President to veto hate crimes bill

[Sebastian]

Click here for article

Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
May 03, 2007

(1st Add: Includes comments from Focus on the Family and Reps. John Conyers and Lamar Smith.)

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush looks likely to veto a "hate crimes" bill under debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday if it is approved by Congress. Conservatives quickly responded by thanking the president for upholding "our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law."

"The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion or national origin," according to a statement released by the Executive Office of the President, and forwarded by Concerned Women for America.

"However, the administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable," the release stated. "If H.R. 1592 were presented to the president, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

"State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592," the statement said.

In addition, "state and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively."

"There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government," the office said.

"In addition, almost every state in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the state's own hate crimes law."

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues with Concerned Women for America, was quick to praise the statement.

"We thank President Bush for honoring our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law," said Barber in a statement.

Barber told Cybercast News Service Thursday that according to his sources in the White House, the president is inclined to follow his advisors' recommendations to veto the bill if passed.

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson also welcomed the undertaking.

"We applaud the president's courage in standing up for the constitution and the principle of equal protection under the law," he said in a statement. "The American justice system should never create second-class victims and it is a first-class act of wisdom and fairness for the president to pledge to veto this unnecessary bill."

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the House is debating the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592), which would "provide federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes" involving "actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability."

The bill was first introduced on March 20 by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.).

He told the House Thursday that "there are no First Amendment disabilities about this measure in any way. As a personal advocate of the First Amendment I can assure you that that would be the last thing that would be allowed to be in this bill."

Conyers said a vote for the bill would not be "a vote in favor of any particular sexual belief or characteristic. It's a vote, rather, to provide basic rights and protections for individuals so they are protected from assaults based on their sexual orientation."

Of reported hate crimes, Conyers told the House, 54 percent are based on race, 17 on "religious bias" and 14 percent on "sexual orientation bias."

Opposing the measure, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the bill would result in disproportionate justice for victims of certain crimes.

"All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. However this bill, no matter how well intended, undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system. Under this bill justice will no longer be equal but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim," he said.

"For example, criminals who kill a homosexual or a transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, members of the military, a child, a senior citizen or any other person."

Smith also voiced concern that the measure would have a "chilling effect" on religious leaders and groups "who express their constitutionally protected beliefs."

He also argued that it was unconstitutional and would likely be struck down by the courts.

'Other classes would be without special status'

According to the Executive Office release, "H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim's race, color, religion or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

"The administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status," the release said. "The administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly."

Also, the bill "raises constitutional concerns" because "federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the federal government, such as the power to protect federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce or to enforce equal protection of the laws," the statement said.

Therefore, "it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592," the release added.

What do you guys think? Should there be stiffer punishment for crimes based on race, sexual orientation, or what not? Isn't every crime a hate crime? Does this promote racism. I would really like to hear your thoughts on the matter. I believe that we have no need for such a bill. It promotes the government to favor one group over another and employs stiffer punishments for the same crime.

 

[CptStern]

goddam focus on the family should be lined up against the wall and shot dead ..multiple times ..I ****ING HATE THEIR RACE!!! KILL KILL those focus on the family people before they breed like rats!!! I propose that all Focus on the Family members should for now on sit at the back of the bus, drink water from designated "Focus on the Family Only" water fountains and for the love of god separate them from our god hating innocent children in places of education. i dont want my kids contaminated with their dangerous and savage culture ..filthy animals ..and now I'm off to place a wooden cross in front of the house of Jim Daly for this evening's ceremonies ..who's with me?



oh shit, I live in canada, we have anti-hate crime legislation ..but no focus on the family so ...DIE DIE DIE!!!

 

[Stigmata]

I'm unsure about this. On the one hand, hate crimes do happen, and there needs to be some sort of special deterrent to them. On the other hand, it's incredibly difficult to discern between normal crime and hate crime in some circumstances, so making broad generalisations and such in a move to catch all hate crime will make the bill unconstitutional.

 

[repiV]

Wow, Bush did something good.

The concept of the hate crime is complete bullshit, and I don't feel I need to expand on that as anyone who believes otherwise is by definition a hypocrite.

 

[CptStern]

yes because those that spray paint racially motivated death threats on jewish synagogues should only get a ticket for vandalism ..

I find that the majority of people opposed to hate crime legislation really dont know what it is ..it can encompass everything from physical violence to incitement to violence against a particular group ...seldom does it have to do with curtailing freedom of speech for the sake of political correctness ...absolutes repiv absolutes

 

[repiV]

yes because those that spray paint racially motivated death threats on jewish synagogues should only get a ticket for vandalism ..

That would be covered by existing legislation on death threats.

I find that the majority of people opposed to hate crime legislation really dont know what it is ..it can encompass everything from physical violence to incitement to violence against a particular group ...seldom does it have to do with curtailing freedom of speech for the sake of political correctness ...absolutes repiv absolutes

It does in this country. And in America, something only appears to qualify as a hate crime if the perpetrator is a white male.
Hate crimes, like political correctness, are a form of mind control, nothing more. Physical violence is already illegal, as is incitement to violence.

 

[Sulkdodds]

So anybody know what the bill actually says?

(I don't D: )

 

[Qonfused]

Hate crimes should be able to be more-punishable by law than normal. I completely understand the reasoning behind vetoing this bill, but most of me wants this to pass.

 

[NeptuneUK]

That would be covered by existing legislation on death threats.



It does in this country. And in America, something only appears to qualify as a hate crime if the perpetrator is a white male.
Hate crimes, like political correctness, are a form of mind control, nothing more. Physical violence is already illegal, as is incitement to violence.

I want your babies.

 

[Geogaddi]

I oppose hate crimes.

 

[Planetary]

Well, I live in the True North Strong and Free, where we take this sort of thing very seriously.
How seriously?
Let's just say that the pink triangle isn't on an endangered species list, like my avatar is.

 

[Jintor]

That would be covered by existing legislation on death threats.

"JEWS GET OUT" - so, if it's not a death threat, are they safe? Do the dudes get off on vandalism charges only?

Haven't made up my mind yet. Leaning towards 'WTF WHY HE VETO GOOD THING', but haven't read enough either way.

 

[theotherguy]

:x

What the hell?

It seems like congress is totally worthless these days, if the president will veto anything they do that makes any sense.

 

[MorganFreeman911]

goddam focus on the family should be lined up against the wall and shot dead ..multiple times ..I ****ING HATE THEIR RACE!!! KILL KILL those focus on the family people before they breed like rats!!! I propose that all Focus on the Family members should for now on sit at the back of the bus, drink water from designated "Focus on the Family Only" water fountains and for the love of god separate them from our god hating innocent children in places of education. i dont want my kids contaminated with their dangerous and savage culture ..filthy animals ..and now I'm off to place a wooden cross in front of the house of Jim Daly for this evening's ceremonies ..who's with me?



oh shit, I live in canada, we have anti-hate crime legislation ..but no focus on the family so ...DIE DIE DIE!!!

Ahh Canada...

 

[JNightshade]

The issue as I see it here is that many states don't have any sort of protection regarding sexual orientation. I've heard cases of people being targeted because of their sexuality, and the offenders getting off virtually scot-free because the laws say nothing about this.


EDIT: GAH, WHY ARE NONE OF MY ANIMATED GIFS WORKING AS AVATARS!? D:

 

[63]

White Power

 

[repiV]

I want your babies.

Everyone comes to that conclusion sooner or later. With various amounts of drugs, anyway. :E

 

[repiV]

"JEWS GET OUT" - so, if it's not a death threat, are they safe? Do the dudes get off on vandalism charges only?
Haven't made up my mind yet. Leaning towards 'WTF WHY HE VETO GOOD THING', but haven't read enough either way.

That would probably count as harassment, then. Either way, aside from this for a moment, being an arsehole is not a crime and nor should it be.

:x

What the hell?

It seems like congress is totally worthless these days, if the president will veto anything they do that makes any sense.

Why does it make sense to give special protection against the right of free speech to certain groups of people, and put them on a pedestal that makes them immune to criticism?
Am I going to get jailed under hate crimes legislation now for pointing out that Islam is the cesspool of civilisation or that poor black people in the States are going nowhere because of their cultural attitude and not because the big bad white man is keeping them down?
Why should murder be punished more severely because it was motivated by race or sexuality? That's pure bullshit.
This is coming from the same person that whines about religious brainwashing in schools, but whenever the issue of liberal brainwashing comes up you're always in support of it.

The issue as I see it here is that many states don't have any sort of protection regarding sexual orientation. I've heard cases of people being targeted because of their sexuality, and the offenders getting off virtually scot-free because the laws say nothing about this.


EDIT: GAH, WHY ARE NONE OF MY ANIMATED GIFS WORKING AS AVATARS!? D:

So?
If they didn't do anything bad enough to be prosecuted under any other law, why should they have suddenly committed a serious crime because the other guy was gay?
Talk about mind control.

 

[15357]

repiv gave me some great ideas. I say have the anti-hate crime legislation. It gives more statial power and therfore more freedom.



No, you can't ask how that works.