Moderateman Moderateman

The New Hate Crimes Bill..Plan to remove Freedom of Religion

▼

The New Hate Crimes Bill..Plan to remove Freedom of Religion

Paving the Way for Homosexuals to gain civil rights as a protected class

from JoeUser Forums

Our government is a republic, and in a republic we elect men and women to represent us, {piss poor job that they do} in our legislative bodies and we elect executives to make sure that laws passed by the legislatures are carried out. If our laws are not upheld, anarchy would be the result.

We citizens vote and MOST of us are looking for honest and wise representatives who will RESPECT the consent of the GOVERNED. However it is becoming almost impossible to find these people with so many "self seekers" among those elected to high office.

Last May the Democratic run House passed a bill {Federal Hate Crimes} that mandates further penalties for crimes involving sexual orientation or gender identity. If it passes the Senate it will make Homosexuality and Gender Identity a civil rights issue.

I believe this is a very dangerous bill as it would have ramification on Religion, meaning if a pastor, priest, rabbi says from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin they could be tried for a hate crime.

Representative Lamar Smith {R TEXAS} said of this bill that " criminal killing a Homosexual will be treated more harshly that a criminal that kills a cop, or a child or a senior citizen or any other person" I believe all people should be treated equally under the eyes of the law.

The republicans offered 25 amendments to clarify and and improve the bill but were denied by the Democratic run house to even be heard.

Dan Lundgren {R CALIFORNIA} asked for further clarification of gender identity, the Democrats refused to discuss it.

Randy Forbes {R VIRGINIA} said that "our military is being attacked in America, being spit on and beaten, in several areas are told not to wear their uniforms while on pass or leave" He wanted to include the military in this hate crimes bill, once again the Democrats refused to discuss it. So much for "looking out and supporting out men and women in uniform huh?"

Other Republican representatives wanted to add senior citizens to this bill, once again the Democrats refused to discuss it. So much for the Liberals taking care of "out honored old folk"

Other Republicans wanted to add pregnant women to the bill, Once again the Democrats that have no problem with murdering children in the womb would not allow discussion about protecting the expectant mothers.

Representative Mike Pence {R INDIANA} presented an important amendment about freedom of religion, concerned about the possibility of religious folk being tried for hate crimes by being faithful to their religion and espousing that homosexuality is a sin, again denied By the Democrats.

Rev. Lou Sheldon head of the Traditional Values Coalition {who was present at the bills vote} said " By refusing to accept any of these amendments the Democrats have Proven their purpose of removing freedom of religion from the constitution. I heartily Agree.

AS Thomas Jefferson once warned "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." We need to remember his words and see that laws passed by our representative are fair to everyone.

 

"
7,102 views 66 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Friday, June 29, 2007
There is the possibility that is some area of America, assaulting an homosexual, while illegal, is not considered immoral by the majority. Homosexualy, while legal, is considered immoral by the majority.

Which means that if someone assaulting an homosexual is tried by a jury of his peers, he has a lot more chance to get out of the loop. Religious group could pressure the jury into findind the smallest technicality to allow the assaulter walk away scott free, just like white people who killed black were allowed in the past.

The bill do not protect pregnant woman, cops, eldery or the military because in no region of america is it somewhat morally acceptable to assault one of these group. So, if someone assault a pregnant woman, I can't see any pressure group pushing for the freedom of the attacker.

I can't say the same about homosexual. Some of them really live a dangerous live just by being what they are. Not because they are gay, but because the society around them won't accept what they are, and find acceptance in violently harrassing them.


You just want to bash the Dems.

that's a whole lot of supposition. but maybe you might want to gamble YOUR FREEDOM on the off chnnce of getting a jury that thinks like you do.

On me bashing the Democrats.. There own behavior Much like Bush and Cheneys behavior condemns themselves.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
If they are going to let them walk in the first place due to percieved biases, telling them it was "a hate" crime, since they are already biased against the victims, is not going to sway them.


No, but it can lock the defendant of such hate crime into an undefendable position. The prosecution could have more ground for appeal, if they think the offendant was judged unfairly by his peers.

Reverse the field. If someone were brought up on charges for defending a gay person from attack, and that person was then charged with an additional hate crime, would you vote to convict them?


I am not sure I understand the question. But that is because of my less-than-perfect mastery of english, I'm sorry. Can you rephrase? (no sarcasm intended)

And courage is not defined by trampling on the Bill or rights. If that were so, Napolean and Snowball (along with Stalin and Lenin) would be the most courageous individuals that ever lived. (or existed in a work of fiction).


Trampling it in a legal, un-dictatorial way? Yhea, it takes courage. And Napoleon and Snowball (who's Snowball..?), Stalin included, simply took over a whole government.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
that's a whole lot of supposition. but maybe you might want to gamble YOUR FREEDOM on the off chnnce of getting a jury that thinks like you do.


If you are going to by tried in your community, sourrounded by the people who goes to the same church than you, and hear the same speeches about how Homosexuality is a sin, a deviance..

Than I think you didn't had much to gamble.

Not to forget the policemen who turn a blind eye to violence against gays.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
The prosecution could have more ground for appeal, if they think the offendant was judged unfairly by his peers.


The prosecution cannot appeal. It is called double jeopardy and is another one of those nasty amendments in the bill of rights.

I am not sure I understand the question. But that is because of my less-than-perfect mastery of english, I'm sorry. Can you rephrase? (no sarcasm intended)


The defendant is accused of defending a person because he was gay (think of a country where they do not have rights). The government then says "besides beating up this attacker attacking a non-person, he is clearly showing a hatred for those who do not like gay people, and therefore we are charging him with a hate crime".

Given that you think Gay people are people too, and that the defendant had every right to defend the gay person, would you then vote to convict him on the hate crime alone?

I tend to think not. If you are not going to convict someone of the real crime, you are not going to convict them because of an additional charge that in essence says "I dont like the victim".
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
And Napoleon and Snowball (who's Snowball..?),


Animal farm.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just wondering something... In this bill, does "sexual orientation" only mean gay, lesbian, transgendered? Or would it mean that a gay person who attacks a heterosexual could be charged with a hate crime?
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Or would it mean that a gay person who attacks a heterosexual could be charged with a hate crime?


Technically yes. IN reality no.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

The prosecution cannot appeal. It is called double jeopardy and is another one of those nasty amendments in the bill of rights.


Except if there have been a vice of procedure. If the court was judged hostile to the victim, I think it qualifies

I tend to think not. If you are not going to convict someone of the real crime, you are not going to convict them because of an additional charge that in essence says "I dont like the victim".


I see your point. You think it's irrelevant to add more charges, because if someone is gonna get out for 1 crime, he's gonna get out for 2 crimes anyway?

The additionnal charges is more about protecting the rights of a minority that is considered less of a person by some. In your example, you uses a double-negative, where the victim is considered a non-person by the state, which is totally irrelevant to the point here.

The hate crime is to punish the idea that because of someone's peticularity (let it be religion, color of skin, country of origin or sexual orientation) would be less of a human being than another one. The idea is easily spread among a population, and has to be fought by any mean necessary. A pregnant woman isn't considered less of a person, nor is a military.

A gay may be considered as such. Black were (and still are in some areas). Assaulting a black should not be considered a hate crime. Assaulting a black because he's a black who whistled your sister, or because he does thing X, or just for the fun of it is a hate crime.

Assaulting an homosexual isn't a hate crime. Assaulting an homosexual while going to the Village in a city, for the fun of hitting "deviant" is a hate crime.

In short, sometime, you have to produce a motive to try someone. The hate crime officialise prosecution motive of "striking for the fun of it", pure sadism against homosexuality.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)ParaTed2kJune 29, 2007 15:15:50


Just wondering something... In this bill, does "sexual orientation" only mean gay, lesbian, transgendered? Or would it mean that a gay person who attacks a heterosexual could be charged with a hate crime?


NO there is no provision for that, that is why A Congressman wanted further definition of "gender" explained, but then again if you go back and read the article ted my friend you will see the Democrats refused to discuss it.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the court was judged hostile to the victim, I think it qualifies


No, not even then. They can be brought up on additional charges, but not the same charges.

I see your point. You think it's irrelevant to add more charges, because if someone is gonna get out for 1 crime, he's gonna get out for 2 crimes anyway?


Correct.

In your example, you uses a double-negative, where the victim is considered a non-person by the state, which is totally irrelevant to the point here.


I had to stretch it to make it personal to you. Yes it is convoluted, but you got the point.

The hate crime officialise prosecution motive of "striking for the fun of it", pure sadism against homosexuality.


And here we get to the problem. To prove "hate", you have to know (not think, know) the motivation. And that is impossible. IN addition, whether the perpertrator "hates" blacks, gays, pregnant women or people with blue eyes, the simple fact is they are no less injured or dead than if the perp was an angel in discguise.

It is not a crime, yet, to "hate" someone in this country based upon race, color, creed or nation of origin. As long as you do not act on that hatred. And if you act on that hatred, what makes you "more dead" than if they were just a hit man hired to kill you because you crossed a loan shark?
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm a man trapped in a woman trapped in a man's body, then. My gender identity better be protected.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
MM WRITES:
believe this is a very dangerous bill as it would have ramification on Religion, meaning if a pastor, priest, rabbi says from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin they could be tried for a hate crime.


Me too. I see the day coming when even speaking out against homosexuality, condemning it as immoral, will be treated as a hate crime. The public more and more seems to be accepting homosexuality as acceptable, respectable, even good. It's in most if not all of the public schools even as young as kindergarten students are being taught that it's just an alternative lifestyle. The bottom line is there will come a time when it will be only the religious types who will stand in the way of full blown acceptance. Hate crime laws by threatening free speech and religious liberty are meant to censor those religious types, the Christians, Jews, etc.

It's already happening. George Will recently wrote an article which appeared in the Jewish World Review, headlined "Marriage is foundation of the natural family and sustains family values."

That sentence was deemed inflammatory and perhaps a hate crime in Oakland, CA. According to the local government, that speech constituted something akin to hate speech. Seriously, Loca, are you reading this?

It turns out the city hall's billboard could advertise "Happy Coming Out Day", while the terms, "natural family", "marriage" and "family values" were intolerably inflammatory!! Go figure!





CikomyrJune 29, 2007 13:53:59Reply #24
There is the possibility that is some area of America, assaulting an homosexual, while illegal, is not considered immoral by the majority.


I disagree. I think the majority believe that assaulting anyone is both illegal and immoral. The offender should get the same justice meted out no matter who the individual is that got assaulted.

And that's where the fallacy of hate crime laws lies. They add extra punishment based on the offender's actual or perceived opinion, feelings or thoughts toward the person who was assaulted if that person is homosexual.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just wondering something... In this bill, does "sexual orientation" only mean gay, lesbian, transgendered?


I think there are two federal hate crime bills being considered. It's my understanding that one of them was very vague on the definition of 'sexual orientation" and the Senators asked for tighter definitions which was shot down.

A person's "sexual orientation" is most often defined by the perceived or actual sexual behavior, i.e. homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, etc.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Or would it mean that a gay person who attacks a heterosexual could be charged with a hate crime?


Technically yes. IN reality no.


Yes, if someone targeted you because you were a heterosexual male, it would covered under hate crimes legislation. If someone mistakenly targeted you because they thought you were gay or a muslim etc., that would also be a hate crime.

I do not know and My letters and e-mails to big bucks Diane Finestein and Barbara Boxer about this have gone unanswered.


You forgot to include the really big check. The sad truth is they would call to thank you if you were a campaign donor. This is true of all politicians not just the Democrats.

yes but not prosecuted the same way or with the same penalities. Now do not be dense Amy I knowe better.


The bill does not offer two different penalties for the same crime based on whether the crime was a hate crime or not. There are no penalties in the hate crime legislation. The hate crime legislation gives federal resources to local law enforcement when dealing with hate crimes - that's it. Nothing more.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
They can be brought up on additional charges, but not the same charges.


Only if they've been convicted. If they were found innocent but new evidence was found, or, as Cykomyr put it, the court or judge was "hostile to the victim", then it can, in fact, be re-tried.

Happens all the time.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
LocamamaJune 29, 2007 15:58:09


The bill does not offer two different penalties for the same crime based on whether the crime was a hate crime or not. There are no penalties in the hate crime legislation. The hate crime legislation gives federal resources to local law enforcement when dealing with hate crimes - that's it. Nothing more.


how wrong you are here Amy, My friend Deans {may he rest in peace} grandson, Sonny got into a fight at the age of 15 just a fist fight, BUT he made the mistake of calling his opponent a "CHINK" while fighting, he was charged with assault, and further a hate crime which added TIME to the Assault. that is what a hate crime does multiply the time you get if convicted. I will make it plainer instead of getting 30 days because he was 15 or just probation, he got a year and 5 years probation when he got out because it was deemed a hate crime. Get it yet?
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Me too. I see the day coming when even speaking out against homosexuality, condemning it as immoral, will be treated as a hate crime. The public more and more seems to be accepting homosexuality as acceptable, respectable, even good. It's in most if not all of the public schools even as young as kindergarten students are being taught that it's just an alternative lifestyle. The bottom line is there will come a time when it will be only the religious types who will stand in the way of full blown acceptance. Hate crime laws by threatening free speech and religious liberty are meant to censor those religious types, the Christians, Jews, etc.


Can you tell me where that vision become wrong? Where people will have less reason to be intolerant, and religious people will stop pointing fingers at "sinners", just because they are the last link of a long chain of brainwash?

I mean, homosexuality has been rejected by mankind only recently, when you consider the whole human history. And most of this rejection is based on the sole argument that "it's sinful" or "it's bad for family"

It's already happening. George Will recently wrote an article which appeared in the Jewish World Review, headlined "Marriage is foundation of the natural family and sustains family values."


I totally agree, but I don't see why you jump to the conclusion that "marriage is foundation of natural family and sustains family values" means "Gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage"?

Or even, where is it said that gay couple are bad parents? Where is it said that these people are not apt to raise a family the right way?
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
how wrong you are here Amy, My friend Deans {may he rest in peace} grandson, Sonny got into a fight at the age of 15 just a fist fight, BUT he made the mistake of calling his opponent a "CHINK" while fighting, he was charged with assault, and further a hate crime which added TIME to the Assault. that is what a hate crime does multiply the time you get if convicted. I will make it plainer instead of getting 30 days because he was 15 or just probation, he got a year and 5 years probation when he got out because it was deemed a hate crime. Get it yet?


Well, that's great. I mean, it will help fight rascism (chink is an insult for asian people, right?)

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
I disagree. I think the majority believe that assaulting anyone is both illegal and immoral. The offender should get the same justice meted out no matter who the individual is that got assaulted.

And that's where the fallacy of hate crime laws lies. They add extra punishment based on the offender's actual or perceived opinion, feelings or thoughts toward the person who was assaulted if that person is homosexual.


I would not bet a dime on this, that all majority in all the United States are not prejudiced against homosexuals.

And trying to temper hate prejudice with tougher justice is all right in my book. If not, rascim, homophobia, islamophobia/antisemitism, and all the such would have no consequence.

If you assault a man because he slept with your wife, I'd say you are a danger to that man alone.

If you assault a man because he's gay, or jewish, or anything, I'd say you are a danger to a whole community.

Which means these behavior has to be changed. Penalty increased.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, if someone targeted you because you were a heterosexual male, it would covered under hate crimes legislation


Technically yes, in reality no.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Only if they've been convicted. If they were found innocent but new evidence was found, or, as Cykomyr put it, the court or judge was "hostile to the victim", then it can, in fact, be re-tried.


Only in a mis-trial. You cannot be tried for the same offenses more than once. You can be charged with other crimes for the same incident, providing you have not been tried on those before.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
CikomyrJune 29, 2007 16:35:04


Well, that's great. I mean, it will help fight rascism (chink is an insult for asian people, right?)


yes it is an insult to an asian, but come on now this was a 15 year old and this hate crime has ruined his life. I grew up in East Harlem In New York City, I fought with Blacks and Puerto Ricans and in the heat of the moment called them Niggers and spics, MY life should be ruined at 15 because of that?
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok, and what if I'm walking with a friend of mine who is gay, and we both get attacked. Will it be a hate crime for attacking him, but just simple assault and battery for attacking me?
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
how wrong you are here Amy, My friend Deans {may he rest in peace} grandson, Sonny got into a fight at the age of 15 just a fist fight, BUT he made the mistake of calling his opponent a "CHINK" while fighting, he was charged with assault, and further a hate crime which added TIME to the Assault. that is what a hate crime does multiply the time you get if convicted. I will make it plainer instead of getting 30 days because he was 15 or just probation, he got a year and 5 years probation when he got out because it was deemed a hate crime. Get it yet?


That was probably under a state hate crimes law that obviously was already in effect. The federal hate crimes bill (renamed the Matthew Shepherd bill) won't come to the senate for a vote until August so no one has been prosecuted since it is not yet law. I don't know that it will pass the senate but I expect that Bush will veto it anyway so everyone is getting their panties in a bunch over nothing. Really everyone should spend their time looking at the current hate crimes on the books in their states.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

how wrong you are here Amy, My friend Deans {may he rest in peace} grandson, Sonny got into a fight at the age of 15 just a fist fight, BUT he made the mistake of calling his opponent a "CHINK" while fighting, he was charged with assault, and further a hate crime which added TIME to the Assault. that is what a hate crime does multiply the time you get if convicted. I will make it plainer instead of getting 30 days because he was 15 or just probation, he got a year and 5 years probation when he got out because it was deemed a hate crime.


Hey, ModMan, now add to that this hypothetical...what else would have been added to Sonny's sentence time had he called his opponent a "homo, "fag" or "queer" "Chink" especially in the Ninth District COurt?