Political Crossfire Forums

[Enoch]

Link from 365gay.com

Quote: House Passes Gay Hate Crimes Bill
by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief

(Washington) The House of Representatives passed legislation late Wednesday afternoon to expand federal hate crimes laws to include gays, lesbians and the transgendered.

The measure received bipartisan support, passing on a 233 - 199 vote.

Called the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act it has passed the Senate in previous congressional sessions only to die in the House.

A Senate version of the bill is currently before the chamber.

This legislation extends existing hate crimes laws that already cover crimes motivated by race, color, national origin and religion to include crimes based on actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity, including gender-related characteristics. The gender identity/characteristics language was added to this bill this year to make clear that anti-transgender crimes are covered.

The bill would allow the Department of Justice to assist local authorities in investigating and prosecuting cases in which violence occurs.

The bill was filed jointly in May by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), IIeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), John Conyers (D-MI); Christopher Shays (R-CT), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

Passage in the House drew praise from LGBT rights activists.

"Every American child deserves the strongest protections from some of this country's most horrifying crimes," said Judy Shepard, the mother of Matthew Shepard, who was murdered by two men because he was gay, in 1998 in Wyoming. Shepard's slaying became the impetus for the legislation.

"Never before has the House of Representatives voted to protect transgender people in any way," said Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the Task Force. "And today marks the first time, outside of procedural motions, that the House has affirmatively voted to extend full hate crimes protections to lesbian, gay and bisexual people. This proves that even in times of adversity for our community, when grassroots voices keep up the pressure on our elected officials, decency can prevail."

Gay Democrats were equally pleased.

"This legislation will allow the federal government to enhance its law enforcement resources so that it may effectively combat crimes that attempt to terrorize groups of Americans," said Eric Stern, NSD Executive Director.

Passage of the bill came the same week as the conviction of two men in the slaying of transgendered teen Gwen Araujo. The jury, however, was unable to reach agreement on the sentence for a third defendant in the case.

Last April a report released by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs showed violence against members of the LGBT community is on the rise.

Overall, NCAVP’s report noted a 4% increase in reported incidents of anti-LGBT violence. Such incidents rose from 1,720 in 2003 to 1,792 in 2004.

Included in the rise in incidents for the year, was an 11% increase in anti-LGBT murders, which rose from 18 in 2003 to 20 in 2004. During 2004, the total number of victims rose 4%, from 2,042 in 2003 to 2,131 in 2004.

Adding sexuality to federal hate crime legislation is long overdue.

What does everyone think about this? Is sexuality an issue that should be covered under hate-crime legislation?

[Gryff1nd0r]

yes of course

[JDnCoke]

I can't believe that almost 200 people voted against it... *shudders*

[Gus]

I don't agree with any hate crimes. If a person hates another person, why is that illegal? If you force somebody to enter into a contract with another person, how is that freedom?

If somebody decides not to go into contract with another person because the other person is incompetent, black, gay, or has freckles, then that's his right. It's not a violation of rights, because it's a voluntary contract. Forcing him to go into contract is sending a loud message that certain thoughts are illegal. Thought crimes.

Conversely, forcing the person into contract is an obvious violation of rights.

[JDnCoke]

derEikopf wrote: I don't agree with any hate crimes. If a person hates another person, why is that illegal? If you force somebody to enter into a contract with another person, how is that freedom?

If somebody decides not to go into contract with another person because the other person is incompetent, black, gay, or has freckles, then that's his right. It's not a violation of rights, because it's a voluntary contract. Forcing him to go into contract is sending a loud message that certain thoughts are illegal. Thought crimes.

Conversely, forcing the person into contract is an obvious violation of rights.

I think you're missing the point.

For example you're black, but you can't buy a house where you want because the estate agent won't sell to you.

That's a hate crime, and that is wrong.

(PS an estate agent I think means realtor in american english...)

[Gus]

JDnCoke wrote: derEikopf wrote: I don't agree with any hate crimes. If a person hates another person, why is that illegal? If you force somebody to enter into a contract with another person, how is that freedom?

If somebody decides not to go into contract with another person because the other person is incompetent, black, gay, or has freckles, then that's his right. It's not a violation of rights, because it's a voluntary contract. Forcing him to go into contract is sending a loud message that certain thoughts are illegal. Thought crimes.

Conversely, forcing the person into contract is an obvious violation of rights.

I think you're missing the point.

For example you're black, but you can't buy a house where you want because the estate agent won't sell to you.

That's a hate crime, and that is wrong.

(PS an estate agent I think means realtor in american english...)
The agent can contract with whomever he pleases. If he decides he doesn't want a contract with you because you smell bad, then he's exercising his rights. If you force him into contract, your undermining mainly his property rights (his ability to choose who he wants to give his property to). This is, of course, under the assumption that the agent fully represents his client.

And in America, real estate agent and realtor are interchangeable :).

[JDnCoke]

derEikopf wrote: The agent can contract with whomever he pleases. If he decides he doesn't want a contract with you because you smell bad, then he's exercising his rights. If you force him into contract, your undermining mainly his property rights (his ability to choose who he wants to give his property to). This is, of course, under the assumption that the agent fully represents his client.

And in America, real estate agent and realtor are interchangeable :).

So we allow this continue, with such a powerful lobby as the anti-gay one in the US, gays would probably/eventually be pushed out onto the edges of society back to their hated position of yester-year.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Gus]

JDnCoke wrote: derEikopf wrote: The agent can contract with whomever he pleases. If he decides he doesn't want a contract with you because you smell bad, then he's exercising his rights. If you force him into contract, your undermining mainly his property rights (his ability to choose who he wants to give his property to). This is, of course, under the assumption that the agent fully represents his client.

And in America, real estate agent and realtor are interchangeable :).

So we allow this continue, with such a powerful lobby as the anti-gay one in the US, gays would probably/eventually be pushed out onto the edges of society back to their hated position of yester-year.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Effective businesspeople don't care what your sexual orientation is. If a gay is good at his job, a businessman won't care what he does when he gets home. He just cares that he's good at his job.

The second rights begin to be violated, whether you're gay, straight, knock-kneed, or have a Jewish nose, then it should be illegal. Otherwise, why would you punish somebody for practicing their rights?

[Enoch]

However, the problem then becomes proving whether the discrimination actually occurred.

If I choose not to sell my house to a black man, he would need to prove that his race was the reason for my decision. That gets hard to do.

I think the protection is there for those cases where truly stupid people actually say "sorry, I don't rent to f**s."

Why should a renter (or buyer) with good credit, ability to pay, and desire for the property be denied that property based on sexual orientation, race, or any other superficial quality?

[Gus]

Quote: he would need to prove that his race was the reason for my decision.
There's the key. It's a thought crime because it is only based on the motivation or the reason behind the denial.

Quote: Why should a renter (or buyer) with good credit, ability to pay, and desire for the property be denied that property based on sexual orientation, race, or any other superficial quality?
Because it's the owner's building and the owner has the right to choose whoever he wants to occupy his building because it is his. Property rights.

[F'losrix]

I'm a bit confused - does the hate crime bill actually cover plain old discrimination? I thought it was only violent crimes where hate was the driving factor?

My opinion - 'hate crime' legislation is a bad solution to a worse problem. I doubt it will really act as a deterrent - and if that is true, what is the point of heaping on extra penalties, then?

This gets into the realm of policing based on thought instead of behavior - a dangerous undertaking.

[John Galt]

This should be found unconstitutional if taken upunder Morrison. There is no reason for the Federal government to be policing these matters and no constitutional authorization to do so.

[Enoch]

The ultimate issue is that of violent crimes, not discrimination in property rights, etc., as Mystic pointed out.

I disagree that these laws won't, entirely, act as a deterrent.

Granted, those with the motive to violently hurt others based on their sexuality or race will most likely do so regardless of punishment. However, if the stiffer penalties for such an act deter even ONE person from committing a violent crime, then it is has done its job.

(But, as for the property rights question, I will admit to being biased. I have, on more than one occasion, been witness to discrimination based on sexual orientation. And, while overt discrimination has not happened to me, I have seen the effects it has on people.)

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I'm a bit confused - does the hate crime bill actually cover plain old discrimination? I thought it was only violent crimes where hate was the driving factor?

My opinion - 'hate crime' legislation is a bad solution to a worse problem. I doubt it will really act as a deterrent - and if that is true, what is the point of heaping on extra penalties, then?

This gets into the realm of policing based on thought instead of behavior - a dangerous undertaking.

Agreed.

I also do not see how these things could be Constitutional on top of my misgivings about the policy in the first place.

Furthermore the fact the government should not be able to make criminal certian thought should outwiegh any positives that someone might see.