House Votes To Expand Hate Crimes Law

Bill Would Add Attacks On Gays To Federal Hate Crimes Law; White House Threatens Veto

(AP)  Just hours after the White House issued a veto threat Thursday, the House voted to add gender and sexual orientation to the categories covered by federal hate crimes law.

The House legislation, passed 237-180, also makes it easier for federal law enforcement to take part in or assist local prosecutions involving bias-motivated attacks. Similar legislation is also moving through the Senate, setting the stage for another veto showdown with President Bush.

"This is an important vote of conscience, of a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the only openly gay man in the House, presided over the chamber as the final vote was taken.

The vote came after fierce lobbying from civil rights groups, who have been pushing for years for added protections against hate crimes, and social conservatives, who say the bill threatens the right to express moral opposition to homosexuality and singles out groups of citizens for special protection.

The White House, in a statement warning of a veto, said state and local criminal laws already cover the new crimes defined under the bill, and there was "no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."

It also noted that the bill leaves other classes, such as the elderly, the military and police officers, without similar special status.

"Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "Under this bill justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim."

Republicans, in a parliamentary move that would have effectively killed the bill, tried to add seniors and the military to those qualifying for hate crimes protection. It was defeated on a mainly party-line vote.

Hate crimes under current federal law apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national original. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting.

The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crimes investigations. It approves $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crime prosecutions.

Federal investigators could step in if local authorities are unwilling or unable to act. The Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, said this federal intervention could have made a difference in the case of Brandon Teena, the young Nebraska transsexual depicted in the movie "Boys Don't Cry" who was raped after two friends discovered that he was biologically female and then murdered when local police did not arrest those responsible.

But Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the true intent of the bill was "to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality." If you read the Bible in a certain way, he told his broadcast listeners, "you may be guilty of committing a 'thought crime.'"

"It does not impinge on public speech or writing in any way," countered Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., pointing out that the bill explicitly reaffirms First Amendment and free speech rights.

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.

The legislation restates already-enacted penalties. Those using guns to commit crimes defined under the bill face prison terms of up to 10 years. Crimes involving kidnapping or sexual assault or resulting in death can bring life terms.

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.

[briannorwood]

I'm sure if this bill introduced protection against hate crimes on oil businessmen or haliburten executives, there would be a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden.

[mbcsmith]

The LIB party is the party of DEFEAT and SURRENDER. FUND THE TROOPS NOW!

[mudrose-2009]

This is an attempt to violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution. The bill is designed to give special rights to special groups based on sexual orientation. All crimes against another person are hate crimes.

[micma-2009]

Exactly what kind of "free speach" is the White House trying to protect?

[infidel_us]

If this bill has "strong democrat backing", it must be bad. Please VETO IT!

[mudrose-2009]

Exactly what kind of "free speach" is the White House trying to protect?

Posted by micma

"The ultimate objective of this legislation is to claim that 'hate speech' -- criticism of homosexuality -- incites individuals to violence and must be suppressed and punished. This will violate the First Amendment rights of any person or group that opposes the normalization of homosexuality in our culture," TVC's Lafferty said". Now, Micma, have a ball.

[infidel_us]

Come to think of it, I have NEVER seen a black prosecuted for a "hate crime" agaist a white. This hate crime BS is just PC code for giving minorities an unfair advantage over whites in the court system.

Crimes agaisnt people are crimes.....plain and simple.

[tlabonte68]

This veto is incomprehensible to me. Here in Canada, I worked in the office of a member of Parliament who was instrumental in bringing forward such legislation as a private members bill which was then passed by a majority of members in the House of Commons.

Without this protection, people can and will continue to promote acts of violence against homosexuals, such as the demonstrations at military funerals by the likes of Fred Phelps. This veto is just another example of the current administration being out of touch with what the majority of its citizens expect.

[mudrose-2009]

Crimes agaisnt people are crimes.....plain and simple.
Posted by Infidel_US

Yeah, and while the members ont he judiciary committee expressed that if they were going to give the specials, a heads up, why not the military who are always denigrated, along with the elderly, etc., but nooooooooooooooo, this is just to give the specials an advantage over the rest of society. Like I said -- anyone who does harm to someone else commits a hate crime and if my opinion or belief is against someone or something, I should not have to be prosecuted because of my thoughts or my feelings. It is another attempt to dismantle our constitution.

[micma-2009]

mudrose

I believe that the kinds of speach that incites violence has already been defined under existing laws from previous hate crimes legislation. It's a rather high bar to meet. You pretty much have to directly call for doing violence to a particular group. This is not protected free speach any more than yelling fire in a movie theater.

[tejasdemo]

Can there be any doubt anymore that Republicans are all closet KKK members and all these evangelical fruitcakes are the Grand Wizards ?

[mudrose-2009]

I'm sure if this bill introduced protection against hate crimes on oil businessmen or haliburten executives, there would be a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden.
Posted by briannorwood

A crime against another person is a hate crime. It's just another attempt at pc to silence free speech and due process.

[mudrose-2009]

I believe that the kinds of speach that incites violence has already been defined under existing laws from previous hate crimes legislation. It's a rather high bar to meet. You pretty much have to directly call for doing violence to a particular group. This is not protected free speach any more than yelling fire in a movie theater.

Posted by micma

Then what's the purpose of enacting another hate crime bill? Pointless, unless you are supporting an agenda. Right? Leftwing grandstanding.

[interobserv]

There is nothing free about free speech. It has cost us dearly and the price continues to be high.

You have the right to say anything. AND you are RESPONSIBLE for anything/everything you say.

This law further defines that responsibility. So go ahead, say anything you *** well like. Just remeber, you will be held accountable. That is what the First Amendment was about!!!

[bks59]

So, it is OK for the Fed Gov to establish precedence over state's traditional areas of statuates such as marriage, but not about denigration and violence!

What line of logic is used to define such action, because I can!

[mudrose-2009]

Can there be any doubt anymore that Republicans are all closet KKK members and all these evangelical fruitcakes are the Grand Wizards ?
Posted by tejasdemo at 01:03 PM : May 03, 2007
+ report abuse

Can there be any further doubt now that the left wing feminist hags are out to make sure that there is no male or female gender distinction? Can there be any doubt now that the left wing fruitcakes are aiming for a society were the male is no longer considered any more viable than his sperm?

[walt1944-2009]

Since when have the conservatives been concerned with personal freedoms as listed in the Constitution? Their "fearless leader", George W, has made a point of shedding the Constitution over the past 6 years, keeping only sections that he feels he might use later for his own personal gain.

The ones who might lose the most on this are the conservative talk show thugs like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Savage who use the radio to spit out their hate of anything and everything that lives and moves and isn't a "blue-blooded" neo-con. Their shows are just like the anti-Jewish trash the Nazis gave over the radio in Nazi Germany! They are just like Bush, ready to deny everyone else rights, but screaming the loudest when THEIR rights are affected!

[randalds]

Can there be any doubt anymore that Republicans are all closet KKK members and all these evangelical fruitcakes are the Grand Wizards ?
Posted by tejasdemo at 01:03 PM : May 03, 2007

Amen. The only thing they consider a hate crime is when someone says they hate them and their bible thumping ways. For them that's a hate crime, but hatred towards blacks, Mexicans, Native Americans, ***, or anyone else who doesn't fit into their Ozzie and Harriet view of America is perfectly fine. The right wingers are the masters of hate and are the reason membership in hate based organizantions like the KKK is growing by leaps and bounds.

[mudrose-2009]

So, it is OK for the Fed Gov to establish precedence over state's traditional areas of statuates such as marriage, but not about denigration and violence!

Posted by bks

The states are doing a fine job of defending their own statutes in traditional areas such as marriage. And denigration and violence against who?

[micma-2009]

Then what's the purpose of enacting another hate crime bill? Pointless, unless you are supporting an agenda. Right? Leftwing grandstanding.
Posted by mudrose at 01:07 PM : May 03, 2007


All groups who are subject to hate crimes should be protected by hate crimes legislation. This bill just includes three groups that have been left out of previous legal protections. Again there is no violation of free speach involved hear unless you think that calling for violence to be done to a certain group of people is free speach. I suspect you do or you wouldn't be defending Bush from this angle.

[mudrose-2009]

Amen. The only thing they consider a hate crime is when someone says they hate them and their bible thumping ways. For them that's a hate crime, but hatred towards blacks, Mexicans, Native Americans, ***, or anyone else who doesn't fit into their Ozzie and Harriet view of America is perfectly fine. The right wingers are the masters of hate and are the reason membership in hate based organizantions like the KKK is growing by leaps and bounds.
Posted by RandalDS

Then why didn't they allow for other members of society to be included in this so called Hate Crime Bill? No, no, this is to support a given agenda so that the specials can override free speech and due process. But you don't know the constitution so this doesn't make any sense to you.

[blazercoach1]

So much for justice being blind. It should not matter the victim or the perpetrators race, color, ethnicity, religion etc.

This kind of legislation is reminiscint of laws that punished blacks MORE or whites LESS for committing a crime prior to civil rights.

[randalds]

Posted by mudrose at 01:29 PM : May 03, 2007

You are a right wing troll with no credibility. Shoo troll, shoo.

[mudrose-2009]

All groups who are subject to hate crimes should be protected by hate crimes legislation. This bill just includes three groups that have been left out of previous legal protections. Again there is no violation of free speach involved hear unless you think that calling for violence to be done to a certain group of people is free speach. I suspect you do or you wouldn't be defending Bush from this angle.


Posted by micma

Calling for violence to be done to a certain group? Oh, that's why they specials have to be protected, because when we see 'em we will kill 'em. Some of my best friends are gay and they don't seem to think this is a good idea either.

[micma-2009]

mudrose

How does this go against free speach?

[mudrose-2009]

So much for justice being blind. It should not matter the victim or the perpetrators race, color, ethnicity, religion etc.

This kind of legislation is reminiscint of laws that punished blacks MORE or whites LESS for committing a crime prior to civil rights.
Posted by blazercoach1

Exactly!

[rsoxfan1123]

So bush is saying that it is not a hate crime for a bunch of redneck republicans to get liquored up and go gay bashing for kicks on a friday night?

[blazercoach1]

I thought we might find Randal here spewing hate towards conservatives. Good thing the Republicans are going to veto the law.....Randal might be in danger of committing a hate crime against people who disagree with him! :)

The libs seem to know an awful lot about hate....

[randalds]

Some of my best friends are gay and they don't seem to think this is a good idea either.
Posted by mudrose at 01:32 PM : May 03, 2007


LOL! Right out of the 1960's! "Some of my best friends are black!" LOL!

I live in West Hollywood (well, across the street from the line) which has one of the largest ga*y populations on the planet and all of them want this law! My oldest son is g*ay and HE wants this law! My oldest step-son is ga*y and HE and his partner want this law.

[mudrose-2009]

How does this go against free speach?
Posted by micma

Firstly, the bill is so dangerous because as ever it hands over more power to the federal government and effectively brings local law enforcement agencies under it's control.
Allowing a centralized power structure to determine what is and what isn't "hate speech" or a "hate crime" is akin to tin-pot dictatorship. It means that there will be a broad overarching definition of what kind of speech is against the law according to which federally protected groups become offended by the opinion of someone else.

That's how it goes against free speech.

[blazercoach1]

rsoxfan.....you can make up anything you like....but at least be honest with yourself. Violence towards anyone is illegal under the law. Please tell me that you can find SEVERAL laws that would be broken and severely punishable by the offense you've described.

[randalds]

I thought we might find Randal here spewing hate towards conservatives.

Posted by blazercoach1 at 01:37 PM : May 03, 2007

There are no true conservatives left, just neoconservatives who have driven the true libertarian conservatives out of the republican party. True conservatives believe in a balanced budget, no foreign entanglements and keeping the government out of people's private lives and bedrooms. Real conservatives, the Goldwater's, Ford's hell even the Nixon's, do not exist any longer and they spin in their grave every time on of you neocons call yourself conservative, because you are not.

[rsoxfan1123]

Hey Randal, I heard you were from a ND AFB. I lived in Minot for years and years.

[imprisonbush]

As a Democrat who believes Bush and cheney are the most dangerous neo-nuts in existence, and as a criminal defense attorney (though no expert on hate crimes), I hate to admit that I do agree with some of his logic. Most states already have such legislation and -- having defended such crimes at trial before -- I find them nebulous. Few people announce their motives for committing some particular act. Also, in general, I think there are already too many crimes on the books and the government does not need any more ways to prosecute people. We already have too many people in prison. However, my guess is that Bush's motives are less than pure. He's concerned that too many of his Republican friends are guilty of hate crimes so he's going out of his way to protect them.

[mudrose-2009]

I live in West Hollywood (well, across the street from the line) which has one of the largest ga*y populations on the planet and all of them want this law! My oldest son is g*ay and HE wants this law! My oldest step-son is ga*y and HE and his partner want this law.
Posted by RandalDS

Well, goodie for you, you son, step-sons and the whole of West Hollywood and its vested interest. In my world, we are a tad less lopsided politically.

[blazercoach1]

Randal again......well it's good to see you can mimic the argument you just bashed. As if some of your family being gay or if ANYONE's friend being gay makes their or your opinion more correct.

Tell me what kind of violent crime against a person in our society currently goes unpunished (except abortion) IF THE LAWS ARE ENFORCED? And if the current laws are not enforced....then why would NEW laws be enforced? EXPLAIN THIS!

[micma-2009]

blazercoach1

If so-called "conservatives" were being targeted for violent attacks simply because they were "conservatives" then they should be protected under hate crimes legislation. As it stands, when conservatives are attacked it's only verbal and it's for being connected to a more insideous group...idiots.

[rsoxfan1123]

blazercoach1-Hate crimes are punished more severely due to their nature. They don't let you boys burn crosses in people's yards like they used to, do they?

[randalds]

In my world, we are a tad less lopsided politically.
Posted by mudrose at 01:45 PM : May 03, 2007

Yes. Yes you are a tad lopsided politically.

[mudrose-2009]

rsoxfan.....you can make up anything you like....but at least be honest with yourself. Violence towards anyone is illegal under the law. Please tell me that you can find SEVERAL laws that would be broken and severely punishable by the offense you've described.

Posted by blazercoach1

They can't be honest. They don't know which side is up.

[randalds]

Tell me what kind of violent crime against a person in our society currently goes unpunished (except abortion) IF THE LAWS ARE ENFORCED? And if the current laws are not enforced....then why would NEW laws be enforced? EXPLAIN THIS!

Posted by blazercoach1 at 01:46 PM : May 03, 2007

Because if your motivation for committing a crime against someone else is because they are black, or Mexican, or Asian, or Ga*y, etc., then that is and should be a separate offense because you would not have committed said crime against that person except for the fact that they are black, or Mexican, etc.

Got it? Simple enough for you now? I doubt it.

[blazercoach1]

rsox, perhaps I should be glad these hate crimes are being pushed. Clearly you know a great deal about being hateful.

And you still haven't answered my question.....tell me what violent acts are currently not punished by laws currently in existence, except abortion. (And try to stay on topic and not go off on the "bait" of abortion).

[mudrose-2009]

If so-called "conservatives" were being targeted for violent attacks simply because they were "conservatives" then they should be protected under hate crimes legislation. As it stands, when conservatives are attacked it's only verbal and it's for being connected to a more insideous group...idiots.


Posted by micma

Furthermore, the bill is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits government from favoring any particular group.

[randalds]

As if some of your family being gay or if ANYONE's friend being gay makes their or your opinion more correct.

Posted by blazercoach1 at 01:46 PM : May 03, 2007

Oh and yes it does as a matter of fact. Since I have a greater understanding of what goes on in the ga*y community then a bigot like you (or mudrose) does. If he actually knew any ga*y people he would not have said anything as ridiclious as that they don't support hate crime laws. That is the same thing as if he said he has many black friends and that they just love the KKK.

[rsoxfan1123]

mudrose-you've got to be kidding me. You lie more than anyone that posts here. Every time I log on I expose a minimuum of 5 or 6 lies you tell and typically leave you with no response. You define hypocrisy with your comments today it seems.

[blazercoach1]

You still haven't said what crime was committed Randal. You explained motivation...but motivation is not enough to convict. (You realize that you are demonstrating motivation of hate....but you have not committed a crime.) You have not named a violent crime.

Should be simple enough to do, right? Go ahead. TRY!!!

[mudrose-2009]

mudrose-you've got to be kidding me. You lie more than anyone that posts here. Every time I log on I expose a minimuum of 5 or 6 lies you tell and typically leave you with no response. You define hypocrisy with your comments today it seems.
Posted by rsoxfan1123

I just gave you two legitimate reasons why such bills are in violation of the First and Fourteenth amendments, and you sit there like a silly azz and tell me I'm lying. You clearly have no comprehension of your liberities and therefore you should and hopefully will profoundly lose them.

[blazercoach1]

My sister is gay. She just married the who runs the Gay Pride parade in Santa Cruz California. Her picture was in the paper and she was quoted because she is changing her name prior to the proposed legislation that would make it free. (I believe the paper in Santa Cruz). She plans to seek reimbursement if the legislation is passed.

Do I pass your test?

[micma-2009]

Furthermore, the bill is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits government from favoring any particular group.
Posted by mudrose at 01:53 PM : May 03, 2007




Then why hasn't other hate crime legislation been struck down on Constitutional grounds? I'll tell you why, because it doesn't violate any part of the Constitution including free speach.

This is simply an acknowlegement and a response to the fact that certain groups face an unusual risk of violence.

[mudrose-2009]

Oh and yes it does as a matter of fact. Since I have a greater understanding of what goes on in the ga*y community then a bigot like you (or mudrose) does. If he actually knew any ga*y people he would not have said anything as ridiclious as that they don't support hate crime laws. That is the same thing as if he said he has many black friends and that they just love the KKK.
Posted by RandalDS

Oh, but they do, why Rands some of the best gay friends are Christains. Scarey, isn't it. But you have all the answers. And many of them struggle with their faith and their fate. But you understand them too. And others are perfectly content to leave politics out of their lives, but you understand them too. You are the one putting the gay community in a box -- they have a multitude of opinions on the topic too. You bigot.