I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love. Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving! We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733
By Brody Levesque (Washington DC) Oct 22 | In a 68-29 vote, the United States Senate today passed the Defense Authorisation Conference Report for the FY 2010 Defense budget, which included the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention provision which had been attached to it this past July. The U.S. House on October 8th had successfully passed the conference report including the provision.
In a press release from its Denver, Colorado headquarters, a spokesperson for the Matthew Shepard Foundation made this statement:
Today, the United States Senate took an historic step toward ensuring justice for the victims of hate crimes targeted for violence due to their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.
By voting overwhelmingly to extend to these often-targeted Americans our nation’s decades-old bias crime legislation, senators sent the message that hate crimes will not go unpunished, and local governments and law enforcement agencies will not run out of financial resources to provide justice to these victims and their loved ones.
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act was attached earlier this year to the annual Defense Department spending bill, and Thursday’s 68-29 Senate vote to approve the final House-Senate compromise on the defense bill now sends this important law enforcement provision to President Obama, who has vowed to sign it.
Under the legislation, federal prosecutors could step in to try violent hate-crime cases if local authorities cannot or will not secure an appropriate conviction. It also opens up federal funding for law enforcement to handle the typically high cost of investigation and judicial proceedings in such cases, and would make grants available for training and prevention programs at the local level.
The act is named to honor Matthew Shepard as well as James Byrd, an African-American resident of Texas brutally dragged to death in 1998 in a notorious hate crime. Matthew’s parents Dennis and Judy Shepard have campaigned for the legislation’s passage for more than a decade since their son’s murder in Laramie, Wyoming, in 1998 in an anti-gay hate crime.
The Matthew Shepard Foundation applauds Congress and President Obama for their steady and successful efforts throughout 2009 to bring the legislation to this point. We eagerly anticipate its final enactment and wish to thank the countless organizations and individuals who have worked tirelessly for its passage.
In a separate statement also released today, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese remarked that,
“We’re in the home stretch. This critical piece of legislation is on its way to the President’s desk for his signature. We look forward to President Obama signing it into law; our nation’s first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence. We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country. We applaud the leadership of our Senate allies, particularly Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senators Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, and Susan Collins for ensuring that the hate crimes provision remained part of this authorization bill. We also recognize the tireless efforts of Senator Ted Kennedy on this issue; a hero for our entire community.”
The Defense Authorisation conference report removed a provision adopted in the Senate which would make the death penalty available for hate crimes. In addition, the hate crimes provision has been renamed “The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” honoring the memory of another victim of hate violence – in the same year as Matthew Shepard – an African-American man who was dragged to death in Jasper, Texas.
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act gives the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
It provides the Justice Department with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions either by lending assistance or, where local authorities are unwilling or unable, by taking the lead in investigations and prosecutions of violent crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury that were motivated by bias. It also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers, or to assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias motivated crimes.
Dennis & Judy Shepard with President Barack Obama, October 10th, 2009, HRC Dinner
Photo Courtesy of The Shepard Family & The Matthew Shepard Foundation
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
I've almost ignored this since I am unaffected by it in the UK. Would someone tell my with precision why it is significant and what it does over and above laws on assault, murder etc, please?
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
It must be just symbolic or something. Here's some info I found on a news site. Right now, it looks to me like this effort was misplaced. I know Matthew Shepherd's mom supported it, but like you, from the first I heard about it I wondered 'why?'. I would appreciate it if somebody could clarify the reasoning behind this.
"Leahy’s bill, like the counterpart “hate crimes” measure of House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., that passed in the House this past April, violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection under the laws for individual Americans by setting up a special collective class of victims whose assailants, when convicted, will be given extra punishment for crimes perceived to be based on gender identity, sexual orientation or disability, among other biases. Those who attack the elderly, police or those of the poor who are not among the “protected classes” would not get lengthier “hate” sentences than the law provides for the act itself. Doesn’t this make lesser citizens of their victims?"
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733
Answering Macky & Tim:
This piece of legislation has been ten years in the making. The primary reason that its never been passed out of either the Senate or the House has been the argument that Macky put forth. [By the Republicans & Conservative Democrats.]
Sadly, the truth is that given the overall attitude of Americans towards those that are different than the homogenised ideal stereotypical profile of what some Americans desire of themselves, coupled with bigotry and extreme prejudice stemming from the religious leaders; makes pieces of legislation like this needed to protect not only LGBT folk, but as the dual name of the bill implies, African Americans and other minorities.
Preventative measures, preemptive measures, however you label it, the truth is that in American society it is a necessity.
Now, given draconian laws that are designed to apply the death penalty in instances of crimes that meet the criteria for that enhanced penalty, yes, it can be argued that as a deterrent, its useless.
But lets examine the realities of these hate crimes- Matthew Shepard, James Bryd Junior; one Gay, one Black, were killed because of what they were, not because of who they were. This bill does this:
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act gives the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
It provides the Justice Department with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions either by lending assistance or, where local authorities are unwilling or unable, by taking the lead in investigations and prosecutions of violent crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury that were motivated by bias. It also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers, or to assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias motivated crimes.
The problem is the targeting, simply put. Otherwise, in the case of say Matthew Shepard, it would have been classified an ordinary robbery and not even murder as it could have been plead down to a Robbery & Manslaughter conviction, which under Wyoming Laws in 1998 would have meant that the two offenders would be looking at parole as early as 2012. In the Byrd killing, second degree murder possibly?
This is to assist the prosecutors but also to send a message of deterrence to anyone thinking of attempting or committing these types of crimes.
Arguments about the 14th Amendment have been heard before by the way when the LBJ administration started pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and later when Affirmative Action Laws were enacted. The truth is that Americans "classify" their fellow citizens into second class or lessor roles not unlike the Indianan caste system.
It is not symbolic Macky, you Americans have a nasty long history of hate and intolerance which is ironic given the ideals upon which your country was founded and under which your Constitution alleges to protect.
It becomes incumbent upon a minority to pass bills to protect the rights of other minorities from the majority.
The point really is, that to eliminate the need for bills like this falls upon the American people themselves to teach the future generations tolerance & acceptance. Part of that means that the churches need also be brought into the fold to practise what they preach. Sadly though, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
No, these laws have to be passed because of ignorance and intolerance, not because they are symbolic.
Look carefully at the picture below. He died ONLY because he was Gay...
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
Thanks for bringing up the mention of the 14th amendment in the arguments about passing the civil rights legislation. The civil rights legislation did change things in USA. I lived through the whole thing and saw it.
But I still don't understand why redundant legislation is needed when equal rights are already protected by law. Equal rights=no discrimination. But civil rights legislation made a difference in my experience and if the hate crime bill works the same way it would seem to be necessary.
So, perhaps, it's a necessary symbolic gesture. Or maybe it's adding detail to Amendment 14. But then it probably should have been added to the amendment.
These overlapping laws have to play hell with the judicial system. Seems that the answer to every problem in USA today is a new committee, department, or a new law. Doesn't it seem that a better way to do it would be to refine existing laws with the new clarifications?
Like, for instance, the blind. At one time, it was not considered an impairment of their legal rights if employers did not hire the blind for work they could do. The Americans with Disabilities act clarified this, but shouldn't that be a clarification to amendment 14 too.
I guess that what seemed obvious when the 14th amendment was passed no longer seems obvious and makes these new clarifications necessary. Do Canada and UK have specific civil rights legislation too? If so, your statement;
"The point really is, that to eliminate the need for bills like this falls upon the American people themselves to teach the future generations tolerance & acceptance."
would seem to need a small edit to change "the American" to "all".
Anyway, Thanks for keeping us apprised of these developments.
Macky
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733
Macky: Thanks for bringing up the mention of the 14th amendment in the arguments about passing the civil rights legislation. The civil rights legislation did change things in USA. I lived through the whole thing and saw it.
BL: My question is then, do you truly understand the need for the Civil Rights Act as a measure to insure enforcement & compliance to prevent violations?
Macky: But I still don't understand why redundant legislation is needed when equal rights are already protected by law. Equal rights=no discrimination. But civil rights legislation made a difference in my experience and if the hate crime bill works the same way it would seem to be necessary.
BL: How do you view this as redundant legislation? Are you saying that the murder of minorities, or even lesser hate crimes have been prosecuted adequately and that especially LGBT citizens have been adequately protected under the older laws?
Macky: These overlapping laws have to play hell with the judicial system. Seems that the answer to every problem in USA today is a new committee, department, or a new law. Doesn't it seem that a better way to do it would be to refine existing laws with the new clarifications?
BL: So, my question is then, how would one set about refining existing laws? (Especially if given the attitude of a majority of U. S. law Enforcement has been to gloss over hate crimes and label them as other situations or circumstances followed by an extreme reluctance on the part of prosecutors to charge offenders accordingly.)
Macky:Like, for instance, the blind. At one time, it was not considered an impairment of their legal rights if employers did not hire the blind for work they could do. The Americans with Disabilities act clarified this, but shouldn't that be a clarification to amendment 14 too.
BL: So, you are saying that the AWDA is a burden? And that under the laws that existed prior to its passage, handicapped or burdened Americans were well protected?
Macky: I guess that what seemed obvious when the 14th amendment was passed no longer seems obvious and makes these new clarifications necessary. Do Canada and UK have specific civil rights legislation too? If so, your statement; "The point really is, that to eliminate the need for bills like this falls upon the American people themselves to teach the future generations tolerance & acceptance." would seem to need a small edit to change "the American" to "all".
BL: As my article was specific to a change in U. S. law and not to the UK or Canada, your query is not germane to this discussion.
Macky: Anyway, Thanks for keeping us apprised of these developments.
BL: Interestingly enough, that's the very definition of what a journalist does.
One last question Macky: Since you obviously feel that the murders of Matthew Shepard, James Byrd, or say Fred Martinez or recently the young King boy in Oxnard, California should not be treated as Hate Crimes, even though there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. Therefore, Do you feel that even though these human beings were specifically targeted because of sexual identity or in Byrd's case, race, its simply better to prosecute these crimes as generic run of the mill crimes?
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
Brody,
I'm sorry that I can't make you understand what I am saying. Let me try again;
Everyone is assured equal protection under the law that existed before all the Civil Rights legislation. The law is there.
Applying the law to disabled, ethnicities, and sexual preferences is the interpretation of that law.
Can you give me a succinct reason that these latter cases have to be covered by new laws? Why is the pre-existing law not enough?
I am not objecting to the new laws. I simply do not understand why they seem to work when restated. Your mention of the 14th in connection with Civil Rights legislation seems to lend credence to the opinion that they do work. I just can't understand the mechanism for that.
Macky
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Location: U.S.
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 565
Just for reference, the 1st section of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
As far as modifying the amendment, the process is very difficult. The new amendment would have to be passed by 2/3 of both the house and senate. the Amendment would then have to be approved by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Depending on how the amendment is written, approval by the states usually must occur within a certain time limit.
The bill of rights (with later amendments)was also written to protect the individual from government. It does nothing to protect the individual from other individuals. The above 14th amendment says that no STATE shall deny a person equal protection of the laws, it does not keep other individuals from discriminating against someone.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733
My gratitude to EJ for the reference and especially for this annotation: "The bill of rights (with later amendments)was also written to protect the individual from government. It does nothing to protect the individual from other individuals. The above 14th amendment says that no STATE shall deny a person equal protection of the laws, it does not keep other individuals from discriminating against someone."
Macky, sadly, you are apparently no different than the conservative politicians in the Republican Party and the Conservative Right Leaning Special Interest groups who espouse the same philosophy. And not unlike those folk, you dodged every question that I put forth in my earlier post. Here's your statement:
"Everyone is assured equal protection under the law that existed before all the Civil Rights legislation. The law is there. Applying the law to disabled, ethnicities, and sexual preferences is the interpretation of that law."
You did quite obviously, NOT pay any attention to what I said Macky and since it bears repeating, once again my number one question:
Since you obviously feel that the murders of Matthew Shepard, James Byrd, or say Fred Martinez or recently the young King boy in Oxnard, California should not be treated as Hate Crimes, even though there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. Do you feel that even though these human beings were specifically targeted because of sexual identity or in Byrd's case, race, its simply better to prosecute these crimes as generic run of the mill crimes?
The issue as EJ pointed out is that prior laws did not protect individuals from other individuals or groups. Persons who TARGET others because of bigotry, hate, bias. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act gives the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
It provides the Justice Department with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions either by lending assistance or, where local authorities are unwilling or unable, by taking the lead in investigations and prosecutions of violent crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury that were motivated by bias. It also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers, or to assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias motivated crimes.
Macky, your attitude and philosophy says to others that it's really okay to target LGBT folks, black folks, blind folk, or any minority for that matter because the "laws" can be interpreted to protect them. The REALITY IS Macky, and also using your logic, Matthew Shepard's killers would probably have gotten very light sentences on pleas arrangements and would have ended up being paroled.
Is this the message you really desire to personally represent to the young Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Bisexual kids that visit Tim's board and forum? Especially ones who have been Gay bashed or traumatised by homophobia? Because, for this 51 year old GAY MAN, now in my 30th year as a correspondent, you sure as hell seem to come across that way to me.
(EJ, thanks again for the 14th Amendment excerpt.)
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
But E.J. , if the state is directed by federal law to give "any person...equal protection", the state is required to do this. A state can not ignore federal law. The reason for all the other new laws continues to elude me. The only thing that I can see that they do is refine what "any person means". Why do we have to make new laws instead of enforcing the ones we have?
Macky
[Updated on: Mon, 26 October 2009 01:48]
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Location: U.S.
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 565
The bill of rights and the amendments define what the Government can or cannot do. These new laws are mostly directed at individuals, not government. The part of the new law that does impact governments (where the feds can step in and take over an investigation if the locals do not appear to be taking things seriously) is desperately needed in the southern US.
In a perfect world hate crime laws would not be needed. The world where I live is far from perfect.....I'll take any help I can get.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733
"In a perfect world hate crime laws would not be needed. The world where I live is far from perfect.....I'll take any help I can get."
THANK YOU EJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Macky, What EJ just stated is the EXACT reason in PLAIN English why The Matthew Shepard Act is a necessity.
1. There are too many laws.
2. The people entrusted with law enforcement choose which laws to enforce and which to turn a blind eye to.
3. The legislators won’t set priorities because ALL laws must be obeyed. So it is left to the people who enforce the law (or fail to enforce it). They are rarely consistent about it.
4. People get to know which laws they can break and get away with and most people break laws every day.
5. The way dictatorships work is by using selective law enforcement action to dispose of the opposition. [Once everybody breaks the law the enforcers of the law can put anyone they (or their bosses) want in prison.]
6. It would put civil liberties in grave danger to give government detailed control over law enforcers.
7. Most legislators are busy making things worse by adding to the law all the time.
They very often make a new law when there is a perfectly good old law which applies to the case but which isn’t enforced – but they don’t have the control they would need over the law enforcers to put the old law in the list of laws that are being enforced this week. AND A GOOD THING TOO.
So maybe the hate law will have an effect that we all want to see. I support it.
Location: USA
Registered: April 2009
Messages: 430
If, in place of a gay guy, a youngish girl was brutally killed, there would be a Shepard's Law already on the books.
Too many laws that protect what the media wants protected. Not nearly enough protection against a gay rage or snap of the mind attack on a gay male.
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733
"Too many laws that protect what the media wants protected. Not nearly enough protection against a gay rage or snap of the mind attack on a gay male."
I need to state for the record Ray, that NOT all members of the Media including myself lobby for legislation to the Congress of the United States or for that matter Parliament etc. Most of us report, and yes are times there is a built in bias in our coverage, events as they transpire.
Yesterday afternoon I spent 4 hours attending hearings on a bill before the District of Columbia's City Council that would allow for the marriage of same sex couples and "protect" that right. Because of the peculiarity of the status of the home rule of the District, any laws after passage by the council & signature by the mayor, must be approved & scrutinized by Congress.
As a result, there was extensive coverage by the national press corps.
However Ray, at NO time did any reporter put down his or her notebook, camera, or microphone, and step up to testify either for or against the measure.
The argument I keep hearing being put forth by the members here is that there are already sufficient laws on the books that could be enforced. Tim's "Murder is Murder" statement while true, in practise by the various prosecutors is not evenly applied and plea bargains historically have allowed for lighter punishments and in some cases not at all.
A recent onerous example of this also occurred here in the District not even a month ago as a young male was sentenced to 180 days, that's 'days' in the DC jail for causing the death of another young male who was Gay. Oh, and it came out in testimony that homophobic slurs were used in the attack.
Because there was no Shepard Act on the books, and because of the circumstances overall of the issues with the case, the U. S. Attorney was forced to take a plea deal which resulted in an involuntary manslaughter conviction. By the way, that also happened in a South Carolina Case a year ago under very similar circumstances.
I'll take exception at what you've said only because the majority of my colleagues and I work pretty hard to establish facts and tell the stories accurately. BUT, yes, sometimes bias does enter into the picture.
Tim has pointed out and so shall I, the American attitude towards LGBT folks is oft times coloured and biased by the religious types and the venom they espouse. Allegedly the United States is a non-secular nation, yet, from my perspective it hardly acts that way on issues that religious leaders seek to stifle or eliminate.
Location: USA
Registered: April 2009
Messages: 430
I did not intend to lump all media into the pot. However, media outlets do control news and what gets on, whether the media is left, middle or right. A news outlet cannot cover "everything" so humans make decisions what news gets the precious moments of coverage. I hope that's what I meant about media deciding what is news.
It's an awesome power too, as we see Fox News use the power in its way.
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733
It is a presidential & American tradition to sign keynote pieces of legislation or declarations with multiple pens. Those pens are then handed out to sponsors of the particular bill, dignitaries, or family members, as well as keepsakes for presidential libraries and the National Archives.
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
