David Irving gets 3 years
- Thread starter JD074
- Start date
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
Clinton wants the same done to the men who published the Muslim cartoons, too.
Listen! Do you hear that roaring sound.? The indignant Western media , guardians of free speech and freedom are speaking out boldly in unison against such an outrageous assault on basic rights. I'm kidding of course. The cowardly worms once again show us their true colors. Every subject imaginable is worthy of debate in this world, except one. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Holocaust in vain" is the lone commandment of the world's new religion. Violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The Sanhedrin Courthas adjourned. Let it be known to all, resistance is futile.
Southern Knight
Guru
This should be the shot that touches off the powderkeg. When a man can be sentenced to prison for "denying" an alleged historical event, revolution is the only solution.
This is a "thought" crime. The railroading of Mr. Irving is no different from what the Red Chinese and the North Koreans do to their dissidents. Don't think isn't coming to the United States: the current federal hate-crimes bill, which is under committee review as we speak, imposes the same sort of penalties for thought crimes in the US. If it passes -- and you're a g*ddamned fool if you think it won't -- it will effectively gag any rational discussion of the Holyhaox, upon penalty of imprisonment.
David Irving has forgotten more about World War II than most university history departments, combined, will ever know. His books about WWII are the most well-documented, well-written, and informative treatises you will ever find on the topic. Remarkably, he has made all of his books available on-line, for FREE.
Please visit http://www.fpp.co.uk/ to get your copies before the Jew World Order outlaws them, too.
This is a "thought" crime. The railroading of Mr. Irving is no different from what the Red Chinese and the North Koreans do to their dissidents. Don't think isn't coming to the United States: the current federal hate-crimes bill, which is under committee review as we speak, imposes the same sort of penalties for thought crimes in the US. If it passes -- and you're a g*ddamned fool if you think it won't -- it will effectively gag any rational discussion of the Holyhaox, upon penalty of imprisonment.
David Irving has forgotten more about World War II than most university history departments, combined, will ever know. His books about WWII are the most well-documented, well-written, and informative treatises you will ever find on the topic. Remarkably, he has made all of his books available on-line, for FREE.
Please visit http://www.fpp.co.uk/ to get your copies before the Jew World Order outlaws them, too.
Southern Knight said:
Southern Knight, your use of the term - Holy Hoax - has some basis in truth. It has religious overtones.
"The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God's chosen children and, thus, on God Himself. It is an event that is the antithesis of Creation as recorded in the Bible; and like its direct opposite, which is relived weekly with the Sabbath and yearly with the Torah, it must be remembered from generation to generation." Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (New York), writing in ADL On the Frontline (January 1994, page 2)
The outrages continue to grow, as we wait for the bubble to finally burst. The "Holocaust" is the only part of history, in the many centuries worth of recorded events, that cannot be disputed. It cannot be debated or even questioned to any degree. Some time ago, an American judge actually deemed the "Holocaust" a legal fact, period. THAT was their defense against revisionists. It is a fact, and unlike any other historical event, not open to question. Irving actually groveled and threw himself on the mercy of the court, recanting his previous heretical statements, to no avail. I don't blame him; who knows how any of us would react in such a situation? However, it should tell us all that this kind of groveling, like the forced apologies from those who make "racist" remarks in public, never works. The full extent of the unjust law will still come down upon you.
I've been a regular on JFK assassination forums for a long time, but last year I was banned from one because I condemned the way Ernst Zundel was being treated. A lot of the posters were people I respected, and had interacted with amiably for years, but none of them thought Zundel's treatment was outrageous, and several of them condemned me as a "nazi" for criticizing the authorities for putting him in solitary confinement for over a year. Being banned was a real eye-opener for me. The "Holocaust" is such an integral part of our mainstream, Hollywood style history, that unfortunately we just can't expect very many of our fellow citizens, even the most reasonable of them, to ever question it. When an older man like Ernst Zundel can be kept in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT for over a year for the "crime" of denying that an historical event took place, and not a single "civil libertarian" speaks out against it, it should provide us with crystal clear evidence that reclaiming our country will not be easy.
I've been a regular on JFK assassination forums for a long time, but last year I was banned from one because I condemned the way Ernst Zundel was being treated. A lot of the posters were people I respected, and had interacted with amiably for years, but none of them thought Zundel's treatment was outrageous, and several of them condemned me as a "nazi" for criticizing the authorities for putting him in solitary confinement for over a year. Being banned was a real eye-opener for me. The "Holocaust" is such an integral part of our mainstream, Hollywood style history, that unfortunately we just can't expect very many of our fellow citizens, even the most reasonable of them, to ever question it. When an older man like Ernst Zundel can be kept in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT for over a year for the "crime" of denying that an historical event took place, and not a single "civil libertarian" speaks out against it, it should provide us with crystal clear evidence that reclaiming our country will not be easy.
Although I don't always agree with him, I believe Israel Shamir ( Jew ) has writtenone of the most insightful articles you'll ever read concerning the David Irving trial.
Ihttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/674
Technically, David Irving was sentenced for so-called "holocaust denial". But the concept of Jewish holocaust being the only enforced dogma of supposedly secular <ST1>Europe</ST1> has little to do with the Second World War and its atrocities. It has everything to do with the Jewish claim of superiority and exclusivity....
The legal enforcers of the Holocaust want us to bow down to the idol of Jewish superiority, or else! They won't jail Deborah Lipstadt for denial of the Holocaust of Dresden, or Guenter Lewy who penned a lengthy piece entitled Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide? denying the genocide of native Americans. The Jews produced and published these denials for the same reason they published the Satanic Pictures - in order to emphasise the difference between a goy and a Jew. They want you to remember: you may profane Islam and Christianity, but not Judaism. You may discount the suffering of anybody but the Jews.
Thus we should say: David Irving was sentenced for denial of Jewish superiority.Edited by: Bart
Ihttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/674
Technically, David Irving was sentenced for so-called "holocaust denial". But the concept of Jewish holocaust being the only enforced dogma of supposedly secular <ST1>Europe</ST1> has little to do with the Second World War and its atrocities. It has everything to do with the Jewish claim of superiority and exclusivity....
The legal enforcers of the Holocaust want us to bow down to the idol of Jewish superiority, or else! They won't jail Deborah Lipstadt for denial of the Holocaust of Dresden, or Guenter Lewy who penned a lengthy piece entitled Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide? denying the genocide of native Americans. The Jews produced and published these denials for the same reason they published the Satanic Pictures - in order to emphasise the difference between a goy and a Jew. They want you to remember: you may profane Islam and Christianity, but not Judaism. You may discount the suffering of anybody but the Jews.
Thus we should say: David Irving was sentenced for denial of Jewish superiority.Edited by: Bart
Southern Knight
Guru
Bronk writes: "Look, I disagree with Irving about the Holocaust, but this is ridiculous."
Bronky, how have come to disagree with Mr. Irving about the Holyhoax? Have you read his books? Have you performed any independent, i.e. non-kosher, research? Did you consult the Leuchter report before coming to this conclusion? Or Arthur Butz?
Have you read the wartime memoirs written by Churchill and Roosevelt, which contain not a single mention of anything even remotely Holocaust-ish? Have you visited Aushwitz, where the "official" number of gassing victims has been reduced from 4 million to 1.2 million, with no explanation of where the other 2.8 million Chosen Ones went? And while you were at Aushwitz, did you pay attention to the fact that the tiny little, wooden "gas chamber" that is displayed was a post-war fabrication by the Soviets?
Irving always challenged the Holyhoax promoters to show him a picture of a gas chamber. Do you have such a picture in your possession, that you are able to disagree with Mr. Irving about the Holocaust? If so, please forward a copy to the National Holocaust Museum and Guilt-Programming Centre in Washington, DC, because - remarkably - even they do not have such a photo.
Did you stop to consider that every Holocaust claim, which has been held up to the light of scrutiny, has been proven false? Lampshades made of jew-skin? Never happened; the Yad Vashem museum admits this is a falsehood? Soap rendered from jew-fat? Nope, again, another lie admitted-to by the Schnozzim. The television miniseries "The Holocaust"? Another pack of proven lies, based partly on a "first-hand" account of an underhanded Yid named Mel Mermelstein, who has been debunked as a complete fraud. Jews just make this sh*t up as they go along.
Lastly, did you take into account that the International Red Cross perfromed more than 300 inspections of German concentration camps without finding a single instance of torture or abuse? Did you take into consideration the astounding fact that the camps recorded over 3000 LIVE BIRTHS during their existence?
And did you consult the World Almanac, which showed that the number of Jews in the world during and immediately after WWII experienced normal growth rates, even as some 50 million Whites lost their lives?
I studied the Holyhoax for several years on my own, as a history major at a major university, taking full advantage of one of the largest research liabraries in North America, and I will state - emphatically and without a hint of reservation - that the Holyhoax is the biggest pile of bullsh*t ever deposited upon the world.
And if this post is viewed and printed in Austria, I will have committed a crime punishable by imprisonment. Think about that every time you hear some damned fool sputtering about "freedom."
Bronky, how have come to disagree with Mr. Irving about the Holyhoax? Have you read his books? Have you performed any independent, i.e. non-kosher, research? Did you consult the Leuchter report before coming to this conclusion? Or Arthur Butz?
Have you read the wartime memoirs written by Churchill and Roosevelt, which contain not a single mention of anything even remotely Holocaust-ish? Have you visited Aushwitz, where the "official" number of gassing victims has been reduced from 4 million to 1.2 million, with no explanation of where the other 2.8 million Chosen Ones went? And while you were at Aushwitz, did you pay attention to the fact that the tiny little, wooden "gas chamber" that is displayed was a post-war fabrication by the Soviets?
Irving always challenged the Holyhoax promoters to show him a picture of a gas chamber. Do you have such a picture in your possession, that you are able to disagree with Mr. Irving about the Holocaust? If so, please forward a copy to the National Holocaust Museum and Guilt-Programming Centre in Washington, DC, because - remarkably - even they do not have such a photo.
Did you stop to consider that every Holocaust claim, which has been held up to the light of scrutiny, has been proven false? Lampshades made of jew-skin? Never happened; the Yad Vashem museum admits this is a falsehood? Soap rendered from jew-fat? Nope, again, another lie admitted-to by the Schnozzim. The television miniseries "The Holocaust"? Another pack of proven lies, based partly on a "first-hand" account of an underhanded Yid named Mel Mermelstein, who has been debunked as a complete fraud. Jews just make this sh*t up as they go along.
Lastly, did you take into account that the International Red Cross perfromed more than 300 inspections of German concentration camps without finding a single instance of torture or abuse? Did you take into consideration the astounding fact that the camps recorded over 3000 LIVE BIRTHS during their existence?
And did you consult the World Almanac, which showed that the number of Jews in the world during and immediately after WWII experienced normal growth rates, even as some 50 million Whites lost their lives?
I studied the Holyhoax for several years on my own, as a history major at a major university, taking full advantage of one of the largest research liabraries in North America, and I will state - emphatically and without a hint of reservation - that the Holyhoax is the biggest pile of bullsh*t ever deposited upon the world.
And if this post is viewed and printed in Austria, I will have committed a crime punishable by imprisonment. Think about that every time you hear some damned fool sputtering about "freedom."
Southern Knight said:
Southern Knight,from what I've read, the lawIrving broke was enacted in 1992, but hisalleged"crime" was commited in 1989. So, he is payingapenalty for having violatedsomething which was not in existence at the time of his transgression. Could the same thing happen in the USA?It is very possible.If a similar situation should develop here and the same laws afflicting Europe are passed ,what we have written today could be considered against us in a court of law.In other words we could be prosecuted in the future for stating opinions today which are well within our rights under the law.
Major Chutzpah.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4741042.stm
An Israeli lawyer, Ervin Shahar, says he has asked Germany to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with denying the Holocaust
[Snip]
Although Mr Ahmadinejad did not deny the Holocaust on German soil, another law passed in 2005 permits the filing of international cases in German courts.
Mr Shahar hopes the case might result in international warrants for Mr Ahmadinejad's arrest, thus preventing the president from entering the US or Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4741042.stm
An Israeli lawyer, Ervin Shahar, says he has asked Germany to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with denying the Holocaust
[Snip]
Although Mr Ahmadinejad did not deny the Holocaust on German soil, another law passed in 2005 permits the filing of international cases in German courts.
Mr Shahar hopes the case might result in international warrants for Mr Ahmadinejad's arrest, thus preventing the president from entering the US or Europe.
Southern Knight
Guru
New Federal Hate Bill Means Funeral of Free Speech
Rev. Ted Pike | September 28 2005
On Sept. 14, the US House of Representatives passed, 223-199, the ominous federal "anti-hate" bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005. It was inserted as AMDT.2662 into the Children's Safety Act. If approved unaltered by the senate judiciary, this legislation is ready for the President to sign into law.
Here is a summary of what the bill would make law:
Although AMDT.2662 ostensibly empowers the government to assist states in prosecution of violent hate crimes, its actual effect will be much more far-reaching. AMDT.2662 will lead to enforcement of the working definitions of "hate" and "hate crimes" which are enforced by the many "anti-hate" bureaucracies in countries throughout the western industrialized world. In such countries, it is now a "hate crime" to criticize members of federally protected groups such as Jews and homosexuals. Utilizing such definitions, "hate crime" indictments have been made or are currently being pursued by Canada, England, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Australia and New Zealand. AMDT.2662 builds a foundation for a "hate crimes" bureaucracy in America, also ending free speech.
Here are some of the specially protected groups which AMDT.2662 defends:
Homosexuals. Any public criticism of homosexuals will soon be considered a hate crime, just as it was for 11 Christians under the Pennsylvania hate crime law on Oct. 10, 2004. These Christians were arrested as "hate criminals" for preaching during a huge "gay pride" rally and faced 47 years in prison and $80,000 fines each.
Women. A woman who claims her boyfriend used a sexist word against her and raped her the last time they had sex, can press charges for a "hate crime" of rape. Punishment will triple the usual penalty, about 30 years in prison.
Jews. Already the Dept. of Global Anti-semitism, being established in the US State Dept., makes it "anti-semitic" to express "strong anti-Israel sentiment" against Israel or its leaders. It also says upholding the New Testament charge that Jews killed Christ is "anti-semitic." Under "anti-hate" laws in Canada and Europe, such statements are "hate crimes" punishable by harsh fines and imprisonment.
AMDT.2662 will hasten such anti-Christianity in America as well.
ENDING FREE SPEECH RADIO
If this amendment is approved, FCC restrictions will soon descend on American talk show hosts, with lists of banned topics. Hosts will be fined or imprisoned and stations will lose their broadcast licenses, just as in Canada, if they violate these restrictions.
In Canada in Aug. 2004, "CHOI FM," Quebec City's most popular talk show station, was dissolved by the Canadian government. Its 33 employees were put out of work. Its offense? One of its talk show hosts criticized African dictators whose children were educated in Canadian universities. This was considered a "hate crime" against blacks.
If AMDT.2662 is passed, exactly the same will soon happen to broadcasters who stray from the new "politically correct" FCC guidelines. AMDT.2662 will also invite pedophiles, witches, warlocks, Satanists and even "sinners" to acquire special federal protection from those who criticize them, including pastors. In England especially, Satanists and witches are included under Britain's new, stiffer "anti-hate" law.
If passed, AMDT.2662 will provide immediate special FBI, Justice Dept. and local police assistance to protected groups that claim to have been offended. As the nation saw last October in Philadelphia, on the slightest evidence of bias, police will descend on Christians, pastors, talk show hosts and station managers, indicting them with trumped-up "hate crime" charges and exorbitant penalties.
FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
The sovereign rights of states to enforce the law as they see fit has posed a huge barrier to establishment of a federal "anti-hate" bureaucracy. Until now, the government has had to prove that such abuses as jury tampering, voter fraud, slavery, or crimes involving interstate commerce existed in states before they could meddle in state law enforcement. AMDT.2662 would legitimize as law several devious strategies to break down all barriers to federal intrusion.
AMDT.2662 asserts that if a violent bias crime within a state in any way affects interstate commerce, the federal government has the right to invade state law enforcement. This means that if a homosexual has been called a "****got" and threatened to have his butt kicked by a gas station attendant, and as a result does not patronize that gas station whose products have come from across the state line, the federal government can intervene. Or if the homosexual buys a Greyhound ticket (vehicle of interstate commerce) to resettle in San Fransisco as a result of such threatened "violence," the federal government has a green light to take over state hate crime law enforcement in that state.
AMDT.2662 asserts that bias in states is a "relic" of slavery. This bill contends that the presence of bias-motivated violent crime within a state is proof that slavery still exists in that state. This provides the same justification for intervention that the federal government had in putting down slavery during the Civil War!
Under AMDT.2662, the government can take over local law enforcement if:
States do not have "anti-hate" laws. Sec. B (b)(2A)
States are not enforcing state and federal hate laws as zealously as the federal government wishes. Sec. B (b)(2A)
States do not produce the kind of verdicts in hate crimes trials that the federal government wants. Sec. B (b)(2D)
VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION
AMDT.2662 flatly violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government from favoring any particular group.
AMDT.2662 will give hate crimes bureaucrats control of the federal anti-hate agenda. Very quickly, via enabling legislation and judicial precedent, any pretext of respect for the rights of Christians or dissenters will dissolve, as has happened under anti-hate laws in Canada, and under Pennsylvania's ADL hate law in Philadelphia on Oct 10.
All criticism of protected groups via politically incorrect terms, such as "homosexual" or "sodomite," will become a hate crime, just as it is under British hate law. A huge number of legal precedents will continuously widen hate law jurisdiction. Courts will quickly clog with federal indictments. Staggering backups of unresolved cases will make the federal hate law, like Roe vs. Wade, virtually impossible to repeal.
Canada provides a telescope to American legislators, warning them of the legal confusion and financial exhaustion which comes to those who run afoul of hate crimes bureaucracies. Members of the senate judiciary committee are in a position now to insist that our time-tested legal system be allowed to continue to do what it has done so well for centuries: punish all crime, including "hate crime," according to physical evidence--- not according to the vagaries of "bias motivation."
Rev. Ted Pike | September 28 2005
On Sept. 14, the US House of Representatives passed, 223-199, the ominous federal "anti-hate" bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005. It was inserted as AMDT.2662 into the Children's Safety Act. If approved unaltered by the senate judiciary, this legislation is ready for the President to sign into law.
Here is a summary of what the bill would make law:
Although AMDT.2662 ostensibly empowers the government to assist states in prosecution of violent hate crimes, its actual effect will be much more far-reaching. AMDT.2662 will lead to enforcement of the working definitions of "hate" and "hate crimes" which are enforced by the many "anti-hate" bureaucracies in countries throughout the western industrialized world. In such countries, it is now a "hate crime" to criticize members of federally protected groups such as Jews and homosexuals. Utilizing such definitions, "hate crime" indictments have been made or are currently being pursued by Canada, England, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Australia and New Zealand. AMDT.2662 builds a foundation for a "hate crimes" bureaucracy in America, also ending free speech.
Here are some of the specially protected groups which AMDT.2662 defends:
Homosexuals. Any public criticism of homosexuals will soon be considered a hate crime, just as it was for 11 Christians under the Pennsylvania hate crime law on Oct. 10, 2004. These Christians were arrested as "hate criminals" for preaching during a huge "gay pride" rally and faced 47 years in prison and $80,000 fines each.
Women. A woman who claims her boyfriend used a sexist word against her and raped her the last time they had sex, can press charges for a "hate crime" of rape. Punishment will triple the usual penalty, about 30 years in prison.
Jews. Already the Dept. of Global Anti-semitism, being established in the US State Dept., makes it "anti-semitic" to express "strong anti-Israel sentiment" against Israel or its leaders. It also says upholding the New Testament charge that Jews killed Christ is "anti-semitic." Under "anti-hate" laws in Canada and Europe, such statements are "hate crimes" punishable by harsh fines and imprisonment.
AMDT.2662 will hasten such anti-Christianity in America as well.
ENDING FREE SPEECH RADIO
If this amendment is approved, FCC restrictions will soon descend on American talk show hosts, with lists of banned topics. Hosts will be fined or imprisoned and stations will lose their broadcast licenses, just as in Canada, if they violate these restrictions.
In Canada in Aug. 2004, "CHOI FM," Quebec City's most popular talk show station, was dissolved by the Canadian government. Its 33 employees were put out of work. Its offense? One of its talk show hosts criticized African dictators whose children were educated in Canadian universities. This was considered a "hate crime" against blacks.
If AMDT.2662 is passed, exactly the same will soon happen to broadcasters who stray from the new "politically correct" FCC guidelines. AMDT.2662 will also invite pedophiles, witches, warlocks, Satanists and even "sinners" to acquire special federal protection from those who criticize them, including pastors. In England especially, Satanists and witches are included under Britain's new, stiffer "anti-hate" law.
If passed, AMDT.2662 will provide immediate special FBI, Justice Dept. and local police assistance to protected groups that claim to have been offended. As the nation saw last October in Philadelphia, on the slightest evidence of bias, police will descend on Christians, pastors, talk show hosts and station managers, indicting them with trumped-up "hate crime" charges and exorbitant penalties.
FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
The sovereign rights of states to enforce the law as they see fit has posed a huge barrier to establishment of a federal "anti-hate" bureaucracy. Until now, the government has had to prove that such abuses as jury tampering, voter fraud, slavery, or crimes involving interstate commerce existed in states before they could meddle in state law enforcement. AMDT.2662 would legitimize as law several devious strategies to break down all barriers to federal intrusion.
AMDT.2662 asserts that if a violent bias crime within a state in any way affects interstate commerce, the federal government has the right to invade state law enforcement. This means that if a homosexual has been called a "****got" and threatened to have his butt kicked by a gas station attendant, and as a result does not patronize that gas station whose products have come from across the state line, the federal government can intervene. Or if the homosexual buys a Greyhound ticket (vehicle of interstate commerce) to resettle in San Fransisco as a result of such threatened "violence," the federal government has a green light to take over state hate crime law enforcement in that state.
AMDT.2662 asserts that bias in states is a "relic" of slavery. This bill contends that the presence of bias-motivated violent crime within a state is proof that slavery still exists in that state. This provides the same justification for intervention that the federal government had in putting down slavery during the Civil War!
Under AMDT.2662, the government can take over local law enforcement if:
States do not have "anti-hate" laws. Sec. B (b)(2A)
States are not enforcing state and federal hate laws as zealously as the federal government wishes. Sec. B (b)(2A)
States do not produce the kind of verdicts in hate crimes trials that the federal government wants. Sec. B (b)(2D)
VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION
AMDT.2662 flatly violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government from favoring any particular group.
AMDT.2662 will give hate crimes bureaucrats control of the federal anti-hate agenda. Very quickly, via enabling legislation and judicial precedent, any pretext of respect for the rights of Christians or dissenters will dissolve, as has happened under anti-hate laws in Canada, and under Pennsylvania's ADL hate law in Philadelphia on Oct 10.
All criticism of protected groups via politically incorrect terms, such as "homosexual" or "sodomite," will become a hate crime, just as it is under British hate law. A huge number of legal precedents will continuously widen hate law jurisdiction. Courts will quickly clog with federal indictments. Staggering backups of unresolved cases will make the federal hate law, like Roe vs. Wade, virtually impossible to repeal.
Canada provides a telescope to American legislators, warning them of the legal confusion and financial exhaustion which comes to those who run afoul of hate crimes bureaucracies. Members of the senate judiciary committee are in a position now to insist that our time-tested legal system be allowed to continue to do what it has done so well for centuries: punish all crime, including "hate crime," according to physical evidence--- not according to the vagaries of "bias motivation."
Southern Knight
Guru
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
HR 2662 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2662
To provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 26, 2005
Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ALLEN, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CASE, Mr. CLAY, Mr. COOPER, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. HOYER, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KIND, Mr. KIRK, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. LEACH, Ms. LEE, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. LYNCH, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MATHESON, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. NADLER, Mr. OLVER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. SABO, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. STARK, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. WATERS, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. WU) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.
(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.
(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.
(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
(5) The prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including--
(A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence; and
(B) by preventing members of targeted groups from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
(7) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
(8) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
(9) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.
(10) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
(11) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(12) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.
(13) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act, the term `hate crime' has the same meaning as in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).
SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-
(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a law enforcement official of a State or Indian tribe, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code);
(B) constitutes a felony under the laws of the State or Indian tribe; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the hate crime laws of the State or Indian tribe.
(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than 1 State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to assist State, local, and Indian law enforcement officials with the extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with the funded jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
(3) APPLICATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- Each State that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.
(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State or political subdivision of a State or tribal official applying for assistance under this subsection shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, political subdivision, or tribal official has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.
(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or disapproved by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction within a 1 year period.
(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2006, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.
(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority to Make Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice shall award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7.
SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
`(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) he or she 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) he or his designee or she or her designee 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.
`(c) Definitions- In this section--
`(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given the term in section 232 of this title;
`(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of this title; and
`(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.
`(d) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`249. Hate crime acts.'.
SEC. 8. STATISTICS.
Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `gender and gender identity,' after `race,'.
SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
HR 2662 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2662
To provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 26, 2005
Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ALLEN, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CASE, Mr. CLAY, Mr. COOPER, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. HOYER, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KIND, Mr. KIRK, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. LEACH, Ms. LEE, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. LYNCH, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MATHESON, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. NADLER, Mr. OLVER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. SABO, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. STARK, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. WATERS, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. WU) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.
(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.
(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.
(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
(5) The prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including--
(A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence; and
(B) by preventing members of targeted groups from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
(7) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
(8) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
(9) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.
(10) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
(11) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(12) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.
(13) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act, the term `hate crime' has the same meaning as in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).
SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-
(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a law enforcement official of a State or Indian tribe, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code);
(B) constitutes a felony under the laws of the State or Indian tribe; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the hate crime laws of the State or Indian tribe.
(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than 1 State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to assist State, local, and Indian law enforcement officials with the extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with the funded jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
(3) APPLICATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- Each State that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.
(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State or political subdivision of a State or tribal official applying for assistance under this subsection shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, political subdivision, or tribal official has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.
(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or disapproved by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction within a 1 year period.
(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2006, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.
(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority to Make Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice shall award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7.
SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
`(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) he or she 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) he or his designee or she or her designee 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.
`(c) Definitions- In this section--
`(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given the term in section 232 of this title;
`(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of this title; and
`(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.
`(d) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`249. Hate crime acts.'.
SEC. 8. STATISTICS.
Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `gender and gender identity,' after `race,'.
SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
foreverfree
Mentor
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 902
Bronk said:
We're still waiting for Bronk to "clarify" his statement. But I'm not holding my breath.
John
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
Notice that only Western nations founded by white men have passed or are trying to pass such idiotic laws based on 'hate crimes.'
The only people left uncovered by such legislation are straight white men.
The only people left uncovered by such legislation are straight white men.
This is getting ridiculous!
[url]http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA82889011407 77516A0000?source=PA%20Feed&ct=5 [/url]
Mayor suspended over 'Nazi' jibe
24 February 2006
London Mayor Ken Livingstone has been found guilty of bringing his office into disrepute by comparing a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard.
Mr Livingstone was suspended from duty for four weeks from March 1 after being found guilty of bringing his office into disrepute.
The three-man Adjudication Panel for England unanimously ruled that Mr Livingstone had been "unnecessarily insensitive and offensive" to Evening Standard reporter Oliver Finegold in February last year.
David Laverick, chairman of the disciplinary panel sitting in central London, said: "His treatment of the journalist was unnecessarily insensitive and offensive. He persisted with a line of comment likening the journalist's job to a concentration camp guard, despite being told that the journalist was Jewish and found it offensive to be asked if he was a German war criminal."
[url]http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA82889011407 77516A0000?source=PA%20Feed&ct=5 [/url]
Mayor suspended over 'Nazi' jibe
24 February 2006
London Mayor Ken Livingstone has been found guilty of bringing his office into disrepute by comparing a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard.
Mr Livingstone was suspended from duty for four weeks from March 1 after being found guilty of bringing his office into disrepute.
The three-man Adjudication Panel for England unanimously ruled that Mr Livingstone had been "unnecessarily insensitive and offensive" to Evening Standard reporter Oliver Finegold in February last year.
David Laverick, chairman of the disciplinary panel sitting in central London, said: "His treatment of the journalist was unnecessarily insensitive and offensive. He persisted with a line of comment likening the journalist's job to a concentration camp guard, despite being told that the journalist was Jewish and found it offensive to be asked if he was a German war criminal."
All this "hate speech" crap could eventually backfire. It could force far right wingers to tone down their rhetoric, which would make them more appealing (less scary) to mainstream whites and conservatives. Let's face it, our "movement"- if you can call it that- is doing very little to draw in new people. We're just preaching to the choir for the most part. Nothing wrong with that, but that's what we're doing. Avoiding inflammatory language will improve our movement.
(Of course I'm not saying that hate speech legislation is a good thing.)
(Of course I'm not saying that hate speech legislation is a good thing.)