Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: We’re losing the rhetorical battle of global warming Previous entry: Not stupid, but evil, part one million

Oklahoma state senate passes bill to opt out of fed hate crimes law

Here we are, back to the land of Sally Kern, where the hot bigoted wind comes sweepin’ down the plain.

The latest piece of legislative bigotry is from State Sen. Steve Russell (R-Oklahoma City),and it’s about as low as you can go. States’ rights, peeps— let’s opt out of federal hate crimes protections!

In an amendment presented on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, gutted a bill that had been filed to create a task force to study the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association, and inserted language to make changes to the state’s hate crime statutes.

Under the new provisions of Senate Bill 1965, reports that were collected during investigations of possible hate crime that did not end in a conviction would be destroyed or kept by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.

Russell said the bill is meant to prevent the federal law enforcement officials from taking over a case and applying different standards when local law enforcement has already investigated a case.

Only a few senators questioned Russell about the contents of his proposed amendment. The measure passed 39-6 and now heads to the House for consideration.

When Russell introduced this concept to his peers, he stated that he had a problem with “sexual orientation” as a protected class…it’s like, you know, necrophilia.

Russell said because the government has decided to intervene on issues of morality, he is worried that religious leaders who speak out against any lifestyle could be imprisoned for their speech. “The law is very vague to begin with,” Russell said. “Sexual orientation is a very vague word that could be extended to extremes like necrophilia.”

...When asked about whether the state of Oklahoma should reject the $5 million in federal funds that the federal government would give to law enforcement agencies to help prosecute hate crimes, Russell said he thought about finding a way to pass his law while taking the money, but said it would be a compromise in the values of his bill.

Yes, that’s how much he hates teh homoseckshuelz.

You’re doin’ fine, Oklahoma!

Oklahoma O.K.

L - A - H - O - M - A

OKLAHOMA!

Yeeow!

UPDATE: The reaction by Oklahoma’s The Equality Network (TEN):

The Equality Network (TEN) is outraged by the Oklahoma State Senate’s 39-6 vote in support of SB 1965, a bill that forces state law enforcement officials to obstruct the provisions of the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Protection Act that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Using an amendment to gut the language of a bill that had been filed to create a task force to study the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association, Senator Steve Russell (R-Oklahoma City) inserted the original text of SB 2165, a bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee had declined to pass on to the floor.

The new SB 1965 leaves LGBT Oklahomans no legal recourse if they are victims of hate crimes. Not only does the state hate crimes law exclude sexual orientation or gender identity, but SB 1965 also prevents law enforcement officials from asking for federal assistance in enforcing the LGBT-inclusive federal hate crimes law. The bill does not seek to repeal federal or state hate crimes protections accorded on the basis of race, national origin, religion, or disability. Instead, it intentionally excludes only hate crimes perpetrated on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, two categories added to federal hate crimes law by the U.S. Congress in October 2009.

“Senator Russell’s bill is truly terrifying in its implications.” warns Kathy L. Williams, Ph.D., president of The Equality Network. “This legislation sends the message that violence against LGBT Oklahomans is acceptable. It also sets a chilling precedent that Oklahoma will only enforce certain federal laws and cooperate only with selected federal agencies. We believe this unconstitutional and blatantly discriminatory bill will harm all Oklahomans, regardless of their identity and regardless of whether they are victims of hate crimes.” SB 1965 will now be considered by the Oklahoma House of Representatives. If the measure passes the House and is signed by Governor Brad Henry, it will become state law.

 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 01:06 PM • (35) Comments

Pam, I recommend the new Danish noir-thriller, Terribly Happy (dir. Genz). If you want a good shudder over what’s really going on when asshats push for this:

Russell said the bill is meant to prevent the federal law enforcement officials from taking over a case and applying different standards when local law enforcement has already investigated a case.

/shudder

Comment #1: Ranylt  on  03/11  at  01:13 PM

”Sexual orientation is a very vague word that could be extended to extremes like necrophilia.”

Seriously? WTF? Every single day I think there is nothing that can shock or surprise me anymore.

Every day I am wrong.

Comment #2: Mark  on  03/11  at  01:20 PM

I wonder if he realizes what he is trying to do is unconstitutional.  I don’t mean in the pie in the sky theoretical way, I mean the “this case was decided 80 years ago” unconstitutional.  If the law goes into effect any law enforcement that destroys evidence or withholds it could be charged with obstruction of justice.  Just as the state has the right to take over from municipality authorities, so the federal government can take over from the states. 

What does he think he’s doing?  I wonder if it even crosses their minds that they spout so much “constitution” love and yet insist on trying to upset it continuously….

Comment #3: Xeranar  on  03/11  at  01:51 PM

“The new SB 1965 leaves LGBT Oklahomans no legal recourse if they are victims of hate crimes.”

This is overblown.  A crime is still a crime, it just won’t be eligible for enhanced sentencing if committed due to bigotry against LGBT.

Comment #4: anoNY  on  03/11  at  02:09 PM

What he’s doing is trying to make being a racist, gay hating jerk sound principled. Just like always. Only it’s getting worse, which is actually surprising to me. OK was never a bastion of diversity and inclusion, but it definitely wasn’t this overtly dystopic when I grew up. I have literally watched it develop into a true moral sewar over my lifetime. This is reason 400.5 why I left, and why I will never set foot in this rotten place once my parents have died.

Comment #5: Ross Lincoln  on  03/11  at  02:10 PM

AnoNY, if you think the law isn’t designed to give local jurisdictions more cover to decide a crime against someone they don’t like isn’t a crime, and then never to be questioned by the Feds for having done so, you’re either naive beyond measure, or a troll.

Thought experiment time: Imagine if this law existed during the really bad terrorism days of the Civil Rights era. Imagine that a jury of white people decide that blowing up a black church wasn’t a big deal, or more realistically, rule that the people who obviously did it didn’t do it. Laws like this are designed to ensure that the Feds cant reopen the case and send good Christian Whites to jail for crimes they committed, so long and the reprobate community approves of the crime.

Comment #6: Ross Lincoln  on  03/11  at  02:13 PM

so long AS. Yawn. Tired.

Comment #7: Ross Lincoln  on  03/11  at  02:14 PM

(snark, for the clueless)
You know G*d hates OK, that’s why all those tornados go there.

Comment #8: helen w. h.  on  03/11  at  02:16 PM

He should try harder. Okies are OG when it comes to Tornados. Earthquakes, on the other hand. Truly terrifying. Tornados I can deal with.

Comment #9: Ross Lincoln  on  03/11  at  02:23 PM

[adding Oklahoma to Utah as states never to set foot in]

Comment #10: Steve LaBonne  on  03/11  at  02:41 PM

”Sexual orientation is a very vague word that could be extended to extremes like necrophilia.”

So?  It’s illegal for people to have sex with corpses.  If someone commits that crime, it’s still illegal no matter what.  Hate crime laws won’t make it legal.  If someone likes that kind of thing but doesn’t actually participate in it, then there’s no problem.  Either way, you’re still not allowed to kill them because of it.  You wouldn’t be allowed to kill them anyway.  It’s as simple as that.

Comment #11: bananacat  on  03/11  at  02:54 PM

Just another example of the far right trying to keep all of the advantages of membership in the Union while shirking all of the duties and responsibilities that go along with it.

Fuck Oklahoma. In a sane world, they’d get their federal funding revoked just for suggesting that they shouldn’t be subject to federal authority.

Comment #12: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  03/11  at  03:15 PM

*sigh*

I really did get out in time, before the Lunatics took over the asylum.  While never a center of enlightenment, Oklahoma was not always this bad.  Twenty some years ago when I left, there were still pockets of intelligence and the crazy was under wraps.  No more, it would appear.

Comment #13: DrDick  on  03/11  at  04:05 PM

Russell said he thought about finding a way to pass his law while taking the money

That’s some good government conservative right there.
“We’d like to take your government cheese, but we don’t want to - you know - do anything.”

This is what happens when you end up with a one-party state like Oklahoma.  Any other rival politician should have had a m-f-field day with that quote.  He should be shitting his political pants right now, after having basically begged for a primary and a hotly contested general election.  This is de facto “waste of tax payer dollars”.  Any true conservative or libertarian from California to Quebec should be able to run on that quip for a thousand different reasons.

Instead, he’ll likely keep the seat completely uncontested.  Cause he’s a douche from a douchey part of Good Ole Boy Oklahoma.

Comment #14: Zifnab  on  03/11  at  04:15 PM

I seem to remember something about depriving people of their civil rights under color of law. Oh, yes 18 USC 242.

“This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. ...

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.”

If the governor signs this one, the duty of the local federal marshals i pretty clear.

Comment #15: paul  on  03/11  at  04:17 PM

What does he think he’s doing?  I wonder if it even crosses their minds that they spout so much “constitution” love and yet insist on trying to upset it continuously….

He’s a Tenther.  These fuckwits actually believe that State’s Rights outweigh the Federal Government and that they are free to secede or refuse to obey any Federal law they don’t like.

It doesn’t matter that it’s already settled case law, nor that we fought a war over this and the “State’s Rights” side lost big time.

It’s all part of the crazy, lawless bigotry that is running rampant right now.  They fully believe that they have a God-given right to insist that all of America follow fundamentalism.

The problem is, until the Federal Government smacks them down, and smacks them down HARD, they will continue to try to pull this illegal bullshit.  It’s an illegal law.  If it passes, anyone who follows it needs to be brought up on charges.

I wish I believed Barack Obama was up to the challenge.  More and more I just fear the nation is lost.

Comment #16: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/11  at  04:23 PM

So?  It’s illegal for people to have sex with corpses.  If someone commits that crime, it’s still illegal no matter what.  Hate crime laws won’t make it legal.  If someone likes that kind of thing but doesn’t actually participate in it, then there’s no problem.  Either way, you’re still not allowed to kill them because of it.  You wouldn’t be allowed to kill them anyway.  It’s as simple as that.

Haven’t you just argued against any kind of hate crime law there, catgirl?

I’m pretty certain what was done to Matthew Shepherd wasn’t allowed under the law, either.  Does that mean there’s no need for any hate crime legislation since murder is already illegal?

Not-as-hypothetical-as-we-might-like situation: Someone who is sexually attracted to children but has never committed any crimes (cf a recent Dan Savage letter) is beaten up as a kiddie-fiddler.

i, Isn’t that a hate crime?

ii, AFAIK, pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Is it covered by hate crime laws covering sexual orientation?

iii, If not, shouldn’t it?

Comment #17: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/11  at  04:37 PM

Haven’t you just argued against any kind of hate crime law there, catgirl?

No, I haven’t.  If someone has a preference for necrophilia but manages to control their desires and not commit any crimes, then it is wrong to target them specifically for it.  If they commit crimes anyway, necrophilia is not a capital offense, and even if it were, it’s not up to citizens to carry out the sentence.  If someone targets a law-abiding citizen because of a preference that they never act on, then it is still hate crime which threatens an entire community and it should be punished more harshly.

My point was that hate crime laws won’t make necrophilia legal.

Comment #18: bananacat  on  03/11  at  04:48 PM

Hey, that “murder is already illegal, so we don’t need Hate Crime Laws” is one of the prime disengenous arguments of bigots and racists. No less conflating “necrophilia” and with homosexuality, to make that argument.

Phonenician may be neither a bigot nor racist, but then it’s an unusual (ahem) argument from someone who is neither.

Comment #19: judybrowni  on  03/11  at  05:28 PM

Does anyone else’s gaydar go bing, bing, bing when viewing steve’s children-of-the corn popeyed scarey grin?

Although I have a gay brother and sister, my gaydar is practically nil: so maybe I’m mistaking a psychopath’s attempt to screw his face into a “friendly” grimace for a self-loathing closet case trying to look happy.

Comment #20: judybrowni  on  03/11  at  05:34 PM

Hey, that “murder is already illegal, so we don’t need Hate Crime Laws” is one of the prime disengenous arguments of bigots and racists

Actually, I was pointing out that that was the argument catgirl seemed to be making.  I wasn’t making it.

Phonenician may be neither a bigot nor racist, but then it’s an unusual (ahem) argument from someone who is neither.

We all agree on hate crime laws when they affect crimes against gays, mainly because we (here) don’t have a problem with gays.  It’s more interesting and instructive to consider them as they might apply to people we don’t like. 

Again - is beating up someone because they’re a pedophile a hate crime, and should it be punished as one?

Comment #21: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/11  at  05:57 PM

Oklahoma was not a bastion of liberalism before, but now that Republicans have officially taken over there is no limit to the insanity.  Every day there is another batsh*t crazy proposal to take complete control of womens’ bodies or bash teh gays or gut the government.  I agree with Mark.  I always think it can’t possibly get any worse and then it does.  I have less hope for my native state than ever.

Comment #22: OkieBlue  on  03/11  at  06:08 PM

I would think that would depend on whether you beat them up while when they were acting on the illegal and preditory sexual preference when they were beaten up. 
If a person beats up a person of another race, orientation or religion in the course of preventing a crime in progress (say a mugging or rape, which pedophilic acts are by definition) unless the motive was because they were of that other race or religion, not because they were commiting a crime, it would not be a hate crime.

Comment #23: helen w. h.  on  03/11  at  06:16 PM

judybrowni - I don’t know how finely tuned my “gaydar” is, but it’s the first thing I thought when I saw that pic.

Comment #24: Gypsy Lee  on  03/11  at  06:25 PM

You know, where I’m living, there is a huge push to consolidate government.  Doing away with township gov’t when the county is basically border to border suburban towns and villages anyway.  Or consolidating city and county gov’t when the city occupies 99% of the county,, etc. 

In these recessionary times, imagine if we could just do away with the state governments except as a local office of the federal -  what do you think?

Comment #25: phylosopher  on  03/11  at  07:18 PM

Not-as-hypothetical-as-we-might-like situation: Someone who is sexually attracted to children but has never committed any crimes (cf a recent Dan Savage letter) is beaten up as a kiddie-fiddler.

i, Isn’t that a hate crime?

ii, AFAIK, pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Is it covered by hate crime laws covering sexual orientation?

iii, If not, shouldn’t it?

Interesting question. Do hate crime laws also apply to victims attacked because someone THOUGHT they were a member of a protected class? If someone beats the crap out of a straight guy because they thought he was gay, still a hate crime, right?

As unappealing as it may sound to make pedophilia any kind of protected orientation, what about someone who gets beat up with a baseball bat because their assailant THOUGHT they were a pedophile?

Comment #26: kristin  on  03/11  at  07:36 PM

Can we just call it “Lahoma” now? ‘Cause this is really not OK.

Comment #27: Kyra  on  03/11  at  08:35 PM

kristin:  Yes, they do.

Beating up a kid ‘cause you think he’s gay, it is not an affirmative defense to say ‘but he wasn’t gay!’ the affirmative defense is ‘they didn’t know if he was or wasn’t gay, and didn’t care’.

Comment #28: Crissa  on  03/11  at  08:49 PM

If I understand correctly, hate crimes laws are supposed to punish for the second crime of discrimination as well as the primary crime of assault/harassment/rape/murder/theft/what-have-you.  Hate crimes involve attacking somebody who wouldn’t have been attacked if they were a different race/gender/orientation/ethnicity/religion/etcetera. It’s the same principle as a restaurant owner refusing to serve blacks, or a construction manager refusing to hire women—-only rather than saying “because this person is X, he/she doesn’t deserve a job on my team/isn’t fit to eat in my restaurant,” it’s saying “because this person is X, he/she doesn’t deserve freedom from harassment/isn’t fit to live.” Just as running a public establishment or business involves adhering to a social contract in which decent labor and money are good enough regardless what one thinks of the people offering to provide it or what one thinks they should be doing, existing in public involves adhering to a social contract in which people have the right to live their lives in safety and without harassment, regardless of anyone’s personal opinion on how they should be living or what they’re fit for.

A chauvinistic old douchebag who thinks women should be secretaries, nurses, teachers, or stay-at-home mothers has no business refusing to hire me to drive a truck, because his worldview does not dictate the terms of my life.  And a homophobic asshole who thinks female couples should be killed for failing to provide a man with fuckholes and clean laundry has no business killing me because HIS worldview does not dictate the terms of my life.

There’s the crime itself, and then there’s the discrimination that led to the crime being committed. The demand that “in order to not be beaten senseless with a baseball bat, you need to be something you’re not: straight” or other similar raising of the bar to be treated as a human being to something deliberately above what the victim is capable of reaching.

Comment #29: Kyra  on  03/11  at  08:56 PM

Do hate crime laws also apply to victims attacked because someone THOUGHT they were a member of a protected class?

Yes.  That’s established law.

Comment #30: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/11  at  10:17 PM

He’s a Tenther.  These fuckwits actually believe that State’s Rights outweigh the Federal Government and that they are free to secede or refuse to obey any Federal law they don’t like.

It doesn’t matter that it’s already settled case law, nor that we fought a war over this and the “State’s Rights” side lost big time.

The 10th amendment only applies in cases where the Federal Government (i.e. federal courts or the legislative branch) haven’t had to decide a case between states.  In the case of “hate crime” legislation it is protected directly under the 14th amendment.  The fact that people face less time and punishment statistically for killing a minority stacking up additional crimes even that out.  That is fundamentally WHY the law exists.  The 14th amendment also gives Congress blanket powers to enforce this amendment as they see fit.  Resisting the authority of the Federal government beyond just being a dumb move is unconstitutional in the most literal sense possible. 

I could ramble for hours about the constitution and state’s versus federal rights though I am not a constitutional historian.  But the state’s rights argument only shows up in conjunction with racism, slavery, or the attempt to restrict the powers of the people against those with money.

So in other words.  We agree. smile

Comment #31: Xeranar  on  03/12  at  02:53 AM

“Does anyone else’s gaydar go bing, bing, bing when viewing steve’s children-of-the corn popeyed scarey grin? “

My instant thought on seeing his picture was deep-in-the-closet.  It is really sad that those who are so afraid of their essential being, are often amongst the worst bigots.

Comment #32: AlisonS  on  03/12  at  03:27 AM

Actually, the problem with catgirl’s argument is that it misses the point. She’s dead on about the underlying issues, but the argument falls apart, or at least doesn’t make the point she’s trying for (and right about.)

“So?  It’s illegal for people to have sex with corpses.  If someone commits that crime, it’s still illegal no matter what.”

Until very, very recently, exactly the same thing could have been said about consensual same-sex sodomy. Phoenician is right that taken as written, her argument is against all hate crimes legislation, which was clearly not her intention.

And no, necrophila is not a sexual orientation. Nor is pedophilia. Not in the legal sense that the words sexual orientation apply to. Let’s not let the wingnuts play that game.

Comment #33: Lymis  on  03/12  at  11:50 AM

Boy, this is some dangerous, murderous nonsense.  Shame on Oklahoma if this get through the House.

Comment #34: Level Best  on  03/12  at  02:40 PM

Comment #21: Phoenician in a time of Romans on 03/11 at 03:57 PM

Again - is beating up someone because they’re a pedophile a hate crime, and should it be punished as one?

My first objection to the argument is that it would equate pedophilia with race or ethnicity.  Whatever the causes are for pedophilia, people so inclined can choose not to act on it.  Whereas nobody chooses their race or their ethnicity.  This objection gets a bit shaky when you consider post-op transgenders, however, so lack of choice clearly not necessary condition, but I think it’s a good one to have in the menu.

The second objection is that somebody who acts on pedophilia necessarily causes actual harm to somebody other than themselves.  This is why it is a crime, whereas homosexuality or sex-change operations are not so.

The third objection is that crimes against pedophiles do not cause an undesired chilling effect, as crimes against racial, ethnic or sexual minorities do, for two reasons: (a) pedophiles don’t constitute a community like minorities do, (b) pedophilia is illicit, and even if we do not approve of violence against pedophiles, when such violence happens we are not liable to object to its effect on discouraging it.

Comment #35: sacundim  on  03/13  at  02:43 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.