It has been widely reported for the past week that the new Hate Crimes bill, H.R. 1913, provides legal protection for pedophilia.
This is sort of true and not, depending upon how you look at it, illustrating perfectly what happens in politics and how liberals make conservatives look stupid, and how they make it not look like they’re doing what they’re doing.
If that’s confusing enough, read this text (there are a lot of quotes within quotes within quotes, so I fall back on Creative Minority Report):
During floor debate on H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) admitted that this so-called “hate crimes” bill will protect the 30 mostly bizarre sexual orientations listed by the American Psychiatric Association.
So, here’s what happened: a committee member–presumably a Republican–called for an amendment to the bill that would specify that, in defining “sexual orientation” as a protected class, it did *not* mean to include 30 “sexual orientations” (or perversions) listed in the American Psychiatric Administration’s DSM-IV-TR.
“The term sexual orientation,” this proposed amendment said, “as used in this act, or any amendments made by this act, does not include apotemnophilia, asphyxophilia, autogynephilia, coprophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, gerontosexuality, incest, kleptophilia, klismaphilia, necrophilia, partialism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, telephone scatalogia, toucherism, transgenderism, transsexual, transvestite, transvestic fetishism, urophilia, voyeurism, or zoophilia.”…
Now, again, this is right out of the DSM-IV, and this has a very serious aspect to it, but Rep. Hastings referred to it rather disparagingly:
We had an amendment offered by one of our colleagues to this particular legislation. I guess it was done in a creative fashion, and certainly We had an amendment offered by one of our colleagues to this particular legislation. I guess it was done in a creative fashion, and certainly the author of it did spend some time looking in the dictionary or creating new terms. And I apologize to our transcriber, but I am going to put in the Record what we have to put up with in the Rules Committee.
Now, let’s contextualize here:
1. Hate Crimes Law says that, if one commits an act of violence that is motivated by hatred towards a “protected class,” that crime is somehow worse than just doing your ordinary run of the mill act of violence. It was originally a loophole to prosecute violence against African Americans that was not being properly pursued at the state level (but they should have come up with a better way of achieving that laudable goal).
2. This law is trying to *expand* the groups who will be protected. Often condemned (including by yours truly) as a “hate speech” law, like the one in Canada, Democrats and the Main Stream Media insist this is not really the case. However, hate speech that contributes to a particular act of violence may be prosecuted. Also, Republicans have attempted–both in the current debate and when this bill has been brought up in 2007 and 2008–to put riders that specifically protect religious speech, and those riders have been rejected.
3. So, a Republican says, “OK, you want to say that, if someone kills a homosexual qua his being homosexual, that’s a hate crime. To how many ‘sexual orientations’ does this apply? Does it apply to voyeurism? Pedophilia?”
4. The Democrats *refused* to allow that amendment, saying that they do not want to make any exceptions. Once again, as with the “hate speech” aspect of this legislation, they didn’t explicitly say they want to protect pedophiles, but they did so by implication.
Take that back, Hastings in the following part admits she does want to protect “all of these philias and fetishes and isms”:
Mr. Speaker [funny that Nancy Pelosi gets referred to as “Mr.”], this bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice, and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability–or all of these philias and fetishes and isms that were put forward–need not live in fear because of who they are.
There it is.
Catholic priests have to live in fear of being accused of pedophilia. The Democrats want to suspend the First Amendment and remove our right to privacy in the Confessional so they can catch pedophiles and sexual abusers among the priesthood (usually singling out Catholicism among religions or religious ministers among professions that deal with children), but then they turn around and say they don’t want pedophiles “living in fear.”
She also admits that this is really a backdoor “hate speech” law by saying that the goal is to try and change people’s minds:
This legislation may not rid us of the intolerance and prejudices that continue to taint our society, but it will provide an added deterrent to those for whom these feelings manifest themselves into acts of violence.
So, let’s look back at some of the things listed up above.
Voyeurism: pervert looks through your window, you can’t throw something at him, because he’s a protected class, and your act of self-defense would be a “hate crime.” We don’t want voyeurs living in fear. It’s OK, say these alleged feminists, if women live in fear.
Same token, exhibitionism: so much for the cliche (and old cartoon/sitcom) gag of the old lady hitting the man (whether rightly or wrongly) with her purse and screaming. Now, if a man exposes himself to that cliche old woman, and she hits him with her purse, it’s Granny who goes to jail for a hate crime.
Pedophilia: We all know liberals don’t believe in the right to self defense, but a child can’t defend himself or herself against a pedophile, since that would be a “hate crime.” So much for Robert Grisham’s A Time to Kill: you kill the guy that harmed your kid, you go to jail for a “hate crime.”
I wonder what the term is for the “sexual orientation” or fetish that makes a man like rape? Since *all* sexual orientations and fetishes are covered by this legislation, does this mean a woman’s just supposed to open her legs for a rapist, since to resist him would be a “hate crime” and might cause him to live in fear?
Well, of course it does. After all, these are the people who say women should carry condoms, but not handguns, to protect themselves from sexual assault.