See other Editorial Articles
Title: Record Shows “Hate Crimes Prevention Bill” Will Suppress Speech
Source:
VDARE
URL Source: http://vdare.com/roberts/090508_hate_crime.htm
Published: May 8, 2009
Author: Paul Craig Roberts
Post Date: 2009-05-09 03:39:20 by bluegrass
Ping List: *Tracking Comrade Obama* Subscribe to *Tracking Comrade Obama*
Keywords: None
Views: 171
Comments: 9
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 Bill. 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 worldwide. 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, indefinable 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
#4. To: bluegrass, noone222, IndieTX, Jethro Tull, Itistoolate, christine, litus, farmfriend, deasy, HOUNDDAWG, X-15, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, flintlock, rotara (#0)
With this in mind, consider the Hate Crimes Prevention Bill. 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.
Published: May 9, 2009 In January, Sandy Tsao, an army officer based out of St. Louis, MO, told her superiors that she is gay — a violation of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law. Tsao then wrote to President Obama, urging him to change the DADT policy: “I do hope, Mr. President, that you will help us to win the war against prejudice.” On May 5, Tsao received a handwritten letter from Obama with a pledge to repeal DADT at some point: . In the letter, Obama wrote that he is “committed to changing our current policy” but that “it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action).” dolt. And, his party has control of both houses of Congress. Repeal should be quick and easy. (1 image)
Thousands of people came here to read about Sandy’s story, and online outlets like The Huffington Post featured links back to the post or included information about Sandy when discussing other cases of DADT. We had also pitched the breaking news about President Obama’s handwritten letter over to MSNBC producers at The Rachel Maddow Show. Producers immediately took interest and Rachel Maddow shared Sandy’s incredible news as the lead story. You can watch the piece below: Rachel Maddow followed Sandy’s story with that of First Lieutenant Dan Choi, who was discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for coming out as gay on an earlier show. Choi is also the founder of Knights Out, an organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) US military academy alumni and their supporters. Here is video from his previous appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show: Please continue to check back as we continue to ensure fair, accurate and inclusive coverage on this issue. I will be working closely with Sandy, Dan and others in the immediate future to share their stories and show the public the emotional toll Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has played on these soldiers’ lives. Related Posts:
Two deranged freaks babbling about their mental illness commonly known as faggotry.
There are no replies to Comment # 9. End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: bluegrass, noone222, IndieTX, Jethro Tull, Itistoolate, christine, litus, farmfriend, deasy, HOUNDDAWG, X-15, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, flintlock, rotara (#4)
Title: Obama sends handwritten letter to gay soldier ousted from the military promising to repeal DADT.
Source: glaadblog.org
URL Source: http://www.glaadblog.org
Author: Satyam Khanna on May 8th, 2009 at 9:50 a
Post Date: 2009-05-09 03:49:59 by JLO
#6. To: bluegrass, noone222, IndieTX, Jethro Tull, Itistoolate, christine, litus, farmfriend, deasy, HOUNDDAWG, X-15, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, flintlock, rotara (#5)
As a result of yesterday’s blog post featuring Second Lieutenant Sandy Tsao and her handwritten letter from President Obama, media outlets and interested online users alike have taken notice and have begun including Sandy’s story in the public debate over the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military ban.
#9. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#6)
Producers immediately took interest and Rachel Maddow shared Sandy’s incredible news as the lead story.
Replies to Comment # 9.