Breaking: Senate passes hate crimes bill.
Moments ago, the Senate voted to expand the hate crimes law to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victims. The vote retained the 60 votes necessary to prevent a filibuster, and it will pass as an attachment to the defense authorization bill.
Opponents of the measure immediately predicted it “ultimately would fail either in negotiations with the House or by presidential veto. ‘The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the defense authorization bill’ said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. ‘This bill will get vetoed.’” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Our troops are on the front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere fighting against evil and hate. We owe it to them to uphold those same principles here at home.”
(For a backgrounder on the hate crimes bill, see here and here.)
UPDATE: Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solmonese heralds the passage:
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.
UPDATE II: Sen. Larry Craig voted against the hate crimes bill. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was not present to vote. Full Roll Call here.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Not sure how I feel on this one. Hate crimes were already illegal as just crimes. Why add on to the existing legislation, if you get assaulted(for example), I’m not sure that it should matter why, except in the premeditated vs. non-premeditated sense.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:58 amDoesn’t make me forget about yesterday’s votes.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:01 pmperhaps to put them away for longer? sort of a deterrent to recitivism?
September 27th, 2007 at 12:07 pmWhat! No mention of liberal blogs? Doesn’t the Congress know that the blogs are hate groups? WTF!?!
LOL
September 27th, 2007 at 12:09 pmI’m glad to see the Senate actually has the capacity to pass a bill and not on of their “senseless” Senate votes.
Congress needs to send this bill on to Bush and force him to make a decision instead of letting him make his little threats.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:09 pmNot sure how I feel on this one. Hate crimes were already illegal as just crimes. Why add on to the existing legislation, if you get assaulted(for example), I’m not sure that it should matter why, except in the premeditated vs. non-premeditated sense.
Comment by Squegeeboo — September 27, 2007 @ 11:58 am
Because hate crimes are directed not at the individual, but at a group. They are considered crimes of intimidation.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:10 pmtoasterhead
Because hate crimes are directed not at the individual, but at a group. They are considered crimes of intimidation.
Ah, interesting take, while I was aware of it, I’ve never really thought of it. Additionally, does anyone know how much leeway there is in deciding if it’s a hate crime vs. a normal fight that may have people from two different groups involved? I feel like I’ve heard of several stories of fights that sound like regular fights, but because race was different among the protagonists, it automatically became a hate crime.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:13 pmExcellent comments by BARTLEBEE.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:18 pmI feel like I’ve heard of several stories of fights that sound like regular fights, but because race was different among the protagonists, it automatically became a hate crime.
Comment by Squegeeboo — September 27, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
It’d depend on the circumstances of the case, but I don’t think it’s “automatic.” It’s up to the prosecutor (and ultimately the jury) to decide whether an individual crime was motivated by prejudice or not.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pmCan we haul all the neocons off to jail now for their continued hate crimes against the American people whose liberties they have so unscrupulously subverted?
September 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pmhey all,
I tried to start a thread about this article a few days back but TP failed to put it up. I’d love to hear all your opinions on this piece that is creating a lot of uproar with your neighbors to the Great White North!
it’s probably worth noting that of 193,000 american subcribers to MacLean’s Magazine, not ONE registered a complaint thus far…
http://www.macleans.ca/ article.jsp?content=20070920_100442_7900&source=srch&page=1
September 27th, 2007 at 12:24 pmWell isn’t that swell. As an amendment to the defense authorization bill. To pass it they will have to give Chimpf*ck his $200 billion that takes him to the end of his reign.
15 months is too long. We desperately need a hero.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pmI would disagree with the freedom of thought argument. This is not about restricting your freedom of thought. It is about actions i.e., you call me a fag and then hit me. That is a hate crime. It is not a hate crime to dislike me because I am gay.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pmcan war with Iran be considered a hate crime?
September 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pmI am all for serious penalties for violent crimes but “hate crime†legislation seems to be criminalizing freedom of thought and is subjective justice.
I am all for free speech and I have noted in the past that I feel racism/sexism/homophobia is a protected right under the 1st Amendment.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:43 pmHowever, once you add the “crime” part to the “hate” you’re talking about something more than “thought” or expression of that thought.
In September of 2004, a group of men beat the living snot out of me because I was/am gay… that’s a hate crime.
After the attack, my body was covered with bruises for about a month, and I still feel a little pinch in my side when it’s cold. All together, I lost memories that accounted for years of my life because of the head wound i sustained when one of them bashed my head into the concrete.
Don’t tell me that the attack that I experienced was the same as any other random fight. The hatred in their eyes and viciousness and their voices made it different.
No, I didn’t go to the police and I didn’t tell anyone it happened because I knew that in rural Alabama, no one would have cared that some random faggot almost got killed by a bunch of rednecks… after all, I probably brought it on myself… right?
/only a little sarcasm
September 27th, 2007 at 12:44 pm“I would disagree with the freedom of thought argument. This is not about restricting your freedom of thought. It is about actions”
By incrimentalism it will lead to thought crimes. A little bit here, a little there - no one will harldy notice. The first to go will be people who question the zionist propaganda about 9-11, the media, ect.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pmWhat if the culprit did not know you were gay but had a history of anti-gay rhetoric?
It would be to easy to make the association which did not exist.
Comment by Vendetta — September 27, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
You’re talking a gray area here, but, simplistically, if would be the prosecutor’s decision to file the hate crime charge. If there is significant question, the charge could always be brought before a Grand Jury to decide if there exists enough evidence to support the charge. Ultimately, the jury would make the decision regarding guilt.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pmWill, thanks for your story.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:53 pmOnce again, you may “think” anything you wish, however, when you act on that thought in a criminal way, then it becomes something totally different.
As for the possibility of making the connection being made for past rhetoric; I believe the connection should not be made unless that rhetoric is displayed and then acted upon.
Of course people should be able to think anything they want. I wouldn’t want anyone policing my thoughts any more than anyone else. But when you inflict pain (how ever you define that) on another person, based on those thoughts, then that is wrong.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:58 pmOf course Senator Craig voted against this bill… Deeply closeted (well, not so much anymore) gay men that hate themselves generally tend to be serving in the U.S. Congress in the Republican Party. LOL
September 27th, 2007 at 1:00 pmI agree with others. Hate crimes are already illegal.
This is the just the democrats trying to divert your attention from the absolute crap job they’ve been doing.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pmMakes since that some must keep their secrets a secret. Senator Craig knows the code for picking up men and you have to know Sen. Lindsey Graham is light in the loafers as well as others. Interesting that Pelosi’s aide just got attacked because he’s gay while our leaders look the other way. Civil Rights are gone and Human Rights are leaving too. All these so call Christian Religious GOP guys say one thing and do another. Duke Cunningham has both male/female prostitutes at his poker games and most of these same guys attended. Now I wonder who chose the male partner? I know Vitter was a happy camper but the others. Senator Craig might have had his last vote before the Court refuses to dismiss his guilty plea. He can go back to Idaho and relax and feel free to contact what ever man he wants to without the media following him. Marrying a woman with children then adopting them to cover up you closet secret is from the old days. A lot of people did that because they were a shame and wouldn’t be accepted, in those days rich people even chose the wife or husband of their child as a business agreement to bring more money in the family. Now many years later most deny this action as it’s called Family Secrets.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pmSo, if someone uses the “n-word” epithet against an individual and then proceeds to beat them up, then that is not a hate crime either???
September 27th, 2007 at 1:13 pmWhat if the culprit did not know you were gay but had a history of anti-gay rhetoric?
It would be to easy to make the association which did not exist.
Comment by Vendetta — September 27, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
And it’d be really easy for even a moderately competent defense lawyer to have this evidence thrown out as irrelevant to the case.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pmThis should be illegal. They are supposed to be focused of voting for the money our troops need and they add this crap? While I agree with the Hate crimes legislation, it in no way belongs in the defense spending bill.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:38 pmtoasterhead has it right.
“Because hate crimes are directed not at the individual, but at a group. They are considered crimes of intimidation.”
Does anybody really believe that the lynchings of blacks weren’t hate crimes? That the killing of a black man by whites is no different than a white man killing another white man?
Lynchings were used as warnings to black people to stay in “their place”. Attacks on gays and lesbians are meant to give the same message.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:44 pmThe Senate should attach some meaningful amendments to every war spending bill. Then Bush can veto his precioius war funding and the Pentagon can go broke trying to shift funding from other areas.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:44 pmLike General Staff Pensions….
Roger *2
September 27th, 2007 at 1:46 pmAll’s fair in love, war and politics. Or don’t you recall the Max Cleland smear campaign?
Whatever happened to Liberty and JUSTICE for ALL???????
September 27th, 2007 at 2:01 pmSorry folks but this is not progressive. If this legislation did not serve a lib political purpose but a conservative one you would label it rightly as an attack on civil liberties. That you support it is as backwards as the dems who voted to give Bush more power in Iran.
Comment by Vendetta — September 27, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
1) Hate crimes legislation already existed before this bill. This bill simply expands who is protected.
2) Your arguement that this would be attack civil liberties if it served a liberal purpose is erroneous and baseless. There is no (American) civil liberty which allows one person to attack another.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pm1) Hate crimes legislation already existed before this bill. This bill simply expands who is protected.
2) Your arguement that this would be attack civil liberties if it served a liberal purpose is erroneous and baseless. There is no (American) civil liberty which allows one person to attack another.
Comment by dim wit — September 27, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Thank you
September 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pmDim wit is a proper handle for you
Comment by Vendetta — September 27, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Now, you are just being a bully as well as missing the point……..
September 27th, 2007 at 2:26 pm#45 - “Some times Ive used the word btch that does not mean I hate women (Or female dogs.)” Comment by Vendetta — September 27, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Did you ever use that term as you were in the process of beating a woman? (Or female dog?) It has more to do with the words you use as you are violently attacking someone else, than it does with the words themselves.
The interesting part is that if I were to beat up a straight guy, and in the process use the term “breeder”, I could be charged under this provision!
Trust me, I don’t hate straight people! Some of my best friends are straight! (Totally tongue-in-cheek!)
September 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pmI’ve read all the comments so far for and against ‘hate crime’ laws. I don’t see anything new stated here to change my mind on this. No matter how it is presented these laws are being set up to punish people for their thoughts and motivations, which is at worst a violation of constitutional rights and at best a step onto the slippery slope of the same ilk. I do agree with motivational evidence being used to establish premeditation but otherwise it is irrelevant to the commission of a crime. To specifically address one argument made for the legislation: Will, First my sympathy to you for what you went through. But I don’t understand how this legislation will make those that victimized you any less likely to commit the crime again or any more likely to be prosecuted if they do. If the powers that be wouldn’t have charged them with the crimes they already committed, why would they charge them with these new crimes.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pmI agree with Bartlebee. After yesterday’s vote on the Kyl-Lieberman piece of vermin, I called the County Auditor. I’m going Independent. Doesn’t mean I won’t vote for Democrats. I just want the Dems to know they can’t count on me anymore to march in lockstep to their tired, phoney routine. If more and more people start dropping from the Democratic roster, maybe they’ll think twice about what they’re doing. I stumbled upon this article about changing party affiliation. I think it’s worth a read:
http://www.opednews.com/ articles/ opedne_dave_lin_070927_why_quitting_the_dem.htm
September 27th, 2007 at 3:24 pmDumb Question - The antis said the president will not let the congress make this legislation. He also has repeatedly emphasized that “activists judges” cannot make law from the bench.
So exactly who does have the power to make a law ?
September 27th, 2007 at 5:51 pmSome times Ive used the word btch that does not mean I hate women (Or female dogs.)
Comment by Vendetta — September 27, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Have you ever directed the word “b*tch” at a woman?
September 27th, 2007 at 7:26 pm