Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. Senate Bill S.1105 Kennedy sponsor, Kerry co-sponsor.  I also see bi-partisan support with Collins, Specter, Snowe and even Holy Joe for gosh sakes. Dubya is pushing the veto card on this one as well.  Bowers had a good write up recently asking if Republicans even care about winning elections any more.

    • all legislators, even staunch supporters, need to know that they in turn are supported in their districts in certain areas of legislative concern. 

      <

      p>
      also, there is the matter of bolstering future legislation with support for today’s legislation.  if, for example, senator X is firmly for the present act but hears little support from the constituents, will senator X work so hard on the next related bill?  perhaps not. 

      <

      p>
      so don’t withhold supportive calls to Kennedy & Kerry.  they are valuable both to them now and to us in the future.

  2. The hate crimes bill provides resources for the investigation of violent actions – not beliefs, thoughts, or words. The proposed federal statute does not punish nor prohibit free expression of one’s religious beliefs.

    <

    p>
    Can an athiest who despises homosexuals – say, on eugenic grounds – get the same protection?

    <

    p>
    The reason I ask is that the Barnstable County DA’s office offered this EXACT explaination as to why hate crimes weren’t being prosecuted in Provincetown – that it was nasty name calling, but not followed by an action – and that we deemed insufficient (NOT the DJ, but the other examples cite).

    <

    p>
    CLARIFY this, Laurel.  Surely the right to hold another in esteem or lack thereof isn’t merely a RELIGIOUS right – or you’ll have to found a Order of Bush Haters, PDQ.

    • a hate crime is committed when someone physically attacks another person while stating the reason to be tha the person is in one of the protected categories.  whether the attacker is atheist, zoroastrian or christian is immaterial.

    • i actually answered the question you asked.  sorry!  you asked whether an atheist has the same protected speech that others have on religious grounds.  am i getting it right now?

      <

      p>
      my answer is, i’m not sure. we all have 1st amendment rights, but religious people do seem to get special rights or consideration.  i would love for a constitutional lawyer to chime in here.

      <

      p>
      one thing i do know is that to be a conscientious objector to the military, you must belong to an established religion.  atheists are NOT allowed to conscientiously object!  at least, this was how things were when my brother had to register.  in my opinion, it is a grave misunderstanding about the root of conscience (the individual heart, not religious doctrine), and is a gross injustice against citizens who don’t buy into sanctioned religions or religion at all.

    • Can an athiest who despises homosexuals – say, on eugenic grounds – get the same protection?

      <

      p>
      It is difficult to respond to a hypothetical question posed in the abstract.  I’ll point out that whether or not one is acting out of a religious or non-religious motive is irrelevant.  It is the bias against a “protected category” (race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation–whether homo- or heterosexual and perhaps other grounds–I can’t keep up) that is evidenced before or during or even after a “predicate crime” (assault, battery, disturbing the peace, whatever) that is the issue in determining whether something is a “hate crime.” (I prefer the term “bias crime,” but that’s another issue.) 

      <

      p>
      As to your question

      <

      p>
      The reason I ask is that the Barnstable County DA’s office offered this EXACT explaination as to why hate crimes weren’t being prosecuted in Provincetown – that it was nasty name calling, but not followed by an action – and that we deemed insufficient (NOT the DJ, but the other examples cite)

      <

      p>
      I have read the material here about those actions, but I have insufficient information to even opine whether they should be treated as hate crimes.  The predicate crimes in those instances may be disturbing the peace or intimidation (I actually don’t know whether intimidation is a crime in MA, but it is in some states), and they could be prosecuted as hate crimes on that basis provided that there is other evidence that the alleged victims were selected for the predicate crimes (if they were crimes) because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation.  Merely committing a “predicate crime” is not a hate crime–there needs to be evidence that the crime was motivated by bias in order for it to be considered a hate crime.

      <

      p>
      Moreover, merely calling someone a “faggot” is not a crime.  Nor is calling someone a “breeder.”  I could list the number of epithets I’ve learned since moving to Boston in 1979 for various groups, but I’ll stop there.  But unless there is a commission of a predicate crime, there is no hate crime.

        • i was quoting interesting bits of news coverage.  i have never claimed to be an authority on the details of this legislation.  if you want to understand more thoroughly what the bill does and does not do, you need to read the text of the bill yourself.  i linked to it in the diary.

        • …excluding bias based on other grounds.  There seems to have been misscommunication between you and she.

          <

          p>
          The issue isn’t the characteristics (race, creed, color, etc.) of the alleged perpetrator that I mentioned in my previous comment, but the evidence of the bias by the perpetrator against the alleged victim, that evidences that the alleged crime was motivated by bias based on the indicated characteristics of the alleged victim.

          • …the over-use of “alleged.”  From now on, presume that the adjective “alleged” precedes most nouns in my discussion of crime issues.

  4. here’s how they voted on the cloture vote.

    <

    p>
    shamefully, those voting NO included

  5. both senators from Matthew Shepard’s state of WY

    6. <

    p>
    also voting no were the sexual hypocrites Diaper Dave Vitter and Toe-tappin Larry Craig.  too many republicans abide by hate.  why?

      • to use the descriptor “democrats”.  you would be correct to say, however, that some people of whatever political stripe do use snide nicknames from time to time.  me, for example.  but i don’t use them widely.  i reserve them for those who are proven hypocrites in the public sphere.  others may have other criteria.  in fact, i’m certain they do.  check out your own RMG for examples from your side of the fence.  and be sure to get on their case about it. 🙂

        <

        p>
        as for the republicans who voted to attach the matthew shepard act to the defence spending bill, i say to them the same thing i say to the dems:  THANK YOU!  i have never contended that all republicans are bad, but lately the republican actors have indeed abided by hate and divisive bigotry.  i hope today’s vote is a sign that that is changing.  i would love to be able to consider voting for republicans again.

      • All 39 NO votes were cast by Republicans.  The majority of republicans just sent the message that it’s A-OK to terrorize someone because they are gay or trans.  Are you ok with that level of sanctioned domestic terrorism in our country?  I’m not.  The break-away republicans are to be commended, yes indeed.  But the majority of your party’s senators are still fine with queer bashing.  Think about that.  Just think about that. You have a lot of work to do.

        • “The majority of republicans just sent the message that it’s A-OK to terrorize someone because they are gay or trans.”

          <

          p>
          Is this really the only way to portray the Republican’s opposition to the bill?  Hate Crime Law debates are not as simple as “you either oppose hate or support hate”.  There are reasonable (if absolutely debatable)arguments against such laws.  I find the argument that most if not all of the crimes that are covered under hate crime legislation are usually already crimes (assault is assault and murder is murder regardless of the hateful intentions of the attacker) to be thoughtful, if not completely valid.  So I guess the overall point is to point out that somebody can intellectually oppose hate crime laws without supporting or ever advocating hateful language or actions against whatever minority group.

          • Irish,

            <

            p>
            There is a couple of ways to look at this vote.  You are absolutely correct that there is a valid debate about whether or not there should be additional punishment for a crime if it falls into the category of hate crimes.  However, I do not think that underlying issue was what was being addressed here.

            <

            p>
            Whether you agree with the idea or not, we have existing federal law which punished certain types of crimes as “hate crimes.”  The issue in today’s vote wasn’t whether hate crimes are valid or not, but whether to expand the exisiting law to include crimes that are motivated by anti-gay bias.  In other words, it’s not whether hate crimes are good or bad, it’s whether given that we recognize hate crimes that we place crimes committed with anti-gay bias the same way we treat crimes based on race and other classes of crimes that are already covered. 

            <

            p>
            So, in theory, you could have someone who would vote against the creation of a class of crimes known as hate crimes, but would then vote for this bill.  Someone who disagrees with the concept of hate crimes, but feels that if we are going to recognize them as a separate type of crime, the definition should be inclusive of all types of hate.

            <

            p>
            You could also have someone who thinks that hate crimes should be a separate class, but that gays should be denied the status given to other minority classes. 

            • I would prefer that the entire hate crimes law be repealed.

              <

              p>
              Acknowledging it as a reality, however, one is hard pressed to argue why gays should not be inlcuded.

              <

              p>
              I would accept an argument that this bill reinforces a dreadful law, and should be opposed on that ground alone.  I would also support various attempts to insert absurd oppressed groups for coverage:  mutants, the morbidly obese; people with Fireign Accent Syndrome, the audibly flatulent, etc.

Archives