Attorney General Eric Holder, under questioning on the proposed "hate crimes" legislation, said whites, ministers and military personnel wouldn't be covered.

Senator Sessions asked Holder a hypothetical question where if a minister - exercising his religious and speech freedoms - quoted the bible on homosexuality and was attacked by a gay if the law would apply to the gay attacker.

Quote:

---

“Well the statute would not necessarily cover that. On the other hand, I think the concern that actually has been expressed is if the action was reversed.. . We are talking about, if in fact the person, we are talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of their skin color, sexual orientation, that is what this legislation is designed to cover. The fact that someone might strike somebody as a result of pure speech, again, We don’t have the indication that somebody was motivated to strike at somebody because they were in one of these protected classes. That would not be covered by the statute.”

---

A gay attacking the preacher would not qualify, but the preacher's 'attack' on gays would?

Later, Sen. Coburn asked if the law would apply to the Muslim radical who killed army recruiter Pvt. Long. Holder replied, “There is a certain element of hate in that, I suppose.” Holder then listed which "protected" classes the law is intended to cover, blacks, gays and others who have "historically" targeted.

In this age when the election of a black president was supposed to usher in the post-racial society (and even if it wasn't supposed to), why do we have "protected" classes of people?

Whatever happened to "equal protection of the law?"

How can only certain classes be victims of "hate crimes?"

Why would we even need "hate crimes" laws, are the existing laws on murder, assault, etc. insufficient?

In the famous words of Napoleon the Pig, We are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others...

By Golly Young, I think you've got it figured out.

The whole concept of a "hate crime" is itself a redundancy. Isn't all violent crime an act of hate?

Furthermore, since when is speech considered a crime at all? Preachers can say whatever they want about gays all day long. But according to the Constitution (that pesky little First Amendment) as long as they don't actually take any criminal actions, they are perfectly within the bounds of the law. What hate crime is there is making a pulpit speech, even if the speech itself is hateful?

And if such speeches are a crime, then what of all the recorded speeches and statements of Rev. Wright, like "G-d Damn America" and "America's Chickens have come home to roost" and "The US of KKK"? These are hateful statements made from a pulpit against whites. According to what Holder has said, these statements would qualify as hate crimes, even though they are protected by the First Amendment.

Except there are two things that keep it from being a hate crime. First off, Rev. Wright is a black man, which means that (according to this liberal definition of a hate crime) he is incapable of bigotry, no matter how much bigotry he spouts.

And second, Rev. Wright is an FOB (Friend of Barry). The laws that apply to others don't apply to him.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The whole concept of a "hate crime" is itself a redundancy. Isn't all violent crime an act of hate?

---

Hello again, El:

Even though your logic is basackwards, you came to the right conclusion.

excon

Hello again:

If we can determine that a perp has HATE in his heart when he commits a crime, so that we can ADD time to his sentence, shouldn't we be able to REDUCE the time we give someone if we determine that he has LOVE in his heart when he commits his crime?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

If we can determine that a perp has HATE in his heart when he commits a crime, so that we can ADD time to his sentence, shouldn't we be able to REDUCE the time we give someone if we determine that he has LOVE in his heart when he commits his crime?

excon

---

Ex, that almost makes sense... but it is a good argument against this ridiculous hate crimes law.

This is some scary stuff. Rep Peter King introduced an amendment to this bill that read, "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia." The amendment was rejected.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla. confirmed that pedophiles and any number of sexual deviants could be protected under this bill:

Quote:

---

"This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…"

---

Not only does this bill threaten religious and speech rights and punish thought crimes, it apparently protects pedophiles and other perverts.

Pete King is a national treasure . I wish I lived in his district .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., confirmed that pedophiles and any number of sexual deviants could be protected under this bill:

---

Hello again, Steve:

THIS is one of those morons I'm talking about... Really, if you want to discuss the issues, this ain't the way to do it.

excon

PS> To tom: Pete King is one of the morons too. I wish he represented you too. You deserve each other.

Where do I get that?? I don't know - maybe when he called Michael Jackson a pedophile. If I remember correctly, he wasn't convicted. In THIS country, you're innocent until proven guilty. I guess congressman King forgot that. He's a piece of crap!

Lol have you seen the police report ? Jacko settled mighty fast after the kid's deposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

lol have you seen the police report ?

---

Hello again, tom:

Have you read the Constitution?? In THIS country, where the congressman lives, people are INNOCENT until they are PROVEN guilty.

To have a congressman state unequivocally that he's a pedophile is, in the first instance INCORRECT, and in the second instance, it's OUTRAGEOUS!

I'm not talking about what you and I think. Nobody cares about us. But to have a sitting US lawmaker MISTATE the law so egregiously, and so plaintively mean spirited at the time of his death, is unconscionable.

I say again, King is a moron!

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

THIS is one of those morons I'm talking about... Really, if you want to discuss the issues, this ain't the way to do it.

---

I'll agree Hastings is a moron, but if he's wrong why wouldn't this Democrat congress agree to one simple line ensuring pedophiles would not receive hate crime protection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

THIS is one of those morons I'm talking about... Really, if you want to discuss the issues, this ain't the way to do it.

excon

PS> To tom: Pete King is one of the morons too. I wish he represented you too. You deserve each other.

Where do I get that??? I dunno - maybe when he called Michael Jackson a pedophile. If I remember correctly, he wasn't convicted. In THIS country, you're innocent until proven guilty. I guess congressman King forgot that. He's a piece of crap!

---

Yep. Michael Jackson was never convicted.

However, King wasn't calling for a trial of Jackson or for Jackson to be jailed. He wasn't calling for a criminal action against Jackson at all. He was simply giving his opinion... that Jackson is a pedophile. Not in the legal sense, just in his personal judgment.

Kind of like if I said that OJ is guilty of murdering Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman, even though a jury acquitted him. He is not guilty in the legal sense that he should be penalized for the crime. But in my opinion, OJ is guilty of a double murder that he got away with. And if I were to say that when OJ dies, I hope the press decides not to cover the story, and that the government shouldn't be taking actions to honor him, even though he was a good football player, what exactly would be wrong with me saying that?

Same thing with Pete King. He gave a opinion about Michael Jackson, stated that he feels that the media has become too engrossed in the death and honoring of Jackson, and decided to stand up against any unnecessary and uncalled-for government honorifics of Michael Jackson. What, exactly is wrong with that? It is most certainly not a violation of the judicial concept of "Innocent till proven guilty" because King isn't calling for Jackson to be penalized or jailed.

Not a very good argument, excon.

There are plenty of good ways to criticize King's comments. For instance, you can argue that while King is entitled to his opinion, the media gets to make it's own business decisions, including what stories to air. For instance, that while King is entitled to his opinion, he is only one of 435 members of the House, and the House has a right to vote on the issue. Like, King is just plain wrong about Jackson, and a man of Jackson's talent should be honored. Plenty of good arguments against Pete King.

But "Innocent till proven guilty" isn't one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

And if I were to say that when OJ dies, I hope the press decides not to cover the story, and that the government shouldn't be taking actions to honor him, even though he was a good football player, what exactly would be wrong with me saying that?

Same thing with Pete King. He gave a personal opinion about Michael Jackson,

---

Hello again, El:

So, when YOU and a CONGRESSMAN say something, it's the same thing... Really??

Not a very good argument, Wolverine. In fact, it's waaaaaaay out there.

excon