The Children’s Safety Act of 2005 (H.R. 3132) has been hijacked by a one sentence ammendment (H.AMDT.528) introduced by Mr. Conyers. Here is the modified text of the bill with the additional sections.

H.AMDT.528 to H.R.3132 Amendment provides for inclusion of gender and crimes committed by and directed against juveniles for coverage under the Hate Crime Statistics Act.

Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 9/14/2005) Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 9/14/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Conyers amendment (A009) Agreed to by voice vote.

Stephen Lilienthal, in his article “A Cure for Hate Crimes” says:

Many House Members appear to have let their good intentions override the common sense principle that is the underpinning of our criminal case law. Creating new categories of “hate crimes” would be a significant departure from “equal justice under law.” The phrase is more than an appealing platitude engraved over the entrance to the Supreme Court; it is the ideal to which our nation aspires in its system of justice.

The act, not the motive, has long been of supreme importance in determining whether a law has been broken. Adding penalties for infractions due to the criminal’s ill-favored perception of his victim drastically would require that “equal justice” be determined by influential special-interest groups.

Representative Jeff Miller (R-FL) argued that hate-crimes laws are not in accord with a society that aspires to “equal justice under law.” He told the House on September 14, 2005:

“Federalizing hate crime law will not increase tolerance in our society or reduce intergroup conflict. I believe hate crime laws may well have the opposite effect. The men and women who will be administering the hate crime laws (e.g. police, prosecutors) will likely encounter a never-ending series of complaints with respect to their official decisions. When a U.S. Attorney declines to prosecute a certain offense as a hate crime, some will complain that he is favoring the groups to which the accused belongs (e.g. Hispanic males) And when a U.S. Attorney does prosecute an offense as a hate crime, some will complain that the decision was based upon politics and that the government is favoring the groups to which the victim belongs (e.g. Asian Americans.”

…

All lawful Americans oppose crimes, particularly premeditated acts, whether they have occurred because of greed, passion, hate or thrill-seeking. We have State laws to deal with murder and assault. There is no need for federal “hate crimes” legislation, which is “thought crimes” legislation, given its destructive impact upon one of our cherished ideals.

Section 249 of the bill reads:

`(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.

From the Chalcedon Foundation:

If enacted into law, Knight said, the bill would do more than just increase penalties for crimes committed against homosexuals. It would also pave the way for “hate speech” laws — and greatly expand the federal government’s power to intervene in local law enforcement.

“This federalizes criminal law,” he said. “By invoking the catchall ‘Commerce Clause’ of the Constitution, it allows federal prosecutors to get involved whenever they think there’s been a hate crime. That’s whenever they think local law enforcement hasn’t done enough.”

The bill is the Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (LEEA), a pet project of homosexual-friendly legislators since 1999. Last year it passed the Senate after being attached as a rider to a defense appropriations bill, but failed in the House. This time it’s attached as a rider to the Children’s Safety Act (HR-3132), approved in the House by a narrow margin.

“Our lobbyist has been sitting down with people in the Senate who should be opposing this,” Kastensmidt said. “We’re told it’ll most likely be stripped off the Child Safety Act by a conference committee before the bill goes to the president. That’s what happened last year.”

Concerned Women for America has more.

A grandmother walking down the street should have at least as much protection under the law as someone who is leaving a “gay” bar. But under “hate crimes” laws that include “sexual orientation,” the same assault would be punished with greater penalties if the victim were perceived as homosexual.

…

We deplore any act of violence against innocent victims (including homosexuals), but we strongly oppose as unjust and dangerous the entire concept of “hate crimes” legislation.

Such laws:

- violate the concept of equal protection under the law by designating special classes of victims, who get a higher level of government protection than others victimized by similar crimes.
- politicize criminal law, leading to pressure on police and prosecutors to devote more of their limited resources to some cases, at the expense of other crime victims’ cases.
- vastly expand the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to intervene in local law enforcement matters, once a crime is called a “hate crime.
- have a chilling effect on free speech by making unpopular ideas a basis for harsher treatment in criminal proceedings. More than half of the so-called “hate crimes” in the last U.S. Justice Department report were categorized as “intimidation” or “simple assault,” which do not necessarily involve anything more than words.2 In terms of the proposed national hate crimes bill, this makes name-calling literally a federal case.
- confuse law enforcers, because the definition of what constitutes a “hate crime” is clear in some instances but unclear in others. This burdens prosecutors and opens up endless opportunities for defense attorneys to invoke technicalities.
- are not necessary. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that “hate crime” victims are receiving less justice than other crime victims.

The Senate version of this bill has been referred out of the Senate Judiciary committee to the full Senate as of 10/20/2005.

5/19/2005:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
10/20/2005:
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
10/20/2005:
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Specter with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
10/20/2005:
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 251.

I’m a little lost in the thomas.loc.gov website, so I haven’t been able to figure out exactly whether the ammendment that was included in the House is actually a part of S.1086. In reading the text of the bill, it doesn’t appear that it is, however it is imperative that it not be. Hate Crime legislation is a blatant violation of the “equal protection” clause and should not be in any way a part of our legal system, and we must remain vigilant lest the thought police have their way in this country where we are already in a Herculean struggle to preserve our freedom of speech.

UPDATE: Joining the Beltway Traffic Jam