So I called Rep. John Conyers Washinton DC (District of Criminals) office today to find out who actually wrote the hate crimes bill. I was transferred to his judicial representative where I was greeted with nervous laughter from the gentleman I spoke with when I asked him directly who was its author.

He couldn't answer, and he preferred to say that the authors were most likely different people who he could not name.

When I asked him were there any special intrests groups involved with authoring the bill he said that I should probably look into the the history of the hate crimes legislation.

Well when I look into the history of the hate crimes legislation, I've already confirmed that the Anti-Defamation League are the authors of the original 1994 legislation, and the ADL brags that they have persuaded 45 states to adopt legislation based on their original framework.

The ADL wants to tell law enforcement who they should go after via theri Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network program:

http://www.adl.org/learn/default.htm

Hey wait a minute, were is the ADL when the police attack, arrent, taser, beat and murder citizens based on their color. Nowhere to be found.

There are many conflicts of interest with the ADL writing legislation and with partnering with local and federal law enforcement agencies. Remember, this special interest group is for the advancement of Jews first, and then all others after that.

This is such a relief, now when a gay beats me up for being straight, I can yell "hater hater hater" and get him locked up in federal prison. (nicer than state by the way) So this legislation just reduces punishment by allowing them into a nice federal prison where the mattresses are 6" thick as opposed to 1" thick. The criminal world knows it's always best to go fed.

@funnicus

Lot's problems with this statement here. Surely you can't be suggesting that the way to fight intolerance is with more intolerance.

I'll be the first person to admit that many Christians are intolerant to many things outside of Christianity, however you seem to be suggesting that all Christians are haters. How did you come up with that?

Second, you suggested that bibles should be burned even before selling them from the fiction section of bookstores. I have no problem with selling bibles from the fiction section (it's rather amusing), but surely your solution of burning bibles suggests a high degree of intolerance towards Christianity.

Perhaps you've never heard the quote by the German poet and playwright Heinrich Heine (a repudiated Jew who converted to Christianity): "“Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people."

This has been a long time coming.

If someone beats me up, that's terrible. If someone beats me up because I have the biological predisposition to find men attractive, that's another story.

This legislation essentially criminalizes homophobia. It makes it so that comitting a crime based solely on someone's (race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, etc.) is even less acceptable than just committing the crime.

This legislation also provides a deterrent: if the ONLY reason someone is going to beat me up is because I'm gay, they'll think twice because the sentence and punishment is twice as heavy. If they have another reason for doing so (I'm an asshole, for example), then this won't have anything to do with it.

I'll feel safer, whether or not it actually does anything.

Did anyone else notice that "disability" was slipped in there too? That's an important step, too.

Maybe it's a step in the right direction to get the Bible removed from the clutches of the haters. Burn them, or make them sell them in the fiction section where they belong. They need to address the source of the problem rather than this band-aid.

Until the government recognize "homosexuals" as people, we are still second class citizens.

Sorry, but from my research, which is pretty well documented, the Anti-Defamation League were the authors of the bill.

If you can prove that someone other than the Anti-Defamation league, or someone connected to this organisation were the authors of the bill, please let me know, because the last thing I want to do is pass of disinformation.

Hmm. I'm enjoying seeing the diversity of points here.

One thing I'd like to note... while on the surface it would seem that we, as a society, are moving away from the need for special group protection laws such as this, crimes motivated solely by a personality factor can be extremely detrimental to the society if examples are not made.

While I personally do not feel that someone should get a heavier sentence for beating up a gay person instead of a straight person, the government has the right to create laws that more heavily discourage actions fueled by schools of thought that the society on a whole is hoping to weed out; i.e., homophobia. I would not agree to this practice when applied to most things, as some of these "schools of thought" may be purely undestructive opinion.

However, I see homophobia no different from racism or sexism; discrimination based on a factor of a person's personality. You should be able to say whatever you want on the matter; attacking someone based on a belief, however... I can understand why this passed.

@maasa- Very interesting, I need to look into the ADL more.

This is awesome news, I'm surprised it didn't get more coverage.

Totally featured on the US Politics group. http://current.com/groups/us-politics/

Hate crimes legislation has been around for decades, long before Matthew Shepard was even born, and has constantly been forced through Congress by the Anti-Defamation League. Most of the time, the legislation has been defeated because it often contained attacks on free speech, just like it did this time around.

Hate crimes legislation has it's roots in the Russian Bolshevik Revolution and was brought forth into America by the great Marxists of the 20th century after they took over the America education system via its top universities.

Unfortunately, Matthew Shepard was just used as crude propaganda by the mainstream media and the Anti-Defamation League. As I've said in another thread on this topic, "nothing should nothing more insulting to gays than their causes and well being used as political football."

The real question should be this: why does the American political and legal system allow the Anti-Defamation League, a private, special interest Lobby (which admittedly is for Jews first and all others second), acting unofficially as the mouthpiece of a foreign government writing our laws.

Something to chew on.

From what I understand from deputies and residents in the area, Matthew Shephard died, not because he was gay but during a robbery.

Anti gay, racist, or any other qualifier that elevates a crime to a higher penalty solely due to social status of the victim is a joke and should not be allowed. A special victim class is not needed. There are ample laws providing for punishment of anyone who robs, beats, kills or whatever a gay person. Increasing the punishment due to social status is the same as compensatory hiring or racial quotas.

The entire concept of this violates common sense and equal treatment.

If you fight somebody, you obviously hate something about them. What's the difference what it is you hate?
Will there be a special protection for people who wear funny hats?

Apparently the U.S. military is above the law, killing innocent Muslims as a matter of policy because of their religion, race, and country.

The purpose of hate crimes legislation is to ensure that violent crimes targeting minority communities are not allowed to fall through the cracks of local law enforcement because of prejudice. When violent crimes are used to terrorize a minority group and not simply an individual, their punishment should reflect that reality.

Hate crimes laws are so not what you think they are.

They are written by special interests groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). These groups don't care about gays or minorities; these groups are actually anti-Christian, because Christians actually are a barrier to their Communist agenda so they use gays and minorities by pitting them against the white majority.

I feel pretty ok saying that as I am neither white, nor Christian, nor homophobic.

Hate crimes are a danger to free speech and that has been proven because an amendment had to be added to this bill because it really did violate the first amendment.

"Hate-crime legislation would backfire"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0710/p09s02-coop.html

Prosecute violent criminals for their actions, not their ideas.

The law would expand federal jurisdiction from crimes motivated by the victim's race, color, religion, or national origin to include the victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. It also disconnects the prosecution from traditional civil rights statutes such that whole categories of intrastate crimes successfully prosecuted by state courts would become the business of the federal government.

There are two problems with the proposed law. First, crimes motivated by racial animus, misogyny, or homophobia are already recognized as atrocities and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No new law is needed. Second, making the ideology of the perpetrator a centerpiece of the trial doesn't deter like-minded extremists; it encourages them. "

this should really be of common knowledge. doing harm to anyone is a crime, doesn't matter what their race, gender, sexual orientation etc is. gawd, people are such dumbasses!!!!!

this doesn't need congress to decide anything, and signing this should be as easy as pie. violence is not tolerable no matter what the circumstances are...o wait, if that were tru there wouldn't be any wars going on

thank god...maybe now some justice will be brought to the queer community.

as to the last question, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. death or violence aren't easier or harder to take because the person who committed the act was decided to do so because of the person's race or sexuality or gender identity/expression.