Hate crimes legislation will finally pass, and Dubya's gunna veto it

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Third veto in 6 years, and what a track record:

1) stem cell research funding
2) military spending bill
3) and this.

The thing that pisses me off is that all the massive resistance to this stuff, the most virulent opponents of it, are rightwing fundie types wanting to go after gay people. That's it. It all comes down to just some people freaking out that they're not going to be able to keep the tone up about gay folks.

― kingfish, Thursday, 3 May 2007 17:52 (eighteen years ago)

Tho I figure this will be the hot-button anti-gay thing that these folks are going to try to get out the crazy vote during next year, hollering on every broadcast medium available that the dimmycrats are pushing "thought crime", and conveniently ignoring the vast amount of U.S. law that already involves intent.

― kingfish, Thursday, 3 May 2007 17:53 (eighteen years ago)

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/518A7JKY3EL._AA240_.jpg

― and what, Thursday, 3 May 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

best freeper comment = "If queers could not vote, this would not be happening and the Dems would not even know what gay or lesbian even means."

― and what, Thursday, 3 May 2007 19:33 (eighteen years ago)

Awesome.

Also, as a clarification: we already have national hate crimes legislation, this would only expand it to cover gender & sexual orientation.

― kingfish, Thursday, 3 May 2007 19:35 (eighteen years ago)

Great bit of analysis, as well as a response to guys like Sullivan who's reading & history is off.

― kingfish, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:38 (eighteen years ago)

"no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."

this is a good point

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:04 (eighteen years ago)

except for the fact that laws regarding other hate crimes for race or religion are already federalized?

― and what, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:39 (eighteen years ago)

yeah but there was a large and widespread lynching / bus burning / disappearing civil rights worker problem up to the 50s that needed to be investigated and enforced by federally

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:53 (eighteen years ago)

that should say "federal police"

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:53 (eighteen years ago)

There's also the pre-war anti-lynching laws that got shot down by certain congressional types.

― kingfish, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

'Conyers said in a statement that state and local authorities will continue to prosecute the overwhelming majority of such cases and the bill requires the attorney general or another high-ranking Justice Department official to approve any federal prosecutions.'

there are no good points

― deeznuts, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:00 (eighteen years ago)

also
'The Judiciary Committee cited FBI figures that there have been more than 113,000 hate crimes since 1991, including 7,163 in 1995. It said that racially motivated bias accounted for 55 percent of those incidents, religious bias for 17 percent, sexual orientation bias for 14 percent and ethnicity bias for 14 percent. '

― deeznuts, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:01 (eighteen years ago)

xxpost

the religion thing is stickier ... yeah there wasn't a widespread violent hate crime problem, but as i understand it the language and intent of the 1969 laws was tied explicitly to the language of the bill of rights (no discrimination based on race, color, religion and national origin) and since there's no sexual orientation clause in the bill of rights it's a tougher sell to piggyback that on to existing law.

i know it's tacky to be all constitutional fundamentalist but i worry sometimes about over-legislating our country into a corner.

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:02 (eighteen years ago)

your wikipedia skills are excellent, deeznuts

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:05 (eighteen years ago)

but do you really think we need to expand the powers and responsibilities of the FBI? are local + state authorities really failing to prosecute hate crimes based on orientation as they were race crimes in the 20s-60s?

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:07 (eighteen years ago)

^^^I kind of wonder this myself, considering there are areas where pharmacists refuse to dispense the morning after pill

― deej, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:08 (eighteen years ago)

so to answer .... maybe??

― deej, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:08 (eighteen years ago)

i've always been on the fence about hate crimes.. essentially it means toughening the punishment for things that are already crimes, right?

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:09 (eighteen years ago)

Apparently, people backing the veto say that they don't want the legislation to "make criminals of clergy members who speak out against homosexuality, then inadvertently inspire violence from misguided followers."

― Leee, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:11 (eighteen years ago)

yeah look count me 100000% against 'hate speech' laws but remember that the federal govt taking a stand against widespread racism in the 60s is a big factor in why fewer ppl have those beliefs today

― and what, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:12 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

Yeah, it is kind of a grey area for me as well. Certainly not a horrible as vetoing the stem cell research bill.

Not totally convinced he was wrong for vetoing a military spending bill that sets a date to leave Iraq, either.

― Gukbe, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:13 (eighteen years ago)

xpost i'm with you on THAT too ethan, but i'm going to have to say that i think the important "stand" the federal gov't took wasn't so much the mega-dramatic "mississippi burning" stuff but in fact the willingness to prosecute and enforce nondiscrimination laws in private hiring and public access.

i would be way more interested in seeing congress tackle *that* (no more pell grants for people going to bob jones university??) than i am seeing them tackle *this* (tough sell cause it's not in the bill of rights)

just saying, cause i'm public servant in a field (education) that's been over-legislated to the point of near-collapse, so i can understand some resistance to this idea from the justice dept ("oh shit, you want us to cover an addition 15,000 crimes per year?? and a war on terror??").

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:16 (eighteen years ago)

also if i had to pick a "violent hate crimes" legislation to support right now it would be hate crimes against *immigrants*, but how are you really gonna do that when it goes smack against the conventional-wisdom idea of "hate crimes are crimes against you for who you are"

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:17 (eighteen years ago)

moonship, its not about 'failure to prosecute' at all! or at least not mostly

i hope this doesnt turn the thread into a massive derailment but im not really sure whats so awful about hate speech legislation (which to be clear has absolutely nothing to do w/ this bill)

although i do realize that, particularly when it comes to queers, there is some gray area there that would have many fundies shaking in their shoes (which is somehow not a good thing)(not being sarcastic)

― deeznuts, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:21 (eighteen years ago)

but it IS about failure to prosecute, right?? the whole point of making federal hate crime legislation is to give federal law enforcement wider powers to go after these criminals when local and state police don't!!

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:22 (eighteen years ago)

'excitable speech' by judith butler breaks down all the defenses ive ever heard

― and what, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:24 (eighteen years ago)

that's the thing; it doesn't offer "extra protection" or make gay people some sorta "protected class". It merely kicks up the level of punishment on those who actual commit the crime. The expansion is part of it, as a backup for the cases where it doesn't get investigated just due to some bit of the identity of the victim.

It's not a "hate speech" law since there are laws against incitement already on the books. The batshit types are freaking out against this either b/c 1) they actually thing this is what it is or 2) they think it's the most convenient way to attack it

― kingfish, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:25 (eighteen years ago)

ok, if thats the case, its even more reason to support it

but to me its always been about the idea that while many crimes, even violent ones (cf the dude mugging the 101 year old woman, which part of me thinks has a lot to do with the otherwise inexplicable desired republican inclusion of 'the elderly' into this bill) are poverty-related, crimes mostly or solely motivated by someone's race, gender, or orientation are particularly severe largely because they speak to repeat offense! in the same way that sex offenders or sociopaths do or should get harsher treatment than offenders whose motivations are questionable

xp

― deeznuts, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:31 (eighteen years ago)

yeah the fundie opposition to this is batshit but just on principle i'd want any hate crime legislation to be based on

1. stuff already strongly protected by federal law (as in included in the bill of rights, so that your boss can't fire you because he finds out you're gay) or

2. a very pressing necessity (i think the immigration thing is quickly going to get to this point, if it isn't already, shit has been out of hand near the border for a while now)

xpost

that's an interesting point about repeat offense that i hadn't thought about but was that an original motivation for the existing laws?? constitutional scholars to thread...

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:34 (eighteen years ago)

also moonship since yr argument seems to be largely one of federal overstretch, there arent going to be anywhere even remotely close to an additional 15000 crimes a year decided by the justice dept! those numbers were from 1991 to present, & as i quoted from the article, the vast majority will still be handled by state & local officials

xp

― deeznuts, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:35 (eighteen years ago)

right, so again we're back to "why???" vs "well, why not???"

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:36 (eighteen years ago)

why: a) because i believe its ethically right & dont see any danger in legislating it b) if i can get all gipper on yr ass i do think therell be a significant trickle-down effect as to how these crimes are legislated on a state & local level

― deeznuts, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:48 (eighteen years ago)

why not: a) law is not ethics made into rules b) let's not legislate around the problem, let's sit down and have a serious national conversation about whether or not we want it to be OK for people to be gay or not

actually i think in the civil rights era they had the conversation before the *laws*, and they had the *laws* against discrimination before the *hate crime law* (isn't more the point of hate crime law that hate crimes act specifically against another set of laws, ie, they don't just subvert our safety but also our rights??)

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:54 (eighteen years ago)

and if we haven't established yet that it's your RIGHT to be gay without discrimination (let's face it, we haven't!) how can we say that hate crimes subvert that right??

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:55 (eighteen years ago)

but yeah, why try for rapprochement with the middle east when you can just invade iraq and have a patriot act

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:56 (eighteen years ago)

we need a federal database of queer-hatin rednecks

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:57 (eighteen years ago)

??? isnt that totally ass-backwards?? isnt legislating hate crimes against gays a major step in establishing that right?? xps

― deeznuts, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:57 (eighteen years ago)

historically, no i don't think so - the federal hate crimes legislation was in 1969, five years after the civil rights act!

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

how is that surprising, & what actual significance does that have??

― deeznuts, Friday, 4 May 2007 18:00 (eighteen years ago)

if your boss fires you because you're gay, or black, does it mean your boss "hates" you? if someone beats the shit out of you on the street and calls you "n*gger" does it mean they hate you because you're black or did they just want to pile on the insults in the most juvenile way possible? in both those cases i don't see how hate crime legislation helps solve any problems; in the first case dude should get in trouble for discrimination, in the second case dude should get in trouble for beating the shit out of you

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 4 May 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

and in the case of someone setting up a burning cross on your lawn - there are already all kinds of laws on the books about threatening behavior, intimidation, etc. right?

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 4 May 2007 18:33 (eighteen years ago)

bascially i agree with moonship

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 4 May 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

but all "beating the shit out of you's" are not created equal

is it wrong to legislate this fact?

― deeznuts, Friday, 4 May 2007 19:01 (eighteen years ago)

It's not a matter of the motivation being "they hate you." It's a matter of "sending a message," e.g. lynchings, cross-burnings, etc. We already do this, in the form of harsher penalties of "intent to terrorize" assoc. w/ crimes.

― kingfish, Friday, 4 May 2007 19:18 (eighteen years ago)

one year passes...

http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/H14.CFM

WHEREAS it is recognized in Alberta as a fundamental principle and as a matter of public policy that all persons are equal in: dignity, rights and responsibilities without regard to race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status;

??????????

― and what, Friday, 23 May 2008 18:10 (seventeen years ago)

trust fund kids have it hard

― gff, Friday, 23 May 2008 18:12 (seventeen years ago)

Goes both ways, no?

― Michael White, Friday, 23 May 2008 18:18 (seventeen years ago)

most trusties i've known do

― gff, Friday, 23 May 2008 18:18 (seventeen years ago)

I can think of sources of income that people might be inclined to discriminate about on a personal level; most have something to do with pornography or sex work, or other trades someone might have blanket moral objections to. (Moral objections different from and deeper than, e.g., not liking a company's environmental policy, or something -- people are rarely all "we need to drive that plastics-industry executive out of the neighborhood.") That might also be meant to cover a kind of (mostly archaic) open classism -- e.g., housing discrimination based on not wanting blue-collar workers in a certain neighborhood, and such?

― nabisco, Friday, 23 May 2008 18:22 (seventeen years ago)

if native politics are anything like they are here, it might be a stand-in for a certain kind of racism, since a lot of tribal members live off casino stipends.

― gff, Friday, 23 May 2008 18:24 (seventeen years ago)

I'm trying to think of any reason I'd think that shouldn't be there, and I really can't see any. The main reason I'd imagine anyone being against it is so they can reserve the right to discriminate against people they find morally objectionable (like a religious person not serving or renting to someone because he, say, owns a strip club), which is fair to prevent.

― nabisco, Friday, 23 May 2008 18:34 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.