‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Reintroduced

Posted on March 22, 2007

We read:

“Liberals call it a “hate crimes prevention” bill, but conservatives denounce it as “anti-Christian” legislation. Whatever you call it, the bill is back — reintroduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) on Tuesday. Liberals are pressing for passage, and conservatives are pressing President Bush to veto the bill if it reaches his desk.

“If there was ever a bill which needed to be vetoed — this is it,” said Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. “Most Christians might as well rip the pages which condemn homosexuality right out of their Bibles because this bill will make it illegal to publicly express the dictates of their religious beliefs.”

Lafferty and other conservatives argue that the bill will “elevate homosexuality” — a type of behavior, they stipulate — to the same level as race and other characteristics that can’t be changed. “The fact is that Conyers’ so-called hate crimes bill is a fraud, designed for only one purpose: to add homosexuals, cross-dressers, drag queens and transsexuals to the ranks of federally protected minority groups,” TVC said.

Source

Insofar as the bill targets speech, it would probably be unconstitutional but it is clear that any avoidance of homosexuals — such as rejecting one as a carer or teacher or church-member or customer — would become criminal. Comment from The ACLU. They don’t go near the apparent fact that the bill will create new crimes. They pretend that it will just extend to the Feds prosecutorial powers already held by the States.

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here.)

» Filed Under ACLU

Trackback URL

Comments

8 Responses to “‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Reintroduced”

Greg on March 22nd, 2007 4:23 pm

As long as the Christians don’t plan on going around and beating gays they have nothing to worry about from this legislation. They can hate them all they want. They can say as many mean things about them.

No, it won’t create new crimes. Have you READ the proposed law? It takes current crimes (assault for example) and allows for the federal government to investigate them and punish them more harshly if they are motivated by hate. What we’re basically talking about here is terrorism. Hate crimes are crimes committed in order to strike terror in the targeted community.
Steve on March 22nd, 2007 4:53 pm

That’s BS, Greg. Terrorism? Please.

Have you paid attention to the news, Greg? Have you read about people being fined in Canada for putting Bible verses in a newspaper ad or a sign in an apartment window? Have you read about a Swedish pastor being convicted (and later righfully acquitted) of a hate crime for a sermon? Have you read about people in Britain being harassed for not “celebrating diversity” (They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and immoral).

Every time hate crimes legislation comes up, people like you always say it won’t affect anyone. That is 100% pure BS. The whole intention of these laws is to FORCE people to look at deviant sex acts as being perfectly normal.

Has it ever occurred to you have these laws make it a bigger crime to rob a homosexual than an elderly gentleman? Some guy robbed an old man? Send him away for a couple years. Oh, he robbed a homosexual? Ten years minimum!

Further, the federal government has no business dictating how a state punishes criminals within its borders.
Steve on March 22nd, 2007 5:03 pm

JonJayRay,

I was googling around the other day and found this:

http://www.antipas.org/books/homo_revolution/

It is excerpts from the book “The Homosexual Revolution” END TIME ABOMINATION by David A. Noebel, with Gerald S. Pope, Julian Williams, written in 1977

From chapter 2 (recognize any names?):

Soon the whole country will be involved because two bills now pending in the United States Congress - HR 2998 and HR 5239 - would impose on the entire nation the same nonsense as the Miami ordinance. In fact, HR 2998, co-sponsored by 25 Representatives, goes even further than the Miami ordinance, for under its provisions all public schools would be compelled to hire homosexuals as teachers.

The bill, sponsored by Mr. Koch, Mr. Bingham, Mrs. Burke of California, Mr. John L. Burton, Mrs. Chisholm, Mr. Clay, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Dellums, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Harrington, Mr. Hawkins, Ms. Holtzman, Mr. McCloskey, Mr. McKinney, Mr. Miller of California, Mr. Mitchell of Maryland, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. Solarz, Mr. Stark, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Studds, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Weiss, seeks to add to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the words “affectional or sexual preference.” The public education section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for example, would be amended so that a person “manifesting an emotional or physical attachment to another consenting person or persons of either gender” may not be discriminated against. In other words, all public educational facilities would be forced to hire homosexuals.
gentrfam on March 22nd, 2007 8:52 pm

“Have you read about people being fined in Canada”

Canada, if you’ll remember, is NOT a part of the United States. Neither is Sweden. Neither is Britain. None of these countries has a First Amendment, none even has nearly the protections for free speech that the United States has. Scalia mocks people for trying to compare the judicial systems of other countries to the US. Do I need to sic Scalia on you? You won’t like it, Scalia will get all originalist on your behind! Feh, comparing us to Sweden! The nerve!

Read the law, Steve,

It requires:

1. That you attempt to cause bodily INJURY AND
2. that it be MOTIVATED by a prejudice that group.

So, unless you think putting Bible verses in a newspaper is VIOLENT or not celebrating diversity is a FELONY (independent of this law) or preaching a sermon causes BODILY injury, then there is NO DANGER of any of your parade of horribles coming true.

And, how would not beating up a gay guy be forcing you to view homosexuality is normal? Are you compelled to beat gay guys? Do you do it every morning before breakfast?

No, it doesn’t require that the robbery of a gay guy get a greater punishment. It requires that a crime MOTIVATED by a prejudice against that guy because he’s gay. It looks at the INTENT of the accused, just like premeditated murder gets a greater sentence than involuntary manslaughter. The criminal law, ever since Biblical times has treated some motives more harshly than other motives. Look it up.

And, yes, the US Congress, made up of democratically elected representatives of the People of the United States have every right to HELP the states prosecute crimes within their border. AGAIN, Steve, READ the law. No prosecution can happen unless it is in WRITING that the state in question either doesn’t have jurisdiction or WANTS the federal government’s help.

These are all fragile strawmen, easily knocked down by ANYONE with the wherewithal to go to http://www.thomas.gov and look up HR 2662 from the 109th Congress, which is the exact mirror of HR 1000 which was submitted today.
gary l. day on March 23rd, 2007 7:35 am

Gentr,

That would be why the actual text of the law was nowhere to be
found in any rightist site referencing it.
Steve on March 23rd, 2007 5:30 pm

I wasn’t comparing our judicial systems. Those countries have passed laws, as ours is trying to do. The reason I brought up those other countries is because they, like you, always say that these laws won’t infringe on anyone’s rights or religious liberties. Yeah, right. I don’t for one minute believe that this law will be interpreted as it is intended to be. How long before some leftwing judge interprets “bodily injury” to be anything that offends a homosexual or makes him uncomfortable.

“No, it doesnâ€™t require that the robbery of a gay guy get a greater punishment. It requires that a crime MOTIVATED by a prejudice against that guy because he’s gay.”

Right, and some homosexual who is robbed isn’t going to scream HATE CRIME, even if it’s blatantly obvious that it wasn’t. Can you guarantee that there will be no false prosecutions for an alleged hate crime? I’ve read the constitution, and I have yet to find abortion or anal sex mentioned, but somehow they are “rights.” It’s no stretch to see this law reinterpreted in numerous ways. Heck, RICO was used to go after pro-lifers who protested abortion clinics. I’m sure that was not the intent of that law, but that didn’t stop anyone from abusing it.

And Gary, maybe that’s because us “rightists” know where this law is heading, whether you see it or not.

Have you followed what’s going on in Brazil?
Matt on March 24th, 2007 1:34 pm

After reading this long enough I feel that I should say something…

I have talked to prosecutors before and they don’t actually like to prosecute hate crimes, it makes their life harder. Where as to convict for a battery or murder they must simply show beyond a reasonable doubt that Person X attacked/killed Person Y. When they go for the hate crime amplifier they must also prove X did it because Y is a member of a certain class of people. Proving the motivation is very difficult and that is why you probably won’t see a lot of false hate crime prosecutions.
Greg on March 26th, 2007 8:43 am

Steve, first, it was liberals who have erected the free-speech regime this nation operates under. If you don’t believe me, look a couple of posts below this one to the one complaining about the overturning of COPA. In fact, it was liberal judges who said that violence-inducing speech had to meet a really high hurdle to be found criminal. If there’s any danger of speech becoming criminal in and of itself, it’s going to come from the Conservatives, not liberals. (Newt wants to dial back the First Amendment, I’ve heard of nothing similar from liberals.)

Second, Matt is right, this adds an element to the crime that the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If you’re a prosecutor and you can charge crime X with three elements or crime Y with four elements, which do you think you’ll choose? Especially since the current hate crime law proposal SPECIFICALLY forbids the use of speech or association unless directly related to the crime. So, if you belong to Fred Phelps’ church (westborochurch.com) but they had no part in planning the crime, the prosecution can’t use that information.

Third, if you are objecting to this law based not on what it says, but on a fear that it will be wildly misinterpreted, then why not object to all law? Up could be interpreted as down, parking violations prosecuted as murder, chili-cheese fries banned as WMDs.