Anti-bullying bill shot down in Illinois because the GOP thought it was gay.

[Direckshun]

A pathological fear of homosexuality.

Little more than that.

http://www.suntimes.com/12707687-761...omosexual.html

State Senate rejects anti-bullying bill amid conservative fears it is ‘pro-homosexual’
BY CHRISTOPHER WILLS Associated Press
May 22, 2012 4:56PM

SPRINGFIELD — A push to make Illinois schools adopt more detailed policies to prevent bullying fell short Tuesday in the state Senate amid concerns that its real purpose was to lecture students on embracing homosexuality.

The measure fell one vote short of passage, although it could get another chance in the remaining days of the legislative session.

The bill would have required anti-bullying policies to include a definition of bullying and a statement saying it was against the law. The policies would have spelled out how allegations could be submitted anonymously and how they would be investigated. Policies also would have been required to describe what could happen to students who bully others, such as counseling or community service.

Some conservatives feared the bill would be used as cover to indoctrinate students. The Illinois Family Institute lobbied for an “opt out” provision that would let students and teachers skip any lessons or events that violated their religious beliefs.

“There are some programs that are not just against bullying in general. Some of them tend to have an agenda of being pro-homosexual,” said Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon.

The legislation would not require schools to offer programs on bullying or homosexuality, but McCarter said it would be a step toward such a mandate.

Supporters denied it would open the door to promoting a particular viewpoint on homosexuality or any other issue. They noted it specifically includes language saying the bill isn’t meant to interfere with anyone’s freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, said it would make no sense to include an “opt out” provision because there’s nothing specific for students to skip. The bill requires schools to adopt more detailed policies, she said, but it doesn’t require particular lessons or assemblies.

The measure needed 30 votes to pass but got only 29, with 12 senators voting “no” and 12 voting “present.” Steans said some supporters were absent, so she’s optimistic it could pass if called for another vote.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It is not clear to me at all that the bill would have done that at all.

Unless I'm mistaken, you're just inventing that. Based off the similar invention the Illinois GOP made that clarifying anti-bullying policies promotes the homosexual agenda, or whatever.

What other "details" would they want in the rule that don't already exist that does not denote a specific group?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

It is. And it's shameful IMO.

There is a deeper issue here. It's something similar to the notion of "thought crime" but still distinctly different. It's the notion that intent of the perpetrator is a prime factor in deciding punishment. It can work in some situations. Off the top of my head, when one person kills another. I would rather have a system of laws that are clearly written and easily interpreted though.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

What other "details" would they want in the rule that don't already exist that does not denote a specific group?

From the OP:

The bill would have required anti-bullying policies to include a definition of bullying and a statement saying it was against the law. The policies would have spelled out how allegations could be submitted anonymously and how they would be investigated. Policies also would have been required to describe what could happen to students who bully others, such as counseling or community service.

The idea that this is in any way what you were describing earlier just points to your and the GOP's kneejerk tendency to turn anything they possibly can into a tirade on homosexuality.

The GOP resistance to this bill is fear-mongering, and pathological. So is your enabling of that resistance.

Good luck with that. It's why you're going to lose in November.

[Iowanian]

Everything is considered bullying these days. It's so watered down, I pretty much assume someone using the word is just being a douche.

It's mostly overblown hyperbole.

If young people don't learn how to deal with adversity and difficult people, they'll never be able to stand up when they're older and in the real world.


Part of true free speech is hearing things you don't like or that you find offensive on occasion.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

From the OP:



The idea that this is in any way what you were describing earlier just points to your and the GOP's kneejerk tendency to turn anything they possibly can into a tirade on homosexuality.

The GOP resistance to this bill is fear-mongering, and pathological. So is your enabling of that resistance.

Good luck with that. It's why you're going to lose in November.

I am not running for anything in November. There are already laws on the books regarding mental and physical abuse by one individual to another. I also don't care what members of the GOP think about this. I am my own man with my own thoughts. I don't belong to a politcal faction or special interest group or victim group. My "resistence" to this bill is that it's completely not needed because there are already laws ont eh books about it.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

Everything is considered bullying these days. It's so watered down, I pretty much assume someone using the word is just being a douche.

It's mostly overblown hyperbole.

Bullying is, in many ways, worse today than it was when you and I were running around in gradeschool. You and I could just get away. After school, for instance, we could theoretically just go home and not be bothered by it any more. You can find a few friends that get along with you and just do that.

Social media has been a bullying game changer. It has allowed for bullying and the psychological damage it does to be pervasive and never ending. You can't get away from it, and even the friends you have are more tied into the rest of the population that bullies you.

If you want to deny that bullying does psychological damage in the short- and oftentimes long-term, that's on you, but you're swimming against a very strong intellectual tide.

If you want to admit that bullying does psychological damage, then prolonged, constant, all-encompassing exposure to it can make kids' lives hell today in ways you and I could never have experienced.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The bill would have required anti-bullying policies to include a definition of bullying and a statement saying it was against the law. The policies would have spelled out how allegations could be submitted anonymously and how they would be investigated. Policies also would have been required to describe what could happen to students who bully others, such as counseling or community service.

The idea that this is in any way what you were describing earlier just points to your and the GOP's kneejerk tendency to turn anything they possibly can into a tirade on homosexuality.

The GOP resistance to this bill is fear-mongering, and pathological. So is your enabling of that resistance.

Good luck with that. It's why you're going to lose in November.

I don't see anything wrong with the part you quoted. It seems to fit what I would consider "clearly written" and "easily interpreted." I would say that a public school is an environment where complimentary laws may be needed.

[blaise]

Seems like the conservative group wanted an opt out provision that would allow students or teachers to skip lessons or events. How shameful of them.
We should bully them into going.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by blaise

Seems like the conservative group wanted an opt out provision that would allow students or teachers to skip lessons or events. How shameful of them.
We should bully them into going.

Nice little whitewash, there.

[Thig Lyfe]

USA! USA! USA!

[blaise]

"How dare you ask for an opt out provision! What are you, afraid to hear it? Huh? Huh? What's the matter? Homophobe. Stupid homophobe wants an opt out."

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by blaise

"How dare you ask for an opt out provision! What are you, afraid to hear it? Huh? Huh? What's the matter? Homophobe. Stupid homophobe wants an opt out."

Isn't that exactly the case here?

Republican state senators are saying exactly that.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Isn't that exactly the case here?

Republican state senators are saying exactly that.

That they want an opt out? Yeah. I just don't see why some people want to bully them into dropping that.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by blaise

That they want an opt out? Yeah. I just don't see why some people want to bully them into dropping that.

They're specifically saying they want an opt out to get away from the pro-homosexual agenda.

I really don't know why you're whitewashing this, other than because it's the Republican Party and God Bless 'Em In All They Do.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

They're specifically saying they want an opt out to get away from the pro-homosexual agenda.

I really don't know why you're whitewashing this, other than because it's the Republican Party and God Bless 'Em In All They Do.

There's no whitewashing. They want an opt out in case the message violates their religious beliefs. Others want to force them to hear a specific message. Who's the bully?