Pages

Thursday, May 03, 2007

The Conservative Hate Agenda

.
Socially conservative groups appear resigned to the likelihood the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act will be passed by Congress and are now turning their opposition to calling for President Bush to veto it.

The House is expected to vote on the bill on Thursday. The legislation would add crimes based on sexuality to the federal hate crime law.

Also called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act it would allow the Department of Justice to assist local authorities in investigating and prosecuting cases in which violence occurs.

FBI statistics show that one in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.

The American Family Association has sent an alert to thousands of its members calling on them to email and phone the White House to call for a veto.

"The Hate Crimes Act criminalizes a vast array of state and local acts and threatens religious leaders with criminal prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements," AFA claims - something supporters of the bill and LGBT civil rights groups dispute.

The hate crime bill passed the House in the last Congress but was dropped in the then Republican-controlled Senate last year.

Although the bill has bi-partisan support, with Democrats now in control of both houses in Congress it is seen as having a better chance of passage.

The legislation has the support of LGBT civil rights groups and has been endorsed by more than 210 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations, including: the National Sheriffs' Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

2 comments:

BostonPobble said...

The Hate Crimes Act criminalizes a vast array of state and local acts and threatens religious leaders with criminal prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements," ... Um, no, it criminalizes these people for beating and murdering based on their thoughts, beliefs and statements. But perhaps that is too fine a distinction for some to make. *sigh*

nancy =) said...

this just utterly behooves me...

=(

~ n
xoxoxo