House and Senate Republicans kill hate-crimes bill

[Matt_G]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 12:15am

For the second time in four years, Republican-led congressional negotiators have ripped out a hate-crimes prevention bill that had been added to spending legislation. The move, which was expected by national gay rights groups, effectively kills any kind of new protections for gay Americans, lawmakers said Thursday.

"The Republican leadership has unconscionably ignored the will of House and the Senate and stripped the hate-crimes prevention provisions," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a California congresswoman. "The needs of law enforcement--which have repeatedly requested federal assistance in solving and preventing a wide range of violent hate crimes--have been ignored."

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would add real or perceived sexual orientation, gender, and disability to federal hate-crime laws, thus allowing the federal government the ability to provide critical assistance to state, local, and federal law enforcement to combat violent crimes against victims because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, gender, or disability. It was included by the Senate as part of the Defense Authorization Bill.

"This is a sad day for America," said Wisconsin congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. "All Americans, regardless of their race, gender, disability, or sexual orientation, have a right to feel safe in their communities. Hate crimes are different than other violent crimes because they seek to instill fear and terror throughout a whole community--whether it is burning a cross in someone's yard, burning a synagogue, or a rash of physical assaults near a gay community center."

On June 14, the Senate included the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the defense bill by a bipartisan vote of 65-33, with 18 Republicans in support of the measure. In September, the House voted 213-186--including 31 Republicans in support--to instruct House conferees to retain the Senate language in the final version of the bill.

The House passed a similar motion to instruct in September 2000, by a 232-192 vote, with 41 Republicans, but that amendment was stripped out in conference committee.

The current defense department bill is expected to be completed by Friday. It will be voted on by the House and Senate and then be send to President Bush.

Posted: 10/8/04 at 9:06am

Hate crime laws are wrong because they only work in the "political correct" direction.

A white person who kills a black can be charged with a hate crime, but a black person who kills a white would never be.

Remember those white guys who dragged that black guy behind their truck in Texas a number of years ago and killed him? Bleeding hearts like to point out that Bush, who was the Governor of Texas at the time, refused to charge them with a hate crime. But they forget to mention that he EXECUTED THEM. What more could you want? Updated On: 10/8/04 at 09:06 AM

[Matt_G]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 9:08am

"What more could you would you want?"

English lessons.

Posted: 10/8/04 at 9:11am

I always know when I've won on this forum. It's when the only rebuttal my opponent can come up with is pointing out a typo.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 9:15am

Rodney, I'm sure you realize I haven't contributed to any of the threads about you because I was hoping that you would change but I've given up on tht. You truly have no clue what you're talking about and you've gone beyond offensive here. For some odd reason Rob & Craig are letting you continue to post here even after the disgusting things you said to Zola yesterday. Your postings have become offensive just to be offensive. You've contributed absolutely nothing on the subject of musical theatre which is what this board is for so I'm really wondering WHY you continue to come here. It's got to be obvious to you at this point that you're not very welcome here.

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 9:17am

Now, Matt, this board's primary function is Broadway, which includes straight (and GAY) plays as well as musicals...

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 9:19am

I will remind you that two days ago you verbally gay-bashed me by calling me a "pansy"--and then claimed not to know that was a decades-old slur. You're on very thin ice.

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 9:35am

"I always know when I've won on this forum"

no one told me this forum was a competition... if i'd known, i'd have tried MUCH harder...

PalJ, i also like how he stated he had ONE friend (out of his supposed many gay friends) who preferred to be called a fag, and therefore thought it was okay to call all gays "fags"... Updated On: 10/8/04 at 09:35 AM

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 9:59am

But Rodney...here's where you're wrong. If a black person kills a white person, and it can be proven that he did it because of his race, he can indeed be charged with a hate crime. It's a hate crime if it's based on race, not based on what race.
This new provision would have protected people based on real or perceived sexual orientation. So technically if a gay person went out and killed a straight person BECAUSE he was straight he would have been punished under this same law. But, there aren't too many cases of gays killing straights based on hate. Sadly, the opposite isn't true. Updated On: 10/8/04 at 09:59 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:10am

Thanks Erik, for reminding us.

Another take on this subj: I am particularly put off by the specious logic used by those against hate-crime legislation. Stand back from the legal victims right angle; just look at how they want to strip all crime analysis of a critical element: MOTIVE. It's as if they don't want the deaths of victims to have any understandable meaning, any resonance: Violence is thus seen as random, arbitrary, and assigning motive or blame is useless. Like a lot of the right wing agenda, this argument is dangerously anti-intellectual, in effect ignoring centuries of acquired knowledge on the nature of criminal behavior.

So Matthew Shepherd was murdered because thugs acted randomly? They happened to want to hang "just anybody" on a fence until the life drained from him?

Forget "special interest," this simplification flies in the face of basic police work. Only by understanding why certain people lash out and attack others can we as a society understand the roots of violent acts.

Updated On: 10/8/04 at 10:10 AM

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:24am

Cheesus Crust!

I guess we're going to go back to the "pansy" incident.

"Forget "special interest," this simplification flies in the face of basic police work. Only by understanding why certain people lash out and attack others can we as a society understand the roots of violent acts."

Well said. This theory also should include profiling.

If a black person is lynched, shouldn't you suspect the local "good ole boys"?

**jumping up and down on the ice cause I don't give a damn"

[Matt_G]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:36am

Rodney, to quote the bitchy sales girl in PRETTY WOMAN, "We don't have anything for you. PLEASE LEAVE."

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:37am

c'mon Matt! I know you better than that.

Can't you discuss my last message here?

Is tellig me to "please leave" all you can come up with?

You're smarter than that.

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:41am

Actually, your opponents come up with more rebuttals than just your typos. But it's hard to take your comments seriously, if the typos are so glaring... Besides, when rebuttals are given, you don't seem to answer them much. May I point out your "Boycott Beijing 2008" thread as an example?

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:43am

It isn't so surprising that Congress killed the hate-crimes bill. Law enforcement isn't exactly the hallmark of this Congress. After all, they also let the semi-automatic weapons ban expire...

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:49am

OK the Beijing thing... I still think we should boycot and that's very liberal of me.

Problem is with this forum is this: sometimes if you're not on the forum for a while, topics drop to the bottom and you forget about them.

as for the assault weapons ban, it was passed in the fall of 1994, just as the Democrat-controlled Congress knew they were about to lose power (1994 is remembered as the election of the angry White Man) The bottom line is that it is simply a violation of the Second Amendment. If Congress were to pass a law that says the media can no longer use televsion or the internet, you'd all be screaming "violation of the First Amendment" how is that different?

as for the typos, repating words, jumbling verbs, etc. is a sign of thinking faster than you can type.

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:52am

does the right to bear arms include an AK-47? Really...

[mominator]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:53am

I support the right to arm bears!

[Matt_G]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:54am

Of course it does, KMC. People who think our founding fathers didn't mean for us to be able to get off 200 rounds in 1.4 seconds are ignorant and haters of the constitution.

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:54am

and i support the right to bare arms...

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:57am

Of course, the GOP supports the right to bear arms, but doesn't support equal protection under the law... constitutionally confused?

bare arms bearing arms against armed bears

[Matt_G]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 10:59am

hung bears are better.

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 11:01am

do they have bare arms?

[mominator]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 11:01am

Funny jj! But I mean come on some guy out there laying in wait for Bambis mom... I say lets make it a little more fair. What would Mr. Big he man hunter do if he saw Mr Grizzly bear with a rifle pointed at him?


*** oh and by the way for some people out there this is SARCASM!***