Queer or Female? Too Bad.

Bush has threatened to veto a bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday that expands hate-crime laws to include attacks based on sexual orientation or gender.Read here, and get pissed off.

This is NOT my country.

23 Replies to “Queer or Female? Too Bad.”

  1. I had seen this yesterday, but t his article is more detailed than the one I read. I can’t believe that people are so naieve as to say that by protecting people under law, they are being granted “special rights”
    I find it particularly interesting that this could affect voting – that if people were to target women or gays at the polls, those voters would not be federally protected…
    So, what do all the women and gays who voted for Bush for “Financial reasons” think now that Bush is basically saying that they don’t deserve protection from hate crimes?

  2. I’ve never been clear on this. Murder is illegal. The punishment is already scaled based on intent or accident. There is already protection under the law from violent crime. What extra protection does this add?

    I have to look into laws on vote tampering, but are you saying that some gang of redneck thugs can legally throw rocks or some other mischief at women and gays on their way to the polls in order to intimidate them into not voting? That there is no recourse under current law for these groups that other groups enjoy?

  3. I use women and gays as an example of people that would be protected under this law because those are groups that are often targeted by acts of random violence, but the bill does not specifically state “women and gays”, so if, say, you were to have a roving band of angry lesbians slash your tires and write “Castrate the WASP bastard so he can’t breed anymore” in purple lipstick on your windshield while you were trying to go vote, YOU would be protected by law – because this would be a hate crime against you, and it might make you feel frightened and persecuted. That’s just it – it isn’t giving other people special rights – because YOU have a gender and a sexual orientation, too. It would protect every person, except for people who do not have a sexual orientation or a gender…because there are so many people like that out there, you know.

  4. If the bill gets vetoed, this attack on you, which would leave you cowering at night wondering if you might be attacked again, worrying if it would be safe to go out in public ever again, would only be considered vandalism and destruction of property. They might get a fine, might have to pay to replace your tires, but would not be held liable for the fear, pain and suffering they had caused you.

    Something to think about.

  5. They might get a fine, might have to pay to replace your tires, but would not be held liable for the fear, pain and suffering they had caused you.

    These are currently valid civil torts, pursuable through state courts.

  6. Isn’t this a public journal? Isn’t asking people to stop commenting on your public writing tantamount to attaching a road to a highway in a busy city, and asking people to not drive on it?

    I see in your user info it says something about a sharp mind, and all that-but I have to say this seems rather contrary.

  7. Wow, has the time rolled ’round again for me to become the hobby of themoocow’s little fucktard brigade?

    Already? My, how the time flies.

  8. While I know who he is, I’m certainly not reading this at his behest, or because he in any way pointed this out to me. Frankly we’re not really friends.

    I’ll just assume your flippant answer means you’re not going to answer me in an adult fashion and let it be.

  9. Gosh, a bunch of people who have never posted here before come in and start trolling my LJ, and a quick search reveals that they all just happen to be friends of a guy who I banned last year, for doing the same thing.

    Complete coincidence. Sure.

    I’ll “let it be” — and you can fuck off with your mates.

  10. There’s certainly no coincidence, but unfortunately for you the guilty party isn’t who you’d hope it would be:


    I think you’ll notice Moo didn’t start this conversation or continue it in any way. Whilst you may think of my questions as trolling, I meant them earnestly. I’m sorry you can’t handle adult conversation in your public website, perhaps you should make this a friends only journal-which would of course stop any dissent or posting from people who aren’t on your friends list.

    I’d rather hoped since you were supposed to be some sort of writer you’d be willing to talk with someone who could be a potential reader. A shame I was wrong/.

  11. I know if I weren’t interested in allowing random posters access to my writings I would make those entries in my public journal friends only.

    But since I’m open to the idea of people having access to them I don’t have my public journal set up that way. Live Journal is filled with all sorts of options that might help you.

    If you’re unable to grasp the technical side of this, perhaps you should ask for help from some one proficient with computers. That’s what I do.

  12. I’ll explain it once for you, slowly, so that you’ll be sure to get it.

    What you and your little aspergers-case pals are doing is the equivalent of walking up to a group of friends gathered in a public place (say, a bar, for example), butting into the conversation to share your contrary view.

    Yes, it’s public. However, you don’t know the people who are talking, nor were you invited to participate.

    This calls for the application of something we adults like to call BASIC FUCKING SOCIAL SKILLS.

    I know it’s hard to grasp. Try. Real hard.

  13. Yes, but if there is no national law in regards to gender or sexual orientation, that sets a bad example. It could even set precedence for some less-civilized state governments to remove those protections from their own laws – what’s to stop them?

    Do you feel that protection based on race or religion should be removed from national law?

  14. There are some much bigger things that you ought to be ashamed of…especially pertaining to “your” country.

  15. I just looked at the link you provided, and it is interesting to nte that the perspective is skewed. Willygilligan’s response (which is quoted) was a reply to my comment on this thread. The entire situation has been misrepresented.

    Could you please explain to me why you and your friends feel threatened by the notion of Liberty and Justice for all? Every person has a gender or a sexual orientation. We are born with both. Don’t we all deserve equal rights as free, law-abiding Americans? Isn’t that what it’s all about?

  16. Your comments have been deleted, and you’ve managed to become only the 4th person that I’ve ever banned from commenting. Congrats.

  17. Yes, but if there is no national law in regards to gender or sexual orientation, that sets a bad example. It could even set precedence for some less-civilized state governments to remove those protections from their own laws – what’s to stop them?

    Ideally, a constitutional amendment similar to the first. Moving the offenses from state civil jurisdiction to federal criminal law takes the initiative to seek justice out of the hands of the victims and their survivors and puts it in the hands of DoJ prosecutors.

  18. I see it as a matter of balance.

    You see, there are degrees of murder that reflect the motive of said murder. For example, if you kill someone because you were in a car and he was on a bike, and you didn’t pay attention, you get very different treatment than you do if you did it because you were in his will and he was rich and you put a pillow over his face. Likewise, a seventeen-year-old girl who beats her father to death in his sleep is going to jail for a good long time – unless her motive was that he’d been molesting her since she was five. In all cases, the victim’s still dead, so why not the same penalty? Why do we have manslaughter voluntary and involuntary, homicide both wilful and negligent, and multiple degrees of murder?

    Because under our laws motive and method count.

    So, a hate crime isn’t just a crime against a member of a disenfranchised or minority group. It’s a crime committed where the motivation is *membership* in that group. The victim is chosen because he is or is perceived to be a member of that group. Consequently, as a matter of legal balance it makes sense to me that the victim be protected if that motive is more likely than, say, the color of pants he’s wearing or the fact that he graduated from high school in 1998.

    Hate crime legislation is often misunderstood because it doesn’t seek to make something illegal that’s currently legal. It seeks to establish a class of penalties and consequences based on motive and the likelihood that the person, given his freedom, would likely do it again; these consequences are also based on what is considered reasonable provocation for the action. It’s perfectly reasonable to kill someone because he tried to kill you first. You’re provoked by something society agrees is a reasonable incentive. When we suggest hate-crimes legislation to codify a class of motive and victim choice based on the victim’s demographic, we’re attempting to establish that membership in that demographic is legally considered unacceptable provocation for crimes against someone.

    It’s a little tricky, because it keeps getting spun incorrectly by both sides, but it makes more sense to me if I view it as a legal nuance to clear up some mushiness with regard to motive and reasonable provocation.

    The reason I think it’s necessary federal law? Because of that bit about ‘reasonable provocation.’ Making an attack on someone based on demographic a specific type of crime removes the worry that in certain parts of the country, homosexuality will be considered scary enough to be reasonable provocation, so a solid line, drawn to prevent that from happening, establishes a firm baseline. I wish it weren’t true, but I hear enough people in Texas (though none in Austin proper) say things like, “If I thought that a fag was hittin’ on me, I’d knock him into next week,” and their friends, who would presumably make up that jury of their peers, nod and agree with them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.