Sign in or 
Location: Join the Impact Discussion Forum
Discussion: The Crescendo of Hate's Cry (a Hate Crime legislation analysis)
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 5 posts
ragnarokfinis |
The Crescendo of Hate's Cry (a Hate Crime legislation analysis)
May 6 2009, 1:28 PM EDT
One week ago, the American Family Association, with the support of several organisations, issued a statement against the current Hate Crimes amendment in Congress. Intrigued, I decided that I would embark upon a journey, investigating their claims. What started as my analysis of their statements resulted in my going through the hate crimes legislation to explain and elaborate on what it means, and then a look through their claims.I present this to you (alas, you will have to click my blog link as the actual analysis surpasses the character limit here). I cover what is and is not part of the bill, as well as an analysis of what the opposition is saying, with a look through the APA and the DSM-IV. It is a lovely romp in the park, in case anyone is interested. I would also value any comments pertaining to this, just so I can ensure that any questions are answered. Just providing this because I have seen very few in depth analysis reports, and it is important to know what we are supporting in order to fully support it. Submitted for your approval: http://ragnarokfinis.blogspot.com/2009/04/crescendo-of-hates-cry-molto-allegro.html Thanks, and I hope this helps clear any confusions. &YT 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?
Keyword tags:
AFA
APA
congress
hate crimes
matthew shepard
politics
|
atmasilver |
1. RE: The Crescendo of Hate's Cry (a Hate Crime legislation analysis)
May 7 2009, 1:38 AM EDT
It's been a while since I've had this much fun. Let me give you my reactions as I've read through that:YOU'RE defining sexual orientation and gender identity? That's... a bad sign. What are the legal definitions of them? If there aren't any, that's a little bad. Perhaps that's unavoidable, but it's led to a lot of ridiculousness in people's objections to these kinds of bills. Now, I notice this bill does not appear to include "gender expression." Does this make the bill more narrowly tailored to protect transgendered people than "gender identity or expression?" What about men perceived as being sissies? I believe there is already a Supreme Court case that sufficiently protects people from workplace harassment based on perceived gender expression. There are going to be holes. Hopefully the categories in this bill are can be interpreted broadly enough to fill them without going overboard, but it may still take time. "Yet again, I have highlighted the important part for your convenience. The Attorney General or their representative has to investigate the matter to determine whether or not the factors mentioned was a causality; the bill does not cast a blanket judgement over any specific group, to where any threat of violence towards them constitutes a hate crime" Some of our most ethical and principled government servants both federally and locally have been Attorneys General and District Attorneys. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
atmasilver |
2. RE: The Crescendo of Hate's Cry (a Hate Crime legislation analysis)
May 7 2009, 1:40 AM EDT
"The next part details the circumstances under which the Federal Government can step in. Remember the certifying individual is the Attorney General or their representative. . . . Do note that State’s Rights are upheld in this matter, and that there is no means by which the Fed can swoop in and take over without due cause."I disagree. The bill makes clear that it is the federal official's final decision, including if "the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence." This is very open-ended. Okay, so I wasn't even expecting that 30 different sexual orientations crap by the AFA. Hmm... I believe "everywhere else" is properly defined as case law. If our legislatures are a little too squeamish to define such things as race, religion, and sexual orientation, let's look at how the courts defined it. Which does, by the way, lead to another right-wing argument that liberal activist courts can choose to define sexual orientation and especially gender identity and expression broadly enough to include pathologies or socially deviant actions under a protected class. I think case law is pretty clear on what sexual orientation is. I don't know about gender identity. However, even so, I strongly trust the courts--especially our current Supreme Court--to get the definitions right. The liberals would check with the gay groups and society while the conservatives would check with the APA. Or is it the other way around? Then again, in that Boy Scouts case the Chief Justice infamously accepted an argument that "morally straight" can mean heterosexual. Oh, I didn't know the APA defined gender identity, too. That shows you how long I've been out of school. So *that's* why the bill doesn't say "gender identity or expression." 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
ragnarokfinis |
3. RE: The Crescendo of Hate's Cry (a Hate Crime legislation analysis)
May 7 2009, 10:28 AM EDT
I am going to work point by point.1) The definition I give is not legal. However, it is what the APA has put out, with some modifications thanks to the Oxford Dictionary sitting on my desk. There are, currently, no legal definitions of those terms. 2) The words "OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE" carry a lot of meaning. Regardless of what is, or what is not, if it is perceived and acted upon, it becomes. As for such legislation concerning gender expression, one can interpret identity and expression similarly, so I do not perceive such an issue. Also, see the APA definitions. :) 3) One of my good friends is an Attorney General. 4) The words 'Due Cause' are important there; they are the caveat which ties that sentence together. I suggest reading Sec6/Sec249/b again. The part you quote is due cause. The explanation I offered is that the Fed can not arbitrarily select cases to undertake. Due cause. =) 5) You have it correct: the Conservatives would check with the APA, typically. Which leads us to- 6) The APA likes to define everything. That actually takes us back up to one. Thank you for your comments- greatly appreciated. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
ozoozol |
4. RE: The Crescendo of Hate's Cry (a Hate Crime legislation analysis)
May 7 2009, 2:17 PM EDT
The reason sexual orientation wasn't defined this time is because it was defined in other federal legislation nearly 20 years ago:http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/federal/1990/federal.hate.crimes.stats.act-04.23.90 For an analysis/rebuttal/something easier to read, check out http://rightwingwatch.org/content/james-dobsons-hate-crimes-freak-out Federally speaking, "...the term `sexual orientation' means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality." 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
