Reading Your Mind

By Maurine Proctor

Hate crimes laws are one of those ideas that sound good, but like a rattlesnake, have a poisonous bite. That's why you should be alerted that this week the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act will be re-introduced in the House of Representatives. Another hate crimes bill, H.R. 254, is already being considered in committee. The Democratically-controlled House considers passage of a hate crimes bill one of their key goals during this legislative season. Maurine Proctor

Beware and be alert.

Everybody is against hate, and certainly everyone wants to see violent crime punished, but these bills pack a lot more punch than meets the eye and may affect the religious freedom of Christians. The mainstream media has virtually been silent about these bills, so don't be surprised if you haven't heard about them.

Your Thoughts were Your Own Affair

Time was - or so the theory goes - when a person's thoughts (including emotions) were his or her own affair. Sure, society would frown upon certain thoughts and even punish actions that they believed arose from "bad" thoughts. Of course, in the end, society could only really prosecute what a man or woman actually did, not what he or she thought or felt.

Ideals aside, U.S. law never totally ignored the thoughts of American citizens. For example, the law distinguishes between premeditated murder and unintentional manslaughter when deciding how to treat the death of one person at the hands of another. Even so, the law relies on the killer's words and deeds as a guide to the killer's thoughts.

Putting a New Face On It

The 1990 Hate Crimes Statistics Act and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act put a new face on discerning thought by introducing the concept of hatred.

How so? The 1990 Act (signed into law by Pres. H.W. Bush) required the attorney general to acquire data and publish an annual report on crimes committed based on prejudice of "race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity." The 1994 Act (signed by Pres. Clinton) furthered the idea of thought-based criminality by allowing sentencing judges to increase penalties for crimes determined to be motivated by hate. The Act defined a hate crime as:

"A crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

A Dangerous Step Farther

People look at this at a glance and say, what's wrong with that? Plenty. Here's the list leading up to the big one.

1. These bills substantially expand the scope and reach of federal powers to detect and prosecute crimes. Any suspicion of bias behind a crime will justify federal invasion of local law enforcement. As Reverend Ted Pike said, "The Constitution does not grant federal government the "police state privilege" of being your local law enforcement. Unless the government finds evidence of slavery in the states, jury tampering, voter fraud, or crimes involving interstate commerce (where jurisdiction is unclear), the Constitution's message to the federal government is blunt and emphatic: 'Butt out of local law enforcement!'"

2. Violent crimes already carry stiff penalties, but something mandated as a hate crime justifies much higher penalties. The bills establish a new federal offense for hate crimes and mandate separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses with the possibility of life imprisonment for crimes motivated by hatred of specific groups. Thus, these groups do not have equal protection under the law, but superior protection, a violation of the equal protection clause. The law should stress the universality of its application, not separately categorize victims by race, sex, sexual orientation or some other characteristic.

3. Here's the big one, not to be ignored. This bill opens the door to a hate crime not only being a violent act, but merely an expression of bias against these groups. If that bias motivates a crime, small or great, it becomes a "hate crime" deserving of triple penalties. It grants the federal government jurisdiction not just over violent "hate crimes" but over "hate crimes" generally-meaning that, in principle, a homosexual could claim to have suffered damages upon hearing a pastor condemn his lifestyle by reading passages from the Bible. Government in a free society should not be in the business of criminally punishing "bad" thoughts.

Does this last sentence sound extreme? It isn't. Reverend Pike said, the bill is to "prevent and respond to alleged violations," meaning "the government does not even have to wait until a hate crime has been committed but may act pre-emptively to 'prevent' crime."

In both Canada and France, legislators have been fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. In Sweden, where hate crimes laws were passed, with assurances that this would not affect religion, Pastor Ake Green, who preached that homosexuality is a sin, was put in jail for a month. Recently in Britain, a couple told how they were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian faith might ‘prejudice' them against a homosexual child put in their care. In Australia two pastors were convicted of "vilifying" Islam.

As Reed Hyde said, who helped write this report, "Hatred is a terrible thing and motivates any crime committed intentionally against another human being. In the end, however, the cure for hatred cannot lie in government sanction. Just this morning I listened to a radio preacher rail against my religion. (Am I a protected class under current and proposed hate crimes legislation?) I cannot tell if the preacher hates me or my church, but I do respect and defend his right to say what he wants against my beliefs.

"Why? Do I like what he says? No, but such is the price of liberty and the freedom to think and to feel and, yes, to worship and speak as I desire. The same applies to the crimes people commit. The crime is bad enough. Let's not put our liberties at risk by empowering the government to decide whether we have right thoughts - and, eventually - right speech as well.

Take Action:
Contact your Representative

Call or email your Representative by clicking here and following directions. Tell your Congressman that you are against Hate Crimes legislation. Here is a sample email:

Dear Representative,

I urge you to vote against the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act because it opens the door to infringing on religious freedom and freedom of speech. It also expands the reach of federal government into local law enforcement.

Please vote "NO" on hate crimes bills. They are unreasonable and unnecessary.

Sincerely,

Source: FamilyLeader.net, Maurine Proctor. Used with permission.

Filed under: Liberty, Vox Populi, Family — Maurine Proctor @ 6:15 pm

Print This Post | Other posts by Maurine Proctor

1 Comment »

My thoughts appear in my head and I ‘know’, ‘intuitively’ that they come from a giant lizard living under Ayers Rock. So arrest that scaly, green bastard, not me.
March 22, 2007 at 12:04 am · Edit
2.

The sacredness of a man’s conscience is out, the thought police are in, unless we say “Enough!” to all this. It is the “camels nose in the tent” technique. First the hate crimes are but piling a stricter sentence on soft sentencing laws - an idea with possible merit (but which could be achieved through other means - e.g., limiting the jurisdiction of a national Supreme Court system that rolled back stricter sentencing laws in the first place, even as it undercut moral foundations which would have discouraged crime). When the real objective is two-fold, a new thrust to expand federal power, and a new front in the war against America’s moral foundations. Little surprise, besides Democrats, many RHINOS put this hate crime legislation in place.
March 22, 2007 at 7:56 am · Edit
3.

Well written Steven. I’ve been watching what has been going on in Canada and parts of Europe regarding this topic myself. I just came across this and it is pretty much in line with what you have said here. It seems that some in Europe are slowly waking up too. It also seems however that things may continue to get worse before they get better but at least more and more people are seeing what is going on. The Comments are interesting too.

‘Political correctness is killing our freedoms’
By Bruno Waterfield
Last Updated: 3:40am GMT 22/03/2007

Europe’s citizens must be on their guard against political correctness and moralising politicians, says the European Commission President José Manuel Barroso in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

The former Portuguese premier and centre-Right politician is concerned that freedom can be the loser in European culture wars over climate change, cheap air travel, Islam and free speech.

“We should be aware of people who, sometimes for good reasons, try to establish what I call private moral codes, for this or that, be it climate change, religious behaviour or any kind of social behaviour,” he says.

advertisement
Mr Barroso, a former Maoist student firebrand who fought against the Portuguese dictatorship in the early 1970s, still regards himself as a freedom fighter, even when the calls for bans or restrictions are in a worthy cause, such as global warming or respect for Muslim communities.

“I was 18 years old when a democratic revolution came to my country. Before we could not read the books or listen to the music we wanted,” he says, speaking in his 13th-floor office in the Berlaymont building in Brussels. “I am radical on these matters. If there is an excess of freedom, it is better to have excess than less.” Europe has been deeply divided over controversies surrounding Islam.

Violent protests on the continent, in the Middle East and in Asia followed the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed and the Pope faced calls to apologise after a speech on theology and the origins of Islam sparked international controversy.

“We have to show respect for all communities but the fundamental right of freedom of expression is for me more important than other collective rights,” he says.

Growing up in the Portugal of the 1960s, Mr Barroso remembers being compelled to wear quasi-military uniforms. “I hate uniforms,” he says.

His own personal experience of authoritarianism has made him wary both of those who are seeking to ban the wearing of the Islamic veil and Muslims who require girls to cover up. “I think the UK has the right approach. The veil should not be banned just as girls should not be forced to wear it.

“People should be able to choose what clothes they wear - as long as they don’t go naked of course.”

As the European Union prepares to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding Treaty of Rome, Mr Barroso insists that the rights of the individual, within the law, over moral strictures from either secular or religious communities, are sacred.

“Shall we respect the rights of a community to impose, for instance on a girl, a specific way of doing things or shall we give primacy to the rights of the girl, or it could be a boy, to choose?” he says.

“I have no doubts. In the Europe I want, the right to choose has primacy.”
March 22, 2007 at 9:34 am · Edit
4.

Constitution, schmonstitution! Who the heck follows the constitution anyways? I can’t find in any authority for congress to standard toilet seat operating position. And the clause,

“…all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers…”

still doesn’t give them the power, since toilet seat etiquette isn’t among the foregoing powers.
March 22, 2007 at 10:30 am · Edit
5.

Indeed it isn’t, and we could also use more reference to the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments against such attempts to take away our freedoms - and my feeling is, we will.

1. Work on the local and state level to persuade legislators to stay away from federal money, money they can’t give unless they first take away, and never give without strings.

2. Put pressure on the US Congress and our political parties to pass legislation to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts as per Congress’ powers outlined in the Constitution. This is done all the time with administrative law (regulatory agencies, unconstitutionally by the way, have their own judicial system, ironically delegated to them via the jurisdiction clause). It is time we use it properly, by keeping the federal courts out of traditional state matters. (This step is irrelevant if we don’t cut off the federal money, because that which the federal government subsidizes, it believe it has the right to control)

3. Repeal the 17th Amendment, once again electing the Senate via the State Legislatures, making them advocates of state and property rights as per the Constitution’s intent, rather than just another political body that panders to the “mob” and the media who whip them up.
March 22, 2007 at 11:27 am · Edit

March 21, 2007

1 Comment »

Your comment