Bush threatens hate crimes veto.
By on May 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
Bush threatens hate crimes veto.
“The White House issued a veto threat Thursday against legislation that would expand federal hate crime law to include attacks motivated by the victims’ gender or sexual orientation. The hate crimes bill, with strong Democratic backing, is expected to pass the House Thursday. Similar legislation is moving through the Senate.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Shouldn’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 12:11 pmWorried about a little blowback against you pseudo-christian-wite-wing corporate base, george?
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:11 pma veto on tuesday to hold our troops hostage in iraq while our president plays politics… another veto threatened upholding hate crimes… it’s just like alice in wonderland…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:14 pmIf it weren’t for misogynists and gay bashers this clown would have never been elected. He is just catering to his constituency.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:16 pmWar is the ultimate hate crime. No wonder he wants to veto it
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:19 pmWhy is congress limiting protection to orientation/gender/race? Why not include protection for something more uncommon and more easily identifiable, like a facial disfigurement?
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pmWay to go loyal bushies. Please continue to create more Democratic votes for us. Thanks you.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:27 pmWhat is it every thing that the Dems want to pass Bush is going to veto.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:39 pmThat is why we need to impeach this guy. Cheney and Bush are sociopath.
Boy, after six years that veto pen sure is getting a workout!
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:40 pmSorry guys but “hate crimes” are, and always were, bullshit.
There is no difference if someone’s jaw is broken based on the fact that he was a Jew, Muslim, Black, Gay etc versus because the victim “looked at me funny like” or “cut me off at the off-ramp”.
An attack is simply an attack. Making additional distinctions based on your ideology de jeur is extremely dangerous because it allows any pet peeve of any political group who happens to be in power to be used to punish behaviours which that group sees as aimed against its “righteous causes”, whatever they might be at the time.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 pmWhy is congress limiting protection to orientation/gender/race?
Because race and gender have been recognized under the Fourteenth Amendment as specific targets of discrimination that require additional remedy from the government. While sexual orientation and disability have not been elevated to the same level, some legislative acts have been passed to protect them (such as the Americans with Disabilities Act) from discrimination. This would merely extend existing Federal Hate Crimes laws to cover them.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:58 pmThe President wants to veto because he thinks that being a member of the military, being a peace officer, or being elderly should also be protected.
So what kind of assault is OK? Is it any less of a crime if someone is beaten up for the cash in there pocket? Don’t get me wrong. I’m all about punishing the guilty. But to say that it’s worse because of the type of victim is not really helping. You punish the crime. All victims should be treated with respect, Regardless.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:01 pmComment by Dreary Urbanite — May 3, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
This sums it up perfectly. I couldn’t have said it any better myself.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:02 pmAt least some so-called “hate crimes” might be better classified as acts of terrorism. They are illegal acts already, but they are meant to send a “message” and produce specific results.
Yes, these acts are already illegal, just like destruction of private property and murder, but there’s another component that needs to be handled somehow.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 pmThis 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 the disturbing history, see:
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm“Bush 2000 Hate Crimes Flashback.”
So what kind of assault is OK? Is it any less of a crime if someone is beaten up for the cash in there pocket? Don’t get me wrong. I’m all about punishing the guilty. But to say that it’s worse because of the type of victim is not really helping. You punish the crime. All victims should be treated with respect, Regardless. Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Kevin, you really are st*pid on *every* topic aren’t you? You don’t understand how *intent* affects a crime? If someone is killed, you think the *crime* should only be punished, even if it’s an accident, versus a crime of passion, versus pre-meditated? Intent is used in all sorts of crimes, to distinguish exactly *which* crime is used. The point isn’t what “type” of victim, but whether the crime was motivated by hate.
I hate to inform you, but you know *nothing* of American values, criminal justice or basic human decency. You’re a disgusting st*pid fascist pig.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 pmGeorge Bush, playing to his base: the haters, the bashers, and the religious wackos. Pretty scary to think they’re 28% of the populace. And breeding.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:39 pmTrek, Thanks for your response.
Along with repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” I support this bill and want it to be passed. My concern is that we’ve become too consumed with the same causes of gender discrimination and same-sex marriage protection while those with disabilities enjoy a high umemployment rate, likely much higher than women/minorities/gays. I also believe that the ADA hasn’t been very effective in promoting social/economic equality because its too conservative not enforced well overall.
Any takes, anyone?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:47 pmClearly Republicans want to protect hate criminals.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 pmBush will use the Army to enforce bush morals.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:55 pmLaws mean absolutely nothing to the rightwingnuts. So, why pass law?
Bush wants to veto the bill, because he is guilty of hate crimes himself!
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:10 pmAt least some so-called “hate crimes†might be better classified as acts of terrorism. They are illegal acts already, but they are meant to send a “message†and produce specific results.
Yes, these acts are already illegal, just like destruction of private property and murder, but there’s another component that needs to be handled somehow.
Comment by MisterOwl — May 3, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
This is a very dangerous idea. Who gets to decide what “components” are to be treated “special”? Based on what principles? To whom are you sending the message? Religious zealots who are willing to die for their looney causes? Bigots who are so biggotted that they will try to “purify” their neighbourhoods? Is being robbed and beaten up somehow “better” then being called names and then beaten up?
The thing is simply illogical.
Any “preventive” measures should be aimed at the act of the violence itself, not whatever wacko thoughts were running through the head of the assailant.
Otherwise why not excuse poor drunks and high on crack junkies alltogether — they weren’t doing anything hateful when thet beat up random passer-bys, their minds were simply disfunctional, right?
One can go on like this for a while.
I will repeat, adding additional distinctions to a violent act based on the supposed motivations of the attacker is a slippery slope that can only lead to no good, regardless of any good intentions of those proposing this law.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm#
So what kind of assault is OK? Is it any less of a crime if someone is beaten up for the cash in there pocket? Don’t get me wrong. I’m all about punishing the guilty. But to say that it’s worse because of the type of victim is not really helping. You punish the crime. All victims should be treated with respect, Regardless.
Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
It goes to motivation for the crime. Like lynching did. Get it?
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm#
Comment by FactsOnly — May 3, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
#
A straight white male…
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:07 pmA straight white male…
You just made a “hateful” statement towards a “social group” … watch out!
If you get physically attacked by someone, I think that’s a hate crime. It shouldn’t matter why. I think classifying something as a hate crime is rather useless and not very fair.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:24 pmFact of the matter is, there are still a few crooked authorities in little towns everywhere that will eventually cost another citizen their lives, simply because of who they are.
THAT, my friend, is why this bill MUST PASS.
This has nothing to do with Christianity or censorship, much like the a select few ignorant extremists are trying to misinform Americans with.
This has to do with protecting people who are so prone to being attacked, that even local authorities can’t always be fully trusted to protect the people who deserve protection.
I’ve served my country for several years now.. and in my PERSONAL opinion, a bill like this is EXACTLY why I feel my country is worth protecting.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 pmKevin, straight guys don’t regularly wait outside straight bars with bats and chains because they hate other straight guys. They wait outside gay bars because the *HATE* gay guys. True, an attack is still against the law in either case. But the intent is key. This legislation will make that point loud and clear.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 pmI will repeat, adding additional distinctions to a violent act based on the supposed motivations of the attacker is a slippery slope that can only lead to no good, regardless of any good intentions of those proposing this law.
Comment by FactsOnly
Spoken like someone who has no concept of what it means to be discriminated against. Only someone who has never bothered to try to understand what it would be like to live within a society that would consider to you less important or even undesirable to it’s make up as minorities, be that based on race, sex/orientation or whatever would try to dismiss the strain that puts on an individual’s and a communities mind. Perhaps it’s time for an act of good faith on the part of society to prove to those who not only feel, but ARE shut out of gaining the best opportunities that society has to offer that we know you’re as valuable as any and you should have the same chance to achieve without being in fear for your life and safety because of radical elements. We can’t stop ‘em if they want to hurt you but it they do we will be sure that you receive the justice you deserve.
And another funny thought. If this country is the melting pot that it was invented to be, a place where people bring their varied backgrounds and skills, we mix the best of what everyone has to offer and make an even better country… If that’s what this is why should this country not make it a priority to put especially punish those who use those differences, which we use to make ourselves stronger, as a motivation to target, menace and attack people? Why shouldn’t that be a priority in a country that calls itself a melting pot? I mean if it’s those differences we can use to forge compromises that use the very best ideas to make changes then it stands to reason that a hate monger (whatever their particular brand of hate is) doesn’t just harm an individual or a particular group in his crimes. He hurts us all.
What you’re spouting is just a right wing talking point which is meant to do nothing more than say one thing. They’re all whiners. The blacks, the Jews, the Asians, the Hispanics, the Gays, the Women… Boo-hoo… There’s no such thing as racism… or sexism… or homophobia… or xenophobia…. They get too much protection as it is.
What you’re saying is garbage. What you’re saying are the words of every bigot that doesn’t have the cajones to admit they’re bigots.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:26 pm#22
Since we’re just looking at the actions themselves, should “terrorists” just be charged with conspiracy, possession of explosives without permits, vandalism/destruction of property, assault and/or murder and go through the criminal justice system based on that? It seems to me that clearly defined terms can cover gaps in existing law and get rid of the easily-attacked term “hate crime”.
(I’m not a lawyer, so I could be even more wrong than one of them might be on this issue.)
I’m not suggesting that the bar be set at the level where it would affect your garden-variety mugging, random fisticuffs or violent fantasies. Maybe it should be set near the level where Middle Eastern perpetrators (or Jose Padilla) would be quietly shipped off to who-knows-where for long-term storage.
As long as we’re not talking about Orwellian Thought Police, spoiling some thrill-seekers’ weekend plans to go out and put some of “those people” in their place is a good thing, right?
May 4th, 2007 at 12:56 amWhat possible motivation could be so strong that Bush would veto this bill? Why would it be THAT important that if it passed House and Senate that Bush should veto it. There is nothing that overpowering in the legislation that Bush should stand up against the voting majority and Say “you must not know what is good for you, but I do”. It’s stupid and really makes no sense. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of this administration for Bush to have a gay friend he considers “like a son”, and Cheney to have a gay pregnant daughter living with a gay partner and still veto legislation geared to the protection against violence because of sexual orientation. These people are frauds.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:55 amThe reason a hate crimes bill is important is the idea of intent. Intent is a key deciding factor in the law. No murder is just a murder, there is always motive (absent a motive, it’s “involuntary” and carries a far lighter sentence).
The bill provides an added deterrent against those crimes because they are particularly heinous acts. It expands already existing protections for groups based on religion and race; to include other societally maligned characteristics like gender, disability or sexual orientation.
The idea that this is special treatment is utterly wrong and belies a lack of understanding of our legal system. Without hate crime laws the killers of Matthew Shepherd would have gotten only a few months in prison.
That is the power of hate crimes legislation: because the next time you decide to go bash some ‘homos’ brains in (see, motive), you’ll be facing life without parole instead of a few hundred hours of community service. That sobering thought might be enough to stop you, and that will save some lives.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:28 amStatements suggesting that hate crime legislation adds to the reason that this country is so divided is not very well thought out. The argument is that a crime should be met with the same legal repercussions no matter who the victim is. That idea might work on a simple level, but expand it a little bit and look at the implications of that. By that account, sexual assault should not be more severe just because it was done to a child. You can think of many other examples as well if you get past your own covert support of discrimination. The hypocrisy here is that the same people opposing hate crime legislation because they say it creates unequality are often the same people that endorse the racial profiling of Arab-Americans because of terrorism.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:10 pm