Join The Debate!

Like the Blind Sheik in New York

Do you remember the first attack on the World Trade Center, around 1992 or so? At the time there was a lot of publicity about a Muslim clegyman called in the media "the blind Sheik"---I don't remember his name. The issue as I recall it was that while he had not actually planted explosives, he had preached that Islam should take up arms against the infidel etc etc: was it equally a crime to incite to violence?

If I stand downtown with a big sign saying, "Beat up gays" while meanwhile I preach through my loudspeaker that gays are an abomination before God and somebody takes my message to heart and beats up a few gay people, do I bear responsibility for those beatings? Morally? Legally? This sounds like the subject of a debate in a law school classroom. Maybe there is no easy answer.

But my impression is that the right wing wants a clear road to using hate speech so we are hearing the old say "You are interfering with our freedom of speech---we have a right to call people n***** and f***** and k*** and c*** and all of our favorite words."

Hasn't anyone read

George Orwell?

We are free to have any ideas we want to have, to dislike or favor whomever or whatever we choose, and to peacably assemble. And in thst freedom, those that disagree are just a able to put forth their arguments to the contrary. That is liberty.

Advocating violence is not protected speech, nor should it be. The protestors were not advocating violence, the blind sheik was.

Lilly can only acheive moral equivalence between these two groups by putting words that were never uttered into the mouths of those she seeks to tear down, while simultaneously ignoring the very real advocacy of violence of he she seeks to raise up. There is no moral equivalence here, dispite this tortured display of logic seeking to create it.

We are free to use whatever coarse language we wish, so long as all are equally free to convey their distain for and condemnation of that same language. We are free to act as we wish so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. And that freedom includes the right to condemn that with which we disagree. One is free to be gay, but has no right to acceptance. One is free to condemn the gay lifestyle, but has no right to prevent it.

There is no requirement for government action here, but rather a solemn duty on its part to avoid restricting the freedoms of one group in favor of another.

Mr. Blunt is not being

completely truthfull with this paper. Although it is true that this type of law is ripe for abuse and the protestors at this gay event were arrested (after refusing to move out of the area), the charges were later dropped by a judge who stated that they had not violated the law as there was no violent crime involved.

It doesn't do our side any good to write papers against a law if we site examples of abuse that are not completely candid and truthful.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05021808.html

RE: Scottie

Exactly. Lilly is simply using the Ted Kennedy method of "argument". Ted Kennedy, in a moment of candor, once openly admitted that his favorite method of "debate" is to intentionally and eggregiously misrepresent what his opponents say, then disagree with it.

Democrats -- heck, kooky left wingers in general -- CAN'T base their arguments on facts. They just can't because no rational person would EVER consider the notions of these freaks as anything but insanity.

Seriously, outside of the leftist kooks, what rational person believes that ramming a rusty pair of scissors into the head of a 99% born child then sucking the child's brain out is anything but an abomination of the most ANTI-moral nature? What rational person thinks taxes ought to be used to punnish the successful just so everyone is equally miserable? Heck, is there a single person whose IQ exceeds room temperature who thinks that we ought to let terrorists blow us up, and trying to fight them constitutes "racism"?

These are all things that the lilly-wing of the Democratic Party (which, unfortunately, constitutes all elected Democrats) seriously believes in. Every single one of them running for president admitted, for the entire world to see, each of those above points in the "debate" last week.

It is truly frightening that there are so many MORONS who would vote for any of them. One can say all the bad things they want about the current state of the Republican Party, but the irrefutable and undeniable fact of the matter is that the absolute WORST Republican is still better than the absolute best Democrat.

RE: Vic

The charges were later dropped on those Duke lacross players. Does that then make it ok that the criminals Nifong and that stripper wrongfully charged them?

They were arrested and charged with not only crimes EVERYONE (except the lilly-wing of the DNC) knew they didn't commit, but were charged with things that ought NOT be a crime to begin with.

The bottom line is that Orwell was off by a few years, and that he was talking about the wrong country.

Vic

It depends on who you ask. According to the protesters they were completely complicit with every command and directive the police gave them. When the police told them to move, they moved. When they told them, "stand here", they stood there. When they told them, "Get into the back of the paddy-wagon", they got into the back of the paddy-wagon.

Second of all, the fact that they were arrested is an abuse of the law and an abuse of the power of the police force. These laws are used to intimidate innocent people, and the defendants had to get lawyers and had to take time off work.

The law can be easily abused by judges, disctrict attorneys, and police officers.

Second of all, the concern is over POTENTIAL abuse, which means that it COULD happen, but hasn't yet NECESSARILY happened. The protesters in Philly are PERFECT examples of how the laws CAN be abused by police, prosecuters, and judges; and how there are those that desire to abuse the law, and there are those that have abused similar laws. The abuse of the law in Philly was very real, the fact that it could have been worse does not take away from that.

To ctjaeger

Yes, cite vs site, that's what happens when you type too fast and do not proof it.

I agree, that is the same point I made yesterday. Every time we object to hate crime laws the lib squeezes immediately say we are urging violence against some "protected specie".

That is what you do when you do not have a valid argument. You change the subject or create a phony argument (straw man). I have yet to see a valid reason given for any hate crime legislation.

Hate Crime Legislation controls thought

The purpose of "hate speech" and "hate crime" legislation is merely serve as an "end around" attack of the First Amendment by penalizing views that are deemed unpopular by the state. It merely serves to crush free debate and expression of ideas; totalitarian governments also have laws that attempt to crush freedom of expression. "Hate crime" legislation attempts to control freedom of thought. I am proudly serving in the United States Army to defend the United States and the Constitution; it would be a shame for the Congress to pass legislation that goes against the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

Yes, thank you, freedom signal

I already sent my Congresswoman an e-mail urging her to vote against it, and I'm fairly sure she would anyway.

I'm 43 years old and came of age in the Reagan Era. I never thought I'd end up living in "this" America. I have a much better understanding of how my parents must have felt when everything they believed in was under assault during the 70's. I guess we'll just keep fighting the good fight knowing that, historically, the pendulum continues to swing.

But my question is, is there ever a point where it DOESN'T swing back? I tried never to be a defeatist. I know that's not would Reagan would do. But some days it's just overwhelming.

freedomsignal

Thank you for your service. I spent 12 years in the US Army. Here is a copy of the oaths of office our service men take when entering the military.

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNIDET STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNIDET STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Beware of the domestic enemy.

another column on the same subject?

It just wouldn't be another day without TH posting another column or too worrying about what the gays do.

Anyway, if you are really opposed to this legislation, instead of just focussing on the new groups that are being added, maybe you should try to repeal the whole law that already protects people that are victims of assault based on race, gender, and religion. Or do you think it's ok to have this law when it involves an attack on an individual Christian in order to make a point to the rest of the community that Christians are not welcome here? Do you think you deserve "special" protection based on terrorist attacks against your religion? Just asking. (By the way, I do think you deserve this protection)

ca

What the HELL are you talking about?

Laws that specify a particular group (e.g. laws prohibiting assaults on *CHRISTIANS*) deny equal protection, and are thus violations of the 5th and 14th amendments. I know of no such laws.

Thought Crimes

Please understand that Rep. Conyers is a shill for CAIR, the terrorist lobby. The primary purpose of this bill is to prevent open discussion of Islam. It is ironic that Conyers has formed an unholy alliance with homosexual groups, whose members will be stoned to death if Conyers succeeds, and U.S. law is ultimately supplanted by Islamic sharia law.

To orlandocajun

The Supreme Court has already upheld the original hate crime law. As long as the law is used in the context of a "violent crime" it is acceptable.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-515.ZO.html

The court is somewhat more conservative now, but not markedly so.

I think it is unconstitutional on two counts:

1. It is a direct violation of the 14th amendment for equal protection.

2. Congress does NOT have the authority to legislate in this area. CONTRARY to the text in the bill, this has nothing to do with interstate commerce. There effort justify that is a joke.

Surprise! Lilly wrong again...

Actually, your "arguments" are most welcome here as they perfectly demonstrate the muddled emotional fog that passes for logic among liberals.

First, the "Blind Sheik" is Kahlid Sheik Mohammed, who did a lot more than preach violence. He was convicted of being the mastermind behind the first WTC bombing, and is responsible for numerous other terrorist acts. However, you are far from the first liberal to take this terrorist killer's side. For instance, his liberal lawyer, who illegally carried his messages and instructions from his jail cell to his terrorist allies. Or more recently, the incredibly foul and vile Rosie O'Donnel.

Second, others have pointed out that your claim that citing scripture incites violence is patently absurd. By your logic, if you write a post here objecting to the policies of George Bush, and somebody tries to assassinate him, you should be jailed for a "hate crime."

Third, the obscenities to which you refer (one of which I can't even figure out) are your favorite words, not ours. For years, conservatives have objected as liberals spread these words and the rest of their perverted filth through movies, TV and music, and liberals screamed to high heaven about their "art" and first ammendment rights.

"Hate" Crime - Legal injustice

Do “hate” crime laws institute a praxis of injustice and inequality? The most frequent justifications for construing “hate” crime privileged categories are that "more severe penalties for criminals motivated by prejudice are justified because such offenders are morally worse--more culpable--than criminals who engage in the same conduct, but for reasons other than prejudice" (quoted from authors Jacobs and Potter “Hate Crimes - Criminal Law and Identity Politics” ).

The aforementioned authors raise the following objection: "A con artist may defraud widows out of their life savings in order to lead a life of luxury. An ideologue may assassinate a political leader in order to dramatize his cause or to coerce decision makers into changing national policy. Are these criminals less morally reprehensible than a gay basher or a black rioter who beats an Asian store owner? Of course not."

Critics of Jacobs and Potter have argued that this is not a fair comparison, since, in the comparison given, the types of crimes and motives were different, and we must compare only similar types of crimes. If a gang of young men beat a man up because they feel bored, critics argue, it is less morally reprehensible than if they had beaten him up because they believed that he was gay.

There are many problems with the above statement. First of all, boredom does not cause assault crimes. A complex set of aggregated anti-social motives need to be present to make someone who is bored commit a crime of battery. These aggregated motives are not less worse than any motive to beat up a perceived homosexual.

Next, we should note that the majority of people who oppose the legitimation of homosexuality do not beat up homosexuals, therefore an opposition to the normalization of homosexuality itself does not produce violent behavior towards homosexuals, nor is it correct to say this is some form of prejudice, since opposing the normalization of homosexuality requires knowledge, not prejudice.
Secondly, if the gang members had a certain hostility towards homosexuals, and this could possibly be qualified as prejudice, they would need to have some other set of ideas regarding their own social behavior (i.e., believe that they had a need to beat him up in order to actually do it).

Thirdly, and even more poignantly, according to FBI reports and other research, the number of homosexuals who batter other homosexuals is tens of thousands of times higher than the tiny reported number of aggravated assaults related to sexual orientation within a “hate” crime context.
Fourthly, let us add the following examples to our comparison: What if the gang beat up a man because he refused to be part of a gang? Or because he voted for a politician the gang didn't like? Or because he was old and weak? Or because he was homeless? Or because he was fat? Or because he was wearing a new suit? Or because he studied hard to pass exams at school and they hated that he was a “nerd?”

Why is only the beating related to the homosexual victim enormously more morally wrong than every one of the above examples? Why does this case justify an abnormally privileged category?

The truth is that it is absurd to rob the other victims of their equiponderation of the harm of the crime they suffered or from the perspective of degree of evil of the crime that was perpetrated. All of the above examples would require a set of problematic attitudes from the part of the gang that would cause them to perpetrate the beating, and in all of the cases these sets of attitudes are equally bad.


To note: depending on the “hate crime” legislation and what it defines as victim categories, some of the examples above could also be categorized as “hate crimes.” For example: "Alabama law defines a hate crime as 'a Class A felony that was motivated by the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability.'" Even then, if we include the beating of the homeless and the old man in “hate” crimes categories, why are they any worse than the beating of the guy who didn't want to join a gang? On what moral ground does one assert that half of the above examples are worse than the remaining half?

None whatsoever. This is what makes so-called “hate crime” categories highly immoral from a philosophical perspective and one of the main reasons why “hate crime” legislation that privileges certain categories in this unjust way must be scrapped.

lilly

She is guilty of deductive reasoning, as most liberals are. She is generalizing a situation and applying it to a specific circumstance.

She, and her cohorts, are trying to declare non-violent speech punishable because a few people find it to be offensive.

Has she ever considered the amount of hateful speech Christians endures EVERY day by newspapers, TV, magazines and political pundits? On a comparative basis, the MSM should have been shut down a long time ago. ABC finally wised up and is ending their relationship with Rosie O'Donnell. What took them so long?

Destruction from within.

You know damn well the left has no ability of self restraint, when they open their pie hole. They have has much control as mercury on a 10 degree slope. The only way they can put any control on the society they are trying to create is with law. Theoretic law to control, and direct, human passion. The speculative left has found that it is impossible to completely stack the courts with a like minded judiciary. So now they will try to slip speculation by a public passionately upset with the recent language battle. The Imus situation, along with all this freedom of speech controversy, has the left plucking at straws. Speculate the peoples passion will blindly allow them to slip this through. The only way they can make real progress in destroying this republic is to regulate its foundation. A Judeo-Christian foundation which is the bedrock of our Constitutional law. Their main plan is to regulate religion by subverting the seperation clause.

ValiantForTruth:

Show me where this bill says that the Bible is hate speech. While your at it, why not explain why the last Repub Congress didn't repeal all hate crime legislation. If they're against this bill on principle, they should have repealed the whole thing when they could.

humor me

Lilly, if I tell you to go beat someone up and you do it, who is the responsible party here- you or me? Where is your responsibility to know the difference between right and wrong? I mean you do know the difference right?

Shut Up Roy

Stop blogging. Go back to your seat. And DO YOUR JOB. Stand up and denounce this BS for what it is in the one place that it may actually mean something to do so AND in the one place you are being paid rather handsomely to do so.

Stop preaching to the choir and start practicing the art of politics.

reason

Are you talking about hate crimes legislation targeting racial crimes?

All the conservatives I know objected to those laws using the exact terms they're using today against this one, as did I. Your charge of different treatment due to relation to sexuality is just, factually wrong.

Perhaps...

..."If the Republicans had had the [family Julz]...

re random thoughts

Dave,Dave,Dave, there was another who thought people should be gassed and cremated. But then he and his cronies paid the price. I believe it was after the second world war.What happened to you guy? From your random thoughts it must have been bad.

Inkling_revival

inkling_revival writes: Thursday, May, 03, 2007 10:51 PM
Um... guys?
If the world is already changing so much, where's the need for "hate crimes" legislation???

No wonder you guys have to manufacture fake "gay-bashing" incidents in order to pass your laws...

*******************************************

Here is a bedtime story for Bonzo...

Think of a kid who has been adopted by a family. The dad is a senior corrections officer for Riverside County, Calaifornia. The mom is a city planner for the new city of Yucaipa. The kid is your kid brother's best friend, and both your family and his go to church and socialize together. You have been dating the kids cousin, in fact. She is studyung to be an airline attendant.

The kid gets in a lot of trouble, but he is also pretty smart. He likes to instigate other people to do things, and then stand back. He vandalizes the local country club. He has problems at school. You hear he tried to drown his younger brother in the family swimming pool. His parents seem helpless to deal with him, and he hates the church and everything about it. Your brother doesn't hang out with him any more.

A couple of years later, he is in prison for murder. He is at the California Institute for men at Chino. You see his picture, and he looks like a cholo gang banger. He and some buddies killed a gay man, who was the boss at a restaurant. They thought it would be fun, and one of them said he thought the boss made a pass at him. They pushed him down on the floor and beat him. They tied him up. His wallet had forty dollars, and they took his truck keys. They beat him some more, quite savagely. Nobody seems sure when he died. They have been drinking, after all. They put his body in the truck, and drive into the desert. They are apprehended the next morning by Riverside County Sheriff deputies, who have to tell the young man's father what happened. He works with them, you see.

The young man's name is Jeremy Robards. He was my friend. He was my brother's best friend. My father worked as a correctional officer with his father. We went to Yucaipa Christian Church. Jeremy is serving a life sentence for the deliberate and unprovoked murder of a gay man. He was killed for no other reason then he was gay.

I don't need to make up anything, you sniveling wretch. I lived it.

Not two years ago, I and my family were stalked and threatened in public. I thought of my former friend, and wondered if another "Jeremy" was in my future. I keep the 30 round clip close at hand for my Thompson carbine at home. I consider getting a conceal carry permit.

All you can do is whine about gay people "making" incidents up.

Pathetic.

I know what you are thinking

Congressman

Thank you for pointing out the flaws of this very offensive legislation. Trying to criminalize peaceful demonstrations and trying to criminalize what someone might be thinking is one of the biggest assaults to our Constitution I can remember. I can only hope that this is taken to task and repealed by our court system.

These comments are evidence

of what a terrible piece of legislation this is.

Notice how many people don't even accept our right to be critical of LEGISLATION that involves homosexuality. They reframe our argument as anti-gay.

I'm not anti-gay. I just think that we already have laws that protect homosexuals. They are the exact same laws that protect the rest of Americans.

I also think any law, federal or state, that creates a protected class, whether based on sexual orientation, race, or religion, needs to be struck down by the courts immediately.

Too many people, including some of my fellow Christians, play the victim game which prevents the positive movement towards true equal rights.

Do you want to be accepted in our culture? Fine, follow our laws. Don't expect special privileges. We will protect you, just as we'll protect any one of our citizens.

Celtic-Dragon

What a tragic incident you had to experience with your "friend". There are tragic, unprovoked murders daily in this country.

However, how does this legislation change anything? Will it stop bigoted people from hating gays?

The murderer is in prison. Did the laws against murder make him have second thoughts? If not why would additional hate crime laws cause him to have second thoughts?

The fact is - there are evil people in this world, and they do evil for bad reasons. But, our system works. The murdered is in prison where he belongs.

Contempt Prior To Investigation

I just read the proposed law here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.+1592:



There’s nothing in it to suggest that anyone’s religious freedom is being threatened. Those of a religious nature should have nothing to worry about if they aren’t engaging in such crime. If anything, the bolded statements below smack of a “racist” type behavior:



“It will be used to lay the legal foundation and establish a framework to investigate, persecute and prosecute pastors, business owners or anyone else whose actions are based upon the truths found in the Bible,”



If any of these people listed above (pastors, business owners, etc) are committing a hate crime in the name of their bible, they should be prosecuted under the new law.

Just because someone’s lifestyle, chosen or not in one's opinion, doesn’t agree with our own (quoted from a bible) is no reason to exempt anyone from the same laws that govern the rest of the United States Citizens.

No one is asking a religious person to engage in a homosexual act, nor endorse it, nor condone it, nor like it. That’s the individual’s right based on freedom OF religion and the law is also looking out for freedom FROM religion. The law doesn’t endorse anything with regard to “behavior”.

Free speech - have it, it's yours. Free speech to INCITE assault, battery, violence - no, you do not have a right to do such a behavior. Besides, what kind of a person are you that would behave that like that anyway, how pathetic you must be in life.

If Fred Phelps wants to run around the country spewing hate speech at our honored military, fine. I don't like it; I don't agree with it; I think he's repulsive for doing it.

If he's doing it because he hates gays; fine, he has the right to free speech. But if he INCITES violence or commits the act himself, there are laws to deal with him and his ilk.

The inability to see all of mankind as worthy of protection by laws is very distorted, indeed. I don’t like pedophiles but their behavior should be dealt with appropriately through our court systems, etc. even they are diseased and need help of some sort to move them past the behavior if at all possible, if not, there is a consequence, we call it jail – for life.

Perhaps with all the rhetoric on this post I missed seeing anyone write that they had actually READ the law. Even the author of the article didn't post a link to that everyone could review it for themselves.

Contempt prior to investigation - it's what all lousy politics is about. Congrats for joining the band wagon.

End Religion...we end so much hate

Religion is the cancer of our world that metastasizes and continues to eat away at the framework of our freedoms and democracy. The sooner we rid ourselves of it, the better.

If religion were not present so that bigots and racists could wrap themselves in their sanctimonious – self-righteous bible and quote freedom of religion, then these thugs would be exposed for the diseased individuals/groups that they are.

I find it hilarious that people who hate gays like to endorse their hate with some quote from a bible, of which lends no credential to their argument except to reveal their ignorance, lack of education, and bottom feeder mentality. The bible is the least authority on anything, especially values or morals.

The story of the Night Before Christmas has more goodness in it than any bible ever did.

It’s about doing good and being rewarded

It’s about delayed gratification

It’s about equality to all

It’s about believing in mystery

It’s about surprise and joy

Religious people could take a lesson from Clement C. Moore.

Scooternyc

I think you are missing a very important part of the argument here. Even the Supreme court is there to interpret the law. And when you get down to some hick judge who has not even been elected but appointed, Who's to say how he will interpret this law? As it is you hear all the time of judges who grant leniency only to have the perp reoffend. When they make laws not open to interpretation, then maybe you and I can agree.

Gabby

Come off it, both political parties try to shut down those aspects they think don't belong in our society, who are you kidding. The Right and the Left are both guilty. Wake up.

For every time the Dems try and raise up their socialist attitudes the Reps come charging through with some religious crap.

Try seeing life a little more balanced; stop thinking one side is worse than the other, cause they are not, they are equal opportunity bigots when it suits their agenda.

eastlake joe

I don't disagree with your rational argument. We then have the process of appeal, we all know how long that can take, but it's still part of the process.

Folks

Laws don't prevent anyone from doing anything, they are there as a CONSEQUENCE.

The reason for having hate crime laws are for intent.

Think of it this way, if a Muslim decides to utilize his Qu'ran to throw bombs into a shopping mall, all in the name of Allah, I want the jerk prosecuted and executed. If Hate Crime laws do this, so be it.

If a Christian decides to beat up a gay person because his bible says it's an abomination, then I want the same laws applied.

Laws help to clarify INTENT

Laws are to enforce CONSEQUENCES

Not ALL bad

As conservatives it is important we analyze issues based on an honest and thorough examination of fact, and not a knee jerk emotional reaction. (Let's leave that to the liberals)

In the discussion of "hate crime" legislation, it is important to recall that "criminal intent" has always been a factor in determining criminality. For example, we distinguish between various levels of crime that involve the killing of a person. These range from negligent homicide, to capital murder - most of which are distinguished by "frame of mind" or "intent."

To the extent that "hate crime" legislation confers a greater degree of criminality on an premeditated violent assault motivated by bigotry, than that of an assault that occurs from an two parties escalating a private disagreement, it's not really different from existing criminal distinctions based on "intent."

However, to the extent that "hate crime legislation" creates crimes by defining hate speech as equivalent to assault, or otherwise expands actions that are not crimes - to become classified as crimes because of what one may describe as "hate", it is bad legislation and should be soundly defeated.

In short, there is both "wheat and chaff" in Hate Crime theory. The key to good legislation is to be informed and aware of the distinctions, and act accordingly.

Verbivore

So, if some guy murders his girlfriend does that carry as much weight as if were to murder say, his best friend? Who is more valuable? Or, what if his friend is gay, should he get more time for murdering the gay friend than for murdering the girl friend?

I get it. A gay life is worth more. Good to know.

******************************************

Really? so, tell me, genius: how did these people get off?

California
Gwen Araujo
On October 3, 2002, in Newark, CA, Gwen Araujo (17), a Latina transgender teen, was beaten and strangled to death by recent acquaintances who learned she was biologically male. Michael Magidson (25) and José Merél (25) were convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 15 15 years-to-life in prison. Jaron Nabors (22) was sentenced to 11 years in prison pursuant to a plea agreement. Jason Cazares plead no contest to voluntary manslaughter and was snetenced to six years in prison. Michael Magidson, 25, Jaron Nabors, 22, José Merél, 25


Chanel Chandler
On September 28, 1998, in Clovis, CA, Chanel Chandler (22), an African-American transgender woman, was found with her throat cut from a beer bottle in her apartment, which had been set on fire in what police called an attempt to destroy evidence. Christopher Lopez and Christopher Chavez werecharged with Chanel’s murder but were released in 1999 after the charges were dropped.

Sindy Cuarda
On September 30, 2003, in San Pablo, CA, Sindy Cuarda (24), a transgender Latina woman, was killed with multiple gunshots to her upper body. Her murder remains unsolved.


James Rivers
In December 1995 in Oakland, CA, James Percy Rivers (23), an African-American transgender
woman, was stabbed and beaten to death in her apartment. Her murder remains unsolved.

Joel Robles
On August 15, 2004, in Fresno, CA, Joel Robles (29), a Latina transgender woman, was stabbed
20 times after a sexual partner discovered she was biologically male. Estanislao Martinez (23)
pleaded guilty to the murder and was sentenced to four years in prison.


Four yeas in prison, verbivore. Four years for twenty stab wounds. Some of the killers of Gwen Aaauja got little more then that. I assume you can read, but I'm just making sure. Explain that one to me and tell me again how you can make that digusting claim we are somehow "worth more". Any GLBT person can be murdered, and then the defense screams some "gay panic" story and says the victem had it coming. It sure worked for Joel Robles, hm?

Worth repeating

Folks
Laws don't prevent anyone from doing anything, they are there as a CONSEQUENCE.

The reason for having hate crime laws are for intent.

Think of it this way, if a Muslim decides to utilize his Qu'ran to throw bombs into a shopping mall, all in the name of Allah, I want the jerk prosecuted and executed. If Hate Crime laws do this, so be it.

If a Christian decides to beat up a gay person because his bible says it's an abomination, then I want the same laws applied.

Laws help to clarify INTENT

Laws are to enforce CONSEQUENCES

Hate speech that incites violence should have a consequence. There are lots of aspects to our world that DON'T incite violent acts and we view/hear them all the time, that's not what we're talking about.

Some of you miss the bigger picture. If Islam wants to start using their Qu'ran to justify killing people in our nation, I think I'll lean to the side of having the law passed so there's a consequence in place - I don't care WHICH PARTY is the one pressing the bill.

Too many of you get caught up in the DEM/REP rhetoric without asking yourself what is responsible with regard to all Americans.

If I'm choosing a party, it's the party that is about fredoom, democracy, safety and security.

Well...

"People who disagree with you have to be punished extra..."

That kinda is the stance of the religious in our world when it comes to gay marriage and other equal rights. They believe that their bible trumps everyone's rights and thereby "punished" further for not conforming to the "religious" view of the world in order to be treated equally or have equal rights.

Tenth Amendment

I wonder why no one pointed out that the tenth amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws on this matter.

Julz

Julz writes: Friday, May, 04, 2007 10:30 AM
celtic dragon, you are wrong
when you say "He was killed for no other reason then he was gay." Your personal experience in this matter changes nothing.

**********************************************

That's strange...Jeremy and the muderers said they killed him because he was gay. I guess you know more about it then they do. The "gay panic" defense was all just in our imagination, right? That was the excuse they used at the time.

I'll listen to your hogwash when you start talking about changing attitudes that allow killers to feel like they can butcher GLBT people and get away with it. As long as society winks an eye at the idea of slapping down uppity gay people, this deliberate targeted violence will continue.

Funny how Jeremy and the killers didn't say they killed him because he was white and the manager.

Nope.

They said they killed him because he was gay.

That was all the justification people like that need.

You people help them, because you reinforce the attitude that we are expendable.

Bad letter words

lilly writes: Thursday, May, 03, 2007 10:23 AM

But my impression is that the right wing wants a clear road to using hate speech so we are hearing the old say "You are interfering with our freedom of speech---we have a right to call people n***** and f***** and k*** and c*** and all of our favorite words."
------------------------------------
This is because you have twisted your perception of reality. I'll gladly take a poll of the number of right vs. left wingers that spew this terminology in public for any comparison you wish. The disgusting monologue crowd at SDSU alone feels that spewing hate and vitriol in public is a sign that they are real women and not just feminists.

It saddens me that the hell you've invented for your life could even be conceivable to any common sense analysis. You should try to start conversations that aren't founded in hate, Lilly.

Amnesty? Try truth for once.

scooternyc writes: Friday, May, 04, 2007 10:51 AM

I think you want to be able to yell your inappropriate comments to people without any accountability.

I think you want some sort of amnesty because of your religion to continue to teach your children the value of hating gays and others in society with no accountability.

Why else would you care about this issue so much?

Who are you really protecting?
-----------------------------------
In a world where a human being's right to life is based on the decision of one person, I do not want the ability for yet another class of individuals to start imposing their dogma nigh to a religion into the penal code.

I'm protecting the world from braggarts, like you, that easily create hyperbole at the expense of anyone else, but you.

gforce1

gforce1 writes: Friday, May, 04, 2007 11:14 AM
Hey fivo
Cool, so your down for repealing the religous hate laws on the statute books too!
-------------------------
I'm down for repelling any law that gives differential treatment for the thoughts someone spews when committing any act. Their hate or lack thereof doesn't make the crime better or worse.

I certainly don't like being called gringo, no matter how innocent you wish to translate the remark. It doesn't mean I want to give "gringo" users 10-15 more years in jail every time they call a non-Hispanic that slang.

BTW, which statutes might you be referencing?

Uppity

As long as you continue to classify yourself in that manner, NO ONE takes you seriously. Society will always slap down someone who thinks they are the only non-expendable ones.

Your group-think is the single greatest obstacle to societal acceptance in America, and it is the reason this legislation is opposed.

Funny you will take the word of a murderous thug for psychological expertise, but will not give a moment's thought to what other factors may have made his actions possible. Not every bigot is a murderer, so the victim's gay-ness could only have been a partial motive. But that's the only part that matters, eh? Some help you are.

Rob Ratten

Excellent points!

Clearly, I think no one other than yourself and I have actually read the law, for which I even did the research and made possible the link.

The "sky is falling" emotional-molotov cocktails that both parties enjoying tossing into the media, are really tiresome and immature.

Thanks for your educated response to a societal problem which seeks resolution.

bporter

I don't think YOU get it; have you read the new law even?

Have you compared it to the other laws or are you just speaking in generalities for which you have no understanding of semantics?

Again, I ask, whom are you protecting by NOT having this law passed?

What specific agenda are you touting by NOT allowing this bill to pass?

Why do you care? Who is this law hurting?

I think you need to reveal yourself and your bias. I'm sure we know, but you tell us so we can base our conclusions on FACT and not opinion.

scooternyc

bporter has shown some understanding of what we face, and a willingness to work on serious issues wrt judicial bias.

Let's not shoot potential allies, okay?

Not how it works

Nice try though.

"Tell me, what about the current laws is insufficient?"

You made the claims in earlier posts so you are the bearer of evidence to fact that this law is incorrect.

I and others, have not argued such a position, our reasons are outlined in the law itself.

You have the burden of evidence at this point for which I'm sure we are all awaiting.

Probably it would be good for you to start by researching the current laws, providing those links, then actually READING the new law, make the comparison and show us the evidence of where we may be mistaken in our view of this issue.

go!

Acts of hate

"However, are laws going to change that? If a judge is biased against gays, won't he refuse to prosecute violence as a "hate crime"? Isn't the problem still there?"

This is why the appeals process is so important. This is why a judge's record to fact is so important. This is why a judge's background, history, and stance on issues is so important to know.

When you pull that lever folks to cast a vote, how much do you really know about the judge you're voting for?

The new law does help in other ways, as well. I've made this comment already but it falls to deaf ears who don't wish to address it: this covers those who use hate speech THROUGH religion to further their cause and incite violence of any kind. Please tell me how that's irresponsible?

You still have freedom of speech, just not acts of hate, inspired by speech which incites violence, such as "kill all the gays" or "christians are infidels, kill them" or "god hates fags;stone them back into the closet" types of speech.

will

Answer a question for me without emotion getting in the way and give me the truth. I remember reading a while back about a fairly large group of gays wondering a large city and when they would see a hetero couple holding hands would attack them. Will you denouncethese people just as hard as you have me without even knowing the first thing about me?

scooter

Just want to clarify your positions.

Do you think the following statement should be classified as "hate speech"?

"As a Christian, I believe that all people who do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior will be eternally condemned to hell. I believe that all people who do not show, by their lifestyles and everyday choices, that they have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior will be eternally condemned to hell."

bporter

"As a Christian, I believe that all people who do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior will be eternally condemned to hell. I believe that all people who do not show, by their lifestyles and everyday choices, that they have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior will be eternally condemned to hell."

*********************************************

No. I do not consider that even remotely "hateful". I do think it is a simplistic and somewhat erroroneous view of our relationship with God, to some degree. If you consider the Bible to be infallible and literal, then I aknowledge your interpretation...although I disaree with it.

Very few people would call it "hate"...and the proposed law has nothing to do with it. The Nicene Creed, Augustine's "City on a Hill" and the rantings of Fred Phelps are all under the First Amendment...and well they should be. I defend the right of any and all Americans to disagree with anyone else, be rude to anyone else, and engage in whatever discourse that doesn't actually call for violence.

If, however, you call for someone to come harm me, my spouse or my son...I will take legal and cilvil action if necessary. If anyone acts on those words, then I will leave the survivors to deal with the police, assuming that I have run out of ammunition. That is unlikely.

As to dealing with Biblical interpretation...I was raised on a literal model at my church, which taught a doctine of dispensationalism common to most evangelical churches, and taught in many Blble colleges. I found out later that reading Biblical prophecy (and especially trying to tie Revelations, Daniel, Zacheriah etc) all together into one large millineal future history was actually only about one hundred years old.

I started actually reading the Bible for myself...and was horrified by the sheer callousness of Mosaic Law. I saw no way whatsoever that the loving and compassionate God the Father of the Gospel of John could have anything to do with the tyranny of Leviticus. My doubts and curiosity grew.

When I "came out" as a person with gender identity disorder...if it should even be termed a disorder...I had to balance my understanding of God with the knowledge that I was also a transgendered person who did not ask for that particular problem.

It was my problem nonetheless.

So, does God give undue burdens to some with the expectation that they will likely fail, and be cast into an eternal and bitter H@ll for all time...based on interpreting a difficult and fiercely debated book?

I am a parent above all else. I love my son, and I could answer that question immediately: No Way! I would never treat my child that way, and I can see no reason to expect my God would "set me up for failure".

That has to be about the worst plan conceivable. A perfect and loving God can come up with something better then that. If He was willing to send His own Son to the cross out of Love...then He has more mercy and forgiveness then a narrow and legalistic reading of Scripture can provide.

I know that I am a woman...even if I was born male to begin with. I also know that I love God, and aknowledge His presense and the gift of His Son. I don't believe that all of Scripture can be considered accurate or inspired, and must be read with discernment and considerable wisdom, which I will not claim to posess. You can deduce my beliefs enough from that, I think.

Will

Will, if I offended you with my question, that was not my aim. My question was as honest as any here today. I ask that you not judge me because I am straight But by what you know of me. I f you do this, you will not judge me because you know nothing about me. Thank you. E.J.

Beowulfe

"One can say all the bad things they want about the current state of the Republican Party, but the irrefutable and undeniable fact of the matter is that the absolute WORST Republican is still better than the absolute best Democrat."

Most of what you say, I can agree with, especially the witty and entertaining way you say it. But this is not one of statements.

Consider the fascist Bloomberg, Mayor of NY, or the loathsome and vile Specter, Senator from PA - either of which could be leaders, ideological and otherwise, in the dem party.

There are better dems but party discipline rules them far more effectively than it does republicans. Homogeneity of thought is the dems price of admission and multi-cult lib/socialism is its creed. Dare oppose it (or any part of it) and watch them viciously turn on you (eg. Lieberman - their 2000 VP candidate).

The GOP has shown it's best discipline when it has had to as the minority party. It was disgusting to witness it waste its opportunity when it enjoyed majority status.

In other words, these parties aren't necessarily mutually exclusive clubs - it's the level of discipline that distinguishes the two, and causes us, as conservatives, the most irritation.

Liberal Mindset

Scooternyc:
Thanks for your response. Just proves that instead of keeping focused on the issue at hand and dealing with thoughts and ideas, personal insinuations/attacks are the menu of the day.

God bless you and keep you