Friday, October 23, 2009
It's (gonna be) the law
Liberals prove time and again that they have a different vision for America -- it's not the act that is a crime, but thinking differently than they do. A new hate crimes bill violates the letter and spirit of our First Amendment, and abandons equal rights in favor of special class rights. Figuring they might not pass it in a fair vote, today the Senate passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 by tacking it on to a defense spending bill. It is fairly certain the President will sign it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Tell me if I'm wrong. After reading all this, it appears the ONLY thing this does is condemn by penalty of law 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..." According to the entire paper, it seems only "crimes of violence" are mentioned. I would think all Christians should support this if I understand what I read correctly.
The ONLY thing that concerns me is the wording about gender, and perception, and how that would apply to those who consider themselves the opposite gender.
What type of crime cannot be considered a hate crime?
These acts of violence are already unlawful, regardless of whom they are perpetrated against. For example, Lawrence Russell and John King received the death penalty for the dragging death of James Byrd. What more needs to be added to that? Perhaps that they be spit upon after being put to death? The real purpose of hate crimes laws is to "punish" the thoughts of those who do not think like the majority wants them to think.
This may go beyond violent crimes, at least in the area of assistance, which in Sec. 4 (a) 1 (C) refers to "any crime that--...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."
According to our system of government it seems to me that it is the place of the states, not the federal government, to establish laws against and punishment for crimes such as murder, assault, rape, etc.
Finally, I have made some assumption that the act passed in the defense spending bill is the same as the original bill hate crimes act. I haven't taken time to research that, but feel there are few if any differences.
I just read the sites you gave, and even what you quoted does not pose threat to speaking against things. As you quoted, it only states "any crime that--...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."
The punishment is only ANY CRIME that is motivated by prejudice. ANY CRIME is already defined by our laws. This does not change what is or is not a crime. This just adds a different penalty for those who commit a crime with this particular type of motivation. In other words, if I understand it correctly, all this does is take those who commit crimes, and punish them more or in a different fashion if they did so due to racial motivation. Nothing about speaking out, or influencing someone else to such a crime is mentioned here at all. At least not from what I read.
As to all the rest of the stuff such as federal versus state government, I don't know. I don't dabble into all that. I haven't had enough time to study it all. Anyway, this law just seems to add penalty, not define new crimes.
I think you are correct that there is nothing about speaking out, or influencing someone else to such a crime. What worries some people is not what it does say, but what it doesn't say and doesn't define. Lawyers will look for any loopholes they can use in any area that is not clear.
Similar laws have been used to go after preachers who have preached that homosexuality is a sin, for example. According to WayofLife.org, Hate Crimes Law has been used in Canada to go after Christians. If Bro. Jim in Canada is reading this perhaps he will give us the scoop. (Of course, Canada is a different country with different laws, so what happened there may be completely different issues).
I think there is a subtle issue here when saying it does not create any new crime. While that probably can be said to be technically correct, it does add a new crime -- thought crime -- in a subtle but real way. As you correctly note, these crimes are already crimes and they already have punishment. To add to punishment for the reason of prejudice is to make prejudice a crime, whether or not we call it so.
A camel doesn't usually get in the tent all at once, but does so incrementally (first the nose, then the head, etc.). Most people will go for the unstated making thought a crime as long it is unsavory thoughts like "prejudice" or "hate". But what about when they come after our thoughts?
Perhaps I am too cynical, but I don't believe the political elite like Ted Kennedy (who started this) do things for no reason, or out of the goodness of their hearts.
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me. -- Martin Niemöller
It sounds to me like a version of mind control. This is a very dangerous thing, for if one's mind can be manipulated, then you have them in the palm of your hand. Extreme political and religious movements have long used this technique.
I believe man has slowly lost the art of thinking for himself. Modernity encourages pre-programming. I guess eventually we may all resemble robots.
Post a Comment