Posted on 07/09/2007 12:48:19 PM PDT by Loud Mime
H.R. 1592 Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
Background/Commentary:
The proponents of this legislation have bluntly stated that it will make homosexuals a protected class in the U.S..
In some regards, they may be right. As an example, if a John Doe is assaulted, it is simple assault. But if John Doe is gay, the perpetrator could face additional charges, possibly federal ones at that, for the assault.
Will such legalisms promote civil lawsuits and blackmail?
Will protected groups have a legal trump card to play on assaults, altercations or arguments that were for reasons other than “hatred?”
One sure element is that this proposal will enact a maze of legalisms for lawyers to exploit; AND a system that will enable the federal government to get involved in local crimes if there is any possibility that one of the protected classes was subjected to a hate crime.
There’s lots of money involved. State and local law enforcement authorities may apply for grants of up to $100,000 each year for federal help in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. But the strange wording of this bill may actually allow some of those funds to go to community groups and schools for educational programs instead of investigations.
The title of this bill suggests that it will prevent crime; seriously, how can a law “prevent” crime? Laws do NOT prevent crime; they only provide a system of punishment for those who are found guilty (and not pardoned).
Another interesting point is that this bill could make certain thoughts a crime. The reason for the crime will be punishable, not just the crime itself. Critics argue that this is a slippery slope that may open a hellhole of new federal laws.
If this bill becomes law, it should be challenged. There is an issue concerning our Constitution’s equal protection laws. By giving others a special legal advantage over the common citizens, the law should have a day in court.
What this Bill Will Do:
When the government believes that a violent crime’s motivating factor included the “actual or perceived” race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation disability or gender identity, the act will be classified as a “hate crime” and subject to proper investigation and prosecution under this law.
The federal authorities are given power to become the prime agency in dealing with hate crimes if the States ask their involvement, or if they believe the States do not intend to prosecute the crime, or, if the federal authorities believe the States’ actions had not satisfied the federal interest in the matter.
Federal funding will be provided to local and State agencies so they may properly deal with hate crimes. Authorizes funding for federal personnel to prevent and respond to hate crimes.
Arguments FOR this Legislation:
The proper way to prosecute a hate crime is to make it illegal; this law does exactly that. It addresses the main reason for the crime and provides additional punishment for that crime.
Some criminals have a history or repeated bias-related crimes. Currently, there is no federal law against such hate crimes; this bill provides a remedy for this shortfall of the federal government. It will take these repeat offenders off the streets and make them safer.
A majority of State’s Attorneys General and police chiefs are backers of this bill. These law enforcement professionals recognize the impact of a new law against hate related crimes.
Arguments AGAINST this Legislation:
We already have laws at every level of government concerning crimes of violence. Every one of the crimes cited by the proponents of this bill were already illegal acts; yet that didn’t stop the criminals!
In November of 2006, Six Imams were taken from an airliner because they were scaring the passengers with loud prayer and other bizarre behavior. This law would make the passenger’s concerns a crime and the Imam’s removal from the airliner a felony. The intent of this bill may be altruistic, but its design is a breeding ground for legal abuse.
This is not a bill to protect against hatred. The Congressmen who wrote this law purposefully did not allow other groups to receive protection under this law. Therefore, it is a special rights bill designed to protect a select few from perceived hatred or disagreement.
Status:
This legislation passed the House of Representatives (237-180) on May 3, 2007; it’s awaiting action in the Senate.
The Link for this legislation on the Library of Congress is here.
The bill is currently in the Judiciary Committee. Contact your Senators with your opinion.
ping
Whatever happened to the concept of “Equal protection under the law”?
Some pigs are obviously more equal than others. This is Thought Crime.............
“deprives Heterosexuals of this laws’ provisions and remedys.”
Equal protection under the law is ONLY for leftists to use FOR their agenda, not for the rest of us.
You mean, like the Campaign Finance Reform Law?
Start the phones ringing , you have the numbers. This is more PC BS from the same turds that tried to shove illegal immigration down our throats.
Does it protect people who wear leather or fur from animal rights extremists that hate the fur industry?
Does it protect men from man-hating feminazis like the majority of the co-hosts on “The View”?
Does it protect white-collar workers from union thugs that hate management types?
Does it protect people who drive “imports” from those same union thugs that hate “people who drive imports”?
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) “The Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a bad bill and should not be brought to the floor, but especially under the closed process that does not allow for any changes or improvements to the underlying bill.”
“Eighteen thoughtful amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee yesterday, and sadly, not one of these amendments was allowed to be considered by the full House of Representatives. I am disappointed the Democrat majority again has missed an opportunity to live up to their commitment of allowing input under an open process.
“Yesterday, Mr. Forbes of Virginia offered an amendment to this bill that would expand the list of protected categories of individuals to include members of the Armed Forces. If you believe the government should afford special treatment to crimes committed against special groups of citizens, then why not our military men and women? Why aren’t those who volunteer to protect our country’s freedom not afforded this protected status?
“Mr. Gohmert of Texas offered an amendment that would add law enforcement officers to the list. There have been several instances where gang members and would-be gang members have targeted and killed law enforcement officers because of their hatred towards them for choosing to go to work each day to protect our communities. Is committing a crime against law enforcement officers simply because their job is to uphold our laws a crime not deserving of special assistance to investigate and prosecute that crime?”
“Crimes have been committed against senior citizens, and an amendment was offered to include them under the hate crimes legislation, but that amendment, too, was not allowed under this closed rule today.”
“I urge my colleagues to oppose the gag order rule and the underlying bill that creates special categories of citizens and ends equality under the law.” (Cong. Record May 03, 2007)
But of course! Silly me....blame it on passing up that roast beef sandwich in favor of a salad for lunch, ok? :)
There are at least 2 problems with ‘hate crime’ legislation...
1) It criminalizes thought
2) It will only ever be directed at whites.
Next...
Ping for your congress watch list.
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.