DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on April 28, 2007, 02:08:52 AM
-
U.S. clergy seeks to expand hate-crime law to gays
By Eric Pfeiffer | Published Apr/18/2007 | Family and Society , Religion and Culture , North America | Rating:
Fears that law will target groups opposed to homosexuality
By Eric Pfeiffer
The Washington Times
WASHINGTON -- Clergy members from all 50 states gathered on Capitol Hill yesterday to support expanding hate-crime laws to protect homosexuals.
"It is morally wrong to deprive anyone of the means to feed themselves and care for their families," said Bishop Carlton Pearson of the New Dimensions Worship Center in Tulsa, Okla. "Passage of this bill will help gay, lesbian and transgender people in 33 states where you can be fired for simply being gay."
The measure, similar to three versions that have failed in the past decade, calls for charging the Justice Department with investigating crimes potentially motivated by sexual orientation or gender identity as it does for crimes considered racially or religiously motivated.
Supporters of the bill, named the Matthew Shepard Act after a homosexual college student killed in Wyoming, say a Democrat-controlled Congress makes it more likely that the legislation will reach President Bush, who has not said whether he would veto such legislation.
"It's on a very fast track," said the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, a group opposed to the legislation.
Mr. Sheldon says he thinks people and organizations that oppose homosexuality would be unfairly targeted by the Justice Department if complaints were filed against them strictly based on political and philosophical differences.
"This bill begins to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners, and anyone else whose actions are based upon, and reflect, the truths found in the Bible," he said.
Sen. Gordon H. Smith, Oregon Republican who sponsored the Senate bill, disagreed, saying it is not designed to curtail freedom of speech.
"Unless they believe part of their religion is the practice of violence against others, they should not be affected by this bill," Mr. Smith told the Associated Press last week. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, co-sponsored the measure.
Reps. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, and Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican, have introduced the House version, which could make it to the floor for a full vote by early next month.
More than 200 organizations have attached their support to the legislation, including some of the nation's more prominent lobbying organizations such as the AFL-CIO, American Medial Association and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
According to the most recent FBI statistics, there were 1,171 reported hate crimes targeting homosexuals in 2005, or 14 percent of all hate crimes reported that year.
http://wpherald.com/articles/4378/1/US-clergy-seeks-to-expand-hate-crime-law-to-gays/Fears-that-law-will-target-groups-opposed-to-homosexuality.html
And now the 'con' side:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042701899.html
-
"It is morally wrong to deprive anyone of the means to feed themselves and care for their families," said Bishop Carlton Pearson of the New Dimensions Worship Center in Tulsa, Okla. "Passage of this bill will help gay, lesbian and transgender people in 33 states where you can be fired for simply being gay."
Sounds like back door ( no pun intended) legislation that should be more properly aimed at discrimination laws in the various states. Either that or Bishop Pearson does not understand the act he is advocating.
-
And the thought police march on...
-
The key to understanding this bill is the comment of Senator Smith, who notes that, basically, the legislation is designed to punish violent crimes with a demonstrable anti-gay intent behind them. New Jersey, for example, has had a similar hate-crime law on its books for ages, and beyond that has a very strong "gay rights" plank in its general anti-discrimination law. There are no untoward consequences of this legislative package. I have argued before, specifically as to the wisdom of hate crime legislation, that adding the "hate feature" to a crime or a series of crime -- that is, an added penalty for DEMONSTRABLE anti-gay, say, animus -- targets 1) the increased indignity a gay might suffer by being reviled in this way during an attack and 2) the wider harm to the fabric of the community when news of the attack spreads the hateful purpose involved. While such laws do encourage decency and civility toward the "target group," this is the common effect of all anti-discrimination legislation, and since sanction is reserved only for hate coupled with forbidden action, it is not an instance of the thought police rearing their heads irresonsibly.
-
"Thought police" aren't the point. Violent crimes are the point. No one has a constitutional right to commit a violent crime because he or she hates someone.
-
Violent crimes aren't the point.
Special classes of citizenry are.
The gays want to be included as a special class.
There are plenty of laws on the books against violent crime.
I don't see why the penalty should be more severe for one class over another.
-
Then would you say we should take away the coverage this law provides to members who are of one religion or another? Christians are covered in this "special category."
-
Then would you say we should take away the coverage this law provides to members who are of one religion or another? Christians are covered in this "special category."
I don't see why it should be more serious to smack a Jew than a Muslim. So to answer your question yes i am for treating people equally. Hate crime legislation by definition doesn't.
-
"Thought police" aren't the point. Violent crimes are the point.
There are no laws against violent crime on the books? Isn't this a law to enhance the punishment of a violent crime if the person is thinking "wrong thoughts" while committing the crime?
-
Pure thought would not be punished nor would pure speech under a hate crimes regime. The rationale of such laws is punishing an objective manifestation of hate (such as derisive racist language) occurring in propinquity with the violent crime. It is rational, a legislature may reason, to add these sentence enhancers as a further deterrent to violent crimes involving historically beleagured populations, whose own very histories justify the added protection, or not, as the legislature sees fit.
-
Either my search abilities are poor or...yeah, that's probably it. Anyway, this is the best source I could find on hate crimes legislation.
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/federal.asp
Seems weak.
-
I do not like the "hate crimes " idea.
People who might harm people with no hate in their hearts at all should not get less punishment .
If I were to attack a minority person and be found guilty at trial , would the length of my sentence depend on the reason for my crime? ,or on the effect of it?
or on my danger to people who do not deserve to be attacked?
When you have answered this treble question then try to factor in how much less harm is done by my crime if I am a member of the same minority as my victim , and therefore immune to the extra penalties.
A majority of violent crime victims are victimised by members of their own community , although "Hate Crime " legislation has a nice ring to it , it promises to do nothing effective about crime at all.
People who are seetheing with Hate are warnedin scripture that they are liable to be punished by God , but we are not God , if someone is seethed in hate but as the self controll to never cause harm we should applaud him more than the person who is non violent because he has no violent desires.
-
Hate crimes laws mean a great deal if you're a member of a group that is often picked upon for whatever reason.
That's why we need it.
This is a horrible account of a young girl getting stoned to death in Iraq.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engMDE140272007?open&of=eng-IRQ
-
This is a horrible account of a young girl getting stoned to death in Iraq.
So, it's not already against the law to stone someone in the US?
-
Hate crimes laws mean a great deal if you're a member of a group that is often picked upon for whatever reason.
That's why we need it.
This is a horrible account of a young girl getting stoned to death in Iraq.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engMDE140272007?open&of=eng-IRQ
Your example i don't believe would qualify as a hate crime. It wasn't perpetuated by a person from one group against a member of anoher group based on hate.
It was based on their concept of "honour". In america it might be labeled a crime of passion.
-
I know a young minister in Canada who was arrested for violating hat crime statute becuase he preached, from the pulpit, against gays being unable to obtain entrance in to Heaven. This is one reason I am circumspect about such legislation. He was preaching concerning:
1. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." [Leviticus 20:13]
2. "Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." [Romans 1:26-27]
3. "The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." [Jude 6,7]
4. "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]
Let's look into this issue a bit closer:
In spite of weeks of pleading and protests by Christian organizations and individuals, Gov. Schwarzennegger signed bill SB-1234 on Sept. 22, 2006, leaving many Christians wondering, “Now what?â€
Basically, it is not a new bill, but an update of an already existing hate-crimes legislation. It includes clearer definitions and stricter penalties. It also enhances the training received by police officers regarding hate-crimes.
What has some Christians particularly alarmed is one part of the law that would criminalize the act of inciting violence if the probability of harm were sufficiently great. Obviously, there is a concern that such a law may be used to punish Christians for speaking out on moral issues.
The bill, for example, mentioned not only victims, but also people “at risk of becoming a victim.â€
Okay, Domer and Company, "Just how does someone determine that another person is “at risk of becoming a victim?â€
And, look at the very definition of hate crimes stated in the bill: “... a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because the victim is perceived to have one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics: disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.â€
The term ‘in whole or in part’ means that a crime can be labeled a hate crime even if it wasn’t the ‘main factor, right?
Essentially, all intentionally perpetrated crimes involve an element of hate. The legislature should not hand-pick a few victims and elevate them above all others, correct me if I am wring here!
Back to pastors: Apparently, in Sweden recently, Ake Green was charged, convicted and sentenced to a month in jail for his sermon titled: “Is Homosexuality Genetic or an Evil Force Playing Mind Games With People?â€
His words, describing homosexuality as an “abnormal, horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society,†and homosexuals as “perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest weapon against God,†caught the attention of an historically progressive Scandinavian public (Sweden introduced registered partnership for gay couples in 1995, and legalized adoption of children by these couples in 2002) and of the authorities.
Technically, this new law should not apply to this type of situation, because the pastor did not incite violence.
The law specifically says: “Speech alone is not sufficient to support an action brought pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), except upon a showing that the speech itself threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons; and the person or group of persons against whom the threat is directed reasonably fears that, because of the speech, violence will be committed against them or their property and that the person threatening violence had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.â€
It should be noted that even thoguh this legislation is meant to protect the public from hate crimes, isn't it really just in fact an end run around the 1st Amendment and an attempt to establish ‘thought and speech police’ to suppress religious speech? The loophole for this suppression is the subjective term in the bill at risk for becoming a victim. All of us believe that direct threats should be prosecuted, but should hurt feelings and the non-affirmation and condemnation of homosexuality via the Bible be considered hate speech?
Another instance is also called for (I'm on a roll today).
In Philadelphia back in October, 11 people, six men and five women, including a teenager, were arrested, jailed and charged during an evangelistic outreach at the annual “Outfest†homosexual pride event in the public streets.
The 11 Christians were at first blocked by a group called “Pink Angels,†with the intent of keeping them out of the festival. Since the event was free of charge, however, the authorities conceded that they had a right to enter, and escorted them through.
The “Pink Angels†proceeded then to cover their signs with pink styrofoam and to blow loud whistles while Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America and organizer of the outreach, was trying to preach to the crowds.
At that point, Chief James Tiano, head of the Civil Affairs Unit, ordered the arrests of the Christians and hauled them to jail, where they spent 21 hours, being released the following day, except for a 67 -year-old woman who was detained an additional five days.
Ten people of the group were charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors. CWA, however, quotes police spokeswoman Maria Ibrahim as saying that some of the charges have been dropped. The remaining are criminal conspiracy, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct, and obstructing a highway. The teenager was charged only with one misdemeanor.
Real danger looming here, folks....
-
Then would you say we should take away the coverage this law provides to members who are of one religion or another? Christians are covered in this "special category."
Yes , absolutely .
Atheists and Buddhists should have equal protection under the law from violence.
All persons who are abiding the law should expect to be protected by the law .
Greater protection for me than you is an evil idea.
Greater penalty for your broken leg than mine depending entirely on the thoughts in the perpetrators head is not greater fairness to anyone and weakens the moral fabric of our society in general and the public affection for our government specificily.
-
Plane, I didn't mean only Christians out of all other beliefs. I think (I'm not sure, it's not easy to search on for me) that this applies to all members of religions. As I understand it,it's illegal to prey upon someone who is any religion.
-
I used to think of hate crime the sameway as BT.
but than I realize hey nobody is really enforcing the existing laws
these hate crime law(HCL) are the only action done the enforce them.
assult is against the law,it doesn`t mean there are no laws making sure they get enforced
sadly HCL is the only action now
the mathew shepard case defense was using the fact he`s gay as a justifiable kill
the term was gay panic,I believe
which if it actually worked means a legal lopphole to kill gays for fun.
and the only reason it failed is because keep using multiple excuses that countered themselves
I know it had a chance due to the fact they got quite abit of public support for it.
too bad their girlfriends confessed otherwise.
-
and the only reason it failed is because keep using multiple excuses that countered themselves
It failed, because their girlfriends said that they deliberately targeted a gay man. Their girlfriends have, since the trial ended, recanted their statements that they were targetting a gay man.
Regardless of the fact that no hate crime legislation existed at the time, they each got two consecutive life sentences.
So, why do you need hate crime laws to punish people who are violent to others? To put it another way, why should there be one punishment if the victim is a straight white man, and another punishment if the victim is a gay or black man? The life and well-being of a straight white man is not worth as much?
-
it should not
but remember how these laws came to exist
I`m not saying HCL is well thought out.
but it`s the only game in town
note the only response critsizing HCL is that pre-existing laws already cover these laws.
but nobody is actually doing anything to enforce it
you asked "The life and well-being of a straight white man is not worth as much?"
I`ve heard similiar statement said but I don`t recall this particulair demographic ever getting less protection to other`s
if anything not enough .
HCL has rarely(if ever) deprived people of protection
-
but nobody is actually doing anything to enforce it
I would prefer the efforts being placed on this aspect, rather than the (fairly pointless) job of legislating more punishments for crimes that already have punishments on the books.
If the current laws are not being enforced, what makes you think calling it a "hate crime" will make it more likely to get enforced?