RSS
Home
Hate crimes bill will not provide equality before the law, according to U.S. Attorney General
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
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.
