What's Wrong With "Anti-Hate" Laws?

Hatelawsexposed.org ^ | Ted Pike

[Jay777]

Almost everybody is against hate. So what's wrong with the huge federal "anti-hate" bill, "The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act," which was rejected by Congress, Oct. 8th, but will surely be reintroduced this spring?

The problem is the government's definition of hate. It's not the same as Webster's. In its "anti-hate" educational program, the government endorses the idea that "hate equals bias against homosexuality" (homophobia).

What document is the most biased against homosexuality? The Holy Bible. Bible-believing evangelical Christians are thus the ultimate target of the twisted definition of "hate" upon which the federal hate bill is based.

If the LLEEA is passed this spring, it will begin to criminalize criticism of homosexuality. It will quickly broaden to address the grievances of homosexuals, not just concerning physical safety from violent hate crimes, but emotional safety. Through enabling legislation and judicial precedent, hate crimes will soon come to mean "hate speech", just as it does in Canada, Sweden, France, Ireland, etc.....

[StonyBurk]

agreed -I have seen what they did (or tried to do) to
a guy named John Paulk -who was homosexual and changed.
In a stupid moment of weakness -he decided to test his
new faith and freedom and stopped by one of his old haunts-
the reprobates made a big deal of it and tried to say he
had not changed but was still cruising.James Dobson and
focus on the family stuck with him though.There are many more stories like that. The sodomites loved Dr.Laura
Schlessinger when they could use her radio show to promote their decadant lifestyle when she decided to live by the Torah-- they turned and tried to destroy her.

[DustyMoment]

I reject this differentiation based on presumed motive. It is the physical crime that incurs the social debt, not the motivation.

As do I. But, IMO, the whole point of "hate crime" laws is to give lawmakers justification for being.

Currently, for a "free" nation, we are the most legislated nation there is. Our elected representatives have created a set of draconian laws that regulates our every movement . . . . including reaching into our bathrooms and legislating how much water we can use per flush.

With over 20,000 active laws governing guns and gun crimes, you would think that gun crime had been eliminated from our streets and, yet, it remains the most common. But, come tomorrow, another politician will put his or her name on another bill to control guns or gun-related crime. The whole point isn't to provide protection from criminal activity, it's to give legislators something to point to and tell their constituents "see what I did?"

If we couldn't eliminate or enforce the laws 19,000 gun laws ago, what good has adding the additional 19,000 laws done? If we couldn't eliminate or enforce the laws that are now being "enhanced" under the umbrella of "hate crime legislation", what is the purpose of writing them? To presume that hatred is the motivation is absurd and naive.

While we may agree on the absurdity of the "hate crimes" laws, our approaches to them remain different. The fact that WI's first prosecution under these laws was of black men is an anomaly, not the norm. The normal application is only against white Christian (and I'll go you one more, here) heterosexual men.

[Faraday]

I agree entirely that the point of the "hate" crime laws is to divide society by pitting various ethnic groups against one another, as well as sexes, and sexual orientations. The assumption on the left is that hatred of white, Christian, heterosexual men is justified, and will therefore, not fall under a "just" "hate crime" law. But what is even far more dangerous than these ridiculous laws, imo, is a judiciary willing to arrogate itself the sole ability to define the "meaning" of any law or "right." A partial (as in biased) judiciary makes the operation of a Republic impossible.

[DustyMoment]

We concur.

[dljordan]

This has been coming for a long time. I remember people on this site shouting "tin foil hat alert" when this type of possibility was mentioned. I think the gays are just one of the special interest groups being used as an excuse to bring in more and more restrictive legislation on public behaviour, until we're wrapped so tightly in a web of un-constitutional laws that anything we do will be an offense against the state punishable by years in prison. What's really pathetic is the miserable whores in Washington that are supposed to representing us.

[dljordan]

"I agree-- I fear that if,when this goes to trial -if they
are not released -it may have unintended consequences. "

The Hopi have a prophecy that if we don't turn away from our wicked behaviour that there will come a time when the people will "hunt" their leaders throughout the land.

[StonyBurk]

The Hopi are a good people-as are most who live close to the land-- I think the problem begins when people have too
much flat surface and roadgrime replaces the dust.And one never feels the rain.

[american spirit]

You're absolutely correct and I believe it's safe to say that whatever the fedgov doesn't legislate or tax at the federal level is covered by innumerable codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, etc. created at the local level.....the purpose being to exert even more control over our activities as well as to extract even more revenues from our pocketbooks.

[rmh47]

Factors of aggravation and mitigation, such as motive, however, have always been germane to sentencing though.

Actually, motive is usually more important in supporting guilt than in sentencing. Intent is often used as a factor in sentencing, however.

[Chemist_Geek]

True, my mistake.

Establishing a separate "hate" crime is, still, not necessary.

[RazzPutin]

Is the Koran "off limits" for hate crime legislation?

[rmh47]

Establishing a separate "hate" crime is, still, not necessary.

I concur completely.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

The problem is the government's definition of hate. It's not the same as Webster's. In its "anti-hate" educational program, the government endorses the idea that "hate equals bias against homosexuality" (homophobia).

BINGO!

If you want on/off the list let me know.

[26lemoncharlie]

The Hate Crimes Laws are nothing more than the implementation of the Values set forth in the European Socialist Manefesto. They undermine our Gurantee of Freedom of Speech by the Constitution. The Hate Crimes were put into law to do just that. We have the right to Hate just as we have the right to Love. The Constitution of the United States is slowly but surely being replaced with the Socialist Version of the European Constitution, read it for yourself:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318061/posts?page=6#6
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318038/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318034/posts
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1254190/posts

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

These laws have nothing to do with "Free Speech," "thought crimes" etc. Those concepts are red herrings. These laws reflect the creation of a privileged class(Status Laws). The true analogue are the medieval laws of class standing i.e. a person that struck a lord was fined one hundred pounds. The same blow to a peasant cost 30 pence. The politicians are rewarding these pathologicals;either for their past vote or in the hopes of getting their future vote. At least the ancient Lord had legitimacy.

[vox_freedom]

Excerpt from last Sunday's Epistle (ROMANS 12 (6-16) (1962 Missal, Latin Mass, emphasis added):

Hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good: loving one another with the charity of brotherhood: with honour preventing one another: in carefulness not slothful: in spirit fervent: serving the Lord: rejoicing in hope: patient in tribulation: instant in prayer: communicating to the necessities of the saints: pursuing hospitality. Bless them that persecute you: bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that rejoice, weep with them that weep: being of one mind one towards another; not minding high things, but consenting to the humble place.

[jimfree]

Anti-hate laws are worse that anti-speech laws. They are anti-thought. The two essential rights are to person and property. This digs a bit too far into person.

[John O]

The normal application is only against white Christian (and I'll go you one more, here) heterosexual men.

Christian includes as part of it's definition, heterosexual. You cannot be both a 'homosexual' and a Christian as to be a Christian you must repent of your sins and the practice of homosexuality is a sin.

Anyone who calls themselves a 'homosexual' or 'gay' has not repented of that sin and is not a Christian

[Jay777]

Actually I disagree respectfully. Anti-hate laws are anti-speech laws. Untill the invention of mind reading devices come around, my thoughts are private until I share them through speech. So...these laws restrict speech, not thought.