It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are so many people against the hate crimes bill?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I think it's good that we're looking at congressional legislation and criticizing them for abusing their power. We should do that. We should however not be completely irrational when we do it.

I've just been noticing a lot of strange talk about this bill: www.govtrack.us... HR 1592. I don't see anything strange about the bill. I don't believe that the government should enforce moral behavior. I do believe that people shouldn't hurt each other. I just have seen a lot of conspiracy theories about the bill saying that it would restrict free speech...

This is in the text of the bill itself.


SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.


I see yet a lot of internet rumors about the bill, probably, by people who think they're trying to sound all important by spinning a random theory... which I think in turns discredits us.

I don't quite understand... why there is a lot of talk against this bill.




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I see yet a lot of internet rumors about the bill, probably, by people who think they're trying to sound all important by spinning a random theory... which I think in turns discredits us.

I don't quite understand... why there is a lot of talk against this bill.


I do to, mostly from people who are just grabbing for a chance to smear anything the Democrats or Government does. I am by no means for any political party but it sure seems that people are complaining and making stuff up about some things just for the sake of doing so.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


I am against it because it is racist and sexist. It is already a crime to harm someone. Why should it be anymore of a crime just because you did it because of their race, gender, or sexual preference? This just creates special legal classes of people and it is wrong. If somebody harms me just because they decided to they should face the same crime for harming someone else for whatever reason.

Now if you think all people that harm people deserve more jail time then at least that is fair, but I dont think there is any room in the prisons to hold people much longer.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Let me ask a question, with suffering the risk of attack myself. Is the reason that caucasians are excluded from this bill (as a target of hate) because of the level of minorities that would suffer underneath this bill?

Wouldn't that be true equality? Isn't anything else just pandering to minorities and special interest groups?

Honest questions, no snarkiness meant.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


That is no real argument against it. You just want for people who would normally not be charged for crimes for their violence because they're attacking minorities to not be charged for it. I don't see how this bill is racist or sexist. I think you're grasping at straws here. I'm against government regulation- but- this bill does nothing you say. It provides no special protection. It only applies enforcement to where something should have been there all along. Shouldn't minorities have been protected all this time? This bill doesn't infringe on your free speech. It only enforces protection to people where they should have been protecting in the first place. I don't like government regulation here. I just don't see how this bill is sexist, or, does any of the things people against it say it does. I'll be against bad bills that give the government too much power- I am against the monopolization of force that the government has- but- this bill does nothing that people say it does.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Whether you're a Republican or Democrat, think hard about what Corry adds: "A government powerful enough to pick and choose which thoughts to prosecute is a government too powerful."

www.cato.org...

Quick Rundown (examples):


Gail Heriot, a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, was one of two (out of six) witnesses testifying against the bill on June 25 before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She laid out precisely how the law could be abused, and concluded:

No one can deny the horror of violent crimes inspired by hatred of any kind. This is something upon which all decent people can agree. But it is precisely in those situations – where all decent people agree on the need to "do something" – that mistakes are made. Passage of the vaguely-worded prohibitions in S. 909 would be a giant step toward the federalization of all crime. Given the many civil liberties issues that would raise, including the routine potential of double jeopardy prosecutions, this is a step that members of the Senate should think twice before they take.

In addition, the bill's wording guarantees future interpretive mischief, Heriot notes:

Back in 1998, attorneys at the Department of Justice, eager to expand federal authority, drafted language for the bill that would create federal jurisdiction over many cases that can't honestly be regarded as hate crimes – at least not as that term is understood by most Americans. The fact is that, despite the misleading use of the words "hate crime," [the bill] does not actually require that the defendant be inspired by hatred in order to convict. It is sufficient if he acts "because of" someone's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Consider:

- Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their victims. They are always chosen "because of" their gender.
- A thief might well steal only from the disabled because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves. Literally, they're chosen "because of" their disability.
- Suppose a burglar is surprised when the husband and wife who reside in the home return earlier than expected. The burglar shoots the husband and kills him, but finding himself unable to shoot a woman, turns and runs. Again, literally, the husband was killed "because of" his gender.

#1 The proposed federal hate crimes bill virtually ensures that some defendants will face double jeopardy, whatever the outcome of their cases. It all depends on the whims of the folks occupying the Attorney General's office, who may want to score political points at a defendant's expense.

#2 One of the bill's more dangerous features is its boldly stated authorization for the feds to intervene in any case they determine has not met "the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence." Under current law, the feds can narrowly invoke their authority in cases where a "hate crime" has prevented someone from engaging in federally protected activities such as voting. The new law opens wide the door for the feds to barge in.

#3 The bill also represents yet another abuse of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, using it to justify federal intervention upon the flimsiest tie-ins to interstate trade.

#4 Hate crime laws lay the groundwork for assaults on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We can look to our northern neighbor for clues about what happens when such laws are enacted. In Saskatchewan, Canada, a newspaper publisher and a man who placed a newspaper ad faced jail and were fined $4,500 each, merely for running an ad containing references to several Bible verses regarding homosexuality. A college teacher who wrote a letter to the editor affirming traditional morality was suspended. And best-selling author Mark Steyn (America Alone), has faced charges in national and provincial tribunals for the supposed "hate crime" of reporting what Muslim leaders in Europe themselves say about changing demographics


www.onenewsnow.com...




[edit on 8-7-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


That's a question I've thought about too. But when you think about it- hate crimes aren't usually committed against whites... we aren't usually on the receiving end of hate crimes that often. I would agree that there shouldn't be a racial slant here- but- this bill does nothing that people against it seem to say that it does.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Why are so many people against the hate crimes bill?
Hate crimes.. A savage hypocrisy!!

Well.. If you are going to break the law.. And you hurt someone.. The government wants you to know if you hurt someone else.. Well you better make sure they are the same color as you are!!!

Hate crime bills are a savage hypocrisy!! It only serves to group us up as race and color, but not as human beings!

Did you ever see the south park when Cartman threw the Rock at Tolkin?


By perpetuating unequal treatment under the law, hate crime laws simply reinforce divisions between different ethnic groups. Further, their primary function is to criminalize a person's thoughts during the commission of a crime, in a far more insidious way than the law's traditional focus on the accused's level of intent. By ratcheting up penalties for crimes committed against members of protected classes, they assign greater value to some people over others. Not insignificantly, there is also the problem of the 14th Amendment's ban on laws that classify persons on the basis of race. And hate crimes statistics are manipulated to create the appearance of a crisis where one does not necessarily exist.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


I don't see what's wrong with the bill. What a hate crime is- is clearly established in the bill. I'm all for criticizing the establishment here- but- can we at least do it honestly? None of those arguments really hold up... I haven't heard of a law enforcement abusing the power to enforce protection of hate crimes to restrict free speech yet... if we're going to criticize the establishment let's at least do it where problems exist.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


There already are laws against attacking minorities and if they are not enforced now why do you think they will be enforced with another bill.

The truth is there are already laws for harming all classes of humans and they are enforced now, so why do we need another bill.

Why should you get more time for killing someone just because they are black then you get for killing someone just because you wanted to take their money?

Please give me one example where some minority is harmed and it isnt already a crime to harm them just because they are human.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
This is the Text of the bill here.

This next part is from Sec 6. Sec. 249 b.1.D.


(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.


You mean like this double jeopardy clause right here? This is saying that if the federal government deems a state sentence too lenient the federal government can step in and re-prosecute the case and the person can receive another sentence.

Also at the very end of this bill.


If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby


Take away from that what you will, but it states that people prosecuted by this bill before it gets ruled unconstitutional will still have to serve their sentence.

Now for the meat and potatoes of the discussion. Why do we even need a hate crimes bill? We already have laws that deal with crimes, this bill is racist. It pretty much states that people should get longer tougher sentences because of the color of their skin and or gender, or lack there of, or sexual orientation.

It's a stupid and pointless bill that serves no reason other to throw people in jail for a longer period of time because the person they had an altercation with somebody that just happened to be of a different gender, race, or sexual orientation. It's a thought crime is what it is.

If this bill passes the senate welcome to thought crime legislation.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by zysin5
 


That's an interesting argument. You could argue that all the hate crime bill does though is to allow the police to punish people who actually are engaged in real hate crimes. All it does- you could argue is extend the law to the 14th amendment... and that it doesn't really give them any new power. At least let's be honest here.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


That's a question I've thought about too. But when you think about it- hate crimes aren't usually committed against whites... we aren't usually on the receiving end of hate crimes that often. I would agree that there shouldn't be a racial slant here- but- this bill does nothing that people against it seem to say that it does.


Every crime is a hate crime, and if caucasians are excluded, isn't that a bias that needs to be addressed?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


As I've already pointed out the bill doesn't prevent thought. It only prevents acts against minorities. I see the context as to why it could be constitutionally argued as wrong here- but- really at least be honest if you're criticizing the establishment. This is not going to take away your free speech. You shouldn't really be hurting minorities or other people and getting away with it in the first place. I think that something like this shouldn't be passed in the first place- that is my opinion- but- I don't see anything wrong with it- constitutionally really.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I think you're reading a bit too deeply into this. I think you know what kind of hate crime they're referring to. We don't need to be intellectually dishonest here when we're criticizing this bill. I don't think we should make bills about race, or gender... but this bill does nothing that you say that it does.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Nobody is saying it is just about Free Speech. We are saying it is reverse discrimination against straight white people. Dont we deserve equal protection under the law?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
If I murder a man because of his color, or because I'm just a bad person it doesn't really matter. The murder was wrong, the murder is already illegal.

So, what you are really wanting to do is make peoples thoughts illegal.

If it was just a case of the actions those people take, then those things are already illegal. As such, it's the thought/motive that is being added, not the actual action.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


I would think that we get superior protection under the law. Don't you? I however would think that in order for this bill to be completely fair- that they should- not make a distinction of race... but... I actually will probably be the first to admit that blacks do get less protection than we do.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Murdering people and thinking thoughts are two different things.

Your thoughts=what you think about
Your actions=what you do in the real world

Thoughts are different from actions.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I dont even see how this law will even be enforcable in the real world. We cant read peoples minds at the exact time they harm someone, so we dont really know why they hurt the other person.

Now lets say I am part of the KKK and I kill a black man in a fight. At that moment do you know for a fact I killed him because he was black or that I would have killed anybody that I got in a fight with at that moment because I was angry about something else.




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join