Posted under Culture & Politics
Does the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime bill provide protection to pedophiles?
I had no idea. So I read the bill:
VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.
Flip through any police blotter, and you’ll learn that people can be “oriented” toward just about anything in a sexual way: machinery, shrubbery, small farm animals. So if one is “oriented” toward children, why wouldn’t this bill protect them? Just asking questions here.
It seems Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, asked the same question, and proposed text to clarify Congress’ intent:
The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.
No problem, if that was never the intent. So why did Congress reject Mr. King’s proposal?
The usual suspects denounce such thinking. The Southern Poverty Law Center huffs that it’s a question only a Neanderthal could ask:
In fact, while the law would allow prosecution of crimes motivated by bias against gays or transgendered people, it would not extend hate crimes protections to pedophiles. …
According to the Traditional Values Coalition, these sexual orientations include incest, voyeurism and bestiality. That’s false; “sexual orientation” refers only to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. The TVC, in fact, has been listed as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for years, largely because of its routine promotion of known falsehoods to demonize homosexuals.
Right. If the SPLC excommunicates a person or group, anything they say can be safely ignored. Not sure how that works. Just as I’m unsure why “sexual orientation” refers only to the cool perversions.
And a homosexual advocacy site defends the bill by claiming “pedophilia is not a sexual orientation but a criminal act.”
Got some news for you — homosexuality is a criminal act:
North Carolina awards a punishment [for sodomy] classified as a Class I felony upon successful conviction, with a presumptive imprisonment of two years.
So we’re supposed to believe what our handlers tell us what the bill will do, never mind what it says? And isn’t it interesting that one of the Senate sponsors is Ted Kennedy? I seem to recall another bill he backed that seemed to say one thing, while he insisted it really meant something else. Here’s what Kennedy assured critics who feared the 1965 Immigration Act would open up America to a Third-World invasion:
“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same… Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia….
“In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”
What was the actual result of that bill? Today, whites are predicted to be a minority in America by 2042. So who are you gonna trust? Ted Kennedy or your own lying eyes?
Trent Hill on 27 Jul 2009 at 12:51 am #
Neither young children, nor unconscious people, nor animals, can give their consent to sex. THAT is why it is a criminal act of sexual assault. Of all people, I would expect paleoconservatives to know that the “law” does not always emulate the true law.
It is not lawful to force someone, or something, that is sentient or capable of sentience, to have sex. Machinery and shrubbery are simply objects, like a condom or a sexdoll, and they can be used in any way the owner pleases. Animals are a blurry middle-ground, but I percieve that they do, in fact, have some rights–and I believe protection from abuse to be one of those few rights.
Weaver on 27 Jul 2009 at 3:09 am #
Mr. Hill,
Even were it a case of an animal being enticed (or even merely allowed) to perform the sexual act, it’s still wrong because it’s against the natural order.
Regarding objects, that’s still perversion, but I dunno how that should be handled legally. Being a pervert is at least against Christian morals. Regardless of whether such should be legal, it’s still wrong.