Senate Votes to Add Sexual Orientation to Hate Crime Protections

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/us/politics/18hate.html

WASHINGTON — The Senate has agreed to expand the definition of hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation and gender identity as part of a Pentagon policy measure that is becoming a magnet for tough social issues.

Senators added the anti-bias provisions to the bill Thursday night after voting 63 to 28 to shut off debate on the proposal by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The measure would also allow the federal government to intervene in cases where the local authorities lacked the resources for such criminal investigations.

“We need a strong federal law to serve as a backstop to prevent hate-motivated violence in America,” Mr. Leahy said.

Republicans countered that the hate crimes expansion should not be part of a Pentagon measure and argued that it would usurp the rights of states to pursue such crimes since most have their own versions of the law.

“Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes, no matter how heinous they may be,” said Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona.

Mr. Kyl noted that the killers of Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student for whom the measure was named, are serving life sentences for murder.

But backers of the provisions said that action was overdue on expanding the definition of those affected by legislation that originally was crafted to protect victims of crimes committed on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.

In response to conservative criticism that the legislation could lead to charges against those who speak out against gay rights, Mr. Leahy added a provision banning prosecution for exercising the rights of free speech.

Congress has been considering such hate crime legislation for years, but the measure has stalled for various reasons. Some House members have recently indicated reluctance to consider the current version, but Congressional leaders believe they can find a way to enact it.

The Senate is scheduled to consider more hate crime provisions on Monday. Among them is a Republican plan to impose the death penalty for certain acts.

Once they dispose of the hate crime proposals, the Senate is set to consider as part of the Pentagon bill a Republican plan to allow those permitted to carry concealed weapons in one state to take the firearm into other states without violating any laws. It is the latest gun-rights issue to surface in Congress.

“A state’s border should not be a limit on this fundamental right,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, who is the author of the proposal.

reddits title os this article was this.

"HISTORIC: Senate FINALLY extends hate crime protection to GLBTs, 10yrs after brutal murder of Matthew Shepard - opponents complain "could potentially imperil the free speech rights of Christians"

Its true, it could stifle the freedom of christian speech (I dunno what the legislation actually says so I can't say for sure).
But we'd have no problem with that if, say, some religion was saying that blacks are only half-human and should be kept as slaves.

The fact that many religions have decided to hold to a world view of hate and fear that makes them more meaningless by the day does not give them special rights.

It's always a fine line that has to be walked. What interests me is the federal and state courts in regards to punishment for these 'hate crimes.' The court systems are already over stressed as it is...at least I know the state ones are. Federal courts, I don't hear as much on.

I have never understood the need for so-called hate crimes. I mean assault, battery, murder are all against the law? As Wolfman's article said, the people in Wyoming that murdered the gay guy are serving life sentences.

Somehowyou said:

I have never understood the need for so-called hate crimes. I mean assault, battery, murder are all against the law? As Wolfman's article said, the people in Wyoming that murdered the gay guy are serving life sentences.

Click to expand...

I actually kind of agree with you, at least in some ways.
If I beat someone up, isn't that already a hate crime?

The thing is, hate crimes are much closer to terrorism than regular crime.
The act of beating up someone because they are gay/black/female/trans is, in part, an effort to cause an entire group of people to live in fear. It is 'to teach those fags a lesson', which really is terrorism.

The Senator should know (and probably does) that just making laws does not prevent crime.

Vail_Indigo said:

Its true, it could stifle the freedom of christian speech (I dunno what the legislation actually says so I can't say for sure).
But we'd have no problem with that if, say, some religion was saying that blacks are only half-human and should be kept as slaves.

The fact that many religions have decided to hold to a world view of hate and fear that makes them more meaningless by the day does not give them special rights.

Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. You're saying that people who oppose hate crime legislation are the ones who want special treatment? How does that work?

Vail_Indigo said:

I actually kind of agree with you, at least in some ways.
If I beat someone up, isn't that already a hate crime?

The thing is, hate crimes are much closer to terrorism than regular crime.
The act of beating up someone because they are gay/black/female/trans is, in part, an effort to cause an entire group of people to live in fear. It is 'to teach those fags a lesson', which really is terrorism.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. Just because you're afraid doesn't mean someone is guilty of terrorism. Even if it did, hate crime legislation has nothing to do with terrorism. It's about attemting to legislate the way people think.

John Doe said:

No it isn't. Just because you're afraid doesn't mean someone is guilty of terrorism. Even if it did, hate crime legislation has nothing to do with terrorism. It's about attemting to legislate the way people think.

Click to expand...

ter⋅ror⋅ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Beating someone because of some characteristic to make a statement about what you think of those types of people seems a adequate fit for the definition. Now while I fully agree that it IS in fact legislating how people think (Something that I don't think is necessarily a bad practice once you get over the high and mighty morality and look at how the world actually exists) it also does have a connection to terrorism though maybe not the car bomb variety some draw to mind. The point of targeting a specific minority for violence or harassment is almost always for the purpose of making a message and instilling fear. My issue with this law is how the fuck do you determine if something is a hate crime? I mean if I beat up a gay man did I beat him up because he's gay or did I do it because he was.... *enter in whatever reason you like* It just seems so hard to prove and so some people might be persecuted unjustly.

I mean... lets say for example a man who is for the sake of stereotypes a southern baptist who has a long history of hating gay men. Now lets say he gets in a fight at a bar with another man. That man then goes to the police and says that he heard the guy call him a "fagot" before beating him up and he is in fact gay.... well is that a hate crime? That's what worries me about this. I think attacking someone for something like race, sex, or orientation is despicable but it's also something that's hard to prove in most cases.

Well that parts already covered, it's not easy to get charged with a hate crime, just about the only time it happens at least when it makes it on the news is when they have nazi insignia all over, they have a history of speaking against whatever group was attacked and generally they kinda have to be heard saying take this you dirty whatever slur. Even then it's not even all of the attacks that are actually because of color creed or religion that get turned into hate crimes.

There was a couple of guys beat up at a club in Tempe a few years ago, one of their attackers was charged with a hate crime, the rest were not. One man out of 4 I think. The two were beat up because they were gay, but only one of them was shouting faggot.

Denmark has already a law, that forbids the public speech of certain parts of the bible which is threatening to GLBT people. And the same goes for racism, it is not allowed to say hateful things in public either. But it is a law, that is hard to uphold. If there aren't any witnesses or you have a video camera ready. So go figure that one out.

HarlotMinx said:

ter⋅ror⋅ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Beating someone because of some characteristic to make a statement about what you think of those types of people seems a adequate fit for the definition. Now while I fully agree that it IS in fact legislating how people think (Something that I don't think is necessarily a bad practice once you get over the high and mighty morality and look at how the world actually exists) it also does have a connection to terrorism though maybe not the car bomb variety some draw to mind. The point of targeting a specific minority for violence or harassment is almost always for the purpose of making a message and instilling fear. My issue with this law is how the fuck do you determine if something is a hate crime? I mean if I beat up a gay man did I beat him up because he's gay or did I do it because he was.... *enter in whatever reason you like* It just seems so hard to prove and so some people might be persecuted unjustly.

I mean... lets say for example a man who is for the sake of stereotypes a southern baptist who has a long history of hating gay men. Now lets say he gets in a fight at a bar with another man. That man then goes to the police and says that he heard the guy call him a "fagot" before beating him up and he is in fact gay.... well is that a hate crime? That's what worries me about this. I think attacking someone for something like race, sex, or orientation is despicable but it's also something that's hard to prove in most cases.

Click to expand...

As I said earlier, I have something of a problem with these laws as well. I think that much of the time there is, in fact, no doubt that it is a terrorist act, other times it is much less so.
I think that perhaps it shouldn't be seen as a seperate crime but rather as a factor in sentencing.

John Doe said:

The Senator should know (and probably does) that just making laws does not prevent crime.




Let me get this straight. You're saying that people who oppose hate crime legislation are the ones who want special treatment? How does that work?

Click to expand...

Churches want to discriminate...oh yes, we have to let them, they are churches
Churches want to spew hate...oh yes, we have to let them, its religion
Laws simply don't apply to the religious because thats a get out of jail free card.
Oh, wait, it isn't! Or, at least, it shouldn't be. And, it seems, Leilani and Dale Neumann are learning that.
So, at the moment, religion is just a get out of jail free card for anything just short of murdering your daughter.

Vail_Indigo said:

Churches want to discriminate...oh yes, we have to let them, they are churches
Churches want to spew hate...oh yes, we have to let them, its religion
Laws simply don't apply to the religious because thats a get out of jail free card.
Oh, wait, it isn't! Or, at least, it shouldn't be. And, it seems, Leilani and Dale Neumann are learning that.
So, at the moment, religion is just a get out of jail free card for anything just short of murdering your daughter.

Click to expand...

Hey, please check my other post and Vail_Indigo I like you

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=31489567&postcount=10

But there has been cases of where people have been punished since that law came into play here. But sadly they have been few between. But still a few cases is fucking better than none.

Wolfman1982 said:

Hey, please check my other post and Vail_Indigo I like you

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=31489567&postcount=10

But there has been cases of where people have been punished since that law came into play here. But sadly they have been few between. But still a few cases is fucking better than none.

Click to expand...

I can get behind that law.
I think there remains things that the church should be allowed to say, that make their position on whatever is clear.
Certainly, if they want to say homosexuals are sinners, thats fine.
But when they demonize gays, when they get blamed for social ills arbitrarily, you start to move into hate speech.

btw, I am the biggest defender of free speech you are likely to meet.
However, no freedom is absolute.
Not speech, not guns, not god.

good....about time. Long over due

HarlotMinx said:

ter⋅ror⋅ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Beating someone because of some characteristic to make a statement about what you think of those types of people seems a adequate fit for the definition. Now while I fully agree that it IS in fact legislating how people think (Something that I don't think is necessarily a bad practice once you get over the high and mighty morality and look at how the world actually exists) it also does have a connection to terrorism though maybe not the car bomb variety some draw to mind. The point of targeting a specific minority for violence or harassment is almost always for the purpose of making a message and instilling fear. My issue with this law is how the fuck do you determine if something is a hate crime? I mean if I beat up a gay man did I beat him up because he's gay or did I do it because he was.... *enter in whatever reason you like* It just seems so hard to prove and so some people might be persecuted unjustly.

I mean... lets say for example a man who is for the sake of stereotypes a southern baptist who has a long history of hating gay men. Now lets say he gets in a fight at a bar with another man. That man then goes to the police and says that he heard the guy call him a "fagot" before beating him up and he is in fact gay.... well is that a hate crime? That's what worries me about this. I think attacking someone for something like race, sex, or orientation is despicable but it's also something that's hard to prove in most cases.

Click to expand...

What political purpose is there for beeating someone because they're gay? If some radical group were bombing pride parades I'd see your point, otherwise you're reaching.

Vail_Indigo said:

Churches want to discriminate...oh yes, we have to let them, they are churches
Churches want to spew hate...oh yes, we have to let them, its religion
Laws simply don't apply to the religious because thats a get out of jail free card.
Oh, wait, it isn't! Or, at least, it shouldn't be. And, it seems, Leilani and Dale Neumann are learning that.
So, at the moment, religion is just a get out of jail free card for anything just short of murdering your daughter.

Click to expand...

That's not at all what I was saying and you know it.

Hate crime legislation is discrimination, period. What it is literally saying is that some criminals deserve more punishment because their victims are in certain demographic groups.

Oh and BTW, not everyone who opposes hate crime legislation is religious or homophobic. Some of us are just holding you to your calls for equality.

I agree with Doe, justice needs to be equal for EVERYONE. Beating someone should have the same penalties regardless of race, sexuality, etc.

Somehowyou said:

I have never understood the need for so-called hate crimes. I mean assault, battery, murder are all against the law? As Wolfman's article said, the people in Wyoming that murdered the gay guy are serving life sentences.

Click to expand...

Nice to have a voice of wisdom here.

Wolfman1982 said:

Denmark has already a law, that forbids the public speech of certain parts of the bible which is threatening to GLBT people.

Click to expand...

I'm not even Christian, but dude, that is fucked.

Vail_Indigo said:

Churches want to discriminate...oh yes, we have to let them, they are churches
Churches want to spew hate...oh yes, we have to let them, its religion
Laws simply don't apply to the religious because thats a get out of jail free card.
Oh, wait, it isn't! Or, at least, it shouldn't be. And, it seems, Leilani and Dale Neumann are learning that.
So, at the moment, religion is just a get out of jail free card for anything just short of murdering your daughter.

Click to expand...

Vail_Indigo said:

btw, I am the biggest defender of free speech you are likely to meet.
However, no freedom is absolute.
Not speech, not guns, not god.

Click to expand...

What parallel universe do you hail from that allows you to say that with a straight face?

as I said...these are terrorist acts.
They are not just directed at the individual.
I rank them as a different class of crime to some degree.
The fact that in any given event, the specific body count is low is irrelevant.

sorry, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater
an authority figure can't point at a class of people and call them abominations, monsters, the cause of our country's problems and then not expect to be held responsible for what will happen in his name.

Vail_Indigo said:

sorry, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater
an authority figure can't point at a class of people and call them abominations, monsters, the cause of our country's problems and then not expect to be held responsible for what will happen in his name.

Click to expand...

Yeah OK Big Brother. Suppress speech and call it freedom.

77817 said:

Yeah OK Big Brother. Suppress speech and call it freedom.

Click to expand...

ok, so "those niggers are animals and ain't human at all" is ok?
nice.