Thought Crime Bill?

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Thought Crime Bill?

arbilad · Head Chef

They just don't call it thought crime legislation. And you are right - why should it be more of a crime to beat up a homosexual than it would be to beat up a heterosexual? It's not an act of love in either case.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

It is wrong. See who were the main sponsers of it? John Conyers and Barney Frank...

This is a "feel good" measure for the people backing it, because with it they will get to crow about their success, while it leaves wide open the door for all sorts of reverse discrimination that is protected and mandated by vague federal statute that does not clearly define what can be designated hate crime and what can't.

It is federal welfare to various state agencies who will be empowered to enforce and define the interpretation of the bill.

Bad legislation, and a lot of the flunkies will simply vote for it so that they don't end up looking like they are anti-protected class.

Pt314 · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

They just don't call it thought crime legislation. And you are right - why should it be more of a crime to beat up a homosexual than it would be to beat up a heterosexual? It's not an act of love in either case.

A lot of legislation these days is designed with the idea that if there is a law against something, you will have less of it. Perhaps to a certain point. However just like gun-control laws, the criminals don't care if there is a law against it or not.

This law could easily get out of hand. cry

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Has anybody contacted your representatives?

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

The deafening silence says no.

That's what I love about online forums; we all have a place to bitch about the politics of others, but we're not required to do squat.

Kinda reminds me of people who enter the Bountiful Hot Air Balloon contest without paying the entrance fee.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

My state reps look at me as a squashed cabbage leaf...

But Bok, why use the bad language? Are you trying to tell us something about your deeper feelings? Are you feeling okay? I'm starting to get worried.

I'd never even heard of it til today, and when I tried to go to the US.gov link a few minutes ago the link was down. I'd like to make an informed decision, but the ability to be informed isn't really open to me right now... as their server's down.

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

I do contact my representitives about issues that concern me a lot. Today I had a conference with the vice president of the company where I work and I somehow didn't get to it. I'll call tomorrow for your sake, Bok.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Don't call for my sake Arb. This isn't about me. Call for the sake of your right to petition your elected representatives. They need to know that people are aware of what is going on, that we're paying attention, and that we are watching them. Your call may not change their vote, but it will send a very important message just the same.

Ray, why do you assume that there must be something wrong with me to cause me to feel strongly enough about something to express frustration over apparent lack of action on the part of forum participants here and elsewhere? We give a lot of lip service, we like to make fun of or criticize political figures and other people we don't agree with, but what we DO is what matters.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I sent the following to our representative. I was happy to see his name was not on the bill.

Dear Mr. Knollenberg,I recently became aware of the proposed bill, H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.I want to ask you to vote against this proposed bill should it come to a vote. I also want to encourage you to actively work at defeating it. I do not ask this because I am against people being civil, kind, and considerate to all other people, but because I feel that this bill has serious flaws in it.After reading the text of the proposal, I found it to be extremely vague in defining what would be a hate crime and what would not be.This flaw could allow individual and local subjective interpretation of the definition and law. In a climate of extreme political correctness (much as we have today), judiciary or other individuals with political power could use this to further personal or partisan social engineering agendas. I fear such actions would be at the expense of the freedoms of speech, expression, and association of individuals and groups that do not agree with the views of certain groups and individuals that this bill essentially creates a protected class for.We live in a time where an ever growing number of very vocal, well organized, and well funded groups actively seek to discredit values that have a direct influence for good in society. These people and organizations do not represent a majority of the people in our nation, but act as if they do.For example, organizations like the Boy Scouts of America, for example, have been under fire by some of these groups who do not feel there is value in traditional morals as espoused by the Boy Scouts. Via lawsuits and the courts, they have tried to force the Boy Scouts of America to adopt and accept philosophies that go against the very core of the Boy Scouts of America. Luckily thus far, the Boy Scouts have continued to prevail.We have examples in our own state of freedom of speech and expression being supressed when it does not agree with the views of the politically correct. Recently, a high school student in Muskegon was suspended from school for a day because he placed a piece of duct tape on his shirt with the words "I'm straight" in response to a school sanctioned day ostensibly organized to raise awareness to the silent suffering of gay and lesbian students where those in support of gay and lesbian students wore duct tape strips across their mouths. His expression and mini passive counter demonstration against a philosophy he disagreed with was found to be offensive by some individuals, and because he refused to stop, he was suspended for the day.But, using that same example, students or parents that may have been offended by the school sanctioning the "awareness" demonstration (which was part of a nationally organized movement) could not follow the same recourse of having those who exercised their freedom of expression suspended for failure to cease when others found it to be offensive.That is now. Under the proposed bill, a slippery slope is further created that could easily turn into this high school boy's attempt at passive expression being defined as a hate crime against a protected class of sexual persuasion.In other states, there are examples of parents and families being persecuted for expressing dissatisfaction at mandatory discussions of homosexual lifestyles in public schools, even to the point of legal action being taken against parents who refuse to subject their children to the assemblies or classes.As I stated before, I do not feel this bill is in the best interest of the American people, or our society. It has the great potential to further weaken the traditional nuclear family, which is the essential building block of all societys. It opens the way for legal reverse discrimination against any group or individual that does not subscribe to the philosophies of other groups that assume quasi-protected status under this bill. And should that reverse discrimination happen, individuals and institutions of faith will come under fire as well unless they cease to express their opinions that disagree with the opinions of those protected under the so-called hate crimes measures.We are not that enlightened of a society to assume something like this would not happen. I have ancestors, who less than 160 years ago, who were forced at gun point to leave homes and belongings move and start over economically, not once, but several times. Members of the community were murdered. Other members of the community were beaten, and sometimes women were even raped. All the while supposedly under the protection of the government, yet the perpetrators against them were acting under direct order or passive sanction of the government. And all this simply because their and their community's religious beliefs were different from those who should have behaved as their neighbor. This occured in the United States, not a foreign nation. We may be more sophisticated and better educated than the citizens of 160 years ago in general, but the increasing lack of civility and expectation to conform to political correctness we have is troublesome. The laws of the land did not protect the community, but were twisted many times by those who could not tolerate the beliefs of the religious community.Even today, a student at any public school can be suspended or expelled for saying certain words that are deemed offensive or inappropriate to those of alternate sexual preference or of certain religious creeds. Yet, little if anything is done should what we deem as inappropriate remarks be made to children of the religion I belong to. And unless it becomes extreme to the point of harrasment, we teach our children to just ignore it and go on being as good a fellow citizen as they can be.What I'm getting at is legislation like this proposed bill will not correct the problems of people not treating one another like brothers and sisters, regardless of difference in philosophy, creed, or choice of lifestyle. Rather, all "Feel Good" measures like this accomplish is to allow certain representatives who sponser them the opportunity to take it back to their constituency to show how successful they are while opening up the potential for much unanticipated societal damage years later.Secondary to the above reasons, this bill will increase government size and spending, something that is not warranted for the issue. Local law enforcement and local law already works with enforcement and prosecution of hate crimes. I do not feel further funding to expand that capacity is wise or productive, or fiscally prudent. Nor do we need to create additional bureacracy to oversee compliance with whatever mandates are attached to the federal funding to the states via this bill.I thank you for your time, and hope you will consider my thoughts.Sincerely,

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Way to go Cat. smile

Everyone, please also share this information with your friends and family. Every email, phone call and letter counts.

-- Edited by bokbadok at 23:19, 2007-04-25

Fregramis · Senior Member

It won't pass the Senate, or Bush will veto it, or the Supreme Court will overturn it down the road. ( God forbid it became law of the land even for a short duration)

I'm still optimistic that there are a few sane people left in D.C., Republican or Democrat.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Bok: I question the value of your tactics: namely, openly deriding members of this board to affect change you care passionately about. It's manipulative, but over time it has to be escalated in order to continue to be effective. How much profanity will be required next time to get Cat to write a letter? Should we all start insulting each other because we all have different causes that we believe in, or is this a technique that only Bok can use?

With all due respect, Make your case. Provide links that work. Even give links to people's state reps, or how we can look them up. Talk about the consequences of an issue, and let us make the decision without coercion.

We all need to talk about things to make more salient points on matters of conscience and consequence.

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Bok does have a point. Sometimes we do need to get off our rear and actually do something besides talk about it.

But I agree, the tactics you used yesterday with me, Bok, in both instances of moving me to action were rather insulting and rude. Earlier in the day, I moved to action just to get you to lay off, but obviously that seemed to only embolden you to do it more, and then direct it in general to everyone. I personally would not use those tactics, and I do ask on behalf of everyone to please be more considerate of others feelings and situations, since none of us are intimately acquinted with anyone elses. One can raise a Title of Liberty without employing provocation, if one works at it.

I may not be as willing to let the sort of provocation I sensed yesterday go without some push back should it happen again. So, lets all just be a little more understanding and less likely to resort to lower common denominator behavior.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

bokbadok wrote:

Has anybody contacted your representatives?

Let me see I can contact Pelosi, Fienstein, or Boxer in my state. Yea, that's a wasted effort.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

So here's a question that I don't know the answer to... If you live in a state where you feel unrepresented, what can you do? What other ways can people affect change or participate in the process when one is a political minority?

--Ray

Pt314 · Senior Member

salesortonscom wrote:

bokbadok wrote:

Has anybody contacted your representatives?

Let me see I can contact Pelosi, Fienstein, or Boxer in my state. Yea, that's a wasted effort.

Whereas I could contact Hatch, Bennett, or Matheson in my state, all of which I am sure would oppose this bill.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

rayb wrote:

So here's a question that I don't know the answer to... If you live in a state where you feel unrepresented, what can you do? What other ways can people affect change or participate in the process when one is a political minority?

--Ray

I've contacted my reps in the past on issues like this. The response I get is akin to a pat on the head and a condescending tsk, tsk, before being told to go back outside and play. It is really fustrating. I just keep voting and hope other people wake up soon.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Jase, I get the same thing. A form letter which I've heard already from the mainstream media as justification for their decision. So I'm curious if there's anything we can do besides that? I talk to my neighbors and such, but what else can a person do?

--Ray

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Let me see I can contact Pelosi, Fienstein, or Boxer in my state. Yea, that's a wasted effort.
This very thought process is why it is important for you to make the call. There are many many people who share your opinion about this bill, but who also believe that contacting their representative is futile. If everyone did contact Pelosi, she would then know how many of her constituents she did NOT represent. But because you never do, she thinks everyone agrees with her.

Same with the reps from Utah - they still need to be contacted by the people who agree with them, so they are confident they are doing the will of the people.

(Edited to fix quote)

-- Edited by bokbadok at 10:17, 2007-04-26

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Good point.

Though I think you become easier to ignore the more vocal you are... which leads us back to the issue at hand, as to whether this really is "thought police" or applies solely to criminality.

--Ray

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Here's a couple of sources I like to use in keeping up with the issues and helping me contact my representatives:

Congress.org - You can actually sign up for e-mails that alert you to how your representatives voted, upcoming votes and links to send e-mails to your representavies.

House of Representatives
Senate
White House
Supreme Court

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

It's really just a bill to provide protected status for "sexual orientation" and "gender identity". There's nothing in this particular bill about speech, but it's a foot in the door. People in Canada and other countries have already been jailed and prosecuted for objecting to homosexual behavior on moral grounds.

I think we really stepped in it when the original hate crime legislation passed years ago. With that step, we created protected classes -- and unequal treatment under the law. "Hate crimes" bills were really just slave reparations under another name.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

bokbadok wrote:

Let me see I can contact Pelosi, Fienstein, or Boxer in my state. Yea, that's a wasted effort.
This very thought process is why it is important for you to make the call. There are many many people who share your opinion about this bill, but who also believe that contacting their representative is futile. If everyone did contact Pelosi, she would then know how many of her constituents she did NOT represent. But because you never do, she thinks everyone agrees with her.

(Edited to fix quote)

-- Edited by bokbadok at 10:17, 2007-04-26

The problem with Pelosi, Boxer, Fienstein, et all here in California is that this legislation is exactly what the majority of "THEIR" constituants want. My view is very much in the minority on this issue. So calling her will be a complete waste of time. The folks that keep electing them time and time again are the majority and they want this legislation. That is why the phone call will be a complete waste of time. The liberal democrats are the majority in California and they are vocal and organized. If the numbers were closer, I would say my voice might have a chance of being heard. They know I did not vote for them, have no plans to vote for them, and as long as they keep their supporters happy by supporting this legislation they will get reelected.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Funny that all the liberal democrats in California voted in 2002 to protect traditional marriage, except for a handful of counties. Have the demographics changed so very much in five years?

But you did speak truth in your post, Jason. The liberals are indeed vocal and organized. The conservatives are too busy raising families to protest being marginalized.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

bokbadok wrote:

Funny that all the liberal democrats in California voted in 2002 to protect traditional marriage, except for a handful of counties. Have the demographics changed so very much in five years?

But you did speak truth in your post, Jason. The liberals are indeed vocal and organized. The conservatives are too busy raising families to protest being marginalized.

It was closer to 10 years ago that that marriage initiative passed. The marriage deal was kind of a fluke and polling today shows it would be much closer a vote if it happened today and there is a good chance it would not pass this time around. Another key difference is that the initiative process is at large throughout the whole state while federal and state offices are by districts that are heavilly gerrymandered. If the vote were done today I believe that it would not pass just because the gay rights movement has gained so much momentum in this state. The only reason it hasn't been repealed is that Governor Arnold vetoed it last time around. His political capital was much larger back then. He may just fold the next time it comes up from the state legislature and if he doesn't his successor most likely will. For U.S. Senator, Fienstein and Boxer don't even campaign anymore because no republican can get anywhere near enough votes to even pose a challenge.

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 12:12, 2007-04-26

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Folks, it is not just Bok who has heard about this.

Meridian Magazine has a audio discussion about it. Lasts about 5 minutes.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/wfw/070427.html

I highly recommend you listen to it.

One wonders if all the rhetoric being put up by the Democrats on a bill they know and knew would get vetoed by the President if it passed the House and Senate was part of the ploy by this bill's sponsors to rush through the back door this piece of proposed garbage legislation.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Now that you've had four days to peruse the bill, would anyone like to discuss it?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I'm of the firm opinion that it is a wolf in sheep's clothing in multiple ways.

First, for the obvious reason of setting some sort of federal protection for reverse discrimination against those who do not support politically correct philosophies. Those supporters of the bill who say that idea is silly do not realize that if a precedent is set where bodily injury or the like occurs, it will easily be transferred to "emotional" injury and "economic" injury of those aggrieved ones the bill is for by activist judiciary and just about any business or organization that promote or buy into the diversity propoganda.

Second, for the reason it adds unnecessary penalties to crimes that should be punished in the first place, but somehow making it "worse" that the crime is against a "protected" class as opposed to a "non-protected" class. This is simply a liberal attempt to produce congressional social engineering.

Third, it is an attempt for congress / federal government to gain greater control over local and state law enforcement... apply now for $100K grant to help investigate and prosecute "hate" crimes... all for the low, low price of agreeing to our federal consultation and oversite by the resources we will provide to assist you in use of that $100K... don't get left out in the cold, be the first community in your area to get some dough!

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

I agree Cat. Not only does this bill allow Federal prosecution, but the Fed. can cherry pick cases.

Here is an article from Family Leader Network that enumerates more concerns about this bill.

From the article:The bill also "authorize the Attorney General to prosecute violations of state or local "hate" crime laws at the request of local officials. Some of the existing state and local hate" crime laws make simple assault' or intimidation' prosecutable offenses. For example, New Jersey law makes it a hate crime' to communicate in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm. Washington law makes it a crime to Threaten a specific person or group of persons and place that person...in reasonable fear of harm to person or property.'
Not being familiar with various state laws, I didn't see this insidious effect. There is no federal "hate speech" law (yet), but under this bill, the Federal Government could prosecute speech under New Jersey Law. That is really scary.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

I am working at getting both informed and off my duff... Thanks for the heads up.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Bringing this back topic to discussion...

Just got a letter back from my congressman on the letter I sent. Here is his response:

Addressed to me on official watermarked Congress letterhead.

May 23, 2007

Dear (________),

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns with H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you and am pleased to respond.

As you know, H.R. 1592, introduced by Representative John Conyers, (D-MI), would provide federal assistance to states and local jurisdictions to prosecute "hate" crimse. On May 3, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1592. I opposed this legislation. This legislation is currently being reviewed by the Senate.

I have a tough stance against crime. For crime prevention and for just punishment, I encourage strong penalties for those who commit violent crimes. I do, however, have strong reservations about proposals and legislation that would require mandatory harsher punishment for hate crimes. All violent crimes involve hate, and all violent crimes should be punished severely.

I want to be clear I do not tolerate violent crime or any type of discrimination. It is crucial that we condemn hate of any kind. As First Lady Laura Bush has said, "The best time to stop hate is before it starts. I hope every adult will take the time to teach our children to understand and respect others who may be different, and to appreciate and celebrate the things we have in common."

Once again, thank you for contacting me. For more information regarding my position on issues and activity in Congress I encourage you to visit my website, www.knollenberg.house.gov.

Sincerely,
Joe Knollenberg
Member of Congress