|
Why We Love to Hate
"Hate
Crimes" Legislation
Palmer Hasty
The so-called "hate crimes" legislation
currently pending in the Senate (S.1105) is a severe violation of the
Constitution, and if it ever reaches the President's desk, it should be
vetoed with a sledgehammer.
Hate crimes legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with improving the
methodology of deterrence, or anything to do with improving, the process of
prosecuting a crime.
In fact, we strongly believe the purpose of hate crime legislation is to
intentionally, and ultimately confuse what we understand to be, and how we
might control, the real meaning and purpose of criminal prosecution in our
democracy.
We believe that hate crime legislation is an attempt to distort the very
foundation of our criminal justice system, so that it deceitfully supports
nothing more than a form of social engineering based on a minority group of
people's mere preference for anal-sex, which the vast majority of
normal Americans correctly believe to be morally wrong, and to be the
unspoken and media driven centerpiece for promoting the psychological
degeneration of modern man.
It is both unconstitutional and absurd because it proposes to protect with
special laws, a condition of behavior that revolves around nothing more than
a deviant sexual act.
As the website Traditional Values pointed out: One amendment would
provide increased penalties against a criminal who kills a homosexual or a
drag queen, without providing the same statutory value to the penalties
against a criminal who killed a father or a mother with four young children.
The kind of mind that would attempt to justify such pathetically surreal
arrogance is not the mind you want writing the laws of the nation.
The numbers do not remotely warrant that Congress should do something
legislative to address this issue anyway.
As noted in a Special Report by Traditional Values; "FBI hate crimes
statistics reveal that out of 11.9 million crimes in the United States in
2003, there were only 7,489 reported hate crimes against all categories
(race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation).
Of the 7,489 hate crimes, 1,430 were "sexual orientation" related crimes;
six murders, three forcible rapes, 162 aggravated assaults, 446 simple
assaults, and 433 cases of intimidation." As Traditional Values points out,
"intimidation" is primarily name-calling.
Do not misinterpret this essay, a real, violent hate crime is a terrible thing, but the prosecution itself
is based on the crime, not the so-called motive. Hate, greed, passion,
psychological and monetary desperation are some examples of motives for violent
crimes; but the legal system is correctly designed to punish the crime, not
the motive. The motive, or the lack of motive, is used to reinforce
and validate whether or not the person committed the crime, therefore
proving guilt or innocence.
Even if hate crime legislation was really
about an attempt to improve crime prosecution, which, as we have explained
we believe it is not, it would still be unnecessary and impractical: From
the legal perspective, it would create countless layers of chaos and become
a comprehensive invitation for the abuse of justice.
It is important to keep reading because it gets much worse.
As we have said, this legislation is
really about the homosexual community via Congress, trying to legalize the
indoctrination of normal people with a social engineering regime.
For example, homosexuality is a "behavior" and as Traditional Values
pointed out, "not a fixed characteristic like race." Hate crimes legislation
would elevate a behavior to the status of a minority race. That is precisely
the reason that family values oriented black people are insulted when
homosexuals equate their social battles with normal society as an issue
comparable to racism.
The Russian chess master Garry Kasparov, recently published an essay in
BusinessWeek magazine wherein he criticized Putin's thought-control
oriented Government as it pertains to freedom of expression in Russia on the
Internet.
Several of Kasparov's criticisms are relevant as to what the current hate
crimes legislation really is about, how it should be viewed, as well as what
it leans toward.
"In a totalitarian society every message is directly shaped or thoroughly
checked by the regime.... Topics, people, even specific words are banned
from the airwaves."
As recent as June 22nd of this year, in their newsletter the Family
Research Council (FRC) revealed excerpts from a letter written by the
co-sponsors of the U.S. House version of S.1105. Representatives John
Dingell (D-MI) and Edward Markey (D-MA) sent a letter to the Commerce
Department urging a federal investigation into "the role of
telecommunications in the dissemination of speech that may encourage or
advocate hate crimes." To determine whether "current uses of
telecommunications media" may "convey messages of bigotry or hatred,
creating a climate of fear and inciting individuals to commit hate crimes."
As Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council said, "…the purpose of "hate crimes" laws
is to attribute violence to certain ideas as a way of attacking and
ultimately outlawing those ideas, among them, that homosexual conduct is
wrong and unhealthy."
For example: TV executives who exercise the right to allow and TV producers
and advertisers who exercise the right to present the homosexual lifestyle
in subtle forms of visual codes via advertisements and not-so-subtle
situation comedy on the nightly sitcoms, yet, as grownup conservative
viewers who perceive the tactic, we do have the right to change the channel, or
just turn the TV off. But what hate crimes legislation is really
trying to do, behind the deceitful disguise of being an effort to improve
crime, is to take away the normal person's right to freedom of speech and
freedom of thought, especially when that thought is based on religious
faith.
In other words, in a manner of speaking, hate crimes legislation wants to
take away our right to even change the channel or turn off the TV, because,
under the new hate crime laws, a gesture like that could be classified as
motivated by hate, and therefore it would be a "hate crime."
If you think that is an exaggeration, please think again and consider the
example from Oakland, California, where the situation and the venue is
different, but the modus operandi is the same.
Several months ago we posted a blog item on this website pointing out how
the anal-retentive homosexual thought police operate in the workplace.
In February of 2005 in Oakland, California, an African-American Christian
woman was threatened with termination at her job with the City of Oakland.
She and a co-worker posted a flier from a group called the Good News
Employee Association, which promotes traditional family values. The City of
Oakland claims that references to "natural family, marriage and family
values" constitute hate speech and frightens city workers.
As reported in a local newspaper, according to the lawsuit, gay and lesbian
city workers had already been using the city's e-mail bulletin board, and
written communications systems for promoting their views to other workers,
including the plaintiffs.
Her attorneys argued her case before a panel of judges from the Ninth
Circuit Court in February of this year.
The full text of the flier posted reads as follows: "Preserve Our Workplace with
Integrity: Good News Employee Associations is a forum for people of Faith to
express their views on the contemporary issues of the day: With respect for
the Natural Family, Marriage and Family Values."
The text was posted in response to an e-mail sent to city employees
announcing the formation of a gay and lesbian employee association.
At the time of the posting the city manager (a man) and the deputy director
of the Community and Economic Development Agency (a woman) ordered the
removal of the flier. They claimed it contained "statements of a homophobic
nature" and promoted "sexual- orientation-based harassment," even though it
made absolutely no mention of homosexuality.
Of course, hate crimes legislation is intended to make you think it is
simply codifying "non-discrimination" via congressionally mandated laws.
While the words "non-discrimination" usually sound good, an intelligent look
at this legislation reveals that it is just a front for the liberal
thought-police, who will even go beyond violating the right of free speech,
and into the equally dangerous and deceptive realm of violating freedom of
thought.
The unconstitutional "hate crimes" legislation pending in the Senate is nothing more than the
homosexual community's sinister certification of preferential treatment.
This essay
is a LightBookproductionsTEXT:June, 2007.
Some of this commentary first appeared in Blog format on this
website in March of 2007.
Note: We will be transferring this essay to our regular
Essay page in the
near future.
|
Some Parallels...
The simultaneity of several
recent news items certainly alerts one to what will probably become a more
pronounced "coordinated battle" against free speech by the liberal
and homosexual
thought police working in different venues.
The term "family values" as hate speech.
As
Bill O'Reilly at Fox News would say, this example is definitely from the "lunatic fringe."
A city employee in Oakland, California responded to an e-mail sent to all
city employees promoting a gay and lesbian employee association with a
posting of her own promoting "family values." The city
manager and the head of a city agency at that time ordered the "family
values" posting to be removed and threatened to terminate the woman's
employment. Her posting did not make any reference to homosexuality
yet the term "family values" has been designated by her superiors as "hate
speech" because it implies the normal family structure. According to
the two city officials, it was a "flier placed in public view which
contained statements of a homophobic nature and determined to promote
sexual-orientation based harassment." With "hate crime"
legislation as law, that kind of insanity could happen in your workplace.
We highly recommend you read the
entire news item on this one at LifeSiteNews.com
The homosexual point people for judicial
battles, Nan Aron and Ralph Neas, have further poisoned the judicial
confirmation process with the same tortured "hate crimes" logic.
From a June 7 Wall Street Journal
editorial. A judge being nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals, who is, as the WSJ said, "so uncontroversial that last fall the
Judiciary Committee unanimously approved him for a district court judgeship"
is currently being held up by liberal critics because they found (after
searching 7,000-plus rulings) that he joined a majority ruling (he did not
write the opinion) on a case involving a lesbian who did not get custody of
a child. Since the ruling was based on several valid factors which
included the mother's behavior, liberal activist Ralph Neas apparently could
not rationalize that it was only her "homosexuality" that caused the court
to refuse her custody, so he applied the same tortured logic that informs
"hate crime" legislation, calling the majority's use of the phrase
"homosexual lifestyle"... "troubling."
The gay lobbying group Human
Rights Campaign said that the phrase "denigrates" their members.
And this becomes the back door rationale for trying to block the
confirmation of a super qualified judge who has never been considered so
conservative that he could not obtain unanimous bi-partisan support.
Several weeks ago on the Fox News political debate show
Hannity & Coombs, Democratic sleaze maestro Robert Schrum was promoting a new book.
Schrum made a big deal about how someone had
"overheard" Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards tell someone working in his
campaign that "those people" in a reference to homosexuals, made him
"uncomfortable." Schrum acted like he had a "gotcha" item that could somehow
harm or embarrass Edwards.
As far as being "uncomfortable" around homosexuals,
we would say: Join the crowd Mr. Edwards, that is, join the vast
majority of the American people.
What we thought was strange about the
motive for Schrum's appearance was the sickening duplicity on display.
Schrum did not hear the comment directly, and then he apparently tried to
create the pressure of scandal (from the homosexual community no doubt) by
approaching Mrs. Edwards.
Schrum was trying to do two things:
He was trying to expose the possibility that John Edwards might be anti-gay,
which would not be the right position for a Democratic Presidential
Candidate, and he was, inadvertently or not, testing the potentially legal
"hate crimes" logic on national television.
Schrum, demur as a woman,
kept implying that John Edwards might publicly owe the homosexual community
an apology, and that he would be using Mrs. Edwards (a real female) to apply that pressure.
Garry Kasparov, the Russian chess master recently published an essay in
BusinessWeek magazine where he criticized Putin's
thought-control oriented Government as it pertains to freedom of expression
in Russia on the Internet.
Several of Kasparov's criticisms are relevant as to what the current hate
crimes legislation really is about, and how it should be viewed as well as
what it leans toward.
"In a totalitarian society every message is directly shaped or thoroughly
checked by the regime....Topics, people, even specific words are banned
from the airwaves."
|
