Virginian-Pilot reporters’ beating tests standards for hate crime

Norfolk police chief Sharon Chamberlin said the beating of a white couple by a black mob of teen males was not a hate crime. [Screen snip from video of Norfolk police chief presser]On May 1, The US Report featured commentary about an editorial in The Virginian-Pilot. Columnist Michelle Washington wrote about two reporters who had been attacked by “[w]ave after wave of young men.”

In my commentary I pointed out the story appeared in the opinion section. The patient reader sticking with the columnist would learn in the final paragraphs the mob was black—“a crowd of black teenagers.” Very few national media outlets took note; one of the few who did was pundit Bill O’Reilly on his show The Factor (Fox).

Click to read more ...

Three pastors and family advocate file challenge to federal Hate Crimes Act

Commentary by Kay B. Day

Congress passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act by including it in the National Defense Authorization Act/2010. At the time Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said, “It is indeed unfortunate that we are using the brave men and women in uniform as leverage to pass hate crimes legislation.”

Months before President Barack Obama signed the Act, as the legislation bounced around Congress, I remarked that language in the Act appeared to be unconstitutional. The Thomas More Law Center appears to agree, having filed a federal lawsuit against Att. Gen. Eric H. Holder to challenge the constitutionality of the Hate Crimes Act.

Click to read more ...

HR 1913 will spend millions for an unconstitutional law

Technically, HR 1913 will provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. Sounds so simple. But this legislation will not only expand existing assaults on freedom of speech, it will also cost a bundle and further intrude the federal government into local and state jurisdictions. While the law does stipulate federal assistance will be provided “at the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency,” the language is troublesome and the costs will certainly grow beyond the $10 million estimated by the Congressional Budget Office for 2010.

The bill panders to advocacy groups and community groups with the fiscal tool every politician loves—federal grants. HR 1913 says, “In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.”

And the way the bill is worded, almost any violent crime could fit the provisions of HR 1913 governing “offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.”

Click to read more ...