Uncategorized

Conservatives: Expand Federal Hate Crimes Laws

By  | 

Oh, the tide is turning…

Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters points out that the hate crimes bill that Bush was going to veto because it included federal protections for the GLBT community garners support from a majority of conservative voters. At least, so says Gallup.

On a side note, watch how Ed seems to know that his audience is made up of far right wingers:

The response to the question will surprise many here at CQ. Sixty percent of Republicans favored the expansion, and 57% of self-described conservatives backed it as well. In fact, all of the religious demographics favored it — by even higher numbers. Catholics, for example, backed it 72%, while 65% of Protestants supported the expansion. Atheists and all other religious affiliations gave 3-1 support for the new law.

Yes, in the real world people are much more tolerant and they’d like to have an extra level of protection for groups who’ve been targets of violence simply because of who they are.

Imagine that.

  • DosPeros

    A proud day for the Orthodoxy of political correctness, may the boots decend upon the rebel’s neck:

    “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?…The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinkingâ€â€?not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” â€â€?Syme, pg 46-47

    Here’s the deal and it really answers my question: Justin, would you support the use of this federal legislation against Fred Phelps?

  • http://www.rightonblog.net James

    Hate crime legislation is BS. It gets used FAR too often to prosecute the majority for crimes based on the IDEA that the motivating factors in violent crimes stem from hate.

    Hate is a thought process. Are you saying that we should be able to police people’s thoughts?

    If John kills Tyrone and tells his friends that he killed him because he’s a black guy and he HATES black guys… then you’re talking about a racially motivated crime. Otherwise, you’re delving into thought policing and THAT, I’m not ok with.

  • http://www.donklephant.com Justin Gardner

    Dos, I’m disappointed. You’re really throwing the “PC police” talking points at me? I expected something far more compelling from you. Oh well…maybe you’re tired today.

    Hate can be a motiavtor just like anything else, and it can therefore be determined as the intent of a certain action. Especially if somebody seeks to injure because of the hate they have for somebody just because of who they are. It’s wrong, a majority of conservatives even think so and it should be severly penalized.

    And yes, you can determine what somebody’s motive and intent was when they committed a crime by the evidence you can find. You don’t need to dig into their brains to find out. And if that’s the only place where that information would reside, then a jury must determine whether or not it resides there.

    My guess is that a person who is innocent will be able to present some type of evidence that they simply tried to injure somebody because of the percieved injure they felt themselves, not because they hated who that person was because of race, sexual orientation, etc.

    And Fred Phelps? Well, if he tries to beat somebody up because they’re gay, then yes, he should be prosecuted under hate crime laws. Name callling? Not so much.

  • http://www.donklephant.com Justin Gardner

    It gets used FAR too often to prosecute the majority for crimes based on the IDEA that the motivating factors in violent crimes stem from hate.

    By the way, prove this. I’m calling BS on that assertion.

  • http://blogcabinca.org/ Kevin Norte

    Excuse me, but the train has already left the station on whether there should be HATE CRIMES legislation. The writers of the comments seem to be debating the original cocept of civil rights and the original hate crimes legislation. There is no debate in Congress as to whtether to abolish it. The issue is whether it should be expanded to include Hate Crimes against the GLBT community. Hate Crimes are Domestic Terrorism in its purest form. The War on Terror should be fought here. If members of the GLBT community are afraid to leave their homes or are force to move all because of violence committed against them because of their sexual orientation, then it is Domestic Terrorism.
    If the debate is that under Federalism, there should be no hate crimes, then that is a different topic as compared to the Gallup Poll that indicates there is SUPPORT for the Matthew Sheppard Act. The debate herein should be limited to whether one agrees with the Poll or not.
    When it comes to whether there should be Hate Crimes legislation, there is, and if you want to debate that, well that debate train left the station in the last century.

  • DosPeros

    By the way, prove this. I’m calling BS on that assertion.

    Okay, maybe that is BS and maybe not. It is an assertion that is almost impossible to gauge — like any THOUGHT crime. But I’m calling your b.s. on its deterence effect — also, impossible to prove because of the many variables in the interracial social dynamic. I think such legislation fosters division and not unity like all marxist-based victimology. Grown adults should be equal before the law, particularly violent crime, not staggered according to politics. And by the way, it is staggered based on politics, not on vulnerability. Gays are able to protect themselves against violent crime as well as anybody else. This legislation fosters purposeless resentment for no proven benefit simply to make a political showing.

  • http://www.donklephant.com Justin Gardner

    Okay, maybe that is BS and maybe not. It is an assertion that is almost impossible to gauge � like any THOUGHT crime.

    Nope. You don’t get to play by rules that you come up with on the fly. If this is such a bad thing and we’re putting people in jail for what you’re calling “thought crimes”, then prove it. Especially when the people who are being charged with them have committed an actual crime and are now being prosecuted because of demonstratable actions…not thoughts.

    This legislation fosters purposeless resentment for no proven benefit simply to make a political showing.

    Resentment by who? You?

    Again, the facts behind hate crimes don’t bear this out. Certain groups are more likely to be targeted for violent crimes because of who they are. Therefore, if a prosecute can provide evidence that this was a hate crime, then it should carry a heftier penalty than random acts of violence.

    There’s nothing Orwellian about this legislation. Nobody’s throwing anybody in jail for thinking about committing violent acts. Quote 1984 all you want, but the comparison is laughable.

  • DosPeros

    Again, prove the deterence. Prove that this this “hate” crime legislation reduce crime or hate for that matter. Your vision of an America sliced up into amorphously defined victim-groups nausates me. I’m all for the prosecution of demostrable crimes, illegal actions, probably much more so that you. You might think the Orwell comparison is laughable, but that is because you’ve had the good fortune of living in a free society. Thought crime is very real in places like China, Iran, Russia and this type of extra punishment for thought squeaks us closer to that. You take your freedom for granted.

    And yes, I do resent it. Why should a criminal that violently attacks me get less of a sentence because I’m a married hetrosexual? AND AGAIN, IF YOUR ANSWER IS DETERRENCE, THEN PROVE IT.

  • http://blogcabinca.org/ Kevin Norte

    “And yes, I do resent it. Why should a criminal that violently attacks me get less of a sentence because I’m a married hetrosexual? AND AGAIN, IF YOUR ANSWER IS DETERRENCE, THEN PROVE IT.”

    Was the theorteically attack against you caused because you were a married hetrosexual? If someone goes to a gay house party in the South Side of Chicago and randomly shoots and kills several gay males and instills fear in the gay black community, I think that IS different. The survivors are now afraid of going to house parties. There really are no black gay bars in the South Side of Chicago. The community there developed house parties in basements because of the FEAR of congregating in bars. They were forced by society to go into basements. Now that is not even safe. HATE is the motiviating factor. Going into a basement to randomly kill black gay men is different that an attack on a heterosexual married man becuase it HAS instilled FEAR in that community and is a Domestic Terrorist Attack. The Hate Mongers want to ride the South Side of Chicago of black gays. I do not think an attach on a married man would intill enough fear into a community so that all married men seriously think about moving out of the community.

  • http://www.donklephant.com Justin Gardner

    I can’t prove deterrence. But there will be no hope of deterrence if the laws aren’t in place. I mean, if a court of law can prove hateful intent, then having that person locked up for a longer period of time is a good thing, no? Don’t we want those people in particular off the streets?

    And by the way…the law applies to YOU as well if somebody is targeting you for being white or heterosexual. Well, the heterosexual part only if this latest provision passes. Did those facts slip past you?

  • DosPeros

    I mean, if a court of law can prove hateful intent, then having that person locked up for a longer period of time is a good thing, no?

    You mean as opposed to the joyous intent that comes with most violent criminal attacks.

    If a Republican beat up a Democrat over their position on gay-marriage or affirmative action, would that be considered a hate crime?

  • DosPeros

    So, will the murderers of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, be charged with a “hate” crime. Five blacks kill a white couple. http://www.nysun.com/article/54934
    Probably not, and they shouldn’t. They should be prosecuted and executed for the act of murdering two human beings, regardless of race. But is there any doubt that if five whites killed a black couple, there would be incredible political pressure to charge a “hate” crime. Of course there would. Politics interjected into the criminal justice system is not a good thing.