What is Digg?33 Comments
- Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16As it happens, you really couldn't be further from the truth.
Conyers is responding to a Detroit incident where where an attacker asked **a 72 Year-old man** (Andrew Anthos) if he were gay and then beat him to death with a pipe when he answered, "yes."
You might want to stow those garbage "islamist" accusations until you know the facts. - Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12No, you're not clicking on the wrong link. The religion angle on this bill is nothing but smoke. John Conyers' home district happens to have a high Muslim population, which, to some, means that whatever he does is to aid his "Islamist constituents."
- Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Actually, I fail to note that application because it very much appears to be one of your own manufacture.
As was read into the Congressional record on 03/20/2007: "The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way. In fact, the measure includes an explicit First Amendment free speech protection for the accused modeled on the existing Washington state hate crimes statute."
Considering the law pertains to violent crimes, specifically, I fail to see your problem, or how it's to be used as "a weapon," by your so-called Islamists. Unless the text of the bill (which has yet to be provided to the Lib of Congress records by the Govt Printing Office) disputes the above citation from the record, you've either been misinformed about the proposed law's content, or you're making it up out of whole cloth. - Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Interestingly enough, the reason Anthos had become well-known to Michigan politicians was for his years-long efforts to see the state capitol building's dome lit red, white, and blue once a year--to honor veterans and police officers.
But don't let that get in the way of a good smear. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Yeah, but you would be prosecuted NOW, anyway, if you beat a fag up.
That's the whole point - violent crimes are already illegal, the point of this bill is to make some violent crimes different and more harshly punished than other violent crimes, solely based on the motivation of the perpetrator. - johnsatre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Am I clicking on the wrong link? There is nothing in this article about Islam. What does the bill say that would benefit one religion more than another?
- Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7johnsatre--
here's the actual event that's behind Conyers' involvement: http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070224/NEWS01/70224001/1001/news - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9On one hand, I agree that crimes should be punished equally regardless of who the victim is. On the other hand it seems right to me that people who assault or kill other people for no reason other than that they're of a different color, religion, or sexual orientation, should be prosecuted to the fullest.
All in all, I oppose this bill, in the interest of personal freedom and equality before the law - but is sure would be enjoyable to see Nazis and God Hates Fags outlawed and the members in jail. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The point is to add certain other types of violent crimes to the already existing list of 'hate crimes'. It is not to create the concept of hate crime, which already exists in law. So this is nothing new.
- orientis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The law applies only to crimes of a violent nature. You can still say "God hates fags", but the minute you choose to become God's Hand and beat up on a fag, then you're prosecuted under the law. There is no issue here whatsoever - beyond the already existing debate over whether 'hate crimes' are worse than 'normal crimes'. Please go and read the bill instead of arguing pointlessly about something that isn't going to happen.
- meshman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"This is just another attempt by the radical left to control what we think as well as what we do."
How's that gay marriage law coming along? How many states have the faithful banned it in now? - aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Call me simple but shouldn't ALL crime be punished equally? If a white guy kills a white guy because he doesn't like him, or a white guy kills a black guy because he is a bigot, that guy should get the same penalty. Either way someone is dead.
- smoothmedia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If someone can be motivated to beat up someone solely because of their sexual orientation, he is bound to re-offend over and over again. This kind of motivation is worse than say...beating someone up because you catch them sleeping with your wife. In both examples, the person should be charged with battery/assault...but in the "gay bashing" case, the judge should be able to assign a stiffer sentence if it can be proven that the crime was hate motivated.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It's Anti-Chistian because now they can't beat up gays. And they can't go around beating up everyone else that disagrees with them :
- saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way. In fact, the measure includes an explicit First Amendment free speech protection for the accused modeled on the existing Washington state hate crimes statute."
http://www.civilrights.org/assets/pdfs/Dear-Colleague-for-the-LLEHCPA-of-2007.pdf - johnsatre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I see, thanks!
- elisa72, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6When are they going to include politically-motivated crimes in the hate crimes and civil rights bills? How many people have been mistreated at work because of their political affiliation? Or had their homes or cars vandalized?
- aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"he is bound to re-offend over and over again"
A bigot is a moron but I'm not sure I would go so far as automatically assume they will commit crime after crime. What makes them different from let's say a drug dealer? Do we automatically assume he/she will be a repeat offender and lock them up for good? - Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The cognition behind an action is *already* used to differentiate the severity of crimes, premeditation and the differing degrees of murder being a prime example. Are we punishing "thought crimes," there, too?
While the thought crime tag might make for a compelling rhetorical scare tactic, it really falls short when the necessary "crime" still requires physical violence. - smoothmedia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't targeting someone due to their religion also considered a hate crime? For example, if a gay atheist attacked a Christian due to his anti-homosexual views, shouldn't that also be a hate crime?
I firmly believe that people who harm others solely due to WHO THEY ARE, and not for WHAT they did should receive more harsh penalties. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2you're a good man Verchiel777, thank you for that excerpt. i was hoping the law did not apply to speech, and it appears it doesn't.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5FTA: "appropriate and measured response to the unrelenting and under-addressed problem of violent hate crimes committed against individuals"
The sombitches that killed Matthew Shepard are serving two life sentences, one of them without the possibility of parole! The only more severe sentence would have been the chair!
Criminalizing 'Thought Crime' is DANGEROUS. It is but one more step towards totalitarianism. - Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And if premeditation is appropriate to make decisions by, why *not* specific targeting of a given minority? Especially considering the legislation already exists for other targeted groups; this is hardly new, or unprecedented.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2And this will make the offender have a more positive opinion of gay people? How does that work? Anyone who attacks someone purely because of their sexual orientation is nothing more than a low grade moron and should go to jail. However, I don't see how telling them that they're going to be in jail for an extended period because the victim was gay is going to change their opinion of gay people. I'm pretty sure that it would have the opposite effect.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2eh, as far as i know having an opinion wasn't a crime. i haven't read the bill, but i really hope they don't plan on censoring what people say because someone doesn't like getting criticized. i REALLY don't like the christian group trying to knock it down, but they do have a point with the 1st amendment. sticks and stones break their bones, words will never hurt them. you can't outlaw talking about something.
- tmyprod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Who determines whether or not an assault was hate directed? The accused? The victim? The judge? Think about it, if you are in a fight and beginning to lose you could just say it was a hate crime and send the other guy to jail for even longer. Even though true hate crime are more vicious and violent, it leaves things a little too vague. What are the requirements for a hate crime?
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3killing someone just because of the color of their skin should be punished more severely than if that person broke into your house or raped your wife. you can't exclude motive when considering the crime. this doesn't mean that whenever a person of one race kills someone from another race it's automatically a hate crime, that part of the motive needs to be proven too.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5This is just another attempt by the radical left to control what we think as well as what we do. I am as opposed to racism and bigotry as much as anyone that you'll ever meet but I don't want the "thought police" rounding up people for their beliefs. If this passes and becomes law then how soon will it be before it's expanded to include speech? Hate crime legislation is a dangerous and slippery slope and it should be avoided.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2The whole debate is silly. Do you really expect a killer to say, "I smashed his head with a brick because I loved him."
I'd say hate and anger is the base of most murder. - novaculus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4I am perfectly aware of the situation, but you fail to note the application Conyers' Islamist constituents see for this bill. Any criticism of Islamism is routinely tarred as "hate speech". They do not intend to use it to champion the civil rights of homosexuals.
- novaculus, on 10/12/2007, -22/+5John Conyers carrying the water for his Islamist constituents. He has now gone far beyond mere pandering to them; this legislation is intended to give the Islamist a weapon to use against anyone who disagrees with them.
Conyers is one of the most despicable cretins to ever disgrace the halls of congress.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is