Posted on 06/25/2004 7:30:22 AM PDT by truthandlife
With little notice from the mainstream media, the U.S. Senate passed by an overwhelming margin an amendment that could lead to federal prosecutions of nearly all "hate-crimes."
The amendment also adds "sexual orientation" and physical disability as protected classes under the civil rights statute of the U.S. Criminal Code for the first time.
The legislation came as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill (S. 2400). It netted 65 votes, with only two senators--Jim Jeffords (I.-Vt.) and John Kerry (D.-Mass.)-- absent Had they been present, the bill would have gotten 67 votes, a two-thirds majority. Eighteen Republicans and all Democrats present voted in favor. ( See rollcall on page 27).
"It's been a priority of ours for years," said Winnie Stachelberg of the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual rights group that lobbied heavily for the amendment. She said that although no more than ten federal hate-crimes prosecutions have occurred in any year since passage of the original 1968 hate-crimes law, the bill would serve as "a clear statement against violence and intolerance" of homosexuality. "Laws send signals, and this is an important signal," she said.
The same amendment passed the Senate in June 2000 with 57 votes, but was removed from that year's Defense authorization bill in negotiations between the House and Senate. A spokesman for House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R.-Calif.) did not respond to inquiries, but most observers believe the hate-crimes language will be removed in conference next month.
Conservatives--most of whom are skeptical of the whole idea of "hate crimes"--had several problems with this bill, which was sponsored by Sen. Gordon Smith (R.-Ore.). First, under the bill's broad language, the U.S. attorney general would have almost absolute discretion to intervene in what normally would be a state criminal prosecution when there is reason to believe that "hatred" for homosexuals or disabled persons was a motivating factor.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.), citing a few examples of past crimes that could have been construed as "hate-crimes" but were simply prosecuted by traditional means, expressed doubts about the need for such a law. "One offense occurred in my home state of Alabama, and [the offender] was tried and given life without parole," said Sessions, formerly Alabama's attorney general. "So I am not aware of those offenses' being inadequately prosecuted."
Second, the amendment would criminalize defendants' alleged thoughts, rather than their alleged actions. Critics say they could have a chilling effect on free speech.
Because homosexuality is a controversial subject for many Americans, those who publicly express disapproval of it could find themselves in greater jeopardy than other defendants if they are later accused of a crime. This could chill freedom of speech, much like Canada's "hate speech" ban (C-250), which criminalizes criticism of homosexuality. France's center-right government will soon present a similar bill to criminalize "homophobia."
Stachelberg rejected the free speech concern as "a red herring." "It is an argument used against this piece of legislation by people who would otherwise find different arguments to level at the bill," she said. "There are top 1st Amendment speech advocates in the U.S. Senate--Sen. [Russ] Feingold [D.-Wis.] being one of them--who support this legislation." Feingold co-authored the campaign finance reform bill that forbids the use of candidates' names or images in certain ads during the final weeks of election campaigns for federal office.
Sen. John Sununu (R.-N.H.), who took considerable heat from gay rights groups for his "no" vote on this controversial bill, raised another objection in a written statement. "Legislation that singles out certain violent crimes for special prosecution or additional penalties is unfair to the families of those victims whose murders are not given such special consideration," he said.
Preferential victims....what a load, how does SCOTUS uphold this pandering disguised as garbage.
Dear xxxxx,Thanks very much for getting in touch with me and for letting me know what's on your mind regarding hate crimes legislation.
In June 2004, the Senate, with my support, approved an amendment to defense legislation regarding hate crimes. This amendment applies only to violent crimes and in no way affects freedom of speech. I voted for this amendment because I consider this civil rights legislation protecting the rights of individuals, and I have always supported civil rights legislation.
I'll be sure to keep your comments on this issue in mind as it is debated in Washington and in Tennessee.
Sincerely,
Lamar
To which I responded:
And the ATF doesn't keep secret firearms owners lists and the Total Information Awareness program doesn't mine data on ordinary Americans and the Rico act will never be used to steal property from citizens just on suspicion of "drug related activity" and the check's in the mail and you are from the government and you are here to help.Yea. Right.
Do you thing that the people are as stupid as the Democrats believe them to be? I guarantee you that within a year that some or several pro-homosexual groups will be screaming into the ear of sympathetic politicians to use this law to prosecute or silence ANY criticism of their perverted lifestyle. If you are so blinded or naive to believe this won't happen then please don't run for office again.
And this garbage was passed by a republican controlled senate. Unbelievable.
Very good letter.
We have to hope that the House of Representatives will keep this amendment out of the final bill.
Letters to congressman can help them to focus on removing this amendment. I called Tom Delay's Majority Leader's office a few days ago.
1-202-225-4000
"Equal Justice Under Law" - But obviously some justice is more equal than others.
miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure waffles
I have similar letters from this weasel about his support of embryonic stem cell vivisection in opposition to the President's restrictictions, and his opposition to the marriage amendment.
Unfortunately, we are saddled with this duplicitious piece of garbage for at least four more years, but I will be working for his defeat then. I supported Van Hilleary last election, but the opposition of all the media was just too much to overcome, and I voted for Alexander on election day. I will not sacrifice principles for loyalty like that again. I hope we can find a good republican candidate, but I have decided that any average democrat would be an improvement over the unprincipled Lamar.
THe new demoRat underhanded tactic, attach their garbage to defense bills.
And as usual the republican response is nonexistent
I'm not so sure about that. Your average Democrat is FAR to the left of Lamar. I supported Van, also. Lamar has proven to be the RINO I knew he would be.
With "top 1st Amendment advocates" like that, who needs censors? Up is down, and down is up.
But then, Stachelberg is surely one of those homosexual advocates who for years said that conservatives warning of her and her comrades' attempt to impose same-sex marriage were "ludicrous." That was just another "red herring," right?
Authoring a bill to gut the first amendment qualifies someone as a "top 1st Amendment speech advocate."
I really hate to make the suggestion, but I believe that I would vote for Bredesen over Alexander. I hope I don't give them an idea....
Not after 2007. Believe me Bredesen WILL push for an income tax in 2007. Bredesen is 1000 times more liberal than Lamar and I guarantee you that he will almost NEVER vote along lines that you agree with.
Lamar isn't my favorite senator by far, but he is infinitely better that 99.9% of Democrats, including Bredesen.
BTW, Bredesen left Metro Nashville in terrible financial shape after raiding every nickel he could find to buy Bud Adams' love.
He also virtually bribed businesses with taxpayer money to get them to come to Davidson County. Dell Computer had already decided on Wilson Co, Tennessee as the site for they new production facility. After pretty much a done deal, he promised Dell $70,000,000 in DIRECT PAYMENTS to move a training facility to Davidson County.
Property taxes in some cases TRIPLED in order to pay for his pet projects like the Titans stadium and the GEC and the Nashville Library.
Bredesen is no shrewd businessman when it comes to taxpayer money. He doesn't care how much he has to spend to get what he wants.
His talk about "cutting the budget" is pure crap. The budget has grown by MORE than the rate of inflation plus population growth in both state budgets since he came in office.
I could go on and on.
I don't mean to get into a cat fight, because I clearly want to see a good republican candidate show up early and strong enough to "encourage" Alexander to call it quits. But he has GOT TO GO, no matter what. He lied through his teeth when he said he would support the President.
Oh, I agree. Practically our only advantage to having him there over a Rat is control of the Senate.
bump
Exactly right -- we are measuring the heinousness of a violent crime by whether the victim did or did not belong to a predetermined "victim" class. That is not equal protection of the laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.