Posted on 05/01/2007 11:24:42 PM PDT by epow
The Thought Police
By Chuck Colson 5/1/2007
What the Hate Crimes Law Would Do
In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, the government Thought Police constantly spies on citizens to make sure they are not thinking rebellious thoughts. Thought crimes are severely punished by Big Brother.
1984 was intended as a warning against totalitarian governments that enslave and control their citizens. Never have we needed this warning more urgently than now, because America’s Thought Police are knocking on your door.
Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill. It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It’s not even about crime. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.
Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property. Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals—far less than even 1 percent.
Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States.
If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.
In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.
This is the unspoken goal of activist groups. We know this because during the debate over the bill last week, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to this hate crimes bill. It asked that nothing in this law limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. The committee refused to adopt it. It also refused to adopt amendments protecting other groups from hate crimes—like members of the military, who are often targets of verbal attacks and spitting. They also shot down amendments that would protect the homeless and senior citizens, also often targeted by criminals. Nothing doing, the committee said—the only group they wanted to protect: homosexuals.
Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy.
The full Congress may vote on this bill as early as this week. Unless you want Big Brother telling you what to say, what to think, and what to believe, I urge you to contact your congressman immediately, urging him or her to vote against this bill. If you visit the BreakPoint website, you’ll find more information about this radical law.
If we do nothing, 1984 will no longer be fiction, and Big Brother will be watching you and me—ready to punish the “wrong” thoughts.
Nope, nothing there to suggest that Democrats in Congress are simply catering to a wealthy special interest group, no siree.
If this Bawney Fwank bill passes, Bush will have to get out that rusty veto pen again now that he seems to be catching on to how it works.
“and Big Brother will be watching you and me—ready to punish the “wrong” thoughts”
Don’t plea bargain. Demand a jury trial. Ever heard of jury nullification? Juries don’t have to enforce a law they think is unjust. Its a last ditch protection given us by our Republic’s founding fathers.
Some animals are more equal than others and get special protections under the law that are not granted to the politically incorrect party members.
Arrest Congress.
This is the Post-Enlightenment--or Anti-Enlightenment: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought--in fact, liberty itself--are scorned and oppressed. Conformity is diversity. Freedom is oppression. Groupthink is liberalism. Newspeak is the language of the free press and the university. War is peace. Love is hate.
Orwell was a prophet.
Now people understand why we are allowed to bear arms.
Since homosexuals make up about 1-2 percent of the population they are just getting their fair share of the assaults. If you believe the gay propaganda that the population is 10 percent then homosexuals are getting far fewer assaults than the general population.
Since homosexuals make up about 1-2 percent of the population they are just getting their fair share of the assaults. If you believe the gay propaganda that the population is 10 percent then homosexuals are getting far fewer assaults than the general population.
Sorry for the double post. Need -— more -— coffee.
http://www.fija.org/
This garbage, I believe, would be the brainchild of the Michigan Stalinist John Conyers.
This guy is dirty up to his eyeballs and has verifiable connections to both moonbat and communist organizations. It shouldn’t be too difficult for Republicans to bury him in his own Marxist statements and actions.
The perverts want us to believe their totally bogus 10% of the population lie, but not believe the verifiable crime report statistics. They can’t have it both ways, and the crime report is based on hard numbers while the 10% lie is based on nothing more than their wishful thinking.
Yes I have, but I doubt that even 5% of the potential jury pool has. But if it's mentioned in a courtroom the judge will usually lie and tell the jurors they have to base their decision strictly on the evidence and imply that they will be punished somehow if they decide to nullify the law in question.
I know whereof I speak because I saw and heard that happen when I was a prospective juror at a trial in FL for a man charged with pot possession. We were questioned by both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer before th trial got underway about our thoughts regarding the drug law that the defendant was accused of breaking. When one of the jurors expressed doubts about the constitutionality of the law in question he was dismissed from the jury. Then the judge proceeded to sternly lecture the rest of us that we were not allowed to question the constitutionality of the law that the defendant was accused of breaking, but only whether of not the accused had broken it. He didn't threaten us directly, but he definitely gave the impression that we would be asking for trouble if we didn't do as he said.
I was so disgusted by his implied threat that I resolved then and there that the defendant was not going to be convicted by a unanimous decision even if I believed he was guilty. I still don't know how the judge thought he could read our minds and see what we actually based our decision on. Maybe he thought he was omniscient like God is, at least that was the impression I got.
BTW, I didn't have to decide anyway because the trial was delayed and then rescheduled, and when it came up again I was not in the jury pool. I heard later that the accused man was found not guilty.
Not that anything I said before is important now that 25 years have pssed since that experience, I just don't want to post false information on FR no matter how trivial or irrelevant it may be.
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.