President Obama signed a law that extends the coverage of hate crime laws today. The law was named for Matthew Shepard and James Byrd who were tortured to death by their murderers. Their violent deaths were peppered with a sadistic hatred impassioned by intolerance and bigotry that our nation today signals it will tolerate no more. This law had been in the works for some time and was threatened with veto by President Bush. Bush’s reasoning was based on concerns of religious groups as cited in the CNN link below.
Shepard’s mother, Judy, was among those at the ceremony that also included Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Eric Holder and leading members of Congress and the Pentagon, who were on hand for the appropriations bill signing.
To loud applause, Obama hailed the hate crimes measure in the bill as a step toward change to “help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray.”
He cited the work of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and others “to make this day possible.”
Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. However, Holder has said that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, not to prosecute speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.
This is something we can be proud of as a nation. It is also one promise the President has kept. Let’s hope there are more coming. Let’s also hope that this law turns out to be more symbolic than utilitarian. These are the type of laws you just have to hope you never have to use because each application says something horrific about how we fall short as a nation to include all of our peoples in our American Dream. Hopefully the signing of this law signals that we, as a nation, want to move forward towards inclusiveness and tolerance of differences and condemn the kinds of hatred that lead to the death of men for whom this law has been named and the many others that have suffered from all levels of violence brought on by prejudice.
digg!!! tweet !!! share!!! remember!!!
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine
update: I heard this speech earlier today. It’s got a great sentiment but it wasn’t delivered in a very enthusiastic manner imho.
Filed under: Gay community, Gender Equity, gay, gay marriage | Tagged: Hate Crimes, Matthew Shepard, James Byrd Jr
Good for the orientation and disabilities part, but As bostonboomer already said, what are the chances that anyone’s going to be prosecuted under the gender part? I’ll believe it when I see it.
I wonder about that too. We’ll have to wait for a test case, unfortunately which is something I don’t relish doing because it means a horrendous crime will have been committed. Again, I hate it when you actually have to apply these laws because it means something horrid has happened.
What about the girl who was gang raped and beaten outside the prom? If that ain’t a hate crime, then for sure this law will never be applied.
some sick ignorant people will say that the rape was evidence that these boys/men actually like women, not hate them.
Did you know that the people who stood by passively and watched can’t be charged because she’s 15 instead of 14? It’s illegal to stand by and watch a child under 14 being raped, but it’s fine if she’s 15 or With any adult woman. God bless America!
A minor should be a minor, the side stepping only serves to send the signal to others that it is OK to watch, but in watching they formed the sense of intimidation and served to cover up the crime. I say they should be prosecuted under the RICO statue, as they were part of the gang/mob.
Some times it feels as if we are living in Afghanistan! Lordy!
I dont know what the California code allows for, but there’s a category of crime referred to as “misprison,” which allows for charging and prosecuting someone who had knowledge of a crime but did not attempt to report it. A person who commits “misprison” of another crime is held to be culpable as an accomplice.
I just read an article that said people could be charged with aiding and abetting if they cheered or goaded the perps on. It said some people where taking photos of the rape! That has to be a crime.
Yeah, apparently they can charge anyone who cheered or goaded them, and obviously the people who went up and punched and hit her and assaulted her non-sexually. It’s the ones who just stood and watched passively that they can’t prosecute because she’s over 14. Maybe they can charge the picture takers with possession of child pornography?
so does sexual orientation include pediphilia and beastiality ? Or was sexual orientation defined in this law? So if you catch some sicko raping a small child and you beat them up or accidentally kill them are you going to be prosecuted more severly? Or if you catch some pervert raping your horse, cat, or dog, are you to stand by quietly until they finish? If sexual orientation has not been defined I think this people are going to be protected under this law. God help America
Rick? What have you been up to Since leaving the Senate?
Working on becoming our next governor, he’s popular in the Alabama tee part of the state.
I think it’s Cornyn, the box turtle guy.
timesup, on October 28th, 2009 at 10:08 pm Said:
so does sexual orientation include pediphilia and beastiality ?
Not to worry; you can still screw your goat as long as no one’s lookin’.
ooooohhhh, Donna Brazile will be mad!! She doesn’t think people should be protected from bigotry for a choice they make. Didn’t she say that people couldn’t help being black but could help being gay?
Yes, she did. Donna is a “devout” Catholic.
Selectively, of course. Cheating at the RBC didn’t count as part of her Big Ten commandments.
I don’t really have strong feelings about hate crimes legislation but wonder about a slippery slope. Bush had a point when he said that the killers of James Byrd would likely be sentenced to death in Texas for the crime. His question was what good would making it a hate crime do since you couldn’t execute them twice.
Seems to me that if prosecutions were equal across the board, there would be no need for extra hate crimes legislation. It’s needed if prosecutions are selective and maybe that’s the case.
I do tend to worry about the government when thoughts of the perpetrator can be used against them.
I think a lot of it has to do with crimes where the victim doesn’t actually die like the types that like to stalk and beat up gay guys or drag queens as an example.
That I understand and have no issue with it in that case. Thanks.
What about women who are stalked and beat up is that any less hate than gay people or drag queens
Of course it’s hate that’s the emotion behind stalking and beating up anyone.
Unfortunately that happens to women far more than to non-women. Some people are more “tolerant” of this — as if a frequently happening crime was any less criminal than a rare crime. Similar situation to mainstream thinking that raciscm is somehow worse than sexism. Makes one’s head spin.
Aren’t the thoughts of perps already taken into account? If you thought it up beforehand, you’ll get a harsher sentence. If you had reason to be afraid of someone, that could be a mitigating factor. It’s not a crime to hate, but when your hate is motivating you to stalk and hurt people you hate, and there are millions of people in the group or groups you hate, it seems like that would indicate you’re a real threat to society and very likely to reoffend.
Premeditation is certainly a factor in charging and punishing crime. That should also be used in determining eligibility for parole. I’m not concerned about that, just the law of unintended consequences.
I’m kinda bummed that even here, the fact that the legislation protects WOMEN from hate crimes is ignored. James Byrd’s death, as horrible as it was, was already deemed a ‘hate crime’ by the old legislation. Is his inclusion in all of the celebration of extending hate crime legislation to other victims of hate an attempt to make the legislation more ‘acceptable’ to the AA community? What am I missing? Everyday, scores of American women are brutalized and murdered because they woke up with a vagina, Obama could not find even one ‘lady’ to be part of the face of this legislation?
I heard Hillary giving a speech (I think she was in Pakistan) on NPR this afternoon. Imagine if we could hear her instead of Mr. Monotone. She sounded so intelligent and decisive.
yes, that Pakistan market bombing was aimed at a market where women shop … it was definitely a signal to women
What TF??? Hades I didn’t think it was still that bad.
Obama & company uses the old W rule: when in a pinch, IACF
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/obama-comp-we-are-not-bad-like-clinton-was/
in my opinion all those people that stood & did nothing when the poor girl was raped & brutalize her over & over & just stood there watched it happen & did nothing are just a terrible & reasonable for that horrible crime as the scum that raped that poor girl
who ever those scum are the raped that lets just say there are lucky that they did commit that crime in Texas…
we just gave a guy 4060 years in prison for Sex Assaults & im not making that up.
http://cbs11tv.com/local/James.Kevin.Pope.2.762091.html
At times like these, I’m glad I live in Texas.
Where’s Jeralyn? She’s like Tom Joad, “Wherever there’s a rapist, I’ll be there fawning over him like a prison groupie.”
{{snort}}
She’ll probably argue in favor of those monsters who beat and raped the fifteen year old girl outside her prom.
Wow, one thing Obama has done that I like. Let’s hope this isn’t still the only thing at the end of four years. But for that at least, tip of the hat.
He signed it, but how much did he have to do with getting it passed?
“He didn’t veto it” isn’t exactly an accomplishment to brag about.
Yea, most likely you’re right. I was giving him a break today. What can I say, I’m a softy.
I don’t recall him ever mentioning the bill prior to today (yesterday for you right coasters and flyover country residents.)
What do you mean, he’s all about gays and women. /snark OK, you’ve convinced me, he’s still a POS.
Isn’t it attached to an important Defense Spending bill? He had to sign it. I mean, bully for him for doing it, but it was sort of a necessity, wasn’t it?
Yeah.
When do we get to have you for President, Regency? I’m getting impatient.
We’ve got to wait 15 years.
But the Reg/LI or LI/Reg ticket is worth the wait. 
Very good news about the extension of hate crimes coverage. Though I’m still reeling from the brutal gang rape of the teenager in Richmond. Times like this I wish SF was not as wimpy about criminal prosecutions.
I do wonder, however, if showcasing the hate crime measure in this defense bill was a way to divert attention away from DADT, the decision to proceed (after all of BO empty rhetoric) with the Joint Strike Fighter, the continuing expansion of war funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. More than ever, I am conscious of the fact that my tax dollars are supporting these decisions.
Oh, and JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, BofA need to be broken up. These banks should be in rehab, not in Vegas. Obama has coddled them too long. Bloomberg News is reporting this morning that Sheila Bair is breaking from Obama and calling for the Too Big To Fail banks to pay into the continuing winding down of this broken financial system. The large banks for the most part are lending to themselves and not to the general economy. It’s not trickling down. Btw, where the hell is Krugman. Has he been bought by the administration, like the media. Secret Nobel handshake. What a mess.
On the other hand, Yves at naked capitalism has a guest post this morning titled “Government is Trying to Make Bailouts for the Giant Banks PERMANENT.” (translate government as Little Timmy , with a permanent slush fund)
If Dak gets a chance, her analysis of Geithner’s suggestions in that article might help us know what to watch for.
Yea, he signed it but there is no teeth in the bill. For instance, the state has to go to great lengths to prove a hate crime and that takes money. This legislation has no money attached to it for enforcement. The money to pursue a hate crime will have to come from the state. They are all broke and priorities can almost guarantee plea-bargaining rather than conviction to save the money for the most expensive, re: infamous, crimes.
Ah….another Obama gesture without any teeth.
The states will have to pick up a doubling of Medicaid if the Baucus bill passes. You’ll see a lot of cutbacks in state budgets to other categories like education…….or, your state taxes will go up to pay for the new Medicaid costs.
EIther which way ya go, eh?