Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Oct 22nd, 2009 :: 5:50:25 to 5:58:15
Total video length: 9 hours 37 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:146 Duration: 0:07:50 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Jim DeMint

5:50:22 to 5:50:43( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: the markets. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina is recognized. mr. demint: president. i rise in opposition to the hate

Jim DeMint

5:50:25 to 5:58:15( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jim DeMint

Jim DeMint

5:50:44 to 5:51:04( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: crimes provision that has been inserted in the defense authorization conference report. first of all, of course, because hate crime legislation has nothing to do with the defense department or with national security. hate crimes actually has nothing to do with crimes or with hate.

Jim DeMint

5:51:05 to 5:51:26( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: it is very cynical that this bill that funds our soldiers who are fighting f our constitution and our country actually undermines the very principles that they're fighting for. there are many practical problems with this report's hate crimes legislation.

Jim DeMint

5:51:27 to 5:51:47( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: the broad language will unnecessarily overextend federal law enforcement personnel. it will undermine the effectiveness and confidence of local law enforcement. and it will create conditions for arbitrary and politicized

Jim DeMint

5:51:48 to 5:52:08( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: prosecutions of certain cases. i want to focus, basic fundamental problems with any federal hate crimes legislation. the rule of law requires opposition to this principle or

Jim DeMint

5:52:09 to 5:52:29( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: this idea that we treat crimes differently. let me first state the obvious, hate crimes are wrong and that's why they're already illegal. that's why they're already prosecuted. that's why the rights of victims are defended by law enforcement authorities at every level of

Jim DeMint

5:52:30 to 5:52:50( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: government. strictly as a matter of justice the hate crimes provision in this report isffensive. it suggests that violence committed against certain kinds of victims is worse, more in need of federal intervention and swift justice.

Jim DeMint

5:52:51 to 5:53:11( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: i'm sure most parents of a minority, homosexual or victim would appreciate the extra concern. but the other side of this concern is the implication of these crimes committed against a nonspecial person should have less punishment. and where does that leave the vast majority of victim's

Jim DeMint

5:53:12 to 5:53:33( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: families who because of the correctness are not entitled under this legislation to special status and attention. how can a victim's perceived status or the perpetrate over's perceived opinions -- perpetrator's perceived opinions possibly determine the sefort severity

Jim DeMint

5:53:34 to 5:53:56( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: of -- severity of a crime. the 14th amendment gives all citizens equal the law. these hate crimes provision create a special class of victims whose protection of the law will be, in orwell's phrase, more equal than others. and if some are more equal than

Jim DeMint

5:53:57 to 5:54:17( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: others, some must be less equal. it is then inevitable that this hate crime provision will create the very problem it purports to solve. this provision will also move our nation a dangerous step closer to another orwellian concept, thought crimes.

Jim DeMint

5:54:18 to 5:54:38( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: it would criminalize certain ideas and that those ideas involvement in a crime will make the crime more deserving of prosecution. the problem, of course, is that policians are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal and which canadians right now live under

Jim DeMint

5:54:39 to 5:54:59( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: this kind of regime where so-called human commissions operatingutside the normal legal process prosecutes citizens for espousing conditions that the commissioners disagree with. today in the united states only actions are crimes.

Jim DeMint

5:55:00 to 5:55:20( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: if we pass this conference report, opinions will become crimes. what is to stop us from following the european countries and american college campuses where certain speech is criminalized? can priests, pastors, and rabbis be sure their preaching will not be prosecuted if it says certain

Jim DeMint

5:55:21 to 5:55:42( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: things are right and wrong? again, in canada, for instance, pastor steven bosock was so prosecuted by alberta's human rights commission for publishing letters critical of homosexuality. or will this provision serve as a warning to people out too loudly about their

Jim DeMint

5:55:43 to 5:56:04( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: religious views less federal agents come knocking at their door? what about the unintended consequenc such as pedophiles and sex offenders claiming protected status under this provision there's no such thing as a criminal thought only criminal acts.

Jim DeMint

5:56:05 to 5:56:25( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: once we endorse the thought crime, where will we draw the line? and, more importantly, who will draw that line? under existing law if my own children were attacked in a violent crime, justice would demand that their attackers be pursued no more or less than

Jim DeMint

5:56:26 to 5:56:48( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: attackers of any we all say we want color blind society, but we cannot have a colorblind society if we continue to write color-conscience laws. our color can't expect to treat people equally if the law, if our ruling not according to the content of

Jim DeMint

5:56:49 to 5:57:09( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: their character but according to race, sex, ethnic identity or gender identity. i urge my colleagues to consider the implications of what we're doing. just the raw cynicism of attaching this type of controversial legislation to the

Jim DeMint

5:57:10 to 5:57:31( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: bill that funds the defense of our country, w legislative -- what type of legislative distortion will they have next? i have a choice to vote for hate crimes that would undmine the very justice system in our country or vote against the

Jim DeMint

5:57:32 to 5:57:52( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: defense of my country. i don't think that we could be more cynical. i urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report until and unless the equal justice is upheld and the report's hate crimes provision are removed. i thank you, madam president,

Jim DeMint

5:58:05 to 5:58:15( Edit History Discussion )

Jim DeMint: an mr. demint: i note of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid