Democrats Pass Hate Crimes Bill That Expands Federal Law Enforcement Authority

  •  April 30, 2009

The liberals will defend this bill as something that protects minorities and women and homosexuals from crimes motivated by bigotry. The reality is that this bill is the first step toward criminalizing certain types of opinions that aren’t approved of by the government and an expansion of federal control over local law enforcement to boot.

Lawmakers voted 249 to 175 in favor of the legislation, which was authored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Democrat.
President Barack Obama strongly supported the measure, which he dubbed an “important civil rights issue” in a statement late Tuesday urging Congress to approve the bill.
Current law gives national law-enforcement authorities jurisdiction over hate crimes only when directed at individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin, and only when the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting.
The new measure would expand protections to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, and would expand help from Washington to local authorities to punish hate crimes.

My problem with hate crimes is that it actually creates inequality within the law. For instance, why should a crime by a white man against a black man that is motivated by racial hatred be more serious than a crime by a black man against a white man that’s also motivated by racial hatred? If the crime in question is murder, are the crimes not equal? Or is one life worth more than the other?
Further, why should a murder or assault motivated by racial hatred be any more serious than an assault or murder motivated by the desire for the $20 the person might have in his/her wallet? Or an assault/murder that is motivated by mere whimsy or insanity?
What’s more, making a crime motivated by an unpopular opinion more serious than a crime motivated by economics or insanity sets a dangerous precedent whereby said unpopular opinion becomes a crime in and of itself. Which is wrong. I’ve no love for ignorant bigots, but freedom means freedom and that means being free to be an ignorant bigot. Now if said ignorant bigot kills someone, then the bigot is a criminal. But there’s little need to make that crime more serious simply because the bigot was a bigot.
This is a needless complication of our laws. It is already illegal to assault people or murder them or steal from them, so why not just leave the law as is? And let the states handle it instead of adding even more federal bureaucracy to the already bloated burden we taxpayers have to carry?
This is rank pandering to people who don’t want equality but rather special treatment. Not to mention a federal power grab.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

    This is basically about putting a muzzle on christian ministers who preach bible based scriptures against homosexuality. I hate hate as much as the next guy. BUT I love Free Speech! This is soridiculous and just another sign of how and when Govt should step out of our business!

  • http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

    So they’re going to challenge the antihomosexual POV of the entirety of Orthodox Judaism and all of Islam?

    Right… And after that they can try to squeeze coal with their buttcheeks to make diamonds.

  • sayanything-2483

    I wonder if the anti-American, anti white hate speech that the Rev. Wright, Pfleiger and Farakhan spews is considered “hate speech.”

  • http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

    It could also protect sexual predators such as pedophilia, animal lovers, etc. NOT real bright!

  • SigFan

    This is just another step to suppress free speech. While no one in the immediate future will be prosecuted under the hate crimes law for expressing an opinion that is unfavorable to some protected group or another (or the almighty government), sooner or later it will happen. Murder is murder, theft is theft, rape is rape – these transgressions are already well understood and the laws are in place to prosecute them. As Rob says, whether the person perpetrating a crime "hates" the victim or not is immaterial, what matters is they committed a crime and deserve just punishment for that act.

  • Hannitized

    The estorm….eeeez ecoming.

  • Hannitized

    Rob tries to be intelligent:

    For instance, why should a crime by a white man against a black man that is motivated by racial hatred be more serious than a crime by a black man against a white man that's also motivated by racial hatred?

    It would not be, under this law. If you can prove this particular guy was influenced by racial hatred, you could apply this add on crime to his violations.

    You really aren't very bright, are ya kid?

    • John

      fuck you nigger

      • RipVanBullwinkl

        Talking to yourself again Will Bonnilla?

  • Hannitized

    Further, why should a murder or assault motivated by racial hatred be any more serious than an assault or murder motivated by the desire for the $20 the person might have in his/her wallet? Or an assault/murder that is motivated by mere whimsy or insanity?

    You don't understand our criminal justice system Rob. In our system you have a max penalty and minimum penalty. Why?

    Can you answer that intelligently?

  • Mickey

    All I read into this is that they are including homosexuals, lesbians and tranvestites into the existing law.

    Oh well, whatever

  • robert108

    You really aren't very bright, are ya kid?

    More projection from a moron who doesn't realize that thought is not a crime. Only the behavior is a crime, not what you may or may not be thinking at the time. The murder victim is just as dead, in every case. Even the motive doesn't matter, unless it's self-defense.
    As usual, H, you know nothing.

  • robert108

    In our system you have a max penalty and minimum penalty. Why?

    Extenuating circumstances, moron. If you were intelligent, you wouldn't have asked such a stupid, off-topic question.

  • http://Array Hannitized

    Robert makes himself a useful idiot:

    Extenuating circumstances, moron.

    You are my favoritest useful idiot Robert, thank you.

    Yes extenuating circumstances. Now, let's take graffiti as an example. If kid is caught spray painting a building with pictures is it different than spray painting racial slurs?

    Is there correct justice in place for that type of graffiti crime? Are there "extenuating circumstances" to deal with? No.

    The question then becomes, is does it make sense to punish this type of crime additionally for the additional harm it caused? The answer is, yes.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Is that really the President Pro Tem of the US Senate?

  • robert108

    If kid is caught spray painting a building with pictures is it different than spray painting racial slurs?

    No. Isn't that free speech, moron? If burning the flag is free speech, why not painting something on the side of a building?

    The question then becomes, is does it make sense to punish this type of crime additionally for the additional harm it caused?

    What "harm" are you referring to? Are you saying that free speech is harmful?

    Again, idiot, hate crime is thought crime.

  • Hannitized

    Robert shows us his ignorance on "hate speech".

    Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade[citation needed] a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting

    Got it?

    Isn't that free speech, moron?

    No.

    You are a idiot.

  • robert108

    H: Thanks again for illustrating how lefties actually hate our Constitution, including free speech rights. The spew you cut and pasted is against our founding principles, the Constitution, individual independence and freedom in general. In other words, it's as unAmerican as abortion on demand and all the other symptoms of leftie contagion.
    Hate crime is thought crime. It's just more leftie fascism.
    Again, what actual harm is caused?

  • http://twitter.com/r0ckH0pp3r sayanything-3285

    Maybe we should we just expand the Endangered Species Act to include these 'special' groups?

    Then we wouldn't have to worry about 'equal-protection' rights, and they would have their 'special protections'.

    Nah, live like the rest of us.

  • robert108

    BTW, H: there is no such thing as "hate speech", it's just speech, partisan politics aside.
    The entire bullshit construction of "hate speech" is just leftie politicians pandering to their various victim groups on the leftie plantation.

  • robert108

    Think about it(if you can): If there really was something to this "hate speech" business, and if it actually caused harm, in a cause and effect relationship, then every time Chris Rock or Eddie Murphy used the "n" word, black people would suffer or die, and yet, that's actually considered entertainment.
    If it doesn't cause measurable harm in every instance, how can it be a "crime"?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/Anna/ Anna

    Ohforshitsakes … this is nothing but a law to devalue the life and rights of some and not others
    In other words, this law will allow punishing two identical crimes differently because of what is perceived to be in the perpetrator's mind. Crime is a crime regardless of the perpetrator's thought process.
    Why should a perpetrator receive punishment based on who the victim is?
    This bill is hate law against specific victims.

  • WOOFX

    Who is not covered ?

  • Hannitized

    Robert lies again, pretends to ignore there are laws against hate speech:

    H: there is no such thing as "hate speech", it's just speech, partisan politics aside.

    Uhh…not exactly.

    "Hate Speech" in U.S. Professional and Educational Contexts
    Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[39] See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).

    Both public and private educational institutions in the United States frequently adopt rules prohibiting stigmatization on the basis of attributes such as race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or national origin. In the 1980's and 1990's, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[40] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[41]

    Doh!! It sucks to be Robert.

    Every time he lies, I smack him with the truth.

  • robert108

    The law, as I have already stated, is unConstitutional and unAmerican, which is exactly what you lefties are trying to do.
    Again, please explain how speech "harms" anyone.
    Why isn't what Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy say onstage a "hate crime"?
    If so-called "hate speech" harms anyone, why doesn't it do that when black people are speaking it?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/Anna/ Anna

    Woof,
    When punishing two identical crimes differently based on who the victim is that makes one "covered" and one not 'covered" by this law.

  • Hannitized

    The law, as I have already stated, is

    ….non existent. You never said it was the law, or argued against it's constitutionality.

    You didn't know it was law. You are ignorant, and now you are trying to backpedal.

    Nice try Robert, but i just served you your ass cold. Tastes sort of like chicken, don't it?

  • robert108

    Nice try Robert, but i just served you your ass cold. Tastes sort of like chicken, don't it?

    Despite your homo fantasies, I proved what I said: Hate crime is thought crime, and so-called "hate speech" harms no one.
    If you hate-filled lefties have succeeded in making speech a crime, it's both unConstitutional and unAmerican.

    Again, you fail to answer the question: Why aren't Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy "hate criminals"?

  • Hannitized

    I proved what I said: Hate crime is thought crime, and so-called "hate speech" harms no one.

    Laws say hate speech hurts people. You lose.

  • SigFan

    I wonder if the anti-American, anti white hate speech that the Rev. Wright, Pfleiger and Farakhan spews is considered "hate speech."

    Should be, but we're the ones they're trying to silence, not them. These guys are just poor, beset upon, hated minorities by their own definitions.

  • robert108

    Right; criminalizing speech is unConstitutional.

  • Headward

    All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

    Fight racism with…more racism and inequality.

  • lastofthepatriots

    It's just another way the lefties can add to the list of "poor victims", now gays and transsexuals can use this law to silence those who oppose them trying to make their lifestyle choice "mainstream".

    Pretty soon you'll see this law expanded:

    "The new measure would expand protections to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability,

    environmental-friendly beliefs, pro-choice activists, people with long hair, people with dark hair, people with small feet…

    and would expand help from Washington to local authorities to punish hate crimes.

    You can see it can't you…

    I agree with whomever said it earlier…a criminal act is a criminal act, we already have enforcement and differing levels of punishment to match the criminal act.

  • dragon poker

    I dislike religion as much as the next guy. I wish they would just be quite and keep to themselves and out of public policy. This is my personal preference.
    HOWEVER, this time, reluctently, I have to side with knobert. Hate is not a crime. Crime is a crime. Motivaton should not matter in the committing of crimes. What matters is the act itself.
    If I choose to hate say…..pumpkins. I tell everyone I know that pumpkins are the evil incarnate and should be wiped out. Lets say I even advise others to hate pumpkins and do everything in thier power to oppress pumpkins. But alas no one listens and no one acts on my expressed pumpkin hatred. Well as I see it, no crime has been committed in this situation. I have a right to hate pumpkins, and I have a right to speak my hatred out loud. Unless I go out and smash pumpkins I have done nothing illiegal or immoral. Should I directly influence someone with my pumpkin vitriol to go out and smash pumpkins, then maybe I should be held responsible for insighting violence, but as to the hate involved, that should be mine to do with as I choose.
    This whole hate crime thing is really thought crime. Arent there enough laws already on the books to make us all criminals 10 times over? Why make it worse by criminalizing thought and the expression of thought? After all, speech is nothing more than the verbal expression of thought. No one is immune to this kind of crap, left or right. Once it is out of the bag, it can be used against anyone they deem undesirable.

    Free speech relies on the idea that everyone has the right to say what you want, but no one has the right to be heard. To be heard is the choice of the listener, not the speaker. Hate speech does not have to be a crime. It should simply be ignored. Prosecute the crime, not the motivation.

  • http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

    We already have laws against assault and battery, arson, murder, etc… No one wants violence against anyone. This is a direct attack on free speech. Protecting sexual preference is a far cry from what our country was founded on. It is really getting out of hand. Protected classes are ridiculous and belittle other people. Wake up America. This is the Change and hope we are being forced to accept.

  • 2Hotel9

    Hate Crime is anything any person in authority decides it is. That is where all of this is going.

    And Poke? Religion is not really the problem. Organized Religion is. Just like Organized Labor.

  • Stewartized

    "Law says hate speech hurts people. You lose." Your logic hurts me. So now "speech" hurts people? I thought you had to commit an actual crime. Definition of "hate speech": Verbal communication that induces anger in the listener due to their inability to offer an intelligent response.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    I am against hate crime laws. Illegal acts should be punished, not disproportionately, if possible. Freedom of speech is important. No speech should ever be considered a hate crime, ever. Just my two cents.

  • Hannitized

    Right; criminalizing speech is unConstitutional.

    Right; criminalize HATE speech is constitutional and law.

  • Stewartized

    Libtards still think the Constitution says there`s a right not to be offended. It`s right next to the right to health care. Damn, Some people are stupid!

  • pparets

    Actually, Hannitized, no ban on hate speech has ever stood a constitutional test before the United States Supreme Court. Not one.

  • 2Hotel9

    "Right; criminalize HATE speech is constitutional and law."

    Well, that solves that. sanni will go directly to prison, no trial, for all the "hate speech" crimes it commits here on a daily basis.

    Problem solved X 2!!! That takes out dinothefakehomo, just for the hate-filled anti-gay shit it spews on a regular basis.

    X 3!!! buzzed spews hate with every single post.

    X 4!!! And who could forget wetback, that hate-filed racist fuck.

    Hate Crimes legislation? Perhaps it will work!

  • drk

    Look at the hatred in California against those who supported Prop 8. You can be sure they will be bringing lawsuits against pastors and other supporters just as soon as this bill takes effect.

    Whatever happened to "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me"?

  • docdave

    Once it is out of the bag, it can be used against anyone they deem undesirable.

    Speech suppression is already being used under the PC form. Students have been suspended. People have been fired or ostrasized. Criminalizing what is said or thought brings it to a new level and is intended to silence opposing views.

  • 2Hotel9

    This falls in line with the DHS Assessment released last month, make all people criminals, then you can strip them of all rights without amending the Constitution, or even having any trial.

  • John

    you guys are all fucking jerkoffs and deserve to be hatefully raped and murdered

    • RipVanBullwinkl

      Looks like a Liberal Arts major just discovered SAB!

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development