Posted on 10/26/2002 8:03:07 PM PDT by USA21
How S625 Will End Freedom of Speech.
Congress is set to vote on the most dangerous threat to your freedom yet. This bill, deceptively called the 'Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001" or S625 (HR 1343). S625, is a new federal "Hate Crime" bill that will directly lead to the criminalization of politically incorrect speech.
Hate Crime Laws: Making Criminals of Christians
Learn more Here's how:
S625 will create a federal "anti-hate" bureaucracy, empowering the government to establish its definition of a "hate crime" - one which gives favored status to homosexuals and minority groups. S625 also enhances penalties for "hate crimes," providing up to ten years prison for those who physically harm a member of a protected groups. This bill imposes federal hate laws on the states, meddles with states' enforcement of them, and punishes states that lag behind the federal hate crime agenda.
Result: states can no longer reject "anti-hate" laws. The government will impose its new definition of a "hate crime" on all Americans - like it or not.
What is the new federal definition of a "hate crime"? In 1990, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (HCSA) made verbal "intimidation" a hate crime. The government defines "intimidation" as bias- motivated verbal threat, with intent to harm.
Who decides if "bias" or "verbal threat" has occurred? Not a judge or jury. If police believe that you, from bias motives, have verbally threatened a minority or homosexual, then, according to HCSA, a "hate crime" has occurred. There is no due process of law.
S625 will vastly increase the power of the government to enforce its definition of a "hate crime" over the rights and opinions of states. It will encourage liberal judges and legislators to broaden the definition of "intimidation" to protect homosexuals, not just physically, but from "hurtful words." Such legal precedent will, in itself, become law.
Thus, S625 leads directly to broaden intimidation laws, making anyone who hurts the feelings of a minority or homosexual into "hate criminals." Result: free speech is over and you go to jail.
ONE EXAMPLE:
While our judicial system indulges the right of Jews to describe those who criticize them as "anti- Semitic," or homosexuals to deride Christians as "homophobes;" yet, with the passage of "anti- hate" laws, there is zero tolerance for a white male who might let slip a verbal slur against protected minorities.
A glaring example of such hypocrisy is going on right now in a landmark "hate crime" case up for trial on Dec. 17, 2001, in Payefte County, Idaho.
It all started when Kimberly Rae, photographer for the local newspaper, the "Adams County Record," angered a black referee by taking his picture without permission. The referee, grabbing her from behind, tried to wrestle the camera from Mrs. Rae, causing strap burns on her neck. He was interrupted in his assault by husband Lonnie Rae, who forcibly separated the referee from his wife.
After her assailant removed himself to the locker room, Rae shouted after him, "Tell that nigger to get out here, 'cuz I'm gonna kick his butt." However, after taking his wife to the hospital to be treated, and filing charges for assault and battery - guess what? - the authorities refused to press charges against Mrs. Rae's black assailant. Instead, they charged Lonnie Rae with "malicious harassment," a felony under Idaho's "anti-hate" law.
Under most of the "hate crimes" laws, which have been passed by forty-nine states, "bias motivation" must be proved. Was Lonnie Rae biased? Under extreme provocation, Lonnie Rae let slip the "n" word. But there is no evidence that his anger and threat were motivated by bias against blacks. There is compelling evidence that he was motivated by outrage because his wife had been assaulted, injured and deeply shaken.
If a white referee had attacked his wife, he would undoubtedly have reacted just as impulsively, substituting an insulting, yet different epithet. In fact, "threats" similar to "Get out, becuz I'm gonna kick your butt" are probably exchanged dozens of times every Saturday night in the bars of Idaho, with no thought of criminal charges.
What makes Lonnie Rae's case different? He uttered a word with connotations of oppression and contempt for a member of a federally protected group. "Thought police" consider such expression of bias by a white man very, very bad - much worse than a 230+lb, 6'3" black man grabbing a 5'3" white woman from the back, mauling and insulting her. As a result, the state of Idaho is prosecuting Rae as a hate criminal. The penalty? Up to five years hard time.
Edgar Steele, feisty anti-big government lawyer from Sagle, Idaho, is defending Rae without charge, determined to take the case to the Supreme Court, if necessary. It is vital that Steele and Lonnie prevail. Why?
The strategy of the "thought police," in both the United States and Canada, is: first, enact what seem to be reasonable anti-intimidation laws, banning "bias-motivated" verbal intimidation; second, broaden them by prosecuting and winning flimsy cases, like the one against Lonnie Rae.
Thus, corrupt local judges and bemused juries lay down legal precedent, extending the net of whom may be entrapped under the original "anti-hate" law. In the end, mere name-calling, causing "hurt feelings," becomes the basis for felony prosecution and imprisonment.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Far too many people have pulled out of the system saying that it is thoroughly corrupt. That may be true; but by giving up, you have left the entire system in the hands of those who would deprive us of our rights.
Take the time to make a few simple telephone calls to your elected officials to let them know that you want them to vote NO to this attack on our freedom. We need your help now!
Contact your member of Congress now. First, you need to find out who your US Representative and Senators are for your area. Members of Congress only listen to comments from constituents from their district.
If you have never contacted your elected officials before, EURO offers an excellent guide called, "How to contact your elected officials". This guide explains how to call, write or visit your elected officials and explains the legislative process.
You can find your members of Congress by simply calling the Capitol's main telephone number 202-224-3121 and giving them your zip code. They will tell you who are your Representative and Senators. You can also find this information online at: http://capwiz.com/yo-demo/home/
BEFORE YOU CALL
Here are a few tips on contacting your elected officials.
You can also find this information online
1. When you call your Congressman you will get an aide, not your official. These aides are there to take your call. Many of them will not agree with you, so do not make them your enemy. They are there to pass on a simple message for you.
2. Always be polite and to the point. Do not ramble on. Keep your comments simple.
3. Do not forget to give your name and address. This will prove that you are a real constituent.
Here is an example:
"Hi, my name is ________ and I am a constituent. I would like to leave a message for (Senator or Representative) _______. I want him/her to vote NO to S625 (HR1343). I strongly believe that this bill will criminalize politically incorrect speech and selectively target European-Americans. Again, my name is _______ and my address is ______________ and I want (Senator or Representative)_______ to vote NO to S625 (HR1343). Thank you."
Congress has created so many laws that virtually every person is assured of breaking more than just traffic laws. Surely, with all this supposed lawlessness people and society should have long ago run head long into destruction. But it has not.
Instead, people and society have progressively prospered. Doing so despite the federal government -- politicians and bureaucrats -- creating on average, 3,000 new laws and regulations each year which self-serving alphabet-agency bureaucrats implement/utilize to "justify" their usurped power and unearned paychecks. They both proclaim from on high -- with complicit endorsement from the media and academia -- that all those laws are necessary, "must-have" laws to thwart people and society from running headlong into self-destruction.
How is it that people and society have managed to increasingly prosper last year, the year before and decades prior without having each year's 3,000 new laws? But suddenly each year the people need 3,000 new laws. Why will people and society not run headlong into self-destruction this year despite not having next year's 3,000 new laws, or the 3,000 new laws in 2004?
Would you care to enlighten us as to when this "SET TO VOTE" is to take place? Got any ideas?
Maybe I'm not reading them right, but could somebody explain exactly how these bills relate to the statements in the article? I'm not in favor of this bill, either version, but don't find it to be the great threat presented here (I may be wrong, which is why I asked for an explaination).
Besides, with conservative republican hero Bush in office, it will be vetoed if passed. The same way clinton would have vetoed any conservative bill that weakened hate crime legislation.
Where the hell are the judges who should be slamming this "hate crime" crap as unconstitutional via the 1st. Amendment? There lies the REAL battle.
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.