posted May 06, 2009 11:17 PM         

Second, Titles of Nobility were abolished by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. The Nobility had special protections under the laws of most European countries but that system of special protections was specifically prohibited here.

A hate crime label is a specific charge and carries a more severe punishment. In some cases, the punishment for the hate aspects of the crime would be more severe than the underlying charge...say assault and/or battery.

posted May 07, 2009 01:13 AM         

Even the majority of the gay community hates NAMBLA. The only way I can see any convictions is if a person forgoes the jury trial or if the jury trial is operating under the belief that they must interpret the law as the prosecution does.

posted May 07, 2009 02:11 AM         

quote:

---

Anyone want to argue that Pedophiles DO NOT fall into one or more of these categories?

---

Uh, Jwhop. I read what you posted, and it said nothing about pedophiles, not a word. You mind finding a passage that does actually confirm what you're trying to put forth?

Your passage says nothing about acting violently towards convicted or unconvicted pedophiles. It only talks about violence in relation to gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Obviously being male or female does not make one a pedophile. Obviously being gay doesn't make one a pedophile. Obviously identifying with one gender over the other doesn't make one a pedophile. Being a pedophile makes one a pedophile.

Could a pedophile have a gender, be gay, or identify with a gender? Sure, but so could literally anyone else.

posted May 07, 2009 09:57 AM         

The proof your analysis is incorrect is found in the actions of the democrat committee majority...when they voted in lockstep to reject the Amendment to the bill which said this:

"The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."

Obviously, the democrat majority Congress believes Pedophiles ARE covered by the "Pedophile Protection Act of 2009".

Good points Dervish.

However, whether or not a jury convicts under this new statute is immaterial. The law will be on the books and if charged, anyone formally charged will have to hire an attorney and undergo an expensive trial. Trials like this tend to bankrupt parties and destroy lives. Besides, this proposed legislation violates the Equal Rights under the Laws provision of the 14th Amendment.

posted May 07, 2009 11:19 AM         

As such, there is no need to include a definition that's not implied by the terminology.

posted May 07, 2009 11:56 AM         

A EEOC site which talks about "sexual orientation" in general without defining the term.

Here you are attempting to say Pedophilia/Pedophiles AREN'T sexually oriented. Strike one.

http://www.opm.gov/er/address2/guide01.asp
The Office of Personnel Management also uses the term "sexual orientation" without defining the term.

Here you are attempting to say Pedophilia/Pedophiles AREN'T sexually oriented. Strike two.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/g/sex_orientation.htm
About dot com...not an especially good source to quote...also uses "sexual orientation" without really defining the term.

Here you are attempting to say Pedophilia/Pedophiles AREN'T sexually oriented when the term itself..Pedophilia comes from the word pederasty...which means: :sexual relations between two males, esp. when one of them is a minor..as in NAMBLA, North American Man Boy Love Association..for whom "special protections" are being sought by democrats. Strike three...you're out.

Do you really think a daycare center in CA or anywhere else which refuses to hire a Pedophile...is practicing discrimination?

posted May 07, 2009 01:15 PM         

so the pedophile, whether included in the definition or not, has not got SPECIAL protection. the person who "profiles" people for elimination/punishment is considered more dangerous than someone who assaults someone for INDIVIDUAL reasons.

which COULD be considered a good thing, since we worry about the govt profiling people it actually gives an argument against it.

posted May 07, 2009 01:20 PM         

This flies in the face of fact. Fact, Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children and indulge their attraction by sexually assaulting children.

posted May 07, 2009 01:37 PM         

"Are Gays and Lesbians Afforded Civil Rights Protections against Discrimination?"

"Gay and lesbian groups as well as the ACLU are at the forefront in lobbying the federal government to provide the same civil rights protections afforded to racial minorities, women, the disabled, and the elderly."

"Whereas the Hate Crimes Prevention Act was limited to violence associated with race or religion, the Local Law Enforcement Act (LLEA) extends basic hate crime protections to include violence based on:
Sexual orientation
Gender
Disability"
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/gay-and-lesbian-rights.html

quote:

---

the long and short of it is that it is not a special "protections" act at all but a special "penalties" act for people who consider colour, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, handicap etc..katatonic

---

posted May 07, 2009 02:11 PM         

so i will not be able to burn your house down for your leftist-hating rhetoric either!!

posted May 07, 2009 02:21 PM         

but what you call "special protection" is just another way of covering people who think their crimes are justifiable because of a person's beliefs/practices which happen not to agree with your own...a criminal is still a criminal. it doesn't protect a paedo from the consequences of his crime, just from lynching or having his business turned away because of who he is.

posted May 07, 2009 02:27 PM         

Establishing special protections for any class of citizens of the United States violates the "Equal Protection of the Laws" provision of the 14th Amendment.

Additional penalties for harming certain classes of people..including Pedophiles..in the proposed hate crime legislation is intended as a protective act by over penalizing the action itself.

This is elementary katatonic, elementary.

posted May 07, 2009 04:55 PM         

and if YOU can't tell the difference there is nothing i can do to change you.

if you get right down to it pretty much anything could be called a hate crime but proving beyond a reasonable doubt that bigotry is the motive is going to be pretty hard.

and the more you talk about it the less sense your argument makes. so spare me the condescension.

i have taken your advice and re-read some of this stuff and there is a difference between this bill and the 14th, which talks about "any STATE" but not about any "individual" which the bill does. in other words it is not only unlawful for the law (ours or others') to discriminate against a group of people, but for individuals to perpetrate crimes against individuals because of their group affiliations.

i don't think pedophiles actually form groups to further their agenda. and i don't think there is any provision being made for protecting them from the legal consequences of their crimes, EVEN IF you can construe them to be among the protected groups. that it might protect them from lynching or any other violent punishment from the community or individuals really only reinforces the idea that you can't take the law into your own hands and won't be excused for your prejudices.

its not that the bill writers/voters consider pedophiles MORE entitled to protection, but that they are not LESS entitled to the protection of the law when in the community than you or i.

the legal solutions to paedophiles aren't even close to perfect but that doesn't make it okay for people to take violent action against them BECAUSE they are pedophiles.

none of which comes near making this a Pedophile Protection act.

posted May 07, 2009 05:17 PM         

I can see how IN THEORY it could, since such acts may not merely be revenge or rage, but also meant to deter future child molesting in others (which is where "hate laws" are supposed to come in, when an act of violence targets an entire community rather than an individual).

I agree, pedophilia is a sexual orientation. As a runaway, I've been around enough pedos and such to know. They hang in their own crowds just as the gays and lesbians hang in theirs. Even more interesting is that the pedos generally don't count preference of gender--that is, a guy into little girls is more likely to relate to another guy into little boys than either is likely to relate to a guy into women or men. And at least some of them see nothing wrong with what they do, think their victims want is as much (or even more than) they do, and figure the rest of society is just prudish.

And in theory, necrophilia, bestiality, etc, are also orientations. Very sad and baffling ones, but this is what draws them.

Still, vigilantism over this is already illegal. I can't see a hate crime law being used to go after them (granted, the system is always doing something stupid, so I can't discount the possibility).

posted May 07, 2009 06:01 PM         

This is mis read by the OP most likely because of a very virulent form of homophobia.

Where did you get pedophiles out of this???

posted May 07, 2009 06:49 PM         

cpn the only way this protects pedophiles is it says while they are law-abiding you can not punish them for their past or their future. same can be said for you. or me.

posted May 07, 2009 07:04 PM         

If you read the text of the bill, which is quite short, this bill only takes affect... well here, I'll get it for you:

‘(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--

‘(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
‘(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--

‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
‘(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
‘(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.