White house opposes hate crime bill

[tsntx]

WASHINGTON - The White House issued a veto threat Thursday against legislation that would expand federal hate crime law to include attacks motivated by the victims' gender or sexual orientation.
ADVERTISEMENT

The hate crimes bill, with strong Democratic backing, is expected to pass the House Thursday. Similar legislation is moving through the Senate.

But the legislation, which also would increase the penalties for bias-based violence, has met outspoken resistance from conservative groups and their Republican allies in Congress, who warn that it undermines freedom of speech, religious expression and equal protection under the law.

The White House, in a statement, said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and "there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."

It also questioned the constitutionality of federalizing the acts of violence barred by the bill and said that if it reaches the president's desk "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

The White House also noted that the bill would leave out other classes such as the elderly, members of the military or police officers.

Hate crimes under current federal law apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national original. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as enrolling in school, voting or traveling between states.

The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.

That would make it easier for federal authorities to become involved in hate crimes, although
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., said in a statement that state and local authorities will continue to prosecute the overwhelming majority of such cases.

"To ensure federal restraint, the bill requires the attorney general or another high-ranking Justice Department official to approve any prosecutions undertaken pursuant to this measure," he said. He also stressed that it does not impinge on public speech, religious expression or writing.

Those using guns to commit crimes defined under the bill would face prison terms of up to 10 years. Crimes involving kidnapping or sexual assault or resulting in death could bring life terms.

The Judiciary Committee cited
FBI figures that there have been more than 113,000 hate crimes since 1991, including 7,163 in 1995. It said that racially motivated bias accounted for 55 percent of those incidents, religious bias for 17 percent, sexual orientation bias for 14 percent and ethnicity bias for 14 percent.

[InHouston]

I watched the debate over this bill on CSPAN today, and the Republicans made a good point. Example: There is a fist fight between two people. No assault by one person, but mutual combat between the two individuals. If one of them happens to be a minority, homosexual, transsexual, etc., and decides to file charges, that person's lawyer can easily make the hate crime argument, risking incarceration of the other party for a term that is unfair. Federalizing hate crimes can set a dangerous precedent for the 'thought police' to prosecute you solely on how you feel about someone. I think it best to keep them as they are; at the state level.

Besides, the new Democratic majority knows this bill doesn't have a chance in hell in being signed into law for such reasons, and is merely coercing the president to veto the bill before the American people for political gain. Then you'll have the Katrina, the War Funding Resolution, and the Hate Crime Bill arguments against the Republicans in 2008.

[Super_dave]

At the risk of getting flamed, I'm gonna agree with InHouston on this. On don't see why someone should be punished more for a particular crime because of their bias or reason for committing the said act. It's the act that should be punished. Now I'm certainly not advocating discrimination in any way, shape or form, discrimination should not be allowed for any reason, be it race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. But I also don't believe that any crime, say the act if murder, for example, is more heinous if it's committed by a homophobe against a gay person than if committed by one angry guy against an other, same act, same punishment.

[tsntx]

well those things happen and the FACTS of a case that is like that... WOULD come out. someone waiting for me near my car b/c while they went to the resturant i work at, hit on me repeatdedly in front of their friends, gets told by one of said friends "thats a dude", gets emabarrased and feels his masculinity is threatened and to regain the power struggle w/in himself beats me up or kills me on my way back to my car... situations like that NEED to be protected. each case is different and should be assessed accordingly. but w/o laws that protect us BEFORE something bad happens to us personally we are left helpless and often the true "bad guy" in the situation is made out to be the "victim". not fair.

[BeardedOne]

The spinners need to come up with an effective block to the "Gay Panic Defense".

Defendant: "I didn't mean to kill them, yer honor! I was afraid I was gay!"

Judge/Jury: "Oh, well, of course you would. That's OK then. You can go."

[RangeHova]

In cases where people single out others and attack them based on being different, the motivation seems so much more vile and should be punished to a higher degree.

If you get attacked for walking down the street with a transwoman the attacker(s) should be punished to a higher standard.

Sure, people can lie and say that it was a hate crime just because the person was of a different race but an attacker can also lie and say that you and your TS friend iniated the incident mentioned above.

You should not deny a law just because one side can lie. Lies are always a part of that kind of crime. Few attackers or provokers are honest. It all must be proven.

[peggygee]

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA) would strengthen the ability of law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes by:

Protecting All Americans. Under the current federal law, enacted nearly 40 years ago, the government has the authority to help investigate and prosecute bias-motivated attacks based on race, color, national origin and religion and because the victim was attempting to exercise a federally protected right. For example, authorities became involved in aSalt Lake City case where James Herrick set fire to a Pakistani restaurant on Sept. 13, 2001. Herrick was sentenced to 51 months’ incarceration on Jan. 7, 2002, after pleading guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 245.

However, under current law, the federal government is not able to help in cases where women, gay, transgender or disabled Americans are victims of bias-motivated crimes for who they are. For example, in Texas, in July 2005, four men brutally assaulted a gay man. While punching and kicking him, whipping him with a vacuum chord and assaulting him with daggers, the offenders told the victim that they attacked him because he was gay. Two of the men were sentenced to six years in prison under a plea bargain that dropped the charges that could have sent them to prison for life. Under this bill, federal authorities would have had the jurisdiction to prosecute the crime or could have provided local authorities resources that might have assisted them in pursuing a longer sentence.

Equipping Local Law Enforcement. The act would provide crucial federal resources to state and local agencies and equip local law enforcement officers with the tools they need to investigate and prosecute crimes. While most states recognize the problem of hate violence, and many have enacted laws to help combat this serious issue, federal government recognition of the problem is crucial to its solution. Too many local jurisdictions lack the full resources necessary to prosecute hate crimes. For example, when Matthew Shepard was murdered in Laramie, Wyo., in 1998, the investigation and prosecution of the case cost the community of 28,000 residents about $150,000, forcing the sheriff’s department to lay off five deputies in order to save money.

Ensuring Equal Application of the Law. The act would allow federal authorities to become involved if local authorities are unwilling or unable to act. In the hate crime on which the film Boys Don’t Cry was based, 21-year-old Brandon Teena was raped and later killed by two friends after they discovered he was biologically female. After the rape and assault, Teena reported the crime to the police, but Richardson County Sheriff Richard Laux, who referred to Teena as “it,” did not allow his deputies to arrest the two men responsible. Five days later, those two men shot and stabbed Teena to death in front of two witnesses, Lisa Lambert and Philip DeVine, who were then also murdered. JoAnn Brandon, Teena’s mother, filed a civil suit against Laux, claiming that he was negligent in failing to arrest the men immediately after the rape. The court found that the county was at least partially responsible for Teena’s death and characterized Laux’s behavior as “extreme and outrageous.” Had this federal hate crime law been in effect, federal authorities could have investigated and prosecuted the offenders when the local authorities refused to do so.
Americans overwhelmingly support the expansion of the hate crimes law. According to a new poll conducted by Hart Research, large majorities of every major subgroup of the electorate — including such traditionally conservative groups as Republican men (56 percent) and evangelical Christians (63 percent) — express support for strengthening hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Support also crosses racial lines — with three in four whites (74 percent), African-Americans (74 percent) and Latino/as (72 percent) supporting the act.

More than 210 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations support the passage of this crucial piece of legislation, including:

President George H.W. Bush’s attorney general, Dick Thornburgh
National Sheriffs’ Association
International Association of Chiefs of Police
National District Attorneys Association
Presbyterian Church
Episcopal Church
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Council of La Raza
Parents Network on Disabilities
Human Rights Campaign
In addition, the bill is supported by 31 state attorneys general and the leading law enforcement organizations — because, despite progress toward equality in almost all segments of society, hate crimes continue to spread fear and violence among entire communities of Americans, and local law enforcement entities lack the tools and resources to prevent and prosecute these crimes.

Similar bills have passed both the House and Senate in recent years but have failed to be signed into law.

[Super_dave]

I still don't see why one murder, or assault, or whatever is worse than another. The purpose of laws is to enforce codes of CONDUCT not ways of thinking. As shitty as it can be, freedom of speech(or thought) gives everyone the RIGHT to think however they want, as long as they don't harm someone else. hence we punish the act, not the reason for the act.

[tsntx]

im so glad peggy stepped in for i knew she would have the best resources, best arguement, and a well written thought out post.... thanx

[Oli]

I still don't see why one murder, or assault, or whatever is worse than another. The purpose of laws is to enforce codes of CONDUCT not ways of thinking. As shitty as it can be, freedom of speech(or thought) gives everyone the RIGHT to think however they want, as long as they don't harm someone else. hence we punish the act, not the reason for the act.

That's not necessarily true...Hence the difference between first and second degree murder, manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Motivationn is one of the keys in the level of the charge.

[tsntx]

I still don't see why one murder, or assault, or whatever is worse than another. The purpose of laws is to enforce codes of CONDUCT not ways of thinking. As shitty as it can be, freedom of speech(or thought) gives everyone the RIGHT to think however they want, as long as they don't harm someone else. hence we punish the act, not the reason for the act.

That's not necessarily true...Hence the difference between first and second degree murder, manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Motivationn is one of the keys in the level of the charge.

thank- you

[peggygee]

I still don't see why one murder, or assault, or whatever is worse than another. The purpose of laws is to enforce codes of CONDUCT not ways of thinking. As shitty as it can be, freedom of speech(or thought) gives everyone the RIGHT to think however they want, as long as they don't harm someone else. hence we punish the act, not the reason for the act.

I have to beg to differ with you my neighbor to the North, in the United
States we currently have varying degrees of murder, for instance;

Murder is the act of killing another human being with "malice
aforethought". Malice aforethought is defined to be the intent to kill or to
inflict bodily injury, either express or implied. If a deadly weapon is used,
intent to kill will necessarily be implied by a court of law.

First Degree Murder is the most serious. Most often, first degree murder
is categorized as "deliberate" - that is, the defendant made a clear
headed decision to kill the victim - and "premeditated" - the defendant
actually thought about the killing before it occurred (the period for this
can be very brief).

First Degree Felony Murder - A killing that happens during the course of
the commission of a felony, even if the death is accidental, will be
considered "felony murder" by most states. However, if the killing
happens during certain felonies, again determined by state, it will be
considered "first degree felony murder". The felonies most often included
in this category are arson, robbery, burglary, rape, mayhem and
kidnapping.

Second degree murder is criminal homicide that is deemed less severe
than first degree murder. The distinction between the first degree and
second degree varies by state and circumstance. Sometimes the charge
is based on the prosecutor's decision more so than the actual
circumstances of the homicide. Generally speaking, second degree
murder is homicide that is committed with malice but not with deliberation
or premeditation.

Manslaughter is a less severe crime of homicide that is committed without
the intent to murder, such as in cases of criminal negligence which result
in death. Criminal negligence can include careless or reckless use of a
vehicle, firearm, animals, medicine, and the like. In common law, the
year and a day rule was often applied, meaning that if someone died
within a year and a day of another party's act or negligence the latter
could be held responsible in a homicide case.

In crimes the 'mens rea' is taken into consideration. Mens rea is the
mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a
defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a
certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for
example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property

Thus while homicides in most cases are reprehensible they are not
deemed equal in terms of sentencing and punishment.

This would be the case in the present discussion a regards the hate crime
legislation.

[peggygee]

im so glad peggy stepped in for i knew she would have the best resources, best arguement, and a well written thought out post.... thanx

Thank you Sister -girl my staff is presently
gearing up to fight for this one.

[http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/jury24x2.jpg

Looks like it's going to be an all-nighter. :wink:

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/PAPER2X3.jpg

I will get us the names and contact information for your legislators, and
GWB, so that we can impact this decision.

[chefmike]

Not to make light of the situation...and this is coming from a guy who voted for Clinton both terms...but I've always thought that this was a very murky area...

Where do we draw the line?

Is a PETA fanatic who throws paint on someone who wears fur guilty of a hate-induced crime?

And if the repugs actually manage to win the next presidential election, despite all their crimes and failures....
And let's say that I happen to walk into a saloon after the election... and let's say that I punch the first motherfucker that says "great" about a GOP win, is that also a hate crime?

[Super_dave]

Well I do understand the difference between first degree murder, 2nd, manslaughter, etc, those deal with the intent of committing a crime, not your personal reason for causing a crime. Ie, the general difference between 1st and 2nd degree is premeditation. I don't see how the premeditated murder of one individual is worse than another taking for granted that there is no reasonable cause for murdering someone, ever. As well, I don't see why a viscious assault on a ts by a homophobic group of men who were attracted to her is worse than a viscious attack by a group of men on another man who was say, seen flirting with one of their gf's. The pain and suffering caused to each victim is the same (assumedly). In my mind, the punishment should be more tailored to the pain(for example) caused by the guilty parties to an individual, not by what there motivations were (since there is no reason for taht kind of behaviour in the 1st place).

[tsntx]

thnx sis

[peggygee]

Not to make light of the situation...and this is coming from a guy who voted for Clinton both terms...but I've always thought that this was a very murky area...

Where do we draw the line?

Is a PETA fanatic who throws paint on someone who wears fur guilty of a hate-induced crime?

And if the repugs actually manage to win the next presidential election, despite all their crimes and failures....
And let's say that I happen to walk into a saloon after the election... and let's say that I punch the first motherfucker that says "great" about a GOP win, is that also a hate crime?

According the current or proposed law, it would not be a hate crime.

[InHouston]

im so glad peggy stepped in for i knew she would have the best resources, best arguement, and a well written thought out post.... thanx

Looks like Peggy did the classic 'cut and paste from some other website' comment to me.

[tsntx]

im so glad peggy stepped in for i knew she would have the best resources, best arguement, and a well written thought out post.... thanx

Looks like Peggy did the classic 'cut and paste from some other website' comment to me.

youre missing the point. SHE found it. SHE posted it. therefore SHE said it.
im not good at hunting down or writing down the things id always like to say... lol... but SHE is. and i like what SHE had to say :D thnx -j

[InHouston]

And if the repugs actually manage to win the next presidential election, despite all their crimes and failures....

“Crimes and failures” … ChefMike’s usual regurgitation of popular and biased talking points.




And let's say that I happen to walk into a saloon after the election... and let's say that I punch the first motherfucker that says "great" about a GOP win, is that also a hate crime?


In light of your pinheaded and hateful sentiments towards your fellow Americans revealed in your words, by virtue that is a hate crime. However, it would be prosecuted, and deservingly so, as an assault.

[InHouston]

im so glad peggy stepped in for i knew she would have the best resources, best arguement, and a well written thought out post.... thanx

Looks like Peggy did the classic 'cut and paste from some other website' comment to me.

youre missing the point. SHE found it. SHE posted it. therefore SHE said it.
im not good at hunting down or writing down the things id always like to say... lol... but SHE is. and i like what SHE had to say :D thnx -j

She didn't say it in her words, therefore it's not genuine.

[White_Male_Canada]

And if the repugs actually manage to win the next presidential election, despite all their crimes and failures....

“Crimes and failures” … ChefMike’s usual regurgitation of popular and biased talking points.




And let's say that I happen to walk into a saloon after the election... and let's say that I punch the first motherfucker that says "great" about a GOP win, is that also a hate crime?


In light of your pinheaded and hateful sentiments towards your fellow Americans revealed in your words, by virtue that is a hate crime. However, it would be prosecuted, and deservingly so, as an assault.

2 steps forward, 1 back. Why not just go for the end zone and legislate thought crimes while they`re at it.

[tsntx]

im so glad peggy stepped in for i knew she would have the best resources, best arguement, and a well written thought out post.... thanx

Looks like Peggy did the classic 'cut and paste from some other website' comment to me.

youre missing the point. SHE found it. SHE posted it. therefore SHE said it.
im not good at hunting down or writing down the things id always like to say... lol... but SHE is. and i like what SHE had to say :D thnx -j

She didn't say it in her words, therefore it's not genuine.

anything WE post under OUR id.... is said by us.

look i dont really expect you to be on the side of a transwoman, or something that might actually BENEFIT a transwoman, anyone that doesnt even have the balls to date a transwoman mind, heart and their opinion, to me, is null and void.

[Super_dave]

im so glad peggy stepped in for i knew she would have the best resources, best arguement, and a well written thought out post.... thanx

Looks like Peggy did the classic 'cut and paste from some other website' comment to me.

youre missing the point. SHE found it. SHE posted it. therefore SHE said it.
im not good at hunting down or writing down the things id always like to say... lol... but SHE is. and i like what SHE had to say :D thnx -j

She didn't say it in her words, therefore it's not genuine.

anything WE post under OUR id.... is said by us.

look i dont really expect you to be on the side of a transwoman, or something that might actually BENEFIT a transwoman, anyone that doesnt even have the balls to date a transwoman mind, heart and their opinion, to me, is null and void.

I don't think this has anything to do with 'having the balls to date a ts'. I maintain that all people are equal therefore any crime committed against any member of the populace is equally loathsome, therefore deserving of equal punishment...

[whatsupwithat]

so fed up...

[tsntx]

was refering to inhoustons constant bickering about things that arent the AGENDA or the POINT of a thread, trying to turn it into something else. this is a serious thing that affects the members of this board... except guys like him that only want a "shemale" to be his sex servant. therefore they could care less if govt. is w/ us or against, as long as they can still cruise montrose for a hooker.

[peggygee]

im so glad peggy stepped in for i knew she would have the best resources, best arguement, and a well written thought out post.... thanx

Looks like Peggy did the classic 'cut and paste from some other website' comment to me.

youre missing the point. SHE found it. SHE posted it. therefore SHE said it.
im not good at hunting down or writing down the things id always like to say... lol... but SHE is. and i like what SHE had to say :D thnx -j

She didn't say it in her words, therefore it's not genuine.

As you might surmise and infer this is a matter that has great signifcance
to the transcommunity, of which I am a member.

Thus, I have been following this legislation for quite some time. Further,
in the course of my advocacy work I tend to have a great deal of
supportive documentation readily at hand.

Therefore, my response time on topics can be fairly rapid. I am also
able to process copious amounts of data in an expeditious manner, and
act upon them.

As regards the above-mentioned posts, some information has been cut
and pasted from various sources, with the remaining content coming
from your's truly.

However, the validity and veracity of the information stands.

[Super_dave]

was refering to inhoustons constant bickering about things that arent the AGENDA or the POINT of a thread, trying to turn it into something else. this is a serious thing that affects the members of this board... except guys like him that only want a "shemale" to be his sex servant. therefore they could care less if govt. is w/ us or against, as long as they can still cruise montrose for a hooker.

Oh, gotcha. Well, I've never cruised anywhere for a hooker so that doesn't apply to me and I can easily understand why people at risk of 'hate crimes' such as TS for example, would welcome legislation that could in theory protect them, I just believe that if the current laws are properly enforced, there is no need for laws such as this, assault is assault, etc.

I guess it just comes down to fundamental disagreements as to how and what the state should legislate, and we're not likely to resolve those issues here, haha. Does make for very interesting discussion though :D

[whatsupwithat]

And if the repugs actually manage to win the next presidential election, despite all their crimes and failures....

“Crimes and failures” … ChefMike’s usual regurgitation of popular and biased talking points.




And let's say that I happen to walk into a saloon after the election... and let's say that I punch the first motherfucker that says "great" about a GOP win, is that also a hate crime?


In light of your pinheaded and hateful sentiments towards your fellow Americans revealed in your words, by virtue that is a hate crime. However, it would be prosecuted, and deservingly so, as an assault.

2 steps forward, 1 back. Why not just go for the end zone and legislate thought crimes while they`re at it.

[InHouston]

was refering to inhoustons constant bickering about things that arent the AGENDA or the POINT of a thread, trying to turn it into something else. this is a serious thing that affects the members of this board... except guys like him that only want a "shemale" to be his sex servant. therefore they could care less if govt. is w/ us or against, as long as they can still cruise montrose for a hooker.

Uh ... why don't you look at my first post. It was on topic, and my own opinion. You were the one who dismissed it by taking sides with Peggy's cut and paste comment as if my point wasn't even valid. Then ChefMike came in with his usual left-wing political bash, and so I responded.

And while it's obvious you're having a hard time procurring lasting relationships with heterosexual men, why don't you realize that for the most part we prefer females, ladies, with vaginas and can rear children and all that. We can't help it, were males. You were born as a gay man, so I can turn that argument around and say why don't you just have the balls to date a man? Silly isn't it? There's the way you are, and then there's the way you'd like the world to be, and then there's the way it is. Sorry sweetheart, but men are men. Thinking that men in general lack courage to date and have a relationship with a TG is a bit much to ask of us. That's just the way it is, and deep down you know it.

[tsntx]

was refering to inhoustons constant bickering about things that arent the AGENDA or the POINT of a thread, trying to turn it into something else. this is a serious thing that affects the members of this board... except guys like him that only want a "shemale" to be his sex servant. therefore they could care less if govt. is w/ us or against, as long as they can still cruise montrose for a hooker.

Oh, gotcha. Well, I've never cruised anywhere for a hooker so that doesn't apply to me and I can easily understand why people at risk of 'hate crimes' such as TS for example, would welcome legislation that could in theory protect them, I just believe that if the current laws are properly enforced, there is no need for laws such as this, assault is assault, etc.

I guess it just comes down to fundamental disagreements as to how and what the state should legislate, and we're not likely to resolve those issues here, haha. Does make for very interesting discussion though :D


1rst off --- lol at e's "u suck pic"

as to your comment... its not solely about picking up hookers as the point was that if a ts is nothing but a sexual object of desire then you dont see the PERSON inside and thus when something happens to a trans its nothing more then a post on HA and a thread posting up nudes and saying "gee golly she sure was hot, what a waste" ?!?!?! thats fucked up. if harder punishements were in standing then maybe SOME, obviously not ALL, of the crimes would never be commited... when youre a man and you beat up another "man" its a slap on the rist... if there was a law protecting the "man" ,ie: a ts, then she might have some kinda faith in her govt acknowledging her life choices and protecting her as a PERSON and not as some discarded object.

[whatsupwithat]

And while it's obvious you're having a hard time procurring lasting relationships with heterosexual men, why don't you realize that for the most part we prefer females, ladies, with vaginas and can rear children and all that. We can't help it, were males. You were born as a gay man, so I can turn that argument around and say why don't you just have the balls to date a man? Silly isn't it? There's the way you are, and then there's the way you'd like the world to be, and then there's the way it is. Sorry sweetheart, but men are men. Thinking that men in general lack courage to date and have a relationship with a TG is a bit much to ask of us. That's just the way it is, and deep down you know it.

You speak for yourself. That had to be the most arrogant and ignorant comment I've seen in this forum. I don't think you'd know courage if it came up and bit you square on your ass. You call yourself a man? Please.

[tsntx]

was refering to inhoustons constant bickering about things that arent the AGENDA or the POINT of a thread, trying to turn it into something else. this is a serious thing that affects the members of this board... except guys like him that only want a "shemale" to be his sex servant. therefore they could care less if govt. is w/ us or against, as long as they can still cruise montrose for a hooker.

Uh ... why don't you look at my first post. It was on topic, and my own opinion. You were the one who dismissed it by taking sides with Peggy's cut and paste comment as if my point wasn't even valid. Then ChefMike came in with his usual left-wing political bash, and so I responded.

And while it's obvious you're having a hard time procurring lasting relationships with heterosexual men, why don't you realize that for the most part we prefer females, ladies, with vaginas and can rear children and all that. We can't help it, were males. You were born as a gay man, so I can turn that argument around and say why don't you just have the balls to date a man? Silly isn't it? There's the way you are, and then there's the way you'd like the world to be, and then there's the way it is. Sorry sweetheart, but men are men. Thinking that men in general lack courage to date and have a relationship with a TG is a bit much to ask of us. That's just the way it is, and deep down you know it.

so basically youre saying that youre a fag for liking trannies? ok cool got it... :screwy glad we cleared that up :roll:

[tsntx]

And while it's obvious you're having a hard time procurring lasting relationships with heterosexual men, why don't you realize that for the most part we prefer females, ladies, with vaginas and can rear children and all that. We can't help it, were males. You were born as a gay man, so I can turn that argument around and say why don't you just have the balls to date a man? Silly isn't it? There's the way you are, and then there's the way you'd like the world to be, and then there's the way it is. Sorry sweetheart, but men are men. Thinking that men in general lack courage to date and have a relationship with a TG is a bit much to ask of us. That's just the way it is, and deep down you know it.

You so speak for yourself. That had to be the most arrogant and ignorant comment I've seen in this forum. You call yourself a man? bullshiat.

co-sign

dont hang YOUR insecurities on me "fag" bc i know who i am, where ive come from and where im going.... youre too busy paying for my services and sucking me off to advance on the evolutionary chain.

[Galadriel]

I watched the debate over this bill on CSPAN today, and the Republicans made a good point. Example: There is a fist fight between two people. No assault by one person, but mutual combat between the two individuals. If one of them happens to be a minority, homosexual, transsexual, etc., and decides to file charges, that person's lawyer can easily make the hate crime argument, risking incarceration of the other party for a term that is unfair. Federalizing hate crimes can set a dangerous precedent for the 'thought police' to prosecute you solely on how you feel about someone. I think it best to keep them as they are; at the state level.


This is a poor argument. First of all, you're ignoring the original need for the legislation, which is that certain members of society are more likely to be the victim of violent crime than others. Sure, the situation you mentioned will probably come up once in a while. But the fact is that attacks on transwomen, for example, happen all the time, at a rate that is dramatically accelerated compared to the average population. That situation happens all the time! Hence this legislation is about reducing the TOTAL amount of violent crime that is occurring in our society, and making sure that the perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice. Is it perfect? No. But under this legislation the percentage of violent criminals who are brought to justice will INCREASE, so opposition on that basis is simply irrational.

Next, you're ignoring the reason that this type of crime happens so often in our society, which is that many people think that attacking a TS is not a big deal, they're not going to get in trouble for it (or very little trouble). The only way to reverse the trend is to make sure that people know, yes this is a crime and it will be enforced. An example which came up earlier in this thread involved a TS who was murdered as a result of a bias in how the local police dealt with the situation. Assuming that you are an "admirer" you should be well aware that such bias exists at the local level (especially in rural areas, but in urban as well) all across our nation. The only way to make up for such a bias is to create a counterbalance at the national level and make it clear that if you commit this type of crime you will be punished by the feds even if the locals try to give you an out.


btw- I've never posted here before, but the ridiculousness of the quote argument above made me feel compelled to create an account to do so.

[peggygee]

Contact The President:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/


Contact Your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


Contact Congress:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/WETHEPEOPLE.jpg

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/respect.jpg

[whatsupwithat]

btw- I've never posted here before, but the ridiculousness of the quote argument above made me feel compelled to create an account to do so.

Thank you. Every rational and strong voice needs to be heard in this debate. And yours is one.

[tsntx]

btw- I've never posted here before, but the ridiculousness of the quote argument above made me feel compelled to create an account to do so.

Thank you. Every rational and strong voice needs to be heard in this debate. And yours is one.

agreed :D

[Oli]

And while it's obvious you're having a hard time procurring lasting relationships with heterosexual men, why don't you realize that for the most part we prefer females, ladies, with vaginas and can rear children and all that. We can't help it, were males. You were born as a gay man, so I can turn that argument around and say why don't you just have the balls to date a man? Silly isn't it? There's the way you are, and then there's the way you'd like the world to be, and then there's the way it is. Sorry sweetheart, but men are men. Thinking that men in general lack courage to date and have a relationship with a TG is a bit much to ask of us. That's just the way it is, and deep down you know it.

Two things, please don't generalize and lump my beliefs in with yours, and what the fuck are you doing on a TS message board?

[tsntx]

And while it's obvious you're having a hard time procurring lasting relationships with heterosexual men, why don't you realize that for the most part we prefer females, ladies, with vaginas and can rear children and all that. We can't help it, were males. You were born as a gay man, so I can turn that argument around and say why don't you just have the balls to date a man? Silly isn't it? There's the way you are, and then there's the way you'd like the world to be, and then there's the way it is. Sorry sweetheart, but men are men. Thinking that men in general lack courage to date and have a relationship with a TG is a bit much to ask of us. That's just the way it is, and deep down you know it.

Two things, please don't generalize and lump my beliefs in with yours, and what the fuck are you doing on a TS message board?


InHouston wrote: being a gay man i love looking at cock pics... i just pretend the female form isnt there

































not a direct quote, deal w/ it

[Legend]

Inhoston sounds like the kind of person that hate crimes are made for totally ignoring gender,anyway he just sounds like the typical closet republician, i wonder did he ever page for ted huggart.

[peggygee]

was refering to inhoustons constant bickering about things that arent the AGENDA or the POINT of a thread, trying to turn it into something else. this is a serious thing that affects the members of this board... except guys like him that only want a "shemale" to be his sex servant. therefore they could care less if govt. is w/ us or against, as long as they can still cruise montrose for a hooker.

Uh ... why don't you look at my first post. It was on topic, and my own opinion. You were the one who dismissed it by taking sides with Peggy's cut and paste comment as if my point wasn't even valid. Then ChefMike came in with his usual left-wing political bash, and so I responded.

And while it's obvious you're having a hard time procurring lasting relationships with heterosexual men, why don't you realize that for the most part we prefer females, ladies, with vaginas and can rear children and all that. We can't help it, were males. You were born as a gay man, so I can turn that argument around and say why don't you just have the balls to date a man? Silly isn't it? There's the way you are, and then there's the way you'd like the world to be, and then there's the way it is. Sorry sweetheart, but men are men. Thinking that men in general lack courage to date and have a relationship with a TG is a bit much to ask of us. That's just the way it is, and deep down you know it.

Houston, we have a problem.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/apollo-13.gif

[Super_dave]

I watched the debate over this bill on CSPAN today, and the Republicans made a good point. Example: There is a fist fight between two people. No assault by one person, but mutual combat between the two individuals. If one of them happens to be a minority, homosexual, transsexual, etc., and decides to file charges, that person's lawyer can easily make the hate crime argument, risking incarceration of the other party for a term that is unfair. Federalizing hate crimes can set a dangerous precedent for the 'thought police' to prosecute you solely on how you feel about someone. I think it best to keep them as they are; at the state level.


This is a poor argument. First of all, you're ignoring the original need for the legislation, which is that certain members of society are more likely to be the victim of violent crime than others. Sure, the situation you mentioned will probably come up once in a while. But the fact is that attacks on transwomen, for example, happen all the time, at a rate that is dramatically accelerated compared to the average population. That situation happens all the time! Hence this legislation is about reducing the TOTAL amount of violent crime that is occurring in our society, and making sure that the perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice. Is it perfect? No. But under this legislation the percentage of violent criminals who are brought to justice will INCREASE, so opposition on that basis is simply irrational.

Next, you're ignoring the reason that this type of crime happens so often in our society, which is that many people think that attacking a TS is not a big deal, they're not going to get in trouble for it (or very little trouble). The only way to reverse the trend is to make sure that people know, yes this is a crime and it will be enforced. An example which came up earlier in this thread involved a TS who was murdered as a result of a bias in how the local police dealt with the situation. Assuming that you are an "admirer" you should be well aware that such bias exists at the local level (especially in rural areas, but in urban as well) all across our nation. The only way to make up for such a bias is to create a counterbalance at the national level and make it clear that if you commit this type of crime you will be punished by the feds even if the locals try to give you an out.


btw- I've never posted here before, but the ridiculousness of the quote argument above made me feel compelled to create an account to do so.

In arguing that, you are assuming that stiffer penalties will actually work as a deterrent, I doubt taht's proven, hell, look at the death penalty, taht should be the ultimate deterrent, right?

As far as what TSNTX is saying about TS being treated like meat, etc, well the same thing happens to GG hookers (not saying all ts are hookers), they often fall through the cracks of the justice system.

The basic issue, as I see it, is that there should not be stiffer punishments handed out because a man attacked a ts than if a man attacked a GG(assuming equal pain is inflicted). If the penalty isn't stiff enough for assault, maybe that is something that should be addressed, and not vice-versa.

[tsntx]

Inhoston sounds like the kind of person that hate crimes are made for totally ignoring gender,anyway he just sounds like the typical closet republician, i wonder did he ever page for ted huggart.

well heres a lil insight

his FIRST post here


Hello All:

I ran into this site while surfing around on the net. Although new to this site, this is familiar territory to me. I'm entirely hetero as are my friends, yet there are the nights when I ditch them and go on a TS hunt here in town. I've told no one, yet there are times when I wish I could share this sexual genre with one or more of my friends, but don't think they could get past the concept of a partner with a penis. However, there is a friend of mine who I casually showed pictures of escorts on Eros, and then subsequently showed the TG's as well playing it off by saying "Man can you believe those aren't girls?" I didn't see a problem in his reaction, nor did I reveal any interest in TG's to him either. I believe in the addage, "That which is most deeply felt is most common among others." So with that, I know that most men would enjoy TG's, just as most girls would enjoy other girls, although many will not admit it. It stands to reason that since girls like other girls, I'm sure they would love a hot girl with a fat dick ... right? Of course.

I have my personal 'first-time' and subsequent TS experiences I could share here, but I'll say this instead. I've had moments with TG's that few men are too afraid to ever know. I love women, and they are a basic neccessity in my life as a man. However, TG's are like candy. I don't neccessarily need them, but I can't go for very long without biting into one.

[tsntx]

As far as what TSNTX is saying about TS being treated like meat, etc, well the same thing happens to GG hookers (not saying all ts are hookers), they often fall through the cracks of the justice system.

hookers arent the point... the point is transwomen period... yes hookers ,ts or gg, will not get as much sympathy from the justice system... but... my orignal example was about me leaving my job at a resturant... not walking the streets... which btw i DONT do. :!:

[whatsupwithat]

I watched the debate over this bill on CSPAN today, and the Republicans made a good point. Example: There is a fist fight between two people. No assault by one person, but mutual combat between the two individuals. If one of them happens to be a minority, homosexual, transsexual, etc., and decides to file charges, that person's lawyer can easily make the hate crime argument, risking incarceration of the other party for a term that is unfair. Federalizing hate crimes can set a dangerous precedent for the 'thought police' to prosecute you solely on how you feel about someone. I think it best to keep them as they are; at the state level.


This is a poor argument. First of all, you're ignoring the original need for the legislation, which is that certain members of society are more likely to be the victim of violent crime than others. Sure, the situation you mentioned will probably come up once in a while. But the fact is that attacks on transwomen, for example, happen all the time, at a rate that is dramatically accelerated compared to the average population. That situation happens all the time! Hence this legislation is about reducing the TOTAL amount of violent crime that is occurring in our society, and making sure that the perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice. Is it perfect? No. But under this legislation the percentage of violent criminals who are brought to justice will INCREASE, so opposition on that basis is simply irrational.

Next, you're ignoring the reason that this type of crime happens so often in our society, which is that many people think that attacking a TS is not a big deal, they're not going to get in trouble for it (or very little trouble). The only way to reverse the trend is to make sure that people know, yes this is a crime and it will be enforced. An example which came up earlier in this thread involved a TS who was murdered as a result of a bias in how the local police dealt with the situation. Assuming that you are an "admirer" you should be well aware that such bias exists at the local level (especially in rural areas, but in urban as well) all across our nation. The only way to make up for such a bias is to create a counterbalance at the national level and make it clear that if you commit this type of crime you will be punished by the feds even if the locals try to give you an out.


btw- I've never posted here before, but the ridiculousness of the quote argument above made me feel compelled to create an account to do so.

In arguing that, you are assuming that stiffer penalties will actually work as a deterrent, I doubt taht's proven, hell, look at the death penalty, taht should be the ultimate deterrent, right?

As far as what TSNTX is saying about TS being treated like meat, etc, well the same thing happens to GG hookers (not saying all ts are hookers), they often fall through the cracks of the justice system.

The basic issue, as I see it, is that there should not be stiffer punishments handed out because a man attacked a ts than if a man attacked a GG(assuming equal pain is inflicted). If the penalty isn't stiff enough for assault, maybe that is something that should be addressed, and not vice-versa.

You are precluding ingrained societal behavior and prejudice and history. Certain types of people are victims of hate crimes based on their race, gender, sexuality, etc where the specific reason they were attacked is because of that race or gender or sexuality or etc.

Your whole "let's make the playing field equal for all" is an argument that's presented all too often by, sorry to say, white supremacists.

[Legend]

Inhoston sounds like the kind of person that hate crimes are made for totally ignoring gender,anyway he just sounds like the typical closet republician, i wonder did he ever page for ted huggart.

well heres a lil insight

his FIRST post here


Hello All:

I ran into this site while surfing around on the net. Although new to this site, this is familiar territory to me. I'm entirely hetero as are my friends, yet there are the nights when I ditch them and go on a TS hunt here in town. I've told no one, yet there are times when I wish I could share this sexual genre with one or more of my friends, but don't think they could get past the concept of a partner with a penis. However, there is a friend of mine who I casually showed pictures of escorts on Eros, and then subsequently showed the TG's as well playing it off by saying "Man can you believe those aren't girls?" I didn't see a problem in his reaction, nor did I reveal any interest in TG's to him either. I believe in the addage, "That which is most deeply felt is most common among others." So with that, I know that most men would enjoy TG's, just as most girls would enjoy other girls, although many will not admit it. It stands to reason that since girls like other girls, I'm sure they would love a hot girl with a fat dick ... right? Of course.

I have my personal 'first-time' and subsequent TS experiences I could share here, but I'll say this instead. I've had moments with TG's that few men are too afraid to ever know. I love women, and they are a basic neccessity in my life as a man. However, TG's are like candy. I don't neccessarily need them, but I can't go for very long without biting into one.

That explains it all!

[peggygee]

Hello All:

I ran into this site while surfing around on the net. Although new to this site, this is familiar territory to me. I'm entirely hetero as are my friends, yet there are the nights when I ditch them and go on a TS hunt here in town. I've told no one, yet there are times when I wish I could share this sexual genre with one or more of my friends, but don't think they could get past the concept of a partner with a penis. However, there is a friend of mine who I casually showed pictures of escorts on Eros, and then subsequently showed the TG's as well playing it off by saying "Man can you believe those aren't girls?" I didn't see a problem in his reaction, nor did I reveal any interest in TG's to him either. I believe in the addage, "That which is most deeply felt is most common among others." So with that, I know that most men would enjoy TG's, just as most girls would enjoy other girls, although many will not admit it. It stands to reason that since girls like other girls, I'm sure they would love a hot girl with a fat dick ... right? Of course.

I have my personal 'first-time' and subsequent TS experiences I could share here, but I'll say this instead. I've had moments with TG's that few men are too afraid to ever know. I love women, and they are a basic neccessity in my life as a man. However, TG's are like candy. I don't neccessarily need them, but I can't go for very long without biting into one.

"Be vwerry quiet"

"I'm chasing twannies"

"Hehh, hehh, hehhh" http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/elmer2.jpg

:roll:

"Told you, I was fast".

[Super_dave]

As far as what TSNTX is saying about TS being treated like meat, etc, well the same thing happens to GG hookers (not saying all ts are hookers), they often fall through the cracks of the justice system.

hookers arent the point... the point is transwomen period... yes hookers ,ts or gg, will not get as much sympathy from the justice system... but... my orignal example was about me leaving my job at a resturant... not walking the streets... which btw i DONT do. :!:

Sorry, I wasn't insinuating that you did walk the streets. Your example of the restaurant could be easily transfered over to a GG, she humiliates the guy by turning him down, etc, and is thus pursued and attacked. In each case, I believe the punishment should be severe, if it isn't as the laws are currently applied, change that.

However, it seems to me that you are making this about protecting the 'weaker' whereas the law is actually about having stiffer penalties for crimes that are commited because of a bias. Do I believe that there should be stiffer penalties for viscious crimes against the 'weaker' (women(in which I would include ts), the elderly, children)? Absolutely, but I don't believe in stiffer penalties for a man attacking a gay man versus a straight one. I obviously appreciate that you would want extra protection from the sickos of the world but I don't believe legislation like this is what's needed.

[whatsupwithat]

Inhoston sounds like the kind of person that hate crimes are made for totally ignoring gender,anyway he just sounds like the typical closet republician, i wonder did he ever page for ted huggart.

well heres a lil insight

his FIRST post here


Hello All:

I ran into this site while surfing around on the net. Although new to this site, this is familiar territory to me. I'm entirely hetero as are my friends, yet there are the nights when I ditch them and go on a TS hunt here in town. I've told no one, yet there are times when I wish I could share this sexual genre with one or more of my friends, but don't think they could get past the concept of a partner with a penis. However, there is a friend of mine who I casually showed pictures of escorts on Eros, and then subsequently showed the TG's as well playing it off by saying "Man can you believe those aren't girls?" I didn't see a problem in his reaction, nor did I reveal any interest in TG's to him either. I believe in the addage, "That which is most deeply felt is most common among others." So with that, I know that most men would enjoy TG's, just as most girls would enjoy other girls, although many will not admit it. It stands to reason that since girls like other girls, I'm sure they would love a hot girl with a fat dick ... right? Of course.

I have my personal 'first-time' and subsequent TS experiences I could share here, but I'll say this instead. I've had moments with TG's that few men are too afraid to ever know. I love women, and they are a basic neccessity in my life as a man. However, TG's are like candy. I don't neccessarily need them, but I can't go for very long without biting into one.

Denial. Shame. Selfishness. All there in his first post. Wow.

[Legend]

I doubt he will post on this thread again or this forum for that matter.

[peggygee]

As far as what TSNTX is saying about TS being treated like meat, etc, well the same thing happens to GG hookers (not saying all ts are hookers), they often fall through the cracks of the justice system.



That portion of your arguement is highly fallacious as it presumes that the
majority of transwomen are employed in the sex industry, which is not
the case.

If you are inferring as to the the life-styles and occupations of 'all'
transwomen based upon 'your' experiences with porn or in escort
situations, then you are making an erroneous assumption.

[Super_dave]

I watched the debate over this bill on CSPAN today, and the Republicans made a good point. Example: There is a fist fight between two people. No assault by one person, but mutual combat between the two individuals. If one of them happens to be a minority, homosexual, transsexual, etc., and decides to file charges, that person's lawyer can easily make the hate crime argument, risking incarceration of the other party for a term that is unfair. Federalizing hate crimes can set a dangerous precedent for the 'thought police' to prosecute you solely on how you feel about someone. I think it best to keep them as they are; at the state level.


This is a poor argument. First of all, you're ignoring the original need for the legislation, which is that certain members of society are more likely to be the victim of violent crime than others. Sure, the situation you mentioned will probably come up once in a while. But the fact is that attacks on transwomen, for example, happen all the time, at a rate that is dramatically accelerated compared to the average population. That situation happens all the time! Hence this legislation is about reducing the TOTAL amount of violent crime that is occurring in our society, and making sure that the perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice. Is it perfect? No. But under this legislation the percentage of violent criminals who are brought to justice will INCREASE, so opposition on that basis is simply irrational.

Next, you're ignoring the reason that this type of crime happens so often in our society, which is that many people think that attacking a TS is not a big deal, they're not going to get in trouble for it (or very little trouble). The only way to reverse the trend is to make sure that people know, yes this is a crime and it will be enforced. An example which came up earlier in this thread involved a TS who was murdered as a result of a bias in how the local police dealt with the situation. Assuming that you are an "admirer" you should be well aware that such bias exists at the local level (especially in rural areas, but in urban as well) all across our nation. The only way to make up for such a bias is to create a counterbalance at the national level and make it clear that if you commit this type of crime you will be punished by the feds even if the locals try to give you an out.


btw- I've never posted here before, but the ridiculousness of the quote argument above made me feel compelled to create an account to do so.

In arguing that, you are assuming that stiffer penalties will actually work as a deterrent, I doubt taht's proven, hell, look at the death penalty, taht should be the ultimate deterrent, right?

As far as what TSNTX is saying about TS being treated like meat, etc, well the same thing happens to GG hookers (not saying all ts are hookers), they often fall through the cracks of the justice system.

The basic issue, as I see it, is that there should not be stiffer punishments handed out because a man attacked a ts than if a man attacked a GG(assuming equal pain is inflicted). If the penalty isn't stiff enough for assault, maybe that is something that should be addressed, and not vice-versa.

You are precluding ingrained societal behavior and prejudice and history. Certain types of people are victims of hate crimes based on their race, gender, sexuality, etc where the specific reason they were attacked is because of that race or gender or sexuality or etc.

Your whole "let's make the playing field equal for all" is an argument that's presented all too often by, sorry to say, white supremacists.

Well I can't help what white supremacists think, they argue for this approach because they see it as possibly benefitting them, I guess? I do believe that teh playing field should be equal to all, you commit a crime, you get punished, end of story. Just because this legislation could be beneficial to TS' doesn't mean it is RIGHT. I mean, shit, you could introduce legislation making it illegal to speak ill of ts, or gays, that would be beneficial to them but would it be right? Not if you believe in free speech. Part of free speech is the right to say or believe whatever hateful awful thing you want as long as you don't harm someone or incite someone to hram someone. Do I think white supremacists, the KK, etc should be eliminated, fuck yeah, but not by tramping on rights such as free speech.

I think I got a lil of topic... :?

[Super_dave]

As far as what TSNTX is saying about TS being treated like meat, etc, well the same thing happens to GG hookers (not saying all ts are hookers), they often fall through the cracks of the justice system.



That portion of your arguement is highly fallacious as it presumes that the
majority of transwomen are employed in the sex industry, which is not
the case.

If you are inferring as to the the life-styles and occupations of 'all'
transwomen based upon 'your' experiences with porn or in escort
situations, then you are making an erroneous assumption.

Umm, I'm pretty sure taht right there in what you quoted me as saying I state that not all ts are hookers.. I was only trying to address that particular part of her post, not insinuating all ts are hookers, geeze. She said something along the line of men look at us like meat, or something. Once again, ts being hookers(those that are) is not the issue anyways, as has been said, the vast, vast majority of prostitutes are marginalized.

[whatsupwithat]

whereas the law is actually about having stiffer penalties for crimes that are commited because of a bias....I obviously appreciate that you would want extra protection from the sickos of the world but I don't believe legislation like this is what's needed.

I've heard this argument before. You know, many people had to die unwarranted deaths because of this argument. Millions had to march in the streets because of this argument. The Klu Klux Klan thrived because of this argument.

[peggygee]

I'll be back, I'm going to touch base with my
President, and my legislators, as well as mobilize
the rest of the troops.

Those that are interested, and vested in this topic
may want to do so also.


Contact The President:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/


Contact Your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


Contact Congress:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/WETHEPEOPLE.jpg

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/respect.jpg

[whatsupwithat]

I watched the debate over this bill on CSPAN today, and the Republicans made a good point. Example: There is a fist fight between two people. No assault by one person, but mutual combat between the two individuals. If one of them happens to be a minority, homosexual, transsexual, etc., and decides to file charges, that person's lawyer can easily make the hate crime argument, risking incarceration of the other party for a term that is unfair. Federalizing hate crimes can set a dangerous precedent for the 'thought police' to prosecute you solely on how you feel about someone. I think it best to keep them as they are; at the state level.


This is a poor argument. First of all, you're ignoring the original need for the legislation, which is that certain members of society are more likely to be the victim of violent crime than others. Sure, the situation you mentioned will probably come up once in a while. But the fact is that attacks on transwomen, for example, happen all the time, at a rate that is dramatically accelerated compared to the average population. That situation happens all the time! Hence this legislation is about reducing the TOTAL amount of violent crime that is occurring in our society, and making sure that the perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice. Is it perfect? No. But under this legislation the percentage of violent criminals who are brought to justice will INCREASE, so opposition on that basis is simply irrational.

Next, you're ignoring the reason that this type of crime happens so often in our society, which is that many people think that attacking a TS is not a big deal, they're not going to get in trouble for it (or very little trouble). The only way to reverse the trend is to make sure that people know, yes this is a crime and it will be enforced. An example which came up earlier in this thread involved a TS who was murdered as a result of a bias in how the local police dealt with the situation. Assuming that you are an "admirer" you should be well aware that such bias exists at the local level (especially in rural areas, but in urban as well) all across our nation. The only way to make up for such a bias is to create a counterbalance at the national level and make it clear that if you commit this type of crime you will be punished by the feds even if the locals try to give you an out.


btw- I've never posted here before, but the ridiculousness of the quote argument above made me feel compelled to create an account to do so.

In arguing that, you are assuming that stiffer penalties will actually work as a deterrent, I doubt taht's proven, hell, look at the death penalty, taht should be the ultimate deterrent, right?

As far as what TSNTX is saying about TS being treated like meat, etc, well the same thing happens to GG hookers (not saying all ts are hookers), they often fall through the cracks of the justice system.

The basic issue, as I see it, is that there should not be stiffer punishments handed out because a man attacked a ts than if a man attacked a GG(assuming equal pain is inflicted). If the penalty isn't stiff enough for assault, maybe that is something that should be addressed, and not vice-versa.

You are precluding ingrained societal behavior and prejudice and history. Certain types of people are victims of hate crimes based on their race, gender, sexuality, etc where the specific reason they were attacked is because of that race or gender or sexuality or etc.

Your whole "let's make the playing field equal for all" is an argument that's presented all too often by, sorry to say, white supremacists.

Well I can't help what white supremacists think, they argue for this approach because they see it as possibly benefitting them, I guess? I do believe that teh playing field should be equal to all, you commit a crime, you get punished, end of story. Just because this legislation could be beneficial to TS' doesn't mean it is RIGHT. I mean, shit, you could introduce legislation making it illegal to speak ill of ts, or gays, that would be beneficial to them but would it be right? Not if you believe in free speech. Part of free speech is the right to say or believe whatever hateful awful thing you want as long as you don't harm someone or incite someone to hram someone. Do I think white supremacists, the KK, etc should be eliminated, fuck yeah, but not by tramping on rights such as free speech.

I think I got a lil of topic... :?

Ok. Sloooow down. yeah, way off topic...no one said anything about free speech. This isn't about that. This is about violence forced on people who society views as abnormal or different than or less than. This about being able to be different, walk down the street, and not be attacked for that.

[Galadriel]

In arguing that, you are assuming that stiffer penalties will actually work as a deterrent, I doubt taht's proven, hell, look at the death penalty, taht should be the ultimate deterrent, right?

As far as what TSNTX is saying about TS being treated like meat, etc, well the same thing happens to GG hookers (not saying all ts are hookers), they often fall through the cracks of the justice system.

The basic issue, as I see it, is that there should not be stiffer punishments handed out because a man attacked a ts than if a man attacked a GG(assuming equal pain is inflicted). If the penalty isn't stiff enough for assault, maybe that is something that should be addressed, and not vice-versa.

Your argument justifies my point regarding the biases in society. Just because I was talking about transwomen, you assumed that I was talking about hookers. I am a transwoman (still early stages of transition) and I never have and have no intention of escorting* in the future. Actually, I just finished my doctoral thesis... now if there was a news report tonight that said "A transsexual woman was murdered today..." and everyone heard the word "transsexual" and jumped to "hooker" as you yourself did, don't you think that would strongly influence how the community reacted? If the police assumed that I was a hooker because I was TS, don't you think they would put that case on the backburner compared to a comparable (or even lesser) crime against a more mainstream member of society? So, in other words, according to your own argument, the best that a TS could hope for in how the police deal with her is to be treated the same that they would treat a GG hooker, whether the TS is actually a hooker or not.

You said all crimes should be punished equally. Well, presently they are not. If you attack a TS or rape her or whatever, you are presently more likely to get away with it or get a lesser sentence. So, again, the present legislation will take a step towards countering that already existing bias.


*Do not interpret this comment as a criticism of those who do escort, it is not such a statement.

[Felicia Katt]

I watched the debate over this bill on CSPAN today, and the Republicans made a good point. Example: There is a fist fight between two people. No assault by one person, but mutual combat between the two individuals. If one of them happens to be a minority, homosexual, transsexual, etc., and decides to file charges, that person's lawyer can easily make the hate crime argument, risking incarceration of the other party for a term that is unfair. Federalizing hate crimes can set a dangerous precedent for the 'thought police' to prosecute you solely on how you feel about someone. I think it best to keep them as they are; at the state level.

Besides, the new Democratic majority knows this bill doesn't have a chance in hell in being signed into law for such reasons, and is merely coercing the president to veto the bill before the American people for political gain. Then you'll have the Katrina, the War Funding Resolution, and the Hate Crime Bill arguments against the Republicans in 2008.
That person's lawyer? That makes no sense at all, and is part of a specious argument, at best. Criminal cases are prosecuted by Government lawyers. Its the People vs the Accused. You don't get to have a private lawyer prosecute your case, only to defend it. Who is charged, and with what are decided by a public servant, who is generally surpervised by an elected official, who is ultimately responsive to the voters. Whether someone is guilty of that crime is decided by a jury. No one person or one person's lawyer gets to decide what another's crime or punishment may be.

A hate crime is a more heinous crime than one done out of passion or economics and should be dealt with more seriously. If you kill someone for money, or for power or revenge, that is one thing, and a serious one. There may be some twisted justification for your doing so. But if you kill someone just because they are black, or gay or transgendered, there is no reason, except your own hatred. There are plently of legitimate ways you can express that hatred, none of which are ever impacted by hate crimes laws. Only actions, not thoughts are affected.

As far as the politics, this would only be Bush's third veto. Stem cells, Iraq spending and now hate crimes. His vetos pander to his far right base. He is the one playing politics. Unfortunately, the kind of fag bashing that the Republicans love to do with legislation is not subject to hate crimes prosecution.

FK

[trish]

Super_dave contends,
The basic issue, as I see it, is that there should not be stiffer punishments handed out because a man attacked a ts than if a man attacked a GG(assuming equal pain is inflicted). If the penalty isn't stiff enough for assault, maybe that is something that should be addressed, and not vice-versa.


First I’d like to say “right-on” to Galadriel’s rebuttal. I would also like to address the assumption of “equal pain”. Suppose you read that some guy got beat up in a bar last night over some misunderstanding or other. Does every guy in the country think, “Shit, they’re beating up on guys again”? I can tell you, that when a transgendered woman is beaten or killed, we do all take notice. The entire community suffers. We carry carry mace. We stay in instead of going out. We’re wary of every stranger who crosses our path at night. We want to the bastard punished…punished for causing pain to our sister yes, first and foremost. But we want to see him punished for the pain and suffering he caused the community as well.

[RangeHova]

If the penalties were handed out evenly, there would be no need for hate crimes.

There are far too many examples of hate crimes that have been resulted in ciminals that have been slapped on the wrist. Judges often side with and sympathize the aggressor after they come into court going up against someone whom much of society has deemed undesirable, queer, weird or strange.

[Super_dave]

Well, in rebuttal, to galadrielle, I wasn't jumping to conclusions about the ts being a hooker, I was referring specifically to what TSNTX had said, she had mentioned hookers, thus I countered with an example with a GG hooker, taht's why. I've pointed out in this thread numerous times that I don't work on the premise that tgirls are generally escorts, geeze.

As for what Felicia said about a hate crime being more heinous tahn one done for greed, jealousy or economics, I totally disagree, you can't justify causing harm to someone else for any reason, other than self-defense. Sure some crimes can be economically influenced, but that hardly comes under the purview of this argument, I've never heard of a a hate-theft, for example.

What I'm getting as a general gyst here is that if the laws were properly enforced/applied in the 1st place, there would be no need for hate crime legislation, no?

[Galadriel]

What I'm getting as a general gyst here is that if the laws were properly enforced/applied in the 1st place, there would be no need for hate crime legislation, no?

Yes. But they aren't equally enforced, and local government has shown no desire to change that. Hence, federal intervention is necessary.

[whatsupwithat]

If the penalties were handed out evenly, there would be no need for hate crimes.

There are far too many examples of hate crimes that have been resulted in ciminals that have been slapped on the wrist. Judges often side with and sympathize the aggressor after they come into court going up against someone whom much of society has deemed undesirable, queer, weird or strange.

You say there would be no need for hate crimes, then when you try to explain your reasoning, you actually argue for hate crime legislation.

Bravo!

...too funny.

[tsntx]

Well, in rebuttal, to galadrielle, I wasn't jumping to conclusions about the ts being a hooker, I was referring specifically to what TSNTX had said, she had mentioned hookers, thus I countered with an example with a GG hooker, taht's why. I've pointed out in this thread numerous times that I don't work on the premise that tgirls are generally escorts, geeze.

As for what Felicia said about a hate crime being more heinous tahn one done for greed, jealousy or economics, I totally disagree, you can't justify causing harm to someone else for any reason, other than self-defense. Sure some crimes can be economically influenced, but that hardly comes under the purview of this argument, I've never heard of a a hate-theft, for example.

What I'm getting as a general gyst here is that if the laws were properly enforced/applied in the 1st place, there would be no need for hate crime legislation, no?

what if everyone stopped judging and just took care of themselves and did everything in their power to be better ppl?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_abdullah.jpg

what if you lived in a land of utopia?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/TXMap-doton-Utopia.PNG

what if your hair were spaghetti and i ate it?

you'd be as bald as a meatball.

http://www.angryb.com/images/meatwad.jpg

[InHouston]

InHouston wrote: being a gay man i love looking at cock pics... i just pretend the female form isnt there


What a joke. You obviously think you're clever by deceiving people with the embedded "quote" tag feature of this forum software to misquote me. I never said that, never will, and have no need to because I'm not a gay man. If I really enjoyed looking at cock pics, while dismissing the female form, this would be the last forum I would be a member of.

Nice try ... actually lame try.



tsntx wrote: I think InHouston is hot, and he needs a girl like me.

See how easy it was to misquote you?

Look, I'll throw you a bone. If there was no social stigma attached to dating a TG, hell I would have done so long ago, and introduced her to my friends and family. You know tsntx, I asked you a while back if you wanted to meet, because we live right down the street from each other. In the course of a couple of messages, you started to act like a defensive smartass, so I just blew it off. You're loss. If they're all like you, I couldn't date one even if I wanted to, AND THAT IS YOUR FAULT.

Hell, if the world were a better place like that, there would be one, if not more, laying out at my pool nude with cock in full view, and all my friends looking on saying "Man, that bitch is hot", and they would not doubt ask me to hook them up with one.

But that's not how society here works does it? No it doesn't. AND YOU BEING A TG tsntx know that. It's not my fault ... it's not your fault ... but the social stigma just isn't worth it, not because I'm not courageous enough to face it, my friends, family and colleagues are too narrow-minded and fearful of the unknown to face it. They’ve never approached such matters in their minds. Okay? So there it is. Do I have a problem with my attraction to TG's? No. Do most other heterosexual men do? Yes. So what can I do? It's a decision and a choice I make as an adult, that I think is quite normal in spite of what society chooses to dismiss out of embarrassment to manhood. And that's what it's really all about.

Men get defensive where their manhood is concerned, and frankly, I don't want to deal with the prejudice. Most of my friends are very heterosexual, and would probably understand, but I would just rather they not know, because they're not as open-minded as I am. They would talk to people, like their wives, who I would rather not know at all.

So, do I have the courage to date a TG? Of course I do. What I don’t have the courage to do is to sit there and try and help my family and friends to understand. Especially my friends, because they span a very broad range of people from personal and close friends, who would most likely understand, to acquaintances who will just walk the other way, to professional colleagues who would relish the opportunity to get that kind of dirt on you for their professional and social gain. I’m just not gonna do it. I understand my attraction perfectly, and have no problem with it. I don’t want to deal with their problems, because I can’t stand trying to explain to someone, something that is perfectly normal, when they’ve given little thought about it. They’re ignorant. Fuck it. If they want to broaden their sexual horizons like I did, they can do it on their own.

[trish]

...I don’t have the courage to ... try and help my family and friends to understand...

c'mon InHouston, that's exactly what is means to lack courage in a social situation. most people would have no problem hanging with, dating, or marrying the person the they're most attracted too...what takes courage is to face friends, family and society and say this is the person i want to be with now. i applaud the fact that you're honest enough to admit you lack that courage. unfortunately it's the lack of that sort of courage that permits the hatred of differences to endure. if even our friends won't admit us into their circle of acquaintances, why would we expect anyone to stand up for us when our lives are threatened. we need federal laws against hate crimes. you are the argument.

[whatsupwithat]

[ If there was no social stigma attached to dating a TG, hell I would have done so long ago, and introduced her to my friends and family.

It's not my fault ... it's not your fault ... but the social stigma just isn't worth it, not because I'm not courageous enough to face it, my friends, family and colleagues are too narrow-minded and fearful of the unknown to face it.

Most of my friends are very heterosexual, and would probably understand, but I would just rather they not know, because they're not as open-minded as I am. They would talk to people, like their wives, who I would rather not know at all.

So, do I have the courage to date a TG? Of course I do. What I don’t have the courage to do is to sit there and try and help my family and friends to understand. Especially my friends, because they span a very broad range of people from personal and close friends, who would most likely understand, to acquaintances who will just walk the other way, to professional colleagues who would relish the opportunity to get that kind of dirt on you for their professional and social gain.

And you say you have courage? My man, you are so deep in fear and shame I don't even know where to begin.

But if you need help, someone to talk to, I'm here. Up to you.

[whatsupwithat]

if even our friends won't admit us into their circle of acquaintances, why would we expect anyone to stand up for us when our lives are threatened. we need federal laws against hate crimes. you are the argument.

Bam! Couldn't have said it any better. :claps

[tsntx]

InHouston wrote: being a gay man i love looking at cock pics... i just pretend the female form isnt there


What a joke. You obviously think you're clever by deceiving people with the embedded "quote" tag feature of this forum software to misquote me. I never said that, never will, and have no need to because I'm not a gay man. If I really enjoyed looking at cock pics, while dismissing the female form, this would be the last forum I would be a member of.

Nice try ... actually lame try.



tsntx wrote: I think InHouston is hot, and he needs a girl like me.

See how easy it was to misquote you?

Look, I'll throw you a bone. If there was no social stigma attached to dating a TG, hell I would have done so long ago, and introduced her to my friends and family. You know tsntx, I asked you a while back if you wanted to meet, because we live right down the street from each other. In the course of a couple of messages, you started to act like a defensive smartass, so I just blew it off. You're loss. If they're all like you, I couldn't date one even if I wanted to, AND THAT IS YOUR FAULT.

Hell, if the world were a better place like that, there would be one, if not more, laying out at my pool nude with cock in full view, and all my friends looking on saying "Man, that bitch is hot", and they would not doubt ask me to hook them up with one.

But that's not how society here works does it? No it doesn't. AND YOU BEING A TG tsntx know that. It's not my fault ... it's not your fault ... but the social stigma just isn't worth it, not because I'm not courageous enough to face it, my friends, family and colleagues are too narrow-minded and fearful of the unknown to face it. They’ve never approached such matters in their minds. Okay? So there it is. Do I have a problem with my attraction to TG's? No. Do most other heterosexual men do? Yes. So what can I do? It's a decision and a choice I make as an adult, that I think is quite normal in spite of what society chooses to dismiss out of embarrassment to manhood. And that's what it's really all about.

Men get defensive where their manhood is concerned, and frankly, I don't want to deal with the prejudice. Most of my friends are very heterosexual, and would probably understand, but I would just rather they not know, because they're not as open-minded as I am. They would talk to people, like their wives, who I would rather not know at all.

So, do I have the courage to date a TG? Of course I do. What I don’t have the courage to do is to sit there and try and help my family and friends to understand. Especially my friends, because they span a very broad range of people from personal and close friends, who would most likely understand, to acquaintances who will just walk the other way, to professional colleagues who would relish the opportunity to get that kind of dirt on you for their professional and social gain. I’m just not gonna do it. I understand my attraction perfectly, and have no problem with it. I don’t want to deal with their problems, because I can’t stand trying to explain to someone, something that is perfectly normal, when they’ve given little thought about it. They’re ignorant. Fuck it. If they want to broaden their sexual horizons like I did, they can do it on their own.

im NOT even going to read your ignorant dribble as its obvious you DIDNT read my post.

READ THE FINE PRINT "FAG"





And while it's obvious you're having a hard time procurring lasting relationships with heterosexual men, why don't you realize that for the most part we prefer females, ladies, with vaginas and can rear children and all that. We can't help it, were males. You were born as a gay man, so I can turn that argument around and say why don't you just have the balls to date a man? Silly isn't it? There's the way you are, and then there's the way you'd like the world to be, and then there's the way it is. Sorry sweetheart, but men are men. Thinking that men in general lack courage to date and have a relationship with a TG is a bit much to ask of us. That's just the way it is, and deep down you know it.

Two things, please don't generalize and lump my beliefs in with yours, and what the fuck are you doing on a TS message board?


InHouston wrote: being a gay man i love looking at cock pics... i just pretend the female form isnt there

































not a direct quote, deal w/ it

[hwbs]

:anon

[peggygee]

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/image235838x.jpg

Contact The President:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/


Contact Your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


Contact Congress:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/WETHEPEOPLE.jpg

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/respect.jpg

[peggygee]

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

Subject:

Support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act


Dear [ Decision Maker ],


I'm writing to ask you to vote for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act this month. As your constituent, and as a citizen, I believe law enforcement officials need additional support from the federal government to help fight bias-motivated violence.

As Americans, we must take a strong stand against violence committed against our neighbors for simply being themselves. The purpose of our government, first and foremost, is to protect all of our citizens - whether they are black, disabled, Christian transgendered, or gay.

This Act would also provide much-needed resources for local law enforcement agencies, so they can investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Opponents of the federal bill wrongly characterize its scope and purpose - this legislation is not about enhancing penalties for these types of crimes, nor does it punish thoughts or speech. The bill simply is about providing resources to law enforcement to help investigate, apprehend and prosecute vicious criminals.

This legislation has long been supported by 31 state Attorneys-General, former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Forum and many other law enforcement organizations.

Please vote for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

[whatsupwithat]

:anon

Uhm, yep. Exactly how so many of the men approach the transgender community. It's pathetic. I just wish all these guys on the DL would just disappear. They only spread disease and pain.

[tsntx]

:anon

Uhm, yep. Exactly how so many of the men approach the transgender community. It's pathetic. I just wish all these guys on the DL would just disappear. They only spread disease and pain.

CO-SIGN.

[whatsupwithat]

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

Subject:

Support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act


Dear [ Decision Maker ],


I'm writing to ask you to vote for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act this month. As your constituent, and as a citizen, I believe law enforcement officials need additional support from the federal government to help fight bias-motivated violence.

As Americans, we must take a strong stand against violence committed against our neighbors for simply being themselves. The purpose of our government, first and foremost, is to protect all of our citizens - whether they are black, disabled, Christian or gay.

This Act would also provide much-needed resources for local law enforcement agencies, so they can investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Opponents of the federal bill wrongly characterize its scope and purpose - this legislation is not about enhancing penalties for these types of crimes, nor does it punish thoughts or speech. The bill simply is about providing resources to law enforcement to help investigate, apprehend and prosecute vicious criminals.

This legislation has long been supported by 31 state Attorneys-General, former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Forum and many other law enforcement organizations.

Please vote for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

Thank you, peggy! :)

[peggygee]

:anon

Uhm, yep. Exactly how so many of the men approach the transgender community. It's pathetic. I just wish all these guys on the DL would just disappear. They only spread disease and pain.

Co-sign

[tsntx]

peggy ty for the letter to ______ im copy/pasting it now... sadly i dont think many others will.

[trish]

peggy...always practical...always wise. thanks.

[peggygee]

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

Subject:

Support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act


Dear [ Decision Maker ],


I'm writing to ask you to vote for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act this month. As your constituent, and as a citizen, I believe law enforcement officials need additional support from the federal government to help fight bias-motivated violence.

As Americans, we must take a strong stand against violence committed against our neighbors for simply being themselves. The purpose of our government, first and foremost, is to protect all of our citizens - whether they are black, disabled, Christian or gay.

This Act would also provide much-needed resources for local law enforcement agencies, so they can investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Opponents of the federal bill wrongly characterize its scope and purpose - this legislation is not about enhancing penalties for these types of crimes, nor does it punish thoughts or speech. The bill simply is about providing resources to law enforcement to help investigate, apprehend and prosecute vicious criminals.

This legislation has long been supported by 31 state Attorneys-General, former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Forum and many other law enforcement organizations.

Please vote for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

Thank you, peggy! :)


Thanks to the folks at the hrcactioncenter.

Feel free to use the template above to write to the President, and the
legislature, or to edit and personalize your thoughts.

Or you may may go to the provided link and send your letter from there.

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

[whatsupwithat]

Thanks to the folks at the hrcactioncenter.

Feel free to use the template above to write to the President, and the
legislature, or to edit and personalize your thoughts.

Or you may may go to the provided link and send your letter from there.

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

they're amazing people. always stepping up. and powerfully. it's funny, but just two or three short years ago, i'd all but given up on america, i thought it was over. today, i have some hope. just a little...but its hope. :)

[peggygee]

peggy ty for the letter to ______ im copy/pasting it now... sadly i dont think many others will.




peggy...always practical...always wise. thanks



Thank you ladies.

We fight the good fight, it is my
prayer that we shall be victorious.

Also, feel free to utilize this link to
send your letter, and it will be forwarded
to your legislators.

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

For President Bush, this is the White House
email address.

Contact The President:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/81813507245ccbc7647828.gif

[peggygee]

Thanks to the folks at the hrcactioncenter.

Feel free to use the template above to write to the President, and the
legislature, or to edit and personalize your thoughts.

Or you may may go to the provided link and send your letter from there.

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

they're amazing people. always stepping up. and powerfully. it's funny, but just two or three short years ago, i'd all but given up on america, i thought it was over. today, i have some hope. just a little...but its hope. :)

'We', each one of us, represents that hope,
and can be instrumental in bringing about
a change.

[whatsupwithat]

Thanks to the folks at the hrcactioncenter.

Feel free to use the template above to write to the President, and the
legislature, or to edit and personalize your thoughts.

Or you may may go to the provided link and send your letter from there.

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

they're amazing people. always stepping up. and powerfully. it's funny, but just two or three short years ago, i'd all but given up on america, i thought it was over. today, i have some hope. just a little...but its hope. :)

'We', each one of us, represents that hope,
and can be instrumental in bringing about
a change.

yes, we can, dear lady. yes, we can. :)

[peggygee]

As for what Felicia said about a hate crime being more heinous tahn one done for greed, jealousy or economics, I totally disagree, you can't justify causing harm to someone else for any reason, other than self-defense.

Sure some crimes can be economically influenced, but that hardly comes under the purview of this argument, I've never heard of a a hate-theft, for example.

What I'm getting as a general gyst here is that if the laws were properly enforced/applied in the 1st place, there would be no need for hate crime legislation, no?

The Judiciary Committee cited FBI figures that there have been more
than 113,000 hate crimes since 1991, including 7,163 in 1995. It said that
racially motivated bias accounted for 55 percent of those incidents,
religious bias for 17 percent, sexual orientation bias for 14 percent and
ethnicity bias for 14 percent.

I will be supplementing these figures as I obtain them.

[jamans]

I honestly suggest that anyone who supports hate crime legislation watch the South Park episode devoted to the very topic

[chefmike]

And if the repugs actually manage to win the next presidential election, despite all their crimes and failures....

“Crimes and failures” … ChefMike’s usual regurgitation of popular and biased talking points.




And let's say that I happen to walk into a saloon after the election... and let's say that I punch the first motherfucker that says "great" about a GOP win, is that also a hate crime?


In light of your pinheaded and hateful sentiments towards your fellow Americans revealed in your words, by virtue that is a hate crime. However, it would be prosecuted, and deservingly so, as an assault.

Not to worry, Mr. 'steers and queers', you don't have to worry about getting punched out....because the GOP doesn't have a chance in hell of winning another presidential election for a long time...thanks to your fellow texan shrubya....piece-of-shit wannabe cowboy chickenhawk that he is...and you are... :wink:

[tsntx]

hey just b/c that crack head claims to be texan... hes from CT .... we dont want the tool.

[Galadriel]

I honestly suggest that anyone who supports hate crime legislation watch the South Park episode devoted to the very topic

I honestly suggest that anyone who gets their politics from South Park is a dipshit moron.

[chefmike]

hey just b/c that crack head claims to be texan... hes from CT .... we dont want the tool.

LMAO, Jen...

[Oli]

hey just b/c that crack head claims to be texan... hes from CT .... we dont want the tool.

And we don't want him back

[tsntx]

lol^^^

[wendy48088]

* Deleted *

[DracoLord]

@peggygee:

Does an US citizen born and raised in Puerto Rico, like me, send that letter you posted to Congress and/or the President?...

I want to do my bit for this community...

[peggygee]

@peggygee:

Does an US citizen born and raised in Puerto Rico, like me, send that letter you posted to Congress and/or the President?...

I want to do my bit for this community...

That is an excellent question, the short answer is if you are currently
living in Puerto Rico you could fill out the form at this link.

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

What is particularly interesting about your question is that Puerto Rico is
a commonwealth of the United States. As you no doubt are aware this
means that they have no voting privileges to the Executive branch
(President) or to either house of Congress.

Having said that you may still opt to write to the President ;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Or you may use the form I previously mentioned which has a designation
for Puerto Rico.

[DracoLord]

Well, Peggy, I went with the first link and filled in the forms... I want to write to the president; I wanna use the letter template you posted, but I want to personalize it, but without sounding like an idiot... in other words, help me!!!... shall we do this openly here or in a PM?... I really DO want to write to the President...

[chefmike]

I found this editorial to be very informative re the religious-right's vehement opposition to this kind of legislation, and it certainly helped make up my mind to fully support this legislation:

More Lies from the Supposed Guardians of Truth
Peter Montgomery


On Thursday May 3, the House of Representatives overcame an intensive propaganda campaign by anti-gay organizations and passed hate crimes legislation that would allow federal law enforcement officials to step in when state or local officials cannot or will not prosecute a violent hate crime. That's the good news. The bad news is that we'll almost certainly have to put up with even more apocalyptic rhetoric from right-wing leaders as the Senate considers the bill.

I've watched Religious Right leaders lying about gay people for years. Over and over again, people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Lou Sheldon and others tell their followers that gays are their enemies, out to destroy their churches and their families. But even after years of hearing and reading their manipulative and misleading rhetoric, I still shake my head at the willingness of so many religious leaders -- people who put themselves out there as advocates for Truth -- to be so brazenly and unashamedly dishonest in pursuit of a political goal.


Their immediate agenda here is to derail the hate crimes legislation that would extend federal law to cover violent crimes committed against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The vast majority of Americans supports these protections. In our increasingly diverse society, it makes good sense that we take a strong stand against singling people out for violence because we don't like something about them.


The radical right, however, opposes any legal recognition for LGBT people. And since they can't defeat the bill on its merits - even most ultraconservatives seem to understand that beating up or killing someone for being gay isn't something to be proud of - right-wing groups like the American Family Association and Repent America have decided to haul out their favorite weapon, the charge that equal rights advocates and Democrats in Congress are out to criminalize Christianity.


Say what you want about the Religious Right, they have a flair for the dramatic: images of preachers being dragged from their pulpits for preaching against homosexuality, images of Christians thrown in jail for quoting scripture.


Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition: "...if a pastor stands up in the pulpit and says homosexuality is a sin ... it will be considered hate speech. And if this law passes, the federal government will go after people who say those kinds of things."

Chuck Colson, who should know a thing or two about crime: "But this bill is not about hate. It's not even about crime. It's about outlawing peaceful speech--speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong...If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted...Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy."

James Dobson: "There's a vote coming up on some insidious legislation in the United States Congress that could silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs," he said on his radio broadcast recently. "That means that as a Christian - if you read the Bible a certain way with regard to morality - you may be guilty of committing a 'thought crime.' "

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins: "...the only effect [hate crimes legislation] will truly have is to gag people of faith and conviction who disagree with the homosexual agenda."

Vision America's Rick Scarborough: "While the majority of pastors and Christians are clueless as to what this legislation is designed to accomplish, I assure you that homosexual activists are quietly rejoicing over the open season their lawyers and allies are about to enjoy with those of us who are visible in the pro-family movement. Religious freedom would be dealt a deathblow and religious tolerance would become history if this legislation becomes law."

It's especially appalling that the Right has continued to make bogus claims like this because the bill includes a provision explicitly protecting free speech and religious liberty:


"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."


It's right there in the bill that passed the House. It could not be clearer that this bill has nothing to do with silencing preachers and everything to do with prosecuting violent hate crimes.


Perhaps the American Family Association most clearly reveals what's really going on here under cover of these false claims about religious liberty. The AFA has posted a list they call "sexual orientations" that links homosexuality with pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, prostitution and a list of sexual fetishes clearly designed to make gays seem creepy and scary - and to imply the bill would extend hate crimes coverage to a wide range of kinky sex practices. Bishop Harry Jackson seemingly referred to the AFA list on a C-SPAN debate the day of the vote. Of course, the term "sexual orientation" for purposes of the legislation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. Nothing to do with animals or dead people. But I suppose the folks at the AFA had a good time putting their list together.


Dobson is trying to get 250,000 signatures on a petition to Congress opposing "legislation that ultimately could strip away the right of Christians to express a biblical view of homosexuality." Here's a way to tell the Senate not to listen to these lies.

article and it's links-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-montgomery/more-lies-from-the-suppos_b_47600.html

[peggygee]

They support
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Forum Member Of HA Do You?

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/finger_pointingcrop.jpg

Support For This Legislation

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/llehcpa-supporter.html

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is supported by
30 state Attorneys General and over 280 national law enforcement,
professional, education, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations.


**Orgs with hyperlinks contain letters to the House of Representatives in
support of the LLEHCPA.**

A. Philip Randolph Institute
AIDS National Interfaith Network
African American Ministers in Action
African-American Women's Clergy Association
Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell)
Alliance for Rehabilitation Counseling
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
American Association for Affirmative Action
American Association of University Women
American Association on Health and Disability
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR)
American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD)
American Citizens for Justice
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American Conference of Cantors
American Council of the Blind
American Counseling Association
American Dance Therapy Association
American Ethical Union, Washington Office
American Federation of Government Employees
American Federation of Musicians
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL CIO
American Federation of Teachers
AFL-CIO
American Foundation for the Blind
American Islamic Congress
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
American Medical Association
American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association (AMRPA)
American Music Therapy Association
American Network of Community Options and Resources (ANCOR)
American Nurses Association
American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA)
American Psychological Association
American Rehabilitation Association
American Speech-Language Hearing Association
American Therapeutic Recreation Association
American Psychological Association
Americans for Democratic Action
American Veterans Committee
And Justice For All
Anti-Defamation League
Aplastic Anemia Foundation of America, Inc.
Arab American Institute
The Arc of the United States
Asian American Justice Center
Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund
Asian Law Caucus
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Association for Gender Equity Leadership in Education
Association of Tech Art Projects (ATAP) c/o Washington Partners LLP
Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD)
Autism Society of America
AYUDA
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Bi-Net
B'nai B'rith International
Brain Injury Association, Inc.
Break the Cycle
Buddhist Peace Fellowship
Business and Professional Women, USA
Catholics for Free Choice
Center for Community Change
Center for Democratic Renewal
Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism
Center for Women Policy Studies
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Chinese American Citizens Alliance
Christian Church Capital Area
Church Women United
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists
Coalition of Labor Union Women
Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CCASA)
Communication Workers of America
Congress of National Black Churches
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
Consortium of Developmental Disabilities Councils
Council for Learning Disabilities
Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation
Cuban American National Council
Democrats.com
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Disciples of Christ Advocacy Washington Network
Disciples Justice Action Network
Easter Seals
The Episcopal Church
Epilepsy Foundation
Equal Partners in Faith
Equal Rights Advocates, Inc.
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Office for Government Affairs
Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington
Family Pride Coalition
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
Federally Employed Women
Feminist Majority
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
Gender Public Advocacy Coalition
GenderWatchers
General Federation of Women's Clubs
Goodwill Industries International, Inc.
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America
Helen Keller National Center
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association
Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association
Human Rights Campaign
Human Rights First
The Indian American Center for Political Awareness
Interfaith Alliance
International Association of Chiefs of Police
International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists
International Association of Jewish Vocational Services
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
International Dyslexia Association
International Union of United Aerospace and Agricultural Implements
Japanese American Citizens League
Jewish Council for Public Affairs (on House Vote)
Jewish Labor Committee
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
Jewish War Veterans of the USA
Jewish Women International
JAC-Joint Action Committee
Justice for All
LDA, The Learning Disabilities Association of America
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
The Latino Coalition
Latino/a, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Organization
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
LEAP- Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics, Inc.
Learning Disabilities Association of America
League of Women Voters
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Legal Momentum
Log Cabin Republicans
Major Cities Chiefs Association
MALDEF - Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund
MANA - A National Latina Organization
Maryland State Department of Education
Matthew Shepard Foundation
The McAuley Institute
Methodist Federation for Social Action
Moderator's Global Justice Team of Metropolitan Community Churches
National Abortion Federation
NAACP
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
NA'AMAT USA
NAKASEC- National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, Inc
National Abortion Federation
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
National Asian Peace Officers Association
National Association for Multicultural Education
National Association of Commissions for Women
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)
National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association
National Association for the Education and Advancement of Cambodian, Laotian and Vietnamese Americans
National Association of Collegiate Women Athletics Administrators
National Association of the Deaf
National Association of Developmental Disabilities Councils (NADDC)
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO)
National Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Centers (on House Vote)
National Association for Multicultural Education
National Association of People with AIDS
National Association of Private Schools for Exceptional Children
National Association of Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Black Police Association
National Black Women's Health Project
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Center for Victims of Crime
National Center for Women & Policing
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs
National Coalition on Deaf-Blindness
National Coalition of Public Safety Officers
National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ)
National Congress of American Indians
National Congress of Black Women
National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of La Raza
National Council of Women's Organizations
National Disability Rights Network
National District Attorneys Association
National Down Syndrome Society (NDSS)
National Education Association
National Federation of Filipino American Associations
National Fragile X Foundation (Fragile X)
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA)
National Italian American Foundation
National Jewish Democratic Council
National Korean American Service and Education Consortium
National Latino Police Officers Association
National League of Cities
National Mental Health Association
National Multicultural Institute
National Newspaper Publishers Association
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
National Organization for Women
National Parent Network on Disabilities
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc.
National Rehabilitation Association
National Respite Network
National Sheriffs' Association
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States
National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA)
National Therapeutic Recreation Society
National Urban League
National Victim Center
National Women's Conference
National Women's Committee (NWC)
National Women's Law Center
National Youth Advocacy Coalition
NISH
NOW - National Organization for Women
NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
9to5 Atlanta
9to5 Bay Area
9to5 Colorado
9to5 Los Angeles
9to5 Poverty Network Initiative (Wisconsin)
9to5, National Association of Working Women
North American Federation of Temple Youth
Northwest Women's Law Center
Organization of Chinese Americans
ORT- Organization for Educational Resources and Technological Training
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
People For the American Way
Police Executive Research Forum
Police Foundation
Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office
Pride at Work
Project Equality, Inc.
Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America
Research Institute for Independent Living
The Rabbinical Assembly
Rock the Vote
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
School Social Work Association of America
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF)
Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow (SAALT)
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Southern Poverty Law Center
Spina Bifida Association of America
Union of Reform Judaism
Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees (UNITE)
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Cerebral Palsy
United Church of Christ – Justice and Witness Ministries
United Church of Christ - Office of Church in Society
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
United Methodist Church – General Board of Church and Society
United Methodist Church - General Commission on Religion and Race
United Spinal Association
The United States Conference of Mayors
United States Student Association
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Washington Teachers Union
The Woman Activist Fund, Inc.
Women Employed
Women of Reform Judaism, Federation of Temple Sisterhoods
Women Work!
Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics & Ritual
Women's American ORT
The Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press
Women's Law Center of Maryland, Inc.
Women's Research and Education Institute (WREI)
World Institute on Disability (WID)
YWCA of the USA

[peggygee]

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/image235838x.jpg

Contact The President:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/


Contact Your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


Contact Congress:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Thanks to the folks at the hrcactioncenter.

Feel free to use the template below to write to the President, and the
legislature, or to edit and personalize your thoughts.

Or you may may go to the provided link and send your letter from there.


http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

Subject:

Support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act


Dear [ Decision Maker ],


I'm writing to ask you to vote for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act this month. As your constituent, and as a citizen, I believe law enforcement officials need additional support from the federal government to help fight bias-motivated violence.

As Americans, we must take a strong stand against violence committed against our neighbors for simply being themselves. The purpose of our government, first and foremost, is to protect all of our citizens - whether they are black, disabled, Christian transgendered, or gay.

This Act would also provide much-needed resources for local law enforcement agencies, so they can investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Opponents of the federal bill wrongly characterize its scope and purpose - this legislation is not about enhancing penalties for these types of crimes, nor does it punish thoughts or speech. The bill simply is about providing resources to law enforcement to help investigate, apprehend and prosecute vicious criminals.

This legislation has long been supported by 31 state Attorneys-General, former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Forum and many other law enforcement organizations.

Please vote for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

[biguy4tvtscd]

I do not support hate crime legislation, and for most of the same reasons already mentioned by inHouston, and Super_Dave.

No crime is committed out of love, all crimes are hate crimes. The lack of logic behind prosecuting Murder A harsher or more leniently than Murder B is stunning. Think about it, is there really any difference between a white supremacist killing a black man and the same white supremacist killing a white man? Both result in a dead human, and both should be prosecuted equally.

Murder is murder, assault is assault, robbery is robbery, and the list goes on ad nauseum.

If a certain percentage of the population are not getting a fair shake in the court of law, then you make changes to assure fair treatment in court. If a certain percentage of the population are getting lesser convictions for the same crimes as others, then again, you change the system from within. You don't re-write the law books to favor one group over another, or to make a crime commited against someone outside of a group harsher than a crime commited against someone within that same group.

Ladies, believe me, I understand how some of you feel about this, but it's just the wrong solution.
Sure, it feels right, because it gives a feeling of empowerment, but personally, I'd rather see all crimes treated equally regardless of who the victim and who the perp are.

Whatever happened to trying to make society colorblind?

[tsntx]

i dont think any of the girls have issues w/ the crimes being PUNISHED the same way... we just want to make sure that they DO punish them the same way... establishing a law that says you HAVE to do that... is what we need, and what we want.

[wjcdiver]

Especially since you often don't know the motive.

If someone assaults someone they should go to jail. I don't care why they assualt the person. If someone kills someone, deliberately, it is murder. If they kill someone accidentlally then other issues do become a factor, e.g. drinking, drugs, wanton recklessness etc. If its deliberate its murder and should get the same punishment. "Special factors include multiple murders or torture".

I am opposed to hate crime laws. The punishment should be the same for the same action regardless of motive.

I believe all crimes should be punished, especially where a person is injured - regardless of who is the victim or who is the criminal.

Beating up a gay person is not worse than beating up a straight person - or vice versa.

I agree that the law must be enforced for all. I don't believe in separate laws for different people.

This is not anti-gay or transgender. Anyone who assaults a gay or transgender person should be severely punished. So should anyone who assualts any other person.

[trish]

i agree, the same crime deserves the same punishment. bashing a gay to within an inch of his life is not the same crime as beating a straight guy to within an inch of his life over a dispute. the former crime is not against just one person. the gay who got beat up is a stand in for the whole community of gays. the crime is a both violence against this person and a message to all gays, "don't come around here". the latter crime has one victim. different crimes...different punishments.

[hippifried]

bashing a gay to within an inch of his life is not the same crime as beating a straight guy to within an inch of his life over a dispute.
You're partially right. Beating someone because of who they are is different than beating someone up in a fight.

When a dispute escalates to violence, somebody's going to lose. Orientation of the participants, winner & loser, doesn't have anything to do with it. It's not even necessarily an assault. Just a dispute that got out of hand. A fight.

A violent assault on someone over their affiliation, real or perceived, is a whole different story. It's a premeditated act. It's malicious in intent & without redeeming justification. It's the malice that makes hate crimes heinous.

IMHO: Hate crimes should probably not be prosecuted or punished differently than any other heinous crime, but they should always be prosecuted & punished as a heinous crime. I don't have a problem defining them as such.

[jamans]

I honestly suggest that anyone who gets their politics from South Park is a dipshit moron.

watch the fucking episode before you make judgement.

BTW...anyone who gets their politics from a porn forum is not only a dipshit moron...but odds are they are a dipshit moron who is a convicted felon who can't vote anyways

[Felicia Katt]

i agree, the same crime deserves the same punishment. bashing a gay to within an inch of his life is not the same crime as beating a straight guy to within an inch of his life over a dispute. the former crime is not against just one person. the gay who got beat up is a stand in for the whole community of gays. the crime is a both violence against this person and a message to all gays, "don't come around here". the latter crime has one victim. different crimes...different punishments.
hear hear

Its not really a "hate crime", so much as a specific intent crime, to terrorize and intimidate a group or class of people. Hate is not criminalized. People are still free to feel hatred and even to express it openly, in any way, except violence.

All crimes are not equal. Do you really think setting fire to someone's mailbox is the same as burning a cross in their yard?

FK

[tsntx]

i agree, the same crime deserves the same punishment. bashing a gay to within an inch of his life is not the same crime as beating a straight guy to within an inch of his life over a dispute. the former crime is not against just one person. the gay who got beat up is a stand in for the whole community of gays. the crime is a both violence against this person and a message to all gays, "don't come around here". the latter crime has one victim. different crimes...different punishments.
hear hear

Its not really a "hate crime", so much as a specific intent crime, to terrorize and intimidate a group or class of people. Hate is not criminalized. People are still free to feel hatred and even to express it openly, in any way, except violence.

All crimes are not equal. Do you really think setting fire to someone's mailbox is the same as burning a cross in their yard?

FK


oooooooooh good example!!

for the idgits that cant decode them... 1. is an arson crime, the 2. is a hate crime done w/ arson

[Aurora]

I do not support hate crime legislation, and for most of the same reasons already mentioned by inHouston, and Super_Dave.

No crime is committed out of love, all crimes are hate crimes. The lack of logic behind prosecuting Murder A harsher or more leniently than Murder B is stunning. Think about it, is there really any difference between a white supremacist killing a black man and the same white supremacist killing a white man? Both result in a dead human, and both should be prosecuted equally.

Murder is murder, assault is assault, robbery is robbery, and the list goes on ad nauseum.

If a certain percentage of the population are not getting a fair shake in the court of law, then you make changes to assure fair treatment in court. If a certain percentage of the population are getting lesser convictions for the same crimes as others, then again, you change the system from within. You don't re-write the law books to favor one group over another, or to make a crime commited against someone outside of a group harsher than a crime commited against someone within that same group.

Ladies, believe me, I understand how some of you feel about this, but it's just the wrong solution.
Sure, it feels right, because it gives a feeling of empowerment, but personally, I'd rather see all crimes treated equally regardless of who the victim and who the perp are.

Whatever happened to trying to make society colorblind?

The unfortunate thing is I'd like to hear a better solution.

Yes, murder is murder, assault is assault - but you have to admit it's different if an argument or fist fight goes too far than if someone gets randomly attacked for whatever perceived reason (because he or she is gay, trans, white, asian, has brown hair, or is wearing a red shirt).

Imagine you were born in an African or Asian country and you got attacked by three or four people for being "the white devil". Wouldn't you feel a bit more victimized than if you mutually started an argument or fight with someone and just happened to be on the losing end?

The bottom line is that transsexual and gay people get attacked for being "the tranny devil" far more often than most other groups of people and in any part of town: whether it's the poor section of town, the middle class suburbs, rural areas, or the upper class gated community gay and trans people are at high risk of being attacked or harassed - the problem is that it is often felt justified, ok, or even encouraged to pick on a gay or transsexual person. Furthermore, people who attack a person who is gay or trans often are able to get away with a slap on the wrist.

Just think of TSNTX's example of working as a waitress. She could get beat up because she rejected a guy's advances (and so could a GG), but she could also get up beat up because a friend of a guy who found her attractive would say "that's a dude". A GG is very unlikely to get beat up just because she is a woman, and you know that no one would have any sympathy for a guy who says "I beat up that waitress because I hate women". However, a guy who beat up TSNTX and said "I felt threatened because my friends thought I was was attracted to "him" :roll:" would probably get a lot of sympathy from many people. And she didn't have to lead him on or even speak to him. Just stand there, look pretty, do her job - and possibly get her ass kicked for it.

The main things here are that:

1. There is a fair trial for victims of assault, rape, murder, etc who happen to be trans or gay
2. That judges, jurors, and law enforcement officials understand that legally speaking it is not ok to harass, threaten, or attack someone for their gender identity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Ok to hate them all you want, but leave them alone.

[LTR_Seeker]

I dont like the bill its also means to pusnish people who dont belive in lifestyle in whatever fashion you if person doesnt likea certain lifestyle that nit hate crime that right to as american to be againt lifestyle he doesnt like.

[chefmike]

I dont like the bill its also means to pusnish people who dont belive in lifestyle in whatever fashion you if person doesnt likea certain lifestyle that nit hate crime that right to as american to be againt lifestyle he doesnt like.

:?:

:roll:

:lol:

[tsntx]

yeah wat chef said.... ?

[peggygee]

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/image235838x.jpg

Contact The President:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/


Contact Your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


Contact Congress:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Thanks to the folks at the hrcactioncenter.

Feel free to use the template below to write to the President, and the
legislature, or to edit and personalize your thoughts.

Or you may may go to the provided link and send your letter from there.


http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

Subject:

Support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act


Dear [ Decision Maker ],


I'm writing to ask you to vote for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act this month. As your constituent, and as a citizen, I believe law enforcement officials need additional support from the federal government to help fight bias-motivated violence.

As Americans, we must take a strong stand against violence committed against our neighbors for simply being themselves. The purpose of our government, first and foremost, is to protect all of our citizens - whether they are black, disabled, Christian transgendered, or gay.

This Act would also provide much-needed resources for local law enforcement agencies, so they can investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Opponents of the federal bill wrongly characterize its scope and purpose - this legislation is not about enhancing penalties for these types of crimes, nor does it punish thoughts or speech. The bill simply is about providing resources to law enforcement to help investigate, apprehend and prosecute vicious criminals.

This legislation has long been supported by 31 state Attorneys-General, former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Forum and many other law enforcement organizations.

Please vote for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

[peggygee]

You still have time to support this bill!

The bill hasn't been vetoed yet.

Please support your community.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/le06.gif



http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/WETHEPEOPLE.jpg

[TJ347]

I still don't see why one murder, or assault, or whatever is worse than another. The purpose of laws is to enforce codes of CONDUCT not ways of thinking. As shitty as it can be, freedom of speech(or thought) gives everyone the RIGHT to think however they want, as long as they don't harm someone else. hence we punish the act, not the reason for the act.

One murder or assault can be judged as being worse than another murder or assault depending on the reasons why one occurred versus another, as we all know. The criminal laws of the U.S. (and the civilized world) recognize that thought precedes conduct, and this is why there are different standards for someone who through negligence takes the life of another, versus someone who intentionally does so, for example. Thus, the law can be used to punish both the act and the reason for the act, and when doing the latter, indeed punishes individuals for having "criminal thought", as this is a socially unacceptable way of thinking.

[TJ347]

I dont like the bill its also means to pusnish people who dont belive in lifestyle in whatever fashion you if person doesnt likea certain lifestyle that nit hate crime that right to as american to be againt lifestyle he doesnt like.

With all due respect, who's typing this jibber-jabber, Gollum? I mean, I know some folks check the board through their cell phones, but do they post to the board from their phones too? And if so, can they please get phones that at least allow you to put a / or something in there to indicate the end of a sentence? :lol:

[wjcdiver]

Thus, the law can be used to punish both the act and the reason for the act, and when doing the latter, indeed punishes individuals for having "criminal thought", as this is a socially unacceptable way of thinking.

Yes, the law can be used to punish BOTH the act and the "socially unacceptable way of thinking".

If the former (punishing an act) we are fine.

If the latter (punishing a thought) freedom is dead.

What if tansgenderism were socially unacceptable? Then we can punish both the act of cross-dressing (Oh remember, it used to be illegal and prosecuted all the time - because it was socially unacceptable) and as a bonus we can make the punishment more severe because someone THOUGHT about wearing the clothes of the "other" sex.

Law that today allows the government to punish others more severely for the way they think, can, in the future, be applied to punishing us more severely for the way we think.

Who decides what is "right thinking"? (Hint: Who is in power?)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[MacShreach]

I dont like the bill its also means to pusnish people who dont belive in lifestyle in whatever fashion you if person doesnt likea certain lifestyle that nit hate crime that right to as american to be againt lifestyle he doesnt like.

Hang on a minute, are you saying that you think it's all right to offer violence against someone whose lifestyle you disapprove of, when that person is not breaking the law?

Because that is what it reads like.

[TJ347]

If the former (punishing an act) we are fine.

If the latter (punishing a thought) freedom is dead.


As thought is already being punished under the law, and has been for centuries, it's nothing new. So I suppose, "freedom", as you'd define it, has been long dead already anyway. Furthermore, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", while regularly quoted by people who feel as you do, is regularly twisted by said people to say something it doesn't. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that I cannot be legally prosecuted for something I say, nor should it mean that. For example, if I incite a riot, I can't hide behind freedom of speech after riling up a mob to attack Ethiopian immigrants or something. My thoughts were to disenfranchise those immigrants, and I should be prosecuted for the reason I committed the criminal act I did and any injury to persons as a result of committing that act, or as I've said before, for the thought as well as the action.

[a994]

WASHINGTON - The White House issued a veto threat Thursday against legislation that would expand federal hate crime law to include attacks motivated by the victims' gender or sexual orientation.
ADVERTISEMENT

The hate crimes bill, with strong Democratic backing, is expected to pass the House Thursday. Similar legislation is moving through the Senate.

But the legislation, which also would increase the penalties for bias-based violence, has met outspoken resistance from conservative groups and their Republican allies in Congress, who warn that it undermines freedom of speech, religious expression and equal protection under the law.

The White House, in a statement, said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and "there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."

It also questioned the constitutionality of federalizing the acts of violence barred by the bill and said that if it reaches the president's desk "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

The White House also noted that the bill would leave out other classes such as the elderly, members of the military or police officers.

Hate crimes under current federal law apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national original. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as enrolling in school, voting or traveling between states.

The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.

That would make it easier for federal authorities to become involved in hate crimes, although
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., said in a statement that state and local authorities will continue to prosecute the overwhelming majority of such cases.

"To ensure federal restraint, the bill requires the attorney general or another high-ranking Justice Department official to approve any prosecutions undertaken pursuant to this measure," he said. He also stressed that it does not impinge on public speech, religious expression or writing.

Those using guns to commit crimes defined under the bill would face prison terms of up to 10 years. Crimes involving kidnapping or sexual assault or resulting in death could bring life terms.

The Judiciary Committee cited
FBI figures that there have been more than 113,000 hate crimes since 1991, including 7,163 in 1995. It said that racially motivated bias accounted for 55 percent of those incidents, religious bias for 17 percent, sexual orientation bias for 14 percent and ethnicity bias for 14 percent.


I for one believe violent crimes that are perpetrated against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered persons just because of their orientation are just as much hate crimes as those committed against one on the basis of race, skin color, nationality, etc. and should rightly be considered as such.

[tsntx]

agreed

[Galadriel]

If the former (punishing an act) we are fine.

If the latter (punishing a thought) freedom is dead.


As thought is already being punished under the law, and has been for centuries, it's nothing new. So I suppose, "freedom", as you'd define it, has been long dead already anyway. Furthermore, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", while regularly quoted by people who feel as you do, is regularly twisted by said people to say something it doesn't. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that I cannot be legally prosecuted for something I say, nor should it mean that. For example, if I incite a riot, I can't hide behind freedom of speech after riling up a mob to attack Ethiopian immigrants or something. My thoughts were to disenfranchise those immigrants, and I should be prosecuted for the reason I committed the criminal act I did and any injury to persons as a result of committing that act, or as I've said before, for the thought as well as the action.

TJ347, while I agree with the basic conclusion you came to, I don't necessarily get your starting point. I don't think you should give in to wjc on all this "thoughtcrime" crap. It's all a bunch of fear-mongering to try and get people that actually have nothing to gain or lose from the legislation to think they are losing something. In your own example, no one would be prosecuted for "thinking" something negative about ethiopians. In fact, they can basically say whatever they want. It's the act of inciting a riot that they could possibly be held accountable for (possibly not, even under this legislation). There's a big difference between the act of saying "I hate fags" and the act of saying "I hate fags" then turning around and shooting a tranny/gay person. The hate crimes bill only applies to the second scenario.

The bill itself makes it clear that it cannot be used in anyway to abridge anyone's rights to free speech. It's written right there in the damn text.

[TJ347]

The bill itself makes it clear that it cannot be used in anyway to abridge anyone's rights to free speech. It's written right there in the damn text.

The above was really my basic point, and the rest was a poorly worded and lengthy attempt to get there, due to the fact I didn't think out what I wanted to say very clearly at all. What I was saying with regard to the "thought/crime" thing was that since the law has allowed additional penalties to be levied against criminals if the crimes they committed were intentional, premeditated and so on, and this has been the case going back almost to the foundation of law as we know it, then freedom of speech as wjc (or whatever) is speaking of it, has long been dead. I hope that makes more sense now. It's damned near 4am here, and this is not the best time for me to be trying to express coherent thoughts to be honest!

[Hara_Juku Tgirl]

well those things happen and the FACTS of a case that is like that... WOULD come out. someone waiting for me near my car b/c while they went to the resturant i work at, hit on me repeatdedly in front of their friends, gets told by one of said friends "thats a dude", gets emabarrased and feels his masculinity is threatened and to regain the power struggle w/in himself beats me up or kills me on my way back to my car... situations like that NEED to be protected. each case is different and should be assessed accordingly. but w/o laws that protect us BEFORE something bad happens to us personally we are left helpless and often the true "bad guy" in the situation is made out to be the "victim". not fair.

This is REALITY sadly and ofcourse a NIGHTMARE for every transgender person. :evil: There's already alot of us killed for gender hate crimes and the US government should start doing something about it. It isnt a CRIME to become the GENDER that you feel is RIGHT, TRUE and CORRECT. We just constantly need to be vigilant on IMPORTANT issues such as this and pray/hope thet one day this bill would become a REALITY. ;)

If we are lucky and dont get killed..We gain STALKERS who follow us around which is nevertheless CREPPY! Obssessed people could do just about anything without thinking CLEARLY about the consequences of their own actions.

~Kisses.

HTG

[TJ347]

This is REALITY sadly and ofcourse a NIGHTMARE for every transgender person. :evil: There's already alot of us killed for gender hate crimes and the US government should start doing something about it. It isnt a CRIME to become the GENDER that you feel is RIGHT, TRUE and CORRECT. We just constantly need to be vigilant on IMPORTANT issues such as this and pary/hope thet one day this bill would become a REALITY. ;)

~Kisses.

HTG

I'm not very familiar with what is being done by the transgendered community on this issue with respect to bringing its weight to bear on politicians, but if petitions and a march or two aren't at least in the offing, I'd say that prayers and hopes are the only thing standing between this bill being defeated, and the safety of a number of people being defended under the law as it should be. Sadly, prayers and hopes don't change things in government, political pressure and outright defiance does, and so if no organized action on a significant scale has been planned, then the outcome is already clear. Again, I don't know what is or isn't in the planning stages, or what has or hasn't already been done, so I'll shut up now and move on. I just wanted to say that I hope, for the sake of not just the transgendered community, but for people who want to see justice meted out equally for everyone, that prayers and hopes aren't the only gas in the tank.

[Galadriel]

The bill itself makes it clear that it cannot be used in anyway to abridge anyone's rights to free speech. It's written right there in the damn text.

The above was really my basic point, and the rest was a poorly worded and lengthy attempt to get there, due to the fact I didn't think out what I wanted to say very clearly at all. What I was saying with regard to the "thought/crime" thing was that since the law has allowed additional penalties to be levied against criminals if the crimes they committed were intentional, premeditated and so on, and this has been the case going back almost to the foundation of law as we know it, then freedom of speech as wjc (or whatever) is speaking of it, has long been dead. I hope that makes more sense now. It's damned near 4am here, and this is not the best time for me to be trying to express coherent thoughts to be honest!

Okay, now I get a clearer idea where you are coming from. And I approve :wink:

[Jonny29]

I had read that 45 states already had hate crime laws on the books. So is this proposed Federal law to cover the remaining 5 states or just so the criminals spend time in a federal pen rather than state.Or is it trying to cover a whole set of different people that the states refuse to cover?

[trish]

(deleted...sorry reading the wrong page)

[peggygee]

http://www.washblade.com/2007/5-11/news/national/10545.cfm

NATIONAL NEWS

Hate crimes bill faces uphill fight Gay
‘Historic’ outcome in House unlikely to survive a Bush veto

By LOU CHIBBARO JR
Friday, May 11, 2007


Gay rights advocates hailed last week’s passage of a federal hate crimes bill by the House of Representatives, but even supporters acknowledge they likely do not have the votes needed to overcome a presidential veto, which White House advisers are recommending.

The bill now goes to the U.S. Senate, where it has 43 co-sponsors. Supporters say the Senate could vote on the measure in late spring or summer. Senate supporters recently renamed the bill the Matthew Shepard Act in honor of the gay University of Wyoming student who was slain in a 1998 hate crime.

Several conservative Christian groups quickly denounced the bill’s passage and vowed to step up a campaign to derail it in the Senate.

Representatives from the Southern Baptist Convention, Concerned Women for America and other groups held a news conference this week to criticize the bill as “criminalizing Christianity” and to announce plans for a mailing to U.S. senators that characterizes the hate crimes bill as a “thought crimes bill.”

The House voted 236 to 180 last week to approve the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, marking the first time either house of Congress has passed a freestanding gay and transgender civil rights bill.

The April 3 vote came after supporters braced for an anticipated attempt by House opponents to derail the bill by forcing a separate vote on whether to remove a provision giving the federal government authority to prosecute hate crimes targeting transgender persons.

“That was what we thought they might do,” said one House Democratic staff member, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Some gay activists feared that Democratic House members from moderate to conservative districts, who otherwise planned to vote for the bill, might have backed such a motion to avoid being portrayed as “pro-transgender.”

But for unknown reasons, conservative GOP leaders chose another parliamentary tactic aimed at sending the bill back to committee with instructions to add protections for senior citizens and current and former members of the military. The motion lost by a vote of 227 to 189.

“This is a historic day that moves all Americans closer to safety from the scourge of hate violence,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the national gay advocacy group that has coordinated efforts to pass the bill.

The bill, H.R. 1592, would give the federal government authority to prosecute hate crimes that target people based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability. Under existing law, federal authorities already have the power to prosecute hate crimes based on race, color, national origin and religion.

It also would provide financial assistance to help state and local law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Most of the nation’s police departments and state and local prosecutors expressed strong support for the bill.

In an action viewed as a strong gesture of support, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) arranged for gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to serve as the House presiding officer while the final roll-call vote was taken on the measure.

“The bill is passed,” Frank said with a booming voice, seconds after he read the vote tally and pounded the gavel. His House Democratic colleagues, standing on the floor before him, broke into applause.

Prospects for the final outcome of the bill became less certain last week when the White House issued a statement saying senior advisers to President Bush would recommend that he veto the measure.

“The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crimes, including crimes based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, national origin,” the statement said. “However, the Administration believes H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the president, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill,” the statement said.

Most Capitol Hill observers have said supporters most likely could not line up the two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate needed to override a presidential veto.

Judy Shepard and Dave O’Malley, the former chief law enforcement officer of Laramie, Wyo., who investigated the Matthew Shepard murder, each gave impassioned presentations on behalf of the bill to House Democrats in a caucus meeting just prior to the start of the House debate on the bill, according to HRC Vice President David Smith.

One source familiar with the meeting said Shepard described the horror of losing a loved one to a hate crime while O’Malley, who has described himself as a conservative law enforcement official, told of his first impressions after seeing the 21-year-old Shepard unconscious and tied to a fence in a remote field.

Smith and Solmonese said efforts over the past several years to inform members of Congress of the need for hate crime legislation most likely made it easier for them to reject arguments by opponents that gays and transgender persons should not be added to the existing federal hate crimes statute.

John Santore, spokesperson for Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Rules Committee, said others on Capitol Hill believe most Democrats would have voted down a motion to recommit the hate crimes bill even if it were linked to a call to remove the transgender clause.

“In the end, it didn’t matter because they all stood together to defeat this,” he said, referring to efforts by Republican opponents to send the bill back to committee.

Beth McGinn, a spokesperson for Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex), the author of the motion to recommit the bill, said Smith would not disclose why he chose to tie his motion to seniors and members of the military rather than to the transgender clause.

“We do not discuss internal deliberations,” she quoted Smith as saying.

In the days leading up to the May 3 House vote, anti-gay groups sent a barrage of e-mails and unleashed a telephone campaign urging House members to defeat the bill on grounds that the transgender clause would promote “cross-dressing” and “transsexualism.”

Conservative religious groups like Traditional Values Coalition and Family Research Council also charged that the bill would result in the eventual prosecution of preachers who denounce homosexuality in church sermons.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who led the House debate in favor of the hate crimes bill, said existing laws already include adequate law enforcement protection for seniors and military personnel.

However, Conyers told Smith the Democratic leadership would be happy to add seniors, military members and veterans to the bill if GOP leaders agreed to make that change on the spot and allowed the bill to come to a vote at that time rather than send it back to committee.

Smith refused Conyers’ offer, prompting Democratic leaders to push for the vote to defeat Smith’s motion.

The House has twice approved hate crimes bills in recent years, with one including protection for gays and the other including protection for gays and transgender persons. Both versions were in the form of amendments to other bills. The Senate also has approved a hate crimes measure in a previous Congress as an amendment to another bill.

All three measures died in House-Senate conference committees at the hands of Republican congressional leaders.

Baldwin and other supporters of the bill said they were pleased with the House vote, even though it fell mostly along partisan lines, with 212 Democrats and 25 Republicans voting for it and 14 Democrats and 166 Republicans voting against the bill. Sixteen House members — six Democrats and 10 Republicans — did not vote.

[peggygee]

This is REALITY sadly and ofcourse a NIGHTMARE for every transgender person. :evil: There's already alot of us killed for gender hate crimes and the US government should start doing something about it. It isnt a CRIME to become the GENDER that you feel is RIGHT, TRUE and CORRECT. We just constantly need to be vigilant on IMPORTANT issues such as this and pary/hope thet one day this bill would become a REALITY. ;)

~Kisses.

HTG

I'm not very familiar with what is being done by the transgendered community on this issue with respect to bringing its weight to bear on politicians, but if petitions and a march or two aren't at least in the offing, I'd say that prayers and hopes are the only thing standing between this bill being defeated, and the safety of a number of people being defended under the law as it should be. Sadly, prayers and hopes don't change things in government, political pressure and outright defiance does, and so if no organized action on a significant scale has been planned, then the outcome is already clear. Again, I don't know what is or isn't in the planning stages, or what has or hasn't already been done, so I'll shut up now and move on. I just wanted to say that I hope, for the sake of not just the transgendered community, but for people who want to see justice meted out equally for everyone, that prayers and hopes aren't the only gas in the tank.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/image235838x.jpg

Contact The President:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/


Contact Your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


Contact Congress:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Thanks to the folks at the hrcactioncenter.

Feel free to use the template below to write to the President, and the
legislature, or to edit and personalize your thoughts.

Or you may may go to the provided link and send your letter from there.


http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

Subject:

Support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act


Dear [ Decision Maker ],


I'm writing to ask you to vote for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act this month. As your constituent, and as a citizen, I believe law enforcement officials need additional support from the federal government to help fight bias-motivated violence.

As Americans, we must take a strong stand against violence committed against our neighbors for simply being themselves. The purpose of our government, first and foremost, is to protect all of our citizens - whether they are black, disabled, Christian transgendered, or gay.

This Act would also provide much-needed resources for local law enforcement agencies, so they can investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Opponents of the federal bill wrongly characterize its scope and purpose - this legislation is not about enhancing penalties for these types of crimes, nor does it punish thoughts or speech. The bill simply is about providing resources to law enforcement to help investigate, apprehend and prosecute vicious criminals.

This legislation has long been supported by 31 state Attorneys-General, former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Forum and many other law enforcement organizations.

Please vote for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fighthate_house

[Hara_Juku Tgirl]

Petitioned signed girl! :P

Thanks again. ;)

~Kisses.

HTG