expansion of hate crimes legislation

[dgriffin]

Obama hails expansion of hate crimes legislation

By BEN FELLER (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed and celebrated hate crime legislation that extends protection to people based on sexual orientation, sealing a long-fought victory to gay advocates. The president spoke of a nation becoming a place where "we're all free to live and love as we see fit."

Or ... we'd all better be more careful about what we say.

The new law expands federal hate crimes to include those committed against people because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also loosens limits on when federal law enforcement can intervene and prosecute crimes, amounting to the biggest expansion of the civil-rights era law in decades.

"No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love," Obama said in East Room reception, surrounded by joyous supporters. "No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are, or because they live with a disability."

Conservatives have opposed the legislation, arguing that it creates a special class of victims and could serve to silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds.

I have yet to see a hate crime against a white heterosexual person prosecuted. So am I to conclude that all non-whites and homosexuals are without hate?

Adding extra culpability and punishment to a crime, such as assault and battery, that relates to one's internal view of the world, essentially criminalizes that view. It is a short step from there to punishing the view only.


www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h8whGi9YvYJCiaY9Z-mYoVmDw1HgD9BKDFDO0

[bobbbiez]

Not trying to look too deeply into this law but it seems hate-crimes have escalated, especially amongest our very young people, so am happy that President Obama recognized this and signed the bill.

[dgriffin]

I agree that hate crimes are a terrible thing. But a crime should be a crime. And a hate should not by itself be a crime. It isn't now, but this is a step toward it. Think of it this way. If Clipper had popped me one at the picnic, let's say that for the assault he would have received two weeks in jail. If it was a hate crime, because he hates fat Irishmen with glasses, he might have got 3 weeks. That extra week directly relates to his hate of fat Irishmen and quantifies it. It's a short step from there to a week in jail just for hating fat Irishmen, which might be a shame, but shouldn't be a crime.

And, of course, in this latest loosening of the federal rules regarding hate crimes, which has to do with gay rights and Obama's obligation to the gay community for their support, it isn't clear whether a preacher railing against homosexuality from the pulpit is doing something criminal or not.

[Clipper]

My doubts center more on Obama's reasons than on the law itself. His civil rights agenda may be genuine, but more than likely it is a campaign to build support in the next election. He has the racial minority in his pocket, so now he can work on pocketing the gay community for 2012.

He most likely could give a damn less about gays, blacks, hispanics or anyone else, and only panders to the one part of your anatomy that matters to him. The finger that will register your vote on the machine in 2012. Hopefully, by that time, enough fingers will be connected to enough brains to prevent a replay of this presidential term.

His "great works"as a community organizer were more than likely driven by a desire to promote his own career and popularity than for any actual desire to make things better for the poor of Chicago. He simply has been able to ride into the white house on the backs of the young, and the minorities of the country, and is simply bolstering his numbers by gathering the gay community into his fold.

He needs to quit playing with healthcare and hate crime legislation, and get his ass in gear to support our troops in Afghanistan with reinforcements. He needs to work to get us out of Iraq, and to win and finish the war in Afghanistan. He needs to focus on rebuilding our military so that National Guard troops don't have to be rotating yearly to overseas deployments.

[Clipper]

Just a footnote Dave. With the rainy weather the day of the picnic, I was quick to notice that you were in close proximity to a fine looking Irish lady with an umbrella. Had I been inclined to assault you, I would have been beaten half to death by the pretty Mary Poppins like character with either the umbrella or a photo album, haha.

Not to mention that the "fat irishman with glasses" is one of my favorite people anyhow, and the same holds true for Fiona. LOL

[bobbbiez]

From what I understand hate crime laws were already enacted in 1968. This bill will only broaded in states the laws already in effect. Civil right groups and most Democratic leaders were pressuring to get it pass for quite a while now. President Bush ignored this bill during his term. President Obama just signed it into effect. I personally feel it was necessary.

Just a footnote.......................if Clipper popped Dave at our picnic he would be charged with harassment which is just a violation consisting of most likely just a fine. No jail time involved.
Far cry in my book for killing someone because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or disabilities.

[Clipper]

Hey, nobody should be killed period, no matter what religion, race, disability or sexual orientation they may pursue or possess.

Hey, I am all for equal opportunity. I always wanted to have sex with a hispanic lesbian midget with a bum leg, but then I tend to be a little on the liberal side anyhow!

[gearofzanzibar]

Oct 29, 2009 15:47:49 GMT -5 bobbbiez said:

From what I understand hate crime laws were already enacted in 1968.

For a very limited number of federally protected activities that were constitutionally protected.

This bill will only broaded in states the laws already in effect.

Er..no. Federal laws apply to everyone.

Civil right groups and most Democratic leaders were pressuring to get it pass for quite a while now. President Bush ignored this bill during his term.

Er..no. The bill was bottled up in the Democratically controlled House and Senate until earlier this year.

President Obama just signed it into effect. I personally feel it was necessary.

Why?

Just a footnote.......................if Clipper popped Dave at our picnic he would be charged with harassment which is just a violation consisting of most likely just a fine. No jail time involved.

Er..no. If Clipper attacked Dave because of his national origin he could be charged with a federal crime with a jail term of up to ten years.

The bill makes constitutionally protected speech ("I hate Irishmen!") into a class of evidence suitable for proving the commission of a federal crime. If a prosecutor can demonstrate that Clipper, at any time, said he hated Irishmen, and then attacked someone because he believed they were of Irish extraction, he's met the standard of evidence and Clipper is looking at time in the federal pen.

Far cry in my book for killing someone because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or disabilities.

And the constitution gives the federal government this power...where exactly?

It's not a crime to be a bigoted asshat, as much as we may dislike bigotry. I despise racists, but there are more than enough existing laws to grind them into the ground when they resort to violence. Crafting a law that makes a constitutionally protected activity (bigoted speech) de facto evidence of a federal crime is the worst kind of paternalistic power grab.

[Clipper]

Oh dear, are ex-wives a protected species? It may be my private conversations and thoughts could possibly cost me my freedom.

[dgriffin]

Oct 29, 2009 16:43:46 GMT -5 gearofzanzibar said:

The bill makes constitutionally protected speech ("I hate Irishmen!") into a class of evidence suitable for proving the commission of a federal crime. If a prosecutor can demonstrate that Clipper, at any time, said he hated Irishmen, and then attacked someone because he believed they were of Irish extraction, he's met the standard of evidence and Clipper is looking at time in the federal pen.

Gear, I didn't know that. I wonder how the government accomplished convictions before this? What was required as evidence of hate?

[gski]

now my interest is up....hmmm...my name ends in ski....think what i can do with a law like this.
I wonder now if all those jokes will be outlawed......

[gearofzanzibar]

Oct 29, 2009 16:58:55 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

Gear, I didn't know that. I wonder how the government accomplished convictions before this? What was required as evidence of hate?

Actions directly proceeding the act of violence, and then only for crimes that infringed on constitutionally guaranteed rights.

[dgriffin]

Oct 29, 2009 19:57:58 GMT -5 gearofzanzibar said:

Oct 29, 2009 16:58:55 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

Gear, I didn't know that. I wonder how the government accomplished convictions before this? What was required as evidence of hate?

Actions directly proceeding the act of violence, and then only for crimes that infringed on constitutionally guaranteed rights.

That would make sense, yes, and it's pointed out in an article I just came across.


Hate by itself is not enough

Here's an interesting writeup from 2006 about the prosecution of a hate crime. It appeared in the Seattle Times coverage of a 30 year old man charged with murder when he went on a shooting rampage at a local
Jewish Federation office.

The full article is at:

community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20060801&slug=hatecrime01m


An excerpt:

"Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Lang said Monday federal prosecutors have not ruled out federal charges, as they monitor the state's investigation and wait for the FBI to complete a probe of its own.

Lang and Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Miyake, who handles civil-rights and hate-crime prosecutions for the office, said proving a hate crime under federal law might be more difficult than it would seem, regardless of Haq's reported statements.

"Hate by itself is not enough," Miyake said. "It's sort of hate-'plus.' "

The "plus," Miyake explained, requires the government to prove that more than race, religious preference or national origin was a factor in the crime. "You also have to be able to show that the individual was interfering with a federally protected right," such as voting, using interstate commerce or attempting to use a public facility.

That's because the law harkens to the civil-rights struggle of the early 1960s, when blacks were assaulted for attempting to eat at segregated lunch counters or to register to vote.

Still, there may be a section of the statute under which Haq could be prosecuted in federal court, Miyake and Lang said. For example, one of the federally protected rights cited by the law is "applying for or enjoying employment."


I wonder if the requirement of "interfering with a federally protected right"
is still valid, and necessary for federal prosecution. And I suppose that holding hands with whomever you desire might be construed as a federally protected right.

And then there is similar state law ......

[bobbbiez]

Oct 29, 2009 16:43:46 GMT -5 gearofzanzibar said:

Oct 29, 2009 15:47:49 GMT -5 bobbbiez said:

From what I understand hate crime laws were already enacted in 1968.

For a very limited number of federally protected activities that were constitutionally protected.



Er..no. Federal laws apply to everyone.

Gear, the new law expands federal hate crimes to include those committed against people because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also loosens limits on when federal law enforcement can intervene and prosecute crimes, amounting to the biggest expansion of the civil-rights era law in decades.

Some 45 states have hate crimes statutes, and the bill will not change current practices where hate crimes are generally investigated and prosecuted by state and local officials. But it does broaden the narrow range of actions-such as attending school or voting-that can trigger federal involvement and allows the federal government to step in if the Justice Department certifies that a state is unwilling or unable to follow through on alleged hate crime.

[bobbbiez]

Er..no. The bill was bottled up in the Democratically controlled House and Senate until earlier this year.

Gear, Civil rights groups and their Democratic backers on Capital Hill have tried for a decade to expand the hate crimes law, but fell short because of a lack of coordination between the House and Senate, or opposition from President Bush.



[/quote]