RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Obama Signs Pedophile Protection Act

President Obama Signs "Hate Crimes" Bill into Law

• President Barack Obama has now signed into law a controversial "hate crimes" bill that authorizes the federal government to intervene in violent crimes that appear motivated by hatred of homosexuals and apply stiffer penalties and sentences.
  
  President Barack Obama signed the measure into law at 2:30 pm today. A reception is planned for 5 pm., and President Obama is expected to deliver some brief remarks on the bill at around 6:05 pm.
  
  The expanded hate crime legislation extends special protection to victims of crime who are targeted by perpetrators based on an actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
  
  President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law as part of a provision added to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill.
  
  Opponents of the hate crimes legislation have charged that the bill violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution by making an individual's thought regarding certain groups as much a factor as the nature of his act in prosecuting a crime.
  
  The US Commissioners on Civil Rights wrote letters to US House and Senate leaders condemning the legislation, saying they "regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties." The commissioners also pointed out that the law creates a legal loophole to the Constitution's prohibitions to double jeopardy, because it allows the federal government to try an individual who has already been acquitted in a state trial, for the same crime.
  
  The bill has also been labeled the "pedophile protection act," in large part due to [the fact that] the term "sexual orientation" is not defined in the bill, an oversight that some legislators charged could lead to an overly broad interpretation - since the term is used by psychologists to encompass a variety of sexual deviancies (including pedophilia), and not just homosexuality.

Disgusting. But just another example of how this administration winks at child abusers.

Why am I not surprised?

Ah, back when you were still kind of reasonable.

Would pedophilia actually hold up in a court of law though as a "sexual orientation"? I mean...that would imply that "rapist" is a sexual orientation. Or that "self castrating" is a sexual orientation.

I suppose a population that holds such skewed values as vast swaths of Americans might indeed take this one to task in court...but somehow, I don't see something so intrinsically immoral as raping a child as standing a chance of gaining protective legislation. Logic and general morality should dictate that the law would be redefined, should it ever be challenged (and I've no doubt it will be...opportunist filth, the lot of you).

Granted, it was lazy not to define it's exact terms of inclusion at it's onset...but your leap to declare the administration 'supporting' pedophilia is not only absurd, but just cheap and petty.

Fuck, it's shit like this that remind me why I stopped coming here. The tunnel vision idiocy in here is physically painful to see.

You have a large segment of the creative community rallying behind, and trying to protect, Roman Polanski for doing exactly that (raping a child). This, while not exactly the same thing, demonstrates that, unfortunately, some "progressives" have a tendency to rationalize and defend bad, or even evil, behavior, especially if they can hide behind a diagnosis.

Laws have an unfortunate tendency to get expanded in ways that the drafters might not have intended. Furthermore, one generation's view of what is "intrisically immoral" sometimes ends up another generation's "personal business."

For example, here's a story about a law that was intended to allow parents to teach their kids about sex education but which got twisted to allow a dad to show his underaged daughters hard-corn porn.

The fact the matter is that the loophole could have been closed but, for some reason, the drafters of this law didn't want to do that. We'll see if it creates the legal issues predicted.

g-man has gone off the deep end. He even thinks letterman making fun of sarah palin's kids is the same as drugging and raping a 13 year old.

You yourself have called this law an attempt to create "thought crimes" so clearly you believe that it can be interpreted too broadly.

I think the Polanski case is too unique to bring into this. It's not even about the rape anymore, but about thwarting the legal system. The victim herself is the foremost critic of the arrest.

But the more I think on it, the more I realize that the terminology really needed to be vague. Sexuality is a spectrum. We have everything from transgendered issues, to asexuality, to corn fed heterosexuality...the most fringe among them being the most in need of protection (hell, I feel the need to beat down trannies in the street, so I can only imagine what most breeders feel), and the definitions thereof still being debated by psychiatric communities.

I think it will be defined as the need arises (lookit how quickly marriage laws were amended when people decided a union between two people with the same bits was an abomination). You really need to retract your "pedo supporter" comments, mate. Shit like that makes anything of merit you might have to say lose any value. You've clearly been watching too much Faux News.

Vague laws are exactly the kind that end up being misinterpreted.

I'll agree. But the likelihood of this one following the course you've outlined is virtually non-existent. You've overstepped your own insane zeal to vilify the administration by spouting bullshit, yet again.

As I said though, there is no way to pin this down and say exactly who is protected...as this is not yet defined as a society. It needs some wiggle room. The legal system can define both who is included, and who is excluded, via normal legal proceedings.

I don't think there's a doctor out there (although, again, being a nation of opportunist leeches...anything's possible) who would stand up and declare pedophilia as a viable 'sexual orientation'. It's clearly in the category of 'criminally insane'....much the same as a serial killer and a rapist.

You need to remember, however, this law isn't about creating a defense for a criminal proceeding. It's about criminalizing behavior taken against certain classes of "victims" and, some argue (including rex), creating penalties for what would be otherwise constitutionally-protected protests against those classes.

Don't include me in your old man rantings. You have no idea what I'm talking about. Just stick to your fox news talking points. Its what you do best.

I do understand that, and I do think that there needs to be heavier penalties for hate crimes. I know the average joe doesn't see the need, but anyone of a minority group will tell you that being subjected to violent activity on account of your colour/gender/sexuality is a very real, very terrifying prospect. And the outcomes of such attacks are more often than not more vicious and degrading than the average random violent act.

That said...I still don't see anyone finding it appropriate to protect a child rapist. As a culture (in so much as we in Canada share certain core values as well...), this is among the most abhorrent of crimes. No judge or jury is going to sit there and punish someone for beating down the guy who attacked their child with any extra sentence this law may allow. He's still going to see his day in court for the retaliation, but I don't see him being sentenced under hate crimes provisions.

It's already against the law to assault people. And when an assault is especially violent or degrading the penalties are already enhanced without reference to the victim's race/gender/sexuality. Instead the enhancement is based on what it should be based on: the level of injury to the victim.

So, really, there's no need for the law. But once the law takes effect and broadens the existing law you get into the problem I'm pointing out.

I'm telling you it is necessary to address hate crimes as a particularly heinous crime, with punishment over and above the norm. And I'm saying that the 'problem you are pointing out' is negligible at best (and speaks to a greater social ill than any law can address).

I'm also saying that your inflammatory remarks at the onset of this thread are absurd, and need to be retracted. This kind of sensationalist stance is more of a problem to your country than any hate crime legislation ever could be.

If someone hates [fill in group] so much that he or she is going to attack them in a particularly "heinous" way, how is passing a hate crime law a deterrent? Wouldn't education be a better way to deal with it than passing a law that can have dangerous unintended consequences.

Finally, I must note that your insistence that I "retract" a legal theory that you find offensive is actually a pretty good example of why these laws are dangerous. You find my argument offensive so you don't just explain why you disagree. Instead you demand I not make it. That's a censoring mentality and one that (when practiced by governments) many opponents of the hate crimes law (see, for example, rex) find dangerous to free expression.

If someone beat your mother to paralysis with a pipe because she cut them off in traffic. and someone beat your buddy up because he was gay. you actually think the guy who beat your buddy up because he was gay should get a stiffer sentence based soely on his reasons?

I think the viciousness of the attack should be the only concern. there are civil remedies for the harassment aspect of any crime.

For starters, education would solve a great many ills in the cesspool we call the modern United States of America. So yes, I'll agree. Education on equality is the least of your problems. Basic reading and writing skills would be a boon to you people.

I'm not saying it to sensor you, I'm attempting to appeal to your humanity. What purpose is served by declaring an obvious falsehood? That is Faux News tactics, and serves little more than to rile up the ignorant. I'm certain you don't honestly believe the administration meant to provide a loophole for pedophiles, so why say as much? It makes you, and anything you may have to say sound ridiculous.

That's an unfair comparison, as I'm supposed to get all confused here by the inclusion of my mother...you're looking for an emotional response irrelevant to the discourse. Sadly, I can't stand the bitch...the reasons for which actually dovetail nicely with this discussion.

The thing is, along with the physical attack comes the psychological aspect of it all. No one should have to feel that they should be subjected to such a targeted attack. If the guy beats my mom over a traffic incident, the reasons are outside herself. She's going to be traumatized, sure...but she won't feel the internal void that a rape victim or a victim of a racial/sexual bashing will. The damage is over and above the physicality of it all.

But it's not an "obvious falsehood." Creative lawyers and judges find ways to twist and expand laws every day and, sometimes, the results aren't good for society as a whole. You're assuming that won't happen here because you are emotionally invested in the law.

In fact, given how your own country has used laws against "hate speech" to try and censor journalists, I could probably make an argument that you're the one being disingenuous. However, I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and refrain from accusing you of the bad faith you attribute to me.



That's merely an assumption on your part. Crime victims also report a feeling of mental violation regardless of whether the crime is a "hate crime." There's often a feeling of "what did I do to deserve this?"

Case in point: in traffic court I've seen people who were hit by drunk drivers who are emotionally distraught over what happened. Obviously the drunk driver didn't target them because of their race/gender/sexual preferance. He just got wasted and plowed into them. But the sense of loss and violation in the victim is still great.

What's that saying about people in glass houses?

I just assumed that was how they spelled it up there.

I think Canada is part of that whole 'self esteem' society that allows you to spell words however you think it's best to spell.

I thought it was sensour! lolz lern 2 reed dumas!!1!

Personally, as I've said before, 'thought crime' legislation like this is bullshit and unnecessary. Secondly, I don't see it being used to defend pedophiles as I don't see any prosecutor willing to attach a hate crime to someone who attacks one out of fear of the public backlash.

So, answer me: do you actually believe that the current administration intended to create a loophole for pedophiles?

And yes, as I said, there are greater ills at play than the vague wording of the law. The bottom feeding, exploitative nature of you people is the problem here, not the intent of the law. I've no doubt that someone, somewhere will challenge the law. I've an equal amount of faith that pedophiles are universally regarded not as a sexual orientation, but as 'criminally insane'. As I've stated repeatedly, I don't see an argument that a pedophile suffered a hate crime standing up in court. It has not been, nor will be defined as a sexual orientation any more than 'rapist' has been.

I think you all do need more control over your...*ahem* journalists (term used lightly). I think sensational crap like this should be outlawed, and news presented as a series of facts, without such fantastic spin. You go off about "freedom of speech"...but freedom always comes hand in hand with responsibility. Laws come into effect when people cannot or will not respect their responsibility. Laws by their very nature are limiting freedoms. This is one area where I think it's appropriate. The story can, and should be presented...but biased tabloid style presentation should be held accountable for the bullshit it is, with penalties for this tripe.



Again, spoken like a straight, white, middle class male. Yes, it is going to affect you to be victimized, no matter who you are or when it happens. But hate crime is something else.

Imagine if going anywhere: every street, shopping mall, night club, corner store...was the equivalent of you walking your white ass through a ghetto in Detroit. Just think about the ramifications of that on your daily life, your psychological well being...and you'll start to get the idea. It.Is.Not.The.Same.Thing.

maybe not exactly the same thing, but I'm sure he'd acquire a comparable chip on his shoulder given adequate time.

Unless the prosecutor is elected by the residents of San Francisco.

Hahaha...Busted.

the worst thing about a victim mentality is that thoughts are equivocated with actions to the point where an individual populates the world around them with victimizers and anyone who doesn't think or speak in an acceptable fashion is a hate criminal lying in wait. basically, they come to rely on the exact same stereotyping they blame for their own perceived victimization. "hate crime" legislation lends that victim mentality force of law, and more dangerously, as has been said a few times in here, it sets a legal precedent for rendering entire patterns of thought and belief unlawful.

You know, forty or fifty years ago, the idea that gay men should be able to get married or adopt (hell or even teach kids) was considered by most people to be "crap." If the government at the time had the ability you advocate to censor unpopular ideas I doubt you'd have the rights you have today. You'd probably be living in a far worse society than the one you fear if these laws aren't passed.

The whole point of a free society is to be able to think and talk about ideas, even crazy ones. That's the only way to test what the truth is: by debating it, not by having some bureaucrat declare it.

This neither answers nor even addresses what I asked of you.

DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DELIBERATELY CREATED A LOOPHOLE FOR PEDOPHILES?

You brought up the point about censoring journalists. It's in your post. If you didn't want me to respond why did you bring it up.

Just answer the question.

I personally don't think it was a deliberate loophole. politicians ultimately look out for their own interests and repaying the party, lobbyists and interest groups who put them in office, which means satisfying a platform and an agenda. like many elements of the liberal agenda, hate-crimes legislation stems from good intentions but doesn't get refined beyond the good idea phase. no one sees beyond the most immediate potential positive outcome for their own little group or movement. but legislative and judicial precedent can be used by anyone who knows it's there regardless of the intent behind the initial decision.

I wonder how many of the architects of the original black civil-rights movement in the 1950s and 60s would have been so enthusiastic about the gay-rights movement using legislative and judicial precedents set back then to make their own political gains. who knows who'll come along in another three or four decades - probably sooner - and look back at this decision as an important step in legitimizing their own movement?

whether or not you think it's a good idea is heavily dependent on whether or not you personally benefit from it. everyone wants their own agenda to succeed, and every politician wants to get elected and then reelected. it doesn't seem that those behind this current development are very concerned about what may come out of their decisions in the long run.

Dude, you just need to shut the fuck up. Your own posts show how fucking self absorbed you really are when it comes to this issue. Guess what. I grew up in the Mississippi Delta where white people ARE the minority. I went to the 'white school' that was 40% white. So fuck this whole 'white males don't know what it's like to be a minority' bullshit people like you spew. The fact is that I believe everyone should be treated 100% equally with no relation what so ever to their ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. I also believe that people should be judged by their actions and not their thoughts. We can all think things that we'd never act on; but once we do, we should be judged by what we've done.

Hahaha...then you know exactly what I'm talking about.

No one is talking about judging thoughts over actions. We are talking about when those thoughts become actions. We are talking about ensuring that people are all treated 100% equal. It's the attempt of the few to act on their ignorance that makes these provisions necessary.

EDIT: And Sammich, I didn't address your last post, as I more or less agree with it in it's entirety.

you left the T out of my screen name. therefore your argument is invalid.

There's no way to prove a congress of thought and action. You can only prove action and intent of action.

Anyhow...I think I've proved my point. G-man's lack of response to my initial accusation that he was being sensationalist (the whole reason I posted to this thread) has been answered by his refusal to respond to it directly.

Your post more or less summed up any semantics arguments about the law itself, for better or worse.

So, there's really nothing more to be said here.