Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
With the passage of the new hate crimes bill, which Obama will sign soon, the religious right is turning up the "they're going to arrest pastors for condemning homosexuality" volume to a Spinal Tap-like 11. The American Family Association declares that Christians are on "high alert" because of the passage of this legislation. And Matt "Bam Bam" Barber has his rhetoric cranked up too:
And as for pastors? "There is a very weak exemption in [the bill] which is totally illusory, and a religious exemption is not going to protect pastors," responds Barber. "Renegade prosecutors and politically correct leftists in positions of authority can subjectively determine what is or is not a hate crime." And then move on to prosecution, he adds.
I'll like to propose a wager for Matt Barber and any other religious right leader who has been preaching incessantly that the hate crimes bill -- which I'm no big fan of, for entirely different reasons -- will lead to the arrest and prosecution of people just for speaking out against homosexuality. The wager would go like this:
I am willing to bet that not a single minister will be convicted in this country under the hate crimes legislation for preaching against homosexuality. And since we can't have such bet be open-ended, here are my proposed terms. We start with $100 for the first year. At the end of the first year, if someone has been convicted of such a "crime" I'll pay up. If not, you can either up or go double or nothing on the second year.
Every year that goes by without such a conviction, the amount of the bet doubles. You can bail out at any time, admit that you were wrong and pay the accumulated money owed. And if, at any time, someone is convicted merely of speaking out against homosexuality in this country, I pay up whatever amount of money is currently on the line based on the above formula. At the end of ten years, the loser pays up and the bet is concluded.
And if I win, you can pay the money to a charity of my choice. If you win, you can keep the money. Deal?
Politics
Comments
Ed, you realize Matt's just going to die owing you $10 million or so, right?
Posted by: Jeff | October 26, 2009 9:34 AM
Let's assume for a moment that Barber and his
idiotsilk are right, and a pastor does get arrested for preaching that homosexuality is a sin, that "God hates fags," and that all homosexuals are perverts who are going to roast in hell.Does Barber actually believe, for even one brief moment, that the Supreme Court would not bitch-slap Congress for passing such an obvious violation of the First Amendment? This is a Court, after all, that says you have a First Amendment right to sacrifice chickens! Nah, even Barber can't believe that. Can he?
Posted by: James Hanley | October 26, 2009 9:48 AM
I have offered that same wager to Fundies who believe the second coming is just around the corner. No takers so far and I don't expect to ever get one to take that bet.
Posted by: Dogbert | October 26, 2009 9:51 AM
Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center has a syndicated newspaper column that periodically shows up in my local daily newspaper. Today's column did a wonderful job of fisking this lie by fleshing out Ed's point.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 26, 2009 9:56 AM
Why cut it off after 10 years, 14 years would put you over the million mark. How much money is this guy worth?
Posted by: Doug Little | October 26, 2009 10:04 AM
Dogbert,
You should try the end of earthers as well. They seem to come up with predictions quickly enough to make it worth your while.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 26, 2009 10:09 AM
<pedant>Jeff, actually $51,200.</pedant>
Posted by: Shawn Smith | October 26, 2009 10:13 AM
Argh. Hate Crimes != Hate Speech. Both are shitty things to do, but the latter is protected by the First Amendment, plain and simple. However odious, pastors speaking out against homosexuality are and will continue to be protected.
If you're arguing against this bill, you're either lying or you're saying you don't think you should get an extra punishment if you beat up a gay guy for being gay. The bill is specifically about violent crimes, and nothing else.
Posted by: Raven | October 26, 2009 10:24 AM
Ed, can I be the charity of your choice? I can always use free money.
These guys really are not jobs. There's a clear first amendment protection for preachers, and if they don't think the Supreme Court would smack down any hate crimes law incompatible with the first amendment then they're complete wackos.
Posted by: JStein | October 26, 2009 10:31 AM
This kind of easily debunked insanity actually gives me hope. With every right wing lie that spreads and is subsequently proven false, a resistance to falling for the next lie will form. People do not usually put up with lies and liars very long. The deeply religious are certainly easier to string along as faith makes lies easier to pass but even they will tire of the endless hyperbole eventually. So, for a sane future, bring on those lies!
Posted by: MikeMa | October 26, 2009 10:55 AM
"I am willing to bet that not a single minister will be convicted in this country under the hate crimes legislation for preaching against homosexuality."
Nice one, Ed. You know as well as I do that the point of this bill isn't to win convictions in court, but to create a chilling effect on free speech. Even if only a handful of anti-Christian courts will permit such cases to go to trial, and even if the Supreme Court will overturn any actual convictions, the potential threat of prosecution exists. And even baseless prosecutions are a threat: the inconvenience of nuisance suits by homosexual activists, and the associated legal fees, will mean that pastors will feel pressured to curb their language to avoid accusations of 'promotion of violence' and what have you. And church boards of directors tend to be allergic to legal fees; a pastor who doesn't curb his tongue will find himself advised by the directorate's lawyers to tone it down before he becomes a liability to the church.
Posted by: mad the swine | October 26, 2009 10:56 AM
MikeMa stated:
I believed that as well when Nixon was flushed out and Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker were brought down. However the evidence clearly disputes your hope. In fact it appears to result in a market of lies that are even nuttier than the lies they supplant and a core of people that isolate themselves even further from reality to protect their preconceived beliefs. I wish you were right.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 26, 2009 11:09 AM
This morning I had to make some repairs to equipment in one of the control rooms where I work. The operators are Beck fans and the persecution complex this moron mormon has is unbelievable. We're trying to separate him from his lord and savior, he wakes every day thinking of how we are going to try to destroy him...
Fuck, I had to leave the room.
Posted by: Owen | October 26, 2009 11:12 AM
Wouldn't the "above formula" mean that after the first year the amount you would owe for a conviction would be "nothing"?
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 26, 2009 11:13 AM
Michael Heath,
While the nuts and liars have gotten louder and gained numerous public platforms, they enthrall a smaller segment of the population than all that access would, in the past, have engendered I think. Alas, sanity and crazy are cyclical and the best hope is that lying insanity will peak in 2012 resulting in the largest abandonment of liars and their ilk. The internet memory hole helps by making the lies easier to prove.
Clearly there is a core of religiotards that will never abandon hope of a christian US or really anything their preacher tells them to hope for (death to gays, etc). Adding to that there are a new crop of hardcore bigots empowered by our black (OMFG) president who will be bigots and vote that way until the next ice age.
Given all that, I still have hope.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 26, 2009 11:18 AM
There's a simple, two-word counter.
Fred Phelps.
If he isn't arrested, everyone else can cram it.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | October 26, 2009 11:27 AM
What they hate about this bill is that it has the Federal government saying very clearly "there's nothing wrong with being gay." Oh, there's still a lot of places where that message is contradicted, but that doesn't change the fact that this bill very prominently endorses the idea that being gay is OK.
And boy do they hate that. Oh well, too bad.
Posted by: Theron | October 26, 2009 11:29 AM
So true, if Phelps isn't dealt with under such a bill then it is worthless. The point is irrelevant though, because such a bill is unconstitutional, as Ed and others have pointed out. I can't believe our government is reaching such a low. It is quite disheartening. Soon taxpayers will be paying busybodies to administer this bullshit legislation. What a waste.
Posted by: Steve | October 26, 2009 11:41 AM
You don't think it's worthwhile to only "deal with" people when they actually harm someone else?
I might not have been paying attention, but where did Ed claim this law is unconstitutional? I know he doesn't like it, but I haven't yet heard a rationale for invalidating it on constitutional grounds. At least not any that held water.
Posted by: DaveL | October 26, 2009 11:48 AM
I'd go one step further, Ed. Make it a pool such that every time a xian loon files hate speech charges against someone who makes fun of the said xian loon, he has to ante up.
Bonus if you can get some small addition everytime a Faux News reporter, WND article, or other similarly high profile rethuglican 'celebrity' makes a similar claim or threatens to file such charges. Maybe only a $10 per incidence.
It'd be like winning the powerball AND the all the Nigerian banking accounts simultaneously!
Posted by: FastLane | October 26, 2009 12:03 PM
Under this hate crimes legislation, does some sort of physical assault need to be committed?
Posted by: Owen | October 26, 2009 12:14 PM
I don't see why it's unconstitutional. Intent or purpose behind action is commonly applied in the evaluation of crimes. The notion that "it's all about action" relies on a specific reading of the old common-law ideas about justification and state of mind; there are other readings.
The very definition of murder, for example--manslaughter, second, first degree murder--hinges on the state of mind of the defendant, his intention. And insanity defenses are another evaluation of what the defendant thought or understood at the time of the crime. Simply turn the hypothetical around--the goons who killed Shephard, it is argued by the anti-gay screechers, were just killing him for his wallet. Murder is murder, they say. But if they killed him because they were deluded into thinking he was a threat to them, they apply a different defense. If they were just pointing the gun at him to scare him and it went off, different defense.
The truth is we accepted the inverse of a hate crime principal into our law a long time ago--we created degrees of guilt based on intent primarily intended to create lesser offenses that spring from the same intention to commit a crime. That is, I'm going to rob this store but I want bread (the Jean Valjean defense?) as opposed to, I'm going to break this window because this is a Jewish shop. This creates a greater or lesser offense based on the same events, and it's no different from dozens of other greater offenses that the right wing loves, such as crimes near a church, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, attempted murder vs. assault, selling beer on Sunday, etc.
Holbo says it well (though comments raise good objections) here:
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/10/14/thought-crime-and-mens-rea/
ice
Posted by: ice9 | October 26, 2009 12:23 PM
MikeMa, I would just point out that Christians have over 1900 years of practice at accommodating themselves to falsified predictions. Taking credit for defeating the hate crimes Gestapo would take less effort than a cup of coffee.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | October 26, 2009 12:33 PM
Owen:
It applies only to committed or attempted bodily injury.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 26, 2009 12:35 PM
Ed:
I abhor gambling, in all of its forms--because I lose when I gamble, in any of its forms. Having said that, wouldn't it be more interesting if you made the bet so that instead of doubling every year, it would be squared? Start with $10 and you will still have a rather tidy sum owed to you after the fourth year ($100M
Posted by: democommie | October 26, 2009 12:50 PM
Ed:
I abhor gambling, in all of its forms--because I lose when I gamble, in any of its forms. Having said that, wouldn't it be more interesting if you made the bet so that instead of doubling every year, it would be squared? Start with $10 and you will still have a rather tidy sum owed to you after the fourth year ($100M
Posted by: democommie | October 26, 2009 12:50 PM
As has been pointed out earlier, the hate crimes bill requires an physical act of violence, not merely expressed dislike. So for a `preacher' to be charged under it, s/he must have engaged in an act of violence, not merely said nasty things. Even Phred Felps doesn't qualify, unless he's done worse things than those that have been publicized.
When the nutbars announce that this legislation offends their freedom of conscience, the correct answer is to ask them who exactly they were planning on murdering, assaulting, or raping.
I don't know about U.S. law, but in Canadian law there is a separate offence of `counselling to commit a crime'. If I tell you to go rob the First National Bank of Podunk, I am guilty of that crime. If U.S. law is similar, then perhaps if Preacher A says `You should go kill persons X, Y, and Z because they are LGBT', then perhaps they are guilty of a counselling offence. Even so, there would have to be specific targets and a specific violent act proposed.
The point of hate crimes laws is that the act of violence against a person because s/he is a member of a class is generally more heinous than the act of violence against a specific person. There are at least two reasons: (a) there are more potential targets of the violent act, and (b) generally hate violence of this sort is used as a way of denying the members of that group *their* rights.
Posted by: Vincent Manis | October 26, 2009 1:07 PM
I support the Hate Crimes Bill but don't think it's wise to argue the enhanced sentencing effects of it in cases like Matthew Shepard - espcially since the criminals were quickly caught by local law enforcement.
I like the Hate Crimes bill because it provides resources to local law enforcement when a crime that is committed is intended to terrorize victims beyond the one initially receiving direct harm. A good example was those people burning churches down in the South a few years back. The victims weren't merely the members of the churches burned, but also similar churches who feared they were next. Local law enforcement would be hard-pressed in most areas of the country to quickly investigate such crimes in a manner that protects future possible victims - federal deployment of resources is therefore smart policy.
I also like the Hate Crimes Bill when you empirically tie the damage done beyond the direct victim to those that suffered beyond that victim in order to increase the sentence, like what should have been done to the arsonists previously mentioned. Of course all murder victims' friends, family, and associates suffer as well in crimes that are not tied to hate crimes legislation, but in a hate crime the criminal creates victims belonging to the class well beyond this circle.
While I'm very grateful for Ms. Sheppard leading the way to get gays protected under the Hate Crimes Laws, I don't think the sentencing guidelines for her son's murder is a great argument for enhancing hate crimes laws since those murderers should have gotten the maximum penalty anyways. This is the Andrew Sullivan argument against the bill, we should refute it by flanking it with arguments that are not refutable, like the two I make here. Given the motive in the Sheppard crime, I do like the Hate Crimes bill for providing resources for the investigation but the sentence should not have varied because of such a bill given it should have charged with the maximum already allowed for 1st Degree murder - and where both were each sentenced to two life sentences without possibility of parole.
I think we have better arguments than enhanced sentencing when there is no clear victim beyond the direct one. Hate crimes are a form of terrorism, they seek an asymmetrical approach to achieve a disproportionately favorable result (in their favor). We should only use examples where resources are needed to given the scope of the crime's potential victim pool or in sentencing to acknowledge the harm to victims beyond the direct ones.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 26, 2009 1:09 PM
To expand on what the bill does:
It authorizes the DoJ to extend resources (money, personnel, equipment, etc.) to local law enforcement to assist in preventing, responding to, and investigating violent hate crimes that are not federal felonies.
Authorizes grant for juvenile education programs designed to reduce hate crimes.
Creates legislation establishing that bodily harm or attempted bodily harm when motivated by bias against race, color, religion, [national origin, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability] is a federal felony (the square brackets indicate a felony only if committed across state lines, using an interstate highway or similar route of commerce, using a weapon that was acquired through interstate commerce, or interferes with commerce)
The most relevant portion of the act to this discussion is as follows (assuming that I have the correct version):
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 26, 2009 1:13 PM
...I don't think the sentencing guidelines for her son's murder is a great argument for enhancing hate crimes laws since those murderers should have gotten the maximum penalty anyways.
I agree. But the problem here -- and most of the reason large numbers of people advocate hate-crimes laws in the first place -- is that state and local governments have been seen being too lenient toward criminals whose motivation was hate and bigotry; and therefore it was felt that the new sentencing guidelines were necessary to counter that bias.
I suspect that if states take a harsher stand on hate crimes than they had in the past, the need, and pressure, for Federal sentencing guidelines will diminish noticeably.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 26, 2009 1:21 PM
Nope, wrong version. Final version was simplified to the following:
I think 1 and 2 are better constructions, but wish they hadn't altered 3 and 4 (which specifically addressed the complaints against the bill) to the current 3 (which still protects against the feared actions, but not as explicitly).
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 26, 2009 1:23 PM
Raging Bee, the federal sentencing guidelines are of very limited scope. The largest effect is going to be the additional assistance local enforcement receives.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 26, 2009 1:31 PM
Further to this line of reasoning, research into authoritarian personalities has revealed there are two personality measures that together predict more than half of prejudice. A high score in either scale also correlates with a aggressive tendencies.
The first scale is called the Social Dominator scale. High scorers on this scale enjoy having personal power over others and aggress against those whom they perceive as being weaker, less able to oppose or resist them. This includes those whom the Social Dominator believes will receive less support from the community and the justice system.
The second scale is the Right Wing Authoritarian scale. High scorers on this scale cling tightly to the conventions of their 'in' group and fear the world outside that group. They tend to aggress against those they perceive as being "approved targets" as defined by their chosen authorities. They tend to see such aggression as righteous and supported by their communities.
The bottom line is that both groups (which overlap only slightly) believe their victims will have a hard time obtaining justice because of their membership in a certain group. Now, by and large, these people are not stupid- they know their communities, and very often their assessment is correct. This, in my opinion, is a good reason to get outsiders (i.e. federal resources) involved in the investigation of hate-based offenses.
Posted by: DaveL | October 26, 2009 1:35 PM
I noticed that everyone else has ignored a particular alternate reality based post, but there is one point in it worth examining:
"to create a chilling effect"
The fact of the matter is that all anti-gay legislation, all anti-gay rhetoric, all anti-gay hate crimes, all resistance to civil equality for GLBTQ people, are intended to pressure GLBTQ people into living as if they were heterosexual.
In other words, opposition to including GLBTQ people in the existing hate crimes laws is intend solely to create a chilling effect on the lives of GLBTQ people - to tell us - stay in your place or we will beat or kill you and we won't be held accountable.
It is important to realize, and publically note, that the accusations conservatives make regarding the consequences of, well, anything progressives do or believe, usually reflect the express desires of conservatives themselves.
When they say "x law stifles free speech", they are saying "If I could, no one would be allowed to do or say anything I don't like", when they say "x law will apply pressure on pastors", they are really admitting that conservative clergy have been pressuring others.
Conservatives simply fear that others will do to them what they themselves are doing or want to do to everyone else.
Posted by: David | October 26, 2009 1:40 PM
Vincent Manis @ #27:
I've gotten the impression it covers violent felonies, which includes threats or conspiracy to commit violence and inciting others to commit violent felonies. So a preacher could be charged if they instructed their congregation to kill gay people, but this would not be a free speech issue but encouraging others to commit murder. Apparently encouraging others to commit murder is a christian sacrament now.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 26, 2009 1:40 PM
"So a preacher could be charged if they instructed their congregation to kill gay people"
As I understand it, the bar for actually establishing culpability is very high. For someone to be held accountable (a pastor, for example), it's not enough that they said "God hates fags" or "Gays should be killed".
It must be proved that the pastor said that "Joe Schmoe, who owns the fag bar on route 22, should die."
I could be wrong, so please correct me if I am.
Posted by: Rick R | October 26, 2009 2:57 PM
Just curious: Why?
Posted by: Twewi | October 26, 2009 3:14 PM
Democommie,
If you hate gambling so much, why did you double-down on your last post? ;)
Ice9,
Constitutionality aside, intent isn't what's at issue in hate crimes charges. Intent is simply about whether a person purposefully commits an act, not about their reason for doing so. As far as intent goes, it doesn't matter if I kill someone because I'm sick of him playing his stereo too loudly, because he's been schtupping my wife, because I want a chance to schtup his wife, because he took over my drug distribution territory, or...because he's gay and I'm homophic, all of which are about motive.
Hate crimes legislation has no effect on the issue of intent--it punishes motive.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 26, 2009 3:32 PM
"So a preacher could be charged if they instructed their congregation to kill gay people"
No, not under this law, at least not directly. To be charged under this law requires actual bodily injury, or attempted bodily injury with one or more of a select group of weapons (and for most cases, a nexus to a commerce clause violation!). However, if that preacher's congregation did carry out the act, and it met the conditions above, it is possible that a pre-existing federal law for "counseling" (as described above) might permit prosecutors to charge the preacher as if he had carried out the act himself.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 26, 2009 4:11 PM
I'd say gathering together a large group and telling them to murder people really should be grounds for arrest under SOME law. Especially if they end up going out and doing it.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 26, 2009 4:46 PM
It looks to me, and IANAL, that simple assault - a verbal threat of imminent violence - if accompanied by speech which indicates a motive of a hate crime - might be enough to trigger this Federal offense. The violence does not have to be carried out, only "attempted". I guess the $64,000 question is whether simple assault without battery triggers this law. (Is a raised fist a weapon?)
If it does, that would give the law some real teeth. It would change a lot of anti-gay behavior. And it would go a long way toward creating a safe environment for the gay community, and changing people's attitudes over the long haul.
Posted by: gingerbaker | October 26, 2009 4:47 PM
Here is what the hypothetical preacher could be charged with:
18 § 373. Solicitation to commit a crime of violence
It would be extremely difficult to charge a gay-bashing preacher with this offense. Furthermore, this is merely an extension of the current hate crimes law which focuses on race, color, religion on national origin - and doesn't require the commerce clause nexus. Has the existing hate crimes legislation caused a chilling effect on the speech of white supremacists? What about anti-semites? The Minutemen?
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 26, 2009 4:55 PM
Thanks for your post David @#34.
I was really amazed no one took that reply to task.
Since David did such a good job, I just want to support him with a visual aid about the radical gay agenda.
Posted by: MomTFH | October 26, 2009 5:04 PM
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 26, 2009 5:08 PM
HTML fail - last sentence is my response
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 26, 2009 5:10 PM
It is. The people responsible for that are the local police, or sheriff, or state police. The threat of local or state prosecution hasn't chilled their speech, why should the threat of federal prosecution?
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 26, 2009 5:14 PM
@38 James Hanley
I'm gonna back up ice9 and say that motive can be used as a defense for murder, the most obvious example being the self-defense claim. Someone can intentially kill another, and state that the motive was self-defense, and be found not guilty (where they would be guilty without that defense).
So ice9's opinion was valid in saying that this legislation just turns the tables and adds to the punishment based on motive, rather than lessening punishment due to motive.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 26, 2009 5:15 PM
...responsible for enforcing that...
I think I need my afternoon Dew (my eq. to morning coffee)
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 26, 2009 5:18 PM
Here's what it comes down to: hate crime legislation does not make anything illegal that isn't already illegal. If you don't kill or assault anyone, then this legislation simply won't affect you. There are valid reasons to oppose hate crime legislation, but claiming to lose freedoms isn't one of them. You already don't have the freedom to hurt and kill others.
Posted by: catgirl | October 26, 2009 6:52 PM
"Hate crimes legislation has no effect on the issue of intent--it punishes motive."
I think you're splitting hairs, James. Motivation and intent often overlap to the point where the terms can be used interchangeably. What's the difference between my motivation to distribute drugs and my intent to do so?
I would be against hate crimes legislation if the intent (or motivation) behind the law were simply to punish certain attitudes, but the issue goes far deeper than that. Hate crimes are committed with the intent to intimidate and terrorize groups to which the individual victim belongs, much like anti-lynching legislation.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 26, 2009 7:05 PM
Errr...I mean "much like lynching". Anti-lynching legislation of course being meant to punish the former.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 26, 2009 7:08 PM
I love this bet. There is a small but real chance that some nut like Pastor Fred Phelps will be arrested, and Ed will be blogging in defense of Phelps's right to spew his repugnant nonsense. Poor Ed would be forced to put a disclaimer at the bottom of dozens of posts. Kooks would insist Ed was defending Phelps's right to hate only because of the money riding Phelps not getting convicted. People would dig up old pre-bet posts of Ed's to defend him, and the kooks would either ignore the past or pretend some sort of nefarious time travel had taken place. The only downer is that Matt Barber will probably not take the bet.
Posted by: llewelly | October 26, 2009 7:39 PM
Point of interest, Tyler: this law modifies the existing federal anti-lynching legislation.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 26, 2009 9:35 PM
If Muslim preachers incite followers to kill people they should be punished.
If pastors incite hatred then they should be punished.
The world will be a much better place without religious organisations spreading hate.
Posted by: Mark Jones | October 27, 2009 3:13 AM
First they ban prayer from schools and now this?!!!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 27, 2009 3:41 AM
It is a step in the right direction that Barber recognizes that such ministerial teachings are seen as hateful, otherwise he wouldn't be so worried about it.
Posted by: Zog | October 27, 2009 9:09 AM
Probably somebody else has covered this and I just missed it... but there are other legitimate reasons to oppose this bill. There is a part of me that thinks that, while one most certainly should get a extra punishment if you beat up a gay guy for being gay (for example), that it should be handled during sentencing and at the judge's discretion, rather than making it mandatory via federal legislation. It smacks of "mandatory minimums", which have pretty much been an unmitigated disaster from start to finish.
Of course, on the other hand, I recognize that in 2009, a lot of asshole judges don't see that as a big deal and might actually be lenient rather than tough in such a situation. In addition, while the idea of making this a federal crime makes me uncomfortable on some level, I also recognize that there are some jurisdictions where this sort of crime is systematically tolerated -- so maybe providing an out to bring it to the federal level is a good idea after all. Ultimately I don't really know what my opinion is -- it's an exceedingly complicated issue.
But the one thing that isn't complicated is that nobody is going to get arrested for spewing hate from the pulpit. Pretty much all of the mainstream opposition to this bill has been complete and total bullshit. I have serious questions about hate crime legislation, but nobody in the mainstream is asking those questions, so... Gah! Stupid politics...
Posted by: James Sweet | October 27, 2009 11:16 AM
Yes, James, it would be nice if judges could be relied on to universally condemn hate crimes against sexual minorities. But, as long as "homo induced panic" is still an allowable defense in many of these cases, it looks like federal legislation is necessary.
It's sort of like the Violence Against Women Act.
Posted by: MomTFH | October 27, 2009 12:43 PM
"but there are other legitimate reasons to oppose this bill."
It is striking to see people who are either already included under the current hate crimes laws, or face an infinitesimally small risk, claim there are reasons to oppose adding GLBTQ people to the existing law.
The unsubstantiated and unexplained statements, like the one above, indicate no opposition to the existing legislation, which covers race, gender, religion. They simply state opposition to this bill, which would expand the application of hate crimes sentencing to include attacks on GLBTQ people, and disabled people.
I'll take criticism of the current bill seriously, after white straight males first exempt themselves from existing hate crimes legislation.
Posted by: David | October 27, 2009 2:13 PM
James, there is no "mandatory minimum" attached to this law. Unless you count 0 as a mandatory minimum.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 27, 2009 3:28 PM
Hmm... forgot about the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. By adding a count under this law, you might end up increasing the mandatory minimum. Then again, the Guidelines allow for a fair amount of discretion wrt multiple counts, so it's hard to tell exactly how this would apply in practice.
Oh wait, just got to Part 3 of the Guidelines. There is already a factor for sexual orientation. This law is not required for increasing the mandatory minimum.
What, exactly, does the law do that isn't already part of existing law? The only thing I can think of is that perhaps it forces the judge to reach a decision on whether the sexual orientation factor applies by allowing for a specific charge to be brought.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 27, 2009 4:20 PM
Whenever someone says GLBTQ I always wonder what the G in a BBQ GBLT should be. Also, I'm not sure I really want to be a tomato. Bacon tastes better.
Posted by: Vic Viper | October 27, 2009 11:55 PM
Yeah, totally missed the last line of the paragraph saying the bet ends after 10 years. Oops.
Posted by: Jeff | October 28, 2009 1:16 PM