Boehner: Protecting People Against Hate Crimes ‘Takes Us Down A Path That Is Very Scary’
Boehner: Protecting People Against Hate Crimes ‘Takes Us Down A Path That Is Very Scary’
Today, the House is voting on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bipartisan bill that would enable federal officials to work with state and local officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.
Radical right-wing groups have lobbied aggressively against this bill. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson called it “insidious legislation” that would “silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs.” (Listen to Dobson HERE.) The Concerned Women for America said the bill is meant to “grant official government recognition to both homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, and to silence opposition to those behaviors.”
Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated this far-right talking point. He claimed that under the hate crimes bill, you would be charged with a crime if you were “thinking something bad” before you committed a crime against someone. “I just think it takes us down a path that is very scary.” Watch it:
The right-wing is wrong. This legislation goes after criminal action, like physical assaults, not name-calling or verbal abuse. The bill clearly states that “evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.”
The hate crimes legislation is by endorsed by 31 state attorneys general and leading law enforcement agencies. Under current law, federal officials are able to investigate and prosecute “attacks based on race, color, national origin and religion and because the victim was attempting to exercise a federally protected right,” but unable to intervene “in cases where women, gay, transgender or disabled Americans are victims of bias-motivated crimes for who they are.”
Transcript:
BOEHNER: It’s yours, yes.
REPORTER: Hate crimes legislation?
BOEHNER: Hate crimes? Yes.
REPORTER: How do you feel about it? What’s going to happen?
BOEHNER: I’ve got to tell you, I really don’t understand it. We’re going to put into place a federal law that says, not only will we punish you for the crime that you actually commit — the physical crime that you commit — but we’re also going to charge you with a crime that if we think that you were thinking bad things about this person before you committed a crime.
I just — I just really don’t understand it. I’ve been opposed to this for a long time and I remain opposed to it.
I mean, it’s a crime on what people were thinking when they were committing an act of violence. How do you walk into court and make a case for a crime because someone was thinking something bad. I just think it takes us down a path that is very scary.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Boner’s “logic” is what’s very scary.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:10 pmpeople have been bum-rushed out of Bush appearances for what they allegedly were thinking of saying or doing to disrupt him…
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pm“…because once you start treating one group of people fairly and with dignity, everyone will expect it. It’s a slippery slope.” -shorter John Boehner
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pmWhen Rep. Boehner shows us his law degree, I’ll take him seriously on this. Otherwise, he’s just making a fool of himself again.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pmIn short, he believes hate is a religious freedom.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pmBoner: “but we’re also going to charge you with a crime that if we think that you were thinking bad things about this person before you committed a crime. I just — I just really don’t understand it. I’ve been opposed to this for a long time and I remain opposed to it.”
If I plan a murder and carry it out, I’m guilty of 1st degree murder and going to prison for life. If I murder someone without thinking about it first and out of “passion,” I may get a 2nd degree or manslaughter. Whether or not I get life is ABSOLUTELY LINKED TO WHAT I WAS THINKING!
Boner is full of it.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 pmAnd what kind of sick, perverted world view causes someone to be afraid of protecting peoples’ rights?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:17 pmOh, I get it: The fewer people we allow to have rights, the more rights the rest of us will have. Rights are now a fixed-quantity, non-renewable resource, and the Rethugs want to corner the market.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:17 pmI will never forget the experience I had as a moderately long-haired twenty-something on the Ohio Turnpike.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pmI was nearly the victim of what could aptly be termed a hate crime. If I had been unable to change out the entire rear axle of my pickup truck, during the night, using a flashlight, I would have lost the truck, the jeep I was towing, all my money, and possibly worse.
One of the scariest nights of my life.
Take a drive down the scary path of your own home state, bonehead……..
What a load of crap and guys like Boehner know it. Apparently, the religious right appeasers never think or say bad things about others based on race or national origin — but they just might about gays, so better not change the law. Rubbish! The law never did, nor would it as amended, apply to thoughts and speach alone.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pmOn Thursday, the White House confirmed that President Bush will veto Congressional hate crime legislation extending protected status to victims of attacks based on gender and sexual orientation. The announcement comes as no surprise. After all, it was his bizarre discussion of hate crimes that almost derailed the election of candidate George W. Bush in 2000.
For disturbing history, see:
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm“Bush 2000 Hate Crimes Flashback.”
Veto 1: we don’t get stem cell funding.
Veto 2: we don’t get to start pulling out of Iraq.
Veto 3: we don’t get legal protection against hate crimes for sexual orientation.
Green Pary members: do you still believe there was no difference between GW Bush and Al Gore?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:23 pmSo, in essence, to the rightwing beating someone up because you don’t like their sexual orientation is protected religious expression.
And people wonder why we don’t take these jokers seriously when they talk about how morally superior they are?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:26 pmFirst let me say that if they are going to have hate crime legislation at all it should be extended to gays, lesbians, etc. — stupid laws should protect us all with equal stupidity.
But the whole notion of hate crime legislation is ridiculous on it’s face.
First, how are you going to know what someone was thinking before they committed the crime.
Second, even if the criminal yelled something hateful before they assaulted someone, how is this additional penalty supposed to stop someone else from doing the same thing. You think legislation is going to stop someone from hating? Right. Just like gun control stops people from killing.
And where are all the anti-death penalty folks here who argue that harsher penalties do not deter criminals? If that is true, then why would a harsher penalty for a hate crime deter the haters?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:28 pmBluedog49
20/20 hindsight and all that.
That said, right now the greens look like they are going to be coming in to replace the Republicans as number 2 party wouldn’t you say?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:29 pmTom Hartman: “Hate crimes are meant to terrorize groups. When the KKK burned a cross on someone’s lawn, this act was designed to terrorize black people everywhere. There fore, hate crimes legislation is legislation against terrorism.”
Bush just vetoed a form of anti-terrorism legislation.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 pmI am a 100% crookandliar reader and advocate it but i disagree with this…. I am however able to be convinced differently. Definine a hate crime? or hate for that matter? Wouldn’t this just limit free speech and open the door for lessening intellectual debate by make everything negative said about a nother be considered hate? where do you draw the line? i thought it was violence.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 pmSticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me, goes the old adage. Grow up people and deal with opposing opinions. Freedom of Speech is the issue with Hate Speech laws and it has nothing to do with the oppression of homosexuals freedom to live a life they choose.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 pmTO ALL,
Hate Crimes legislation should be called Terrorist legislation.
The difference in two guys beating up someone for kicks outside a bar, and those same guys beating up someone outside a bar BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS GAY, is the motivation. They aren’t just beating him up. They are trying to send a political message that if you are gay, you will pay the price. That is the essence of a terrorist act.
Think of the KKK here. THey didn’t just beat people up because they needed some kicks on a friday night. THey targeted people they hated and were out send a message to those who might be of the same persuasion. FEAR US!
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 pmIt’s just a damned shame that those of us who belong to the homoerotic Jesus cult can’t beat up women like we used to. What has this cuntry come to? We should have the freedom to make fun of and beat up those that are different than us.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pmWHAT ABOUT PROTECTING MEN?
DOES ANYBODY GIVE A SHIT ABOUT MEN ANYMORE?
Sexism alone is not a sufficient explanation for why 99% of all the great cultural, artistic, scientific, and technological achievements of the past 5,000 years have been due to males.
Men, opt out, go your own way. MGTOW
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pmGreen Pary members: do you still believe there was no difference between GW Bush and Al Gore?
Comment by Bluedog49
The green party members are complicit with the war crimes and crimes against Americans by Bushco. As are the Democrats that sat on their hands through the whole 109th without supporting one filibuster attempt.
As are the Democrats that are blocking impeachment from passing to the floor of the House.
Impeach the Commander Guy!!!
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pmGreat point Cynicon. Hate Speech is a covert attack on Freedom of Speech.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pmCynicon: “First, how are you going to know what someone was thinking before they committed the crime.”
This is a standard part of ALL murder investigations and prosecutions. If the murder was planned and thought out, 1st degree murder. If it was a crime of passion, ie, the perp wasn’t thinking about it or planning it, it’s 2nd degree or manslaughter.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pmApparently, this whole “culture of life” deal only applies to fetuses. Once born, you can get your ass kicked for being gay and these folks are alright with it. And the same folks believe that modern-day caucasion Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 pmGreenback: “Hate Speech is a covert attack on Freedom of Speech”
Wrong. Nobody is accused of a “hate crime” for saying something. Hate crime legislation is tied to specifically illegal and criminal acts, not speech.
Wayne: when I see Dems able to override a veto, I’ll believe they have the power to impeach.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 pmCynicon Implant
Hate crimes are particularly repugnant due to the fact that the people who commit them seeing themselves as heroes for doing it.
In the case of a hate-crime, the person comitting the crime is seen as having no remorse at all about comitting the crime, and is thus more likely to do it again. It is thus seen as being prudent to keep that person out of circulation for longer, as it would be more difficult to rehabilitate that person into society.
Also, it demonstrates to these self-righteous pricks who go out and do that sort of thing that no, society does not approve.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:36 pmVince: “Wouldn’t this just limit free speech”
No. Under hate crimes legislation, you have the right to scream “faggot.” But, if your hatred for gays causes you to kill a gay person, this terrorizes all gay people and thus, is a hate crime.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:37 pmThis country isn’t even 250 years old, which makes it fairly young. We’re bound to go through growing pains. Especially lately.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 pmSo Boehner how many us soldiers have you killed this month so far? How does it feel to know that your reckless behavior has killed soldiers in Iraq?
Oh thats right you are to busy making money off of the war at the chicago mercantile exchange.
I wonder what OH citizens will think when they get knowledge of your activities?
Hmmmmmmmmmm
See you in 2008,
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:39 pmLove
An Abused Military Family
The fact is this….
Countries that have started with this, like Canada and countries in Europe have passed laws stifling speech.
The government wants to decide what speech is hate speech and what speech is not.
Liberals want this because they want to be able to stop conservatives from speaking against homosexuality and other moral issues that the left and the right disagree on.
In many schools in the USA speaking against homosexuality is already labeled as hate speech.
yes, liberals trying to step on the freedom of speech of the right.
let us not forget liberals, you love freedom of speech, as long as that speech agrees with you.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:40 pmIs “Bonehead” a cross-dresser? Bet he dresses up like Babs Bush. Love the pearls.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 pmCynicon,
You said - “First, how are you going to know what someone was thinking before they committed the crime”
There must be evidence. If you kept your mouth shut and just laid down a beating. You could not be found guilty of hate based assault. You would be guilty only of assault.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 pmBut the whole notion of hate crime legislation is ridiculous on it’s face. First, how are you going to know what someone was thinking before they committed the crime. Comment by Cynicon Implant — May 3, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
How do you think we have Pre-meditated murder versus not? You do realize that establishing *intent* is standard practice for criminal acts - period?
You’re really st*pid, aren’t you child?
Second, even if the criminal yelled something hateful before they assaulted someone, how is this additional penalty supposed to stop someone else from doing the same thing. You think legislation is going to stop someone from hating? Right. Just like gun control stops people from killing. Comment by Cynicon Implant — May 3, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Same thing as if someone yelled something violent before they killed another person - right? You should really watch something other that “24″ to get your knowledge of criminal justice.
And where are all the anti-death penalty folks here who argue that harsher penalties do not deter criminals? If that is true, then why would a harsher penalty for a hate crime deter the haters?
Comment by Cynicon Implant — May 3, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Harsher penalties punish the harsher crimes.
From the sound of your posts, it might deter you - right bigot child?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 pmWhile I support the hate crime legislation the Minority leaders speaks on here, a certain line of his (and others’) argument can be taken fairly seriously. Legislating what is in a person’s head when they engage in an act of violence is a slipperly slope. At what point does there become an Orwellian state investigation the thoughts behind everyday action? Of course we’re not there yet, yet I can (to a certain degree) see the basis of Mr. Boiner’s remarks.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 pmCynicon Implant
I’m one of those “anti kill the killers” person you are looking for. My problem with the death penalty is that 1- If it’s wrong to kill, it’s wrong, whether it is an individual or the state-2-too many people have been found to have been wrongly convicted of capital crimes and were let off of death row to trust the justice system to get it right 100% of the time -3- since there are disproportionally more African Americans on death row than their representation in the population as a whole, either there is something seriously wrong with our system, cutural, judicial, or both, or, you think that African Americans are predisposed to commiting crime. I think it is the former.
Second- We already have additinal penalites for killing certain kinds of people, there is more jail time for killing a witness to a crime to stop that person from testifing or to intimidate other witnesses. The penalty for killing a cop is more than for killing you or me. Same with a judge, same for the president.
Why make those exceptions if all murder is exactly the same?
The reason for having hate crime laws is because the assult, or murder of an oppressed minority, when the crime has been commited because of that person’s status not only affects that person, but the community as well.
That is why I oppose the death penalty. It may be vengence but it is not justice.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 pmIt says it all - the far right believes that you must be violent and threatening in order to take a stand against something.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 pmThe government wants to decide what speech is hate speech and what speech is not. Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
In America - WE THE PEOPLE are the government - you r*t*rded m*r*n.
Liberals want this because they want to be able to stop conservatives from speaking against homosexuality and other moral issues that the left and the right disagree on. Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
You must not have seen the quotes from Ann Coulter, and the other Cons that say they want Dems rounded up for criticizing the war? Homosexuality is a *biological* issue. Waging war on a country that posed no threat, and having murdered innocent people on death row that were cleared posthumously are *moral* issues child. Learn the difference!
In many schools in the USA speaking against homosexuality is already labeled as hate speech. Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Uh, maybe because it is? But that’s never stopped a bigot like you, has it child?
yes, liberals trying to step on the freedom of speech of the right. Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Says the wingNUTS that think speaking out against the war is *treason*. Hypocrite, stop projecting.
let us not forget liberals, you love freedom of speech, as long as that speech agrees with you. Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Hypocrite, more projection. F*ck off loser.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:44 pmhere is a question for Liberals….
how will you know what crime was done out of hate? please do tell. are you going to read the minds of individuals.
So if a white man steals from a black man, will this be considered a hate crime? how do you know that the white man didn’t steal from the black man because the white man hates black? how will you know if the white man stole from the black man because the black man was the first person he ran into?
Liberals talk about the right bieng like Hilter and the nazis.
this legislation is trying to read the mind of inviduals. this is true nazism, but the left is too brainwashed to realize this.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:44 pmLegislating what is in a person’s head when they engage in an act of violence is a slipperly slope. At what point does there become an Orwellian state investigation the thoughts behind everyday action? Of course we’re not there yet, yet I can (to a certain degree) see the basis of Mr. Boiner’s remarks. Comment by Charles — May 3, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
This legislation involves *actions*, not *thoughts*. So that’s a b*llsh*t argument.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:45 pmBoehner may have actually already have committed a hate crime by opposing this legislation. To righthink you must support this bill; not supporting the bill is evidence of wrongthink. Q.E.D.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:46 pmhow will you know what crime was done out of hate? please do tell. are you going to read the minds of individuals. Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
How do you know a murder was pre-meditated? please do tell? Because courts do it daily.
You’re an idiot.
So if a white man steals from a black man, will this be considered a hate crime? how do you know that the white man didn’t steal from the black man because the white man hates black? how will you know if the white man stole from the black man because the black man was the first person he ran into? Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
St*Pid, just St*pid.
Liberals talk about the right bieng like Hilter and the nazis. Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
It’s because you are!
this legislation is trying to read the mind of inviduals. this is true nazism, but the left is too brainwashed to realize this. Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Actually you thinking you have a right to target minorities is the hitler like situation. This is STANDARD legal practices - which REQUIRE the prosecution to show intent.
But the right is too brainwashed to realize this. You’re just a st*pid child.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 pmComment by Charles — May 3, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Someone thinking hateful thoughts toward a certain group is fine. When said someone acts out against an individual simply because that individual is a member of the certain group, that is a hate crime. Seems like a pretty clear boundary to me.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Hate crime legislation has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You can spout hateful things all you want, just don’t follow up that speech with violent action.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 pmVince: “Wouldn’t this just limit free speechâ€
No. Under hate crimes legislation, you have the right to scream “faggot.†But, if your hatred for gays causes you to kill a gay person, this terrorizes all gay people and thus, is a hate crime.
Comment by Bluedog49 — May 3, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Bluedog49, and how is the police and the justice system know that you killed a gay because you hate him? please do tell. who will decide this? what evidence will be used to show whether you hate gays or not?
how about if you once told your friend, “you are stupid faggot.” and the next day by mistake you run over a gay person. Would this be consider a hate crime?
and someone brough up a good point, the left has always claimed that harsher punishments, the death penalty, do not deter crime. How is this harsher punishment going to deter so called hate crimes?
and what are hate crimes? who will define hate crimes?
so if you kill a gay person because you hate gays, this is a hate crime. But if you kill a priest because you hate Catholics, is this a hate crime?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 pmSomeone thinking hateful thoughts toward a certain group is fine. When said someone acts out against an individual simply because that individual is a member of the certain group, that is a hate crime. Seems like a pretty clear boundary to me.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Hate crime legislation has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You can spout hateful things all you want, just don’t follow up that speech with violent action.
Comment by erock — May 3, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
who defines hate speech? who will decide what is a hate crime?
so if you speak against gays and then you run over a gay person, is this a hate crime?
if you speak against Catholics and then run over a Catholic is this a hate crime?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:51 pmBush is a puppy dog to his “christian” right wackos.
They use religion as a veil to protect their interests.
Don’t they realize Christ was a radical guy whose flock was composed of outcasts and untouchables??
How is the hate crimes bill not something Christ would condone????
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:51 pmHeaven forbid we should punish Christians for exercising their God-Given Right to assault and kill someone merely because of their race, creed, gender, or lifestyle.
Perhaps we should pass laws saying it is ok to kill someone, as long as that murder comports with your “moral beliefs.” /sarc
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 pmThere’s a valid First Amendment argument against hate crimes laws, but Boehner settles for a stupid, bigoted one. Let’s stop settling for leaders like him.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 pmI thought the religious right wanted U.S. laws based on the Bible? What about this:
whoever says, “You fool!” shall be in danger of hell fire (Matt 5:22).
Hate speech punished.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:53 pmThe freaks make me sick. Fighting for their right to hate, and to act out their hate with violence. Some Christians.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:53 pmBluedog49, and how is the police and the justice system know that you killed a gay because you hate him? please do tell. who will decide this? what evidence will be used to show whether you hate gays or not?
Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
How does the police and the court know that a murder was premeditated?
You act like this is a *new* idea. Just because you’re too st*pid to understand this ALREADY how things work - don’t blame us for your ignorance - child!
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 pmIt is one thing for the Church to say they disagree with homosexuality for whatever reason. As a Catholic myself, I disagree but have no problem with the Church having their opinion so long as they are respectful about it and don’t ram it down my throat.
HOwever, there is a huge difference between the Church being against Homosexuality and people like Dobson going around saying homosexuality is evil and a sin and that gays are going to hell. It is wrong for Dobson to treat homosexuals as being less than human or blaming them for other things that Dobson feels is wrong in the world.
What Dobson and his far right-wing supports fail to understand, like any other extremist group, is that there is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with something and lying about it or spreading fear and hatred over it. It isn’t being against hate crimes that takes us down an evil path…it’s the Christian right thinking the have a right to promote and spread hatred.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 pmso if you kill a gay person because you hate gays, this is a hate crime. But if you kill a priest because you hate Catholics, is this a hate crime?
Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Do I really need to answer that?
It is very hard to prove intent based on prejudice, there has to be clear evidence that the crime was committed solely out of irrational hatred. Further, its up to people like you and me to decide whether this has actually been proven.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 pmso if you speak against gays and then you run over a gay person, is this a hate crime? Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
It might be - that’s for the prosecution to prove.
if you speak against Catholics and then run over a Catholic is this a hate crime? Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
It might be - that’s for the prosecution to prove.
You really don’t know how the *courts* work, do you child?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:55 pmvaliantthehater
Hate crimes are generally aimed at terrorising a group. The whole point of the crime, is to terrorise the group the victim belongs to (EG: A Neo-nazi spraying a swastika on a synagogue, KKK members blowing up black churches etc…)
So in short, moron, if the crime doesn’t send a message it is generally not a hate-crime.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:55 pmHere’s a not-so-recent press release by the ACLU stating their concerns about hate crimes laws:
ACLU Calls on House to Protect Free Speech While Considering Hate Crimes Legislation (8/4/1999)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union today said that the House must remember that improperly drafted hate crimes legislation could have a potentially chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.
In testimony submitted to the House Judiciary Committee, the ACLU said that any hate crimes legislation must prevent prosecution based on “mere abstract beliefs” or “mere membership in an organization.” The ACLU said it would endorse hate crimes legislation that prevents such prosecutions.
“The ACLU has a long record of support for strong protection of both free speech and civil rights,” said Christoper E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. “Rather than diminishing individual rights, it is our belief that vigilant protection of free speech rights has historically opened the doors to effective advocacy for expanded civil rights protections.”
In its testimony, the ACLU said that the serious problem of crime aimed at individuals because of their race, color, religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation or disability merits legislative action. While race, religion and national origin are already covered under federal law, gender, sexual orientation and disability are not. And in 1996, the FBI reported 8,759 incidents of bias-related crimes. Of those incidents, 5,396 of them were related to race, 1,401 to religion, 1,016 to sexual orientation and 940 to ethnicity or national origin.
“Federal legislation addressing such criminal civil rights violations is necessary because state and local law enforcement officers are sometimes unwilling or unable to prosecute them because of either inadequate resources or their own bias against the victim,” Anders said.
The ACLU stressed, however, that it cannot support hate crimes legislation unless it is carefully written to reduce or eliminate the possibility that the federal government could prosecute based on evidence of speech that had “no role in the chain of events” that led to a violent act.
“We seek a law that will punish the act of discrimination, but not bigoted beliefs,” Anders said. “The focus properly should be on punishing violent acts themselves when victims were selected only because of who they are.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:55 pmI think it’s unnecessary. A crime is a crime. Whether the criminal hated the other person/group or not. Treat all crimes the same, and levy punishment meant to deter the crime.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:57 pmwho defines hate speech? who will decide what is a hate crime?
so if you speak against gays and then you run over a gay person, is this a hate crime?
if you speak against Catholics and then run over a Catholic is this a hate crime?
Comment by valiantthehater — May 3, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Like every other crime, each situation is unique and should be tried on its own evidence. If you said for instance “I’m gonna run me over some Catholics.” and then ran over some Catholic people in front of a church after Sunday Mass, then yes, you should be charged with a hate crime. If you told an off-color joke about catholics to a friend at a bar and then ran over a random person who happened to be catholic on your way home, then i would say that’s not a hate crime. Again, each crime is unique and the burden of proving that an act is a hate crime is on the people.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:58 pmIf Christians actually lived their lives according to the new hate crimes legislation, why they’d actually be living up to the teachings of Jesus. Imagine that, tolerance and compassion for ALL others. What a novel thought!
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pmWayne: when I see Dems able to override a veto, I’ll believe they have the power to impeach.
Comment by Bluedog49
If crimes have been commited, it is congress’ Constitutional Duty, by the very Oath of Office each representative and senator swore to , to remove from office any officer, including the President and Vice President, AG, Sec of Defense, Anyone who has broken the Law.
Anyone in Congress who shirks their duty to the Constitution needs replaced in the next election, and that includes Pelosi, IMHO
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pmAdditionally, in response to several other posts here. Nobody is taking rights away from anyone, nor do people have fewer rights than others, based on race/religion/etc etc ad naseum. You have the same rights as I do, as the person down the street, no matter what.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pmThe right doesn’t like law to protect women, especially spousal women.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:00 pmThis bonehead is right about one thing: He doesn’t understand the bill. We punish people for thoughts accompanied by violence all the time. We have varying degrees of murder depending on what was going through the culprit’s mind when he committed it, whether he planned it, etc. People who commit violent crimes because they hate a whole groupe of people are much more dangerous than people who commit the same violent crimes because they have a specific problem with a specific person. Who’s more dangerous and more likely to re-offend, the guy who murders his neighbor because the neighbor slept with the guy’s wife, or the guy who murder his neighbor because his neighbor is gay? There are many more potential targets for the second offender than the first, so why shouldn’t the second offender be considered more dangerous and punished more severely?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:00 pmHater: “Bluedog49, and how is the police and the justice system know that you killed a gay because you hate him? please do tell. who will decide this?”
Who decides whether or not a murder was premeditated? Who decides whether or not a person is guilty of conspiracy?
What perps are thinking at the time of the crime and before commiting a crime has always been relevant and a matter for the courts.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:00 pmDouglas G: “I think it’s unnecessary. A crime is a crime.”
The point of a hate crime is to terrorize people of a certain group. When the KKK burned a cross on a person’s lawn, it was done not only to terrorize the person in the house, but all similar people in the community.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:03 pmhate speech: Speech spoken with the intent to cause violence, or harm to befall a given group.
EG: Calling a black person a kaffir, though inaccurate and highly offensive, is not hate speech.
Saying that we should all go out and kill the kaffirs, however, is.
At least that is how South African law defines it. I doubt the American government would treat it any differently.
And besides, if you read the OT, which as an idiot I am sure you specifically set out to avoid doing…:
“evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.â€
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:03 pmWayne: “Anyone in Congress who shirks their duty to the Constitution needs replaced in the next election, and that includes Pelosi, IMHO”
No offense, but that’s a perfect example of naive, black & white, Green Party thinking, IMHO.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pmI agree with him. It’s a cleverly diguised way to supress freedom of speech. The very idea that the government should be used to legislate away hate is a crackpot idea. Liberals love this shit because they can be as judgemental as a Nutbag Christian Fundamentalist without invoking a diety. Fascism is being created on the right and will be enforced by the left. This country is insane and already dead. It’s citizens prefer to be domesticated rather than living as a free people. The Cult of Liberlism is just as bad as Right Wingers.
Be Moderates in thought and Action.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 pmAdditionally, in response to several other posts here. Nobody is taking rights away from anyone, nor do people have fewer rights than others, based on race/religion/etc etc ad naseum. You have the same rights as I do, as the person down the street, no matter what. Comment by Douglas G. — May 3, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
No, you Conservatives just don’t want the punishment to fit the crime - and want to feel that it’s OK to be bigoted, racist and homophobic, and act on it accordingly with no *additional* consequences for your hate based attacks…
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:07 pmSeriously, Wayne, this is about politics, not constitutional theory. Do you want universal healthcare? Do you want workers’ rights and stem cell research funding? Do you want more funding for education? I could go on and on with the questions, but the reality is that at this point in history, the only way to get these things is with a super-majority of Democrats in congress and a Democrat in the Whitehouse. And, you know I’m right about that. To turn out Pelosi for being a pragmatic politician would be like cutting off our own heads.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:10 pmMany people on this message board just don’t get it. I can’t understand how so many people can characterize this as “thought crime” legislation. People open their mouths far too often without knowing what they’re talking about. Get a clue, then get back to me.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:11 pmReason: “It’s a cleverly diguised way to supress freedom of speech.”
You cannot be arrested or convicted of a “hate crime” for saying something, because saying something is not a crime. If you’re not planning a “n*gger hunt” or a “f*ggot hunt,” you’ve got nothing to worry about.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:12 pmBoner: “Dear me, this law is taking us to some scary places. Like the wooded hollow where my old buddies who like to dress up in white linen sheets used to hold candle light suppers. I’d hate to think that those very cleanly dressed lovers of the night might be charge with hate crimes just because they like to keep their linen pristine white.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:12 pmhow is the police and the justice system know that you killed a gay because you hate him? please do tell. who will decide this? what evidence will be used to show whether you hate gays or not?
Such brilliant reasoning. If there is no reason to suspect hate as the motive, there is no reason to bring up such charges. It would be a crime like any other: no charge unless there is EVIDENCE.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 pmIf I were to kill a minority, it would not automatically be assumed as a hate crime. There would need to be evidence I hate such minority group. Just as if I were to kill somebody named Ted, it is not automatically assumed I hate guys named Ted.
I thought this was common sense.
Wilco, the problem is people don’t have common sense anymore.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:16 pmI think it’s unnecessary. A crime is a crime. Whether the criminal hated the other person/group or not. Treat all crimes the same, and levy punishment meant to deter the crime.
Comment by Douglas G.
Not all crimes are the same. Someone doing burgulary on a house is not the same as someone robbing you with a gun and shooting you, or someone beating you with a pipe.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:16 pmEvery law has an agrivation clause, for example if a weapon is used.
Hate crime laws add an agrivation clause to the crimes if it was the focus of another race, religion or sexual orientation.
Just like murder cases, it is investigated to see if premeditation was involved.
Bluedog49
In the end the only reason why you have the Dems and the Reps as parties, is because you Americans are too cowardly to vote for what you want.
Instead you vote for what you will settle for.
The Greens are a legitimate party, with legitimate policies which are generally in line with mainstream American thought. Unlike the Democrats, whose response to the Iraq war was to roll over for fear of being called traitors.
Black and white is not the issue here, the issue here is that the Democrats simply do not listen to their base, treat their base as if it can be taken for granted and to be quite frank about it, don’t do anything about members who stab the party in its back.
Your anger towards the Green party voters, for simply not voting for your party is misplaced, because frankly that they didn’t vote for you guys, is more a symptom of you failing to appeal to the Greens, then a symptom of them failing to agree to vote for you.
That is one thing I can say for the Republicans, when they lose an election they don’t get all weepy eyed about how they would have won were it not for the Libertarians.
Democrats need to stop blaming the Greens for their failures, and start focussing on finding out why they are losing votes to the Greens when the Republicans, seem relatively solid.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:19 pmUmm, Bruce, you should get out more. I know many Republicans upset because if not for the Reform party, Clinton would never have been President.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:21 pmSeriously, Wayne, this is about politics, not constitutional theory. Do you want universal healthcare? Do you want workers’ rights and stem cell research funding?
Comment by Bluedog49
I want Rule of Law to be imposed upon this rogue Administration.
Period.
History shows that if the lawbreakers of this administration are not punnished and driven from government, they will be back in the White House commiting crimes inthe next Republican Presidency.
We have not learned anything at all from Watergate and Iran-Contra, at all, have we? That is very obvious.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:22 pmWilco
Not on here they aren’t, and not in quite as mainstream a manner. (Remember, I am a South African, in South Africa, I read your news reports.)
Anyway I am just sick to death of the constant harping of those on the left against the Greens, simply because the Greens won some votes.
Just because somebody voted Green doesn’t mean they would have voted Democrat anyway - they might not have voted at all.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 pmI” think it’s unnecessary. A crime is a crime. Whether the criminal hated the other person/group or not. Treat all crimes the same, and levy punishment meant to deter the crime.
Comment by Douglas G. ”
Doug, can I call you Doug? We already have additinal penalites for killing certain kinds of people, there is more jail time for killing a witness to a crime to stop that person from testifing or to intimidate other witnesses. The penalty for killing a cop is more than for killing you or me. Same with a judge, same for the president.
Why make those exceptions if all murder is exactly the same?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 pmComment by Bruce Gorton
So true. The Democrats have rolled over in submission for the last 6 years, with very few speaking out. The Democrats did not win as much as the Republicans actually threw away by their overt corruption.
The Democrats did not even think they would win last November.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:30 pmIf they roll on impeachment after having Nov handed to them by the voters, they may find themselves replaced next election.
They will definately have lost me as a supporter.
The time for excuses is over with
Defend and uphold the constitution or get the F*ck out of Washington.
Bruce, I’m a pragmatic man. If one out of ten Green Party voters in Florida would have seen that there were indeed big differences between Gore and Bush, we wouldn’t be in Iraq today. I’m not angry that they didn’t vote for the Democrat. I’m angry that they were too stupid to see that there were HUGE differences between Bush and Gore.
Now, I’ve got news for you. Where Dems stand generally on the issues DOES represent the desires of the vast majority of Americans. Check the numbers at Pollingreport.com. They are, by definition, center-left. The Green Party positions are, in fact, closer to my own opinions, but they have no chance of making policy, only affecting it in a marginal way. That’s fine. I have never argued that they are not a “legitimate party.”
And, I don’t think that the Green Party was the main reason Bush one. I think it was one of the reasons. In my opinion, the biggest reason was the 2-year war on Gore our mainstream media carried out.
Another thing, Bruce. “Repubs don’t get weepy???!!!” Evidently you’ve forgotten the Repubs general reaction to Clinton’s win in 92. They were all very weepy and angry about Ross Perot.
This isn’t Europe. We don’t have a parliamentary system. If our Green Party acted like European Green parities, they would have attempted to fashion a coalition with the Dems to beat Bush.
In fact, all the founders were very concerned about having MORE than two major parties. They felt that with two major parties, there was a greater chance that a larger population would agree with election results.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pmWhy does anyone even engage in discussion with Valiant The Moron?
Clearly and fundamentally he/she/it completely does not understand the law, the legal system, the principles involved or anything else that this country (and any other modern civilized country) bases itself on.
Innocent until proven guilty. If the government can’t prove it, you are not convicted.
Perhaps someone has spent too much time blindly supporting the efforts of the current administration to destroy every freedom and principle that made this country great.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pmWayne: “We have not learned anything at all from Watergate and Iran-Contra, at all, have we? That is very obvious.”
You evidently haven’t learned that both of these constitutional crimes occured when Repubs were in charge of the executive branch.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:35 pmShouldn’t any crime be punished sternly? If you attack someone physically you get punished the same (harshly) regardless of who the victim is.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:36 pmBruce, the reality in America is that a 3rd party president would be relatively powerless. Without the support of either main party, such a president would have little chance of pushing for any sort of agenda. With party bosses being what they are, no one would support one.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:37 pmIf the Greens want to make a difference, they should build their party up. Get great candidates into local races, state races, etc.
Once they have a national presence, then put up someone for the White House. Simply, the Green agenda will get nowhere without legislative power behind it. That infrastructure does not exist at this point.
So having someone (like Nader) with a household name running under the Green tag, someone you know full well will be likely to get 5-6%, and have absolutely no chance at winning, is irresponsible. That candidate is spending money wastefully, taxpayer money. That candidate should have the good sense to know when to bow out.
Kevin, again, a “hate crime” is not only an attack on an individual, it is an act which terrorizes a group of people.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:37 pmJames Dobson called it “insidious legislation†that would “silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs.â€
what? You mean the belief that anyone who is not white & heterosexual should be wiped off the face of the earth?
It’s all about values…
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:39 pmWhat Wilco said!
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:40 pmKevin, yet another one who doesn’t get it. As someone pointed out above, we punish cop-killers, jugde-killers, and witness intimidators more harshly than those who kill or intimidate others. We increase punishment based on who the victim is and what the perpetrator’s motive was ALL THE TIME. All the uproar about this new bill is simply because the opposition doesn’t like gay people, pure and simple. I don’t care how much people tell me to stop complaining about it, it is simple fact.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:43 pmBluedog49
Too stupid? No, the failure was not theirs. The failure, was in the Democrats choosing to use a tactic which made Gore look like a boring version of Bush.
The fault lay in a party striving for the middle, when it should have been trying to set itself apart from the Republicans.
That in retrospect, yes there were clearly major differences between the two is undeniable, that the “marketing” for want of a better word, of the Democrat candidate sucked is also undeniable.
Nobody owed the Democrats their vote, and the sooner the Democrats realise this, and start acting like the left is not a sure bet, the sooner they start winning back the Green vote. The Republicans play to their base, the Democrats, play to the Republicans’ base and you can’t blame those who vote Green for noticing this.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pmGreens,
The problem with the Greens in the eyes of many on the left is that in Florida, had the people who voted for the Green Presidential Candidate in 2000 (or even, say, 10% of them) voted instead for Gore:
1. Gore would have won the election,
2. we would not be in Iraq,
3. tens of thousands of people would still be alive,
4. The War on Terror (or whatever Gore would have called it) may have been undertaken by people with common sense and a grasp of the underlying problem — assuming for the sake of argument that actually doing something vs. terrorism (instead of sitting around for 9 months ignoring the experts like Bush did) would not have stopped 9/11.
So yeah, there is a little bitterness. However, that being said, You’re absolutely right, Gore in 2000 did not do well enough appealing to a larger cross-section of people, whether the Greens or middle of the roaders. I think he should have made major efforts making himself more human (more the way he appears now), but that was seven years and tens of thousands of lifetimes ago.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:50 pmWilco
I disagree. Clinton ran America with a Republican Party Congress and Senate, he managed to get quite a bit done.
A third party candidate could achieve the same sort of results by playing the two major parties against each other.
If a candidate runs without hope of victory, well that is a part of building a name for the future. Should the Democrats if they feel they don’t stand a chance in Texas for say, the next twenty years, not bother running a Texas candidate for Congress?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:52 pmValiant is so full of BS she can’t open her eyes for fear of farting on her computer screen!
Whoa - that speech was free! Remember, Republicans reserve the right to hate and kill whenever nobody agrees with them.
Valiant, you are a fraud, the worst type of troll, and just a basic idiot. Yea, thats right, I’m going down to your level here of ad hominem, off-topic, posts. Oh…wait…one sec…
Is that a hate crime? Wait, no, a CRIME has to be committed…
Whatever your views on “morality” are (laughable notion that), does that include hating people? Of course it does, because you’re the Hater.
OOO - Great handle you tool.
I noticed on last thread we tangled you shied away really quickly. Lemme take the wind out of your sails here too - this is just some “far-out” (as in groovy haha, square pusher!) Liberal calling names to someone who doesn’t agree.
Hey, its not a crime unless I did something criminal coupled with my obvious loathing of you! FREE SPEECH RULES!
and Valiant
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:55 pmYou evidently haven’t learned that both of these constitutional crimes occured when Repubs were in charge of the executive branch.
Comment by Bluedog49
I understand this very well. I also understand the same crooks from both administrations are involved in this administration. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby and so on. The Same list that is in PNAC
If they are not punnished and held accountable, mark my words, they and/or their underlings will be in the next Repuke administration in 8-12 years after Bush leaves office, doing the same crap all over again, when the American voter’s short term memory kicks in again.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm…and Valiant just doesn’t get it.
Sorry, better luck next life…it’ll be easier on your brain to be a worm anyhow!
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:58 pmEasy Bluedog…I believe voter fraud and election malpractice have much more to do with Gore’s defeat than a green candidate.
Yada yada he “stole” votes from Al…more people shouldve been at the polls, less votes shouldve been f*ck3d with.
Bottom line.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:01 pm#91
I have to disagree with you on this. THIS legislation is not punishing people because they committed a crime against particular victim classes, THIS legislation is based on the motivation (the hate) that makes you target members of a particular group. Cop Killers, Judge killers, etc. are punished more severely for very different reasons.
Hate crime legislation is expressly intended to stop violent hate groups. You’re free to hate all you want, just don’t use that as a justification to violently target people of groups you hate. I am free to hate George W. Bush, but I am NOT free to encourage others (or participate myself) in efforts to kill him. This has always been the law.
Hate crime legislation extends that type of protection to people who have historically been discriminated against.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:04 pmI agree, Tweedster. My list would be:
#1: The mainstream media’s two-year war on Gore.
#2: Election fraud.
#3: Ralph Nader’s insistence that there were no differences between the two.
I get very tired of slamming Green party people because I agree with their political positions. If just one Green would admit his party played a role in giving us Bush, I’d be a lot less likely to slam them.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:04 pmBruce,
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:06 pmClinton also had the Democrats working with him. Opposition parties have a great deal of parliamentary power, as the Republicans are now showing. With a President in office loathed by both major parties, I just don’t see what leverage he would have in pushing his agenda. Any bills the President wants have to be introduced by members of Congress and make it through the process there to even get it to the floor. That’s far less likely with a third party candidate in the White House.
And I’m not suggesting a third party candidate shouldn’t run because there is no hope for victory. I’m suggesting he/she bow out before the big day if there is clearly no chance. Election day should not be about making a point. We vote to change America, to improve our country. A symbolic vote on the national level doesn’t do that, in my opinion.
…and Valiant just doesn’t get it.
Sorry, better luck next life…it’ll be easier on your brain to be a worm anyhow!
Comment by Tweedster — May 3, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
So you’re against name calling when people disagree with you, yet you do it yourself? Another Projecting Conservative - I’M SHOCKED!!
So you’re opposed to the legal system determining *motive*, and you say someone else has the brain of a *worm*? That image must be coming from your *mirror* - child!
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:06 pmBlueDog thanks for the response… The only logic im toubled with then is this… Arent they in essence being charged twice for the same crime? and isnt every crime a hate crime? whether a robber chooses a specific target or an emotional rage of irrational behavior… aren’t both able to be difined as hate?
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:07 pmEasy Bluedog…I believe voter fraud and election malpractice have much more to do with Gore’s defeat than a green candidate. Comment by Tweedster — May 3, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Yeah, that’s the b*llsh*t lie you Conservatives have been trying to push, to disenfranchise voters. Even McClatchy news yesterday outed your *non-partisan* voting group that claimed there was voter fraud, as a wingNUT front group. Sorry, there’s no *evidence* for what you claim, but the evidence does clearly show a systematic attack on voter rights in Florida by republicans.
Yada yada he “stole†votes from Al…more people shouldve been at the polls, less votes shouldve been f*ck3d with. Bottom line.Comment by Tweedster — May 3, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Gore won the vote, it wasn’t the people coming to the polls that was the problem - it was the refusal of wingNUTS to count the votes of those that voted. As usual. Lincoln would be turning in his grave at the wingNUT dishonest f*cks you folks have become!
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 pmI get very tired of slamming Green party people because I agree with their political positions. If just one Green would admit his party played a role in giving us Bush, I’d be a lot less likely to slam them. Comment by Bluedog49 — May 3, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
I agree. The Greens were the “useful idiots” in that election.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:09 pmBruce, don’t get me wrong. I’d love to see more parties involved. I think the 2 party system is detrimental to our country. Sadly, we’re just so used to it.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pmPolls are looking good, though, as more and more people identify themselves as “independent.”
If someone can form some sort of national movement from this, then great! Fantastic! I’d love to see a true independent in the White House. There has to be someone out there better than the current crop of hopefuls.
LOL Uranus is leaking!
Hey man, I’m not against it unless there’s a fist or a bullet following forthwith…
Valiant will lucky to be a worm…probably end up a carbunkle on Denny Haster III’s azz cheek.
Why do Republicans hate Love? (unless its that illicit, meth-smoking, man on dog on sandwich kind!)
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:17 pmWilco
Its a difference in opinion, but nothing major. In the specific case of a Green President, he could get a certain amount done via using the Democrats against the Republicans to get it done. Using people who hate you requires sneakiness, but it can be done.
Bluedog49
Except they didn’t. The Republicans did.
Those who voted Green probably wouldn’t have voted Democrat anyway, they were votes the Democrats lost. It was either vote Green, or don’t vote at all for them.
The guys who you should blame, the guys who really, really screw up American politics, are those Republicans who voted Republican, even though they agreed with the Democrats, because they couldn’t bring themselves to vote Democrat.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:23 pmBoehner is a dick. lol
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:24 pmThere has to be someone out there better than the current crop of hopefuls.
Comment by Wilco — May 3, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
The sick thing is: There are several better people out there.
Unfortunately, they don’t want the job.
Of the guys you are left with, the more I see the race, the more I think Edwards is going to the the Democrat candidate for 2008.
Edwards is hanging back right now, and is going to let Hillary and Obama wipe each other out. He runs the risk of coming up too late, but his strategy could win for him if he times it right, and I think he is going to time it right.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pmRead:
to the the
as
to be the
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pmThe content of Boehner’s statement is correct. Hate crime legislation seeks to segregate parts of society which is unconstitutional. Murder is hate and it doesn’t matter who it impacts. Those who commit it should face the death penalty in most cases.
My problem with hate crime legislation is that most of core supporters are not tough on crime. That’s very troubling to me.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pmpatriot act = a-ok
anti-lynching law = dangerous, slippery slope
WTF!?!?!??
Y, right! boner boy -
luckily everyone knows boner is merely an un-indicted co-conspirator in the theft of the ‘04 election, and will be imprisoned within the next 36 mos.
GOP = the (manson) Family Values party!!!!!!
f’in Moonies!!
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm#113 - that’s just the type of invective that keeps me conservative. I am very unhappy with Republicans right now as people, not necessarily their ideas. But the hate you just spewed because someone doesn’t agree with you is telling and troubling.
I fear if Democrats get in power, they will shut down the opposition. Case in point, the Fox news debate and the letter they wrote to David Broder for criticizing Harry Reid. The thought of not having a free press scares me and that’s why I rarely vote for Democrats.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pmCenter Right
Also, to put it bluntly, Boner is talking out of his arse. Read the OT, look at what the bill says, look at the specific statement on speech. It does not effect freedom of speech at all, all it does is make sentencing on certain crimes tougher.
Also, your charge that those who are in favour of this bill are soft on crime? Try looking at the facts, the real facts some time. Rightwing talks a good game, but the second the criminal is rich?
Try Delay for “Tough on crime.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:19 pmWHAT ABOUT PROTECTING MEN?
DOES ANYBODY GIVE A SHIT ABOUT MEN ANYMORE?
Sexism alone is not a sufficient explanation for why 99% of all the great cultural, artistic, scientific, and technological achievements of the past 5,000 years have been due to males.
Men, opt out, go your own way. MGTOW
Comment by jonny
Dude, I absolutely love men.
I just really dislike whiners, such as yourself.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:19 pminvect my ass, center right (btw, saying “center right” is like saying “hornless unicorn” - a hornless unicorn is a horse, and you are a Righty)
take your faux-moderate, sanctimonious BS somewhere else.
it’s not going to matter who you vote for soon enough, ’cause your objects of authoritarian man-love have completely sunk the Republican party - just ask Bill Buckley.
peace and love to you and yours
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:20 pm#65 I agree, however, whether done to terrorize or not, it’s still a crime, and should be treated as such. I will agree that this crime could be said as one with extenuating circumstances for the prosecution, allowing the judge to levy a larger punishment, but it’s still a crime.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:28 pm#117 - The GOP is a mess right now. This is true. But your arrogance will be your downfall. 18 months is an eternity in politics and George W. Bush is not on the ticket. In fact, if Hillary’s on the ticket, that would brighten the GOP’s hopes. AND let’s face it - the Clintons will turn ugly and win the primary in the end. They have too much dirt on everyone.
AS for hate crime legislation, it’s unconstitutional. Why should murdering me be any less offensive than murdering a gay man or woman? AND I seriously doubt anyone here supports the death penalty - so please stop acting like you’re tough on crime.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:30 pmGeorge W. Bush WILL be on the ticket in 2008.
The Democrats are going to tie EVERY one of the TRAITOR Rapeublican candidates that have azz-sucked Bush for the last 6 years
to the “commander guy”!!!!
What a fvcking TRAITOR and MORON I am…
See YOU in hell “center right” (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:39 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo, Inc.)
CR, murdering you would be worth more time than murdering a gay or a woman, if a gay man killed you simply because you were straight or a woman killed you because you’re d!ck.
ADIOS hermanos!
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:45 pmBruce: “It was either vote Green, or don’t vote at all for them.”
You may be right about many Greens, Bruce, and it was that kind of thinking that is partially responsible for the world we have today. Are you a fan of Michael Moore? I am. If you know him, I think you would agree that he’s not mouthpiece for democrats. Michael Moore made a last-minute plea to Ralph Nader to endorse Gore for the good of the nation. Nader, of course, refused. The rest is history and I’m not happy with it.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:50 pmCenter right: “I seriously doubt anyone here supports the death penalty - so please stop acting like you’re tough on crime.”
Whether or not someone supports the death penalty has nothing to do with being “tough on crime.” The death penalty does not deter people from murdering. That much has been established.
On the other hand, everywhere death row convicts have been subject to reevaluation due to DNA evidence, they have found men on death row who were not guilty of murder or rape. It doesn’t take a great deal of critical thinking power, then, to conclude that we have executed innocent men. This is the main reason why there should be a moritorium on the death penalty.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:00 pmDouglas: “I will agree that this crime could be said as one with extenuating circumstances for the prosecution…”
Good. Then you agree with Hate Crimes legislation because that’s exactly what it does.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:02 pmI guess Ol’ Boner finds this “scary” because he doesn’t want to get busted when he’s wearing his white hood, ya know, burning a cross on Barack’s front lawn…
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm114. ” But the hate you just spewed because someone doesn’t agree with you is telling and troubling. ”
It’s not simply disagreement. You have to understand that conservative values are extremely stupid to wise people, so much so that we question your sanity and intelligence.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 pmBoehner is a fool, and needs to be ousted.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:49 pmBluedog49
No, the kind of thinking that put the world in the place where it is today, has more to do with the Democrats taking their base for granted.
If the Democrats aren’t prepared to make an effort to win over the left, the Democrats shouldn’t moan when leftwingers find someone who IS.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:44 amThe crap coming from the likes of Boner and Dobson are part of the coservative Christians’ big plot of playing the victims for their “War on Christianity” movement. There’s an independent documentary film coming out later this year titled Faith of the Abomination about two lesbian women who infiltrated the inner circle of a huge Conservative Evangelical church in Austin, TX. The scandals and findings of this experimental project will astound many.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:08 am