I am surprised that no one has challenged this law under the equal protection clause.

I know it would take a lot of time and money; and I realize there aren't that many Conservative groups with the wherewithal. On the other hand if this law were defeated, it could encourage challenges to other unconstitutional statues that people don't like, but assume they can't fight.

Of course time for this sort of challenge is getting short. Once Obama reshapes the Supreme Court, I doubt the US Constitution will ever be mentioned in its chambers again.

Par for the course for another bigoted liberal.

If someone assaulted me simply because I am a white male, I would prefer that they be prosecuted for assault. I have no interest in charging anyone with a thought crime.

That's the thing about 'hate crimes' for me - you're no less dead if your murderer's got a hate on for you because of skin color or sexuality.

Remember, only "whitey" can hate.

I'd like to point out that Attorney General Eric Holder did not say that the gay activist would not be prosecuted. Only that it "would not necessarily cover that"

I'd also like to point out that if a KKK member attacks a black person, the hate law also would not neccessarily cover that. If it was revealed that the black person said something to antagonize the KKK member than likely it would not.

Now suppose the gay activist randomly attacks a priest, because he disagress with the priests religious views on homosexuality. This would be covered by the hate laws.

Suppose someone attacks randomly attacks a gay person because he dislikes gay people. This is not covered by the current laws.

Your attempt to pick out a specific religious situation in which it would not apply is merely an attempt to confuse the issue. The Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 gives gay people the same level of protection that is currently given to people based on their religion.

Democrats gotta protect their 'investment'. I'm waiting for the day that ILLEGALS are granted protection from federal and local law enforcement. After all, they are being PERSECUTED because of their 'race'.

All hate crime legislation is political theater. It's only purpose is to buy votes.

If someone assaulted me simply because I am a white male, I would prefer that they be prosecuted for assault. I have no interest in charging anyone with a thought crime.

Stephen Macklin,

What if people burned a symbol on your front lawn as an expression of hatred for white people? Would you want them charged for a misdemeanor or a hate crime?

If someone took pot shots through your childs window because they hate white people would you than what them prosecuted for a hate crime.

Tina,
When is crime not hate? Any crime.

Maggie,

Thats a good question. It becomes a hate crime when it is a random act of violence committed against someone merely because of their race, religion, gender or sexuality.

Sometimes the line can be blurred. Heres an example. Suppose some people are at a party. A black guy is dancing with a white a girl. Another white guy cuts in. They get into an argument. It escalates, racial slurs are thrown and eventually they get into a fight.

Is this a hate crime or a fight over a girl? It could be either and it would be up to the prosecutor to decide what to charge him with and a jury to decide what he is guilty of.

My opinion is that there needs to be laws against hate crimes but the burden of proof needs to be high.

Fortunately you will have great difficulty finding a case where someone was actually convicted of hate crime, where the case was not clear cut.

It becomes a hate crime when it is a random act of violence

So preplanned attacks are not "hate?"

This gets weirder and weirder the more people try to defend it.

ERIC HOLDER could be even more worse then that stupid numbskull RAMSY CLARK a ultra liberal crinimal coddling rapists loving child molester hugging jerk

[saw the following on the web]

MICHAEL THE NARC-ANGEL

Millions of little members of the worldwide F.F.A. (Future Followers of the Antichrist) have finally learned how to find a certain part of their lower anatomy and quickly touch it while dancing - thanks to Michael Jackson, the highest paid Lower Anatomy Toucher of all time! Special thanks also go to the Jesus-bashing, Hell-bound Hollywood moguls who were just as quick to see higher profits in lower anatomies! [Just saw this opinion on the web. Other grabby items on MSN, Google, etc. include "Separation of Raunch and State," "David Letterman's Hate, Etc.," "Tribulation Index becomes Rapture Index," and "Bible Verses Obama Avoids." - something for everyone!]

"For example, Mormons living in California who have been the targets of various criminal acts committed by gay extremists including vandalism, extortion, and verbal and physical attacks would not be victims of 'hate crimes' per se, even though they were targeted by gay extremists solely because of their affiliation with the Mormon church."

This is particularly ironic given that Mormons have, in fact, been "[historically] ... singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are." In the 19th century, the state of Missouri authorized their expulsion or, if necessary, extermination. They were eventually driven to Utah, and thousands died along the journey. Without at all minimizing the tragedies that have befallen many homosexuals, I dare say that in the history of our country more Mormons have died because of "hate" than gays have.

What about the Irish who came in large numbers and were greeted with "No Irish Need Apply" signs?

What about the Chinese who were brought in to build the railroads in the Western states?

Hell, I'm a Swede where most are Finns or Norwegians. Try living where they assume you're Norwegian and turn away when you tell them about your Swedish forebears.

Re Comment #1:

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can't challenge a PROPOSED law in court.

I think it has to be enacted, and then for you to allege that you have suffered some harm as a result of it, first.

And, despite the fact that it was asserted in Mr Laprarie's piece, and re-quoted in comment # 15, that Mormons would be left out, I'm pretty sure that the Mormons WOULD be protected in the example scenario. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Tina:

Wonderful gymnastics there Tina. According to Holder if bullets are fired by a black man through my window its not a hate crime. Why is that? And if a gay man peddles an adopted five year old child for sex that's not a hate crime. Why is that?

Must be wonderful being able to justify double standards.

But then I forgot the Lefty justice system that says non whites and gays are incapable of hate crimes.

It apparently doesn't include the 14 amendment.

But then again we were arned that two legs are bad and four legs are good, and that all animals are equal, just some are more equal than others.

TinaS,
Every crime committed is a form of hatred.

Every crime committed is a form of hatred.

Maggie,

Than maybe it should be renamed something such as Matther Sheppard Anti-Discrimantion Violent Crime Prevention Act?

I'll call Obama tomorrow and suggest it be re-named so it does not confuse people.

Tina,
What you're suggesting is some people are
more equal than others, including those
who are targets of crime. Any assault on any
one is terrible, not just certain people.

Maggie,

Compare these two scenarios.

1. Two people like the same girl. They get in a fight over a girl.

2. A person that hates gay people has a new neighbor who is gay. Because he hates gay people he beats up his neighbor.

Do you think the punishment should be the same for both attacks?

Maggie,

When a person commits a hate crime they are actually commiting two crimes. One is an assualt the other is descrimination. Therfore it makes sense that hate crime would have a stiffer penalty.

What you're suggesting is some people are
more equal than others.

Thats not what I am suggesting.

If a white person attacks a black person because he hates black than he should be charged with a hate crime.

A black person should also be charged with a hate crime if he attacks a white person because he hates white people.

We do not need the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

People that commit hate crimes are actually commiting an act of terrorism. Anti-terrorism laws should apply to them.

Think about the following scenarion:

A person that hates gay people has a new neighbor who is gay. Because he hates gay people he beats up his neighbor.

The online merriam-webster dictionary defines terrorism as

The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Tina,
Is your back sore yet?

Historical basis, eh???
How long ago was it that Ayers/Dorhn attempted to slaughter US servicemen/women and their dates at the McGuire AFB??
Does that count as a "historicl basis"???

any attack on a person is a hate crime,however,the self hating white liberals like edward kennedy made sure that all non minorities would lose equal protection under the constitution.by elevating laws for one group and defering the rights for equal protection of anothere,the law becomes null and void.vengence dos not make the laws,educated people do.people like eric holder is no differant then those who trampled on the rights of people befor him.but to take a job in his possition and make it a tool for revenge,he and otheres like him are no differant from the past.what is a racist to a self proclaimed racist?