SAN FRANCISCO — Three Hayward cousins are facing hate crime charges after a man was shot in the face with a BB gun because the attackers believed he was gay, according to San Francisco authorities.
A video of the assault and other similar crimes was recorded by the attackers and is being held as evidence, assistant district attorney Brian Buckelew said.
Mohammad Habibzada, 24, Shafiq Hashemi, 21, and Sayed Bassam, 21, were arrested about 15 minutes after the shooting, when police spotted a car in the area that matched a description given by the victim. The suspects have addresses in Hayward.
Because it was committed by guys with Muslim names. You have to take heart, gays, because in the daily wingnut Two Minutes Hate, Muslims appear FAR more often than gays.
Do they know if this was specifically motivated by religious animus? Not yet. But they do know enough that
All three suspects are facing three felony counts and one misdemeanor. They include assault with a deadly weapon with a hate crime enhancement, discharge of a firearm with gross negligence, and attempted mayhem.
Okay, so they know it was motivated by anti-gay animus. First, let’s enter the mind of the wingnuts reacting to this.* In their widdle world, liberals absolutely LOVE conservative Muslims. They arrive at this conclusion because They Are Not All That Bright, and can’t compute the idea that liberals might detest the values of radical anti-everything Muslims and simultaneously** have an issue with insdiscriminately bombing the hell out of anything we please in that part of the world. They can’t grasp the idea that “not bombing” does not equal “surrender,” because wingnuts only understand force when it allows them to feel like their penises are being vicariously represented in the fight.
Hmm. “Three cousins from Hayward,” huh? Mormons opposed to gay marriage? Knuckledragging rednecks insecure about their own sexuality? But no. Instead, a little touch of old Amsterdam comes to the city by the bay.
The title of his post? ”Celebrate Diversity.” He’s absolutely gleeful that this was done by the big bad brown people from the “turrist” part of the world. It would be a valid point if we didn’t have such a long history of hate crimes against gays perpetrated by all manner of Christian/Christian-influenced terrorist born and bred right here in the good old US of A.*** But see, again, this is the weirdness of being in a wingnut brain, because people like Mark Steyn think that liberals want nothing more than to roll out the red carpet for radical Muslims.
Next up is Daniel Blatt from GayWingnut,**** who has also convinced himself that mean liberal gays don’t seem to mind when radical Muslims assault/kill gays:
Now, I certainly wouldn’t go as far as her, but she raises an interesting issue: will gay groups cover this with the same degree of frenzied fervor they would if the three men were evangelical Christians?
Um. Wow. First of all, “Jenny” is expressing a sentiment that has nothing to do with gay people, but everything to do with racism against the millions of peaceful, nice Muslims in the world, some of whom emigrate from their home countries to the United States. As I’ve said before, gay wingnuttia really has nothing to do with gay rights or equality, but rather is about taking weak Republican talking points and inserting the word “gay” into them, a la “We should listen to Bill Kristol and pre-emptively bomb all Muslim countries to death because, um, they’re mean to gays?” or “We should continue to pass irresponsible tax cuts and run the US based on discredited and disproven Laffer economics, because, um, gays with money likey the tax cut?” or “We love the anti-gay Sarah Palin, because, hellloooooo, DIVAAAAAAA!!!!!”
Right. Anyway. But secondly, Blatt is engaging in the same kind of barely-contained glee as Mark Steyn is. For gay wingnuts, Republicans and Evangelicals are the chosen people, even if said chosen people hate their guts, and all Muslims are the enemy. And they participate in the same Two Minutes Hate as straight wingnuts, so they’re essentially willing to throw themselves prostrate before people who don’t believe in their inherent dignity, because hey, at least they hate Muslims more!
But here’s the thing that completely tears their strange views about liberals to shreds, as explained by Roger Ailes (no, not the evil one):
The biggest problem Steyn has (apart from his poodle toupee) is that the men have been arrested and charged, and face enhanced punishment for committing hate crimes regardless of their religion. So [Steyn] can’t pretend that our godless liberal enclaves are under the thrall of Sharia law. If convicted, the three gentleman will recieve serious punishment, and that punishment will be enhanced because of their bigotry. And Steyn will remain free to spew his bigotry, as long as he doesn’t act on it.
The system works.
Exactly. You see, the reason gays in the West focus a lot more on anti-gay violence perpetrated by Christian rednecks is that most of the anti-gay violence in the West is perpetrated by Christians of some sort. I should point out here that arguably the most violent anti-gay sub-population in the United States are Slavic Evangelicals, who live largely just over the mountain from San Francisco in Sacramento. I wonder if Dan Blatt and Mark Steyn will go just as crazy next time one from that population murders/assaults a gay person! (Actually, no, I don’t care.)
Meanwhile, on the international front, we’ve been spending a lot of time on the anti-gay violence perpetrated by Christians in Uganda, because that’s something we can do something about. I completely grant that the hatred and violence LGBT people are subjected to in Islamic countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia is awful, but at the same time, I also know that supporting Bill Kristol’s or Daniel Pipes’ latest wet dreams about bombing the holy hell out of Islamic countries in the name of protecting their gays is beyond stupid. For one thing, their foreign policy ideas are a complete failure on all fronts. But if we’re going to talk about the plight of gays, let’s talk about the fact that the religious government that has taken root in Iraq since neoconservative wingnuts cheerled us into war with that country in the name of showing them how big our dicks are, is extremely anti-gay! Violence against gay people in Iraq has only gone up since we deposed Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a bad guy, obviously, but because he was secular, there are certain things he didn’t put up with. Women had it better under his rule, and so did gays.
The common thread here is that extremist religion is the prime motivator of anti-gay animus and violence, and if we had a Christian theocracy like many in the US dream of, we’d have a hell of a lot more anti-gay violence on our plates.
So yes, wingnuts, it’s outrageous that this happened, and the proper authorities are dealing with it. But try to conceal your pants-wetting glee over the fact that Muslims did it, because the point you’re trying to score is one that doesn’t exist outside the echo chambers of your minds.
*Canary recommended.
**Two thoughts, one brain, same time?!?!
***Oh look, radicalized conservative Jews have done stuff like this too! I guess the problem is religously-motivated hatred of ALL kinds?
****I would call it “Intellectual Chernobyl” but that’s already taken.
On the Exodus blog, Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas earlier this week defended “Pastor” David Manning, after YouTube removed Manning’s video for inciting antigay violence, encouraging blind hatred of LGBT customers of YouTube, and violating YouTube’s terms of service.
In addition to promoting hate-based violence against LGBT people, Manning encouraged a government shutdown of all non-fundamentalist media (including, presumably, YouTube).
Thomas falsely claims that U.S. constitutional protection of free speech applies to private properties such as YouTube.
Manning, Thomas, and ex-gay activist McKrae Game also falsely blame the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act for the removal, ignoring YouTube’s terms of service. That federal law only applies to sentencing following conviction for felony acts of violence.
Game added ominously, “The statement that Hate Crimes legislation was passed supposedly to protect not just homosexuals but people of faith is extremely questionable.” That, too, is a lie: The legislation was an add-on to existing law that already offers full protection to persons of faith who are subjected to felony violence. The add-on legislation reiterated that no part of the law may be used to inhibit speech.
Lies, incitement to violence, and censorship: Exodus becomes ever-more anti-Christian, indecent, apostate, and selfish in the methods with which it “equips” its Exodus Church Network to violate LGBT Americans’ lives and undermine public morality.
Meanwhile, for better or worse, it’s a free country — and YouTube can host or remove whatever it pleases.
I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again: Anti-gay organizations have a profound disrespect for their followers. It is accurate to conclude that they believe their flocks are stupid and can be counted on to not think for themselves. Thus, we see these sheep force fed obvious lies and distortions – and the membership of such anti-gay groups appear to eat it up.
To the point, the American Family Association put out a breathless article basically making stuff up about hate crimes legislation winding its way though Congress. According top the AFA:
Here’s what wrong with the “hate crimes” bill:
AFA: It criminalizes thought. For the first time in American history, criminal penalties are being attached to thoughts, not actions. Perpetrators will receive extra punishment not for what they did but for what they were thinking when they did it.
FACT CHECK: No one will be prosecuted simply for what they think or say. The law only applies if violent action is also involved. One would think that a “Christian” group would approve of this – but apparently, the AFA is opposed to all efforts to stop anti-gay violence. Furthermore, hate crime legislation is not new, it has existed for years in several states and the federal level covering categories, such as race, national origin and religion. All the current legislation would do would add sexual orientation and gender identity these other categories. The AFA would have more credibility if it worked to strip religion from existing hate crime laws.
AFA: It endangers freedom of religion and speech. Everywhere in the world “hate crimes” laws have gone into effect, they have quickly been used to harass, intimidate, silence and punish people of faith. Your pastor could go to jail if even a tenuous link could be established between a sermon on homosexuality and some act of violence.
FACT CHECK: According to the Human Rights Campaign, all but five states (Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Wyoming) have laws addressing hate crimes. Indeed, 36 states have hate crime laws that include sexual orientation. In these states – representing the vast majority of Americans – the dire warnings by the AFA have not come to pass. In other words, if you are an AFA follower, this group is lying to you and trying to scare you into giving them money.
AFA: It destroys the American principle of equality under the law. It creates a judicial caste system, in which some victims get more legal protection than others. It actively discriminates against heterosexuals by giving them less protection in law than victims who engage in non-normative sexual behaviors.
FACT CHECK: As stated above, several classes – including religion – are already covered by state and federal hate crime laws. So, the only people suffering inequality are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans who are not yet covered. The passage of this new law will change this injustice.
AFA: In a devious maneuver by Democrats, it’s attached to a Defense Appropriations bill. Our military deserves a stand-alone vote on funding.
FACT CHECK: Attaching small measures to larger bills is the way Washington works. If the AFA has an issue with it, they can’t just speak up and whine when it is bill that will protect gay people. To do so reveals that AFA is a narrow special interest group with an anti-gay agenda.
The bottom line is, if I sent such inaccurate, anti-intellectual garbage to the Truth Wins Out membership, they would laugh in my face and quit the organization. Yet, the members of The American Family Association are continuously mocked and disrespected by the AFA – yet they keep sending money and support.
Folks, get educated and think for yourself, it will change your life.
Raw Story reports that House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) opposes a hate crimes bill in Congress that would help protect against gay bashing because he believes homosexuality is not an innate characteristic.
His spokesman says, Boehner is against the bill because he “supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics.”
First, it is extraordinarily rare to find one who claims to have changed his or her sexual orientation who is not on the payroll of an anti-gay organization. Second, millions of people change religions every day. For example, a born again Christian or convert has newly embraced the Christian faith.
Of course, Boehner’s position is as illogical as his obvious prejudice against GLBT people. I strongly suggest Boehner watch a recent gay bashing in Queens and then reconsider his vacuous position.
The American Civil Liberties Union is requesting that Senate Bill 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, be amended to include additional free-speech protections that are already contained in the House version of the legislation, H.R. 1913.
Linda Paris, an ACLU spokesperson, told the Blade that [Sen. Sam] Brownback’s [free-speech] amendment is insufficient and that her organization wants the specific language found in the House version of legislation included in the final passage of the bill.
The language ACLU is seeking reads: “Evidence of expression or association of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing the impeachment of a witness.”
Paris said passage of this provision from the House bill would “reduce or eliminate the possibility that the federal government could obtain a criminal conviction on the basis of evidence of speech that had no role in the chain of events that led to any alleged violent act proscribed by the statute.”
The Human Rights Campaign contends that the legislation’s existing protection for religious speech is sufficient. Nevertheless, Chris Anders of the ACLU says House lawmakers are likely to insist upon the revision in conference committee.
The U.S. Senate voted Thursday evening to attach Senate Bill 909, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, to a defense bill which faces a potential veto by President Obama.
The measure still has a way to go. Obama has told Congress he will veto the defense bill if it includes more money for an F-22 fighter program he is trying to terminate. The House in April passed a similar hate crimes bill, but did it as independent legislation not tied to a larger bill.
The Senate bill, also sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., only authorizes federal prosecutions of hate crimes when the state or local authorities are unwilling or unable to do so. It provides $5 million in grants to state and local law enforcement officials who have trouble meeting the costs of investigating and prosecuting these crimes.
Reid, D-Nev., recalled that Laramie, Wyo., was overwhelmed by the costs of pursuing the case against Matthew Shepard, the gay college student killed in 1998 whose name is attached to the bill. “When this bill becomes law, that will never happen again in Laramie, Wyo., or anyplace else in the country.”
Supporters also emphasized that prosecutions under the bill can occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality, even if their statements are followed by another person committing a violent action.
The legislation against hate crimes has thus far survived a campaign of lies by religious-right organizations which favor lenient punishment of felony violence committed against persons whom felons assume are gay or transgender. People for the American Way has documented and refuted the religious-right deceptions in detail.
As the U.S. Senate prepares to vote on hate-crimes legislation, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council ratched up their efforts to undermine religious freedom and to treat violent crimes more leniently when they are intentionally committed against LGBT persons.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The legislation does not create a new class of crimes, but rather adds sexual orientation and gender identity to pre-existing federal law that punishes violent felonies committed on the basis of the victim’s race or religion. Excluding sexual orientation from existing law results in antigay hate crimes being punished more leniently than the same crimes committed against victims on the basis of race or religion.
Here’s the Family Research Council, lying about the hate-crimes legislation’s protections for religious speech:
The “hate-crimes” bill, being considered as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, would create a new class of crimes based on a victim’s “actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.” And, pastors who preach against homosexuality could end up prosecuted if they are found to have “induced” a hate-crime against a self-identified homosexual by preaching from the Bible.
Focus on the Family lies about the continuing rise in antigay hate crimes:
“The latest numbers from the FBI from 2007 show us there’s no dramatic increase in hate crimes across the country – and, specifically, no dramatic increase over the years in sexual-orientation hate crimes, either in raw numbers or percentages,” Horne said. “So, this bill is a solution looking for a problem.”
That’s untrue: While overall hate-crime violence declined in 2007, according to the FBI, antigay hate crimes rose six percent. (Source: USA Today.) The FBI says that violent antigay hate crimes have been occurring with growing frequency since 2005.
The Senate legislation is restricted to violent felonies. Focus on the Family falsely claims that similar laws have been used to punish speech.
Focus and FRC appear committed to undermining religious freedom by lying about federal laws that clearly protect religious liberty, and by favoring inequitable punishment for violent crime.
On June 16, six of eight commissioners for the Republican-controlled U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a letter (PDF) opposing Senate Bill 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Focus on the Family and LifeSiteNews cheered the news yesterday, falsely insinuating that the commission was liberal and lying outright about the nature of the legislation itself, Section 10 of which explicitly protects religious speech from prosecution. Focus further implied that the entire commission supported the letter.
Today, commissioner Michael Yaki — one of two Democratic appointees, both of whom dissented from the majority in a letter to Sen. Edward Kennedy — was kind enough to send a copy of the letter of dissent to Truth Wins Out.
The letter of dissent reveals the shocking truth that the commissioners failed to examine the bill or the underlying problems associated with hate crimes before they voted to oppose the legislation:
The Commission’s national office staff has done no fact-finding into the extent or damage of hate crimes in recent years. Nor, to our knowledge, has the agency’s national office staff done any analysis of S. 909 or reviewed the many forms of state hate crime legislation that have spread throughout the country in recent years.
Tbe full text of the letter is offered below. Emphasis is in the original document. (Read More)
People for the American Way’s Right Wing Watch points out that Focus on the Family holds at least two conflicting positions regarding hate-crime legislation:
A. Existing laws are OK if they only punish violent crimes based upon the victim’s race or religion, not gender or sexual orientation.
B. Existing laws are not OK.
People for the American Way asks:
Which is it? Yesterday [FOTF's Ashley] Horne thought it was perfectly acceptable to have “special status” for “certain groups,” so long as they were limited to race and religion but now says that giving “special status to certain groups” is fundamentally unfair.
The religious right already enjoys “special status” under existing hate-crime laws. It is clear that they do not wish to share that privilege with those who are at greatest risk of violent attack.
So indeed, which is it? Is Focus on the Family willing to discard its special status and call for the repeal of existing hate-crime laws, or is the organization determined to protect some privileged groups at the expense of others?
Without checking their facts, Focus on the Family and LifeSiteNews swiftly reported today that the commission had issued an authoritative repudiation of the legislation.
While the letter on the National Review web site is unsigned, a full copy of the letter is available on the USCCR web site. The letter was signed by six of the commission’s eight commissioners. Four of the signers are Republican. Two Democratic commissioners declined to sign.
The letter’s main argument — not substantiated — is that the new bill somehow enables the federal government to “re-prosecute” individuals who have been acquitted by local juries that are tolerant of violence against minorities. The letter fails to acknowledge that existing federal hate-crime law already substantially performs this function; the new legislation adds sexual orientation to the categories of victims covered by existing law.
Focus on the Family falsely stated that the commission is “not known for being on the side of social conservatives on policy issues.”
But according to critics, the federal commission has been stacked with conservative appointees for much of the past three decades. Earlier this year, Mary Frances Berry, former chair of the commission, wrote in the New York Times:
To help resolve the issue of gay rights, President-elect Obama should abolish the now moribund Commission on Civil Rights and replace it with a new commission that would address the rights of many groups, including gays.
Berry explained: “The Commission on Civil Rights has been crippled since the Reagan years by the appointments of commissioners who see themselves as agents of the presidential administration rather than as independent watchdogs. The creation of a new, independent human and civil rights commission could help us determine our next steps in the pursuit of freedom and justice in our society. A number of explosive issues like immigration reform await such a commission, but recommendations for resolving the controversies over the rights of gays, lesbians and transgendered people should be its first order of business.”
Focus on the Family also mischaracterized the commissioners’ concerns by appending an allegation by religious-rightists that the legislation — which the commissioners agree is narrowly tailored to punish violent crime — somehow punishes antigay speech by pastors. Section 10 of the bill specifically protects religious speech, and restricts prosecution to “violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.”
Neither the commissioners’ letter nor the ensuing religious-right rumor-mongering addressed an obvious concern: If the current legislation (which adds sexual orientation to existing hate-crime laws) is objectionable, then why is nothing wrong with the current laws providing enhanced penalties for crimes committed on the basis of the victim’s race or religion?
Patrick: There has always been those in the Church, like every institution and religion in the world that do bad even...
Priya Lynn: Nemesis said "Comparing him to the KKK? thats kind of low blow.".
No, its an apt comparison. The KKK believed...
Michael Airhart: Nemesis,
1. You have not documented any specific hateful statements by Evan.
2. You enjoy and affirm Peter LaBarbera's Christian pornography, as...
Patrick Fitzgerald: “Not to mention Lot himself having sex with those same virgin daughters of his after they’d fled from Sodom. (Genesis...
Gary (NJ): "Why can liberals not accept that a man does not wear a dress and that a woman does not wear...
On the 
