Bush vows to veto hate-crime expansion for gays

Users who are viewing this thread

JuJu

Member
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
President Bush is committed to vetoing the latest effort to expand federal "hate crimes" laws to include sexual orientation, even if it means sending a defense authorization bill back to Congress, the White House said.

"The qualifications [in the bill] are so broad that virtually any crime involving a homosexual individual has potential to have hate crimes elements," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

"The proposals they're talking about are not sufficiently narrow."

The veto threat adds another twist to the high-stakes battle between the Democrat-led Congress and Mr. Bush over the Iraq war.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, attached the crime measure to the defense authorization bill, which Democrats are expected to use as a vehicle to try to alter war policy.

A coalition of religious leaders, many of them black Christian pastors, have lobbied the White House to reject the amendment, saying it could lead to suppression of free speech and religious expression.

"The bill is not about crime prevention or even civil rights. It's about outlawing peaceful speech — speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong," said Chuck Colson, a former aide to President Nixon who now runs a Christian ministry to prisoners.

The legislation would make it easier for federal law enforcement to become involved in crimes against people based on their "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."

Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Lanham is leading the High Impact Leadership Coalition, a group of Christian pastors lobbying against the bill. The coalition is working with Tim Goeglein, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison.

"He seems very receptive," Mr. Jackson said.

Mr. Kennedy's office says the bill "punishes violence, not speech."

"It covers only violent acts that result in death or bodily injury. It does not prohibit or punish speech, expression or association in any way — even hate speech," said a Kennedy aide.

"Nothing in the act will prohibit the lawful expression of anyone's religious or political beliefs. People will always be free to speak their mind about issues."

Mr. Fratto said the president, who has pushed for quick approval of spending for U.S. troops, would send the defense bill back to Capitol Hill if the hate-crime amendment remains attached.

The White House stopped short of saying it was opposed to the language because of concerns about religious freedom.

Mr. Jackson agreed with the White House's assessment that the measure's language is too broad. His coalition ran a full-page ad in USA Today last month that said: "Don't muzzle our pulpits!"

"We believe prosecutors and anti-Christian groups will use loopholes to muzzle the church from speaking out on biblical standards of morality which are shared by most Americans."

House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, a South Carolinian who leads the House Democratic Faith Working Group, called that sentiment "grossly inaccurate and highly prejudicial."

"Absolutely nothing in the [bill] in any way constrains the freedom of expression or religion and I — who was born and raised in the parsonage of a fundamentalist Christian church — believe it is wrong to attempt to defeat civil rights legislation based on such a false claim."

The House in May passed the hate crimes bill — which the homosexual lobbying group Human Rights Campaign called "historic" — by a vote of 237-180.
Bush vows to veto hate-crime expansion for gays*--*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper=

Damn shame the hate crimes bill is attached to a war
efforts bill, makes it such a partisan political mess.
 
  • 25
    Replies
  • 646
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
I never agreed with hate crime laws....adding more punishment on to a person's sentence just because of their motivation is silly.
 

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
A crime is a crime regardless of what the criminals intentions were. How many more useless laws do we need? Enforce the laws we have now.

Example of what I'm saying: If someone robs a store. In regards to them breaking the law: I don't care why they did it. The point is they did it and should be charged with robbery.

Whatever personal reasons they had for doing it - they are entitled to have those reasons all they want no matter how wrong I think they may be. But when they act on those reasons in an illegal manner, that is when action should be taken.
 

Maulds

Accidental Bastard
Messages
10,330
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
I too think hate crimes legislation is silly. If someone beats up and robs an old lady its a lesser offense than if they beat up and robbed a gay person? Seriously wtf?
 

JuJu

Member
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Fact Sheet on the Hate Crimes Bill

Background

This legislation would strengthen existing federal hate crimes laws in two ways:
  • The bill would eliminate a serious limitation on federal involvement under existing law — the requirement that a victim of a bias-motivated crime was attacked because he or she was engaged in a specified federally protected activity, such as serving on a jury or attending public school.
  • Current law, 18 U.S.C. Section 245, authorizes federal involvement only in those cases in which the victim was targeted because of race, color, religion or national origin. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would also authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. Current federal law does not provide authority for involvement in these four categories of cases at all.
Recent Action

Although the legislation never made it to the President’s desk, this measure has repeatedly attracted majority, bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House:
  • On May 3, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592) by a vote of 237-180, with 25 Republicans voting yes.
  • In the 109th Congress, the House of Representatives passed the hate crimes bill as an amendment on the Child Safety Act with a bipartisan vote of 223 to 199, with 30 Republicans voting yes. Similar legislation was passed by the Senate in the 108th Congress by an overwhelming vote of 65-33 and by the House on a vote of 213-186.
Law Enforcement Support

The measure also enjoys the support of more than 230 civil rights, professional, civic and religious groups, 26 state attorneys general, former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and virtually every major national law enforcement organizations in America, including:
  • Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
  • Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association
  • Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association
  • International Association of Chiefs of Police
  • International Brotherhood of Police Officers
  • Major Cities Chiefs Association
  • National Asian Peace Officers Association
  • National Black Police Association
  • National Center for Women & Policing
  • National Coalition of Public Safety Officers
  • National District Attorneys Association
  • National Latino Police Officers Association
  • National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
  • National Sheriffs’ Association
  • Police Executive Research Forum
  • Police Foundation
Talking Points for Members
  • The federal government must have jurisdiction to address bias-motivated crimes in states in which current law is inadequate. Currently, only 31 states and the District of Columbia include sexual orientation-based crimes in their hate crimes statutes; 27 states and the District of Columbia include coverage of gender-based crimes; and 31 states and the District of Columbia include coverage for disability-based crimes.
  • This measure would give local law enforcement officials important tools to combat violent, bias-motivated crime. Federal support — through training or direct assistance — will help ensure that bias-motivated violence is effective investigated and prosecuted. The legislation would also facilitate federal investigations and prosecutions when local authorities are unwilling or unable to achieve a just result.
  • Passage of a federal law would increase public education and awareness, and encourage Americans to report hate crimes. The federal government must demonstrate its resolve to deal with violence based on prejudice.
  • Bias-motivated crimes merit a priority response because of their special impact on the victims. These crimes — designed to intimidate whole communities on the basis of personal and immutable characteristics — can spark widespread neighborhood conflicts and damage the fabric of our society.
State and local authorities investigate and prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes cases — and the federal government can be expected to continue to defer to state authorities under the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as well. Since 1991, for example, the FBI has documented almost 114,000 hate crimes. During that period, however, the Justice Department has brought fewer than 100 cases under 18 U.S.C. Section 245.
Learn more about documented hate crimes.
Clergy Against Hate
 
N

NightWarrior

Guest
So what happens if a straight guy gets into a fight with a gay guy and didn't even know he was gay? (Pretend the flailing arms weren't a dead give away)
 

JuJu

Member
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Looks like special groups should be fair game for crime, after all children
and the elderly are perfect targets since they can't defend themselves. :lol

Definitions of Hate Crime on the Web:
  • [SIZE=-1]Crime of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal homicide, motor vehicle theft, robbery, sex offenses, and/or crime involving bodily injury in which the victim was intentionally selected because of the victims' actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]www.otterbein.edu/resources/security/crime_stats/UCRdefinitions.asp[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]
  • An offense committed against another person, with the specific intent to cause harm to that person due to their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or culture, etc.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]www.hss.state.ak.us/djj/jomis/glossary.htm[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]
  • A hate crime (bias crime), loosely defined, is a crime committed because of the perpetrator's prejudices. This is a controversial political issue within the US. The US Congress (HR 4797 - 1992) defined a hate crime as: "[a crime in which] the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals. ...[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime[/SIZE]
 

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
It is just another thing that will bog the courts down time wise to try and prove prejudice. We are all different and no one's differences are more important than another. If you've been violently assaulted, you've been violently assaulted. We can not control what others think. We can only enforce guidelines that have to with people's actions.
 

groundpounder

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I agree and disagree. Violent crime is bad - easy point to make. I think, however, that specifically targeting someone because of their race, gender, religion or orientation is worse. It adds an element of non-randomness to it, specific premeditation.

As long as it's defined and then proven, I think hate crime laws are OK. And I think it goes more than one way. The guys that whipped Reggie Denny's ass? I don't know if they were tried on hate crimes precedent, and if they were, good but if they weren't, they darn sure should have been.

But I HATE it when politicians, both right and left, attach a red-herring amendment to something just to piggyback their policy onto something entirely unrelated. Both parties do it, and it's partisan politics at it's highest order. It's ridiculous!
 

Charmer

Active Member
Messages
2,409
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
What if you beat someone up because they pissed you off? Is beating up a pisser-offer a hate crime?

What if someone tells you that they're going to kill you and you beat the crap out of them before they can do it? Is beating up a threatener a hate crime?

I'm left-handed; if someone said, I'm sick and tired of left-handers and beats me up? Can I charge that person with a hate crime against left-handers on top of the beating I got?

Or are all hate crime laws just basically for Blacks and Gays?
 

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
specifically targeting someone because of their race, gender, religion or orientation is worse.
You and I are of the same opinion that it is horrible for someone to discriminate and target people for these reasons. But you can't regulate what people think. You can only regulate if people act on those thoughts, and there are already laws in place for those actions.

Being prejudice is not against the law. As much as I disagree with prejudice and think it is wrong, I am against the govt 'regulating' people's thoughts.
 

JuJu

Member
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
You and I are of the same opinion that it is horrible for someone to discriminate and target people for these reasons. But you can't regulate what people think. You can only regulate if people act on those thoughts, and there are already laws in place for those actions.

Being prejudice is not against the law. As much as I disagree with prejudice and think it is wrong, I am against the govt 'regulating' people's thoughts.

Are you against the Pledge of Allegiance?
 

JuJu

Member
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
You and I are of the same opinion that it is horrible for someone to discriminate and target people for these reasons. But you can't regulate what people think. You can only regulate if people act on those thoughts, and there are already laws in place for those actions.

Being prejudice is not against the law. As much as I disagree with prejudice and think it is wrong, I am against the govt 'regulating' people's thoughts.

Are you against the Pledge of Allegiance?

No I'm not.

My apologies, Ms. Bounds, I am notorious for trick questions. :D

The Pledge of Allegiance is 'regulating' one's thoughts by the repetition of allegiance beliefs from kindergarten thru high school.

The anti hate bill also involves providing federal funds to schools and other programs for the 'education' of prejudice and where hate stems from (ignorance in most cases). Surely you agree prejudice is learned and not inherent in the mind of a person and thus can be changed.

I believe churches teach acceptance/love of folks who are of a different background. ;)
 

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
My apologies, Ms. Bounds, I am notorious for trick questions. :D
No problem. I knew it was a trick question. ;)

The Pledge of Allegiance is 'regulating' one's thoughts by the repetition of allegiance beliefs from kindergarten thru high school.
People are not arrested for saying or not saying the Pledge of Allegiance. My child does not have to say the Pledge of Allegiance in his school if I do not what him too or if he does not want to.

The anti hate bill also involves providing federal funds to schools and other programs for the 'education' of prejudice and where hate stems from (ignorance in most cases).
I'm not following you here. If you are insinuating that the 'Pledge of Allegiance promotes prejudice, I disagree.

Surely you agree prejudice is learned and not inherent in the mind of a person and thus can be changed.
Yes I do agree.

I believe churches teach acceptance/love of folks who are of a different background. ;)
I do not think all churches teach this unfortunately.
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top