Michele Bachmann: Protecting gay people from hate crimes is "the very definition of tyranny"

[marmar]

from ThinkProgress:




GOP Hysterical Over Hate Crimes Bill Because It Would Protect Gay People

The House is scheduled to vote today on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The bill, also called the Matthew Shepard Act, would "permit greater federal involvement in investigating hate crimes and expand the federal definition of such crimes to include those motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability." Yesterday, President Obama urged Congress "to act on this important civil rights issue," and pass the bill. Indeed, in 2007, the most recent year for which statics are available, there were 7,621 single-bias hate crimes that involved 8,999 offenses, more than 50 percent of which were racially-motivated.

The right wing, unsurprisingly, is up in arms over extending protection to victims of anti-gay crimes. Led by Rep. Steve King (R-IA), House Republicans took to the floor last night to warn that the bill would impose "tyranny," create a "Big Brother" government, and end religious freedom:

REP MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): I feel that this hate crime legislation could be considered the very definition of tyranny.

REP. GRESHMAN BARRET (R-SC): This bill would inhibit religious freedom in our society -- a scary thought.

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): You think a pregnant mother does not deserve the protection of a homosexual? You think a military member doesn't deserve the protection of a transvestite?

REP. STEVE KING (R-IA): I, Mr. Speaker, oppose and I defy the logic of the people that would advocate for such legislation the very idea we could divine what goes on in the heads of people when they commit crimes.

Watch a compilation: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/29/hate-crimes-hysteria/


Hate crimes laws go after violent crimes, not thoughts. In fact, the law specifically stipulates that "evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense."

Apparently unbeknownst to House Republicans, a federal hate crimes law already exists: Passed in 1968, it allowed federal investigation and prosecution of hate crimes based on race, religion, and national origin. The new law would simply add sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected groups, and allow local governments to get needed resources from the federal government for investigations and prosecutions. The need for such parity was made starkly clear more than a decade ago, in 1998, during the investigations of two different murders:

The Laramie, Wyoming Sheriff’s Office had to furlough five deputies in order to cover the more than $150,000 that it cost to investigate Matthew Shepard’s murder. Yet when Jasper, Texas investigated the lynching of James Byrd, Jr., it received $284,000 in federal funds because Byrd’s murder was motivated by race, rather than sexual orientation.

Since then, members of Congress have sought to pass an expanded hate crimes law. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed both houses in 2007, but was stripped from a larger bill after President Bush vowed to veto it.

More than thirty states already have hate crime legislation that includes anti-gay crimes -- and in none of those states has notorious gay hater Fred Phelps been arrested for his speech. It's clear what the GOP is really concerned about is any perceived infringement on their right to discriminate against gay people.

Update: Debating the bill on the House floor today, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) called Matthew Shepherd's murder "a hoax" and denied that it was a hate crime. Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/29/hate-crimes-hysteria/

......

Update: The House passed the bill today, 249 to 175. 18 Republicans joined 231 Democrats to approve the bill.


http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/29/hate-crimes-hysteria/

[EFerrari]

1. I watched the debate in the House today.

It was surreal. The Democrats got up and talked about protecting Americans and the Republicans got up with fake stats for hate crimes decreasing over the last ten years and a fake free speech objection and the reverse discrimination argument. They were disgusting lying @ssholes to a man.

[npk]

2. She has confused her ass from the hole in her mouth

And is now speaking from it. This happens every couple days. I'm used to it.

[Viking12]

3. Of course it's tyranny. Don't you know this bill forces Bachmann to become a lesbian

Oh wait, no it doesn't force her or anyone else to do to do anything.....Err, what is tyranny again?

:wtf:

[phantom power]

4. They don't seem to understand what "tyrrany" or "freedom" mean

[intheflow]

12. It forces her to admit there are homosexuals in the world.

That maybe they are human beings and not pervs after her self-perceived hot bod. It makes her think about sexuality instead of just lying there and thinking of the Queen (or Norm Coleman, or whatever upright/uptight Minnesota women think about when doing their wifely duty).

[foxfeet]

21. "Beige; I think I'll paint the ceiling beige."

[madeline_con]

22. Maybe she reads to kill time.

:rofl:

[dbackjon]

5. Did any Dems vote no?

Can't find a roster yet of votes.

[shadowknows69]

6. You know, plenty of good people are hit by trucks every day

Nevr mind, that thought is too negative to finish.

[Lex]

7. I guess she thinks any law is tyranny, then.

Like a law that against robbing banks forces me not to rob banks if I feel like it. Tyranny, I say!

[WI_DEM]

8. She is not only crazy but a despicable person.

[DevonRex]

9. My son just got through reading those quotes to me. Sick, isn't it?

I'm telling you I think those people are disgusting soulless assholes.

[Zenlitened]

10. Good info in there K&R. Also: statements from Ted Kennedy and Tim Kaine:

via The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/04/house_passes_ha.html

...President Obama supports it. The chief sponsor in the Senate is Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who issued a statement this afternoon:

“I commend the House for its action to strengthen the inadequate existing federal law on hate crimes. No members of society – none – deserve to be victims of a violent crime because of their race, their religion, their ethnic background, their disability, their gender, their gender identity, or their sexual orientation. It’s long past time for Congress to do more to prevent hate crimes and insist that they be fully investigated and prosecuted when they occur. This important legislation is supported by a broad coalition of over 300 law enforcement, civic, religious and civil rights organizations and I look forward to prompt action by the Senate.”

Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine chimed in:

“The House of Representatives took an important step today to close gaps in federal hate crimes law and ensure further protections for all American citizens who fall victim to violent crimes of intolerance. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act allocates crucial federal resources to assist states and local law enforcement in their efforts to prevent and prosecute hate crimes, while also maintaining individuals’ rights to freedom of speech and association. More than 300 organizations representing law enforcement, civic, civil rights and religious groups have voiced their strong support for this long-overdue legislation. I congratulate the House of Representatives, and I urge the Senate to take swift action on this important civil rights issue so that the President may sign the bill into law.”

[JuniperLea]

11. Since when is it considered religious freedom

To do crimes, hate or otherwise?

No one is saying anyone has to change their little pea-brained minds about anything. This is not the thought police! This is saying there are certain crimes that are committed in the name of hatred, and if you cannot stop yourself from committing a crime because you are so filled with hate, you need to learn a lesson.

What people will do and say in the name of God is just appalling.

[Howardx]

29. they are worried about hate speech being criminalized ultimately

then they couldnt spread hate from the pulpit.

[JuniperLea]

31. Hate is all they have...

And they are clinging to it!

[dorkulon]

13. "Hate crimes laws go after violent crimes, not thoughts."

Just for the sake of argument: Don't we already have laws against violent crimes? Isn't the criminal's thoughts, i.e., his intent or motive, precisely what hate crimes laws address? I don't agree with loony tunes bigots like Bachman--i don't even oppose hate crimes laws. But let's be honest about this--it is about thoughts.

[Bluebear]

14. Consider, though. hate crimes terrorize a whole population subset

Therefore the damage inflicted goes beyond the immediate victim.

[horseshoecrab]

16. couple of thoughts on that

The Mens Rea or "bad mind" of the perpetrator always enters into criminal charges. Example: If a person accidentally hits a pedestrian while speeding recklessly down the street vs. a person who deliberately speeds up and hits the gay guy next door while he's crossing the street.

There's a substantial difference.


horseshoecrab

[dorkulon]

35. Well, sure.

I wasn't saying we're breaking new ground here, just that it's silly to deny that this is about thoughts, not just violence.

[TahitiNut]

42. It's about intentions ... just like the term "terrorism" is about intentions.

Above, it's aptly pointed out that a hate crime doesn't merely victimize one person. It is intended to victimize all persons of that demographic.

Read ...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/602

[horseshoecrab]

43. It's about actions not thoughts

I believe that it's about violent criminal actions against a member of a group that someone has tagged as "undesirable." Bad intentions translated into violent actions against a member of a group because they're members of that group = Hate Crime.

As TahitiNut has said so well, it's about intent.


horseshoecrab

[dorkulon]

45. intent=thoughts.

As I have already said, I am not against the legislation. I just think it's the wrong approach to deny that this is indeed about the thoughts that go along with a violent crime, as the OP did, and you did, albeit immediately contradicting yourself. Denying this obvious reality reeks of intellectual dishonesty. The better approach is to address the subject head-on, as a previous poster did regarding mens rea, and the fact that the intent/motive behind a crime has always been relevant to severity of sentence.

Again, I am NOT against hate crimes legislation.

[Maven]

44. It isn't just about intent, it's about EFFECTS

A hate crime is intended to, and does, terrorize an entire group of people based on a shared characteristic. Hence, the potential damage done (as far as denying that group freedom from fear for their safety) is much greater.

[Occam Bandage]

47. It isn't purely about thoughts.

To say that it's "about thoughts" ignores the fact that the law exists because of the terrorizing effect of violence aimed at entire groups. It's certainly true that intent is the center of the distinction, but that is the case with many laws. To suggest it's purely "about thoughts" is to suggest the legislation is intended to ban types of thought--which is about as true as saying that the distinction between murder and manslaughter is intended to ban the desire to kill.

[dorkulon]

50. Obviously.

I know an actual crime must be committed, and that the right is trying to make this out to be a "thought crimes" bill. What I'm saying is that the right way to deflate that argument is not to deny the reality that thoughts are indeed an element of a hate crime, it is to elaborate on how entirely normal and unremarkable that is--much in the way that you just did.

[Occam Bandage]

53. I don't think the OP denied that thoughts are an element of hate crime.

While it's silly to speculate on the motives of a person "in the room," I think the fact that the OP mentioned that intent is and would be introduced in court is sufficient to take the "go after thought" bit to mean "hate crime bills do not censor thought" instead of the reading "hate crime bills have nothing to do with thought whatsoever."

On edit: Man, that's a convoluted sentence.

[dorkulon]

54. Well... fair enough.

I think I've belabored this point long enough. I suppose you're right; I just think it could have been articulated better than "goes after violent crimes, not thoughts." But it does seem obvious from the context that it doesn't constitute a denial that motives are key, but rather that this isn't criminalizing speech or thoughts alone.

[Occam Bandage]

46. "Thoughts" are also the difference between manslaughter and first-degree murder.

So what?

[dorkulon]

48. So the OP is making a spurious argument in that regard.

That's all, really. I don't see why everyone's jumping down my throat here.

[Occam Bandage]

51. I disagree.

Hate crimes legislation does not "go after thoughts." It uses the intent of certain criminal acts as a means of going after violent acts that terrorize entire groups of people. To simply say that it "goes after thoughts" is to make an unacceptable and false implication: that the legislation is a censor on certain types of thought.

That is no more correct than it is correct to say that the definition of second-degree murder "goes after angry thoughts." True on a literal level, but worded in such a manner that the natural reading is completely untrue.

[JonLP24]

15. I remember a guest on Glenn Back said 'ABC confirmed

the Matthew Shepard death was a robbery and not a killing a based on orientation. Which I strongly believe is false but even if true which I highly doubt then why did they use the 'gay panic defense'? Also a typical robber wouldn't go to the lengths of kidnapping and tying someone to a fence left to die. Republicans are idiots and I'm not aware of Veteran hate groups and even if they do exist which I highly doubt they are not as large as the hate groups known to exist.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

17. As I always knew, she hates America.

her infatuation is with insanity.

[northzax]

18. she also blamed FDR for "hoot-smalley' and Jimmy Carter for the '76 swine flu

despite ""Smoot-Hawley" being signed into law by Hoover, and Gerald Ford being in office during that outbreak. so why bother listening at all?

[dkofos]

19. Can I waterboard her now??

No

How about making her watch gay/lesbian porn for 72 hours??

[ProfessorGAC]

27. If It's Waterboarding, I'll Help!

No kidding! I'll help. If anyone deserves it, she does. Just because she's Michelle Bachmann. That's a crime against humanity, isn't it?
GAC

[sam sarrha]

20. they dont see that it protects them too, i HATE THE F'N STENCH OF THOSE LIE'N RAT BASTARDS..

[That Is Quite Enough]

23. Rly series here, guyz: Michele Bachmann is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING INSANE.

No, seriously. And the scariest part? THIS WOMAN REPRESENTS THE RADICAL FRINGE GROUPS THAT HAVE BECOME THE SOLE SURVIVORS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

We're dealing with an entire party (even though it's becoming quite irrelevent) of people who are just. Like. This. Congresswoman.

[Postman]

24. I think she's great.

Keep this idiot in the Senate. It's good for Democrats for the rest of the country to see how crazy these Republicans are....

[lunatica]

25. The right to hurt other Americans is A God Given Right By God!

And whatsoever God Giveth, No Tyrant Can Take Away!

[me b zola]

26. Michele Bachmann is the very definition of insanity. n/t

[yurbud]

28. ''mens rea'' anyone?

[glitch]

30. Batshit Bachmann on the loose again.

Maybe that psychiatrist who diagnosed Bush through his tv should take a look at her.

[mrbarber]

32. Fucking typical

The Republicans view homosexuals as less than people, so why would they support anything protecting them?

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. predictable, they did the same with civil rights

And jane is the poster child of it

[Obamarama]

34. Michele Bachman can suck the shit out of my ass....

I don't normally stoop to vile, graphic outbursts, but I've officially had it up to HERE with fucking conservative Republican right-wing asswipes. These people keep it up and they're going to need their own fucking hate crimes law to prevent the populace from beating the pulp out of THEM.

[Solly Mack]

36. Damn. Scary little stupid fucks aren't they?

[and-justice-for-all]

37. Fuck you Bachman, you facist bitch!!

That is one dumb piece of shit!! Fuck her! Wench!

[Matariki]

38. Interesting how she equates commiting crimes againts gays with religious freedom.

downright creepazoid.

[47of74]

39. Objects on TV

[Rex]

40. Of course! So much better to be able to freely crush the skulls of those

we hate and fear. With ones jackboots, no less!

[bridgit]

41. She has access to viable health care options; that woman truly needs to have her brain checked out

Michele Bachmann seems to be breaking into pieces

[JerseygirlCT]

49. So they not only demand the "freedom" to discriminate at will

against gay people, but the "freedom" to commit other more physically harmful or even fatal crimes against them?

[LeftinOH]

52. Her district should be *very* ashamed of themselves & their community -if they aren't already.

..BTW, my Rep is Dennis Kucinich.