Canadian Judge Torpedoes 'Hate Speech' Ruling

EDMONTON — A Court of Queen's Bench judge has ruled an anti-gay letter written by a former Alberta pastor in 2002 was not a hate crime and is allowed under freedom of speech.

Justice E.C. Wilson overturned a 2008 ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission that the letter by Stephen Boissoin that was published in the Red Deer Advocate broke provincial law.

At the time, the commission said it may even have played a role in the beating of a gay teenager two weeks after it was published.

The commission had ordered Boissoin to refrain from making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and to pay the complainant, former Red Deer high school teacher Darren Lund, $5,000 in damages.

Neither order can now be enforced, as Wilson declared them "unlawful or unconstitutional."

The letter carried the headline "Homosexual agenda wicked" and suggested gays were as immoral as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps.

Boissoin had argued he was simply commenting on government policy by criticizing homosexuality being portrayed positively in the public school curriculum.

On Thursday, Boissoin said he was thrilled with the judge's ruling, calling it a victory for "freedom of speech and religious expression in Canada."

At the time he wrote the letter, Boissoin was a pastor with the Concerned Christian Coalition. He now works in the housing industry.

Lund, who is now a professor at the University of Calgary, said he was disappointed.

"I really think this is a step backwards for our province," he said in an email to The Canadian Press.

"In my view, the judge's ruling sets such strict standards for hate speech that this section is rendered all but unenforceable.

"I'm hopeful that Albertans hope to keep our communities inclusive and respectful for all people, but this ruling certainly offers no assistance in this regard. If the language contained in the letter does not meet the threshold of hateful, I am not certain what possibly would."

The Canadian Constitution Foundation, a free-speech advocacy group, issued a news release saying it was pleased with Thursday's ruling.

"Unfortunately, the law that was used against Reverend Boissoin to subject him to a expensive and stressful legal proceedings for more than seven years is still on the books," said executive director John Carpay.

That law, the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, says no one shall publish a statement that is likely "to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt" because of their sexual orientation.

"In spite of today's court ruling, Albertans need to continue to exercise extreme caution when speaking about public policy issues, lest they offend someone who then files a human rights complaint," said Carpay.

"No citizen is safe from being subjected to a taxpayer-funded prosecution for having spoken or written something that a fellow citizen finds offensive."

Source: CTV News

Hate-speech law violates Charter rights, tribunal rules

A federal law governing hate speech violates Canadians' charter rights to freedom of expression, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.

The development could give more ammunition to those who complain that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which refers cases to the tribunal, is engaging in censorship by attempting to restrict what people say on the Internet.

The decision, released in Ottawa Wednesday, also seems to call into question whether the tribunal should be involved at all in policing online content through Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

“This case raises questions about the substance of the law itself,” said Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. “This will only build the momentum for another examination of how we approach this.”

At issue was a complaint lodged with the tribunal against Marc Lemire, webmaster of freedomsite.org. Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman alleged that the messages posted on the site were discriminatory and exposed minority groups to “hatred and contempt,” key language under Section 13 of the law.

Mr. Lemire responded by requesting that the law be “declared inoperative” because it is inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis agreed. He wrote in the ruling that the law was originally intended to be “remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature,” rather than a means to hand out penalties.

Section 13 defines it as “discriminatory” for an individual or group “to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated … any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” based on characteristics such as race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on.

Advocates call the law a necessary control on hate speech in an age where the Internet makes the spread of messages easier and faster. Opponents say it's censorship and has no place in a free society.

The tribunal's decision, which will likely be appealed, is not binding beyond Mr. Lemire's case. However, it moves the debate forward, said University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon.

“It creates a new situation in which all the different legal and political actors have to think about what their response is,” Prof. Moon said.

In 2008, Prof. Moon wrote a report for the CHRC about the role of Section 13 in the Internet age that said the law should be repealed. He wrote that Internet use means that “any attempt to exclude all racial or other prejudice from the public discourse would require extraordinary intervention by the state.”

But Mr. Warman, who brought the case, disagrees.

“There is no unlimited right to speech,” he said. “The fact is, this was a hate website and it attracted hate.”

Mr. Warman cited postings by a visitor to freedomsite.org that, in a separate case, the tribunal called “as vile as one can imagine and not only discriminatory, but threatening to the victims.”

Mr. Lemire said webmasters are not responsible for content on message boards.

“It's not for the state to … decide what beliefs we can have,” he said. “People shouldn't be put through a six-year-long hearing even if they're Nazis, even if they're communists, even if they're racists.”

Bernie Farber, the CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said all hate speech is a potential trigger.

“Racist war, from the ethnic cleansing in Cambodia, to the Balkans, to Darfur, to the Holocaust, did not start in a vacuum,” he said.

“Hateful words do have an effect. … The Internet cannot and should not be a wild frontier where anything goes.”

Source: The Globe and Mail

Canadian Hate Speech Laws Ruled Unconstitutional

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on Wednesday ruled that Section 13, Canada's much maligned human rights hate speech law, violates the Charter right to free expression because it carries the threat of punitive fines.

The shocking decision by Tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis leaves several hate speech cases in limbo, and appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.

It also marks the first major failure of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, an anti-hate law that was conceived in the 1960s to target racist telephone hotlines, then expanded in 2001 to the include the entire Internet, and for the last decade used almost exclusively by one complainant, activist Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.

Mr. Warman's first big loss is a victory for the respondent Marc Lemire, webmaster of freeedomsite.org and a prominent figure in the Canadian far right.

Typically for the messy state of Canada's perennial hate speech debate, public reaction to the ruling yesterday was polarized, running the spectrum from glowing praise for the "bold" Mr. Hadjis, to criticism that his "outrageous" conclusion is "vulnerable on judicial review."

All sides seem to agree, however, that the stage is set for pitched battle in federal court, where CHRT rulings can be appealed. Another less likely outcome is for Parliament itself to repeal or amend Section 13, a law that even supporters say needs updating in the age of the Internet.

Neither the CHRC nor Mr. Warman would comment.

"No matter what happens, this decision is going to federal court," Mr. Lemire said. "This is the beginning of the end for Section 13 now. This law is 32 years old. Not a single person has ever won until today. But did I really win? I have given up six years of my life. The process is the punishment."

Mr. Warman, a former investigator for the CHRC, brought a complaint against Mr. Lemire in 2003, after monitoring his website for almost a year. He alleged that postings on the discussion forum, mostly written by others, contravened Section 13 in that they were "likely to expose" identifiable groups to "hatred or contempt." Mr. Warman later urged the CHRC investigators to expand their investigation to other websites he believed Mr. Lemire was involved with, but to "hold off on informing" Mr. Lemire "until the police take a good look at it." No criminal charges were ever filed.

In all but one case, Mr. Hadjis decided that these postings either did not contravene Section 13(1), or that Mr. Lemire cannot be held responsible for what others posted on his website.

Mr. Hadjis found Mr. Lemire violated the law in one case, by posting an article called "AIDS Secrets", written by an American neo-Nazi, which Mr. Hadjis found was "rife with hyperbole and moral condemnation. Homosexuals, and Blacks to a lesser extent, are denigrated as purveyors of a "killer" that is on the loose, agonizingly destroying the lives of American children and adults alike."

Even with this finding, however, Mr. Hadjis declined to make any order against Mr. Lemire. As a statutory tribunal, Mr. Hadjis does not have the legal authority to officially declare a law unconstitutional. But if he finds it would be unconstitutional to enforce it, he can do as he has done, which is to "simply refuse to apply these provisions."

Part of his motivation was that virtually all the offending material was removed either before or shortly after Mr. Lemire received word of the complaint against him.

"Mr. Lemire had not only "amended" his conduct by removing the impugned material, but sought conciliation and mediation as soon as he learned of the complaint against him," Mr. Hadjis wrote. "The problem had thus already been eliminated, yet the complaint continued to be processed."

Section 13(1) remains valid Canadian law, despite this ruling. Its constitutionality was last upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1990 split decision, before the Internet age.

That decision, about neo-Nazi John Ross Taylor, upheld the law as a justifiable limit on free expression largely because of its remedial, non-punitive purpose. But Mr. Hadjis found that that, today, the law "has become more penal in nature," and this renders it an unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression.

Ever since a 1998 amendment to allow the Tribunal to levy fines up to $10,000 -- payable to the government -- the pursuit of Section 13(1) cases "can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature," he wrote.

He cited Mr. Warman's request for a $7500 penalty against Mr. Lemire. Mr. Warman has won over a dozen other Section 13(1) cases, many leading to similar fines, payments to himself, and legal restrictions on Internet activity.

This criticism about a punitive law masquerading as a remedial one echoes that of Richard Moon, a law professor hired by the CHRC last year to provide an expert analysis of their online hate speech mandate. In essence, his advice was that it could not be done fairly, and so should not be done at all.

Prof. Moon said Wednesday's decision is "obviously a significant moment in the history of Section 13, but it seems like it is in some important sense inconclusive."

He said the ruling has no weight as legal precedent, and could theoretically be ignored by future tribunals, but in practice it is impossible to ignore, and it hints at a fundamental problem with the law.

"As soon as the Supreme Court confirmed that the scope of Section 13 was narrow, and confined to extremely hateful messages, then it was highly unlikely that we were going to have a kind of regular human rights process that involves conciliation between the parties," he said. "That was always something that we could have foreseen."

"We still believe Section 13 is constitutional. There seems to be some major difference of opinion within the Tribunal itself," said Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, referring to previous constitutional challenges of Section 13 that went the other way.

Marvin Kurz, legal counsel to B'nai Brith, which was an intervenor in this case along with the CJC and others, echoed Mr. Farber's question about why Mr. Hadjis did not simply "read out" the penalty section -- that is, ignore it, but allow the actual hate speech section to stand.

"Not only did he not do it, but he failed to explain why he did not consider the alternative," Mr. Kurz said. "It's like if the police act wrongly in a criminal case, you don't throw out the criminal law. That's what he's done here, and that doesn't make sense to me."

Ezra Levant, a blogger who has led the campaign against human rights hate speech law, said the ruling "shows that the CHRC has been acting illegally for many years," and it forces the Conservative government to make a "new kind of decision" about whether to appeal.

"If they launch an appeal, they are casting their lot with the censors," he said.

Pearl Eliadis, a human rights lawyer and a defender of Section 13, played down the importance of the ruling, and said Mr. Hadjis "just got it wrong. With respect, it's constitutionally not within the normal way that these provisions are dealt with." She said he should have simply ignored the offending penalty section and upheld the law.

Bruce Ryder, a constitutional law professor at York University, said Mr. Hadjis was correct to find that the penalty provision "exacerbated the chilling effect" on freedom of expression. But he said Mr. Hadjis' reasoning "broke down at the end," and he should have simply rejected the penalty provision.

He also wondered how Mr. Lemire was acquitted over the posting of an article that explicitly denied the Holocaust, which he called "outrageous and inconsistent with jurisprudence," and makes the entire ruling "vulnerable on judicial review."

Mark Steyn, a conservative author who was the target of a prominent hate speech complaint over his writing in Maclean's, said Mr. Hadjis' realized "that there is no future for Section 13 because of the damage done to it by the dress-up Nazis of the CHRC and and the sordid racket of Richard Warman."

"It makes explicit that section 13 has no friends," he said.

Source: National Post

The Anti-Defamation League’s extreme double standard in regards to ‘hate crimes’

The ADL Applauds Senate's Passage of Hate Crime Legislation. The Bill which is known as the The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, passed the Senate 63-28, and is supported by the President who will sign it into law. Organizations such as the ADL have aggressively promoted hate crime legislation. These organizations have endorsed Europe and Canada's policies on prosecuting what they deem as hate speech. The ADL openly advocates for their model anti-hate law which has been adopted by many states.

The bill is unconstitutional because it violates the 10th Amendment by granting the Federal Government authority over local and state government in prosecuting hate crimes. It violates the 14th Amendment by granting certain groups special protected status, as well the double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment.

Recently the Plains State ADL Director denounced the 1st Amendment by saying that "freedom of speech does not extend to racist groups, nor give their supporters the right to threaten and intimidate others or commit acts of violence."In many western nations, an individual can be prosecuted by the government for certain speech. In 1988 the ADL gave out an award to law student Joseph Ribikoff for writing a proposed hate crime bill that would criminalize hate speech against gays and minorities.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, ADL Washington counsel Michael Lieberman spoke in support of the Hate Crimes Bill. "We have no illusions about this legislation," Lieberman testified. "We know that bigotry, racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism cannot be legislated out of existence. A new federal law that finally addresses all victims of hate crimes will not eliminate them."

Let us take a look at how the ADL has handled two major hate crimes. They exploited the racial Murder of James Byrd using the tragedy to call for stiffer hate crime laws and a tougher stance against white racism. However they take a very differant stand when whites are the victims of hate crimes.

Not to excuse his crimes but it is important to note that John King, the white supremacist who was responsible for the murder of James Byrd became a hardened racist due to his his experience being gang raped by black gang members while incarcerated in a notorious Texas Prison for a petty crime. He latter joined a white gang for protection [See Becoming A Devil, by Joseph Sobran].

That part of King's story was completely ignored by the media because it would change the perception of him as from an evil white supremacist to a man who was driven insane and full of hatred by being a victim of a horrific crime just because he was white. When Michael Jackson was accused of child molestation it was brought to attention that he was abused as a child and that gained him sympathy by some segments of the society while hardly anyone had any sympathy for King.

In regards to the horrific black and white crime known as the Knoxville murders the ADL took and very differant position. Quoting an article by James H. Lilley, also stated in other blogs, etc:

On Saturday January 6, 2007 Hugh Christopher Newsom, age 23 and Channon Gail Christian, age 21, both students at the University of Tennessee went out on a date. They were driving in Channon's Toyota 4-Runner when they were carjacked at gunpoint. Suddenly the crime turned far more savage than an armed car theft. Chris and Channon were kidnapped and driven to 2316 Chipman Street where they were forced into the home at gunpoint. While Channon was forced to watch, her boyfriend was raped prison style and then his penis was cut off. He was later driven to nearby railroad tracks where he was shot and set afire. But Channon's hell was just beginning. She was beaten; gang raped repeatedly in many ways, had one of her breasts cut off and bleach poured down her throat to destroy DNA evidence-all while she was still alive. To add to Channon's degradation the suspects took turns urinating on her. They too set her body afire, apparently inside the residence, but for some reason left her body there-in five separate trash bags...

For the whole article from Mr. Lilly see click here.

The mainstream media including most mainstream conservatives with the exception of Michelle Malkin, Walter Williams, and Michael Savage refused to cover the story because they knew it would instill anger on behalf of whites. Compare that to the coverage the Duke Lacrosse gang rape of a black stripper by white Lacrosse players that ended up being a Hoax.

The ADL Condemns White Supremacist Attempts to Exploit Knoxville murders. Yet they have gone out of their way to politically exploit any crime commited by white supremacist such as the recent Holocaust Museum shooting as well as the murders of James Byrd and Matthew Sheppard, whom the hate bill is named after. The ADL also defended the horrific atrocities of Israel's Operation in Gaza. Regardless of their race all victims of horrific crimes deserve justice. The ADL has not only failed to live up to it mission "to secure justice and fair treatment to all," but has gone out of it's to support injustice whether for Chris Newsom and Channon Christian or for the people of Gaza.

Source: The Examiner

1984 on the Horizon: Congress Moves to Regulate Thought Crime

Ever-vigilant for opportunities to quash anything contrary to the liberal worldview, Leftists in Congress are working on new ways to silence any dissent.

Most of us know about the “Fairness Doctrine” that they got away with for years to harass and control the opposition. Most of us also know the liberals have been trying for years to bring it back.

Their latest attempt is HR 1966, ostensibly to fight “cyber bullying,” but it could very easily be used to prosecute “hate crimes,” or essentially any electronic communication that hurt someone’s feelings.

David Rittgers of the Cato Institute discusses this Orwellian measure on Fox News in the video below.

“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” – HR 1966 Sec 3, Sec 881A

It is also said to violate “double jeopardy” Constitutional protections, in that if you are tried and convicted, but the federal government believes you weren’t punished severely enough, they can retry you to seek a harsher sentence.

It is no stretch whatsoever to see homosexual activists use this against someone like myself or broadcasters at Focus on the Family any time we tell the truth about the moral and health dangers of homosexual behavior.

Here are just a few items from an article I wrote a couple of days ago on how “hate crime” legislation is already being used against people for exercising their opinion, free speech, and freedom of association, both internationally and already here in the United States:

• Last year a Catholic priest in Canada, Fr. Alphonse de Valk, who was investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) for the “crime” of teaching what the Bible says about homosexual behavior (that it is a sin) and marriage (that it is between a man and a woman).
• The Ontario Human Rights Commission slapped Protestant printer Scott Brockie with a $5000 fine for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationary.
• The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined Hugh Owens several thousand dollars for quoting the Bible in a letter to the local newspaper.
• Mayor Diane Haskett in London, Ontario, was fined $10,000 for refusing to proclaim a gay pride day.
• Swedish Pastor Ake Green in 2004 was sentenced to 30 days in jail for preaching a sermon in which he defined homosexual behavior as sinful and harmful to society.
• A British couple were questioned by police on possible “hate crime” charges after they wrote a letter-to-the-editor of their local newspaper criticizing city officials for distributing brochures at city hall promoting homosexual behavior.
• In Canada, Focus on the Family must cut out any portions of their broadcasts dealing with homosexuality for radio stations in that country.
• Last year the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal ruled that youth pastor Stephen Boissoin was guilty of writing a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate which might expose homosexuals to hate and contempt (Boissoin’s 2002 letter said homosexuality was immoral, physically dangerous and should not be promoted in schools).
• Not content with their success in quashing open refusals to bow at the altar of political correctness, the Canadian pro-homosexual group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) is calling for the Canadian postal system to censor the mail for “hate mail”
• Catholic Charities in Boston was forced out of the adoption ministry because they refused to put children in homes of homosexual couples.
• Boston school teachers have been threatened with termination if they fail to cast homosexuality in a positive light to students.
• The University of Toledo fired a black administrator for writing a “letter to the editor” of a local newspaper about the inconsistency of comparing homosexuality to ethnicity.
• Christians in Philadelphia were arrested for reading Bible verses and praying out loud during a homosexual festival.
• The state of New Mexico issued a fine of $6,600 to a Christian photographer (a private businessman) who didn’t want to photograph two lesbians make a commitment to each other.
• A Colorado law passed last year to allow men to use women’s restrooms and shower rooms if they “felt like a woman” also contained provisions which prohibits the publication for public consumption any material which is “discriminatory” against homosexual behavior. So while churches can (for now) continue teaching within their own walls what the Bible says about homosexual behavior, they cannot publish anything in public which does. This includes any Christian book publishers or other ministries in Colorado.

We all understand the need to criminally punish assaults on persons and property. We also understand the need to restrict direct threats of violence against persons and property.

But this measure and others like it seek to punish thoughts and opinions. Even without a threat of violence against persons or property, this type of regulation can be used to brand you a criminal and punish you for expressing a value statement about a particular issue or behavior.

This bill is a direct assault on the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is what we get when we put Leftists in power in our government. Leftists have no interest in fairness or in the freedoms of the “little people.” It is all about the consolidation of power and exercising any government control over the individual–including speech, thoughts and opinions–they consider contrary to their socialist ideology.

Remember this, and remember that the next time you vote.

Source: Dakota Voice

Holder Video Floods Senate On ADL Hate Crimes Bill

NPN polls show dozens of Senatorial aides have watched our 10-minute video "Holder Admits: No Equality in Hate Bill." Dozens more, both Democrat and Republican, are promising to watch it or pass it on to Senators.

With possibly only a week left before a Senate vote on hate bill S. 909, this video is the political dynamite that could blow apart the pro-hate bill Democratic coalition in the Senate!

Why? It features Attorney General Holder flatly stating that, despite promising to do so, S. 909 will not protect all Americans who are victims of violent hate crime. It will only protect a privileged minority, including homosexuals, blacks, and Jews. Secondly, Holder can provide no example of even one state failing to enforce the law against hate criminals.

Courtesy of the U.S. Attorney General, this video knocks the foundation out from under the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It proves S. 909 is both discriminatory against most Americans and unneeded!

Have you and your friends called Senators with this simple question: "Have you watched the shocking video that shows Attorney General Holder saying there is no equal protection under the hate bill? It's on the home page at www.truthtellers.org." Call toll-free 1-877-851-6437 or toll 1-202-225-3121. The names of all Senators are available HERE at www.truthtellers.org.

Calling the Senate with this question is so simple and effective. When you ask if staffers have seen the video, they will record you as opposed to the hate bill.

With possible markup of the hate bill amendment early next week, it is vital that you make use of this superpowerful, explosive tool God has given us to save freedom.

Next Wednesday may be too late.

Source: Curt Maynards Newest Blog

Unintended Consequences: Beware the Hate Crimes Bill!

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

A statute’s words do not tell how the law will be interpreted and applied.

All laws are expansively interpreted. For example:

The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was directed at drug lords. Nothing in the law says anything about divorce; yet it soon was applied in divorce cases.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly bans racial quotas and defines racial discrimination as an intentional act. Yet, quotas were imposed by the civil rights bureaucracy on the basis of the 1964 Act, and intent was replaced by statistical disparity.

The Clean Water Act makes no reference to wetlands and conveys no powers to the executive branch to create wetlands regulations. Yet, for example, Ocie and Carey Mills, who had a valid Florida state permit to build a house, were imprisoned by federal bureaucrats, who claimed jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The bureaucrats ruled that the clean dirt used to level the building lot constituted discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters of the U.S. No navigable waters were involved, and according to the state of Florida, no wetlands.

The Exxon Valdez accident was criminalized. An unintentional oil spill became the intentional discharge of pollutants without a license, and the bird kill became killing migratory birds without a license. An accident was prosecuted as crimes of intent.

Well informed attorneys can provide many examples. Others are documented in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Awareness of what can be pulled out of even clearly written laws is essential to the preservation of civil liberty.

With this in mind, consider the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Opponents criticize the bill for adding a second punishment to existing punishments for acts of violence. Assault, murder, rape are crimes regardless of motivation. The penalties are sufficient, or can be made so, without applying a new crime of motivation that creates specially protected classes, such as homosexuals and minorities. To commit a violent act against a member of a specially protected class will carry a heavier punishment.

How will a court know whether a violent act was committed because of hatred or because of sexual lust or the need for money? As case law is made, the likely direction will be to eliminate intent. The issue will be resolved by whether the attacked person is a member of a protected class. The mugger who beats as well as robs a victim who turns out to be homosexual or Jewish will have committed a hate crime.

It will prove difficult to separate speaking against members of protected classes, or criticizing their practices, from hate. The two things are easily conflated. Once enacted, hate crimes will become independent of specific violent acts. An eventual likely outcome will be that speaking against members of specially protected classes will itself become a violent act of inciting violence.

Since the passage of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act in 2004, the US Department of State is required to monitor anti-semitism world wide. The State Department is not required to monitor anti-Americanism or sentiments against Christians, Muslims or Arabs. Thus, the act created a specially protected class worthy of careful monitoring by the US Department of State of negative sentiments expressed against Jews.

In order to monitor anti-semitism, the term must be defined. The definition is subjective and will be widely, rather than narrowly, interpreted. The State Department has come up with its attempt. The State Department’s approach could include any truthful statements about Israel and its behavior toward the Palestinians that the Israeli government or AIPAC or the Anti-Defamation League would deny or contest.

Anti-semitic speech can be interpreted as inciting hatred. Inciting hatred can be interpreted to be a violent act. “Excessive” criticism of Israel is a subjective, undefinable concept that can be used to determine anti-semitic speech. It is easy to conflate “excessive” with “strong.” Thus, demands that Israel be held accountable for war crimes committed in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, or elsewhere become acts of the hate crime of anti-semitism.

Source: Counter Punch

IS THERE NOT A CONSTITUTION ON WHICH THIS COUNTRY RUNS

How can we still be arguing over "hate crime" laws? Is there not a Constitution on which this country runs that claims equal treatment under the law for one and all? Unfortunately, over the years, under the influence of special interest groups, one municipality and state after another has enacted some form of law that gives greater legal protection only to certain victims, based on their race, gender, sexual proclivities, etc.

Over most of this time, with a few exceptions, one heard hardly a peep in protest against the injustice of these biased laws from the "conservative" evangelical community. I guess the activists among them were too occupied with their futile endeavors to rid the nation of Roe v. Wade, which kept them too busy to think of other matters. Now, however, when it appears that a federal hate crime statute is likely to pass in Congress – one that adds homosexuals to the special status categories of aggrieved groups, the right wing evangelicals are mobilized as never before.

Long before this homosexual dimension presented itself, it was clear to anyone who cared about traditional American principles that so-called hate crime legislation is designed to punish thoughts. In reality, these are thought crime laws, and constitutionalists, among others, who cherish individual rights, have condemned such decrees for at least the past decade. [See here and here.]

What is now worrying the good "Christians" about this latest proposed federal bill is the prospect of the law being used here in the U.S. as it is in places like Canada and several European countries (especially those under the aegis of the EU). In those countries, the interpretation of "hate" has resulted in arrests and prosecutions of citizens, usually of a religious bent, who speak out against the normalization of homosexual behavior. To publicly criticize aspects of a "protected" group, such as blacks or Jews or Muslims or homosexuals, is considered promoting or inciting "hate" and is, therefore, a crime.

In the U.S., the typical "conservative" does not worry himself about the general un-American nature of such specially targeted laws; he is simply opposed to the addition of homosexuals to the list of aggrieved, possibly putting their behavior and practices beyond the bounds of public criticism.

Now, along comes the upfront homosexual activist and writer Andrew Sullivan expressing agreement with opponents of hate crime laws. In "Intent vs. Motivation," Sullivan makes the rational case that there is plenty of legislation on the books to punish all infractions of the law, and that these special laws now being proposed are not to protect citizens from crime. Instead, they are the brainchild of special interest groups that desire "boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings."

In this regard, Sullivan cites the Human Rights Campaign, the most prestigious of the organized crusaders for homosexual civil liberties. He could just as well have cited the NAACP and the B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation League, both of which hype racism and anti-Semitism in order to justify their endless fundraising drives. (The ADL's Abraham Foxman brags about the role he has played in crafting many of these "hate crime" statutes that now exist in various cities and states.) Claiming the need for special status is, as Sullivan says, "very, very powerful as a money-making tool."

In a related article, "Hate Crime Laws" (The Atlantic, 5/1/09), Ta-Nehisi Coates writes, "The thing that made me leery of Hate Crime Law was the infamous Fat Nick case," and goes on to describe how a teenager was sentenced to a total of 15 years in prison (instead of seven), because he used the expletive "Nigger" in an assault he believed to be justified. Syndicated columnist and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff was outraged by this sentence and wrote, "Those eight years were not because of Minucci's act, but for what he said." In other words, a thought crime. [See details of the Minucci case here.]

See also the separate cases of two young men hardly out of their teens sentenced to 10 years each for activities in which no one was physically harmed.

Source: Issues and Views

Hate crime law unneeded

Hate crime legislation is well-intended - but it's not necessary.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, though, has this notion that federalizing criminal statutes somehow will send a message that criminals had better not commit hate-related crimes - or else.

What is the or else?

Tougher sentences in meaner prisons?

States, such as Texas, have plenty of laws on the books that compel the harshest penalties possible for a whole array of crimes. Federalization of these crimes makes an important political statement - which plays well with many key constituent groups.

But what is the point?

Holder told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that Congress should approve the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named after a young Wyoming man who was tortured and killed in 1998 because he was gay.

Shepard's death brought horror to the nation, given the manner in which he died. No, he shouldn't have died because of his sexual orientation.

What does a federal statute do that a state law doesn't do?

Shepard's killers would be put to death in Texas and in most of the states. Isn't that sufficient punishment for such a crime?

One would think so.

Most recently, Holder asserted, the killer of a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington was motivated by hate for Jews. The suspect is an 88-year-old white supremacist. What should happen to him if he is convicted of the crime for which he is charged? He would receive a harsh sentence - and without the presence of a hate crimes law.

No one should condone hate crimes. But do these categories of crime deserve a new federal law dedicated exclusively to those who commit them?

No. Existing state statutes are quite sufficient.

Source: Amarillo.Com

No Hate Crime Protection for White Christians or Servicemen

By Alexander Cockburn

While Google Alert produces scores of items on yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the S.909, the Hate Crime Bill, only a few go beyond summarizing Attorney General Eric Holder’s submission to give even a cursory account of what was said in opposition.

Under questioning, Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority. He said only historically oppressed minorities were to benefit. This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc. Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law. He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority.

Source: Vdare blog

And more:

Pro-hate bill testimony was heavily woven with the assertion that the Holocaust Museum shooting is a wakeup call , proving the need to legislate against prevalent and increasingly violent racism.

Most Judiciary Republicans were absent or called away from the hearing by debate over healthcare reform on the Senate floor. Yet Sen. Orrin Hatch, before having to leave, expressed the dominant question of Republicans through the hearing: Can Holder or anyone else give examples of how US states currently fail to enforce the law against hate criminals? Repeatedly, Holder was asked this question and couldn’t answer.

Even the ADL admits that anti-Semitic incidents are on the decline and have been for years. They're so desperate to find anti-Semitic incidents that they classified a peaceful protest near a Jewish film festival and a David Irving speech as "hate crimes."

Any American who still has a couple of brain cells left can easily see that this ADL sponsored "Hate Crimes" Act will be used by Zionists to supress free speech and incarcerate any who question Israel's homicidal activities or ask simple questions about who's in control of the Federal Reserve or why are there so many Jews in charge of key positions in the WH, Congress, the State Department and the Treasury.

Source: Dandelion Salad

The First Amendment in trouble… again!

by Rocket Kirchner

The Fairness doctrine, hate speech laws coming before Congress, radio talk shows being bullied by boycotts. Well, here we go again. The fact of the matter is that we never got it right the first time around. President Adams threatened to jail protesters for speaking out on American-French relations, until Jefferson told Adams, “Not only do they have the right, they have the obligation”.

Then along came our first dictator old honest Abe, who arrested and jailed northern writers for speaking out against theCivil War. And Lincoln’s hagiography goes unchallenged in public class rooms until this very day. Next came Oliver Wendall Holmes passing a law in the supreme court that one could not yell fire in a crowded theater, as a reaction to the Trotskyites protesting WWI. Then McCarthyism, then Bush 2 and the Dems Patriot Act that shredded the 4th and 5th Amendments, hence setting the stage for today’s Liberal Fascists to snuff out any dissenting voices against them whether it be from the grassroots left or right.

Lest you think I am just crying wolf, answer me this: is it any coincidence that radio talk show host Micheal Savage was banned from England just after Obama left that country? Well, you might say, “Maybe, maybe not, but England is not America”. True, but the fact that our government has not stood up for one of its own citizens for doing nothing wrong considering Anglo-American relations, and the fact that the hate speech bill bill is coming before Congress up for a vote, I think you catch my drift.

There is a reason why the First Amendment is FIRST. Because if it goes, then the whole Bill of Rights could come crumbling down. Many American citizens don’t take the First so literally. They are fools. These prim and proper Americans don’t think that you can cry fire in a crowded theater. Given the present danger that the First Amendment is in, not only can you… but you have an obligation to.

Source: Dandelion Salad

The Hate Crimes Bill: How Not to Remember Matthew Shepard

The Hate Crimes Bill: How Not to Remember Matthew Shepard By Alexander Cockburn « Dandelion Sa...

We’ve got the Hate Crimes Bill, aka the Matthew Shepard Act, aka the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, before Congress and far advanced on its repellent journey towards the statute book. On Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill, which passed the House of Representatives by a 249-175 vote in April. If passed, President Obama is expected to sign it.

The Matthew Shepard Act is a ham-handed attempt to right injustice by establishing different legal treatment for some classes of crime victims. The proposed statute classifies as “hate crimes” attacks based on a victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. America is well on its way to making it illegal to say anything nasty about gays, Jews, blacks and women. “Hate speech,” far short of any direct incitement to violence, is on the edge of being criminalized, with the First Amendment gone the way of the dodo.

[...]

The problem with the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is that it creates a thought crime and also categories of crime victims for disparate treatment. Goodbye to equality under the law. How will a prosecutor prove that a lesbian was murdered because of her sexual orientation rather than because she refused to give the mugger her purse? Given the way case law evolves and the manner in which prosecutors advance their political careers, crimes against some types of victims will incur greater penalties, with this injustice spurring resentment.

[...]

via CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Source: Dandelion Salad

Shared via AddThis