PDA

View Full Version : LEAHY'S HATE BILL HEARING A SHAM (only certain people are covered by hate crime law)



megimoo
06-28-2009, 06:00 PM
"This bill blatantly violates the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution ."

Today Sen. Patrick Leahy delivered on his promise to hold a federal hate bill hearing. Yet it was meant to only further his agenda, strongly slanted against opponents of the hate bill.

Attorney Gen. Eric Holder and three other hate bill witnesses chosen by Leahy had a four-to-two advantage over opponents of S. 909, the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The two pro-freedom witnesses surprisingly included Gail Heriot, one of the six members of the US Commission on Civil Rights who have publicly opposed the hate bill. Leahy’s time restrictions (little more than two hours) forced these outnumbered patriots, led by the excellent arguments of Sen. Jeff Sessions, to severely narrow their objections. An issue of such danger and complication demands at least three days of hearings, with more than just two witnesses permitted to object!

Here are some of the arguments which Judiciary Democrats, Holder and Leahy’s three witnesses gave:

• Hate crimes are an increasing “serious national problem that devastates entire communities.” The federal government doesn’t want to take over all hate crimes enforcement but should be empowered to provide “backstop” intervention in case the states can’t or won’t prosecute hate criminals.

• The hate bill will never threaten freedom of speech. It is only directed against violent hate crimes.

• It will not enforce “double jeopardy” (empowering the government to retry an individual acquitted by the state of a hate crime the government thinks he committed).

• Pro-hate bill testimony was heavily woven with the assertion that the Holocaust Museum shooting is a wakeup call, proving the need to legislate against prevalent and increasingly violent racism.


Most Judiciary Republicans were absent or called away from the hearing by debate over healthcare reform on the Senate floor. Yet Sen. Orrin Hatch, before having to leave, expressed the dominant question of Republicans through the hearing: Can Holder or anyone else give examples of how US states currently fail to enforce the law against hate criminals? Repeatedly, Holder was asked this question and couldn’t answer.

Republican Senators and their two witnesses attacked the hate bill, saying that FBI statistics show hate crimes are actually declining. They asserted that the hate bill is “overly broad” and gives the Attorney General, a political appointee, the right to pick and choose whom he and the government want to indict. These defenders of freedom also correctly stated that the hate bill empowers the government to retry individuals acquitted of a hate crime by the states. They said the hate bill gives Americans no equality before the law—a fundamental privilege of being a citizen.

Under questioning, Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority. He said only historically oppressed minorities were to benefit. This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc. Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law. He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority.

There was no time for discussion of other major problems with S. 909, such as the following:

• S. 909 gives at least initial preferential rights and protection to homosexual pedophiles—any homosexual who screams “Hate crime!” This problem was repeatedly expressed by House Judiciary Republicans seven weeks ago but omitted today.

• Terms such as “actual or perceived sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” etc., are the conceptual pillars of the hate bill. But Democrats can offer no precise definitions of these amorphous terms.

• Similar “anti-hate” laws have destroyed free speech in other countries of the Western hemisphere. There was no mention in the hearing today of hate laws in the outside world.

• The specific text of the 1968 hate law needs to be cited and examined. Title 18, Sec. 2a says anyone whose speech “induces” a hate crime may be punished “as a principal.” The dangers of this federal statute were repeatedly emphasized by House Republicans earlier, especially Rep. Gohmert, but left out today.

• This bill blatantly violates the 14th Amendment. Holder repeatedly admitted S. 909 gives preference to a minority over the majority. Yet he was not challenged on the way this violates the 14th Amendment, which forbids legal preference.

• S. 909 violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Democrats argued today that it is a good thing to establish a “uniform, seamless” relationship between federal and local police by abolishing at least six major barriers to federal takeover of state law enforcement. There was no time for significant rebuttal.

http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/leahyshatebillhearingsham.htm

megimoo
06-28-2009, 06:55 PM
Free speech is bad words, too

Nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed freedom from being offended. It is not a right that comes with American citizenship, like the right to vote. Just the opposite. If the Constitution had a warning label, it would read: Caution, your right to freedom of speech means others have a parallel right, which is highly likely to occasionally provoke anger, annoyance, disgust and offense.

This is a very small price to pay for the ability to speak our minds. But apparently it is too high for some. These people are the overly sensitive, easily wounded, walking eggshells among us who equate being offended with being a victim - a status from which they firmly believe the government should protect them. They want the state to determine taste and propriety (as long as it comports perfectly with their own) and enforce those standards in law. Pandering politicians are more than happy to oblige.

The danger is that their demand for the cleansing of public discourse gives the government the power to shut down some speakers and strip the emotive force from others, transforming "freedom of speech" into "speech at the government's leave."

Broadcasters, for example, have always served up programming under the threat of government sanctions for disapproval. This fact became more evident recently, when, after Janet Jackson's breast exposure at last year's Super Bowl, Congress rushed to hold hearings on broadcast indecency.


http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/23/Columns/Free_speech_is_bad_wo.shtml