Gezz people read the bill, it provides MONEY nothing else. It does not change the law. You want to argue about the EXISTING laws it is to be used to help enforce fine, argue about that and I'll probably be out of it because I don't really have a strong opinion about those laws either way. But for f*** sake find out what you're arguing about.

that's what I was trying to point out.

I was only addressing the post prior to mine. Apologies I should have been more specific

Thats cute. You can change the names but not the facts.

read the bill what

why should one law get special funding over another

just enforce the law as it stands

law enforcement is funded already

they should just do the job they are paid to do

they need special funding for law [a]

soon they will need special funding for law[b, c, d]

pretty soon there will be no way to enforce a law at all unless there is special funding for it

no special funding for any laws

maybe a penalty for not enforcing laws with funds they already have is in order

after all THEY CAN AFFORD TO LEAVE THEIR POLICE CARS RUN ALL THE TIME

Not my argument.

well i guess that would depend on the punishment

i would say all rape should have a severe punishment (along as those that falsely accused those of rape should get the same sentence that the person falsely accused would have received)

do you think that a rapist that uses an object is less guity than the rapist that uses a body part

imo both should get severe sentences

if the penalty is stiff (no punn intended) enough it matters not

the ave sentence for rape is 5 years imo kinda light

male to male rape is 10 years

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/rape.pdf

if you want to read the way it is recommended read the link

and should a man raping a man be worse than a man raping a woman

or a woman raping a woman worse than a woman raping a man

or is it tat a man should not be able to charge a woman with rape

are we that backwards

Im not sure what you are reading, but this bill amends the existing law.

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

Im not going to post the whole amendment.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text

section 2 line 4

(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person

****(they must know it is unconstitutional)****

SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

1
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.


****(yeah right)****

so much for only supplying funding

****()****my --- comments not actually in bill

I finally got the link to post but some program is messed up on my machine and it's not easy to read. I copied it and edited it together in wordpad, hope I got it right.

SEC. 8. STATISTICS.
(a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ‘gender and gender identity,’ after ‘race,’.

(b) Data- Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ‘, including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles’ after ‘data acquired under this section’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink


SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.


SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
1Nothing 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.
***********************************

This is an amendment to the "hate crimes act". Sec. 8 states:

"a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ‘gender and gender identity,’ after ‘race,’."

This pretty much covers everyone doesn't it? "‘gender and gender identity,’".... isn't that the same as "Equal Rights" in the first place?

I was wrong before trying to read it without editing it to make it readable. I apologize, but I still believe in "no special rights". That is why we have courts, trials and juries. To present evidence and special circumstance case by case. Equal rights, under the law!

This is more about the money than anything! Another something to add another tax to support it, and more funding for law enforcement.

Under this amendment, all "personal" crimes against ANYONE are hate crimes. Domestic violence, even a common bar fight, can be perceived as a hate crime under law and be punishable by;

‘(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both;

‘(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

‘(I) death results from the offense; or

‘(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

It mentions fire, explosives and such, but also "willfully causes bodily injury to any person....." Way too broad, leaving it to interpretation!

NOT GOOD! But that's just my opinion.

So what you're telling me is that you looked at that portion and didn't really read it.

For the most part that section LIMITS what could have been done prior to the bill. For instance "‘(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title". Prior to the bill there was no federally set limit.

It also makes the fed government jump through some hoops before they can take jurisdiction from local authorities.

The only addition I can find in there, that I can find is that now "Gender" and "Gender Identity" have been specifically added to the list of groups of persons who are protected. Note here that sexual orientation was already included so that nonsense that this some how specifically directed to help gays is pretty ridicules.

Still waiting to hear how this in anyway affects our rights of free speech.

Hold on re-reading your post *****

Ok, sorry I missed some of your notes in the middle...



Not hardly. If you look at where that's being added it means that the violent crime is directed at someone because of their "Gender" or "Gender Identity". If you think about it what would be no point in adding it after "Race" since everybody is of SOME race, right?



Well now that's another matter. That would mean removing the our existing laws about hate crimes. I have some mixed feelings about that myself. But we have these laws on the books already. The main focus of the bill is to provide local officials with the funds to meet the demands of enforcing those laws.



True, drop in the bucket but every drop does count. Problem is not having the bill doesn't necessarily mean the costs won't exist, it just means the costs will have to met by local governments instead of the fed gov or the criminals involved might go free.



I'm assuming you're basing this on the idea that because it includes "gender" in to the existing code, but as I've explained that's not the case.



I'm not sure where I really stand on the bill, just saying it doesn't do the stuff that people are saying it's going to do.

I take it you've never read a bill before. You'll find this clause in pretty much every bill when it's submitted. Prevents people/groups from getting rid of an entire bill based on some technicality included in some portion of a bill.




Again show me something that would limit freedom of speech. That particular statement is there to insure that nothing in there can't be misconstrued into including free speech. Surely you know how lawyers take things like this and twist them around. I'll help you out a little hear. It is possible that some jack off could decide that simply saying bad things about a race or religion or whatever constitutes a hate crime. The clause at the end prevents that from happening. Clauses like these are required because our legal system is such a screwed up mess. But that's another argument, one I think we might agree on.

Protecting attacked groups will have to happen in this country until people learn to live and let live. If people want no funding to go to these types of things they need to be a part of the solution and not the problem by turning away from it, pretending it doesn't exist or worse trying to justify the actions of perpetrators of the crimes.

Prejudice, discrimination and violence happens to all kinds of people because of their "differences". It starts as simple as people's body types, fat, short, etc... all the way through all "differences' to race and culture. Sexual orientation being one of the top of the list right now.

Protecting any of these groups and any more who come up as time goes on is our responsibility as fellow humans.

It takes none of our rights away to do this. Only hate sites spread that type of propaganda.

Will this new law affect the Church of Scientology too?

Some of this I would agree but it's not always that simple. For instance if someone killed your lover and in a rage you killed that person. Do you think you should be both treated the same? after all both acts are murder.

I'm glad to see that you are at least not confusing equal treatment for people with all crimes being the same. I'm not so sure I think hate crimes are automatically worse than the same crime committed for other reasons. But I can see some instances where I would think so. I'm kind of divided on how I feel about that but in general when someone commits a violent crime against someone I'm not too worried about how extreme their sentence is. I have little to no pity for such things.

FTR, if you read the bill you see it LIMITS sentences that can be imposed.

Ok, we can agree a little on this in principle anyway. Though I do think some of the stuff that's been shoved in there is over the top. What a lot of people fail to see is that virtually anyone can be a victim of a hate crime. And that has been true since the inception of hate crime laws.

adj4u, Personally I'm not overly concerned with the sentencing guidelines for the UK though there are some brit's on this system I don't think there are any in this thread.

Will other religions be affected by this law?Like Wicca or Scientology?