Pat Robertson Is Not Happy About Hate Crimes Bill

The problem with "hate crime" bills doesn't come from the choice of groups that they are trying to protect, but from the fact that it covers any selected groups at all. Our system is supposed to be based on equal justice -- the concept that everyone is equal before the law.

I find two more things to be rather silly about these laws:
1. They are attempting to prevent crime by making it more illegal, in certain cases.
2. They are attempting to fight discrimination, with discrimination.

"The problem with "hate crime" bills doesn't come from the choice of groups that they are trying to protect, but from the fact that it covers any selected groups at all."

Kathy is well aware of this, Prof. It has less to do with equal protection, and more to do with subversive tactics to implement a liberal agenda. Under the guise of equality, she wishes to force the acceptance of homosexuality - not tolerance, but the embracing of a lifestyle.

Like you, I feel that if you assault someone, you should pay the penalty - regardless of why you did it. That's true equality.

And one more thing, Kathy.....

Are you aware that you called Pat Robertson a "hate criminal"?

"Another freedom has been taken away from him:"
"Apparently, Robertson’s definition of freedom is the ability to physically attack and injure gay and lesbian persons"

You left the impression that Pat Robertson enjoys a good "gay beating" now and then. You seem to think he jumps for joy when another human being is attacked. I'm not a big fan of Pat Robertson, but he has stated more than I can remember that violence against anyone is wrong. He also said that we are to love homosexuals as human beings - but not to love their behavior. Just as Christ did with prostitutes and other folks lost in a sea of sinful behavior, that's what Christians are supposed to do.

You owe the man an apology.

Prof. Elwood,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. Although (obviously) my opinion on this hate crimes legislation is different from yours, I very much appreciate your willingness to disagree without personalizing the discussion, or presuming to be able to divine my motivations. I respect your point of view, just as you have implied respect for mine.

There are more aspects to hate crimes than just simple physical assault. One aspect is the physical assault. Another aspect in hate crimes is that the hate violence is aimed at oppressing a group of people. Hate crime sentences should be harsher because of their very nature.

Murder is murder, but there's murder in the first degree as well as murder in the second and third degrees. There's also petty theft and grand theft. In California petty theft is a misdemeanor while grand theft can be either a misdemeanor or a felony, with harsher punishment.

In the US the same basic "crime" can be handled different ways due to the severity of the offense. So it is with hate crimes. Many people would agree that attacks on anyone is wrong, but some people feel justified to attack others based on religion, sexual preference, race, etc. because that group of people are seen as less than human and not deserving of human dignity and treatment.

JeffersonDavis, "It has less to do with equal protection, and more to do with subversive tactics to implement a liberal agenda. Under the guise of equality, she wishes to force the acceptance of homosexuality - not tolerance, but the embracing of a lifestyle."

Hogwash. Does this bill say, "Thou shalt not kill homos"? No. The bill protects us all regardless of our sexual orientation (or other characteristics). If I were to kill you while I yell, "death to straight people" then I would receive a harsher sentence than if I killed you just because you were in my way.

So tell me why this law is unequal. You seem to think that no one would kill a straight person just because they're straight. So if you can't fathom that a straight person might be killed just because they're straight, but you understand that a gay person can be killed for being gay, then that is basically the strongest argument that this law is needed. You seem to think that this law is for homos. It's not. It's for everyone. Show me where this law discriminates against you.

And I would love to say the same thing to Pat Robertson. Where does this law discriminate against him?

The bill is against violence. Since when has being against violence become a bad thing?

What is odd at any thought crime law is the lattitude it gives activist prosecutors and judges. Look at how many times blacks have been excuse from any prosecution because the black person accused of beating up whites also stole something from them.

In the crazy world of hate crimes, theft demonstrates that bias was not involved.

Look at the bus beating of the white Belleville West High School student near ST Louis. In the course of three days, the official stance of the local law enforcement went from calling it a hate crime, to a base of bullying, to a justified beating because the white kid touched the black kids book bag.

Image if the video would have been two white kids beating up a gay kid. The federal prosecutions would been going on in full force and the schools would have been forced to have mandatory reeducation for all of their students.

How does not being able to "willfully [cause] bodily injury" suddenly equate to "forc[ing] the acceptance of homosexuality" or "the embracing of a lifestyle". You don't have to like a person, you just can't go kick the shit out them for any of the given reasons. *Oh, Dear Lord, no! I'm being oppressed!*

Now, I'm not a huge fan of the added layers of protection for any group, because as Prof said above, "[o]ur system is supposed to be based on equal justice -- the concept that everyone is equal before the law". However, as my brother and I were fond of saying to our father (an engineer who liked to "fix" things around the house - "it should work"; "it's not"; "it should"; "it's NOT"), should ain't is, and sometimes you need an alternative path of legal protection when the normal path doesn't work, for whatever reason.

George Carlin summed up Pat Robertson and his ilk: Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bulls*** story. Holy S***!”

The law is unequal because it was expressly designed for crime against homosexuals. It also attempts to read someone's mind. A violent crime should be prosecuted as a violent crime against anyone - not one punishment for a crime against this group, and a different one for a crime against a different one. If you kill me for being in your way, you should be put to death. If you kill me for being black, you should be put to death, and if you kill me for being straight, you should be put to death.

Get the picture? It really is THAT simple.

Sometimes making an act a "hate crime" makes it easier to prosecute.

I think to gays it also symbolizes the critical ideal that it is unacceptable to attack a gay person. Yes everyone should be equal under the law-- but in certain areas of the country- this just doesn't happen.

Larry -

Good to see a new commenter on here.

Have you read the comments policy? I refer you to the fifth point:

(5) Commenting that attacks the writer or/ and commenters… a comment that is abusive, offensive, vulgar, contains profane, sexist, or racist material or violates the terms of service for this blog’s host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site — which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

George Carlin has never been one of my favorites. If you have to be crude, then any humor is lost in translation.

"You left the impression that Pat Robertson enjoys a good "gay beating" now and then. You seem to think he jumps for joy when another human being is attacked."

Actually, Kathy's quote from Think Progress suffers from some very heavy editorializing. If one reads only that quote, then Pat Robertson does seem to be saying that hate crimes legislation is limiting Christians like himself.

However, if you watch the video (and it, too, has some stuff cut), it's clear that he's talking about the wider "liberal agenda" encroaching on Christians who share his views. Watch it here.

I find Robertson's homophobia to be reprehensible, but he doesn't seem to be saying what's been attributed to him here.

I am in favor of this bill. I think it is just.

If anybody can make sympathetic for a gay rights issue it's Pat Roberts. I’m sure he is guilty of something regarding military contract improprieties.

lol

...and there you have it.

JeffersonDavis, "A violent crime should be prosecuted as a violent crime against anyone - not one punishment for a crime against this group, and a different one for a crime against a different one. If you kill me for being in your way, you should be put to death. If you kill me for being black, you should be put to death, and if you kill me for being straight, you should be put to death."

First of all capital punishment does not exist in every state. Second of all the new law would allow a harsher punishment to those who perpetrate violence against blacks, whites, straights, gays, Jews, Christians, etc. than violence without the "hate crime" component. The law does not single out just one group of people. If you are attacked for being straight then your attacker would be prosecuted under this law.

The initial treatment, or more accurately, mistreatment of someone based on their affiliation with a particular group was that of the perpetrator of the crime. The law simply recognizes that. We do not live in an ideal world where people are all treated equally no matter what their differences from what is considered "normal". The law recognizes motive and intent in other areas such as the various degrees of assault and murder that are recognized and used to base sentencing of the criminal. Why shouldn't it be capable of recognizing raging bigotry as a contributing factor and sentence accordingly?

"The law is unequal because it was expressly designed for crime against homosexuals. It also attempts to read someone's mind."

How was it expressly designed for homosexuals?

Also how does it "attempt to read someone's mind"? Wouldn't these cases go to trial? And doesn't the prosecution have to prove this was a hate crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

JD: Did you happen to notice the section concerning attacks on people in the military (or their families)?

Here it is:

``SEC. 1389. PROHIBITION ON ATTACKS ON UNITED STATES SERVICEMEN ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE
``(a) In General.— Whoever knowingly assaults or batters a United States serviceman or an immediate family member of a United States serviceman, or who knowingly destroys or injures the property of such serviceman or immediate family member, on account of the military service of that serviceman or status of that individual as a United States serviceman, or who attempts or conspires to do so, shall—
``(1) in the case of a simple assault, or destruction or injury to property in which the damage or attempted damage to such property is not more than $500, be fined under this title in an amount not less than $500 nor more than $10,000 and imprisoned not more than 2 years;
``(2) in the case of destruction or injury to property in which the damage or attempted damage to such property is more than $500, be fined under this title in an amount not less than $1000 nor more than $100,000 and imprisoned not more than 5 years; and
``(3) in the case of a battery, or an assault resulting in bodily injury, be fined under this title in an amount not less than $2500 and imprisoned not less than 6 months nor more than 10 years."

Personally I'm thankful to everyone who serves in the military protecting our country. I think if a service member is wearing their uniform and is attacked by someone because that someone has something against the military or people in the military, then that criminal should be given a harsher sentence. There's nothing gay about this.

ProfElwood, "They are attempting to fight discrimination, with discrimination."

Exactly how does that work, fighting discrimination with discrimination? Where in the new law is this provision? What are you referring to?

More propaganda supporting the Matthew Shepard "Hate Crime" preventions act - presenting the murder of Shepard in Wyoming in 1998 and Barack Obama making self righteous speeches how America needs special "Hate Crime" laws to ensure that gay people and other "victim" groups should not have to live in fear in America for who they are.

The reality is that the Matthew Shepard murder happened over 10 years ago, the criminals were caught, prosecuted, convicted and received life in prison - no real need for special "hate crime" laws, as Wyoming tends to prosecute the very few murders in that state as "murder" a very serious, and "hateful" crime.

I live in Chicago, less than a mile from Barack and Michele Obama's heavily fortified block of mansions in Kenwood. Chicago led all cities last year and this year in total murders - but few or any of these murders fall in to the narrow definition of "hate crimes" - mostly gang bangers doing murder and mayhem to anyone who isn't in their gang. Are Barack Obama, the ADL, SPLC, National Gay and Lesbian task force, La Raza or NPR rallying the nation to empower special Federal laws, task forces to target Chicago's very hateful, murderous gang members? Haven't heard anything on PBS, NPR. That's life.

Do you believe in statutory rape laws? They are designed to protect young people from their "inability" to consent to sex.

Also, if you actually look at the statute, it does not protect "groups" as such. Instead, it criminalizes violence that results from certain discriminatory motives. The law, however, does not discriminate. Rather, it applies to ANY victim of violence based on race, sexual orientation, etc. The fact that this type of violence might impact certain groups more than others does not mean that the law is unfair -- or that it is a manifestation of unequal justice.

This is the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard. You do not have to "accept" anyone. You merely cannot shoot them because you don't accept them. Why is this so hard to understand? Take the time to read the law, and find the text which compels you to "accept" someone. If you can do this, I will change my position.

Waiting.....

No one owes Pat an apology. He is the one lamenting the fact that "beating" people based on sexual orientation is a crime. His own words describe this as a bad thing. Maybe you should apologize to Kathy.....

Ah, those people in Congress hate people who don't serve in the military....They hate Christians...blah blah blah....

There was no excuse for this blatantly political stunt, and nobody can feebly fail to defend it here.

Ironically, this was involving defense-related legislation, and it was the perfect opportunity instead to end "don't ask, don't tell" formally.

But that would be intelligent and rational, rather than emotional and blatantly political.

Consider the current goals, and their proponents and supporters. [sigh]

"They are attempting to [']fight['] discrimination, with discrimination."

This is true, incontrovertibly so, and cannot be (honestly or correctly) refuted.

It also creates "thought crime," not merely behavioral crime, which is the greater wrong here than the mere reverse discrimination and creation of another selected-and-favored-victim classification.

That is beyond the grasp of many proponents, too -- it's regrettable the suffrage isn't qualified and better, also weighted for quality...

"and sometimes you need an alternative path of legal protection when the normal path doesn't work, for whatever reason."

I could handle that, as long at it applied equally to all people for all reasons. There are many reasons to hate, and many reasons that someone could be wrongly treated by our justice system. In fact, the most common reason that justice would fail would not be some sort of group prejudice, but the popularity and power of the attacker. When cops, judges, politicians, and celebrities do crimes, they're far more likely to get away with it than ordinary citizens who pick on an unpopular group.

redbus -

Oh, go get a life. Quoting George as a violation of the commenting policy? Go wash your eyes out with soap. That will get rid of the image of the naughty words from your brain.

"Exactly how does that work, fighting discrimination with discrimination? Where in the new law is this provision? What are you referring to?"

Simply because it lists certain areas that can be considered, which means others aren't. So to steal from someone because they're rich is normal, but to steal from them because they're Jewish isn't. Killing someone because they're good looking: normal. Killing them because they're gay: bad. How about assaulting Democrats -- I guess there's nothing unusually wrong with that, as long as they're not Canadian.

As I stated before, everyone is not equal before the law.

ProfElwood, "As I stated before, everyone is not equal before the law."

I still don't understand it. If you're attacked because of your race then the crime will be prosecuted as a hate crime. Everyone is equal.

As far as killing someone because they're goodlooking and not prosecuting that as a hate crime.... Puhleeeeze.... good looking people are not systematically discriminated against nor attacked. However people ARE attacked because of religion, sexual orientation, race, etc.

I watched the video, Polimom. I think that Robertson is being very disingenuous. The hate crimes legislation (which as we all know is not new in and of itself; it just now includes gays and lesbians as a protected class in addition to all the others) addresses physical violence directed against homosexuals specifically because they are homosexual. It doesn't say anything about restraining or restricting the homophobic beliefs of people like Pat Robertson. It does not infringe on religious beliefs, or any beliefs. It just says you cannot beat people up or crucify them or set them on fire to express how much you hate them.

So what is Robertson's rationale for opposing the legislation, then? That is the point of what the Think Progress post is saying (and also what Darren Hutchinson said in the portion of his post that I quoted). If the legislation proscribes physically assaulting gays and lesbians because they are gay or lesbian, and Pat Robertson says it's taking away the freedom of Christians and advancing the liberal agenda, then, logically, what he is suggesting is that Christians have the right to beat up homosexuals. Because that is the only "right" that this legislation takes away.

Maybe you should apologize to Kathy.....

I won't hold my breath on that one.

Are you implying that "rich" and "Jewish" are synonyms, ProfElwood? Plus, this hate crimes legislation does not deal with stealing, to the best of my knowledge. If someone was beaten up or otherwise physically harmed in addition to the stealing, and the violence was proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt to be motivated by homophobia, then the legislation would apply, but not just stealing in and of itself.

That said, if we come to find that beautiful people cannot walk down the street without being brutally and savagely attacked, we might decide to add that as a category..... ;-)

It's legal to fire someone for being gay in several states. You don't need to be violent and harm somebody when you have the ability to get them away from you legally.

"Are you implying that "rich" and "Jewish" are synonyms"

Nope, I didn't even see that one. I was trying to pick unprotected and protected groups. And, in trying to vary the phrasing, I wrongly used stealing.

"However people ARE attacked because of religion, sexual orientation, race, etc."

They are also attacked because of ideology (I know of a tea party organizer that has had graphite put in his gas tank, and his house shot at), status, and job (particularly government workers). If someone harms another on purpose, unless they're defending themselves or others, they always have some personal justification. Why are some of these justifications better than others?

Kathy, I understand what you're saying. I also understood where the quoted TP article was coming from. And I'm certainly no fan of Pat Robertson.

But that video is, unfortunately for your position, edited. And while it doesn't seem apparent to you, it is clear to me that a great deal of verbal context has been lost in the editing process.

I think that Robertson is being very disingenuous.

Aren't you even slightly curious about the rest of Robertson's comments? Doesn't it bother you at all that conclusions are being drawn from partial, out of context information?

Aren't you even slightly curious about the rest of Robertson's comments? Doesn't it bother you at all that conclusions are being drawn from partial, out of context information?

I really don't have any uncertainty about Pat Robertson's position on hate crimes protection for gays and lesbians. This is obviously not the first time he has weighed in on the issue -- hate crimes, as well as the broader issue of equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Sure, it would be nice to see the unedited video, if only to eliminate it as an argument that Robertson is somehow being treated unfairly, or his position misrepresented. But I'm really at a loss to figure out what you, or anyone else making the argument you're making here, think Robertson could possibly have said in the rest of the video that would make his opposition to hate crimes protection for gays and lesbians somehow a principled position. It's not that I don't think it's possible to oppose the concept of hate crimes legislation from a principled perspective, but nothing I know about Robertson's position on homosexuality (or on ANY political or social issue) would lead me to believe that he holds some kind of reasoning somewhere inside his head that none of us have ever heard yet that would make us think, "Oh, okay, that really is a principled reason for not wanting homosexuals to be protected by hate crimes legislation."

I mean, what is it you expect or think the unexpurgated tape might have him saying that would cast a whole different light on his opposition to hate crimes protection for gays and lesbians?

I agree, Polimom.... As I stated, I'm not a big fan of Mr. Robertson. I do, however, think that he is a decent man inside (that's just a hunch as I cannot read the man's heart).

My main point was that this has less to do with equal justice, and much much more to do with legitimizing a lifestyle or subculture. The has very little to do with racial violence or political violence. It has to do with the gay community procuring legitimacy. That's the crux of the matter. The gay community has been busy within the news and entertainment media pushing that being gay is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle to be encouraged and celebrated. That just cannot sit with those of us that consider the act as unacceptable within the realm of God, be it Christianity, Islam, or whatever faith it may be.

And like it or not, the vast majority of this nation are still people of faith. This country was founded upon a faith in God. And this is just one more example of our nation turning its collective back on our foundation.

So if I understand you correctly, I can get more time for killing a member of another race than I will by killing a member of my own race? Yeah.... That seems fair (sarcasm).

And you stated that if I am attacked for being straight, then my attacker would be prosecuted under this law. Which law would he have been prosecuted under prior to this new legislation? Could it be the one that already makes assault/murder/etc illegal and lays out sentencing?

You fail to realize that EVERY SINGLE instance of assault or murder is an act of hate. You don't strike someone you love, and you do not murder someone you love. They are all instances of HATE.

I thought i was pretty clear on how it was designed for the homosexual community.

"Did you happen to notice the section concerning attacks on people in the military (or their families)?"

That was already illegal as well. If we cannot enforce the laws we have, why do you think a NEW law will help?

I don't need extra protection from the government. If someone attempts to assault or murder me or my family, the will face immediate and swift retribution - thanks to the 2nd Amendment.

"This is the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard. You do not have to "accept" anyone. You merely cannot shoot them because you don't accept them."

DJ....
As I've said. It is ALREADY a crime to shoot someone. It is ALREADY a crim to assault someone.
Why then do we need another law to outlaw that which is already illegal?
We could just put resources into ensuring that the laws we have are enforced. But that wouldn't make the gay community happy? Why do you suppose that is?

It's because they believe this law (from the comments I've seen thus far from gays on other sites) legitimizes their cause. It's not justice - it's validation.

And for the record.... Pat Robertson thinks that beating ANYONE is wrong. Murdering ANYONE is wrong. As I've pointed out before, ALL assault and murder are products of HATE. Every single one of them. Ms. Kattenburg attibuted an incorrect opinion into Mr. Robertson's mind. She made it seem that he wants people to hurt homosexuals. That is not the case, and she does, indeed, own him an apology.

"Maybe you should apologize to Kathy.....I won't hold my breath on that one."

Kathy.... I've apologized to you in the past, when I was wrong. I have yet to see you apologize to anyone. Perhaps I missed it if you did, so I won't make that a all-inclusive statement.

You did, in fact, assert that Pat Robertson takes pleasure when gays are assaulted. That is a judgement of a person's heart. And to the best of my knowledge, only One has that power - and you ain't it.

The question is: Was it your intent to insinuate that Pat Robertson feels that way about gays? If so, you do owe him an apology. If not, then you do not owe him an apology - merely a restatement of your intent.

" really don't have any uncertainty about Pat Robertson's position on hate crimes protection for gays and lesbians. This is obviously not the first time he has weighed in on the issue -- hate crimes, as well as the broader issue of equal rights for gays and lesbians."

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is my entire point. Thanks for making it for me, Kathy.

"The broader issue of equal rights for gays and lesbians". That is the ENTIRE purpose for this bill. It is a first-step victory toward legitimization and validation for "THE CAUSE". That was the point I made in my first comment. It has less to do with equal justice than it does for "the cause".
It's how liberalism works. Don't tell the people exactly what your doing and your intent, because they won't accept it. You must gradually put your agenda into effect - piece by piece.

We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.

I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).

I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.

So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of "feel good" legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?

The law always treats certain crimes more seriously than others --- because of the harrm that they cause to larger groups of people. For example, stealing 20 bucks in a mugging at gunpoint has different penalties than stealing 20 bucks during an attempted armed bank robbery. The same amount of money, same behavior, highly different penalty structure.

Certain murders are more likely to receive the death penalty than others; in fact, the Supreme Court (and thus every state) requires that juries list "aggravating" factors that led them to impose the death penalty. So, one murder may get a life sentence, while another gets the death penalty. Why? Because the aggravating factors are seen as presenting a greater harm to society. The law in every state treats "cop-killing" as death eligible. Mutilation is an aggravating factor. Killing a very young person is an aggravating factor. Killing more than one person is an aggravating factor, etc.

Similarly, killing people because of religion, sexuality, etc., causes harms that extend beyond one person and that individual's immediate community. Others who share the characteristic are chilled due to the crimre. There are tons of psychological and criminal law literature on this subject. Even the Supreme Corut has ruled on the issue -- in a case validating an enhanced penalty for a black man who selected a white victim due to race. See Mitchell v Wisconsin.

In many communities law enforcement officials still do not take the plight of gay victims seriously. Until they do, we need a hate crimes bill.
I compare it to the fight for civil rights in the deep South during the 60's. Everyone was supposedly equal under the law, but in practical terms, it was only enforced for white victims. Black lynchings and other crimes were not investigated fully or prosecuted fully unless they were retried under federal law. The murderers of Medgar Evers, Emmett Till and many others were acquitted by all white juries.