Thursday, April 12, 2007

AFA's Clark Revels In Defeat of Hate Crimes Legislation

To hear the AFA's Micah Clark describe it, Indiana nearly missed causing a huge social injustice by doing something as extreme as enacting a hate crimes law. "This week Indianapolis Representative Greg Porter attempted to revive his 'hate crime' legislation which died earlier in the session when thousands of people contacted legislators with concerns about equal justice under the law," Clark writes. "Equal justice under the law?" I think what Clark really meant to say was "a right to discriminate under the law." Clark went on to describe the hate crimes amendment Rep. Porter offered to SB 45 this week:

Rep. Porter offered an amendment to SB 45, a sex offender bill, that included part of his "bias crime" measure setting up special legal protections for victims of crime based upon their sexual behavior as homosexuals (sexual orientation) or as cross-dressers (gender identity).

All crime should be punished equally regardless of the victim’s private behavior, be it the mugging of a little old lady or the mugging of a 30 year-old homosexual. Judging the motivation of an irrational criminal is problematic and it can lead to motive, speech or thought crimes.

Notice again how Clark only describes the amendment in terms of its impact on criminal victims who are "homosexuals" or "cross-dressers." His examples never include a criminal victim's race, national origin, religion or sex, also included in the proposed legislation. Why do you suppose that he and Eric Miller always identify "homosexuals" and "cross-dressers" in their explanation of their opposition to hate crimes legislation? It's starting to look a little like Clark and Miller hate "homosexuals" and "cross-dressers".

Clark didn't stop his celebration of the defeat of the hate crimes amendment, though, until he got in a parting shot at the Democratic members of the Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee who voted against SJR-7. "Interestingly, every member of the House Rules Committee who voted in favor of same-sex marriage last week also voted for this amendment on Monday attempting to grant special protections to homosexuals," Clark ended. Again, there's that word "homosexual". Are we seeing a pattern here?

Oh, and Micah, you and Miller need to be careful about those "partisan" swipes at Democrats. Remember, your organizations are supposed to be "nonpartisan", "nonprofits". We don't want you getting into trouble with the IRS.


Anonymous said...

I contacted my rep about his vote on this bill. I had a voice mail from him today when I got home. He kept blathering on about how this would be a "crime of the mind". I hadn't heard that one before.

However, after the many other discussions we have had over the past couple of years, I'm convinced that he is also focused on the homosexual part.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, so why do they punish cop killers more? Why do they make it a harsher crime to kill the fetus of a pregnant woman? Or the elderly?

I mean, in this case if they had left sexual orientation or gender identity out, they would NOT Have opposed it. And this demeaning language is just one of the things our community needs to be aware of.


Anonymous said...

8:45 (and AI),

Try for a moment to find a brain cell and think this through: You kill a cop and there is no question whatsoever that your victim is a cop. You kill a pregnant woman and there is no question whatsoever that your victim was a pregnant woman. You kill an elderly person and there is no question whatsoever that your victim was an elderly person.

But the advocates of the "hate crimes" bill aren't advocating special punishments for killing a homosexual or a minority. In fact, we keep being told over and over again that the proposal is NOT intended to do that.

What we are told instead is that this is about "hate." As a result, a homosexual killing another homosexual would, in all likelihood, not get prosecuted under this proposed law. Nor a minority killing a minority. Instead, we are told that there must be some evidence that the crime was sparked by some type of racial or otherwise bigoted hatred for the victim.

But how in the world do you determine that? It is easy to figure out if the victim was a cop, a pregnant woman or an elderly person. It is also somewhat easy, in some cases, to figure out if the victim was a minority or a homosexual. But the "hate crimes" bill is not intended to punish crimes against minorities or homosexuals, as the laws you mention ARE intended to punish crimes against cops, pregnant women and the elderly. Quite to the contrary, the proposed "hate crimes" law is intended to punish a state of mind.

Now, you tell us all how that state of mind can be determined with the clarity of identifying a cop, a pregnant woman or an elderly person and, if you do so, this law will probably fly towards passage.

But that's not what you really want, is it? Contrary to what gets said so often on this blog and elsewhere, it is pretty clear that what you really want is to be identified as a special class. Try to deny that as much as you want, but with arguments like the ones that keep getting made, that is pretty darned clear.

Hypocrisy reigns!