The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: thundley4 on October 14, 2009, 11:10:09 AM
-
What does a hate crimes bill have to do with money for U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Nothing, except that the National Defense Authorization Act, which will win final passage in Congress and be sent to the president's desk this week, also contains the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which Democrats placed inside the defense measure over Republican objections.
*snip*
Republican Sen. Sam Brownback offered an amendment saying the bill could not be "construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the First Amendment" and could not place any burden on the exercise of First Amendment rights "if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another."
*snip*
First, the committee -- controlled by majority Democrats, of course -- inserted the hate crimes measure into the House bill, where it had not been before. Then lawmakers made some crucial changes to Brownback's amendment. Where Brownback had insisted, and the full Senate had agreed, that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights, the conference changed the wording to read that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights "unless the government demonstrates ... a compelling governmental interest" to do otherwise.
That means your First Amendment rights are protected -- unless they're not.
Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Dems-undermine-free-speech-in-hate-crimes-ploy-8371517-64046162.html)
And this ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of how our rights are taken away, little by little with no fanfare or publicity.
-
And so begins the Thought Police. How else are they supposed to ascertain that person A HATES person B while assaulting them? People will be punished for facts that are incapable of being placed in evidence, specifically their state of mind and thoughts. How can one refute an allegation of hateful thoughts? "No, I wasn't thinking that." doesn't seem like it would rise to the level of reasonable doubt. Better question, how can the STATE PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was motivated by hate at all? What evidence can they present?
Unfortunately, we've been down this road before. It makes as little sense now as it did then.
BTW, very good treatment of this subject: South Park episode "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000"
-
And so begins the Thought Police. How else are they supposed to ascertain that person A HATES person B while assaulting them? People will be punished for facts that are incapable of being placed in evidence, specifically their state of mind and thoughts. How can one refute an allegation of hateful thoughts? "No, I wasn't thinking that." doesn't seem like it would rise to the level of reasonable doubt. Better question, how can the STATE PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was motivated by hate at all? What evidence can they present?
Unfortunately, we've been down this road before. It makes as little sense now as it did then.
BTW, very good treatment of this subject: South Park episode "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000"
Well said.
I've also always been under the impression that assault, murder, theft, etc., are hateful acts in and of themselves.
-
Well said.
I've also always been under the impression that assault, murder, theft, etc., are hateful acts in and of themselves.
Dunno, Chump.
I think the shrinks and the sociologists would tell you that people are entirely capable of committing those crimes without any kind of emotional response at all. No feeling of remorse, compassion, empathy, hate, nada.
Those are the psychotics, of course, but I think doc's point is excellent - the dems are trying to legislate the state of one's mind.
I think there'll be some legal discussion about that in the courts.
-
Dunno, Chump.
I think the shrinks and the sociologists would tell you that people are entirely capable of committing those crimes without any kind of emotional response at all. No feeling of remorse, compassion, empathy, hate, nada.
Those are the psychotics, of course, but I think doc's point is excellent - the dems are trying to legislate the state of one's mind.
I think there'll be some legal discussion about that in the courts.
Ah, excellent point.