Peterson bucks party on hate crimes vote

Rep Peterson needs to be voted out of office in 2010, along with that wacko Bachmann & all the rest of those who voted against this bill. Start holding these fools responsible for their votes.

If he’s against hate-crimes protections for homosexuals, is he also lobbying to remove this “special protection” from religion, race, gender, & disability?? Hmmmmmm?? Hypocrite!

That’s a different breed of cats in Peterson’s and Bachmann’s districts. Inbred, to be specific.

Why are “hate crimes” so hard to understand? They’re aimed not just at the immediate victim, but at everyone in the group. Racial attacks are meant to scare everyone of that race out of the area. Attacks on homosexuals are meant to intimidate all homosexuals. That’s why they’re different that regular crimes.

Before we rush to judgment here, I would like to point out that an individual can not support hate crime legislation while still supporting equal protection for foreseeable victims of such actions. One argument in opposition (one more likely to be the cause of Rep. Peterson’s no vote and less like to be the cause of Rep. Bachmann’s) is that hate crime legislation in effect makes certain opinions punishable. The question is should the government punish the perpetrator of a violent crime more because of what the were thinking when they committed the crime?

If I were to beat up a guy on the street because he had a green t-shirt on or because he was black or gay, should I be prosecuted differently? The question is whether or not the motives of the perpetrator should affect punishment when the violent result is otherwise the same?

An individual might be oppose hate crime legislation in general while fully and vocally supporting equal protection for the individuals covered by the legislation. While I do not know Rep. Peterson’s legislative history on the issue (did he vote for the prior pieces of hate crime legislation that covered gender and race violence?), I just wanted to make the point that his vote is not necessarily a bigoted as Rep. Bachmann’s (she previously compared homosexuals to pedophiles). I have incredible respect for Rep. Peterson and I would hate to see him thrown into the same category as the GOP Congresspeople who also voted no.

There is no excuse for Peterson. This bill helps in more funds to pursue and prosecute a hate crime. Matthew’s story sickens me, but so does what happened to the Jena Six, and that horrific case when a man was dragged by a truck till he died and was torn apart by men who were his friends.. only be cause he was black.
* There are many females who are raped because they might or might not be lesbian.

So I just can’t understand why Peterson or the others would vote against the Hate Crime bill.

MWB – I’ve heard this argument recycled many times, including from my own parents. I think at the core, this argument really misunderstands what’s being accomplished by the crime. The motive in hate crimes IS different, which is why it needs to be prosecuted differently. Hate crimes are crimes against individuals, or a few individuals, that are meant to incite fear and self-loathing among a broader group of people. This group of people can include LGBT people, people of different races, religious backgrounds, or abilities. The perpetrator is meaning their crime to be felt by the whole of that community. That’s how it’s different.

I heard one member of the House claim that Matthew Shepard’s death was a hoax. I pity people like her.

Collin Peterson has an anti-gay voting record. He voted against the bill for the same reason Michele Bachmann did.

Excuse me for interrupting. I’m an Ed.D. student researching this issue, and I just happened to come across the interesting discussion going on here. No doubt there are many similar ones taking place throughout our great country. While reading through your posts, an intriguing thought occurred to me.

First, let me say that I am a fundamentalist Christian. I consider myself a biblicist. That should be enough to make most of you stop reading here. However, the Bible also condemns such things as bombing abortion clinics, killing doctors who perform abortions, and murdering gay young men because they are homosexual. I have to agree wholeheartedly, so that should make some of you feel a little better.

Okay, here’s my thought. There’s never been much love lost between the liberals and the right wing religious conservatives (RRCs?). When the RRCs were “in power,” hate crimes (as considered in this bill) were at the very least not kept in check. Now that the power base has shifted, the pendulum is swinging in the other direction. This may seem to be a good thing, except that pendulums never stop in the middle–they always wind up swinging to the other extreme.

When someone does something against me, I don’t take revenge, not only because the Bible condemns it, but because, as I tell people, “I never manage to get even–I always somehow wind up getting ahead,” which, in turn, makes the other person want to get even. Could it be that the Hate Crimes Act (HCA), as well-intentioned as it may be, might actually wind up serving as a tool to perpetrate hate crimes against people who are currently protected under the First Amendment?

Now, I wouldn’t want to accuse the Congress (and President) of getting giddy over their newfound power and their ability to right perceived wrongs, but wouldn’t any of us do that (I mean, want to right wrongs)? I think it’s human nature.

I just had another thought, too. All through my long professional career as a student (a bachelor’s degree, two master’s degrees, and now my doctorate–yes, I’m 52 years old), my professors have always advised their students to type out their papers, let them cool overnight, then go through them line-by-line the next day before turning them in. The mistakes are clearer once the ink has dried. Financial advisors will also tell you that you should wait 30 days before making a decision about a major purchase.

Perhaps one of the weaknesses of our government, and particularly of the first one hundred and some days of this administration, is that the bills have been rushed through Congress, and the ink is barely dry before the President signs them. Maybe we should put this one on hold for a little while and think about its ramifications. Sure, hateful things will still be said about people, but in the meantime people will still be prosecuted for committing actual crimes against protected groups–or against anyone for that matter.

When I was growing up (and that was a long time ago), we had a saying: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but naughty words can’t hurt me.” I learned two things from that: (a) Yes, sticks and stones can hurt me, so I should run away when people start throwing them; and (b) the best way to answer defamatory speech is with silence (does that sound like Dr. MLK?).

What a lot of people don’t realize is that biblicists will be put into a real pickle if they are told that they can’t tell people that the Bible says that homosexuality, etc., is a sin just like any other sin–just like the sins I commit. We are commanded by God to inform people of their true condition, because apart from that, they will not feel the need to seek help. Good news (the Gospel) isn’t good news unless there is bad news first. Just as a doctor who has discovered that their patient has a serious condition is under obligation to inform them of it, so we are under obligation to inform all people of their condition before God.

Okay, enough preaching. But I hope you get my point: It’s possible that the Hate Crimes Act could itself become a means for perpetrating hate crimes.

I thought about posting my name, and I laud the bravery of those of you who did (though it appeared that the majority were pro-HCA), but I have a wife and I have to think of her. If it were just me, I’d do it. Go ahead, call me “Chicken”–nothing you say will hurt me.

crl