• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hate Crimes Bill H.R. 1913 Passes House

SgtRock

SgtRock

God ✝️ Family ❤️ Country 🇺🇲
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
7,221
Reaction score
3,112
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
H.R. 1913 (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009). Democrats in the House passed this legislation. H.R. 1913 protects 30 "sexual orientations" and "Gender Identity Disorders" including pedophiles. Under this bill they will be given the same protection as race.

An amendment by Rep. Tom Rooney to include in the bill crimes where the victim's status was that of a member of the Armed Forces was defeated.

So we are going to protect pedophiles and not members of the Armed Forces. This is just plain wrong.

Another amendment by Rep. Steve King to rename the bill `Local Law Enforcement Thought Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.' was defeated.

Soon the thought police will be beating down your door America. Wake up!
 
Last edited:
The "nuances" and unintended/unforseen consequences of this bill could end up being really appalling. A "chilling effect on free speech" may be a consequence.

It's already illegal to beat someone or kill them... is it really necessary to add additional punishments due to presumed motive? If someone kills me due to my race or sexual orientation, am I any "more dead" than if I was randomly targeted by a simple scumbag?

G.
 
a person who cant distinguish between a GLBT person and a pedophile automatically looses all credibility in any argument regarding GLBT issues.
 
Goshin said:
The "nuances" and unintended/unforseen consequences of this bill could end up being really appalling. A "chilling effect on free speech" may be a consequence.

It's already illegal to beat someone or kill them... is it really necessary to add additional punishments due to presumed motive? If someone kills me due to my race or sexual orientation, am I any "more dead" than if I was randomly targeted by a simple scumbag?

G.
Click to expand...

G hit the nail on the head here.

Hate crimes legislation only adds additional work for law enforcement for the same end result.
 
FallingPianos said:
a person who cant distinguish between a GLBT person and a pedophile automatically looses all credibility in any argument regarding GLBT issues.
Click to expand...

Having read the bill's text carefully, it simply says "sexual orientation" and "gender identity". I had heard there were specific protections covering a number of things commonly considered to be sex crimes, but find nothing like that in this text. I will do some further study and report if I find anything intresting.

I still think that "hate crimes" legislation is an unnecessary redundancy at best, and an insult to those not on the "specially protected classes list" at worst.
 
Okay... I was hearing all day about HR 1913 and S909 hate crimes legislation, and how there were hundreds of specific types of sexually deviant and possibly criminal behavior that were going to be protected under these laws.

It looks like this has been overhyped. I have read the text of both bills, and it says: "is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws."

If there's some list of heinous sexual crimes that's going to be protected by these bills, as I've heard some folks claiming today, I can't find that list in the text of either bill. Either I'm missing something somewhere, or somebody made some fraudulent statements about this legislation and others ran with it without checking the actual text of the bills. Anybody got any further info?

I still think "hate crime" legislation is redundant if not double-jeopardy, but I am not seeing the ultra-insanity in these bills I was told was in them.

G.
 
Hate crimes do alot more harm than good, this is sickening. Majority of crimes are based on hate with the exception of DWI which in my opinion is based on stupidity.
 
I've been undecided on the issue of hate crimes legislation for a while.

A murder is a murder, and the motivation behind it doesn't change the end result.

I also wonder how much it deters crime. Does any one have any links on the subject?

Here is what I currently think about it:

When a victim is targeted specifically because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, the crime isn't just against the victim, but is meant to terrorize the entire group. Often, the perpetrator barely knows the victim.

Therefor, it seems reasonable to me for the punishments to be harsher, and for more resources to be devoted towards prosecuting and collecting statistics on these crimes.
 
One murder victim's death is no more and no less tragic than another murder victim's death. Hate crime laws are nothing more than a back door thought control/hate speech laws which are unconstitutional.
 
FallingPianos said:
I've been undecided on the issue of hate crimes legislation for a while.

A murder is a murder, and the motivation behind it doesn't change the end result.

I also wonder how much it deters crime. Does any one have any links on the subject?

Here is what I currently think about it:

When a victim is targeted specifically because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, the crime isn't just against the victim, but is meant to terrorize the entire group. Often, the perpetrator barely knows the victim.

Therefor, it seems reasonable to me for the punishments to be harsher, and for more resources to be devoted towards prosecuting and collecting statistics on these crimes.
Click to expand...


The problem I have with hate crime type laws is relatively the same as your's.

But, I've also noticed a trend where a group of minority kids would attack a white person... almost kill them, while yelling whitey and cracker, etc..etc.

Yet, they're not charged with a hate crime? I don't understand the double standards applied to the hate crime laws.
 
stevenb said:
The problem I have with hate crime type laws is relatively the same as your's.

But, I've also noticed a trend where a group of minority kids would attack a white person... almost kill them, while yelling whitey and cracker, etc..etc.

Yet, they're not charged with a hate crime? I don't understand the double standards applied to the hate crime laws.
Click to expand...

hate crime laws cover any crime based on race, not just white against black.

do you have any links about that?
 
Last edited:
stevenb said:
White woman attacked on bus: 9 black youths charged; possible hate crime.

Council of Conservative Citizens Blog Archive Black thugs attack whites on Buffalo subway.


Possible hate crime? Reverse that, if they were white they'd be frying in jail right now.
Click to expand...

These are both anecdotal. hate crimes are notoriously difficult to prove.

and honestly, am I supposed to take a headline that reads "Black thugs attack whites on Buffalo subway" produced by a white supremacist organization seriously?

On the principles page of the organization that produced that link it says:

"We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character.... We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."
 
FallingPianos said:
These are both anecdotal. hate crimes are notoriously difficult to prove.

and honestly, am I supposed to take a headline that reads "Black thugs attack whites on Buffalo subway" produced by a white supremacist organization seriously?

On the principles page of the organization that produced that link it says:

"We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character.... We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."
Click to expand...

Did you hear about the group of black men who carjacked a couple.. kidnapped them and then raped the woman / did bad things to the man... eventually setting him on fire in front of her.

? Of course you didn't, because **** liek that gets brushed under the rug.

While I don't condone racist web sites, they're generally the only ones that will carry information that's less than PC as far as the General Media is concerned.

And again, it doesn't surprise me that you would be so quick to dismiss it based solely upon that.
 
stevenb said:
Did you hear about the group of black men who carjacked a couple.. kidnapped them and then raped the woman / did bad things to the man... eventually setting him on fire in front of her.

? Of course you didn't, because **** liek that gets brushed under the rug.

While I don't condone racist web sites, they're generally the only ones that will carry information that's less than PC as far as the General Media is concerned.

And again, it doesn't surprise me that you would be so quick to dismiss it based solely upon that.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying theres no room for discussion of whether or not hate crimes laws are enforced in a way thats biased against whites.

I'm just saying that if your going to make that assertion, you've got to back it up with something better than some anecdotal reports from racist websites.
 
stevenb said:
Did you hear about the group of black men who carjacked a couple.. kidnapped them and then raped the woman / did bad things to the man... eventually setting him on fire in front of her.

? Of course you didn't, because **** liek that gets brushed under the rug.

While I don't condone racist web sites, they're generally the only ones that will carry information that's less than PC as far as the General Media is concerned.

And again, it doesn't surprise me that you would be so quick to dismiss it based solely upon that.
Click to expand...

report empirical evidence, not anecdotal.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
report empirical evidence, not anecdotal.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom]Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Gee, why didn't this make headline news around the country? :roll:

If you were to flip this situation around, there would be all sorts of calls for the "white" guys being charged with a hate crime.
 
Last edited:
Hate crimes are so politicians can claim they are doing things, and also to race bait and divide.
 
Motive has always been a factor in the severity of a crime. If we are not going to have hate crime laws, then why have terrorist laws? The same argument applies. A terrorist could simply be tried for murder or attempted murder in the state courts the act was committed in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom