Thread: URGENT - Hate Law Legislation

I've read the link to the law, I don't understand what it has to do with B'nei B'rith.
I want to call them but I don't know what do I have to refer to. If this is a hate crime what do they have to do with this ? Where is it written about their support ?

Originally Posted by minnie

I've read the link to the law, I don't understand what it has to do with B'nei B'rith.
I want to call them but I don't know what do I have to refer to. If this is a hate crime what do they have to do with this ? Where is it written about their support ?

Read the legislation {part of it, lol} to them when you call, Minnie. Simply ask them if they were involved in '06' in helping to push this legislation.

Also, google 'hate legislation + B'nai Brith" and see what you come up with.
.

This seems to refer explicitly to violent crime causing bodily injury. So how does this impinge on speech, and why is this bill even needed, as violent crimes are already criminal offenses?

Originally Posted by Kate

This seems to refer explicitly to violent crime causing bodily injury. So how does this impinge on speech, and why is this bill even needed, as violent crimes are already criminal offenses?

This HATE CRIME crap is just that..........crap.

Give an inch and they'll TAKE A MILE. Before ya know it, the damned thing's morphed into something that will go after more FREEDOM. I'm concerned about what they will inject into it as well.

I've not read it but does Thomas have the ENTIRE legislation posted or just a synopsis? I never use the synopsis as they're always missing something important.

Here's the relevant portion:

Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

`(I) across a State line or national border; or

`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

Note the use of the term "perceived." Note also that there appears to be no definition or limitation for the term "bodily injury," and that it may therefore not be as clear-cut as you think. Furthermore, the author of this bill has included the requirement of the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device as a red herring, because that requirement is modified as an "or" clause. It is not an exclusive requirement:

Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

This is a dirty trick using prejudicial verbiage that people will focus upon while in fact leaving the definition wide open to include ANY willful causing of "bodily injury." Furthermore, other apparent limiting factors are fairly meaningless given that one of those factors is the invocation of involvement with or interference of "interstate commerce." As anyone who has ever dealt with any statute hinging on "interstate commerce" is probably aware, almost ANYTHING can be tied to interstate commerce. For example, driving a car with a license is administered as an act of interstate commerce.

Let's say, for example, that a Christian group is holding a public protest against homosexual marriage. Homosexual counterprotestors turn up and a minor scuffle ensues as they attempt to take signs from the Christian protestors. In the course of the scuffle, one of the homosexual advocates scuffs his or her knee. Is there any doubt that the homosexuals would claim they were victims of hate and that activist judges would be likely to apply the statute to prosecute the Christian regardless of who initiated the scuffle or regardless of whether slurs or insults were issued against the Christians by the homosexuals?

The serious problem here is that the Christian exercising his right of conscience and of free speech in protesting homosexuality or homosexual marriage receives no protection or special advantage, while the homosexual (or Muslim, or polygamist or whatever other so-called minority group) has special protections while not being held accountable (if recent history of such prosecutions is any indicator) to the same standards. For example, if you look at the number of firings or prosecutions for sexual harrassment, compare the number prosecuted against heterosexuals versus homosexuals, even relative to the demographic percentages of each class. Look at the number of prosecutions for hate crimes of white people against minorities versus the number of hate crime prosecutions against minorities for racially motivated crimes against white people.

What these laws do is provide an unequal playing field by making certain groups federally protected classes while not extending those protections to other groups. What's more, the cases are prosecuted though the underlying factors are utterly unprovable (given that no one can say with any certainty what a person is thinking when he commits an act), meaning that the accused are tried purely on perception and circumstance. Heck, the term "perceived" is even in the legislation! Am I guilty of assault just because some paranoid person jumps into oncoming traffic because he mistakes me for a would-be assailant? Of course not. I am not guilty of assault unless there is objective evidence of assault. Yet that same person could claim that he thought that I would do him harm because he "perceived" that I was motivated by some "hate" factor and achieve a prosecution for a crime that was not committed. It's Orwellian insanity, and what it does is throw due process and standards of proof out the window, granting the state unfettered prosecutorial powers based on nothing more than perception or even just claimed perception. How can one defend himself against a CLAIM of perception? The perception, which is nothing more than a state of mind, is no more provable than the state of mind of the accused at the time of the alleged crime. The problem is that the statute is written so as to eliminate the need for the accuser to do anything more than claim that the perception existed. There is literally no defense against such an accusation, particularly if two or more people collude to make the allegation. All that is necessary is for the accuser to allege the perception of hate thoughts on the part of the accused, while the accused can be found guilty even if he can accomplish the near-impossible and prove that he held no such thoughts. That's because he doesn't have to have held such thoughts. All that is required is the vague "perception" by someone else that held such thoughts. Not only is justice turned upside down by the burden of proof being shifted to the accused, but even presenting such proof will not save him because of the "perception" verbiage. When you really dissect this law, it's not about what the accused was or was not thinking, but rather what the accuser was thinking. Paranoia or the accused's own prejudices can be converted into a crime committed against him. It's so topsy-turvy that it borders on institutional insanity.

Beyond all of this, what we are looking at is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. Note that this pending legislation is merely an expansion of existing legislation. Once the principle is established that such Orwellian prosecutions are fundamentally sound, the limiting conditions are gradually removed and definition expanded until pretty much anything can be brought under its legislative umbrella.

So I agree with 2ndamendsis in her conclusion that hate crimes are CRAP. The threat of allegation against which there is no defense and in which a crime that never occurred can be constructed out of thin air is all that will be needed to silence unpopular thoughts or ideas or standing moral beliefs that the powers that be wish to eliminate. These sorts of laws in fact represent not only a vague threat to free speech, but the very real power to quash it.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

So I agree with 2ndamendsis in her conclusion that hate crimes are CRAP. The threat of allegation against which there is no defense and in which a crime that never occurred can be constructed out of thin air is all that will be needed to silence unpopular thoughts or ideas or standing moral beliefs that the powers that be wish to eliminate. These sorts of laws in fact represent not only a vague threat to free speech, but the very real power to quash it.

Yes I agree.

Thank you for clearing that up Crocket. It doesn’t matter who you are or what your beliefs are. Eventually legislation like this will be used on ANY Group. Anyone and everyone can claim a hate crime.

Thanks for the clarification Crocket. Sounds kind of like what they've done in re-interpreting the 14th amendment.

I agree with all who think "hate crime" legislation is bad law. It is ultimate G. Orwell stuff.