By Tom DeWeese
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Unable to pass stand-alone hate crimes legislation on its own merits, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) is trying to ram hate crimes language through the Senate as an amendment (S.Amdt.2067) to a defense spending bill. This amendment could effectively hijack H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which the President hoped to sign. Unfortunately, federal hate crimes legislation already exists. But we must not exacerbate the situation with more hate crimes legislation; it's unnecessary, makes certain people unequal under the law, and paves the way for religious persecution.
Senator Kennedy's proposed legislation, co-sponsored by Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), purports to "strengthen the enforcement and prosecution of hate crimes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability" by "(addressing) gaping loopholes and excessive restrictions requiring proof (emphasis mine) victims were attacked because of engaging in 'federally protected activities' (such as sodomy-editor)." Imagine a court of law "requiring proof" a person was attacked for a particular reason!
Senators Kennedy and Smith have introduced hate crimes legislation for many years. In a 1999 press release, Senator Kennedy stated such slayings as that of Matthew Shepard, apparently killed because he was homosexual, "made clear ...the inadequacy of current law (that doesn't give) federal authorities ...jurisdiction to assist (emphasis mine) state and local authorities in investigating (such a) case."
In a 2004 press release, Senator Smith acknowledged, "The first duty of government is to protect and defend its citizens." Yet both Senators have failed in their duty to protect our nation's borders. Senator Kennedy voted in 2006 against construction of the fence along the border with Mexico, and both he and Senator Smith failed to vote funding to build that fence. And both senators oppose drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Drilling would probably affect less than .0001% (one hundredth of one percent) of the total acreage within the refuge, with negligible impact to native wildlife. More importantly, it would ultimately free the American people of our dependence on Middle East oil; that dependence is a very real threat to our national security.
Hate crimes legislation seeks increased criminal sentences according to what the perpetrator was supposedly thinking during, or prior to, a crime. Such a law would make killing a homosexual more heinous than killing a little old lady.
Senator Kennedy's amendment says hate crime acts are "divisive;" so is a two-tiered justice system, making some people second-class victims. This special treatment curries favor with homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals, when we should value all human life as sacred under the law. Crime should be punished equally regardless of who the victim is.
Creating a special victims category at a time when FBI statistics clearly show there is no epidemic of hate crimes in the U.S. defies common sense. In 2005, for instance, out of 862,947 cases of aggravated assault, 177 were reportedly committed because of the sexual orientation bias of the criminal - that's 0.000205% of all such assaults in 2005. This clearly does not warrant special federal legislation and intervention.
Additionally, hate crimes legislation actually establishes federal "thought police." All crime is hateful. But combining this proposed legislation with existing "aiding and abetting" statutes could easily set up the situation where people are arrested for their spoken or written views, rather than their actions. Such a slippery slope would be very dangerous, and destructive of our other civil liberties, and should be of special concern to Americans of faith who view homosexuality as deviant and immoral.
Speaking to a provision supposedly exempting "free speech" from prosecution, Janet Folger, a WorldNetDaily columnist, writes "the idea of arresting people for stating their religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong is no longer something that 'may' happen in the future." Ms. Folger lists disturbing examples of what hate crimes legislation has already done in the United States.
The Human Rights Commission of the Canadian government is currently investigating a political website for the crime of "offending". Connie Wilkins and Mark Fournier run Canada's Free Dominion website. They post articles, comments and blogs on a wide range of conservative issues, such as their opposition to formation of a North American Union. Can't you just wait to "harmonize" and "integrate" our laws with those of Canada ...and Mexico?!!!
One stunning provision of Senator Kennedy's amendment would amend existing law, making it illegal for "Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law (emphasis mine), 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-
Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV ... but it appears this little provision would criminalize any effort by our Border Patrol agents to interdict illegal aliens, since said agents would target someone because of their "actual or perceived national origin" ... which might result in "bodily injury" ... or an "attempt to kill" ... while engaged in "conduct" involving the "travel" of the "victim" ... "across a ... national border" ... and possibly "affects interstate or foreign commerce." It certainly appears Senator "Shamnesty" Kennedy is once again trying to pull a fast one, committing treason against the American people.
President Bush has promised to veto any "hate crimes legislation," but he wants this defense spending bill. The House has already passed similar legislation, so we must stop this bill in the Senate to ensure President Bush doesn't have to make a compromised decision.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement