|
|
Post by joe on May 7, 2009 17:41:20 GMT -5
"Progress" the Democrats can really "get behind"....
What a bunch of immoral scumbags.....
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 7, 2009 18:19:54 GMT -5
And this is a surprise how? Just another poorly thought out and worded, feel-good, thought control piece of crap legislation pushed by the left with lots of unintended consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on May 7, 2009 18:53:54 GMT -5
Funny they will protect child molestors but not veterans. I believe I know why.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 7, 2009 19:10:58 GMT -5
I would like to see the hate crimes crap applied when a black guy beats or robs a white guy. Or when a lefty screams "Cracker" or "homophobe" and pushes a conservative. Those are equally hate crimes, but you never see them prosecuted as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on May 8, 2009 18:11:51 GMT -5
Wade Sanders anyone?
Wade Sanders, 69, was arrested after an FBI agent identified him in October 2007 as one of a batch of suspects who were allegedly sharing child porn electronically. In December, he pleaded guilty..
Bwaaahahahaha
The ONE and ONLY guy to come to the defense of John Kerry, when he was being outed by FACTS..you know the swiftboat incident.
His ONE ALLY to come to his aid...A freaking Pedophile Bwaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
And John Kerry made a statement in his support...further proving my point. Ahahaha and you fools still want to defend a president with just as unsavory connections..LOL.
LOLOL
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on May 10, 2009 10:47:42 GMT -5
I thought for awhile that this new bill, "The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act" sponsored by Sen Kennedy would protect sexual deviants as part of its general wording to protect victims of hate crimes when "motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws"
The right wing press would have us believe that it would protect pedophiles while prosecuting conservative speech condemning percieved perverse life styles.
This is false conclusion.
The bill clearly states that it protects the right of Free Speech.
Senate Bill 909
Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act
SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
For purposes of construing this Act and the amendments made by this Act the following shall apply:
(1) RELEVANT EVIDENCE- Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this Act is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.
(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.
(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 10, 2009 12:19:59 GMT -5
Do you see the vague wording? "(2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim."
So, unless the attacker says something, how would they know it is a hate crime? Is there just an assumption that if a straight white male attacks anyone it is somehow a hate crime?
And, it extends the, for want of a better term. 'hate crime bonus' if, while beating the snot out of a paedophile caught in the act, the parent utters something about the thugs orientation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on May 10, 2009 14:01:18 GMT -5
There's is nothing vague about it.
Any physical act perpetrated against sexual deviants (no matter what the reason) could result in felony Federal charges being brought against the perpetrator (whether they were a victim in the first place.
For example, say a flasher exposed his genitals to a woman on the street and she reacted by hitting him with her purse. The flasher would be guilty of a misdemeanor while the woman could face felony Federal Hate Crime charges.
The bill only protects free expression when it is purely non physical. Once contact has been made, their looking at 10 years in a Federal Prison.
|
|
