Hate Crime Bill

[truthnlight]

“Hate Crime” Legislation in the
U. S. House of Representatives Poses
Dangerous Threat to Christians

Imagine for a moment that your Pastor was sent to jail for making the following statement: “The Bible teaches that homosexuality is an abomination.”

In the U. S. House of Representatives today is a bill that would lead us in that direction as a nation.

H. R. 1592 is a so-called “Hate Crimes” bill that begins to lay the legal framework for just such an atrocity.

Under the cloak of preventing hate-crimes this legislation will:

• Criminalize any speech that is critical of homosexuality or cross-dressing behaviors deeming it as “hate speech” by claiming that such speech “incites” violence against homosexuals and cross-dressers.

• Give homosexuals and cross-dressers status as a federally-protected minority. These behaviors will be considered equal to race under the federal law.

• Elevate alleged incidents of “hate” against a homosexual or cross-dresser into a federal crime.

• Fund anti-Christian curriculum for children K-12, through the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to promote homosexuality and cross-dressing as normal behaviors.

• Be used as a tool to advance the homosexual agenda recognizing homosexual behavior as a civil right requiring government protection.

Follow Up on Status

Of “Hate Crimes” Legislation

(1) The U. S. House of Representatives passed the bill 238-180.

(2) The U. S. Senate will now take it up. We do not yet know the day when

   they will vote, but as it stands right now they too will pass it. (We will 

   lose). It is listed as S.1105 in the U. S. Senate. Introduced by Sen. Ted 

  Kennedy it is now in the judiciary committee awaiting a vote. Go ahead 

  and contact your two U. S. Senators too.

(3) The White House has indicated that it is likely that the president will

  veto it. But we cannot assume he will. (He has only used the veto twice 

  in over six years).

We need to let him hear from us!

White House Contact Information:

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20500

E-mail: president@whitehouse.gov

Comment Line: 202-456-1111

 

[KarenNC]

We’ve already addressed the fact that this sort of information does not reflect the reality of the legislation listed. Take a look at my post from last week

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2385146&postcount=29

In it, I include links to the actual texts of the legislation.
snopes.com/politics/sexuality/hatecrime.asp (the Snopes page on this)
and the texts of the legislation
thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1592_ih.xml
govtrack.us/congress/bill…bill=s110-1105

"Under the cloak of preventing hate-crimes this legislation will:
• Criminalize any speech that is critical of homosexuality or cross-dressing behaviors deeming it as “hate speech” by claiming that such speech “incites” violence against homosexuals and cross-dressers.
• Give homosexuals and cross-dressers status as a federally-protected minority. These behaviors will be considered equal to race under the federal law.
• Elevate alleged incidents of “hate” against a homosexual or cross-dresser into a federal crime.
• Fund anti-Christian curriculum for children K-12, through the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to promote homosexuality and cross-dressing as normal behaviors.
• Be used as a tool to advance the homosexual agenda recognizing homosexual behavior as a civil right requiring government protection.

This is even worse than the fear-mongering material that was passed on in the original thread “What is this World Coming To?”. Please go to the links I provided in the post I mention. Show me the specific language in the bill that will do any of the above.

As I said before:
The bill reads: “Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person–”

I see only mention of bodily injury. So, unless the ministers are planning to beat up, shoot or firebomb homosexuals from the pulpit, I have to say I don’t see the concern at this point.

I see no mention of education at all, much less an “anti-Christian curriculum for K-12.” The word “speech”, much less “hate speech,” does not occur in the legislation.

 

[Publisher]

We see the RR engage in such deciet and “fear mongering” all the time…“lying for the Lord” comes to mind…to greatly exagerate a falsehood to get a response…amazing those who profess to beleive in “truth” engage is such things…

 

[truthnlight]

I have my own reasons for opposing such bills, which generally can be summarized as opposition to the government having “thought police”.

The dragging death of Mr. Byrd was a horrific crime, and I’m entirely in favor of the courts handing out very stiff sentences to those convicted of such crimes. However, I believe that it is a horrific crime regardless of whether the motivation was hatred. Perhaps it is appropriate for the court to consider the motivation in determining an appropriate sentence. But it is not appropriate for lawmakers to pass laws that distinguish crimes based on specific categories of hatred.

For instance, suppose a hate crimes law bans torturing and murdering people due to race, gender, religion, or sexual preference. And suppose that your child, parent, spouse, or anyone close to you gets murdered not based on a hate category listed in the hate crimes law. Perhaps the murderer just didn’t like the victim’s clothing or taste in music. So the murderer can not be charged under the hate crimes law and receives a lesser sentence than if the murderer was motivated by race or sexual preference. Does that seem fair?

Or, worse yet, a hate crimes law could just broadly cover hate crimes without any explicit definition of what those are, and leave the determination to the courts and juries. This violates a key principle of Rule of Law, that a citizen should be able to know whether a proposed course of action violates the law. You might say “so what, we’re talking about murderers”, but vague laws are often used for purposes far different from the original intent.

As far as I know, every state or local jursidiction in the US is already covered by laws concerning assault, battery, homicide, manslaughter, etc. If those laws do not provide for suitable sentencing for those convicted, the laws should be changed in a general and broad manner, not by instituting thought control.

 

[truthnlight]

Then there was the 2002 case of Mark Harding, a man who committed the unpardonable sin of distributing pamphlets in which he was critical of Islam. A Canadian court sentenced Harding to two years probation and community service under the direction of one Mohammad Ashraf, general secretary of the Islamic Society of North America. His service involved being indoctrinated with Islamic ideas by Ashraf, who emphasized that if Harding said anything negative about Islam or its Prophet Muhammad or failed to follow Ashraf’s instructions, he would be sent back to prison.

Of course, we are all so sure this could never happen here. We have our First Amendment guaranteeing us freedom of speech, after all. But with Supreme Court Justices embracing the notion that our Constitution can be interpreted in light of international law, it may just be a matter of time. For, there are deeds, words and thoughts, and the ultimate goal of any fervent social-engineer is to gain control over the last of those. Punishing thoughts as expressed through action – otherwise known as hate-crime laws – is the first step. The next logical move is to punish the most direct expression of thoughts: speech. This is why this pattern of moving toward an Orwellian oblivion should be broken.

Hate-crime laws should be abolished. Hate them, hate them with a burning fire of a thousand suns. For, to hate them is to love freedom.

 

[truthnlight]

This is why we see our neighbor in the great white north descending into what can rightly be called fascism. You see, Canada is proceeding down the hate-speech road, and its rather heavy-handed, euphemistically-named “Human Rights Tribunals” have assiduously been imposing an orthodoxy upon the people. Case in point: in 2003 Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, was found guilty of “inciting hatred” and was forced to pay 1,500 Canadian Dollars to each of three homosexual men who filed a complaint against him. His “crime”? He took out a newspaper advertisement that included four Bible citations pertaining to homosexuality.

 

[Publisher]

So, the misrepresentation of the “Hate Crime Bill” is justified? It seems this is what your post suggests…I am always amazed…but then nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[KarenNC]

Case in point: in 2003 Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, was found guilty of “inciting hatred” and was forced to pay 1,500 Canadian Dollars to each of three homosexual men who filed a complaint against him. His “crime”? He took out a newspaper advertisement that included four Bible citations pertaining to homosexuality.

From what I can tell, the ad
cwfa.org/articles/110/CFI/cfreport/index.htm

"advertisement in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix that consisted solely of a pictograph of two men holding hands superimposed with a circle and slash — the symbol of something forbidden — and a list of Bible verses condemning the practice of homosexuality.

The list of offending Bible verses included Romans 1:26-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. This last verse affirms: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”

The verses are as follows:
Romans 1:26-32 (New International Version)
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

If someone published an ad in the newspaper saying, not once, but twice, that I should be put to death, I, too, might interpret that as an activity demonstrating hate and advocating violence against me specifically, regardless of the source of the quotations.

 

[KarenNC]

Just for the record, the source of Truthnlight’s original post is
swordofthelord.com/archives/HateCrimeThreat.htm

One can therefore more easily evaluate the credibility of it in context.

 

[truthnlight]

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Worship of Molech included people burning their own children to death in fire, often by placing them in the arms of a hollow metal idol of Molech that had been heated very hot with a fire burning inside. The Ammonites were not the only ones who participated in this evil, the Israelites too became perverted by it - including wise-in-his-youth (1 Kings 3:7-12) King Solomon who became a corrupt fool (1 Kings 11:4-6) in his old age.

They burn their own children to death in fire for pleasure.Just like its done today (ABORTION ). Thank God the lord has mercy. But for how long ?

 

[KarenNC]

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Worship of Molech included people burning their own children to death in fire, often by placing them in the arms of a hollow metal idol of Molech that had been heated very hot with a fire burning inside. The Ammonites were not the only ones who participated in this evil, the Israelites too became perverted by it - including wise-in-his-youth (1 Kings 3:7-12) King Solomon who became a corrupt fool (1 Kings 11:4-6) in his old age.

They burn their own children to death in fire for pleasure.Just like its done today (ABORTION ). Thank God the lord has mercy. But for how long ?

Sorry, if you are trying to make a specific point related to the thread, it’s too cryptic for me.

 

[Godfollower]

Then there was the 2002 case of Mark Harding, a man who committed the unpardonable sin of distributing pamphlets in which he was critical of Islam. A Canadian court sentenced Harding to two years probation and community service under the direction of one Mohammad Ashraf, general secretary of the Islamic Society of North America. His service involved being indoctrinated with Islamic ideas by Ashraf, who emphasized that if Harding said anything negative about Islam or its Prophet Muhammad or failed to follow Ashraf’s instructions, he would be sent back to prison.

Of course, we are all so sure this could never happen here. We have our First Amendment guaranteeing us freedom of speech, after all. But with Supreme Court Justices embracing the notion that our Constitution can be interpreted in light of international law, it may just be a matter of time. For, there are deeds, words and thoughts, and the ultimate goal of any fervent social-engineer is to gain control over the last of those. Punishing thoughts as expressed through action – otherwise known as hate-crime laws – is the first step. The next logical move is to punish the most direct expression of thoughts: speech. This is why this pattern of moving toward an Orwellian oblivion should be broken.

Hate-crime laws should be abolished. Hate them, hate them with a burning fire of a thousand suns. For, to hate them is to love freedom.

This surprised me, so I read the court’s opinion (R. v. Harding, No. C35767, 2001 O.A.C. Lexis 837, 152 O.A.C. 230 (Ontario Ct. App. 2001). The court noted the following:

The other pamphlet written by the appellant was entitled “Are all the Muslims living in Canada today TERRORSITS [sic]: This is a warning to all Canadians and their families”. The pamphlet is written as a letter to the reader, and pleads with the recipient to take a serious look at the “horrifying events that have taken place around the world regarding Muslim terrorists” because “we have the same Muslims believers living right here in Toronto”. He continues, in much the same tone as the other pamphlet, and:

• States that his motive is “to cry out to Canadians to warn them about all Muslims”;
• Warns the reader that the “objective of every Muslim living in this city” is to take over and for Canada to become a Muslim country;
• States that all other Muslims living in Toronto who do not acknowledge their desire to take over Canada are “like raging wolves in sheep’s clothing, inside they are full of hate, violence and murder”;
• Describes atrocities committed by Muslims in other countries and suggests that Muslims living in Canada “are the same as their brothers *12] in other parts of the world”;
• States that “Muslims are not peaceful people unless you live as a Muslim lives, and this is impossible for Canada, so in its blind hope for peace, Canada waits patiently for the Muslims, in sheep’s clothing, to get strong enough to shed their false clothing and to reveal the wolve [sic] underneath”;
• Suggests that “We as Canadians must try to help those who stand in the way of Muslim believers whose only wish is to control by their religion and to punish anyone they can’t control.”

Note the comments he made: (1) every Muslim in the city intends to take over the city; (2) every Muslim who denies intending to take over the city is full of hate, violence, and murder; (3) Muslim believers’ only wish is to control by their religion and punish anyone they can’t control.

That’s not merely “being critical of Islam.”

The problem here is not that the Canadian government went after a Christian who was peacefully evangelizing; the problem is the guy was practically inciting violence. Moreover, the court’s opinion specifically states that religious expression is exempt under the statute:

"(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were *5] true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

But that wasn’t an issue in the case; the defendant apparently didn’t even bother trying to claim it. He admitted every element of the offense except his “willfully” promoting hatred (he specifically admitted promoting hatred against a specific group but claimed that it was not willful). The court examined the evidence and concluded that he was, at best, “willfully blind” to the possibility that he was promoting hatred. So he was convicted.

This is not the sort of case that gives me fear that our civil liberties are in danger.

 

[Godfollower]

{Snip}.
Case in point: in 2003 Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, was found guilty of “inciting hatred” and was forced to pay 1,500 Canadian Dollars to each of three homosexual men who filed a complaint against him. His “crime”? He took out a newspaper advertisement that included four Bible citations pertaining to homosexuality.

Actually, Hugh Owens won:

[85] In my view, the core or gravamen of the advertisement is its first element - the Bible passages. As discussed above, in and *54] of themselves and as presented here, they do not violate the Code. Given the benign design of the stickmen and the somewhat ambiguous meaning of the not permitted symbol, I do not believe that the second element of the advertisement transforms the advertisement as a whole into a message which meets the Bell standard. Indeed, the stickmen element of the advertisement can be seen as understating the literal meaning of the most extreme parts of the Bible text in that it suggests certain kinds of activity are not allowed rather than suggesting that gay men should be killed.
[86] Overall, although bluntly presented and doubtless upsetting to many, the essential message conveyed by the advertisement is not one which involves the ardent emotions and strong sense of detestation, calumny and vilification required by Bell.
[87] None of this is to say, of course, that the Bible passages referred to by Mr. Owens, or any other sacred text, can serve as a licence for acting unlawfully against gays and lesbians. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited in relation to education, employment, housing, services and facilities by The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code *55] and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Criminal Code offers protection against assaults and threats of violence and, indeed, says in s. 718.2 that evidence an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on sexual orientation is an aggravating factor for purposes of sentencing a criminal offender. The entire community can and should expect that all of these legislative provisions will be actively engaged to protect the dignity, rights and the security of gay men, lesbians, bi-sexual and trans-identified persons.
V. Conclusion
[88] I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. The publication of the advertisement, properly considered in its full context, did not offend s. 14(1)(b) of the Code.
[89] Mr. Owens represented himself in these proceedings. Therefore, in keeping with the traditional practice of the Court, there will be no order as to costs.
RICHARDS J.A.
SHERSTOBITOFF J.A.:-- I concur.
SMITH J.A.:-- I concur.

Owens v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission), [2006] S.J. No. 221, 2006 SKCA 41, 2006 SK.C. Lexis 221 (Saskatchewan Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2006).

And he represented himself. So it isn’t like there was a whole lot of difficulty with his position.

 

[Booklover]

See this link about the Hate Crimes bill from the Catholic Educators Resource Center.

Vickie

 

[Jerusha]

There has to be balance in this. Reasonable judges can make a determination. I personally support such legislation.

Critical example: how many priests have had to be reassigned because of RUMORS of homosexuality?

 

[Booklover]

There has to be balance in this. Reasonable judges can make a determination. I personally support such legislation.

Critical example: how many priests have had to be reassigned because of RUMORS of homosexuality?

Did you even bother to read the link I posted? You obviously do not understand what is really at stake here.

Vickie

 

[KarenNC]

See this link about the Hate Crimes bill from the Catholic Educators Resource Center.

Well, since they definitely got one part of it factually wrong, I have to wonder about the rest of the story. The article says:
"And in Pennsylvania, 11 Christians were prosecuted under the state’s hate crime law for preaching on a street corner against homosexuality. "

However, I find:
[snopes.com/politics/religion/(name removed by moderator)ublic.asp](http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/(name removed by moderator)ublic.asp)
Only four were ever arraigned at all and the charges against them were later dropped, with the judge specifically stating that the protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights.

Also, Chuck Colson (the author of the article) says “It’s about outlawing peaceful speech” and that the Philadelphia 11 were an example of this. I don’t know about you, but when I envision peaceful speech, even while preaching on a street corner, I don’t envision screaming at people through a bullhorn and repeatedly refusing police orders to disperse. I have seen the tactics employed by a similar group, Operation Rescue/Operation Save America, first hand and I have to say I find nothing “peaceful” about it.

 

[Publisher]

It seems to me, now this is just my opinion based on interaction with many fundamentalists and conservatives, but many purposfully seek to get arrested to fuel the fire of “see what hate crime legislation will do?” Screaming “fire” or “God hates fags” is not “peaceful”…it can and has incite violence…inciting violence against a group of people should be against the law…no matter who they are.

 

[Jerusha]

Right, publisher. How else can the gov’t take down people like Phelps, when Kansas has no hate crimes law?

Are you talking about this:

Congress makes the following findings:

• (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

• (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

• (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

• (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

• (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

or this:

(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

or this:

In general.—At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that—

• (A) constitutes a crime of violence;

• (B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and

• (C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.

My basic human rights have been savagely violated because of my ancestry. I have been sexually harrassed by a wacky lesbian. A friend, a priest, left the diocese because of assumptions about him. I very clearly understand what this is all about.

If you think such legislation is bad, I suggest you step into a time machine and go back to 1935 Germany. You would fit in quite well there.

 

[Publisher]

I do not believe such legislation is “bad”…I am for the hate crimes bill 100%.

I have gay friends who have had their houses vandalized…who have been victims of violent crimes…who have been singled out specifically because they are gay and the police turn a blind eye because of it…if Germany had a hate crimes bill perhaps “Crystal Night” would not have gone unpunished…but then that was the whole idea wasn’t it…to victimize those who many called “enemy”…