By 2006, 15 states had these laws. Today, 20 states prohibit discrimination against gays in the workplace. See a pattern, Dave? And are you even aware of whether you live in one of those 20 states? Do you have any idea what legal protections you have? Or is it just easier to scream about oppression, hatred and discrimination because you FEEL like a victim and you would have no discernible identity without it?
Dave, it’s clear that we are the ones wasting our time trying to reason with you. The fact is you haven’t addressed a single point that has been made and the reason is now obvious–none of the arguments that have been made have any relevance to you because you have admitted that you are not interested in marriage rights or protection from discrimination. You don’t give a damn about “rights” and likely have no idea what your legal standing is in the state where you live because, in your words, you “celebrate” the passage of laws that you see as “symbolic of a larger issue” whether or not it makes a “damn bit of difference in how people think.”
What you are describing is an Act of Congress stating that gay people are “totally awesome” and that “Gay Dave is the BEST!” Would that be enough Dave? Would that make the lambs stop screaming?
And it’s a good thing you don’t consider yourself part of the “Gay Borg collective” because they wouldn’t have you. You’re going to have to do a lot better than posting the same profoundly uninformed, teary-eyed rant over and over again to run with that crowd. The arguments coming from that collective mass/mess (while grossly dishonest, misleading and patently erroneous) are at least sophisticated enough to avoid relying on repeating over and over again that everyone who disagrees with them is a pathetic, self-hating Uncle Tom (with the exception of Ian). At least they occasionally respond (albeit unsuccessfully) to the actual arguments that have been made.
One more thing–your silly battle cry, “I will not sell my people out for anything or anybody.” Oh, I believe you because Dave, you are not in a position to sell out ANYONE. You are a tool of the left–part of an easily manipulated voting bloc that a Democrat can control in two simple steps: (1) tell the gays you love them; and (2) tell the gays that Republicans hate them. What an effing joke! If that is what you consider being “part of the gay community” then you’re absolutely right. I want nothing to do with that.
Dave, in your quest for validation you should at least be honest with our government regarding what you’re after. Get yourself to D.C. and show us that you are one of those “REAL gays” out there demanding your rights. I’ll keep an eye out on the Internet for a photo of one bitter, angry queer standing outside Congress in a sandwich board reading “LOVE ME!”
That’s the difference between 1st or second degree murder and manslaughter. The difference between first and second degree murder has always been entirely a state of mind issue. It’s soley related to whether one commits the crime in a fit of rage or with malice aforethought. The legislative process here is to simply add a further subdivision to the state of mind of the perpetrator; Whether one commits a crime with malice aforethought with sole regard to one’s sexual orientation.
I don’t believe you could bring second degree charges with a hate crime enhancement because a hate crime, by it’s very definition, is premeditated.
Thank you for proving that hate crimes laws are already completely unneccesary.
Also noticed how you kinda just skipped over the previous point.
lol, Hooray! I have achieved victimhood!
I guess now we´re now on the Endagered Species list along with the bald eagle, spotted owl, and the Snake River Salmon.
Slam!
Wham!
Thank you Ma’am
ouch. you guys are just brutal. spot-on, mind you, but brutal.
Dave, its not that we dont feel worthy of protection, its that we disagree with your premise that we need protection. Youre a victim. We are not. You need the government to validate you, pet you and tell you youre just as good as everyone else, we already know we are. And unlike you, we arent naive or ignorant enough to think that passing a law changes anything. The people who hate you will still hate you. You will always be a second class citizen for the very reason you had to have the government tell you youre as good as everyone else.
“lol, Hooray! I have achieved victimhood!”
See you at the parade, girlfriend!
Sean I am glad you thought my paragraph worthy of such a long diatribe. Get a grip girlfriend, or better yet get you sum-if you can.
I’m not your girlfriend. Nor was your paragraph WORTHY of a lengthy response. Instead, I found that your unoriginal name-calling WARRANTED that response. In the places and with the people you spend your time, I’m sure you get by with cavalierly calling gays who disagree with you self-hating, isolated, resentful, bitter, pathetic Uncle Toms all the time. But I’m one person who’s not just gonna let that fly by without calling you out for being an ignorant twit.
People commenting on this thread have made the effort to explain what their real beliefs are and have distinguished themselves from the useless insults you like throw around. Obviously, you have either not read them, don’t understand them or reject them. And that’s fine. I know that to question one’s own beliefs is difficult or impossible for most because it might just turn their whole world upside down. That takes guts, especially if you have been mired for decades in an identity that can’t be sustained without the unwavering belief that everyone hates you and is out to get you. So, it’s no surprise that you are choosing to stick with what you’ve always known. Many people do. At least I know that in the future, the next time you start flapping your gums about self-hating gays, somewhere deep down in that black little heart of yours, you’ll remember this thread and the attempts that people have made to speak truth to you. And you won’t admit it to anyone out loud, but you will suddenly KNOW that you’re just another full of sh*t, insipid homo in the crowd, that doesn’t know much about anything in particular and has basically nothing to say about anything of consequence. And I would imagine that being hit with that realization can be pretty harsh. Tick-tock.
So, just beat it. There’s no reason for you to be here. You’ve learned nothing from me and I’ve certainly learned nothing new from you. Ian is annoying as fu*k, but at least he shows up with an Uzi (loaded with nothing but blanks, poor thing).
If anti-gay people would just stop being anti-gay and actually support gays, There wouldn’t be any need for a hate crime bill.
So Elias, what is your definition of “being anti-gay” and your definition of “supporting gays.” Just curious.
Umm, there are really only two justifications for the existence of hate crime laws, and I haven’t seen either of them addressed in this long series of flames…
1) Hate crimes are not just crimes against a single person, they are acts of terror against an entire class of people. This is the justification for making them more severe crimes – because more people are victimized. (Snappy comebacks about your refusing to be a victim notwithstanding, when trans people (for instance) are sometimes afraid to leave their houses because they are afraid they’ll be murdered for who they are, there is a problem.)
2) Federal hate crimes bills give the the feds the right to intervene in cases where the local authorities are not too interested in prosecuting certain crimes (because they feel more sympathy for the perpetrators than the victims). This is the primary purpose for this bill, and while I understand that some of you probably consider “federal” a dirty word, the fact remains that there *are* jurisdictions where crimes against some minorities do *not* get properly prosecuted.
If you want to attack the bill, at least understand its true purpose…
Hate crimes are not just crimes against a single person, they are acts of terror against an entire class of people.
That hinges on the argument that there are crimes that only affect the victim.
As I can tell you, since my neighbor’s car window was broken out two nights ago, EVERYONE in the neighborhood has been worried and affected that their car might be next.
Can we charge the perpetrator with a hate crime?
Federal hate crimes bills give the the feds the right to intervene in cases where the local authorities are not too interested in prosecuting certain crimes (because they feel more sympathy for the perpetrators than the victims).
So it’s to codify the belief that all local authorities are incompetent bigots.
“So it’s to codify the belief that all local authorities are incompetent bigots.”
Of course it is. Not because they are, mind you, but to add another dimension to this type of legislation to distract from how weak the other arguments in favor of it are. Even Liberals knew that they couldn’t get away with the argument for long that hate crimes laws prevent crime (no violent maniac is going to stop mid-gay-bash because he suddenly remembers the possibility of stiffer penalties if he is caught). So, they throw in the federal intervention element to mislead the public into assuming that if it’s in there, it must be because there’s bigoted sheriffs and police all over the country refusing to investigate crimes against gays. This is, of course, complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s just the Left’s typical response to opposition to their do-gooder, do-nothing proposals. First, they propose a law that defines gays as victims of violent criminals. And once the law meets any resistance, they regroup and add the federal intervention element to imply that gays are not only victimized by violent criminals but also by the discrimination they encounter when seeking justice.
Josie, the fact that you consider the “true purpose” of the bill to be an antidote to local authorities who “feel more sympathy for the perpetrators than the victims” demonstrates that you have fallen for it hook, line, sinker, rod, reel…….