Friday, October 9, 2009

Senate Leaning Toward Increasing Those Covered by Hate Crimes Law

Anyone who attacks a gay person, anyone who attacks a black person for no reason other that their color or sexual orientation should be punished, but to set aside those two groups or others and say those crimes are greater than an attack on a 12 year boy or a old white man is something totally Un-American. Something we as fair-minded people should condemn. Yet, this is what the Congress is moving toward. For one American to have greater protection than another under the laws of this country is repugnant and cannot be justified by any thinking American. Those who support such legislation are clearly playing toward special interest groups who think their rights out weight the rights of the average person. This is a simple common sense matter, however many seek to complicate the obvious in order to please these special interest groups. This law will most certainly pass and it is just another slap at the common man.

Social Conservatives Mount Last-Ditch Effort to Stop Hate Crimes Bill
Social conservatives opposed to a hate crimes bill that would extend federal protection to gay and transgender victims and nearing passage in Congress are mounting a last-ditch effort to defeat it.

Social conservatives opposed to a hate crimes bill that would extend federal protection to gay and transgender victims are mounting a last-ditch effort to defeat it -- even as it nears passage in Congress

The House voted Thursday to make it a federal crime to assault people because of their sexual orientation, significantly expanding the U.S. hate crimes law enacted in the days after the 1968 assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr..

The Senate is expected to pass the bill, allowing federal prosecutors for the first time to intervene in cases of violence perpetrated against gays.

No one is arguing against the prosecution of assaults. But opponents, fearing threats to free speech under broad interpretations of the legislation, are pushing voters to contact their senators to voice their displeasure over the expansion of the existing law. They acknowledge the odds are against them.

"It's going to be very difficult to defeat at this stage," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a law firm that works on religious freedom cases.

Staver said he is hoping for a "groundswell of support" to stop the bill dead in its tracks and at the very least raise awareness of the bill's far-reaching impact. If that fails, Staver said his groups is "strongly considering" filing a lawsuit based on the broad language of the bill that he says would allow federal intervention into past cases, including ones of alleged rape.
read more from FOX


LD Jackson said...

It goes without saying that I disagree with this legislation. It seems the left is always coming up with ways to define protection for another group of people.

Another part of this that goes against my grain is the way Congress is attaching the bill to another bill that is completely unrelated. I have ranted time after time on my own blog that this practice should be stopped. If a piece of legislation is strong enough, it should be able to stand on it's own. If not, then it should not pass. Both political parties are guilty of this practice and it should be stopped.

Ron Russell said...

I'm like you Larry, bills should stand alone and usually those attached to necessary funding bills would not pass anyother way. The old smoke-filled rooms are now filled with clouds of deception and subterfuge!

Mr Pink Eyes said...

I would say that ALL crimes are hate crimes.
Somehow we have gone from equal protection under the law to greater protection under the law. This is not only un-American but unconstitutional. All men are created equal-- I heard that somewhere before-- yet to commit a crime against one group is now worse than committing the same crime against another group.
Once upon a time blacks were not given equal protection, now they are given greater protection, doesn't that mean that white are no longer receiving equal protection?
I thought that two wrongs don't make a right.

Ron Russell said...

It seems Mr Pink Eyes that things are going in reverse and not forward---a new discrimination is being advanced with the help of "white guilt".

Teresa said...

The left seems to be taking us back in history with all these "special" priviledges for only a select few groups. This is totally un-american. A crime is a crime regardless of who commits it, period. There are no special crimes. All crimes are wrong. The left is racially devisive, and I am so sick of it. The left is so intrusive into our lives, also.

Ron Russell said...

You have it right Teresa, white Americans(I almost refrain from using the tern white in this context, because I will be accused of racism) are the targets of those whose agenda includes making us feel guilty about things in our past. And quite frankly, I don't care if my grandfather rode with the Klan, I don't care if my father rode the "gay guy" out of town---that is not my problem. I am my own man and have no apologies for what my father or grandfather did. That is another time and another place and laws to right these past wrongs are wrong in themselves and such never be imposed on us. This is just an attempt by liberals to keep these issues alive to benefit them and to get the votes of those foolish enough to think these things are currently in the mainsteam of America life. We on the right use the past to advance and preserve the great vaules of the founders, but those on the left use the past to point out the uglylyness of the past to advance the cause the cause of the "the hate American crowd" by enactly laws that seem to advance the cause of certain groups, when in reality they are only advancing their only stirring the pot of discontint. In this they cannot let the past die. Contrary to what they say theirs is a world that thrives on hate and mistrust.

Just John said...

Yep; the era of "thought crimes" is upon us. Orwell would be proud.

We're not quite as screwed up as the U.K.; you can't even say that you think homosexuality is wrong there without being charged with a crime...

Mr Pink Eyes said...

I just guess that some discrimination is okay because it makes up for discrimination of the past.
We are going backwards, we will never be a "race neutral" country until we stop making distinctions against groups, even if those distinctions are designed to help them.

Snarky Basterd said...

You mean they're going make to make it legal for us to throw them in jail for stealing our money?

That's the only "hate" crime I'm aware of, given that crime, by definition, is an act of hate.

Ron Russell said...

Just john we are quickly catching up to England--hard to believe they have such laws in a country were discussion in parliament is so robust.