Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Reply From Sen Warner (R???-Va) on Hate Crimes!!!

First, let me state that a crime is a crime, regardless of the motivation. Providing EXTRA punishment to someone for a crime "motivated" based on race, color, religion, or national origin removes the "equal protection" under the law from everyone else not falling into whichever category is most popular to protect at the moment. This spells the unraveling of everything precious remaining in our legal system and rule of law. We see "hate crimes" day in and day out committed against Americans, yet who benefits? Who is truly punished? America! We The People ARE the people. A brutal murder against one of us is no better or worse than one against any of us. Why make a law that leads down such a slippery slope? It's easy to say something is a "hate crime." Is this blog going to be considered a hate crime because it points out the hatefulness of the fundamentals of a certain "religion?"

Why are certain people within our government working so hard to set in motion many things to work together to destroy this nation? That to me is the hate crime.

Amnesty for lawbreakers and terrorists. Special protections for certain people. Dhimmitude. Restrictions on free speech. Manipulations of the press. Restrictions on your right to bear arms. Unthinkable, yet it is happening across this great nation, right now- with or without legislation to speed it up. Help me vote anyone who would deny you your rights out of office.

"... actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person, where the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce." Why does a "hate crime" bill have a clause about "affecting interstate or foreign commerce?" They keep finding poison in exports from China- it's no accident to have 100 times the dangerous dose of formaldahyde in childrens' clothing..Is that a hate crime? Where is the government to protect US? Too busy taking away our rights and freedoms, making us easy prey for ANYONE (regardless of their national origin or religion) who wants to do us harm.

The complete text of Sen Warner's reply follows, minus my own personal information lest someone try to commit a hate crime against me:
----------------------

August 21, 2007

Mr. Chris XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear Mr. XXXXX


Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on hate crimes legislation. I appreciate your inquiry on this matter.

Current federal law prohibits willfully injuring, intimidating or interfering with any person because of the person's race, color, religion, or national origin. However, this federal protection only applies when a person is engaged in one of six federally protected activities. These protected activities include: (1) enrolling in or attending a public school; (2) participating in a program administered by a state; (3) applying for or being employed; (4) serving as a juror in any state court; (5) traveling in or using a facility of interstate commerce; and (6) enjoying the goods, services, and accommodations of any inn, motel, or hotel, any restaurant, any gasoline station, theater, sports arena or other facility.

With respect to hate crimes legislation proposed in the United States Senate, on April 12, 2007, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) introduced the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S.1105). Subsequent to its introduction, S.1105 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. This legislation would expand current federal law by making it a federal crime to willfully cause bodily injury to any person because of the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability without regard to the six existing federally protected activities in current law.

After examining similar legislation extensively for several years, after listening to law enforcement officials and citizens all across Virginia, and after a horrific hate crime shooting spree in Roanoke, Virginia, which left Danny Overstreet dead and six others wounded, I voted in support of legislation called the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act when it was offered as an amendment to the FY2005 Defense Authorization Act (S.2400) in 2004. While this amendment was considered by the full Senate and agreed to by a vote of 65 to 33, the FY2005 Defense Authorization Act did not include the amendment when it was signed into law by the President (P. L. 108-375).

First, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would have expanded federal hate crimes jurisdiction by making it a federal crime to willfully cause bodily injury to any person because of the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability without regard to the six existing federally protected activities in current law. However, under the amendment, federal law enforcement officials could not take over the investigation or prosecution of hate crimes unless: the state lacked the authority to prosecute; the state requested the federal government’s assistance or involvement; or the state’s verdict or sentence did not fulfill the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.

Second, because the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes can be extraordinarily costly, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would have authorized grants to local and state governments to assist them in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Finally, for cases in which local law enforcement officials request additional assistance, the amendment would have authorized federal law enforcement officials to provide technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

In my view, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would have helped ensure that local, state, and federal law enforcement had the resources necessary to prosecute the perpetrators of these particularly heinous crimes to the fullest extent of the law. And, not only would the amendment have sent a strong federal message that these types of crimes would not be tolerated, it would have helped close the gaps in our legal system that sometimes make the investigation and prosecution of these crimes even more difficult.

On May 3, 2007, the House of Representatives passed its version of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R.1592) by a vote of 237 to 180. Additional legislation, the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R.254), remains under consideration in the House of Representatives. H.R.254 would amend the federal criminal code to set penalties for willfully causing bodily injury, or attempting to cause such injury, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person, where the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.

Please be assured that I appreciate the views that you have shared with me. You may be certain that, should S.1105 or other legislation related to hate crimes come before the full Senate in the future, I will be certain to keep your thoughts in mind.


Again, thank you for contacting me.


With kind regards, I am


Sincerely,

A

John Warner

4 comments:

WomanHonorThyself said...

right so that CAIR can twist the law and have some Russian Jew charged with a felony for placing a book in a toilet!..youre spot on Chris!

Rev. Jim Sutter said...

With the Qur'an incident, he's not Jewish, he's agnostic. After arrest, he admitted under oath that he stole Qur'ans, twice, dumped them in the public toilet at Pace University, took a dump on them, and that he did this for the sole purpose of intimidating the Muslim student population. If he had left out the last part, it wouldnt' be a hate crime. But at least now he is doing the right thing, he is taking responsibility for his stupidity.

falcon_01 said...

A crime is a crime, and a crime is an act of hate, but to make a special category removes equal protection and rides us down a slippery slope to abuse of the judicial system. Everyone should be equally accountable for their actions and there should be no wiggle room for even the potential to inflate charges or abuse people's rights to free expression.
What he did was theft and vandalism because of where and how he did it, and he should be punished for it. Nothing more. Had he done it at home, or with his own book, taken a photo, and removed any obstruction he caused to public property- I would have no issue with it- just as much as I dislike seeing a flag burn, and sadly a cross abused, I would defend anyone's right to do so as restrictions on freedoms protected under the Constitution is tyranny.

Otherwise we MUST enforce the "hate" law equally and that would mean rounding up every single person who burns a flag- because that act is a hateful one- I find it hateful, as one who served what the flag is supposed to represent; freedom. We would have to round up all the bible burners, and people who do anything hateful. I do not believe that is the right course of action for a civilized society though- it would place an unbearable burden on taxpayers and the already overburdened legal system. We are better off leaving freedom of speech and expression wide open- so long as nobody is actually hurt or actually threatened (which is covered under current law)- leaving no room for error- even if what some choose to do with it would be considered tasteless by many, and holding individuals responsible for their actions as has been the legal tradition of this country that has served us so well these last couple hundred years.
Thanks for dropping by. I know you don't have wonderful relations with many people who are on the same page of music as me, but I hope and pray we can maintain civil discourse and be respectful of our rights to free speech, beliefs, etc.

Lady Predator said...

The only crime was that of vandalism. I 'm sure how taking a dump on the Qur'an can intimidate anyone.

Hat crime is an Orwellian invention.

http://exposingsutter.blogspot.com/