The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 reads like a fantasy on its web page, http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text. The bill claims that the federal government will help any jurisdiction financially, administratively, and investigatively in the event that somebody commits a violent crime against another, and said crime is motivated by hate for the victims "actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin." Moreover, the federal government will give assistance if a violent crime is committed due to bias against the victims "actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability."
The language in the bill would suggest that anybody could be the victim of a hate crime, that is to say that the bill implies equality before the law. However, when Senators asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder what the actual intent of this law is, he maintained that the bill is only intended for certain segments of society.
Senator Jeff Sessions asked if a minister would be protected in the event that he gave a sermon about homosexuality and was attacked by a gay activist as a result. Eric Holder's response was chilling, "Well the statute would not, would not necessarily cover that. We're talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends, is designed to cover. We don't have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person's desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute."
Eric Holder also stated that the murder of Army Private William Long in Little Rock, Arkansas would not be considered a hate crime, even though Private Long was killed by a black, Islamic convert that admitted to shooting Private Long simply because he was wearing an American uniform. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpGBxNd3JJjuV9QJUYnEN69QjwJAD98MT1EG0
In response to a question about this particular crime, Eric Holder said, "There's a certain element of hate, I suppose. What we're looking for here in terms of the expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis to see groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are. I don't know if we have the same historical record to say that members of our military have been targeted in the same way that people who are African- American, Hispanic, people who are Jewish, people who are gay, have been targeted over, over the many years."
Eric Holder is implying that if you happen to be a white male who is not gay or Jewish, you are not afforded the same protections as everybody else. He also does not mention Asians who were imprisoned by Franklin Roosevelt on the basis of race. He does not mention Germans who faced such discrimination during WWII that many dropped the Von-, or Vaughn from the beginning of their last names. He does not mentioned Italians, Russians, or Poles, all of whom have experienced historical discrimination. The point here is that, in the letter of this law, all would be protected. But since Eric Holder, who maintains that we are a "nation of cowards" when it comes to race, is given the sole authority to administer the law, the law will only cover those groups for whom he holds personal empathy. Lest we forget that his office dropped the voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers that stood outside a Philadelphia polling place with weapons during last year's election. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=13e_1243616568
The name of this law is also a fraud. The name states prevention as the goal of the law, but the action of the law has a reactionary nature. That is to say that funding and assistance is provided only after a crime has been committed, thereby eradicating the very stated purpose of the law. So what is the real intent here? Eric Holder says that the law holds people accountable for "actions, not speech", but again, the bill is stated to be geared toward prevention. So how will they go about preventing crimes if not by criminalizing the thoughts and speech of individuals deemed by Eric Holder to be hateful and have a nature of potentially provoking violence. What is the purpose of this type of law when even Eric Holder himself could offer no evidence that states are not successfully prosecuting these crimes? Beware the abdication of free speech, it would appear that the thought police are sitting in the Office of Attorney General of the United States.
Given that this law is unnecessary, could the United States go the way of Great Britain. People have been summoned to court under their Public Order Act of 1986, simply for using speech that "offended" particular minority groups. Our very own American talk radio show host Michael Savage was banned from Great Britain this year for "using speech that is likely to cause inter-community tension, or even violence", according to the then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.
If the goal of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 is indeed to PREVENT crimes committed by whites against Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and homosexuals, will the United States government not have to begin a vigorous offense against speech that they deem dangerous or offensive? Is the purpose of our first amendment not in part to protect potentially offensive speech? This law is nothing more than an unnecessary expansion of federal authority. It is another attempt by the American Left to keep our population at odds with one another based on our biological differences.
Given that states already prosecute these crimes, and that hate crimes legislations do nothing to curb or prevent hate crimes, this law insults our collective intelligence, and is a direct assault on the American way of life.
Comments
There have been Federal Hate Crime Laws on the books since 1969. The 1969 law already covers race, color, religion or national origin. The new law adds sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to the list.
AND THE FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE IN A SNIT!
The bottom line:
- No fundamentalist has been charged with a hate crime for preaching about hamites, heathen or heretics. All the blathering-on they do about "Islamo-fascism" is fine and that's not a crime. Yet, all of these groups are covered by the existing 1969 laws. But speech is not an hate crime.
- Once the new law passes, you can blather-on about sodomites and imaginary agendas that dance through your pretty little heads, and that's not a crime either.
So, relax. No one is out get you. Except the boogie-man.
Sounds like Stephen doesn't know - or perhaps doesn't want to know - the difference between non-enforcement and selective enforcement of a law. If the AG can decide which perceived violations of the Hate Crime Statute will - or will not - be prosecuted, that's selective enforcement. Valid and effective laws are those which are uniformly enforced, not those which are enforced only at the whim of the chief law enforcement officer in these United States. Stephen is doubtless a product of the government schools, chief among whose purposes are to demonize morality and to waste time on psychobabble rather than giving students an actual education.
Sounds like stephen didn't read the article. The author is right, the prevention idea is a scam, I'm pretty sure murder and assault are already illegal, why do we need hate crime bills if not to intimidate people from speaking their beliefs? In england, people get taken to trial for using the term "islamo-fascism" under these laws. What makes us any different? It can't happen here? Wake up stephen.
Vince:
I would love to see the evidence that hate crimes laws have been used against fundamentalists since the law was enacted in 1969 (40 years ago). Please cite specific cases in which a fundamentalist minister or lay-person IN THE UNITED STATES was arrested if s/he railed against Jews, Mormon-heretics, "Islamo-fascists", Buddhist-heathen, New-Agers or any of the other groups that "Christian" fundamentalists just love to pick on.
If there is indeed, selective enforcement, I and others would like to know about it. Again, just for speech only, any person in the US that was charged with an hate crime since 1969 for merely speaking negatively about someone's race, color, religion or national origin. Remember, cite cases and not just urban legends that make the rounds on fundamentalist blogs.
Jerry,
I did read the article. In fact, I've read many articles on-line written by fundamentalists similar to this one. And may I add, I bet Jesus is just so proud of all the folks that work so hard to give Him a bad name. Imagine, turning a message of love into one of hate. Tsk, tsk...
Regarding murder, there are many classifications based on INTENT: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, etc. And yes, there are enhancements if the assailant was out "hunting" for members of a specific group. Are you suggesting is just should be a one-size-fits-all "murder" charge, regardless of the intent of the assailant? Maybe, kill 'em all and let God sort it out?
Let's talk about burning a cross in someone's yard because they're black? Jewish? Buddhist? Muslim? If no hate crime laws are on-the-books, is this just misdemeanor graffiti, pay the $50 fine and be on your way?
Just curious...
Yes Stephen, we already have classifications of intent, so why is it that we need hate crime legislation again? And why can't the law be applied to all people? In regards to your cross burning, I'm pretty sure setting fire to somebody elses property is a felony. Again, no need for hate crimes. It opens the door to speech and thought control. What would happen if your hated fundamentalists used this law against you after you accused them of preaching hate? Are you not potentially spurring violence with offensive speech? Society is better served to not have this type of power in the hands of its government, no matter who runs it.
Jerry,
You wrote: " It opens the door to speech and thought control. What would happen if your hated fundamentalists used this law against you after you accused them of preaching hate? Are you not potentially spurring violence with offensive speech?"
PLEASE WRITE, 1000 TIMES, HATE CRIMES ARE NOT ABOUT SPEECH OR THOUGHT, IT'S ABOUT ACTIONS.
And, by the way, fundamentalists of any religion (pick your poison) are not "hated" by me. They're more like spiritual children that need to grow up. Yes, they can be a pain-in-the-butt and they do childish things. My hope: that in this life or in their next live(s), they grow out of religious dogma and become the more spiritual entity they're meant to be.
I have successfully completed my assignment. Since you are the grown up here, can you explain to me how this legislation will PREVENT hate crimes? It would seem to me that the only way to do that would be to eventually regulate offensive speech, so we don't have animosity in the streets. Silly me, that has only happened in every other free country that enacted these types of laws. I guess I'm not arrogant enough to believe that America is immune to bad people with too much power. What you call the boogie man is actually a series of observations of human behavior.
Also, most religious people are generous, mature, spiritually wholesome, and well balanced. I know your handlers have told you different, but I guess knowing these things would require you to associate with people that aren't like you. (I don't go to church). Tell me, what's it like inside your cacoon?
Does any legislation PREVENT any crime? Good question. I guess if we can't associate a direct corelation between the two, we scrap all laws? Is the gist of your point?
Absolute power corrupting absolutely is a problem anytime and anywhere. I guess that's where the ole checks n' balances come into play. I agree with you about human nature and the drive to have ever more money and power. But, I'm not certain hate crimes legislation is the biggest concern here. Isn't the real problem excesses in our financial systems and trillions of dollars being wasted? All due to excess greed and power?
Now, we've had hate crimes laws in this country for 40 years and there are no restrictions on speech (not counting the 7 dirty words you can't use on the air). But, are we expecting a sudden change? My concern: there's concern...AND THERE'S PARANOIA.
Handlers, don't have any. Do you?
I didn't say religious people, I said fundamentalists. Big difference.
We should not scrap laws. The name of this law has the word prevention in it, so we have to assume that prevention is the intention. I know we have had hate crime legislation for a long time, but if you can't see that the current group of people in power abuse laws or outright ignore them, then I don't know what to tell ya.
Paranoia is usually associated with a disconnect from reality, I believe that I am more in tune with what is really happening than you are. You admit that greed and power have taken a grip over this country, but you are afraid to acknowledge what happens to a society when that happens.
I'm not sure what fundamentalism means, but if you're saying that the belief in our founding principles, and a belief that God gave us this land and should therefore be cherished is a handicap, I would submit to you that we could use a little more of these things in business and government.
It's all about equality,fairness, humility and self fulfillment.
Also, everybody is concerned with the trillions being wasted, but there's more to be concerned about than just that.
And yes, things are changing very suddenly. That was the basis of the whole campaign, remember?
The ultimant purpose of this law, is to shut down political bloggers on the internet,..Once this law is in effect, then any "Blogger", who says anything that the "power structure", disapproves of, can be prosecuted, for making statements, that would induce "others" to coommit, a "hate crime",..For instance,..if a Blogger said,..that,.. "The Americaj political process is controlled by "Zionist Jews", by way of "Jewish" control of,..the mainstream, print & electronic media,..Hollywood,..international banking, & the Federal Reserve,.." Then that Blogger could, & indeed would be charged with a "Hate Crime",..although, that statemrnt, is just a simple, true statement of fact,..In short,..a "hate crime", will be whatever the "Zlonist Jews", who conteol America, want it to be,...America, has, long since, gone past the "slippery slope" stage,..& is how in a state "freefall", into "POLICE STATE" mode,...The "boiled frog" principal applies,...
I agree with the idea that the government (left or right) seeks to keep us fighting over silly notions that continually separate us. After all, racism, as well as most -isms, keep citizens on the lower rungs of society economically and politically weak; ergo, while we're fighting eachother and concerning ourselves with silly zionist jew take over theories, many of our "leaders" are getting away with economic murder. True resistance would be to simply stop playing along. As far as I'm concerned, if a white man is attacked or fired because he is white, it is absolutely no different than the same happening to a black man, a woman, or a gay man. In any case, regardless of biological difference or personal preference, all Americans deserve the right to participate freely in the American democratic and free market system. I fought for that belief with Americans from all different ethnic backgrounds and I refuse to play along with government and fridge ploys to divide and conquer.
this is a dangerous man we elected. a dangerous president.our freedoms are going away and we will be just like britain.all whites will be prosecuted for everything imagin or procieved.every white person will feel the rath of eric holder and his friends of the adl and the splc.it's coming.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!