Jun 16 2009
No Need For Hate Crime Laws – According to Some Conservative Christians
The Matthew Shephard Act is close to getting through and becoming a law. This has some Conservative Christian’s panties in a bunch. They claim we don’t need any hate crime laws. None. at. all. One of the reasons they give for opposing the Matthew Shephard Law… get ready for it… they fear that Pastor’s may be considered going against the law if they preach against homosexuality. Yes… I’m serious. From the article referenced:
“The entire notion of hate-crimes legislation is extraneous and obsolete,” said Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with the conservative nonprofit Liberty Counsel, adding that he believes hate-crimes laws are unconstitutional.
In addition, a number of Christian conservatives have raised fears that pastors would be prosecuted for inciting hate crimes if they had preached against homosexuality, despite assurances that the law only targets physical violence.
I’m not sure that a person could be more out of touch. Could not see that hate crimes are real, they affect real people and families, and that laws against it are absolutely necessary. The article goes on to provide examples that should hit home with the conservative right.
“If you burn a cross on someone’s lawn, or put a swastika on a synagogue, the intent is not just vandalism,” said David Stacy, senior public policy advocate of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, a strong backer of the bill. “It’s to send a message to intimidate the community.”
Good point, but one that I’m sure is missed on those opposed to this bill. Just look at the following:
Hate crimes often go underreported. FBI statistics show annual hate crimes number around 7,000. However, a 2005 study done by Department of Justice provided victim numbers as high as 190,000.
Conservative groups said that proves local law enforcement officials are already doing the job without need of additional legislation.
Dumb asses. Seriously.
5 responses so far
I think the second quote really strikes at the heart of the issue.
Yes, the claim that assaulting someone because you don’t like their skin color or sexual preference or whatever is just as bad as beating them for no reason is valid. I have heard that a number of times in criticism of hate crime legislation. The problem with that logic is that it takes a selective view at a much more sweeping, widespread issue.
When we’re talking about crimes like threatening people’s families and harassing them then, yes, the intent is very much a part of the crime.
Yeah, right. I once talked to a man who had escorted his girlfriend through a gantlet of anti-abortion protesters to a clinic. He said that if he ever needed someone to hit him with the butt end of their signs and spit on him, he knew where to go.
Some years ago, I was completely dumb-fucking-founded to hear on the radio that a couple of young men who were on trial for kicking someone to death in a park in Toronto, put forward as an extenuating circumstance that they thought he was gay–and there was no outcry of, “That makes it worse!”
I hope I’m allowed to swear on your blog. For some outrages, we need all the words we can muster.
Yes, swearing is aloud… especially when it adds to the text so well.
I’ve been so blind. There is no need for hate crime legislation because it victimizes the good christian gay abuser. The poor christians are the real victims here. Poor, poor gaybashers.
“The Matthew Shephard Act” give me a break.
it’s much more than that,
How about calling it what it really is?!. Pedophile Protection Act S.909,
If a pediphile tried to lure a child away and the parent caught the perp
and doled out just deserts to the pediphile, then the parent becomes the criminal
under these federal hate crime laws.
Look if one of these vile creatures tried to molest one of my children,they
would’nt have to worry about any laws. proper justice would be served by me.
You ignorant,ignorant person.
When you base a law on lies, you’re going to have a bad law,
You need to pray to jesus to give you guidence.