Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
House Gives Final Approval To Hate Crimes Bill
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The House on Thursday gave its final approval to legislation expanding federal hate crimes to include attacks on gays and transgenders. LGBT advocates hailed the vote as a long-awaited victory, but the GOP accused Democrats of "valuing some lives more than others," and of "immorality" for tacking the measure to the 2010 Defense budget.
Attached to the bill is a measure named after two murder victims: Matthew Shepard (left), a gay Wyoming university student who died in 1998 after being tortured, and James Byrd, Jr., a black man who was dragged to death by white supremacists the same year as Shepard's murder. (Image: familyequality.org) The
National Defense Authorization Act, or H.R. 2647, passed by a vote of
281-46. Forty-four Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the bill.
Attached to it is a measure named after two murder victims: Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming university student who died in 1998 after being tortured, and James Byrd, Jr., a black man who was dragged to death by white supremacists the same year as Shepard's murder.
The attached measure expands federal hate crimes to include attacks based on a person's actual or perceived gender, gender identity or disability or sexual orientation. The original 1969 law gives the federal government the authority to pursue criminal investigations for crimes committed because of a person's race, color, religion or national origin, and only while the victim is engaging in federally-protected activity.
Democrats and gay advocates had been pushing for expanding the law since 2007, but had failed to do so with a Republican in the White House.
This year, they had attempted to do so but came up short in the Senate in April, after the House voted 249-175 to pass the stand-alone hate-crimes bill. They later incorporated the measure in the 2010 defense budget, which now only needs the final approval of the Senate before President Barack Obama signs it into law.
The House vote comes before LGBT groups gather in D.C. on Sunday for a National Equality March, and before the President keynotes the annual dinner on Saturday of the nation's largest gay rights group, the Human Rights Campaign.
"We are closer than ever before to protecting Americans from hate violence thanks to today's action by the House," HRC President Joe Solmonese said in a statement. "The day is within sight when lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people will benefit from updating our nation's hate crimes laws and giving local law enforcement the tools they need to combat hate violence."
But House Minority Leadership John Boehner (R-OH) called the bill "thought crimes' legislation because it "places a higher value on some lives than others."
"Democrats have done a great disservice to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces today by using them as leverage to pass radical social policy," Boehner added.
"Our military deserves the resources provided in this legislation," Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) also said. "Our troops deserve better than to be treated as pack mules to carry the load for a despicable and unconstitutional bill that penalizes thought and places a premium on some classes of individuals over others."
"No American should be more protected from violent crime than another," Price added. "All violent crimes demonstrate hate and all should be fully prosecuted. Justice should be blind, but Democrats have rejected the credo of our Founders that all people are created equal."
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the bill "secur[es] our fundamental right to feel safe in our communities."
"This nation was founded on the promise of pluralism, a commitment to equality and opportunity, and the belief that 'liberty and justice for all' is not simply an empty pledge - it rests at the core of our identity as a people," Pelosi added. "No American should ever have to suffer persecution or violence because of who they are, how they look, or what they believe... We are standing with the families of Matthew Shepard, James Byrd Jr., and countless other victims of hate crimes."
- Posted in
18 Comments so far
Show Allall i can say is:
as a person that grew up in the philippines, this kind of hatred is something we in the philippines NEVER imagine a society can do. even after so many years in america .. i still consider it completely ALIEN and just inconceivable.
to torture and kill people BECAUSE they are gay or black or another color or "different?"
what kind of thing is that?
Do you mean to say that in the Philippines there are no inter-tribal or inter-family feuds? No killing or ostracizing of homosexuals, even in Muslim communities? No victimization of anyone based on racial identity, cultural practice, or sexual differences?
The published histories and current newspapers indicate differently.
Do not believe all of the bloviating you will read on CD regarding this issue. The vast majority of Americans detest any violence against another person, regardless of cause. They also hold a particular disgust for bigots of any stripe. Shepard's killers were prosecuted and convicted and are imprisoned for the rest of their miserable lives. The killers of Mr. Byrd received the same treatment. Would hate-crimes laws add to their punishment, short of executing all 4 killers?
Since the vast majority of Americans hold a particular disgust for bigots of any stripe, there are no laws on the books that are bigoted?
Laws such as DOMA, DADT don't exist, were never passed by the national elected officials of America, with the support of the American population?
Oh wait.
The House finally did a good thing. Now, I wonder about the more conservative Senate.
matthew loughran
But House Minority Leadership John Boehner (R-OH) called the bill "thought crimes' legislation because it "places a higher value on some lives than others."
ahh yes the orange colored clown boner of ohio says its thought crimes bill. thats about the level of genius in the GOP today. extreme right wing assholes who have no regard for anyone unless they are the rich white class of 'murka.
oh silly me that is how alot of the leading dims think also even if they supported this bill.
matt
The ADL is the primary sponsor of 'hate crime' legislation world wide, and they have enacted some really extraordinary legislation in Europe, Canada, and Australia. This is from the Irish ! Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act...
2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person
( a ) to publish or distribute written material,
( b ) to use words, behave or display written material—
(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or
(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,
( c ) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,
if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.
Folks, that law can be used to prosecute ANY speech, text, or internet posting the government finds troublesome.
Up to now, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the US has thwarted the ADL, and you can see them grouse about it on their web site, google - adl hate crimes first amendment -
The only organized opposition to the ADL in the US is from the religious right, google - ted pike -
This makes me wonder if this is another "Patriot Act" dressed up to "protect" us? Hiding under a fake title like: "The Clear Skies Act" (which had nothing to do with Clear Skies and allowed industry to remove expensive scrubbers from smokestacks).
???? What's confusing is that the Christian Right is opposing it.... they normally hate free speech... but they hate gays even more I guess (oops, can't say that: singles out religion and gays). Where is the ALCU on this bill I wonder?
It's a big stretch to go from arguing the issues of the day to murdering someone. Maybe this is a thought crimes bill after all. I can't believe that I might actually have to agree with a Repuke named "Boner." Ugh. I can't wait for the next one from the Nanny Police State: The Book Burning Act (which will be billed as a "Tree Protection Law"......).
Well, it's a foregone conclusion that if this monster military spending bill passes with this amendment that, "Tom Sawyer" by Mark Twain will become illegal contraband. There goes another freedom. Can't write Jew. Can't write Gay. Can't say bloody Christian. Can't read books that have the N word in them. I'm interracially married, and all the wrap songs have the N-word in them, but I bet I can't write that on the screen either.... Do I have to quit listening to wrap songs? Will possessing them put me in jail like growing herbs or legally protesting at the GOP convention?
What a nut house. It's a sad state of affairs when the only one standing up for the First amendment is a War-Crazy NeoCon named Boner. I give up.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
[What's confusing is that the Christian Right is opposing it.... they normally hate free speech.. but they hate gays even more I guess]
I don't know if Christians hate gays, but the bible says homosexuality is an 'abomination'. Well, straight to jail on that one. Plus there are a lot of other similar issues, try abortion, I think, so that 'preaching the gospel' becomes a crime. In fact they have already arrested people in the US for hate crimes for preaching the gospel, google - philadelphia 11 free speech - and to see what's happening where the ADL has had more success, google - catholicism a hate crime in canada -
I have to say that this seems like a great idea, but laws are frequently used in unintended ways. I am concerned that this type of legislation will be used against critics of Israeli policy.
In Europe, Canada, and other "free" societies around the world, these hate-crime (and later-enacted hate speech) laws are indeed being used to criminalize opposition to politically correct positions. Europeans and Canadians have been prosecuted for asserting Christian or Jewish beliefs, for reporting that a certain arrested terrorist was a Muslim, and in at least one case for arguing that global warming might have a significant source in the Sun.
Whether you like these statements or not, the First Amendment stands for everyone, the most unpopular sentiments most strongly. "When they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up, because I'm not a Jew..."
At what point do we have more folks "preventing" hate crimes than we have crimes being prosecuted for them. My guess is that we passed that number long ago.
This seems like an obvious question, but how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, absent an open confession, that "the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability"?
Also, isn't one of the human rights a right to hold beliefs of one's own choosing? Doesn't punishing a person for having those beliefs (the actual violence is punished under the usual criminal codes) violate their rights?
A criminal who acts without even the least excuse of revenge or money should be punished. Then again, how can one person, or twelve, look into another's soul?
The article's not that clear on the matter is it. One would hope that the law states that if you have a proven dislike for gays/blacks - say lead an antigay religious posse or are a member of the kkk - then the law would apply. I hope that the law is one that just tacks on a bit of time if you're a violent sob who hates his wife as well...
I do agree that merely spouting off hateful rhetoric isn't/shouldn't be enough to go to jail. But if you're inciting a riot, or calling on others to do the killing/beating for you, you belong in a cage...
"Also, isn't one of the human rights a right to hold beliefs of one's own choosing? Doesn't punishing a person for having those beliefs (the actual violence is punished under the usual criminal codes) violate their rights?"
---------------------------
The difference is the level of danger for the victims. Let me quote an illustrative passage from "Three To Conquer", an SF novel by the late Eric Frank Russell. The main protagonist, Wade Harper, a man with a special talent, is volunteering to be bait for an extraterrestrial body-snatcher but wants to send his secretary, Moira, to safety meanwhile.
"How about me sending her on paid leave until this affair is over?"
"No. Everything has to look normal."
"I'd hate to turn the gun on Moira because she'd ceased to be Moira any longer. What's done can't be undone. I'd like to prevent the doing in the first place."
"She must take her chances the same as everyone else", said Norris [an FBI agent] impassively. "It's no worse for one than for another."
"It *is* worse", Harper contradicted. "because one's more likely to be picked on than another."
The difference that Russell has his character Harper express here is exactly what the law needs to account for: it's worse for some because they're more likely to be victimised. Their level of risk is much higher than the background level we all face, so the only way to (perhaps) reduce it to a normal level is to make the deterrent comparably higher.
Otherwise, we're saying in effect "we can't do anything for you. Our legal standards are based on the victim being a clean-cut, middle-class, straight male WASP. If you refuse to meet that standard, then you just have to expect to be treated worse by both the criminal class and society".
OK, let's see how this works. If the victim is one of a "protected group", then the perpetrator is automatically assumed to have been acting from bias? The question is whether we as a jury can determine the exacerbating motives of a crime absent a specific admission by the offender.
I contend that rather than set aside "identity groups" for enhanced prosecution, why not make an objective determination of whether the attacker was stronger or weaker than the victim. Stronger perps would get tougher sentences. Makes as much sense as trying to figure out mental bias. Why don't we simply punish or rehabilitate all offenders equally (sounds like equal protection of the laws, huh?)
In the case of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. do you propose stiffer sentences than 2 consecutive life-without-parole sentences for murder? What's left but to execute them?
No, not automatically. There've been plenty cases where the circumstances don't support any such finding. But if the perp goes across town to lurk outside a gay bar, or goes cruising with his buddies and their baseball bats in Black neighborhoods, or has White Power tattoos, or there's similar evidence that what happened wasn't based on random selection, that's a different story.
It's interesting (I think) that perps never go to wealthy neighborhoods and victimise the ruling class. It's always marginalised people who get selected. Why do you suppose that is?
Can Americans still attack Republicans in pre-emptive self defence?
Could they ever?
Although it has been a 'long time for me', I still remember the 'joys of heterosexuality'.
On the same regards I cannot remember when exactly it was that I 'chose' to be a heterosexual. Nor did I have any questions about 'which I should be'.
Then I am forced by the experiences of the past to consider the fact that I never chose to be a 'minority race member' either; here on 'this third planet from the sun'.
With more consideration I am forced by reality to remember that I nor anyone else 'chooses' to be heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual, any more than any of us choose to be either gender, or any race, or short or tall or blue eyed or brown, or so many other factors.
Then with just a little more consideration the reality that a 'law' must be passed that protects those who are 'different', that others, BECAUSE they are different may wish to discriminate or harm or even kill them for those aspects of being different.
The fact that the USA needs to pass laws to protect those who are different is a statement on the failure of a society, to properly train its children and teach them reality based thought processes, since children become adults. Instead the insanity required to believe the preposterous notion that anyone would 'choose to be a member of a persecuted minority and THEN should be punished for it; even with death, is so strong in certain sections of US society that these kinds of laws are required.
The Roman Emperor Tacitus stated 'The more corrupt a society, the more numerous its laws'. It appears that the USA has exceeded the Roman reputation for corruption and is well on its way to becoming a 'new standard'.
If I were an american instead of a 'POW of the americans' I would be ashamed of being an american; until I 'cleaned up the mess' the 'others' have made of things.
"If the USA were another nation the USA would invade the USA to keep the world safe; and they would be justified."