Many issues in our nation cause political division between conservatives and liberals. But, there is one issue, in particular, that should not be partisan, and that is the safety of Americans, especially children. Everything possible should be done to protect the innocent from dangerous sexual predators.
However, based on what I am reading about the Hate Crime law that the Democrats are attempting to pass into law, that is not the case. I sure hope what you are about to read is, in fact, in error. But somehow, I am beginning to doubt it.
After all, liberals are the ones who frequently defend many evil individuals: terrorists, murderers on death row, and late-term abortionists. And they do have a history of being lenient on sexual predators. Why not add all types of sexual perverted acts to their list of the protected?
I don't want to see anyone harmed because of hate anymore than the next person. But, this piece of legislation goes well beyond what it is portrayed to be.
UPDATE: I honestly do not know if the part of this article stating that 30 sexual orientations will be federally-protected is true. You can decide for yourself. However, I am confident that one of the main goals of this bill is to silence those who speak out against homosexuality based on the teachings from the Bible.
Read about this horrifying bill from the American Family Association:
“We have confirmation that a vote on the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes bill (S.909) will happen this week. It is likely that the bill will be introduced as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. If the Senate approves the Hate Crimes amendment, President Obama will sign it into law.
The Hate Crimes legislation would authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Even more troubling is that S.909 could create special protections for pedophiles. Democrats voted down an amendment to the bill that would have excluded pedophilia and other "sexual orientations" from the definition of ‘sexual orientation.’
For years, AFA and other pro-family groups have issued warnings about federal Hate Crimes legislation. The reality is that the purpose of this bill is to silence those who speak out against homosexuality. If the legislation passes, pastors could be prosecuted under the federal inducement statute for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. For example, a person could commit an act of violence against a homosexual individual and blame it on the pastor's sermon. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. at the state level and abroad.
The Hate Crime law, S.909 (and HR1913), will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published 30 such sexual orientations that, because of Congress's refusal to define ‘sexual orientation,’ will be protected under this legislation.
These 30 orientations are listed in the APA's ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,’ Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582 (DSM-IV), which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders.
Among those sexual orientations being protected by S.909 (and HR1913) are these:
Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee
Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman
Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces
Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification
Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body
Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks
Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex
Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, 'along with' persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex
Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas
Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse
Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person
Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either
Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation
Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement
Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing
Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine
Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals
To protect a ‘sexual orientation’ under S.909 (and HR1913) - while leaving that term undefined -- is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association.
These 30 orientations are listed in the APA's ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,’ Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582 (DSM-IV), which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders.”
Obviously, some of these perversions are more harmful than others. Nevertheless, "abominable" would be the best description for this bill.
9 comments:
This is just another bald-faced lie from the American Family Association. Not only is it a misstatementof the law and how the law operates, but it misuses the American Psychiatrict Association's definitions.
First off, the lawmakers were absolutely correct in not narrowing the definition of "sexual rientation" by excluding pedophilia; when you star by listing one, you need to list a lot more, or else you run the risk of having the wording come back against you. And religious Rightwingnuts like Tony Perkins' crew love to muddy up the waters like this, because they falsely claim "See, the liberals want to protect pedophiles!" when it's actually just the opposite.
If the law doesn't specifically define "sexual orientation" then judges would look for definitions of that term in other federal legislation, or they will look into the documentation of the debate oevr the bill (the "legislative history" and "legislative intent") to see what the makers had in mind. The American Psychiatric Association's definition of ANYTHING would be about th elast thing judges would look to, as the APA definition was written for doctors, not judges and lawyers.
And, on top of it all, Tony Perkin's crew lists the 30 odd types of PARAPHILIAS, not "sexual orientations", so that group of behaviors (which are listed as mental disorders, not sexual orientations) wouldn't have anything to do with what's protected under this proposed law.
In other words, what the American Family Association (and you, by implication, Ms. Moore) are selling is a load of crap, a sick perverted lie of massive proportions. Now, I'm hoping against hope that you didn't realize what you were falling for, Ms. Moore, and that you might retract this whole sordid post. every now and then, you surprise me by almost trying to be responsible in your actions here.
But please excuse me if I don't hold my breath.
And if you want to see backup for what I've said, here's at least one site:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homorafa.htm
(And please note that, despite what you may have been told, "tolerance" is not a four-letter word.)
Ms. Moore, I am also opposed to this bill, but not for the reasons you give. I fail to see the link between this bill and protecting children from sexual predators.
I am categorically opposed to hate crimes laws for a couple reasons. First, hate crimes laws allow punishments for thoughts on top of actions. The same crime, committed with different motives, could receive different sentences if one crime is ruled to be a "hate crime". In effect, the convict is punished for committing the crime and for the thoughts he had while committing it.
Second, Congress presumes to be able to read minds by passing this bill. I agree with the authors of this bill that certain criminal motives could be worse than others, but that is something for our all-knowing, all-wise God to sort out. The only thing we know is that the convict committed a crime.
I honestly don't know what to think. So, I added an update stating that fact prior to the article.
Diogenes, I went to the link you referenced and discovered that your religious tolerance website is made up of "one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist". I don't necessarily trust individuals who are so confused as to call themselves 4 out of the 5 of these religious preferences and the 5th may be in question as well. I prefer to listen to someone who is more in tune with the true God of the Bible because then he is more likely to be able to discern the truth.
Stop. Please, stop.
There are MANY laws that involve intent. That causes juries to have to "read minds" as you put it.
Simple first degree murder,for instance. Intent to cause the death of another human being, with malice. That requires "mind reading" as you term it. How do we do that? Can we literally read minds? Of course not. We look at the facts, the surrounding circumstances, and we see if we can infer what the perpetrator had in his/her mind.
Criminal justice systems have been doing that for century upon century, across the globe.
Here's a summary of what the proposal would do:
"This legislation seeks to expand upon 1969 U.S. federal hate-crime law by extending its scope towards bodily crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in addition to the current provisions of bodily crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, and national origin. It would also codify and expand the funding and investigative capabilities of federal officials for aiding their local counterparts.
That's not penalizing somebody for their thoughts. That's penalizing somebody at a higher level for committing a crime that we find to be more serious in nature. Now, if you want to argue that one murder is the same as any other, you may be right. (Bear in mind, though, that we do penalize some murders differently than others -- murders of police officers, or homicides committed during the course of committing another serious felony, like bank robbbery.) But it really doesn't penalize the perpetrator any more for his thought, per se. And it doesn't really require all that much "mind reading". For instance, if some guy walks into a gay bar, starts yelling all sorts of homophobic rants, announces he wants to kill him some fags, and then some homosexual guy winds up tied to his truck bumper and dragged ten miles outside of town, it's not that difficult to figure out that it's a hate crime committed because of the victim's sexual orientation.
Do you really have enough sympathy for that perpetrator that you think he should be protected from hate crimes legislation?
We do this now for race, color, national origina and religion. Is it really so offensive to you to include gender, sexual orientation, or disability?
It's not "my site" but it was a site that I found that easily summarized the position I was advancing. I knew what I knew without that site; I added that in case you weren't willing to take my word for it. Google the subject' there's any number of other sites you could refer to. One in particular (I forget who, to be honest) specifically called out the American Family Association for making these erroneous claims.
Your willingness to blindly accept sources like the American Family Association is scary. They've been showm, time and time again, to make stuff up, ESPECIALLY stuff to scare good people into taking silly positions. It's certainly within your rights to accept something coming from a source that is "more in tune with the true God of the Bible because then he is more likely to be able to discern the truth" but that's a little naive. And how do you go about determining that the Tony Perkinses of this world qualify under your rather lax stadard? Because they tell you what you want to believe?
You say "I am confident that one of the main goals of this bill is to silence those who speak out against homosexuality based on the teachings from the Bible." Let me ask you this: WHY are you so confident? Have you read the bill?
Hey, I have a novel idea: try reading the bill for yourself. See if it says HALF of what Perkins say is there. And when you find out that Perkins lied, ask youself why you're trusting him to honestly tell you what the bill's intent is!
There is a huge difference between "hate speech" and "hate crimes" legislation. Try being a littlemore thoughtful about things, instead of trusting bunko artists who are looking to get into your wallet.
Here's the link for the proposed bill:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-909
ANd this part of your rant? "For years, AFA and other pro-family groups have issued warnings about federal Hate Crimes legislation. The reality is that the purpose of this bill is to silence those who speak out against homosexuality. If the legislation passes, pastors could be prosecuted under the federal inducement statute for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. For example, a person could commit an act of violence against a homosexual individual and blame it on the pastor's sermon. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. at the state level and abroad."
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A LIE. The "hate crime" is the commission of the physical violence, NOT the sermon. The perpetrator may try to "blame" it on the preacher, but the law in no way would hold the preacher legally responsible for the violent act committed by the perpetrator; the perpetartor is still responsible for his/her actions.
Now, if the preacher criminally encourages the perpetator to act, the preacher could then, theoretically, be criminally liable, too. But that is ALREADY the case right now; this piece of legislation wouoldn't change that liability one iota.
If you continue to accept their lies because they're purportedly "people of God" then you're a bigger fool than even I think you are, Ms. Moore.
READ FOR YOURSELF.
THINK FOR YOURSELF.
It really isn't all that difficult, once you try, and when you get the hang of it, it can be kind of fun...
First of all, I said that I am categorically opposed to all hate crime legislation. I am not opposed to this bill because it is "so offensive to" me "to include gender, sexual orientation, or disability". Really, I am not the crazy right-wing hatemonger you think I am.
Simple first degree murder,for instance. Intent to cause the death of another human being, with malice. That requires "mind reading" as you term it.
This is a good point, and if I were on a jury, I would be very careful in trying to determine intent.
I am not a lawyer, and I have never served on a jury, so some of this is speculation. It seems to me that it would be much easier to discern intent to injure than it would be to discern some kind of racial/ethnic/sexual orientation reason. For one thing, the amount of planning which goes into an act of violence is a clear indicator of intent.
On the other hand, the only way I can think of to prove that a crime is a hate crime is for a witness to hear the suspect say something about "killing some fags", as you put it. Even if a person is a known racist (for example, a klansman), that alone does not prove that his crime is a hate crime. I can see hate crimes laws being abused in the name of political correctness/white guilt in any case where a white, heterosexual man is accused of a violent crime against anyone who is not white, homosexual, and male.
That's not penalizing somebody for their thoughts. That's penalizing somebody at a higher level for committing a crime that we find to be more serious in nature.
A suspect could have any number of different motives for attacking or killing somebody, and I dare say that some of them might be even worse than racial hatred. If we are going to single out one possible motive for special consideration, then why not try to discern all motives and punish the suspect accordingly? One good reason not to try to discern all of a person's motives is that it is impossible. Even if it were possible to know every single motive, we all lack the wisdom to give every convict the exact sentence that he deserves.
Now, if you want to argue that one murder is the same as any other, you may be right.
Now that you mention it, I agree. From our limited perspective, all murders are the same. We are unable to discern every motive, and we should not try to do so.
Do you really have enough sympathy for that perpetrator that you think he should be protected from hate crimes legislation?
You are missing the point. My opinions are not based on "sympathy". My concern is fairness and predictability. The law should be written so that it is easy to apply consistently to all cases.
diogenes i gotta disagree with you man. hate crime is more of a media phrase than a legal phrase. and "hate crime" offenders, believe me, get there's in jails.
but, in first degree murder with intent and malice and whatever other thing involved, there has to be evidence to support it. someone has to prove you took the time before the murder to committ it (ie, you researched weaponry on the internet, you have pictures of the victim at your home, you had someone drop you off at the victims house), other than another person's account/opinion of you, there is no way to determine a hate crime. because emotion is too cloudy of a thing to judge, i dont agree with an extra sentence for being "hateful" about it, whenever you harm someone, you're being hateful anyway, so to tag on "well you hate blacks and killed a black so you're extra evil" doesn't sit right with me. murder is murder is murder. assault is assault is assault. regardless, when you come out of prison, i'm pretty sure you won't hate anymore. or atleast act on it.
See, the problem both of your guys have is very understandable. And the burden on the prosecutor would be very high, to be able to prove the hate crime intent. THAT IS THE POINT! This won't be used in every run-of-the-mill crime. This will be for those "there's a special place in hell" crimes. Like Matthew Shepard. Like James Byrd, the black guyu who was tied to the car bumper and dragged for miles in Texas, until body parts started falling off. Like (if ut were in effect back then) the urder of Emmit Till, when the bastard who murdered a 16 yr old black kid in Mississippi (for whistling at a white woman). He tied a 45 lb industrial fan around the kid's neck, with barbed wire, and dumped the body into the local river, then told the investigating county sheriff (and this is a quote) "Now what would possess an ignorant nigger to go swimming with a fan tied around his neck?"
That's the kind of thing that hate crimes legislation goes after. Kind of like the criminal equivalent of punitive damages, which we talked about on another thread. When cretins commit particularly heinous crimes, prosecutors can use this kind of legislation against them to send clear signals to the public: WE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS KIND OF CONDUCT. Kinda like sending a 71 yr old Bernie Madoff to prison for 150 years... to send a message.
You're darn right it will be tough to prove. It should be. But it's a weapon that prosecutors should have in their arsenal.
Post a Comment