Hate Crimes Legislation Added to Defense Bill

[michaelr]

This needs to be stopped now, and I mean now. Call, Write, or Email your reps now today, have you done it yet, and put an end to this vicious attack on your first admendment...

By Mary Benoit
Published: 2007-07-18 20:55


ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is attempting to pass hate crime legislation by maliciously attaching it to the must-pass defense authorization bill.

Follow this link to the original source: "Kennedy cramming hate crimes into defense bill"
COMMENTARY:
Earlier this year grassroots organizations sent out legislative action alerts on a hate crimes bill that would designate certain crimes a hate crime and therefore place the crime under federal jurisdiction. The bill never passed Congress and was a seemingly dead issue for several months. In a new effort to revive the legislation, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has attached the widely unpopular legislation as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill (H.R. 1585).

Since President Bush has threatened to veto hate crimes laws, it is no surprise that Senator Kennedy would choose to attach the legislation as an amendment to a must-pass defense authorization bill. Critics of the Kennedy amendment have called the Senator's actions as "shockingly manipulative," and a way to "push the homosexual agenda on the American people by exploiting American soldiers who are currently in harm's way...."

If hate crime laws were enacted, they would federalize certain crimes that have traditionally been prosecuted under local jurisdiction. Furthermore, such laws would not only punish the criminal and his actions, but also the presumed thoughts behind them. Hate crime laws have already limited the freedom of speech for certain individuals and religious groups across America. Here are some examples as cited in the article linked to above:

• Madison, Wisconsin. David Ott, a former homosexual, was arrested for a "hate crime" for sharing his testimony with a homosexual at a gas station. He faced a $10,000 fine and one year behind bars. Seven thousand dollars in legal fees later, [he] was ordered to attend re-education classes at the University of Wisconsin conducted by a lesbian.

• St. Petersburg, Florida. Five Christians, including two pastors, were arrested at a homosexual rally for stepping onto the public sidewalk instead staying caged in their officially designated "free speech zone."

• Elmira, New York. The Elmira police arrested seven Christians for praying in a public park where a homosexual festival was getting started.

• Crystal Lake, Illinois. Two 16-year-old girls are facing felony "hate crime" charges for the content of their flyers.

• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother of three, and Linda Beckman, a 70-year-old grandmother of 10 (along with nine others), were arrested for sharing their faith on the public sidewalk.

The laws we currently have in place already protect all individuals from the crimes that would encompass Kennedy's proposed hate crimes legislation. Please visit this site frequently for updates on the status of this amendment.

Mary Benoit
Mary Benoit is a Research Associate for the John Birch Society.

 

[SW85]

I heard a week or two ago, when people started blaming talk radio for derailing immigration reform, that there was going to be a big Congressional push to pass hate crimes laws, which the FCC could then use to justify increased regulation of talk radio on the basis that it promotes hate speech.

But even that shoddy and unethical reasoning aside, hate crime legislation (even when they're not taken to the absurd and politically-motivated extremes that they typically are) amounts to the dishing-out of police protection on the basis of political favoritism. The rule of law should not be reduced to patronage.

 

[michaelr]

I heard a week or two ago, when people started blaming talk radio for derailing immigration reform, that there was going to be a big Congressional push to pass hate crimes laws, which the FCC could then use to justify increased regulation of talk radio on the basis that it promotes hate speech.

But even that shoddy and unethical reasoning aside, hate crime legislation (even when they're not taken to the absurd and politically-motivated extremes that they typically are) amounts to the dishing-out of police protection on the basis of political favoritism. The rule of law should not be reduced to patronage.

You almost got it. The FAIRNESS DOCTRINE is designed to end Talk Radio. Hate Crimes legislation is an attack on your 1st amendment. When you get down to it they both suck!!!!!!!!!

 

[Burning Giraffe]

You almost got it. The FAIRNESS DOCTRINE is designed to end Talk Radio. Hate Crimes legislation is an attack on your 1st amendment. When you get down to it they both suck!!!!!!!!!

And they are both necessary for greater federal control over the population, which is what both parties seem to be after.

 

[mustardayonnaise]

"If somebody kills somebody, it's a crime, but if somebody kills somebody of a different race, it's a hate crime. And we think that that is a savage hypocrisy, because all crimes are hate crimes. If a man beats another man because that man was sleeping with his wife, is that not a hate crime? If a person vandalizes a government building, is it not because of his hate for the government? The motivation for a crime shouldn't affect the sentencing. It is time to stop splitting people into groups. All hate crime laws do is support the idea that blacks are different from whites, that homosexuals are different, that we aren't the same. But instead we should all be treated the same, with the same laws and the same punishments for the same crimes."
-- South Park kids, from the cartoon.


'Nuff Said.

 

[michaelr]

And they are both necessary for greater federal control over the population, which is what both parties seem to be after.

You got that that correct BG, and they are not slowing down a bit.