MW: Midwest LGBT Equality, Hate Crimes and Suicide Prevention Act (Failed)

[Arturo Belano]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative Adam C. FitzGerald

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative Adam C. FitzGerald

[windjammer]

Devin???

[Maxwell]

I encourage the Midwest to defeat this. A while back, the Midwest did away with hate crimes, and I believe that is right. We should not punish crime based on motive. That said, I think the rest of the bill has promise, and I think we should go into more detail on some of the legalistics of it, but I think it's a worthy cause to help with suicide prevention.

Maybe I'm just intervening too much, but that's my view of this bill.

[windjammer]

I encourage the Midwest to defeat this. A while back, the Midwest did away with hate crimes, and I believe that is right. We should not punish crime based on motive. That said, I think the rest of the bill has promise, and I think we should go into more detail on some of the legalistics of it, but I think it's a worthy cause to help with suicide prevention.

Maybe I'm just intervening too much, but that's my view of this bill.

Could you be a little clearer please Maxwell? Firstly you seem to oppose this bill, and at the end you seem to support this bill.

I personally see nothing wrong with this bill.

[windjammer]

And once again, the Alping is here for debates, so you have clearly the right to participate to the debates Maxwell, other Atlasians as well.

[Maxwell]

I encourage the Midwest to defeat this. A while back, the Midwest did away with hate crimes, and I believe that is right. We should not punish crime based on motive. That said, I think the rest of the bill has promise, and I think we should go into more detail on some of the legalistics of it, but I think it's a worthy cause to help with suicide prevention.

Maybe I'm just intervening too much, but that's my view of this bill.

Could you be a little clearer please Maxwell? Firstly you seem to oppose this bill, and at the end you seem to support this bill.

I personally see nothing wrong with this bill.

Maybe I should've been clearer: If this bill still has the hate crimes section, then I hope for its defeat. However, the other parts of the bill, particularly suicide prevention, are areas where we could work together and do some good.

[windjammer]

I encourage the Midwest to defeat this. A while back, the Midwest did away with hate crimes, and I believe that is right. We should not punish crime based on motive. That said, I think the rest of the bill has promise, and I think we should go into more detail on some of the legalistics of it, but I think it's a worthy cause to help with suicide prevention.

Maybe I'm just intervening too much, but that's my view of this bill.

Could you be a little clearer please Maxwell? Firstly you seem to oppose this bill, and at the end you seem to support this bill.

I personally see nothing wrong with this bill.

Maybe I should've been clearer: If this bill still has the hate crimes section, then I hope for its defeat. However, the other parts of the bill, particularly suicide prevention, are areas where we could work together and do some good.

Thank you! I understand now .
What's your problem with the hate crimes section exactly?

[Maxwell]

I encourage the Midwest to defeat this. A while back, the Midwest did away with hate crimes, and I believe that is right. We should not punish crime based on motive. That said, I think the rest of the bill has promise, and I think we should go into more detail on some of the legalistics of it, but I think it's a worthy cause to help with suicide prevention.

Maybe I'm just intervening too much, but that's my view of this bill.

Could you be a little clearer please Maxwell? Firstly you seem to oppose this bill, and at the end you seem to support this bill.

I personally see nothing wrong with this bill.

Maybe I should've been clearer: If this bill still has the hate crimes section, then I hope for its defeat. However, the other parts of the bill, particularly suicide prevention, are areas where we could work together and do some good.

Thank you! I understand now .
What's your problem with the hate crimes section exactly?

Two reasons:

1. We've already done away with hate crime legislation in the Midwest,
2. And I don't think punishing people for motivations behind their crimes is healthy. Hate to be corny, but isn't every violent crime one of hate? Their reasoning shouldn't matter.

[windjammer]

1) Which law exactly?
2) Hate crime legislation would have of course no interest if homophobia didn't exist. But homophobia exists and I believe that the law shall be made in relation with reality. Homophobia is still a problem, and this "hate crime legislation" towards a more "gay-friendly" society. I would oppose this passage if homophobia didn't exist, but that's not the case!

[Maxwell]

1) Which law exactly?
2) Hate crime legislation would have of course no interest if homophobia didn't exist. But homophobia exists and I believe that the law shall be made in relation with reality. Homophobia is still a problem, and this "hate crime legislation" towards a more "gay-friendly" society. I would oppose this passage if homophobia didn't exist, but that's not the case!

Hate crime laws do very little to reduce racism or homophobia. Those things will continue to exist with or without those laws.

Also I looked through the books, and I thought we had, but we hadn't. Shame, I might push one of my representatives to introduce something of the sort.

[windjammer]

1) Which law exactly?
2) Hate crime legislation would have of course no interest if homophobia didn't exist. But homophobia exists and I believe that the law shall be made in relation with reality. Homophobia is still a problem, and this "hate crime legislation" towards a more "gay-friendly" society. I would oppose this passage if homophobia didn't exist, but that's not the case!

Hate crime laws do very little to reduce racism or homophobia. Those things will continue to exist with or without those laws.

Of course homophobia will still exist, but at least you could recognize that passing  Hate Crime Laws will reduce violent attacks towards gays?

[Maxwell]

1) Which law exactly?
2) Hate crime legislation would have of course no interest if homophobia didn't exist. But homophobia exists and I believe that the law shall be made in relation with reality. Homophobia is still a problem, and this "hate crime legislation" towards a more "gay-friendly" society. I would oppose this passage if homophobia didn't exist, but that's not the case!

Hate crime laws do very little to reduce racism or homophobia. Those things will continue to exist with or without those laws.

Of course homophobia will still exist, but at least you could recognize that passing  Hate Crime Laws will reduce violent attacks towards gays?

By a negligible amount, and the cost is that it continues to twist and contort our legal system and punishes people for thought crime and I don't think that's right. I want society to be friendly to people of all kinds, but hate crime laws are the wrong way to do it.

[windjammer]

1) Which law exactly?
2) Hate crime legislation would have of course no interest if homophobia didn't exist. But homophobia exists and I believe that the law shall be made in relation with reality. Homophobia is still a problem, and this "hate crime legislation" towards a more "gay-friendly" society. I would oppose this passage if homophobia didn't exist, but that's not the case!

Hate crime laws do very little to reduce racism or homophobia. Those things will continue to exist with or without those laws.

Of course homophobia will still exist, but at least you could recognize that passing  Hate Crime Laws will reduce violent attacks towards gays?

By a negligible amount, and the cost is that it continues to twist and contort our legal system and punishes people for thought crime and I don't think that's right. I want society to be friendly to people of all kinds, but hate crime laws are the wrong way to do it.

Our legal system won't implode because of that! Hates crimes law are necessary. The other aspect is of course symbolic. If you push for hate crimes laws about homosexuality, it just shows a desire made by the Midwest Government to fight against that. Symbols are a large part of politics too!

With or without this part, I will still sign this bill though.

[Brewer]

I propose an amendment to eliminate Subsections 1 and 2 of Section 2. A crime is a crime, and the status quo should be preserved in this instance. Hate crime laws criminalize thought, do they not?

[Senator Cris]

I propose an amendment to eliminate Subsections 1 and 2 of Section 2. A crime is a crime, and the status quo should be preserved in this instance. Hate crime laws criminalize thought, do they not?

I support the Brewer's proposal.

[LeBron]

1) Which law exactly?
2) Hate crime legislation would have of course no interest if homophobia didn't exist. But homophobia exists and I believe that the law shall be made in relation with reality. Homophobia is still a problem, and this "hate crime legislation" towards a more "gay-friendly" society. I would oppose this passage if homophobia didn't exist, but that's not the case!

Hate crime laws do very little to reduce racism or homophobia. Those things will continue to exist with or without those laws.

Of course homophobia will still exist, but at least you could recognize that passing  Hate Crime Laws will reduce violent attacks towards gays?

By a negligible amount, and the cost is that it continues to twist and contort our legal system and punishes people for thought crime and I don't think that's right. I want society to be friendly to people of all kinds, but hate crime laws are the wrong way to do it.

That thought is reality though. Look at Cleveland's Jared Fox who was attacked by a group of men outside a known gay bar by them and ended up injured while they shouted homophobic slurs at him. Common sense suggests that wasn't done just because they wanted his money and wanted to beat some random guy up, but they saw an easy target in this gay guy and hated him enough because of his sexuality that they decided to do what they did.

The problem is, there are several other cases of this and usually these perpetrators don't think before they act and should be persecuted based not only on the crime of robbery and physical brutality itself, but the fact of understanding that these crimes may have never happened if the circumstances had been different with the group of men standing in front of a straight bar with a straight guy walking in. We need to make sure the LGBT community feels protected by our public officials and furthermore that they feel justice and equality is holding up in the courts.

As for Brewer's amendment, I'm against the revised version since it would cross out a key part to the bill.

[windjammer]

Brewer?

[Brewer]

If you look at my amendment, you see why I oppose the bill. I have a fundamental opposition to hate crime laws, and that's really all there is to it.

[windjammer]

If you look at my amendment, you see why I oppose the bill. I have a fundamental opposition to hate crime laws, and that's really all there is to it.

You seem to have misunderstood what I wanted to say. When will you propose your amendment?
I support hate crime laws, but in order to pass this bill, I'm willing to compromise. So I'm waiting for your amendment!

[Brewer]

I propose an amendment to eliminate Subsections 1 and 2 of Section 2. A crime is a crime, and the status quo should be preserved in this instance. Hate crime laws criminalize thought, do they not?

[windjammer]

I propose an amendment to eliminate Subsections 1 and 2 of Section 2. A crime is a crime, and the status quo should be preserved in this instance. Hate crime laws criminalize thought, do they not?

I encourage you to do something like that when you want to propose an amendment. Thanks, it can be a bit confusing!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative Adam C. FitzGerald

[Maxwell]

This is progress, but again, I don't think Fred Phelps or the Westboro Baptist Church should be evicted, in spite of their terrible views. An amendment that gets rid of that last sentence would be great.

[windjammer]

This is progress, but again, I don't think Fred Phelps or the Westboro Baptist Church should be evicted, in spite of their terrible views. An amendment that gets rid of that last sentence would be great.

Could you explain your opposition to the last article?

[Maxwell]

This is progress, but again, I don't think Fred Phelps or the Westboro Baptist Church should be evicted, in spite of their terrible views. An amendment that gets rid of that last sentence would be great.

Could you explain your opposition to the last article?

Sure.

I believe that Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church have every right to espouse their crazy beliefs, as it is their right to free speech. That right should not be infringed upon by the state. That last sentence would be unconstitutional, plain and simple.