Total Emergency Alert Hate Bill Going Forward In Senate

reply to post by Question


...The "hate crime" comes to light when you beat up the black man because he IS a black man.

Rodney King ring a bell?

I really don't think that this will be taken to the extremes that some people believe that may happen. This is really designed to protect children from online attacks and threats. No one is going to come barging your door down and arresting you for a hate crime for disagreeing with what someone is doing or saying including the President. Not to mention I would take anything that is presented by Rense.com with a grain of salt...as he is one of the biggest bigots online thee days.

On a side note Sundancer who is your avatar? all i can say is Yum!

awesome.
they need to hurry this NWO thing up. i'm getting restless.

You folks need to actually read the legislation. If somebody already posted a link please forgive.

Pending Senate Version S. 909 Text.

HR 1913 as passed in the House.

Actually reading things is a good thing; not a bad thing Don't be led around by your noses. Read

reply to post by Blaine91555


Yes if it is tied to military spending there is most definitely a catch somewhere in the fine print.

Hate is such a stupid word anyways. So now let's say you are in a fist fight with someone of any different race, not only will you get assault charges but now it will be considered a hate crime. Or if you don't like religious people spewing down your throat and choose to speak out it becomes a hate crime. If you say anything derogatory that hurts anybodies feelings it is a hate crime. Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.

I have always sensed that in the end, there will be an orchestrated hatred between the sons of man. People will act as if they have been wronged somehow as if they all deserve retribution. Society will decay. Mankind will become victims of their own deeds and blame everybody else. Nobody will act out of common sense, everyone will be driven by emotion and fear.

reply to post by 12.21.12


I'm a pacifist. I'm all for punishing violent people.

This legislation has not one thing to do with speech or the Internet.

The problem is people are running on rumors when they could read it and know what it says. There is not one word about speech I can find.

The church groups are upset about it including physical attacks on Gays. They somehow see it as leading to labeling speech against Gays as a Hate Crime, which at this point it does not. Apparently their fears are about what it will lead to in the future not what is actually contained in this as it is now.

I'm a Christian myself and I'm a bit taken back at how this is being misrepresented by my fellow Christians.

I noticed those posting here did not seem to know what was in it. People can not discuss a document they have not read intelligently. It is not written in a way it is hard to understand and it is a quick read.

I will agree this is unneeded and redundant. Violent Crimes are already illegal and punishable. The rest should be in the hands of a Judge, so I am opposed to this but for logical not imaginary reasons.

Looks to me like Animal and his little friends have been whining that this new law isn't that bad this entire thread. Every new law is that bad!

Anytime laws are passed that make one mans life worth less than another because of the color of his skin, it worries me. I've not seen anyone charged with a hate crime when the victim is a white male.

White boy kills a black boy, he'll do double the time in prison that a black boy who's killed a white boy, unless of course the white boys gay. Personally I'm tired of seeing the white guy afforded no protection.

We already have plenty of hate crime laws to cover killing a black or a gay, give it a rest. While Animal might feel yet another law is no big deal, I feel it's over kill.

We don't need no more stinking laws !!

reply to post by Blaine91555


That is the problem with "Hate Crime" It is 100% subject to interpretation. Not only that but punishing violent criminals is fine, but assault is assault is assault, Period. There is no need for more advocate groups and causes which is where this piece of legislation is clearly headed. You don't think it's all that bad now, until you have the hate crime advocates watching your back 24/7.

am i the only one that sees this as a cue to stay part of the system and everything will just keep truckin along. Any system is made so that everything inside works and prospers while everything outside is stifled. why is it so hard to be part of the system

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by Question

 

...The "hate crime" comes to light when you beat up the black man because he IS a black man.

Rodney King ring a bell?

Lady - this is exactly what some of us are saying. There are already laws to cover this type of thing. There doesn't need to be any more anti white laws. If a black man beats up a white man just because he's white, it will not be considered a hate crime unless that white man was gay. This bill just adds punishment to crimes committed to non white or gay people. This is just the latest in trying to punish hetero white males for crap our ancestors did.

BTW - if Rodney King would have been a white man beaten by black cops - we would have never heard about it.

reply to post by 12.21.12


Exactly. That is the problem I have with this.

Clearly this bill is just a feel good measure to garner votes by saying see what I did, but if it can be abused it will be abused.

Originally posted by guidanceofthe third kind
am i the only one that sees this as a cue to stay part of the system and everything will just keep truckin along. Any system is made so that everything inside works and prospers while everything outside is stifled. why is it so hard to be part of the system

I am just glad that not all Germans thought like this in the 30's. Some sacrificed their lives to go against their "system" that kept on "trucking along". Just because a government makes a law doesn't mean that law is right. Read a little history.

This law is redundant, unnecessary, and racist in and of itself. Punish a criminal more if he is a white hetero male. I don't want to be part of that racist system.

OK first of all the tag line
"Total Emergency Alert Hate Bill Going Forward in Senate"

Is from a religious website that claims this bill will allow christians to be censored and persecuted.

TOTAL EMERGENCY ALERT ! ! !
HATE BILL GOING FORWARD IN SENATE!

By Rev. Ted Pike
13 July 09

National Prayer Network
www.truthtellers.org...


THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

It's hate crime legislation that will not curtail ANYONE'S rights in any way.

Please people, don't jump on the ignorance band wagon without at least reading the bill !!!


[edit on 14-7-2009 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123


I don't think anyone in here is making the Christians being censored arguement.

We're actually discussing the bill itself. You people keep popping in with the whole "read the bill" argument. Most of us have.

The term “crime of violence” means— (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

Here, I've said it, and said it again. Read the definitions!!!! Here is how a violent crime is defined.

It leaves it open to almost anything; let's say you 'hurt' some one's feelings. You leave, and that person calls the police. When the police find you for your hate crime, you are in your car.

When they pull you over you've got xyz tools in the back of the car; in the trunk. The definition of 'violent crime' could show you had 'intent' with those tools.

Also, Yes let's read this bill, or that bill........ Again numerous times they've past bills with fly by night/last minute several hundred page addendum's..........=Patriot Act.

Yes, I'm calling the 'animal' out. Explain your reasoning with the above definition..........Or any of you others who say this bill is nothing!

Originally posted by tallcool1
reply to post by jfj123

 

I don't think anyone in here is making the Christians being censored arguement.

We're actually discussing the bill itself. You people keep popping in with the whole "read the bill" argument. Most of us have.

excellent, you've read the bill so you obviously understand there are no problems with it. Glad we cleared that up

Also, the ACTUAL source for the opening tag line comes from a christian website that is indeed claiming they will be censored.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by jfj123]

reply to post by Blaine91555


Yes, maybe when you read the bill the DEFINITIONS are what actually make the reasoning of the bill, or any LEGAL text.

Go read the definitions, and apply them to what you read as 'good'. If you still see it as good, then well that's an area I guess is for you......... When this government makes vaccines 'good', and 'mandatory', you can run around again telling people it's "all good"..................Read the DEFINITIONS.

This is no "christian" issue; as I am not that. It is an issue of the very sacred Right to Freedom of Speech.

Originally posted by TornMind
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Yes, maybe when you read the bill the DEFINITIONS are what actually make the reasoning of the bill, or any LEGAL text.

Go read the definitions, and apply them to what you read as 'good'. If you still see it as good, then well that's an area I guess is for you......... When this government makes vaccines 'good', and 'mandatory', you can run around again telling people it's "all good"..................Read the DEFINITIONS.

This is no "christian" issue; as I am not that. It is an issue of the very sacred Right to Freedom of Speech.

The bill has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
In addition, there has been this type of hate crime legislation for YEARS and I don't see anyone complaining about that ????

reply to post by jfj123


Yes I have read the bill. It is clearly aimed at white hetero males in some sort of making up for slavery way. This isn't even hidden or secret. Section 2 paragraphs 7 & 8 state:

"(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

2(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct ‘races’. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

So again I say that we have current laws against violent crimes to be punishable equally to all races, creeds, etc. This law is extra punishment for white hetero males.

reply to post by jfj123


by the very definition used in the bill a 'crime of violence' can be bent to mean just about anything. If you are part of a group which is targeted, or thrown in as a profile; if you are part of a group which is defined as targeting, or thrown in with that group, then they can construe that as aiding to threat of actual physical hands on violence......................however, the definition doesn't need hands on grabbing violence..............just the perceived threat of it.