Hate Crimes Bill...

from Pam's House Blend

House Passes Federal Hate Crimes Legislation

The House of Representatives today passed the Defense Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 2467), which includes the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act -- the federal hate crimes legislation.

From what I've been reading, it looks likely the bill will be passed by the Senate next week.

Autumn Sandeen

this has been a long struggle and maybe for the first time the end is in sight.

Autumn points out that the Senate is expected to pass the bill next week. it would be monumental if they were to do it on Monday, October 12th - the 11th anniversary of the death of Matthew Shepard, for whom the bill is named.

the first question that came to me is, "Will I feel any safer?"

i really don't know how to answer that. the bill makes harming anyone through hate a crime an illegal act punishable by lay. what it doesn't do is make people understand that doing such a thing is wrong, and it is wrong according to the religion(s) to which the majority of them belong.

of course, we will also be facing years of court case after court case that the christianists will pursue...

sorry, the cynic in me is always lurking. i am happy that this bill is moving forward to enactment and maybe, just maybe, it will save a Matthew Shepard's or Gwen Araujo's life in the future.

we can only hope...

you have got to see this, in order to believe it...

FOX News "hate site" bashes Obama over dying grandmother , AmericaBlog.com, Oct. 20, 2008

Here is just one of the comments posted on the Fox News website -

by joebridges[Oct 20, 2008 10:07:16 PM]
What a bunch of c*ap. Another sympathy move by Omamma to garner votes. Next there'll [sic] be a mock funeral for "grandma" a day or two before the election. The old biddy's probably been dead for years.

check out more on the Fox website here - Obama to Leave Campaign Trail to Visit Sick Grandmother

Oh, and they are connecting it to the Obama detractor Andy Martin, who filed a suit in Hawaii to release what he thinks is the real Obama birth certificate that will show that he is not an U.S. citizen.

People in Chicago know this Martin guy well. He was refused admittance to the Illinois Bar for “moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character.” Click on Martin's name link to discover just what the man has done. He was even barred by a federal court once from filing lawsuits unless the court gave him permission. He sues everybody.

where is the outrage? where is the anger?

misplaced?

some people would say "better late than never..."

i say, "'bout f****** time!"

The NYT's today, finally, put an article on the Lawrence King murder by a classmate for being gay at school in its paper. FIFTEEN days AFTER it happened! And I won't count the 89 word announcement: National Briefing|West on Feb. 13th or the 112 word one on Feb 16th when he was taken off life support. The two were merely announcements.

Boy’s Killing, Labeled a Hate Crime, Stuns a Town

OXNARD, Calif. — Hundreds of mourners gathered at a church here on Friday to remember an eighth-grade boy who was shot to death inside a junior high
school computer lab by a fellow student in what prosecutors are calling a hate crime....

In interviews, classmates of the two boys at E. O. Green Junior High School said Lawrence had started wearing mascara, lipstick and jewelry to school, prompting a group of male students to bully him.

“They teased him because he was different,” said Marissa Moreno, 13, also in the eighth grade. “But he wasn’t afraid to show himself....”

On the morning of Feb. 12, Lawrence was in the school’s computer lab with 24 other students, said Mr. Keith, the police spokesman. Brandon walked into the room with a gun and shot Lawrence in the head, the police said, then ran from the building. Police officers caught him a few blocks away....

The alleged shooter is being held on $77,000 bond and will enter a plea at a court hearing on March 21st. He could go to jail for 52 years to life.

[anyone wanna bet what the plea that some smarta** attorney is going to have him use? no takers? didn't think there would be...]

The assailant is a victim too - a victim of homophobic training; his parents should be charged with a hate crime also. Whether they encouraged it openly or by omission makes no difference. They are responsible for their son. Where do you suppose he got the gun?

As far as the gun, there had been talk among the kids for a couple of days before that the shooter had not just been agitated but had made threats. Some people might get angry for my saying this but, Why didn't any of those kids warn an adult in the building or at home? I have to blame them for this tragedy also.

Now, before anyone gets into a huff, I worked in schools for almost my entire adult life. The last 15 years were in a school that was the neutral boundary between two gangs. We made it very clear to the kids that they had a responsibility to report to an adult, and it would be anonymous if they asked, of anything that they believed could become a problem. If there was any talk of a weapon, they had to let someone know because we made it clear that in most cases the intended victim wasn't usually the one to get hurt or worse. It was always others in the wrong place at the right time.

They pulled through for us all the time. Once, though the weapon was inoperable, it worked. I was very proud of my kids. They knew how to handle it. Of course, the difference here may be that my kids lived with this fear as part of their natural surroundings; Oxnard may be merely coming from an ignorant position - they didn't know. One parent asked why there were no metal detectors. We had the hand-held type and would do unannounced random checks. In Chicago high schools the students go through metal detectors like at the airport every single day and bag searches also.

It's a sad statement about our society and our children.

The treatment of LGBTQ children is not all that uncommon and never has been. Since Matthew Shepard it's been brought to the fore. People are more aware. People are more apt to think twice. People are more willing to help - one way or the other. The outrage is finally starting to take hold - slowly.

There have been vigils and memorials not only in Oxnard, where the shooting occurred, but all across California and in other cities around the country. People remembering Lawrence for his courage to be who he was, for his laugh, for his smile, and for his cute boots. There is a memorial website for Lawrence here.

if you want to help make a difference, here are two sites you can visit and contribute and take action:

The Matthew Shepard Foundation

The Trevor Project

my sadness at the loss of one child for any reason is immense and has been unbearable at times, but for something that they are and proud enough to share, it's unforgivable.

stop, think. learn, make a statement...

sadness and shame...

from someone having the right priorities.

I've always admired Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He, along with Nelson Mandela, is one of the greatest heroes of the 20th century for his work in South Africa and the rights of man all over the world. He's saddened by the state of his own church, the instrument through which he did all his work.

"Our world is facing problems -- poverty, HIV and AIDS -- a devastating pandemic, and conflict," Tutu said.

"God must be weeping looking at some of the atrocities that we commit against one another.

"In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality."

On a BBC radio program that will be broadcast on Tuesday, Tutu was also asked if he was ashamed of his church:

"If we are going to not welcome or invite people because of sexual orientation, yes.

"If God as they say is homophobic I wouldn't worship that God."
Tutu hit out at those religious conservatives who believe homosexuality is a choice.

"It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual," he said.

"You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred.

"It's like saying you choose to be black in a race infected society."

He specifically takes on Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the leader of the Anglican Communion.

"Why doesn't he demonstrate a particular attribute of God's which is that God is a welcoming God."

"You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred.

"It's like saying you choose to be black in a race infected society."

Criticising Williams, he added: "Why doesn't he demonstrate a particular attribute of God's which is that God is a welcoming God." Agence France Presse

it must be very difficult for a man who not only teaches the word of Christ but abides by his precepts in all parts of his life to deal with comrades who focus on destroying others and peace...

a big question on the Phelps' case...

I think most all of us are in favor of the "free speech" right for the Phelps' clan and can be worried of the repercussions of the Phelps' decision. We have to protect free speech over everything else. If we don't, we might not be able to post here, and we all know there are those "out there" who would gladly censor in their quest to control. The description "sacrosanct" to describe free speech is apt.

In thinking about this and reading stories and the replies here for the last few days, it's obvious we all detest what Phelps and others do, but we, for the most part, think that it could open up a can of worms.

One of the thoughts that keeps coming around and around in my thinking is trying to determine that, though they have the right to say the things they do, the real question is about "where" they are saying them.

Are there places where there should be limits to free speech?

I think of the classic case of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.

Someone brought up protesters at a presidential speech or news conference. It's true that free speech is thwarted at most, if not all, of the Bush/Cheney appearances. It would seem that there should be no control over speech here, if we are to have transparent government.

Is a funeral one of those places? To be ridiculous - would it be all right for Phelps to demonstrate at a funeral for, say, Dick Cheney or George Bush?

I don't know. I certainly would have no problem with it.

Also, there is a need to take into consideration the "message" of the protesters. Is it just? Is it fair? We've been dealing with this issue of free speech for over 200 years. Would this even be an issue if we hadn't lived through the last 7 years of secrecy, lies, and threatened loss of basic human and civil rights?

just asking...

promote the general welfare...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

A couple of questions: What does promote the general welfare mean? To whom's general welfare is it referring? Is anyone excluded from the general welfare?

The Bush administration has taken stand after stand in favor of big business and big government time after time, at the expense of the general welfare for individual citizens. Look at the EPA, the DoJ, and Medicare/Medicaid.

SCOTUS yesterday said that the federal government has the right and responsibility to maintain and reach safe levels of hothouse gases. Bush's response: we're doing enough already. The general welfare is not being promoted allowing continued pollution levels.

The DoJ, or specifically Bush's political appointees, last year interfered with a federal lawsuit against Big Tobacco. It ordered the US attorneys handling the case to lower the sought after settlement and placed strictures on the course of action they should take in conducting the case. The general welfare is not being promoted by tying the hands of jurists in seeking to regulate not only a proven health issue but also another pollutant.

Medicare and Medicaid are on the horizon for millions of baby boomers and in the forefront of the minds of current retirees. They have seen their coverage more controlled and their contributions heightened. Funding is in question for future retireees. In addition, Social Security is in dire problems and could even disappear. The general welfare is being totally ignored when lip-service is the only thing addressing these issues.

In addition, certain groups are being specifically excluded from the general welfare when the Bush administration's base is fighting to exclude them from federal hate crimes legislation, specifically a person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The present law only specifies race, religion or ethnic background. Clearly, there are people/groups who fit into other or broader categories. What is the problem with including everyone in support of the general welfare?

So, again: What does promote the general welfare mean? To whom's general welfare is it referring? Is anyone excluded from the general welfare?

just asking...

what's going on here (part XX)...

can someone explain...

1. Why do straights hate gays?

I think your hate is evil.

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy? Does this somehow make you feel safer and legitimate? What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred? The reasons always offered are religious ones, but certainly they are not based on the love all religions proclaim.

And even if your objections to gays are religious, why do you have to legislate them so hatefully? Make no mistake: Forbidding gay people to love or marry is based on hate, pure and simple.

You may say you don't hate us, but the people you vote for do, so what's the difference? Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal. Which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you. You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you. Larry Kramer op-ed in the LA Times

Hatred is indeed a vile thing. In the 60's & 70's, hippies fomenting the Age of Aquarius placed flowers in the rifle barrels of soldiers and riot police trying to prevent their free speech against the Vietnam War. In mid-20th century Europe, Germans blamed Jews as the root of all evil and exterminated 6 million of them. For centuries, black people have faced enslavement and bigotry solely because of the color of their skin. The words of the christianists model, Jesus, order them to dispel hatred:

Matthew 22:37-40 -- Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

oh, wait... Jesus didn't say it first:

Leviticus 19:18 -- Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

...and isn't Leviticus what the christianists quote against gays? you can't have it both ways. can you? just asking...

2. Senate limits Gonzales' hiring authority

The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal prosecutors...

...the Senate by a 94-2 vote passed a bill that would cancel the attorney general's power to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation.

94 - 2!

Essentially, the Senate returned the law regarding the appointments of U.S. attorneys to where it was before Congress passed the Patriot Act, including the unilateral appointment authority the administration had sought in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks.

are we starting to see the beginning of some return to constitutional normalcy? just asking...

3. Fitzgerald Ranked During Leak Case

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.

The chart was the first step in an effort to identify U.S. attorneys who should be removed. Two prosecutors who received the same ranking as Fitzgerald were later fired, documents show.

So, what do you suppose kept him off of the list? While the other USA's were allegedly investigating local corruption, Fitzgerald was hunting at the top. How would it have looked, if they had fired him? If the episode has taken this long to get into the MSM and public eye, [Remember, Sen. Diane Feinstein first brought it to the fore weeks ago.] should they have taken action against USA Fitzgerald all hell would have broken loose much louder and sooner. Do you think that Cheney, Rove, et. al. see Mr. Fitzgerald as their Danton? just asking...

4. President Bush: “I will resist all attempts to subpoena WH officials”

With the heat coming down on the White House and Attorney General, President Bush addressed the media today and went on the defensive against Democrats, accusing them of trying to "score political points" rather than seeking the truth. He promised to resist all WH subpoenas and insisted that his deal to let Rove and Miers "meet" with members of Congress is more than generous. President Bush kept making the point over and over that allowing his staff members (i.e. Karl Rove) to testify under oath would hamper his ablility to "get quality advice..."

(Some quality!) There really is flimsy precedent for this stand. Former presidents, including Clinton, allowed WH officials to testify in Congress. The White House and Republicans are using Clinton as an argument in their actions since he removed all of the USA's at the very beginning of his term. It's a bit different. He didn't pick and choose. He removed all of them right as he entered the White House not during his presidency and not people that he had put in the positions. Oh, wait, I forgot about Nixon. He had quality advice also. So, what, possibly, could George W have to hide? just asking...

[3.22.07 Update: George W's father did the exact same thing as Clinton on his taking over the presidency - he fired all the USA's.]


Sources: latimes.com, news.yahoo.com, Washington Post, Crooks & Liars

what's going on here (part XIX)...

can someone explain...

72-year old Gay bashing victim dies from injuries

Earlier this week, Andy at Towleroad made us aware of the brutal and senseless gay bashing of a 72 year old resident of Detroit. Today, the victim, Andrew Anthos, died from his injuries....

Don't tell us hate crimes don't matter. Don't tell us we don't need protections. Don't tell us we need to move on. Don't tell us that while members of our community are still being bashed. And, don't be mistaken: We're still not safe in America.

And a quick note: The religious right is lying to you. They say they oppose hate crimes legislation. No they don't. There already is a federal hate crimes law, and it covers the religious right (race, color, religion or national origin). What we're proposing is that the current federal law be broadened to include everyone (gender, disability and sexual orientation). The religious right is crowing about how this will make it a crime to criticize gay people. News flash, I criticize the religious right - they're a bunch of hateful loons - every day on this blog, and I'm obviously not going to jail. They're liars. If we're going to have a hate crimes law, it should cover everyone. Fair is fair. Joe Sudbay over at Americablog

What was the man doing that set the killer off? He was singing! On the bus. The attacker asked him if he was gay. The killer followed him when he left the bus and hit him in the back of the head with a metal pipe. What was the guy doing on a bus with a metal pipe? I agree with Sudbay. Fair is fair. Everyone no matter who they are is supposed to be protected. Even convicts and prisoners seem to have more protection than the elderly, women, the disabled and gays. What is it going to take to make these wingnut christians understand that they aren't very christian? just asking...

Ex-pastor defends acts

The attorney for a former Baptist church leader who had spoken out against homosexuality said Thursday that the minister has a constitutional right to solicit sex from an undercover policeman.

Authorities allege that Latham asked the undercover policeman to come up to his hotel for oral sex.

Latham’s attorney, Mack Martin, filed a motion to have the misdemeanor lewdness charge thrown out, saying the Supreme Court ruled in the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas that it was not illegal for consenting adults to engage in private homosexual acts.

“Now, my client’s being prosecuted basically for having offered to engage in such an act, which basically makes it a crime to ask someone to do something that’s legal,” Martin said.

Let's get this straight. [pardon the pun] This man is opposed to gays. He worked against anything that supports gay rights. He wanted gays to reject their “sinful, destructive lifestyle.” He meets an undercover policeman in a bar. He asks him to come up to his room for gay sex.There is no request for money. The pastor is arrested for lewdness. He then says that what he did was okay because Lawrence v. Texas gives him the right to engage in private consensual homosexual sex. There seems to be two problems here. One, the pastor is using a court case with which we have to assume he was totally opposed in his own defense. Two, the Kansas City Police & prosecutor are saying that they have a right to arrest and prosecute anyone for wanting/having gay sex. How is that following the dictates of Lawrence v. Texas and isn't the pastor calling the kettle burnt? just asking...

'Secretive' Christian conservative club 'dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election'

"A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn," David D. Kirkpatrick writes. "The event was a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including then-Gov. George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign."

Kirkpatrick adds, "But in a stark shift from the group’s influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election."

Okay. Let's see what's more surprising. That there is a Secretive Christian Conservative Club? Nahhhh... That there isn't a dufus they can choose to pander to them? Posssssibly... That there isn't anyone dumb enough to believe that he/she needs them? Probbbbably... That there isn't a conservative that meets all of their qualifications for conservative? Defffffinitely... That King George W won't be able to kiss their collective asses after January 20, 2009? Absssssolutely... That they may loose any influence to make more money for their pulpits? Aye, there's the rub...

U.S. can't afford another war: Iran - Chicago Sun-Times
Pentagon drafting plans to bomb Iran - Americablog.com

Iran's foreign minister said Saturday the United States was in no position for another war, and maintained that negotiations -- not threats -- were the only way to resolve the standoff over its nuclear activities.
Manouchehr Mottaki was responding to Vice President Dick Cheney, who renewed Washington's warning to Iran earlier Saturday that "all options" were on the table if Tehran continues to defy U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment.

Mottaki said the United States could not afford to settle its differences with Iran by launching a third war after Afghanistan and Iraq. - Chicago Sun-Times

and

What the hell. We can't win two wars, so let's have three! These people are seriously nuts. Oh, but the plans are to "just" bomb Iran's ability to help the insurgents in Iraq. Uh, ok. And what do we do when the Iranians decide to flood across the boarder and hit us back? Of course, this is exactly what Bush wants to have happen - he wants all out war with Iran. The problem is the Iranians know that we don't have the ability anymore to fight a third war against them. So what the hell is Bush doing? We have an idiot as president. - Americablog.com

We have an idiot for a president. I don't think it could be said any better. Oh, wait...

Impeach the bastard!

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde

Sources: Americablog, Kansas City Star, The Raw Story, Americablog & Chicago Sun-Times