The "Pedophile-Issue" in the Hate Crimes bill HR-1913 and How It Came To Be..

5-12-2009 National:

To understand how the issue of "pedophiles" was morphed into the Hate Crimes bill one must first understand how rules are made in the U.S. House (The Senate has a similar process which I will not get into). This explanation is long but there is no other way to get to how the "Pedophile-Issue" was morphed into the Hate Crimes legislation.


BACKGROUND:

At the beginning of each congressional session various lawmakers are appointed to committees which handle everything that is needed in the process of making laws in the U.S. House.

Every facet of lawmaking must conform to certain rules (for the most part these rules change little from congress to congress), and these rules are adopted at the start of every congress.

Hence, the U.S. House has a committee called the Committee on the Rules (see bottom of their page for more information), their very first function is setting up the initial rules which everyone in the U.S. House MUST FOLLOW. The House Rules effectively tell everyone the correct procedures to follow when making laws (crossing "T's" and dotting "I's", etc etc etc.

Following their initial task anything that comes up which house members want to do, if it does not follow the rules, it must be presented to the Committee on the Rules (Hereafter CR) which decides if that WILL or WILL NOT be allowed.

If it is allowed, then the House Rules must be amended to permit that function. Any such amendment must be well documented with reasons why it is being allowed, and if denied as well.

The Membership of the current CR is here. Depending on needs they may even setup subcommittees to handle whatever comes up.

This is the two cent version, very brief, as I am not an authority on everything this committee does, but have studied it to figure out how the "Pedophile-Issue" arose in the Hate Crimes bill HR-1913.

Click for the full explanation:

Now the "Pedophile-Issue":

HR 1913 was introduced in the House, everyone gets a copy, and a whole pile of questions began to come up, various lawmakers wanted to amend the hate crimes bill without presenting another bill for just their amendment.

When this happens, and it does frequently, someone presents a House Resolution which requires the Committee on the Rules (CR) to get involved. Alcee Hastings (D-FL-23) presented H.Res 372 to handle all these questions about HR-1913 Hate Crimes bill.

So the CR gets together and decides on all the questions presented and generates a House Report, in this case it is House Report: 111-91 (Click on "Printer friendly display" to see the committee report, the link to the right displays the text of H.Res 372 not the CR Report).

Within that CR report was a motion (request for an amendment) to make a rule as to the definition of "sexual orientation," which was presented by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX-1). see the following:

Rules Committee record vote No. 63

Date: April 28, 2009.

Measure: H.R. 1913.

Motion by: Mr. Sessions.

Summary of motion: To make in order and provide appropriate waivers for an amendment by Rep. Gohmert, Louie (TX), #7, which would define `sexual orientation' as not including apotemnophilia, asphyxophilia, autogynephilia, coprophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, gerontosexuality, incest, kleptophilia, klismaphilia, necrophilia, partialism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, telephone seatalogia, toucherism, transgenderism, transsexual, transvestite, transvestic fetishism, urophilia, voyeurism, or zoophilia.

Results: Defeated 3-7.

Vote by Members: McGovern--Nay; Hastings--Nay; Cardoza--Nay; Arcuri--Nay; Perlmutter--Nay; Pingree--Nay; Dreier--Yea; Sessions--Yea; Foxx--Yea; Slaughter--Nay.


****** AND ALSO *****

Rules Committee record vote No. 73

Date: April 28, 2009.

Measure: H.R. 1913.

Motion by: Dr. Foxx.

Summary of Motion: To make in order and provide appropriate waivers for an amendment by Rep. King, Steve (IA), #16, which would eliminate pedophilia from any definition of sexual orientation.

Results: Defeated 3-7.

Vote by Members: McGovern--Nay; Hastings--Nay; Cardoza--Nay; Arcuri--Nay; Perlmutter--Nay; Pingree--Nay; Dreier--Yea; Sessions--Yea; Foxx--Yea; Slaughter--Nay.

The votes are the votes of the CR committee only, and notice all the Yeas are Republicans while the Nays are Democrats.

It is quite logical why the amendments were voted down, there is no way they cover every philla, fetish and isms etc, and if passed EXACTLY AS PRESENTED by Rep. Louie Gohmert -or- Rep. Steve King, either would create a mess, some permitted some denied, because they failed to include one, etc. etc. etc.; yuck a real nightmare.

This is a case of lawmakers trying to show they know more than the entire field of psychology including what the future may hold, it just isn't going to happen, lawmakers are out of their realm. Lawmakers should be holding hearings to get testimony of folks from the psychology field; evidence, rather than hearsay from non psych people.


BILL and CR Report WERE NOW AVAILABLE TO ENTIRE HOUSE:

That denial caused HR-1913 the Hate-Crimes bill, to be labeled "The Pedophile Protection" bill. Those opposing hate crimes legislation are not looking at the logic of what was presented and how it was improper under the circumstances, instead those folks went nuts.

If as much effort went into proper construction as went into misconstruction, there would be a chance for this to become a great bill stopping hate crimes all across America.

With all the above said and done, the full house voted on H.Res 372 and HR-1913 the hate crimes bill, and guess what, they passed both and the bill was sent on to the Senate.

In the meantime all the lawmakers whose feathers were ruffled by the passage of HR-1913, are out in the public and misconstruing it to the nth degree.


I leave folks with these two questions about hate crimes:


Scenario-A:
Suppose there are two people somewhere, Person-A and Person-B, who are of the same religion. Now suppose Person-C comes along and shoots both Person-A and Person-B because Person-C hates people of their religion.

That circumstance describes one way, TODAY, that a hate crime can be committed BASED on RELIGION.

As the result of those TWO crimes neither Person-A nor Person-B benefit in any way by the crime being labeled a hate crime. What does happen is the offender Person-C when sentenced his/her sentence can be enhanced by the crime being labeled a hate crime.

Now, lets add one more factor to the scenario, suppose Person-B was a person who was previously convicted of a sex crime (society calls him a pedophile). Should the crime committed against Person-B (he was shot by Person-C) no longer be labeled a hate crime?

It should remain a hate crime because the reasoning behind Person-C's act was, religion not the crime previously committed by Person-B.


Scenario-B:

Suppose there are two people somewhere, Person-A and Person-B, each has been previously convicted of a sex crime and today are minding there own business doing nothing wrong. Now suppose Person-C comes along and shoots both Person-A and Person-B because Person-C hates people convicted of sex crimes.

That circumstance DOES NOT describe a hate crime TODAY!

However, along comes HR-1913 which permits crimes to be declared a hate crime if the crime is based on the victim's sexual orientation. Now, under HR-1913 "sexual orientation" is not defined.

Here comes the misconstruction that has been infused into the current House version.

In order for Person-A and Person-B to claim they have been a victim of a hate crime, which they might want to do only to have Person-C punished more severely, then Person-A and Persons-B must claim (READ CAREFULLY) that they are persons whose "sexual orientation" is pedophilia (or one of the hundreds of other fetishes isms etc.).

One would have to be out of their mind to make such a claim, remembering that, once such a claim is made, it will be for a lifetime and permit the powers that be to deem them a danger to society and restrict them in untold ways; likely even to lock them up as a danger to society.

An insightful commenter stats: "The gov't has chosen the sexual orientation of those convicted of sex crimes." A very interesting comment, but is that true, posibly the way the government treats registrants but even that is problematic, for example, teen experimentation is called a sex crime when in reality it is no more than a step in growing up. So, since there are many more examples the govenment choice of sexual orientation is more likely based on prejudice rather than reality and evidence.

Again, as the result of those TWO crimes neither Person-A nor Person-B benefit in any way by the crime being labeled a hate crime. What does happen is the offender Person-C when sentenced his/her sentence can be enhanced by the crime being labeled a hate crime.


Finally, the hate crimes legislation DOES NOT provide benefits to the victims of hate crimes, at least no more than to victims of crimes in general. Hate crime legislation PROTECTS no one, it punishes offenders, some of which may not have been punished otherwise. This legislation makes sure that, offenders will be punished, and records kept of those hate crimes, if crimes are committed based on HATE and CERTAIN BASES:

Under HR-1913: Hate crimes are crimes of violence and are a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws, and are 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 State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.

Finally, claims of punishing "Freedom of Speech" for folks simply discussing hate crimes is another of the major misconstructions of those who do not want this legislation to pass.

If anyone has another interpretation of how hate crime legislation works, or how the "Pedophile-Issue" was infused into this legislation, I am all ears.

eAdvocate

PS: This is the essence of what has happened and I have omitted all the federal-state issues to get to the crux of the "Pedophile-Issue."