Posted on 05/29/2004 2:00:51 PM PDT by John Lenin
Like a bad penny, the proposed federal "hate crimes" law just keeps coming back.
It doesn't matter that there is no evidence that crimes against homosexuals are prosecuted any less vigorously than crimes against other victims. It doesn't matter that actual crimes against homosexuals have declined in recent years.
Liberal GOP Sens. Orrin Hatch, Utah, and Gordon Smith, Ore., are planning to bring up a new version of the Kennedy-Smith federal "hate crimes" law, which has been filed as an amendment to the defense authorization bill.
Proponents of the Hatch-Smith bill insist that their version seeks to empower state officials to better handle "hate crimes" and that it mitigates the more radical aspects of the Kennedy-Smith bill. But it still endorses the concept of "hate crimes," greatly expands federal power and will lead inevitably to "thought crimes."
Let's agree that we're all against hate and abuse of anybody. Nobody in America should live in fear. That is what the criminal law is for, and there is no evidence that it is not working. But "hate crime" laws are fraught with the possibilities of abuse.
Such laws create a multi-tiered system of justice, in which some crime victims' cases are taken more seriously than others, thus violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Seeking federal dollars, police and prosecutors will define more and more cases as "hate crimes." Expect such crimes to soar. After California enacted a "hate crimes" law, incidents went from 75 to 2,052 in four years.
In a media- and dollar-driven situation, your grandmother's mugging will not receive as much attention as the "hate crime" committed against a homosexual. Both victims deserve the full protection of the law, but the one that snags the headlines will get more of it.
All citizens who treasure freedom and the fundamental protections afforded by our legal system should see the latest drive for a federal "hate crimes" law for what it is: a sop to the homosexual lobby, fresh from its victory in Massachusetts, where weddings no longer require a bride.
But the real danger of "hate crime" laws is that they criminalize thoughts and beliefs. The law should concern itself only with actions. Prosecutors must prove intent, but examining underlying beliefs goes far beyond that.
Let's go to the bottom line: The federal "hate crimes" bill lays the groundwork for persecution of Christians in this country.
Homosexual activists have redefined any opposition to homosexuality as "hate speech." Laws already criminalize speech that incites violence. It's easy to imagine a scenario in which any incident involving a homosexual can be blamed on people who have publicly opposed homosexual activism.
Imagine what the activists could have done with a "hate crimes" law in 1998, when Matthew Shepard was beaten to death by two bar-hopping thugs in Wyoming. Everybody from Katie Couric to the San Francisco city supervisors blamed the killing on a "climate of hate" fomented by conservative Christians. Their evidence was newspaper ads from the "Truth in Love" campaign, in which former homosexuals told their stories of hope and redemption. Pure hate, according to the liberal chattering classes. Now they want to put teeth behind their charges.
Because of the publicity surrounding Mathew Shepherd's death, the state spent a small fortune prosecuting the case and handling media. By contrast, the rape and murder of 8-year-old Kristin Lamb, whose body was found in a landfill that same year, did not burden the state in the same way. Should Mr. Shepherd's killers receive justice? Absolutely. And they did. But Kristin's case should be at least as important and disturbing.
"Hate crime" tabulation can be quite misleading. Even though crimes based on religion constitute the second-highest category, according to the FBI, many such crimes go unreported. Some property crimes against churches are listed merely as "vandalism," not as "hate crimes."
In Tulsa, for instance, someone wrote the words "kill" and "death" on the walls of a Catholic elementary school. According to civil-rights attorney Leah Farish, the perpetrator also wrote "messages referring to devils and to sex with Christian girls. Pentagrams and the number 666 appeared as well. But the police said, 'It is not a hate crime per se. In order for it to be a hate crime, it has to be an act of malicious intention.'"
In Cleveland, Farish notes, shots were fired at a synagogue, "but these were not reported as hate crimes either." Can you feel the love yet?
A "hate crimes" law can lead to "thought crime" as is found in totalitarian countries and increasingly in Western nations that have fallen into the trap.
In Canada and Sweden, it is now a "hate crime" to criticize homosexuality in any fashion. Canadian broadcasters are forbidden to air any critical discussion of homosexuality. Private citizens and public officials have been hauled before "human rights" commissions and threatened with fines and jail time. In Sweden, a pastor was arrested at his church after he read Bible verses about homosexuality.
The "gay" lobby is frank about its desire to persecute Christians in America in just the same way, and this "hate crimes" bill is a key step in that strategy.
During the Supreme Court hearings in 2000 on the Boy Scout case, pro-life Rev. Rob Shenk was sitting in the audience next to the White House liaison for "gay" issues. Thinking the pastor was a fellow liberal, the woman whispered, "We're not going to win this case, but that's OK. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots."
This isn't a slippery slope; it's a luge ride toward totalitarianism.
If you value the freedom to speak our minds, you might want to let public officials know in no uncertain terms how you feel about politicians who aid and abet the effort to create "thought crimes."
tyranny
What these guys really want to do is stop punishing crime, unless it is motivated by hate. Massacre 30 people, you get slapped on the wrist. But if you first make a racial slur, they just may drop their opposition to the death penalty.
Congress is writing any laws they want.
And our justice system is going along with it.
Congress is destroying America's Constitution.
I wonder if they get bonus pay for every piece of legislation they introduce or sign on to. Or maybe they want to look like they are doing something important, even when they could serve the country just as well by staying home and contemplating their navels. They are out of control.
Still, congress doesn't deserve all the credit for making stupid, useless and blatantly unconstitutional laws. They have plenty of help from their friends in the judiciary.
Needed: The Uncongress.
Any computer user has come to learn the utility, yea the necessity of the UNDO button. The human body has scavenger cells that circulate and remove dead tissue. At present the courts have taken over the job of relegislating the law, and are doing a bad job of it, being insulated from popular will. Congress should be repealing bad law. But they are too busy making new law.
Suggestion: The Uncongress. Its members campaign and are elected like congress, but their purpose is not new law, but to repeal remove delete old or bad law. Say any law two years old for which the passage of time has made it clear that the law was not so bright is eligible for uncongress repeal. Congress could reenact the law immediataely, and another two years would need to pass before uncongress could remove it.
D. C. is too crowded; put them in Kansas or at population Center.
Hate crime is thought crime.
Wait until your neighbor turns you in for some comment you may or may not have made.
I'll second that! Can I nominate you as our first uncongressman? ;)
A Christian friend of mine had great job performance appraisals, until a new gay boss was hired. He's now being fired for failing to meet her standards. For every gay ran off the job by straights, there are 5 straights ran off by gays.
This whole "Hate Crime" concept is a stab into the heart of law. Now, instead of judging a man on his actions, he is judged on his thoughts!
Worse yet, the analysis of the value of these thoughts is left not to a jury of twelve, who can only determine guilt or innocence; but to a single judge, who determines the final sentence. Imagine the 9th Circuit Court weighing in on a "Hate Crimes" case. Can you say "Crimes Against Socialist Thought"?
I cannot imagine it. Here in Anchorage, where I live, a man has been charged in a murder, with the femail victim being buried in a shallow grave to hide the crime. Doubtless she was raped, and the murder and subsequent burial was a coverup.
Now, perhaps the liberal 9th Circuit would go easy on the murder, claiming it was a "Love Crime". Seeing how that court leans, that is a very real possibility, if the case somehow made it to their docket.
Here, let's replay the grisly details:
Murder to victim - "Hey baby, If I can't have you, nobydy can!" and gun goes "Bang!" ('love' crime)
or...
Murder to victim - "Hey you. I don't know you, I just got paid for this job." and gun goes "Bang!" (ordinary crime crime)
or...
Murder to victim - "Hey you f'ing (pick a racial slur of choice), I hate your kind!". and gun goes "Bang!" ('hate' crime)
So how is it that version 3 deserves a harsher sentence than versions 1 or 2?
Okay, let's say you come up with a rationale for version 3 being worthy of a harsher sentence. Now, let's follow the logic out: If version 3 is worth a harsher sentence than versions 1 or 2, then isn't the portion of version 3 which differentiates it from versions 1 and 2 worthy of the penalty which is greater than versions 1 and 2?
IN OTHER WORDS: MERELY SAYING THE RACIAL SLUR IS WORTH A FEW EXTRA YEARS IN JAIL.
Sorry for the all caps, but that is the only way to make it clear: Honest analysis of 'hate crimes' legislation can lead to only one conclusion: The future will include a lot of jail time for those who disagree with the New Order.
Please sent him home
The Secrets of Surveillance
By ELAINE CASSEL
Everyone knows by now (or should) that the Patriot Act allows the FBI to conduct surveillance on Internet and email usage. Using so-called National Security Letters (NSLs), the FBI directs Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide passwords and identifying information that will allow the government to target people who are plotting terrorism or who are otherwise potentially dangerous to national security. I am sure that many of you reading this (and I, likely) have the government in our computers.
The same mechanism of NSLs is used to obtain information from librarians, health care providers, and business records of individuals and entities. The party from whom the government demands information is forbidden from telling the client that the FBI is being provided information. And the target of the investigation won't know about it until or if he or she is arrested for crime or detained without a charge (say, as a material witness).
Until now, we did not know much about how the government goes about this procedure. Now we do. Thanks to a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in New York in behalf of an unnamed ISP. The government has tried mightily to keep the entire suit under seal, but the federal judge has allowed the ACLU to release some information about the case.
Following is a report on the case, with some interesting heretofore unknown details. Never has the ACLU needed your financial support more. Clearly, it is the only thing standing between us and our fascist government. Read the briefs and supporting documents in the case.
"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) yesterday released more information about the heavily censored legal challenge it is bringing against the government's use of a controversial provision of the USA PATRIOT Act that allows the FBI to obtain from businesses sensitive personal information about their clients. Among the documents unsealed today is a declaration by the ACLU's anonymous client in the case, the president and sole employee of an unnamed Internet Service Provider (ISP), referred to only as "John Doe." John Doe is prohibited by law from revealing his identity to the public, even as he confronts the federal government over the very section of the Patriot Act that forces him to remain anonymous.
In his statement, Doe explains that his business provides access to the Internet, email accounts and space on the Web where people can post their own sites or store electronic files. He says some of his clients "are individuals and political associations that engage in controversial political speech," and that some "communicate anonymously or pseudonymously," which allows them "to discuss embarrassing, sensitive or controversial subjects without fear of retaliation or reprisal."
Doe and the ACLU are asking the court to deem unconstitutional the government's use of National Security Letters (NSLs), which allow FBI agents to demand, with no judicial oversight, personal information about clients of Internet Service Providers.
"I believe that the government may be abusing its power by targeting people with unpopular views," Doe writes. "I am challenging the constitutionality of the NSL provision in an effort to protect all of my clients' interests."
In a memorandum to the court, the ACLU wrote that the statute allowing the broad use of National Security Letters gives the FBI "unchecked authority" to require businesses to reveal "a broad array of sensitive information, including information about the First Amendment activities of ordinary Americans who are not suspected of any wrongdoing."
The memorandum continues: "The statute does not require the FBI to seek judicial authorization before demanding the disclosure of sensitive information, and it does not specify any means by which a person served with an NSL can challenge the NSLs validity before complying with it. In other words, the FBI issues NSLs without judicial oversight of any kind."
ACLU lawyers and their client are also disputing a section of the law that prohibits an entity that receives a National Security Letter request for information from telling anyone about the request. Ironically, this gag order is the same rule that prohibits the ACLU and John Doe from talking about many aspects of their case.
The ACLU challenge of the National Security Letters and the gag rule has been wrapped in secrecy since it was filed in early April this year. The civil liberties organization has been locked in constant disagreements with the government over how much can be revealed about the case. The group was not even allowed to announce the existence of the suit for over two weeks, and even after negotiating the right to publicize the case, has been subject to numerous restrictions on the kinds of information it can disclose.
Numerous words, sentences and entire sections of the documents related to the suit, which are posted on the group's website, remain blacked out.
Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy Daniel Bryant defended the gag order last week at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing, saying it prevents people from interrupting terrorism investigations. But critics say the secrecy rule is designed to keep the public in the dark about the government's invasion into people's constitutionally protected privacy.
"It is particularly troubling," writes ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero in a statement to the court, "that while the ACLU ... [has] been gagged from discussing the NSL power, President Bush and representatives of the FBI and Justice Department are engaged in a public campaign in support of the Patriot Act. The gag provision silences those who are most likely to oppose the Patriot Act. [We] believe we have the right to inform the public of a great deal of the information the gag is suppressing."
In filings with the court, Both Romero and Doe described the self-censorship they had been forced to engage in when asked by others about the National Security Letters in general or the case in particular.
"The government has now prohibited the disclosure of my name and my company's name in connection with the case," said Doe. "They have provided no further clarification about what I can and cannot say." He says that he has found it difficult to have normal conversations. "[I] used to discuss topics related to politics and current events, but now I feel wary when I communicate ... I have steered clear of numerous topics of conversation as I am afraid.... The gag has put me in a very compromising situation, as I do not want to be dishonest in my communications [words blacked out] but also do not want to violate the gag."
Romero said that not only is the gag order affecting how he and other staff at the ACLU can talk about the case, but it is having an impact on the broader activities of the organization, which has been actively engaged in educating and organizing against the Patriot Act since the law's inception in late 2001.
"[T]he scope of the gag in this case, and the refusal of the government to clarify what is prohibited, is intolerable," he writes. "The gag has severely disrupted our ordinary course of business... More importantly, the public and even members of Congress are denied non-sensitive information essential to public and legislative debate that is at the heart of democratic self-governance."
In his statement, Doe explains that his business provides access to the Internet, email accounts and space on the Web where people can post their own sites or store electronic files. He says some of the his clients "are individuals and political associations that engage in controversial political speech," and that some "communicate anonymously or pseudonymously," which allows them "to discuss embarrassing, sensitive or controversial subjects without fear of retaliation or reprisal."
hate crimes are a joke and should be unconstitutional...
they have never been applied evenly anyhow.
solid analysis.
i can't criticize cakeboys?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.