Our state lawmakers are stupid...

[Fraggle145]

...they can't even hate gays right.

http://www.edgedallas.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=&sc3=&id=103986


In Slipup, Anti-Gay Okla. Lawmakers Vote to Strip Race, Religion Protections
by Kilian Melloy
Tuesday Mar 30, 2010

Lawmakers in Oklahoma were so determined not to cooperate with federal officials investigating hate crimes targeting gays and lesbians that they voted for a bill requiring that police files and other documents be kept from federal investigators.

But the Oklahoma State Senate referenced the wrong section of the penal code; lawmakers ended up voting to strip away hate crimes protections relevant to race and religion, not sexual orientation or sexual identity, according to a March 29 press release from the non-partisan Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/).

The lawmakers’ action have their origins in President Obama’s signing last October of a bill that added GLBT-specific protections to a 1969 hate crimes protection law. Though the law only provides for federal investigation and prosecution of violence crime, anti-gay Christians insisted that the bill could be used to prosecute preachers and others who condemned gays out of a religious belief that homosexuality is "wrong" or "sinful."

Moreover, the bill’s sponsor, State Sen. Steve Russell, offered a further justification in saying that he wanted to avoid a situation in which federal officials took a case out of the jurisdiction of local law enforcement.

The Republican-dominated Oklahoma State Senate took action based on that claim, voting on Mar. 10 to approve a state law that prohibits "local and state law enforcement agencies from sharing information about hate crimes with federal authorities if the state of Oklahoma did not recognize the crime as a hate crime by its own statutes." Since Oklahoma state law does not extend hate crimes protections to GLBTs, the seeming intention was to strip gays in Oklahoma of federal protections.

"But in trying to strip LGBT Oklahomans of their rights, the Oklahoma State Senate inadvertently cited the wrong section of the U.S. code and allowed state law enforcement officials to keep crimes motivated by race or religion out of the hands of federal authorities," the press release said. "The bill stripped protections under Title 18 U.S. Code Section 245, but protections for sexual orientation and gender identity are actually under Section 249." Section 850 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

"The bill in its current form doesn’t take away rights from gays and lesbians," said Oklahoma State Senate Minority Leader Andrew Rice. "It takes away rights for religion and race." Added Rice, "Gay and lesbian citizens should be upset because someone tried to take their rights away, but minority groups should be concerned that their rights have already been voted to be taken away by the Senate. People who consider themselves Jewish, black, even Christians should be outraged."

It is expected that Oklahoma state senators will amend the bill to restore protections regarding race and religion, and take away protections for gays, before the bill goes on to the Oklahoma house.


Kilian Melloy reviews media, conducts interviews, and writes commentary for EDGEBoston, where he also serves as Assistant Arts Editor.

[goingoneight]

Fag drag? [/Mrs. Garrison]

[sooner_born_1960]

There really shouldn't be such a thing as a "hate crime". Hate is just a motive to commit a crime. Leave it at that.

[goingoneight]

Yeah... true that. If someone is shot, is it not a crime, black, white, red or purple?

[Ike]

So would it be safe to say that they didn't read the bill?

[sooner_born_1960]

I think they read the bill, just not the USC it was referencing.

[Leroy Lizard]

There really shouldn't be such a thing as a "hate crime". Hate is just a motive to commit a crime. Leave it at that.

Agreed. All the hate-crime legislation does is allow the federal government the right to try someone twice for the same crime.

[sooner59]

1. Yes our lawmakers need to be drug tested like anybody else with a job that is important, because yes, they are stupid/on drugs/both.

2. Like everybody else said. A crime, especially one that involves violence like this addresses, is a crime regardless of the motive. Does it matter that you beat someone half to death because they are black, white, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, an ***hole, or they nailed your wife? No. It matters that you beat someone half to death. Odds are you probably hated their *** regardless anyway if you went that far.

[OUMallen]

In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, a thoughtcrime is an illegal type of thought.

In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labelling disapproved thought as thoughtcrime or, in Newspeak, "crimethink".

In the book, Winston Smith, the main character, writes in his diary: "Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death."


The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four whose job it is to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police use psychology and omnipresent surveillance to find and eliminate members of society who are capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.

The Thought Police of Orwell and their pursuit of thoughtcrime were based on the methods used by the totalitarian states and competing ideologies of the 20th century. It also had much to do with, as Orwell called it, the "power of facing unpleasant facts," and his willingness to criticize prevailing ideas which brought him into conflict with others and their "smelly little orthodoxies." Although Orwell described himself as a democratic socialist, many other socialists (especially those who supported the communist branch of socialism) thought that his criticism of the Soviet Union under Stalin damaged the socialist cause.

The term "Thought Police," by extension, has come to refer to real or perceived enforcement of ideological correctness in any modern or historical contexts.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

2. Like everybody else said. A crime, especially one that involves violence like this addresses, is a crime regardless of the motive. Does it matter that you beat someone half to death because they are black, white, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, an ***hole, or they nailed your wife? No. It matters that you beat someone half to death. Odds are you probably hated their *** regardless anyway if you went that far.

I guess I see this differently. If I were a judge and had the power to do so, I would give a longer sentence to someone who assaulted/battered due to racial or religious hatred over it due to jealousy about his wife ****ing someone else.

[Leroy Lizard]

We're not talking about just longer sentences here. Judges have always had the power to impose longer sentences for whatever criteria they consider especially objectionable.

[jkjsooner]

I guess I see this differently. If I were a judge and had the power to do so, I would give a longer sentence to someone who assaulted/battered due to racial or religious hatred over it due to jealousy about his wife ****ing someone else.

That is the justification and also criticism of hate crime laws.

Many state that the law is similar to sentencing guidelines that exist in other legal areas so there is nothing unique or novel about hate crime laws.

Others argue that the judge/jury has always had the discresion in sentencing to consider the circumstances around the crime so a separate law is not necessary.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think your missing the point:

Suppose you are arrested for killing someone of your own race. You are acquitted. That's it. You went up before a jury and they found you not guilty. In this country, they cannot haul you to court again to face the same charge.

Or, that's the way it was supposed to be.

Now, suppose you are arrested for killing a Muslim. You are acquitted. No matter, because if the U.S. does not like the jury's verdict they can try you again in a federal court.

And if they fail to nail you for murder, they can haul you in court to face charges of violating the Muslim's civil rights. You could end up going through years of trials for a crime that you didn't commit and for which your own state has found you not guilty.

Like the race of a person should not affect how you treat them, the race of a victim should not matter when it comes to filing charges against an alleged attacker.

And if you call the Muslim a bad name, they can prosecute you for that too in many states. You can even be prosecuted for calling Obama in public a "dirty Commie" if you say it to his face.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I don't run around killing people so I don't give a ****.

[Leroy Lizard]

Killing? This goes far beyond murder. Get in a bar fight and you could end up feeling the effects of this legislation. Whether guilty or not.

[RACHEL MADDOW is my clone]

Well, theyall have R's next to their name. Of course their stupid. They try to foist religion down our throats and won't give us real beer.

[Leroy Lizard]

Well, theyall have R's next to their name. Of course their stupid. They try to foist religion down our throats and won't give us real beer.

:rolleyes:

[Crucifax Autumn]

Heh.

[OklahomaTuba]

release from the non-partisan Center for American Progress.

Heh. This is like calling the communist party non-partisan.

[Leroy Lizard]

Yeah, if they use the word "Progress" in their title that is usually a dead giveaway. Here is the bio on their esteemed leader.


John Podesta is the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. Under his leadership, the Center has become a notable leader in the development of and advocacy for progressive policy.

Prior to founding the Center in 2003, Podesta served as White House Chief of Staff to President William J. Clinton. He served in the president's cabinet and as a principal on the National Security Council. While in the White House, he also served as both an assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff, as well as staff secretary and a senior policy advisor on government information, privacy, telecommunications security, and regulatory policy.

Most recently, Podesta served as co-chair of President Obama’s transition, where he coordinated the priorities of the incoming administration’s agenda, oversaw the development of its policies, and spearheaded its appointments of major cabinet secretaries and political appointees.

Additionally, Podesta has held numerous positions on Capitol Hill, including counselor to Democratic Leader Senator Thomas A. Daschle (1995-1996); chief counsel for the Senate Agriculture Committee (1987-1988); and chief minority counsel for the Senate Judiciary Subcommittees on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks; Security and Terrorism; and Regulatory Reform (1981-1987).

A Chicago native, Podesta is a graduate of Knox College and the Georgetown University Law Center, where he is currently a visiting professor of law. He also authored The Power of Progress: How America’s Progressives Can (Once Again) Save Our Economy, Our Climate and Our Country.

Notice he is also from Chicago. Imagine that.

[TUSooner]

I think your missing the point:

Suppose you are arrested for killing someone of your own race. You are acquitted. That's it. You went up before a jury and they found you not guilty. In this country, they cannot haul you to court again to face the same charge.

Or, that's the way it was supposed to be.

Now, suppose you are arrested for killing a Muslim. You are acquitted. No matter, because if the U.S. does not like the jury's verdict they can try you again in a federal court.

And if they fail to nail you for murder, they can haul you in court to face charges of violating the Muslim's civil rights. You could end up going through years of trials for a crime that you didn't commit and for which your own state has found you not guilty.

Like the race of a person should not affect how you treat them, the race of a victim should not matter when it comes to filing charges against an alleged attacker.

And if you call the Muslim a bad name, they can prosecute you for that too in many states. You can even be prosecuted for calling Obama in public a "dirty Commie" if you say it to his face.

Your civil rights example is not about "hate crime" legislation.

[picasso]

Fraggle is a day late and a dollar short.