Hate crime bill veto is vowed (because wh thinks it's unnecessary?)

[babylonsister]

There goes that twisted logic in action - again.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hate4may04,1,1283480.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Hate crime bill veto is vowed
The House votes to expand the law for sexuality and gender bias. The White House says that's unnecessary.
By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
May 4, 2007

snip//

Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino, called the White House veto threat "extraordinarily disappointing" and accused the bill's vocal opponents of using it to rally their base "around fear."

"This really is a criminal justice issue, where we have groups of people who face heightened victimization because of their group's status," said Levin, a lawyer and professor of criminal justice.

Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), who voted for the bill, called on Bush to "follow his father's example" and sign the legislation. President George H.W. Bush signed a bill in 1990 requiring the Justice Department to collect statistics on crimes motivated by racial, ethnic or anti-gay prejudice.

House approval of the hate crime bill came after an emotional debate with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) presiding over the chamber during roll call. Frank is gay.

"Some people ask: Why is this legislation even necessary?" House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said. "Because brutal hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and identity or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our nation's social fabric."

more...

[Solly Mack]

1. A WH that implements a torture policy isn't going to want to

protect anyone from the hate that takes action and harms others.

[Karenina]

35. HAL-LO!!!

:hi: Perfect 4th or minor 3rd. No doubt you've picked up on that in your travels! ;-)

[Swamp Rat]

44. Ab D F B

diabolus in musica :evilgrin:

[Karenina]

46. Absolutely Pentatonic!!!

:hi:

[papau]

2. These victims of hate crimes vote mostly for the Dems - so we veto n/t

n/t

[Oddball]

6. Bingo!

It ain't about law. It's about which people are hated and by whom.

[cobalt1999]

3. I've always had mixed feelings about Hate Crime laws

Assault & Murder are already crimes with severe penalties.

Hate Crime legislation puts the government in the position of punishing you additionally just because of your motives. That to me is disturbing. You can be charged and serve time due to your motives and thoughts.

Personally, I think the police & prosecutors should just enforce the existing laws. If you attack someone because you don't like they are gay or if you want their shoes, you should be punished. I don't buy the "extra" punishment because they are gay.

[Oddball]

5. Hate Crimes deserve extra punishment

We already differentiate motive in crimes, such as various degrees of manslaughter and murder. The difference between these crimes is motive or intent. A prosecutor should have the option of bringing the additional aggravating circumstance (hate) into the charges and let a jury have the option of deciding it.

[cobalt1999]

8. like I said, I have mixed feelings...

Yes, aggravating circumstances are part of our judicial system, but usually as a means to defend the person from being charged with more serious crimes (e.g. if you kill someone by accident, you normally won't be charged with murder; you get manslaughter). The aggravating circumstances now are being used to INCREASE upon a maximum penalty for a crime...that's a little disturbing.

I'm all for the good intentions, but you know what the road to hell is paved with...

[Oddball]

14. I understand mixed feelings...

...and respect them. But I think that not enacting hate crime laws to protect classes of people who have been and are being assaulted and murdered because of who or what they are is not acceptable. I believe crimes motivated by hatred of a class of people should increase the penalty for crimes against those people. The people who murdered Matthew Shephard should have gotten more years for their motivation.

[Liberal Veteran]

53. Of course they don't!

Everyone with any sense of fairness knows there is no difference between toilet papering a house as a stupid prank and painting a swastika on a synagogue or bombing a gay bar.

And if you get into a bar fight with some drunk it's exactly the same as when a bunch of guys hang around near a gay bar looking to beat up a queer for being queer.

:sarcasm:

[dsc]

7. We punish motive all the time

Most states punish murder for hire much more severely than other murders. Other states punish murder of witnesses more severely than other murders. Both of those are entirely dependent on motive.

[cobalt1999]

9. yes, but where do you draw the line with Hate Crimes.

You know every couple of year some group will want an addition to this bill. Once you cover race, sex, sexuality, you go down the list to cat owners, people that mow their lawns at 6am, etc. I just don't see an end to it. Maybe it's just my distrust of the legal system and always wanting very tight controls on it.

[dsc]

10. Given the fact that LGBT people are more likely to be victimized

by hate crimes than any other group of people aside from Muslims, I think we can safely add them to the add side of the line.

[Behind the Aegis]

106. Where did you come by this information?

I don't believe your statements are correct, but then I don't know on what you are basing them.

[JackBeck]

11. Please look-up "overkill".

I've not seen one report of someone mowing their lawn at 6am suffering from overkill.

Your post makes me sad. There is no "slippery slope" in this case, or any case, when it comes the LGBT rights.

[cobalt1999]

12. this isn't about rights...

and yes there is a slippery slope (if I can believe my lawyer friends anyway).

LGBT should have the same rights as anyone else, but not a separate set of laws.

[JackBeck]

15. These are not separate rights.

It's adding the LGBT community to laws that already exist.

[Duncan Grant]

17. Now I know you're not informed.

You say: LGBT should have the same rights as anyone else, but not a separate set of laws.

Please tell me how this is a separate set of laws. I find your trivializing comparison to cat owners and 6:00 a.m. lawn mowing ridiculous.

edit: formatting

[Lurking Dem]

19. I often wonder

how many people here are old enough to remember what it used to be like for a woman to testify at a rape trial.

Before specific laws were passed on what could and could not be introduced as legal argument, they were completely victimized, once again, on the stand.

It is the same now for the LGBT community, is it not? Their lifestyle, past sexual history, personality traits, the neighborhood/time the crime occurred are all fair game even though those things should have no relevance at all to an assault (or similar) crime.

I know I'm not the only non-gay person to see this. I don't understand those that don't.

[JackBeck]

20. Your post reminds me of when I got jumped by three guys, repeatedly kicked, and called a "fag".

The detective assigned to my case asked me questions like:

"Were you doing anything that made them think you were gay?"

"Were you holding your partner's hand?"

"Were you kissing your partner?"

What the hell do those have to do with anything? Was he looking for a justification?

I never know how to explain this to people, but, until recently, I lived in Brooklyn. My husband I can't even count how many times we we called faggots, whether walking down the street together, or separately. Whenever I tell this story, people say, "You don't act gay", which insults me all over again.

Thank you for understanding. I've been beating my head against a wall around here the past few days, so it's nice when an ally joins the good cause.

[Lurking Dem]

33. I am a survivor

of an attempted kidnapping and rape 25 years ago.

The first thing the police asked me was, "What were you wearing?"

It was 2:00 in the morning and I was in my bed asleep. WTF difference did it make?

We are, as a people, a far cry from civilized. It really makes me sad when people decry legislation that takes a step in that direction.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ScreamingMeemie]

24. ...and disrespectful to boot.

Blows my mind.

[Duncan Grant]

28. It must be impaired critical thinking skills.

Lawn mowing = gay bashing. Who knew?!!! :scared:

[Madspirit]

34. Tell that to Matthew Sheppard

They make certain crimes "special" because the people are picked as victims because of what they are. Race, sexual preference, etc. In other words, when anyone leaves the house in the morning, there is a certain chance...a percentage...that they will be hurt or killed. If the person is gay or black, that number JUMPS way up. ...but hey, homophobe, I will be glad to trade this "specialness" for safety and straights getting their asses kicked instead...JUST for what they are. What a jerk.
Lee

[Paladin]

36. Well Said, Madspirit

Those of you who have problems with hate crime legislation ought to consider the sort of company you're keeping with such a viewpoint---you're siding with every hate-filled, right wing asshole in the country....

[JackBeck]

37. You've noticed the RW talking points as well.

"Thought police"

"Slippery slope"

It makes me sick.

[Paladin]

48. "Nanny State" Wasn't Mentioned?

If it wasn't, I'm surprised. Talk about a right-wing buzz phrase that sticks out like a sore thumb here at D.U....

[Duncan Grant]

42. Snap.

:hug:

Thank you.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Are there any cases of people being murdered because they were heterosexual?

In the vast vast majority of cases, people aren't murdered because they are straight, white, or male. Women and minority groups (both racial and gender) are protected in hate crime legislation because they are the victims of hate crimes. If there were several instances of white people being murdered because they are white or heterosexuals murdered because they are heterosexual then I would support adding them to the hate crimes statutes. But whites and heterosexuals are not terrorized by minorities and homosexuals.

[dsc]

52. actually this bill would add heterosexuals as well

it protects on the basis of sexual orientation so if a group of gay people beat up a straight person then that would be covered as well.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

77. Potentially even more than we know...

Gay bashing doesn't just happen to gay people. It also can happen to people PERCEIVED to be gay- even if they're as straight as potentially possible...

And usually, these type of episodes DO NOT get reported.

Why?

Well... lots of reasons.
One: stigma.
two: stigma
three- stigma and oh my god- what happens if the boss finds out i was beaten up for appearing gay. there's no federal ENDA (employee non-discrimination act) I could be fired because the homophobes THOUGHT I was gay... and now my boss- who doesn't like gay people has NO obligation to keep me? OH crap. Why did i report this?

see- it can happen to anyone- perception can make any one of us appear to be a member of a group not already included in the hate crimes legislation already present.

WHY NOT JUST PROTECT EVERYONE? And ALL members of the communities who are not protected, and feel the chill of hate just around some hidden corner...

[Lurking Dem]

18. The "slippery slope"

always seems to concern those that have no experience being a minority.

[sniffa]

22. don't sweat

i'm sure someone wiLL show up in no time with a friend, or a story of a minority friend who is aLso against it for just that reason.
if we're Lucky, we'LL get the story in the form of it's own thread.

[ScreamingMeemie]

23. In blog style even...

:hi:

[sniffa]

72. that wouLd be sweet

even if it gets moved to the Lounge.

:hi:

[sniffa]

21. don't forget it may Lead to man on dog sex

this is such a pathetic, and as said beLow, insuLting arguement.

[Duncan Grant]

25. Paging cobalt1999.

C'mon. I hate it when people won't defend their argument.

[JackBeck]

31. Me too.

The other day, when all the other threads were filled with Right Wing/Republican talking points, it was like I was invisible.

[gollygee]

32. This always seems to happen in threads about GLBT issues

When groups of people who mow their laws at 6 am contact their representatives in Congress about hate crime legislation because there have been a huge number of crimes against them due to their early-morning mowing, we'll have to discuss that I suppose. Until then, let's keep on this subject.

[Beer Snob-50]

13. i see where you are going with this and can agree

do you also think it is wrong to prosecute someone extra for killing a cop? killing is killing and you should go away for a long time.

how about a situation where someone gets their house vandalized for being gay? a derogotory term for gay spraypainted across the front door? on it's face value, not punishable by prison time, but probably should be because of why they are doing it. such people on the streets are detremintal to society as a whole and should be taken off to try and help.

[terrya]

16. Here's my take

Hate Crimes legislation is necessary.

This is my thinking, but... there are policemen and women in this country who don't have, shall we say, enlightened opinions about homosexuality and gay people. There are policemen and women in this country who may not feel a sense of urgency about investigating an attack or death of a gay/lesbian/transgendered person solely because of the circumstances of who they are.

And that's, to me, one reason why hate crimes are necessary. To send the message to all that attacking a person because of race, gender AND sexual orientation is wrong, is a crime and will be treated as a a crime. And will be prosecuted fully.

[gollygee]

27. Hate crimes are terrorism

The purpose is to terrorize whatever group is targeted. That's worth some extra penalties.

[JackBeck]

29. And the majority of hate crimes against the GLBT community

involve overkill. Multiple stab wounds, gun shots, beatings...The brutality of these crimes are outrageous.

[gollygee]

30. More effective terrorism

The worse it is, the more terrified you make people. It absolutely warrants increased penalties.

[Robson]

47. Agreed - a dangerous precedent

Honestly, I don't have mixed emotions at all on hate crime laws. I oppose them and see them making one class of citizenry as more important than another. That is not the way this country is supposed to operate under equal protection.

Law enforcement resources are finite and such laws will take investigative resources away other "more mundane" hate crimes to enforce crimes against those defined as special classes. Furthermore how does one determine the motive and thought process behind any crime without having the ability to read minds? It is a dangerous precedent.

We should punish all crime as appropriate. I agree that the rich are given prefential treatment and minorities, poor and the middle class are often shortchanged. The only class that regularly is given preferential treatment are celebrities and wealthy.

[JackBeck]

49. This has nothing to do with making one class of citizens more important than another.

It has to do with adding unprotected groups to already existing hate crimes laws. Your opposition to this measure relegates the LGBT community to second-class status in this country.

I suggest you look-up "overkill" to get a sense of how brutal attacks against the LGBT population really are.

[Robson]

63. So what does hate crime status

If ANYONE is assaulted for ANY reason they should and will get protection under the law. The law is supposed to be blind. If it isn't then the enforcers need replaced.

However.....no one because of their ethnicity or gender or bias should receive special protection.

It is impossible to prescribe to equality for all and promote "hate crime" legislation. That's like saying I believe strongly in peace but I support war if the country of my parent's ethnic heritage is attacked.

[JackBeck]

67. As I've stated many times in this thread

If you have a problem with the existing hate crimes laws that don't include protecting the LGBT community, than work to overturn the existing laws.

In the meantime, my fellow progressives and I will work to include the LGBT community in these existing laws, helping raise the community out of second-class status.

Have you looked-up "overkill" yet?

[Liberal Veteran]

51. Do you have a race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, or religion?

If so, then this legislation also protects you.

If not, then what planet are you from and we can see about adding Planet of Origin to the list.

Otherwise, thank your lucky stars no one has ever singled you out for violence based on an immutable trait.

[Robson]

59. If they do ..... then there are laws now that need enforced

If someone singles me out because of my big nose or my sour disposition or my skin color, then use existing laws to punish them. We don't need special laws for certain classes of people with big noses just as we don't want to encourage discrimination against certain other classes of people.

This race,gender,sexuality etc. neutrality that we want for all of America doesn't happen if the feds have discriminatory laws that do just the opposite. Shame on Congress for perpetuating discrimination as that is exactly what the "hate crime" bs is all about....discrimination. Sorry I don't buy it.

[Liberal Veteran]

61. And being targeted for violence based on being gay or black is not prejudice?

You probably have no idea how it feels to be a gay man who lives in a neighborhood where someone is the victim of a gaybashing and it's treated like simple assault.

It screams that you can single certain types of people out based on your hatred and assault them with impunity because you'll get a slap on the wrist as if were a common disagreement that got out of hand.

And don't you dare feed me those talking points.....You would be just as protected as I would be these laws. It's an aggravating circumstance that makes the crime rise above the common crime that took place.

[Robson]

62. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this

I disagree that any person should receive special status under US law. That's what it is all about.

[gollygee]

60. It has nothing to do with "preferential treatment"

it is about recognizing that the crime is partially the violence, and partially an act of terrorism against a particular group. Just like someone who commits an act of terrorism against all Americans gets an additional charge of terrorism, so should someone who commits an act of terrorism against the GLBT community be prosecuted for a hate crime. The purpose is to hurt the specific person, and also to terrify the group and keep them "in their place." There is an additional crime being committed beyond the specific violent act.

[Robson]

65. Assumptions will be preferential

So if a GLBT is assaulted, how does one determine if it is a hate crime? Or is it simply a crime of convenience against an individual? Or does one assume if said individual is GLBT, that it is a hate crime by definition?

I suspect the latter is the qualifier.....therefore I suspect that there will be numerous cases of preferential treatment by law enforcement which should be unconstitutional.

[gollygee]

68. That's part of the prosecution

they would have to prove a hate crime was committed. There would have to be evidence of it, just as in the case of terrorism against the US there has to be evidence that it was intentionally done to terrify people. So no, not every act of violence against someone who is GLBT is a hate crime. Gay people get mugged for money too. But when someone targets them because they are GLBT, that is partially to hurt them and partially to terrorize the GLBT community. It would have to be proven in court that it was both an act of violence and an act of terrorism against the GLBT community, which is what a hate crime is - an act of terrorism against a specific group.

[Robson]

89. Assault on 99yo white great-grandfather given secondary status while assault on GLBT gets hate crime

A 99 year old white male great-grandfather is assaulted and robbed by an 18yo white male and the crime is treated as a plain old robbery / assault.

A 20 yo GLBT gets assaulted and robbed by an 18yo white male and the ASSUMPTION is a hate crime until proven differently, and it gets special treatment and higher priority and much more attention from law enforcement.

That is total BS. I find any such discrimination and preference in law enforcement and our criminal justice system as outrageous. The system is unbalanced enough without adding special treatment under the law.

[JackBeck]

91. Actually, the legislation that the President has threatened to veto

would not only include the LGBT community, but the elderly and military personnel.

Try again.

[Robson]

95. What is the bill number?

I'm going to have find the bill number and read it because there is certainly language that applies to more than GLBT, but that has been the focus of the discussion here. Does anyone know the bill number off hand?

[JackBeck]

97. HR 1592.

[JackBeck]

98. And yet again you spew a right wing talking point.

It's not "special treatment". It's a move toward equal treatment. The LGBT community, which faces overkill in the majority of the cases, is currently not protected under Federal hate crimes laws, that protect the majority of this country. The bill that the House passed would add the LGBT community to the Federal hate statutes.

[Robson]

100. Scales of justice balanced for all...not held in balance because of extraneous factors

As much as I hate to say it every squirrel finds an acorn, and on rare occasions I agree with the RW. We need our laws to be less complex...and justice more balanced....but most importantly equal application for all. It's not that complicated.

The scales of justice should be balanced for all.....and not based upon money, fame, sexual preference, gender, race, religion, etc. The goal must be BALANCED FOR ALL! BTW I've used the same by-line since my first post...should I now add the other special classes?

[JackBeck]

101. Which is why the LGBT community should be added to the current hate crimes laws.

Then the scales would be balanced.

If you're agreeing with the RW on this subject, then you would be in favor of not allowing the LGBT community to be included in the current laws. Is that what you're saying? You want to exclude the LGBT community from accessing laws that are guaranteed others?

[Robson]

102. Let's shelve all hate crime in the interest of fairness for all

As I've suggested previously ALL hate crime laws should be eliminated in the interest of our Constitution.

[JackBeck]

103. Great. So you want to ignore the law.

I choose to follow the law and fight to add a community to that existing law, which continues to face overkill because of who they naturally love.

[Puglover]

107. Why should this post be any different Jack?

He's been spewing RW talking points since he appeared in this thread.

[wtmusic]

64. Most hate crimes legislation runs afoul of A1

Someone spraypaints a swastika on the wall of a synagogue, and it's a hate crime, with added penalties. The added penalties part has absolutely nothing to do with the crime itself, but the opinion of the person who did it.

As repugnant as these actions are there is nothing illegal about hating. Trying to legislate tolerance is like herding cats.

[gollygee]

69. Sure it has something to do with the crime

If someone spray paints a swastika on the wall of a synagogue, they are doing two things. They are committing an act of violence, and they are attempting to terrify the people who use the synagogue. Each warrants a penalty.

[wtmusic]

74. What is the legal definition of "terrify"?

:shrug:

[gollygee]

75. You'll have to ask a lawyer, but there must be one, as we have anti-terrorism laws (n/t)

[wtmusic]

76. Actually, there isn't one

and rightfully so. There's your problem -- you've created an arbitrary concept that can be exploited by anyone in power.

"Your antiwar demonstrations are terrifying the government -- ten years more." See what I mean?

[gollygee]

78. If I google "anti-terrorism legislation" I sure find a lot of things listed

someone's got a legal definition if we've got anti-terrorism legislation out there.

[wtmusic]

79. Good.

Find it for me, and you've got an argument.

[gollygee]

81. ok

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2001/freedom/terrorism01.htm

[wtmusic]

82. Given that definition

you'd feel comfortable sentencing any one of your fellow Democrats to life in prison for attempting to "influence the policy of a unit of government".

Is that accurate?

[gollygee]

83. Strawman

obviously not.

[wtmusic]

84. There's no legal definition for "obviously" either

and I think you know why. Please, do explain why my example is a straw man.

[nealmhughes]

4. I cannot follow the logic of opposing the legislation. These are not crimes of opportunity, such as

mugging a drunk flashing cash in a dark alley. Nor are these crimes of "necessity" such as burglary to steal goods to feed a drug habit. These are premeditated crimes, even if the actual premeditation occurs a split second after identifying the victim by the actor.
Premeditation goes further in the state's case in other offenses, such as the differentiation between a "crime of passion" or "reckless disregard" v. first degree murder.

One wonder what would happen if groups of GLBT people went on a rampage attacking couples for "acting straight in public" with pipes or bats?

It is a diseased organ within our Public Organism that allows walking while queer to be a punishable crime by the general public with only the penalty of getting into a fist fight meted out by the state.

Of course "Dr." Dobson claims that it is "thought crime legislation," and to that I can only respond, "WTF?" I suppose I failed mind reading in school, as I often quip, being passed with a D to get me out of the class. I couldn't give a proverbial rat's anus about one's thought, actions, on the other hand, sir. . .that I care about. Your right to free thought ends at the end of my nose.

[JackBeck]

40. ...

:thumbsup:

[wtmusic]

73. A different code of punishment for premeditation

was created to distinguish calculated crimes from rash, impulsive ones -- ones which the criminal may not have committed, given time to consider the consequences of his/her actions.

Hate crimes are distinguished only by the opinion of the criminal. For this reason hate crimes laws are in direct conflict with the first amendment.

[JackBeck]

85. You actually have the guts to say that with an African American woman as an avatar.

Let's bring back lynchings and burning crosses while we're at it, since it's just murder and free speech and nothing else.

[wtmusic]

86. Hyperbole doesn't help your argument

but yes, I'll take free speech--warts and all. I say that *because* I have a brave, free-speaking AA woman as an avatar.

[JackBeck]

87. Desmond Tutu and Coretta Scott King would disagree with you.

And I defer to them when it comes to speaking about equality.

[wtmusic]

88. DT and CSK don't believe in free speech?

News to me.

[JackBeck]

90. No, they believe in equality for the LGBT community.

Which means inclusion in the existing hate crimes legislation. As well as marriage equality and many other fights for the LGBT community that they know are the good fight from their years of experience.

It's a bit disturbing to see that you support burring crosses in the name of free speech. I thought we, as a country, had fought long and hard to move past this part of our history.

But while you petition Congress to overturn the existing hate crimes laws that don't protect the LGBT community, my fellow progressives and I will continue to fight and raise the LGBT community from second-class status.

[blues90]

38. Everything that does some good or makes sense is

either off the table or is a veto . This bt now should be proof positive that bush could care less about most americans who are not rich or white or kiss ass freaks .

[JackBeck]

39. Our country was starting to slowly move in the right direction

at the end of the last century.

Bush takes office and all of a sudden we're back in the Dark Ages.

A new, Democratic President, along with a Congress that has the American's interests on hand, will bring us back to where we should be.

[HuffleClaw]

41. horribly offensive and appalling but not a surprise considering bushco.s' base

they want to ADD discrimination to the constitution

[entanglement]

45. Wingnut James Dobson "This bill could silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs.."

/DU needs a wingnut smiley

[LostInAnomie]

71. I heard that on NPR the other day

I didn't realize that it is the moral belief of Christians that the only way to deal homosexuals is to beat them savagely.

[Liberal Veteran]

50. What I find funny about the usual reasons for being against hate crime legislation...

...is the notion that it puts one particular group higher than another.

But let's examine that.

Race: White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American...etc - everyone has one.

Religion: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist (although really not a religion), Scientology, etc - still pretty much everyone has one

National Origin: I think everyone was born somewhere that is a "nation".

Gender: Male, Female - Pretty much covers everyone

Sexual Orientation: Asexual, Bisexual, Heterosexual, Homosexual - again something everyone at least identifies with one of those


I think the real problem is the average white male heterosexual American Christian is RARELY singled out for violence, so in a twisted way they see this as being "left out" when they really aren't.

Is it our fault that the example above rarely has to worry about a straightbasher gays hanging out near Hooters waiting for some straight guy to beat up for being straight?

[Jack_DeLeon]

54. Hate crime laws are unnecessary...

Murder is murder, if a loved one of mine were killed I wouldnt care what motive the person who killed them had, I would want that person dead, not in jail for XYZ more years.

IMO its better to learn and teach your loved ones how to defend themselves with everything they have available to them. Its better to stop the threat yourself than to rely on the police to clean up after the fact.

[Liberal Veteran]

55. And vandalism is vandalism?

So a bunch of kids egging a house is the same as painting a swastika on a synagogue?

And assault is assault? A guy who smacks someone else in a momentary burst of anger during an argument is the same as a guy hanging out near a gay bar waiting for a queer to beat the shit out of for being queer.

Hey! While we are at it, let's do away with the whole manslaughter/murder border. Both end up with a dead person, so let's punish them the same way.

[Jack_DeLeon]

92. Yes.

In my town some stupid white kid got drove drunk and killed 3 kids in a van going to get dinner. I think he should have faced the death penalty but he only got vehicular manslaughter.

[gollygee]

56. So terrorism laws are unnecessary then?

If someone blows up a building, we can just arrest them for arson, explosives, and murder if someone dies. But there's no need to have charges for terrorism as well, right?

[Liberal Veteran]

58. It's kinda funny....

The same people who flip out screaming "IT PUNISHES THOUGHT!!!!" are usually the same people who want to put people away forever if they belong to or are associated with in any way an organization like al-Qaida whether or not that person has actually committed a crime or not because his "thoughts" make him dangerous.

[wtmusic]

66. That's right

There are more than enough conspiracy and racketeering laws to protect Americans already.
The "war on terror" is a myth.

[Jack_DeLeon]

93. Yes.

They should already get the worst punishment because of the murders.

Kind of fucked up that our legal system is in such a mess that you would need extra charges to properly punish murderers dont you think.

[JackBeck]

57. Yay! More right wing talking points.

I'll add yours to the growing list.

Fwiw, I had no time to defend myself when I was jumped by three guys calling me a "fag".

Hate crimes laws are already on the books. Start your own campaign to overturn them. In the meantime, me and other progressives will continue to fight to raise the LGBT from second-class citizenry.

[Jack_DeLeon]

94. Be more observant of your surroundings...

Many times criminals have the advantage of surprise, and that is a hell of an advantage. Alot of people go through thier lives oblivious of what is going on around them until it is too late.

I dont know what happened in your particular situation, but in general if people would take the time to look around and think about what they are seeing it might help. Situation awareness is a good thing. We would all be better off if more people were aware of what is going on around them. If criminals found that thier victims were a bit better prepared it would probably discourage them from thier actions.

[JackBeck]

96. Laughter through the tears.

I'm pretty confident that I have a brazillion more street smarts than you. Living and bartending in Brooklyn for over ten years can educate the most naive and oblivious.

And to paraphrase you: If criminals found that their victims were a bit better PROTECTED UNDER FEDERAL LAW it would probably discourage them from their actions.

And thanks for blaming me for getting attacked. If I wear a short skirt, I guess I deserve to get raped.

[Jack_DeLeon]

104. Criminals dont care about laws...

Its already illegal to rob, rape, assault, and murder and yet people still do it.

For claiming to be so street smart you seem naieve yourself. Why do you think that all of the laws against those crimes wont deter criminals but that this extra law will?

Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, I appreciate that. I specifically said I dont know what happend in your situation I have no knowledge of it so I cant comment on it, but I do know that in general criminals often attack those that arent aware of what is going on, and by the time the victim does realize the seriousness of the situation it is already too late.

I was only commenting that in general we would all be better off if we watched what was happening around us so that we wouldnt become victims and also that we could realize when someone bad is happening to someone else.

That would be a "brazillion" times more useful in reducing crime than some words on a paper written by politicians in Washington DC.

But hey if you think that we should all just go through live without a care in the world and that laws written by politicans alone will stop crime well you are free to have that opinion.

Also, no, I do not think that women who were skirts deserved to be raped. I do think that the best way to deal with criminals is through individual use of force rather than having the police come in and clean up then punishing the criminal harder after the fact.

[flvegan]

99. More observant? What fucking tripe.

Why don't you Google "hate crime" and brass knuckles. See what the fuck you come up with. Advantage of surprise...that's all hate crime is. The one that's the subject doesn't see it coming because it's just that, a baseless, bullshit attack.

Yeah, if I wandered around a bad neighborhood after getting out of my Rolls, wearing my Rolex sporting my pimp cup, I might better be aware of my surroundings just cuz. However, if my only alert in awareness is because I MIGHT be gay? When the fuck does that "observance" get to take a rest?

No, no, no, fucking no. Our GLBT family needs NOT to need to be more aware of their surroundings because they are indeed gay, lesbian, bi or trans. No. No fucking way. WE, their friends and family need to be more vigilant to see that these bullshit crimes not only don't happen, but aren't even considered.

I pity the motherfucker that commits a hate crime in front of me. I don't believe in violence, but if you commit an act in the name of hate against my GLBT family, I'll harmonize your ass.

[Jack_DeLeon]

105. It has nothing to do with being gay...

Everyone can be a victim of crime.

Why dont you believe in violence? It definately exists.

I'm not a violent person, but I definately think its best to be ready to use violence if it is needed. For better or worse might does make right in this world, and your rights are only as strong as you ability and will to defend them.

So would you only "harmonize someone's ass" if they were committing an act of hate against your GLBT family, or would you do it if it was being committed against some random stranger on the street aswell?

For myself I know I would defend my self, and those I care about. As for random strangers that would be something I would have to decide at the time.

Ultimately your own personal safety is your own responsiblity because you cant really count on anyone else to fight your battles for you.

[Midlodemocrat]

109. Dude, you rock.

:applause:

[AuntPatsy]

70. I watched that hearing, they should repeat it often, I was stunned.

[JerseygirlCT]

80. Why is it necessary, indeed. Why do people continue to

hate other people because of who they choose to love?

I wish it weren't necessary because hate crimes didn't exist. But to believe they don't exist is to live in fantasy land.

I don't think the votes against this or the threatened veto are about fantasy land. I think those are about protecting bigots.

[Bridget Burke]

108. Concerned Women for America has even more talking points...

(Besides the one we've seen in this thread, that is.)

Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues, noted, “Attempts by Republicans to make this legislation more inclusive by adding additional classes of citizens such as children, members of the military, the elderly or the homeless were refused by congressional liberals in committee last week. That refusal underscores the exclusionary and discriminatory nature of this bill. H.R. 1592 unequivocally treats one class of citizens preferentially over others.

“Perhaps most frightening is the fact that liberal legislators have refused any amendment which would substantively protect religious expression in association with this legislation. Similar laws have been used around the world — and right here at home — to silence opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. That refusal speaks volumes about the true agenda behind this legislation, which is to grant official government recognition to both homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, and to silence opposition to those behaviors,” concluded Barber.

www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=12875&department=MEDIA&categoryid=freedom

These harpies (& their male minions) have expressed approval of Bush's veto pledge.