05/04/2007
Hate Crimes Vote Inspires Veto Threat, Hate, and Celebration
More on yesterday's House Hate Crime Bills vote. Here's a clip of Barney Frank announcing the passage of the bill yesterday.
President Bush has threatened to veto the bill. It would be the third veto of his presidency, after stem cell research and the Iraq war funding bill. Wonkette makes note of his ugly legacy.
Both Joe.My.God and Bilerico have lists of how the voting went in both parties.
Think Progress noted some of the misinformation being perpetuated by House Minority Leader John Boehner and other conservatives before the vote, including Boehner's statement that the bill takes us somewhere "very scary":
"Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated this far-right talking point. He claimed that under the hate crimes bill, you would be charged with a crime if you were 'thinking something bad' before you committed a crime against someone. 'I just think it takes us down a path that is very scary.' The right-wing is wrong. This legislation goes after criminal action, like physical assaults, not name-calling or verbal abuse. The bill clearly states that 'evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.'"
AmericaBlog has a round-up of some of the statements made by other legislators before the vote, including Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and Rahm Emanuel. According to AmericaBlog: "Steny Hoyer and John Conyers just pulled a fast one on the GOP. The GOP has been refusing to support the hate crimes bill because it doesn't include members of the US Armed Forces and senior citizens. Conyers just rose and basically said, okay, I'll add them. The Republicans' response? Uh, no. The Republicans have been railing for days about how this legislation doesn't cover our Armed Forces and senior citizens, and now that the Dems offer to put our Armed Forces and seniors in this legislation, the Republicans said no and affirmatively stopped the Democrats from doing it anyway."
Photo of Tammy Baldwin and Judy Shepard embracing following the vote, courtesy of HRC. More photos there.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 8:24 AM EST by Andy in Crime, Democratic Party, News, Republican Party | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
It's great how Conyers called the Republicans on their bluff. Now the Repugs have to face up to the fact they truly are the party of hateful bigots. And Mr. Boehner, what a dick.
Posted by: Bill | May 4, 2007 9:03:42 AM
The repub debate last night saw Thompson saying companys have a right to fire gays for just being gay
What is the response to that of the log cabin repubs that read towleroad?
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 4, 2007 9:12:25 AM
Focus on the Family has been trying really hard to use scare tactics to get listeners of their radio propaganda show to contact their political leaders as well. They are telling their listeners that under this bill, if a pastor preaches against homo's, then a member of the congregation goes out & beats up a gay person, then the pastor will be charged with a hate crime. And i'm sure the "Christian" robots listening to this believe every word.
Posted by: Dave | May 4, 2007 9:13:53 AM
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/05/tommy-thompson-sure-go-ahead-fire-gays.html
Here's the link to video of the newest Republikkkan hate crime.
Tommy Thompson says gays can be fired at will for being gay...and NOT ONE OF THE OTHER Rethuglican candidates speaks up to say it's un-American and hateful.
NOT ONE. How do you like Giuliani now? Think he'll stand up when you get fired for being gay?
Posted by: bambambam | May 4, 2007 9:16:02 AM
Dave, actualy I would support arresting a pastor who preached anti gay rhetoric right before one of their members gay bashed someone.
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 4, 2007 9:29:40 AM
I really wish that Bush would just sign it into law. I'm so frustrated. I go to bat for the Republicans a lot on this blog. I am so ashamed of them it's not even funny. How can protecting people from crime be wrong. The Republicans talk like this bill will turn us into a Marshall Law kind of society. Once again, I'm so ashamed.
Posted by: Matt | May 4, 2007 9:30:37 AM
Thank you Matt for the honesty. You get bashed a lot here for your support of republicans, but i am glad that you are frustrated with them over this issue.
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 4, 2007 9:35:54 AM
"Dave, actualy I would support arresting a pastor who preached anti gay rhetoric right before one of their members gay bashed someone."
Whaaaaaaaaaaa?!?!?!? Anti-gay speech, no matter how odious, is protected by the Constitution. Let's not forget that. We can be adamant about our rights, as we should, but let's not forget that free speech is a beautiful thing.
Posted by: James | May 4, 2007 9:40:13 AM
What the hell is wrong with the lot of them. Even 14 democrats voted no. I'm still searching Joe.My.God for my reps to see how they voted. They will either get a letter of praise or condemnation based on how they voted.
Pacificoceanboy, thanks. I do get a lot of shit and most of the time I'm pretty apathetic about what goes on in our community but I have no clue why this bothers me so much but it does.
Posted by: Matt | May 4, 2007 9:40:29 AM
Maybe I just don't understand about hate crimes laws. If someone hits me in the head with a brick, he'll get charged. If someone hits me in the head witha brick and says faggot, he gets more time. I don't care why you hit someone in the head with a brick, they should both carry the same amount of time.
Posted by: ousslander | May 4, 2007 9:42:32 AM
Hate crimes are worse because they target and terrorize entire specific group.
If you only punish for the crime itself, there's no such thing as intent. Why do we punish people for murder and not for accidents?
Because the intent to kill your wife for insurance is worse than running her over in your SUV backing out the driveway when she was in your blind spot.
A crime is NOT the same as any other crime when hate is involved, it's worse when it's terror against an entire class.
The Ku Klux Klan lynching blacks and bombing black churches was worse than a husband abusing his wife till she had to burn him up in the bed like Farrah Fawcett. Got it? Intent matters, or else, there's no such thing as murder at all. Just a standard punishment. That's not real.
When gays stop being singled out for hate and murder, then we can say a crime is the same as any other crime. Don't deny that singling out minorities for killing is not a fact.
Posted by: bambambam | May 4, 2007 9:48:28 AM
Okay I've done a little bit more research this morning. Yes I'm pissed at the Republicans and Democrats that voted no. I really disagree with their viewpoints. But what I am absolutely furious over is the number of reps that didn't vote at all. 9 Republicans and 5 Democrats didn't even vote.
Posted by: Matt | May 4, 2007 9:48:52 AM
James
So Hitler shouldn't be held responsible for the deaths of jews in the gas chambers then because all he really did was give speaches. not once did he push the button.
Hmmmmmmmmm
A preacher spouting "Burn in hell, god hates, blah blah blah" is respobnsible for a parishoner running off then and beating someone.
As an acesory to the crime and should be fined
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 4, 2007 9:56:36 AM
PS James
Osama didn't fly any planes into the twin towers nor did he even give box cutters etc to the hijackers.
He did preach about the evil of the infidel and how america must be punished just like preachers say we gays should be punished in the fires of hell
So by your reasoning Osama is an innocent and should not be held responsible.
Sorry. I see preachers as being responsible just as osama and hitler were responsible for the evil perpetuated by their preaching/ speaches
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 4, 2007 9:59:17 AM
James an even better example
Charles Manson never actualy killed anyone DID HE? BUT he is in jail and has been held responsible for deaths perpetuated in his name and under his "preaching"
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 4, 2007 10:06:30 AM
There is well-accepted logic behind why our legal system has decades of accepted punishment "enhancements." Further examples: convince a 7-11 clerk you'll punch him out if he doesn't give you a free Big Gulp and you face one jail sentence. Stick a gun in his face and you face additional jail time. "Robbery" versus "armed robbery." There's the three strikes law in California which punishes you more just because you were convicted of a third crime. See murder a civilian vs. murder a cop in many states. Agree to have sex with an 16-yr. old hottie in, say, Indiana, who's eagerly had his hand down your pants for the last hour and the cops can't touch you. Change his age to 15 and you can go to jail even if he swears in court it was HIS idea.
The reason they are treated differently is less about punishment per se than prevention. The average person, even the average criminal, is often inhibited by the "chilling effect" of the knowledge of greater punishment for crimes with "special circumstances." Without them there would be more crimes involving guns which would result in more injuries and deaths; there would be more cops killed, etc., etc.
Posted by: Leland | May 4, 2007 10:35:10 AM
Pacific,
Mmmmmm. Let's make a distinction between actions and speech. While we might not like it, people can be anti-gay as much as they want. They can get in their pulpits and say a lot of crap (minus calls to violence). That right is there for the folk we hate and the ones we don't.
Posted by: James | May 4, 2007 10:44:47 AM
Everyone, please note that California Republican closet-case David "Daisy" Dreier voted against the bill.
Let's hope a band of youngsters hurling anti-gay slurs beats him to a bloody pulp in his district this weekend.
Maybe then he'll understand what the bill is about.
Posted by: 24play | May 4, 2007 10:58:11 AM
Only Leland here seems to have any grasp of how the law really works. The rest of you need to read up some more before you spout off. Might I suggest learning about "intent", "conspiracy", "homicide", "gross indifference", "negligence" and other relevant terms. I guess lawyers are too busy to post here.
Posted by: anon | May 4, 2007 1:00:38 PM
Why do we need special laws for Hate Crimes? Isn't it already a crime to maliciously cause harm to another person, regardless of either parties lifestyle, choices, gender, race, age, political affiliation, etc?
I'm for punishing criminals, but not for making free speech criminal. If you look north to our friends in Canada, you see how it is now illegal to speak truth and fact if that truth or fact could be construed to be 'anti' any of several protected groups. Is this freedom? Is this true equality? I think not.
Posted by: Matthew | May 4, 2007 2:05:15 PM
It seems that most of you are ok with the gay stuff that is abnormal but you seem to espouse quiet a bit of hate yourself against the christian people. Please read Livitcus and quit trying to get the rest of us to subscribe to the filth of gay practices!
Posted by: James H. Penland | May 4, 2007 2:09:17 PM
To be honest, I am torn on the decision. While I do respect the fact that having the right to hate, regardless of reason, is protected by the Constitution as free speech and that all crimes against another person constitute a certain amount of malice, I do also feel that a person who will commit a crime against another person simply out of fact that he is gay, straight, black, white, female, etc. makes such a criminal more dangerous to the public than one who commits a crime against another for other reasons. While there may be an action that the victim performed in most circumstances, a potential hate crime can leave the victim having done nothing other than being born. It really is a difficult decision. If I killed my girlfriend because she was sleeping with my friend, while it would constitute hatred, it would not be prejudicial; such hatred was based on her actions and leave me a threat to a very small (if not singular) group of people. However, if I go and kill my black next door neighbor (who is a really nice guy) for no other reason than he was black, that makes me a threat to the entire black populace.
Greg
Posted by: Greg | May 4, 2007 2:26:14 PM
Religious affiliation is already protected under hate crimes legislation. No one follows what the bible preaches, read or unread. No one.
Posted by: anon | May 4, 2007 2:27:16 PM
I don't see why crimes inspired by prejudice should get special treatment. Why is that worse than a violent crime inspired by greed, or general misanthropy, or anything else? I worry because, once we select out certain criminal motivations as worse than others on philosophical grounds, just think where that could go. Crimes based on anti-protestant sentiment get treated differently than on anti-catholic sentiment? Crimes motivated by liberal causes get treated differently than crimes motivated by conservative ones? Why can't we just say that violent crimes are violent crimes and not try to make judgements about the perpetrators belief system, which in a free society they should be allowed to believe whatever they want?
Posted by: yehadut | May 4, 2007 4:08:33 PM
In response to James' and Pacific's discussion:
I agree with Pacific, but his statement's definitely need some qualifications. If the preacher says: "God hates gays. Don't be gay; it's immoral. And you'll burn in hell... blah blah blah" then that's one thing. I don't personally agree with his assessment, but he has the right to think that, and even to say that if he wants. What he SHOULDN'T have the right to do is add: "so I urge you to go beat the crap out of them." or some such. At that point, he IS responsible for the actions of his listeners.
Bin Laden, Hitler, and Manson didn't just say "man, I hate those people, and you should too; they said "I hate those people so go out and kill them." There's a significant difference. It would be as out of context as me taking your comments about how you don't like the Reps as an endorsement to go kill them. And I don't think anyone here thinks that's what you are trying to say.
(As a side note, in case it's unclear, I support the legislation.)
Posted by: Ender | May 4, 2007 4:41:10 PM
Yehadut, we treat them differently because of the types of sentiment's that inspired by prejudicial crimes as opposed to those committed on other grounds. If I attack someone based on a group classification, it doesn't just affect that person, but all members of the same group. It's a form of terrorism. It's not just the commission of one act of violence, but the fear placed on other people that they are being targeted.
Posted by: Ender | May 4, 2007 4:48:10 PM
Ender but "Gays will burn in hell" "gays should burn in hell" "god hates gays" "gays are an abomination" all equal a sub human status and 1/2 step away from saying we do not deserve to live. Those words do motivate people to view us as sub human and deserving of whatever happens to us.
A simple "biblicaly I can not condone gays" is not an issue or a stimulator of violence. All the statements I mentioned above are. Heck simply quoting leviticus about stoning gay guys vcan be seen as a direct support of violence against us. Not too many people were ever known to have survived those biblical stonings.
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 4, 2007 5:08:26 PM
There are alot of points in there, so I'm sorry if I'm long-winded addressing them.
I don't think it equals a sub human status. Biblically, that doesn't make any sense. Sin, regardless of it's form, is an exclusively human trait. The Bible outright states that all humans are guilty of sin. I know many preachers who would say the murder is a hell-worthy offense, but those same preachers are against the death penalty. This is the same thing. I've gone to alot of different churches in my life, and I think it's easy to tell the difference between the sensationalist pastors who encourage violence and those that merely preach their beliefs. Taking the statement "theives will go to hell" as a carte blanche to go out and start offing pickpockets is a misinterpretation of the listener, not the fault of the speaker. But crossing that line and saying "Go hurt them" definitely means that the speaker is responsible.
Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I believe that people have a right to believe whatever they want to believe, no matter how bigoted. I believe that they have the right to tell others about their beliefs. What I don't think they have the right to do is infringe upon the rights of others based on those beliefs. Conservatives don't have the right to abuse gays (or even advocate their abuse), but gays shouldn't have the right to dictate what can and can't be said about them. (though you can definitely write someone off as a moron if they say something bigoted. I know I will.)
Posted by: Ender | May 4, 2007 5:41:31 PM
In the UK they passed a law (Tony Blair does not really support first amendment rights) banning "inflammatory speech", basically so they could rid of troublesome Islamic preachers. In the US speech is regulated by a series of tests devised by the Supreme Court. The "strict scrutiny" test is the one that applies to laws regarding first amendment cases as people here seem to want to frame them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
Posted by: anon | May 5, 2007 12:53:10 AM
Yay for Oregon! Even our Republican rep voted yes. My sympathies to those of you who were betrayed by the bastards elected to represent you.
Posted by: Christopher | May 8, 2007 1:07:21 AM