SD Chapter of Concerned Women for America Blasts Herseth on Hate Crimes Vote
The State Director of the Concerned Women for America just added to the dogpile of commentators blasting Congresswoman Herseth for her support of the selective hate crimes legislation that was just passed by the House. (This same legislation is also facing a presidential veto):
While I might not put it as bluntly, I think creating special classes of people creates so many problems we cannot begin to fathom. A crime is a crime, regardless if a person is black, red, white, yellow or green. Crimes are equally vile whether they are perpetrated against men wearing a military uniform, a suit, or a dress.
When you start distinguishing classes, you set people apart from one another. If the conflict over civil rights taught us anything, it's that breaking down those barriers and treating everyone equally is what brings acceptance. We don't have separate bathroom and lunch counters anymore. So why is there this push for unequal justice?
Preferential rights, preferential placement in education, and hate crime legislation only serves to emphasize the very differences that the people seeking acceptance want others to ignore.
One one hand, groups might say "ignore the difference when you hire me." But on the other, they're asking to be held out differently in the prosecution of crimes. Like it or not, I don't think you can have it both ways.
You can view their website here."HATES CRIMES" LEGISLATION PASSES U.S. HOUSE""UNEQUAL" PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW"
New Holland , SD - Concerned Women for America (CWA) of South Dakota regards the passage of "The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act" (H.R. 1592) as troubling for all citizens and for the integrity of the United States Constitution.
"Hate crimes" legislation would officially give homosexuals and cross dressers special elevated status in society based upon their sexual behaviors and/or wardrobe. "We find it disturbing that the U.S. House and Representative Herseth-Sandlin voted to elevate special classes of victims based solely upon their sexual preference and gender identity. With this legislation a perpetrator could receive harsher penalties for assaulting a homosexual man than for the same crime committed against a child," stated Linda Schauer, State Director of CWA of South Dakota.
and...
Congress should protect our liberties by rejecting these fallacious reports and this assault on equal protection.
While I might not put it as bluntly, I think creating special classes of people creates so many problems we cannot begin to fathom. A crime is a crime, regardless if a person is black, red, white, yellow or green. Crimes are equally vile whether they are perpetrated against men wearing a military uniform, a suit, or a dress.
When you start distinguishing classes, you set people apart from one another. If the conflict over civil rights taught us anything, it's that breaking down those barriers and treating everyone equally is what brings acceptance. We don't have separate bathroom and lunch counters anymore. So why is there this push for unequal justice?
Preferential rights, preferential placement in education, and hate crime legislation only serves to emphasize the very differences that the people seeking acceptance want others to ignore.
One one hand, groups might say "ignore the difference when you hire me." But on the other, they're asking to be held out differently in the prosecution of crimes. Like it or not, I don't think you can have it both ways.
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
- Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address
Comments
How embarrasing she will protect men in dresses, but not in uniform protecting her freedom.
We need someone else representing South Dakota, NOT Herseth.
I have no problem with them disliking homosexuality on religious grounds, even though I disagree with them. But the terms they use just seem like hate speech.
CWA is a hoax organization that is a carbon copy of the old KKK. If it were up to the CWA, there'd be no anti-lynching laws on the books below the Mason Dixon line either.
They're not concerned about the war's effect on America, including a trillion $$s spent, 3,500 dead soldiers and 20,000 wounded soldiers. I dare you to find a press release on that.
They're not concerned about the despicable conditions of Walter Reed and other military hospitals and the long waiting period injured vets have for benefits. Where's their press release on that?
They're not even concerned for crime victims. When have they ever done a press release sticking up for crime victims?
This group is not really "concerned". In the interest of truth in advertising, it should be re-named "Far Right-wing Republican Women of America"
They are not good or very intelligent people in my opion.
It was blunt and it could have been more so.
The bill is wrong.
People open your eyes and look where this could go and most likely will go.
How about you hate-filled libs giving us some quotes from CWA that back up your claims?
I'm not a member of CWA but I remember hearing one of their officers telling a reporter that as a Christian, she might hate the sin, but she loved the sinner. Doesn't sound much like hate speech to me....
I tend to agree with PP that establishing special rights for anybody discriminates against others. Of course establishing special penalties has a similar effect. In the case of "hate" crimes, that operates both ways.
If local and state governments did actually prosecute crimes against members of any and all groups, and protected any and all groups equally, there would be no need for federal laws.
There is something of a chicken and egg relationship. The egg was the failure of local governments to do their duty to protect all citizens, and the chicken is the intrusive federal legislation that is hatched because the feds and our congress critters don't have a better idea.
All this bill will do is further the divide and fighting.
These so called smart people eg elected officials are not being smart.
Crime is crime treat it as such we do NOT need this bill or any like it. Enforce what is on the books.
If I hit you, I hit you. If I kill you, I kill you. To whom, and why, does it matter if I'm a bigot, or merely a jerk?
Interestingly, under current "hate" crimes laws, those charged are, in significant majority, people of color.
He said if I read correctly.
If you hit, he hits back. If he kills someone he has killed.
Be it a jerk or a bigot it does not matter (the reason).
In other words what I think he said is a crime is a crime but I do think that he is saying "people of color" do more of the crime?????
Is this correct Bob?
Too much information?
Actually, there was a time when your preferred method was illegal, especially id your aim was a little off! : )
That's an indication that law enforcement, as usual, when given a stupid law to enforce, enforce it upon those whom have less power and less voice.
This, ironically, often works against the group the law was titularly supposed to protect.
Much like the indefensible laws against attempting to feel better, which, instead of "protecting" children, creates an atmosphere in which children are exposed to unregulated traffic of "feelbetter".
And that apparently makes PP feel better.
The hate crime bill doesn't just cover racial minorities, religious minorities, "homosexuals" or "cross dressers." It includes crimes against all people who are attacked based on those characteristics; that means all races (including white people!), all religions (including Christians!), and all sexual orientations (including straight people!).
It also doesn't cover all crimes committed against racial/ethnic/religious/sexual minorities. If someone randomly mugs a black woman, that is not the same as beating her with clubs and chains and whatever else is around simply because of one (or both) of those characteristics.
The difference is that bias-motivated crimes do not just affect the victim of the crime; they are perpetrated to send a message to an entire community of people. That's why penalties for hate crimes need to be harsher than other violent crimes.
If a white mugger is lying in wait for the first available victim, and it just happens to be a black woman, will he be convicted of a hate crime? He really didn't care who he mugged; he just wanted some money and took the first opportunity whether black, white, yellow, or striped. But since it's white on black, it could be considered a hate crime, even though it can't be proven because no one can read another person's mind. Even though this law comes close to insisting that we can, and making it legal to do so.
Actually, I hope Herseth continues to vote in this manner as it will make it easier to defeat "Miss Cute and Perky" next time around.
Does your post apply to those who are against God and those who believe as Christians.
Christians are losing their rights and sometimes in rage!
you can't answer the question because the bill doesn't give gay people special right.
It has up and left a lot of Americans or has left America.
People who are trying to shut out one group is removing the rights of the next.
Such as the guy in of all places California who thinks God should be removed from everything. He is trying to invoke his freedom to remove the freedom of others.
WRONG
By the way I am not sure here but has the Argus found information on this blog to write stories about? I just have this feeling that this is happening. I have not put my finger on it yet, but it is stiring. Okay no off color rumblings please. Just ponder the question please and your opinion is welcome by me.
This kind of thing happens everyday. Hate crimes laws are not in place because of the motive of the criminal only, but also to protect victims from injustice inflicted by biased prosecutors and jurys.
BTW Concerned Woman for America is a single issue, anti-gay group, that should not be given the attention you are giving them.