Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, May 07, 2007
Harry R. Jackson, Jr. :: Townhall.com Columnist
Your Grandmother Could Be Next: The Hate Crimes Bills
by Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Last Thursday, I nervously entered C-SPAN’s Washington, D.C. Studios. The program format normally includes remarks from different points of view, call-in responses from its national audience, and commentary from its host. It was a great opportunity for me to speak to the nation concerning the encroachment that a new law, HR 1592 “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007,” represents to our freedom of speech and freedom of religion. This law promises to grant protected status to “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” – essentially mandating unequal protection under the law, which will pave the way for criminalization of thoughts and religious beliefs contrary to politically correct ideology.

I was opposed to this legislation for two reasons. First, as a Christian I am aware that this kind of legislation has opened the door to the arrest, fines, or incarceration of Christians in Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the U.S. In fact, in Philadelphia in 2004 such an incident occurred during a protest rally at a gay convention. A 75-year old grandmother of three was arrested, jailed, and charged under existing state hate crimes law for attempting to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. Ironically, no one was hurt, wounded, or even intimidated by her actions. If anything, law enforcement officials sent the citizens of their state a message – “Gays can protest, intimidate and harass anyone anywhere but Christians had better not speak.” HR-1592 would embolden this kind of law enforcement.

My second reason for opposing this legislation is that sexual orientation will be elevated to the same status as race or gender. Surprisingly, the African leader I was set to debate was in agreement with this landmark step. He represented the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) founded in 1950 with over 192 national organizations. The LCCR has enjoyed the reputation of being the nation's premier civil rights coalition coordinating the legislative campaign for every major civil rights law since 1957.

Unfortunately, this powerful and formerly effective organization has been co-opted by the radical gay movement. Please read this excerpt from their website:

“LCCR, representing persons of color, women, children, labor unions, individuals with disabilities, older Americans, major religious groups, gays and lesbians, and civil liberties and human rights groups. Its mission: to promote the enactment and enforcement of effective civil rights legislation and policy.”

I was shocked to discover that the AARP, The American Association of University Women, and the American Federation of Teachers were organizational members of this group’s board. In my view, out-of-touch leaders have desecrated the memory of its founders. The three visionaries of this organization were A. Philip Randolph (founder of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters), Roy Wilkins, (Executive Secretary of the NAACP), and Arnold Aronson, (a leader of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council).

With all this in mind, I entered the C-SPAN debate with a David-and-Goliath kind of feeling. This feeling was generated by the way Congress had fast-tracked the bill and was poised to vote on it later the same day. Further, Washington insiders predicted that the vote would go strictly along party lines. In addition, my side had not been called upon to give any input into this process until the eleventh hour. Even if I won the debate, we could not stop the process. As one of my friends put it, “The train had left the station.” I dutifully followed through with the broadcast, believing that we would stop this bill either in the Congress, the Senate, or by Presidential veto. I realized clearly that this was the beginning of a war for America’s soul that would be waged intensely for the next few months – perhaps years

The debate flew by. Their representative was articulate and skilled in the fine points of his argument, yet after a mile of legal rhetoric he gave me no evidence that Christians would remain free from prosecution. What is needed in our nation is a justice system that is truly color blind, handing out sentences and punishment appropriate for each crime.

I left the debate more convinced than ever that the addition of sexual orientation and sexual preference to the list of protected groups under the new hate crimes legislate was a grave error. I was also more skeptical of smooth-talking lawyers who told me not to worry, without changing the language in the bill enough to truly allay my fears. My life experience tells me that when people won’t compromise on such a thing, they have a hidden agenda.

My next stop was a national press conference. I thought it was ironic that this battle was taking place on the National Day of Prayer. As I mused on this point, my cell phone rang and I was told that the

President was threatening to veto the bill! I could not help but think that all the prayers offered that day had somehow stalled this masterfully organized campaign to limit our freedoms.

Encouraged by the news, I realized that this battle truly has to be fought by a multi-racial team. I had specifically designed the press conference to allow black clergy to share their concerns about this legislation because white leaders had been unable to clearly convey our message. Historically, when whites share their concerns about this kind of legislation, they are labeled as racist or ignored.

Please join me in thanking President Bush for his courageous leadership. Let’s encourage him to follow-through on his promise to veto this harmful legislation. In addition, call your Senator today to oppose the Senate’s version of the bill: S-1105. Finally, visit my website –www.thetruthinblackandwhite.com and sign a petition which opposes this legislation.

Let our voices be heard. Keep hope alive!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bishop Harry Jackson is chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, and co-authored, Personal Faith, Public Policy [FrontLine; March 2008] with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Be the first to read Harry Jackson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Being versus Doing
The point to remember in all of this is that a racial hate crime is directed against someone because of what he IS, while a gender one is directed because of what he DOES.

A person with a certain color skin (or hair - bigotry against blondes is quite common in the Asian community) was born with this and will (excepting folk like Michael Jackson) die with it. It is who one is, something one has no control over.

Sexual identity and orientation, by contrast, are things which are revealed by choice. Avoiding the arguement of nature v. nurture, if one is born non-heterosexual or becomes it by choice, the simple fact is that one reveals it through conscious actions.

I know willpower is lacking - but we once lived in a time when most everyone could keep his/her/its pants on. We have sexual harassment law to reign in the heterosexuals, why not expand it to reign in everyone?

And never forget that one of the most infamous anti-gay murders, that of Charlie Howard, was perpertrated by the older friends of a 14-year-old boy who had at the least been the victim of sexual harassment (if not sexual assault) by gay adults in that location earlier. Also, the Kenduskeag flows into the Penobscot, both are tidal and it was low tide at the time - less than 3 feet of water.

With all this talk of caring relationships and such, well even if it was someone I didn't know, if I saw someone lying face down in 3 feet of water, I would climb down the embankment and hold his head above water until help arrived....

Hypocrisy Check
"Being versus Doing" applies equally to the complaint that this bill targets Christian beliefs and expressions thereof. One's religious beliefs are also what one DOES and "are things which are revealed by choice."

Personally, I see all "hate" laws as massive violations of multiple parts of the Constitution, most particularly the 14th Amendment.

Bad Legislation
The concept of "Hate Crimes" is not inherently bad. "State of Mind" and "intent" have long been used to define the degree of criminality of a particular act. That being said, HR-1592 is bad legislation.

It is bad legislation because it inserts Federal reach into common state criminal code where it should intervene only in the most dire circumstances; and because it seeks to define and categorize citizens into groups that either are, or are not capable of being victims of hate.

If "hate crimes" were a pressing national crisis (which they are not); one could understand legislation which enhanced the criminality of assaults that were motivated purely by ones association with a group. However the law shouldn't attempt to define which groups are capable of being hated. The attempt to do so, is, on it's face, absurd.

For example, if "hate crime laws" were in place, and I were attacked by a marauding caravan of Prius drivers because I drive a large SUV; the hateful Prius drivers should be prosecuted under the enhanced criminality of committing a "hate crime." However, under HR-1592 it wouldn't be hateful unless I happened to also regularly engage in sexual activity with people of the same sex.

This absurd attempt to define the "hateable" to solve a problem that doesn't exist is bad law and should be defeated by either legislative vote or Presidential veto.

Communism on the rise...
Hate Crime laws are nothing less than an effort by the Marxists who've infiltrated our system to oppress mainstream America while the Marxists continue to attempt to convert America into communism - oppressing all of us into the "equality" of peonism, rather than allowing people to compete within the business community (the lone exception being the entertainment business). Those who would attempt to defend our constitutional republic against those seeking to destroy it would be prosecuted for "hate crimes".

This Sounds Like a Set-up
A few years ago a Christian was arrested in the US for praying in public. He went into a busy intersection, knelt down, started praying, and refused to get up. He had cameras recording the whole thing, including his (planned) arrest for impeding the flow of traffic. Then a big right-wing fuss was made about how a Christian was arrested for praying in public. So I would be interested to know the details of the "75 year-old grandmother of three arrested for sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ". Perhaps she was impeding the flow of traffic.

Or perhaps she was disturbing the peace. Folks in my city preach on downtown city streets all the time---I see them any time I go shopping---and I used to live in an apartment building where one of the residents would set up his amplifiers on the sidewalk and preach the Christian gospel VERY loudly. Residents who worked nights complained that they couldn't sleep, and the management of an adjacent restaurant complained that customers were disturbed, and the matter went to law, but the preacher with the amps won and the last I heard he was still out there delivering his electronic sermons to one & all. I doubt matters are different in Europe. In Amsterdam's famous red-light district, where obvious prostitutes provide a tourist attraction for gawkers, we (gawking) saw an old man preaching to the prostitutes, loudly and in the street, and making a nuisance of himself but the girls were pleasant to him and nobody, not the police or anyone, stopped him.

I have been following articles and threads about the "hate speech law" and it sounds as if the right wants the right to call people nasty names in public and regards any control of this as Marxism. Am I reading that correctly?

Lilly
This is, at least, the second time you've referenced the man praying in the intersection. While I don't doubt that it happened, I would like you to provide evidence of a big "right wing fuss" that you claim.

Most Christians are reasonable people and would wash their hands of this man's actions. Can you provide any evidence that this was even a big news story?

SOME PEOPLE DO NOT GET IT
There are those that do not get it at all. The problem with this legislation is two fold. It allows the feds to insert themselves in a local matter. In doing this the feds will likely be able to determine what local law means and push to enforce it.

The other is that this law is likely to end up being a stepping stone to anti-hate speech laws. Canada and Sweden already have these laws and people have been convicted for basically quoting scripture regarding homosexuality.

The current lawmakers have admitted that this law has opened up for possible prosecution of preachers who have parishioners that act upon one of their sermons with an illegal act.

I believe that this will lead to government passing laws regarding restrictions the free practice of religion

Lilly
The right wants to be able to call people names? Are you serious? Maybe you haven't been paying attention but you pals on the left can't even speak about people on the right w/o bringing up names like "war-monger, nazi, fascist, neo-con, and an assortment of other names that are even worse. Let's be honest on this issue, this legislation is nothing more than a feel-good law to reward one of the left's favored groups. It does nothing to stop criminal acts. We already have laws on the books against criminal acts like assault, battery, rape, murder, etc. So exactly why do we need new laws for the same acts? Does it really matter what motivated a person to commit an act of crime? Is rape any worse if someone is motivated by hate vs lust? Or are we to say that common crimes against special groups is worse than crimes against the rest of us? So if a liberal assaults a republican official, is that a hate crime? Or when the gay activist groups vandalize churchs, will they be accused of hate crimes? Just wondering.

Silverdrake has it right...
"Hate Crime" legislation is wrong from the beginning, but if we're going to 'protect' groups of people, sexual preference is as much of a personal choice as religion.

HR 1592
Is a bad bill. If your representative is supporting it, you need to talk to him.

ITA "..What is needed in our nation is a justice system that is truly color blind, handing out sentences and punishment appropriate for each crime..."

Bporter
Watch Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson, especially around Easter or Christmas. You will hear plenty about persecuted Christians.


Dave Stone
Read over what you wrote. Is that really what you meant to say?

1) "The day is approaching when Christians will have to decide whether to turn their cheek or pick up a gun." Carry this thought out a bit. If the Christian picks up a gun, aims it, and fires it at someone, can you say what Christian teaching he would be following?

2) "America is...weak...a traditional sign of an empire's decline". Can you cite the national document that describes the United States of America as an empire? In which case our head of state would be an emperor?

So, let's say you are right: we are an empire, the president is an emperor, and, using our guns, we Imperial American Christians will force everybody else to their knees---Mexican immigrants, Muslims, the French, and all liberals. Is that more or less the picture you have?

How about crimes
that consist not of hate, but merely intense dislike?

Or maybe Congress could pass a "Rude Crime" bill which would enhance the punishment because the perp was impolite while raping and murdering the victim.

Glad to see that our federal Congress is hard at work passing laws against improper thoughts, instead of funding our troops who are fighting (and dying) to protect us from IslamoFascists.

Addendum for Dave Stone
Excuse me, I forgot what this article is really about. Let's include homosexuals along with Mexicans, Muslims, the French, liberals, and all others to be taught a lesson.

Granny is next?
While hate crime laws against people of race or gender confusion are being shoved at us by the Left, the same losers are advocating REAL hate crimes against the elderly, the infirm and the helpless.

What am I talking about?

Euthanasia, withholding of essential care, and Abortion.

Gays, blacks and illegal immigrants can speak up for themselves, and do not need the kind of protection that is needed by someone like Terri Schiavo.

Yet, a judge was allowed to order her MURDER by starvation, and nothing was done. The good people of this country got over it and went on with their lives.

But the activist Left never gives up.

For them, subversiveness is an obsession, a religion, a mission.

For conservatives, their mission is their families, their community, and their church.

As long as we fail to have a passion for saving our culture, we will continue to lose it to the deranged Lefties who want to dictate what we can say, what we can believe, how many children we have, how much toilet paper we use and what we drive.

DavidMac
Yes, I agree. On the same note, should we start a "War on Badness", once we're finished with the War on Terror?

Hate crime laws are un-American
It punishes thought, not action.

Yes, motive can be entered into evidence, but merely to prove the crime itself, NOT as a reason to add enhanced penalties.

Bush had better not pull another McCain-Feingold on this one, if it reaches his desk. He's found his veto pen; it's time to keep it handy.


Thought Crimes, shades of Orwell's 1984
Just some thoughts.

Suppose someone robs and murders a victim solely because the person appears to be "Rich and Prosperous".

Now, substitute "rich and prosperous" with: Choose one-(gay, black, hispanic, muslim, jew, christian, indian, sunni, shiite, hetero, man, woman, or eskimo)

The vicitm is dead. His life was taken by the killer.

Why should the motive, be it greed, intolerance, lust, hate, or or just flat meaness bear upon how our legal system treats the severity of the crime?




Reason
When reading the law, I am confronted with the fact that it doesn't really do anything except let the Federal Government interfere in local matters. Yes, it makes us seem like a more civilized society because we have a law on the books that says that "hate" will be punished more severely than other "normal" crimes.

A man kills another man and steals $0.79. Is this worse than a gay man who kills a heterosexual man and steals $0.79? Or maybe a heterosexual man who kills a gay man for $0.79? The crime is heinous regardless of who the participants are.

The bill also goes to the extent that the "perceived" bias is actionable. Thus, in my example, the heterosexual man would theoretically receive a harsher sentence if he killed a gay man and vice versa. What if the crime was one of opportunity and their sexual orientation was simply happenstance. The "perceived" bias could attach...certainly a slippery slope.

It is best to say that killing is wrong and that certain actions taken during the commission of a given crime are factors in determining the "seriousness" of the offense and the resulting punishment. You know, much like most states have now for determining 1st degree murder versus 2nd degree or manslaughter.

Ellison
Your words, "Where is the uproar? How about Katrina and its aftermath? How about doing for the least of these Rev. Harry? Do you even understand the message of Jesus Christ?

Finally, Chairman Conyers proposed adding military personnel and elderly citizens to the bill.

Guess what, Republican lobbyists and lawmakers were against this! Why I ask?

Quote from Black Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison asked a really good question:" My question is this, why do you want to protect thugs and hate mongers? Why don't you want to stand with civilized community and say hate is wrong and we must stop?"

You asked where is the uproar about about the problems in the black community? Have you not been listeneing? Bill Cosby said it all a few yrs ago and got blasted by the race warlords for it. Plenty of people have spoken up about these problems, but when they do, they get attacked for pointing out the obvious. As for Katrina, what else needs to be said? We've heard it all and still the left is pointing fingers at everyone but those actually to blame. And then, maybe those in New Orleans really haven't learned anything since they re-elected the same guy who didn't do his job when Katrina hit.
If you're going to bring up quotes by Jesus, make sure you read the rest of the New Testament as well. Jesus didn't say we should sit around and wait for the gov't to come along and fix all our problems. Take some responsibility for your problems and do something about them. Remember, you will reap what you sow. If you do not plan for the future, then you are planning to fail.
Lastly, I do have to ask why you went for the lame idea of if we don't support this bill, we are supporting hate-mongers and thugs. So the criminal acts are not actually criminal unless we pass this bill? I didn't realize rape, murder, assault were legal. I guess our laws have been so lax that we've missed all those wrongs of the past. I have a suggestion: enforce the laws already on the books. Why is that so hard to understand?

One more thing
Murder is generally a state level crime. Why not let the individual states recognize the determinants and if some want to include "hate" provisions in their own law, they can. Other states that don't want those provisions can choose not to put them into the statutes.

Why do we need federal legislation to regulate this?

If this law...
included hate against members of congress who write laws that destroy federalism, I might be in big trouble.

afsarge
If the US Congress keeps adding different classes of people to be "speciallly protected", pretty soon there won't be any UNPROTECTED classes at all. Then ALL crime will have enhanced punishment and the government can then really start enforcing the mere THOUGHT of doing crime.

That's what Cal was writing about when he compared it to the "thoughtcrimes" of Orwell's 1984.


I have the right
I have the right to HATE. I do not have the right to act on my hate. If I act on my hate and another is injured, we have laws that hand out punishment for that. You do not have the right to be unoffended by my hate.

How about a law that states that all are equal... oh, we already have that in the bill of rights...sorry, I guess some want to be more equal than others.

question
So the two reasons that Jackson opposes this law is that everybody should be equal before the law, and that gay people should not be treated equally with black people before the law. Which of those is supposed to be taken seriously, and which is the joke?

Hate Crimes?
afsarge writes:"I have a suggestion: enforce the laws already on the books. Why is that so hard to understand?"
And that is the point at hand. Why not enforce the laws already on the books? Why keep making new laws whey they will NOT do this? Stop with all the new lawa and enforce the ones we have. There are so many laws out there now we could be violating one right now. Because there is no chance in H*** you can remember them all. Stop already with the new ones and enforce, enforce, enforce the ones already on the books.

Hate Crimes?
afsarge writes:"I have a suggestion: enforce the laws already on the books. Why is that so hard to understand?"
And that is the point at hand. Why not enforce the laws already on the books? Why keep making new laws when they will NOT do this? Stop with all the new laws and enforce the ones we have. There are so many laws out there now we could be violating one right now. Because there is no chance in H*** you can remember them all. Stop already with the new ones and enforce, enforce, enforce the ones already on the books.

To DavidMac
Are you kidding? Hate crimes legislation DOES NOT create specially protected classes. Get it right - it's not that complicated. Hate crimes legislation is about the motivation of the perpetrator of a crime - not about what category the victim falls into. Hate crimes legislation is not written to protect blacks, Jews and gays. The laws refer to race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Every human being is a member of a race so every human being is automatically protected. I don't know if you are intentionally twisting the truth in order to give validity to your argument or if you are really too dumb to understand this basic concept.

I don't get
why this is considered an attack on christians. I think all hate crime legislation is an attack on thought, not crime. I object to it all, but this article seems ok with it as long as christians aren't subject to it. I find that as offensive as the issue of hate crime legislative itself.

Mountain Rose ? sparch ?
Mountain Rose writes: "Euthanasia, withholding of essential care, and Abortion.

Gays, blacks and illegal immigrants can speak up for themselves, and do not need the kind of protection that is needed by someone like Terri Schiavo.

Yet, a judge was allowed to order her MURDER by starvation, and nothing was done. The good people of this country got over it and went on with their lives."

Excellent points! - examples that the left is comprised of both communist & nazi principals.


sparch writes: "Hate crimes legislation DOES NOT create specially protected classes. Get it right - it's not that complicated. Hate crimes legislation is about the motivation of the perpetrator of a crime - not about what category the victim falls into. Hate crimes legislation is not written to protect blacks, Jews and gays."

Quite obviously, you are indeed a liar. (It would be interesting if homosexuals and racists of the Semite & Hammite races were held accountable for the hate crimes that they commit.)

Sparch
"Every human being is a member of a race so every human being is automatically protected."

If you really believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. I daresay that gays and minorities will be exempt from this law. According to liberal logic, these groups are "the oppressed" so they could NEVER be guilty of hate crimes.

98% Gays Belong in Jail
98% Gays Belong in Jail due to their deliberate passing on of communicable diseases that can kill i.e. HIV/AIDS. They are in effect murderer's.

Murder is not a right!

Sparch
If every human being is a member of a race, and all members of a race are protected, then this legislation would be worthless on its face. It, in fact, is employed to regulate behavior by attempting to control thoughts, motivations, and opinions. The case sited from Denmark, I believe, was where a minister preached a sermon where he stated homosexual activities were immoral. He was subsequently arrested for "Hate Speech". In a day and age where more politicians and judges (a line which becomes more nebulous as time passes) look overseas for the basis of their decisions, fewer laws of this nature are needed, not more.

Paul
Lithium. Use it.

Ayn Rand is still right...
...long after her death. The gloating soliloquy by a government official to a businessman in **Atlas Shrugged** is quite relevant:

"Did you really think we wanted these laws observed? We **want** them broken....We're after power and we mean it....There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one **makes** them. One simply declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforces nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law - breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt."

-- Floyd Ferris to Hank Rearden

Jackson is no better then FOX NEWS
Mr. Jackson is such a pathetic bigot hiding behind religion. The Grandma story to start is grossly mis-represented and so is this Bill.

Here are the facts about the grandma incident:

Brancheau said the 11 protesters tried to demonstrate in front of a stage performance at Outfest, a city-permitted event in 15 square blocks of Center City from Juniper Street east to 11th Street and from Walnut Street south to Pine Street.

Brancheau said the demonstrators were arrested only after they refused to go to an area on the edge of the block party and went instead in the opposite direction. Marcavage, with a bullhorn, then got into an argument with a group of Pink Angels, who screamed back.

"They were not prohibited from preaching," Brancheau added. "A reasonable request was made to prevent a situation from becoming dangerous to their own safety as well as the safety of the participants."


But the talking points from you right wing nuts in your ingnorant right wing publications like WorldNetDaily were:

The group was merely "preaching God's Word" at Outfest.
The charges faced by the five protesters “could put them in jail for 47 years.”
The protesters were involved in a confrontation with a group called the Pink Angels, always described as "a militant mob of homosexuals"; it's also noted that "none of the Pink Angels were cited or arrested."
A video proves that the protesters were simply "peacefully evangelizing."

What a joke.... No one is tyring to stop any religous group from spreading the word of god or even that they feel homosexuality is a sin. It's in the manner on how you do it. A gay rights group would have been arrested in the same scenario as the "grandmas" were for the manner in which they were protesting. Also the religous groups tend to be very "hateful" in the way the protest at Gay Events.... holding up signs saying "Fags" and "Aids is god's cure for Fags". ok.... that is spreading the word of the lord.... and you think people will actually want to convert over to your side or even give you a chance on hearing your side or "word"!!!! Give me a break.....

TomTheLibertarian
"I don't get why this is considered an attack on christians."

First of all Tom 'Christians' is capitalized. How would you like it if every time I referred to you I spelled your name tom?

Second, in places that have hate crimes laws like this one Christians HAVE been subjected to harassment and improper prosecution. Philadelphia, Canada and Sweden come immediately to mind. Mr. Jackson lists others that I don't recall offhand, but I'm sure once I looked into it I would remember the others.

Third, Mr. Jackson explicitly said one of the reasons he didn't like the bill was that "My second reason for opposing this legislation is that sexual orientation will be elevated to the same status as race or gender." Nothing there about how it would impact Christians.

One of my objections, other than the many examples listed here is that this legislation, while probably of good intent, could very well make the problem worse by trivializing the atrocious. When you elevate trivial matters like the preacher in Canada who was prosecuted under hate crime laws for saying the Bible condemned homosexuality to the same level as beating a person you actually make the later less terrible to contemplate.

for the people
I gues we can all listen to you now that you can call us all bigots. How nice of you. I guess that automatically means you are correct and we are all wrong. Maybe instead of attacking publications, News outlets and columnists, how about trying to debate whether or not we actually need another law on the books? As for the religious groups you mentioned, maybe the people holding signs saying "fags" and "Aids" are just people who don't agree w/ you? How do you know they are Christians? Most Christians I know will try to sit down w/ you and share the message of Christ w/ you, straight from the Bible. There is no hate. However, this bill has nothing to do w/ hate, its all about pandering to a certain segment of society for political points. It does nothing to deter crime. We don't need more laws to tell us murder is wrong.

Speech codes and hate crimes
I was in college when many campuses began adopting "speech codes." Supposedly, such codes would encourage respect for people of all races, cultures, and religions. Concerns were raised that these speech codes would be used to enforce "political correctness", but such concerns were dismissed as the rantings of demagogues.

Unfortunately, we've all seen where "speech codes" have taken us. In effect, they are little more than a tool to censor anyone who disagrees with the liberal establishment.

How do we know that "hate crimes" legislation won't be used for the same end?

afsarge
"...this bill has nothing to do w/ hate, its all about pandering to a certain segment of society for political points."

Right on!

For the people
For someone whining about getting facts straight maybe you should rely on someone a little less left-wing-nut-job-like than Terry Krepel.

If you are interested in facts instead of just some whack job with a Web site dig a little deeper.

I had the misfortune to have to go downtown in Los Angeles during a gay pride parade. If anyone but gays had been having a parade with that level of lewdness half the parade participants would have been in jail and the other half on the run. gays have been getting away with such actions for years.

Sooner
Wake up to the truth. The Gay lifestyle is no more than the filthy acts they engage in leading to suicide, incontinence, cancer,killing their partners, and themselves in their 20's and 30's.

Gays are destroying the family and the health of our citizens.

They even tried to give their HIV blood so that all citizens would be infected and level the playing field.

After all gays cannot really have kids naturally, these are our kids. Where the H are the parents of these sickest and why are they not trying to save these kids from an early death.

For the people
You need to watch the video from the . You should listen to the words of the leader of the 11 as he made an impassioned plea to be able to preach the gospel. Listen to all of the gays in the background and the language they use toward the Christians. Then come back and tell me about "equal" treatment.
When will you gays and all those on the left get it through your thick heads that we don't need more laws. Enforce the ones on the books. Period. This law is nothing more than a thought control law.
If you want an example of what Christians are worried about, go to this website: http://www.repentamerica.com/narrative7-21-04.html
If you think that gays don't want the Christian community silenced. YOU ARE WRONG!

Meant to say
You need to watch the video from the Philadelphia 11 arrest.

Paul
I can't say this with 100% certainty, but I get the feeling you are trolling. If not, seriously, ease up on the rhetoric. Opposition to the gay agenda is one thing. Advocating mass arrests for attempted murder via HIV is the kind of position that makes reasoned opposition impossible. People are going to assume that your position is based either upon hate or lunacy, and anyone else who likewise opposes them will be tarred by the same brush. You're entitled to your opinions; we all are. Just try a bit more civility when giving voice to that opinion.

By the way, I was mistaken. The country was Sweeden, not Denmark.

To Paul
I remember reading a year or so ago (maybe somebody here has more specific information so we can all google for the details) that the man who was voted Best Foster Parent in his state, which I believe was Florida, was a gay man, a registered nurse who had adopted HIV-infected babies and cared for them until they either died or grew up, because he had specialized medical knowledge regarding their care. The point of the news item was that his state was passing or had passed a law prohibiting gays from adopting children so he couldn't adopt the kids he had fostered, as he wanted to.

So this would be the filthy immoral f***** that some of you think should be jailed or run of town? He sounds more like Mother Theresa.

And, BTW, I have to say that in twenty years of having my husband in and out of intensive care units, he and I agree that the best nurses there have consistently been gay men. They have brought a nice combination of professionalism and gentleness that has been most welcome in many emergency situations.

I wonder whether you actually know any gay people.

afsarge, two things:
I applaud you for taking on Ellison and one of his usual tirades. This poster brings up Katrina with pretty much each post of his. Why? Because a usual liberal tactic, besides insults and name calling, is to change the subject when you realize your argument holds no water.

Second, I have enjoyed reading several of your posts on various TH columns. Always common sense, thoughtful, and usually right.

For those of you who want to stomach a bit more about the absurdity of this hate crimes legislation, take a look at columnist Matt Barber's latest column and the almost 400 posts following it. The arguments alone given for passing the bill are truly pathetic, all based on emotion and NO common sense (accompanied with plenty of insults, name-calling, etc.)

Oh, I see that matthew has posted. It
won't be long until posters will and David join in the fracas. Hmmm..we could see a repeat of what happened after Mr. Barber's column.

Sooner,
Thank you for taking it up with Paul. I had been wondering the same about these posts.

oops, I may have the "matthews" mixed up
sorry for the error.

75 year old grandmother
Her name is Arlene Elshinnawy and I think it does pass the smell test..
She was charged with "Ethnic Intimidation"
Since when did sexual orientation become Ethnic?


http://www.shieldsandhoppe.com/PDF/AmendedPetitionForReview.pdf

"Thought" police

I am quite surprised with the number of posters on this thread who are in favor of H.R. 1592.

If our society chose to act in a civilized manner toward its fellow citizens, would this legislation really be necessary?

Thus, our congressional leaders must have one of two courses of action in mind.

1) They truly believe American citizens are incapable to treating each other with respect and dignity and laws are needed to govern behavior, or

2) They are merely pursuing their normal pattern of behavior of controlling and manipulating the populace so that only their mindset can be expressed.

Either way, the freedoms that millions have fought and died for will be in vain as we become subjugated more and more by the liberal elite if this bill passes.

This bill is not about your protection as much as it is about controlling you. Every day, our liberties are being chipped away and we sit in apathy and allow it to happen. When we wake up, it will most likely be too late. By then, the Keith Ellisons of the world will have us living under their laws as they pursue to invalidate the Constitution of the United States of America.

If not them, perhaps it will be La Raza or MS 13.

We sit and watch as the America that we once knew becomes transformed into a society that must pass more and more laws to control human behavior; much of which is abhorret.

What is wrong with this picture?

"Your horse is gay" gets you the slammer
"The Irish Council for Civil Liberties announced that it would prosecute any priests found distributing or quoting the pope’s words forbidding gay marriage. In England, author Lynette Burrows drew a police investigation for saying on a talk show that she opposes homosexual adoption. An Oxford student fared worse after a night out to celebrate the end of exams. Stopped by a mounted policeman, he drunkenly quipped, “Excuse me, do you realize your horse is gay?” Unfortunately, the humor-free local constabulary arrested the young man under the Public Order Act for making homophobic remarks."

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_free_speech.html

the hidden agenda
Once you pass this sick bill...the military will be banned from inforcing the don't ask or tell policy or any thing that protects the moral or decency of combat troops at any level, their hands will be tied. Then you'll have the new inlcusion point; "Hired first", protected class remember. That'll be the new affirmative action plan of the new gay class. Just think, 30 years ago we were all laughing when they were coming out of the closet. what a sick mess!

sparch
admonished me, "Hate crimes legislation DOES NOT create specially protected classes. Get it right -"


I've gotten it right, sparchie. Go to THOMAS and check out the actual language contained in the bill.

The USC prohibits citizens from committing "OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN."

S-1105 (The Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Enforcement Act of 2007)
is specifically aimed at "protecting" homos, transgenders, etc.

Check out the Wilkinsburg PA murders where a black killer was NOT charged with a hate crime, even though it was discovered he made racists statements, wrote racist literature, targeted ONLY white people (Wilkinsburg is mostly black).

If S-1105 ISN'T "special" protection for a "SPECIAL" classes, why did Teddy "Big Cars Don't Float Well" Kennedy name it the Matthew Shepard etc.?

You can make all the excuses for homos, blacks, illegals that you want to, sparchie, but in the end it's all about the socialists' mantra: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

View for yourself
After reading Jackson's column I was curious to hear the C-SPAN exchange. Why would Jackson use so much of his space here talking about how he felt going into the debate and how he felt coming out? What was this "David and Goliath" bit? Why not use this limited space to expand on his position?

The answer is clear: Jackson is not prepared to talk about this issue beyond the "family values" talking points. His opponent cleaned his clock. "David" was defensive and whiney and steadfastly refused to pay attention. Goliath calmly addressed David's point as clearly and completely as any person possibly could. (Notice the singular on "point.") I don't mean to denigrate Jackson here, but this man just isn't articulate enough and knowledgeable enough to speak on this issue publicly.

View the debate:
http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=hate+crime

Expertise lacking
Let me just add another thought. At one point Jackson actually reminds everyone that he's not a lawyer. We'll no reminder was necessary, but why on earth would a person go onto a show and tell everyone what the bill would and would not do without having a SOLID understanding of how the legal system works and what the bill acutally says? I know that some Christians think they are experts on human sexuality based on a few brief passages of the Bible, but are they also legal experts as well?




Paula Jo
It's already been voted on and it passed. We have to go after the Senate bill now.

Paul
"98% Gays Belong in Jail
98% Gays Belong in Jail due to their deliberate passing on of communicable diseases that can kill i.e. HIV/AIDS. They are in effect murderer's.

Murder is not a right!"

----

Paul it is statements just like these that cause Republicans to be called fascists. You cannot group all gays together like this. It certainly is not constitutional, much less conservative, to want to throw all gays in jail. If someone is knowingly spreading AIDS, yes, they have committed a crime and should be punished.

We can't be hypocritical and want to use government to further the causes with which we personally agree, then turn around and tell liberals that they are wrong for trying to use government to further something in which they believe.

So decide. Limited constitutional government, which is true conservatism or BIG government statism.

"Hate Crime" (Pick your victim)
This is a TRUE Police Assault Case (I'm the Chief of said PD) Mississippi, pop. 500

Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at approx. 0915hrs a individual named Bernard H (a Christian)had just arrived in the church parking lot for his Bible studies group. After parking his vehicle, an individual named Byron G approached Bernards vehicle from the passenger side. Byron G opened the passenger door, and began to punch Bernard H in the facial area (causing bruising and bleeding). Byron G then fled the area on a motorcycle. These are just basic facts. Would this be a "HATE" crime?

A: No, CHRISTIANS are "free game."

Fact added: Bernard H is BLACK!!!!

A: Yes, has to be a "RACIST" attack now.

Fact added: Bernard H is GAY!!!!!

A: Wow! A DOUBLE for the perpetrator.

Perpetrator: Byron G is also CHRISTIAN, BLACK and GAY! (He and Bernard are live-ins)

Which "victim class" did Bernard fall into?

Thought control
Any way you look at it, it is telling people what they can say and think.

Has anyone established the crime of the Branch Davidians? Think the feds will ever be brought up on hate crimes charges?

Before anyone talks about how picked-on poor homosexuals are, tell me how many homosexuals were besieged, tortured and butchered in their homes BY THE GOVERNMENT for their practices.

Winston Smith wrote, "freedom is the right to say that two plus two is four."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087803/quotes

Here's what will come next, mark my word:
( from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words )

facecrime: An indication that a person is guilty of thoughtcrime based on their facial expression.


jdw- Janet Reno gets a pass
After all, she is gay, and if you are in a protected group, you can do no wrong.

For example, compare what she did to the Branch Dividians with the police action in MacArthur Park last Tuesday.

Sure, the police use battons on a couple of reporters who didn't disperse when ordered, and fired a few rubber bullets that hit some illegal aliens.

AT LEAST THEY WEREN'T ATTACKED WITH TANKS IN THEIR OWN HOMES AND BURNED ALIVE!!!

These police officers are being demoted, punished and fired.

What happened to Janet Reno?

She got to stay in her job so that she could send the Feds to wrench Illya Gonzales out of his relatives home and send him back to Cuba.

What a gal!

HITTING CLOSE TO HOME
AS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN PASTOR STATEMENTS SUCH AS "GOD LOVES THE HOMOSEXUAL BUT HATES THEIR SIN" WILL LEAD TO JAIL TIME IF THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT VETO THIS BILL. THE LIBERAL MEDIA WILL NOT PUT IT LOUDLY BEFORE THE PUBLIC UNTIL THE PRESIDENT IS ABOUT TO VETO IT WHICH WILL LEAD TO FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF NOT WANTING TO PROTECT THE HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY. IT IS ANOTHER ATTACK ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH WAS TRULY DESIGNED TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO SPEAK THEIR MIND, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, WITHOUT DOING PHYSICAL HARM TO ANOTHER. A NATION THAT WAS ONCE THE LEADER IN FREEDOM IS NOW IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK IN TAKING AWAY THOSE SAME FREEDOMS. THIS IS AS WE HEAD TO A ONE-WORLD EVERYTHING WERE CHRISTIANS, JEWS, AND THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT'S DAYS ARE NUMBERED. I DID HOWEVER READ THE BOOK AND THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRIOR SENTENCE DO COME OUT THE VICTORS. TO JESUS BE THE PRAISE.

you GO animalgirlsback!
Thank you for providing that and your opinion is far more accurate AND truthful than even H. Jackson has written here.

If he, or anyone else here doesn't like the hate crimes laws that include gay people...
the crimes themselves can be reduced and prevented...

Jackson however isn't interested in doing that.
And his interest in hate crimes legislation regarding the LGBT is saying something about HIM and the rest of you who disagree with it for this group.

Now, be honest...do you REALLY want to reduce the violence and injustice in the courts directed at this group?

Do you really? Because there is only one way to do that.

Let's hear it. Let's hear what alternatives you have.



Food for thought
One thing not discussed here is the fact that usurping powers belonging to the states by the Feds -- using the term "hate crime" -- as a means of circumventing our Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy. Simply re-name the alleged offense and "try" it in a Federal kangaroo court. The defendant was acquitted? No problem; call it a "hate" crime and let the feds handle it. The defendant has little choice; plead guilty or be wiped out financially (even Big Tobacco bowed to Big Bro and settled); be browbeaten into signing a pre-prepared confession; the possibilities are endless. Reminiscent of Franz Kafka's **The Trial** where the defendant (actually, victim) is told that acquittal means nothing; he will be retried again and again and again until the govt obtains a conviction. Of something.

history repeats...
Fair point to make cad-man...but what alternatives are there when the states are DERELICT in their duty?

We see it with the illegal alien problem NOW...and back in the day, the Southern states dragged their butts regarding integration.

And nobody objected when the DOMA was signed into law, specifically to KEEP states from exercising the faith and credit clause of the Constitution

You aren't mentioning a specific case...but when it comes to MINORITIES and THEIR status in the law, a patchwork of laws begins to proliferate to make ordinary movement of this minority alone, very difficult.

The Long Beach case here has been easy for me to follow because I live in Los Angeles.
It was the judge who decided to cow and conjecturing that blacks can't handle proper justice, decided to tap these thugs on the wrist for their brutal beating of three young white women, two of whom are still very injured and not recovered yet.

I am disgusted with that, and DESPITE the fact that THIS WAS a hate crime by it's definition AND one of the defendants has since committed another assault, the judge isn't invoking any double jeopardy DESPITE his dereliction.

So this proves that sometimes judges WILL disallow their option in the law for their own reasons.

But the hate crimes statute doesn't give him any room to retry after a verdict, these defendents outside and beyond race based hate crimes.

Now, just WHAT is going to happen now, to those defendents who commit a hate based crime against someone of the LGBT community, and the judge is equally derelict because he's got his own prejudice?

What to do then to assure that justice is done?
Pardon me, but it doesn't look like we can trust many of the people who post on this board to care about what happens to a gay victim. And their killers or bashers are usually very candid about their motives and plans precisely because of people LIKE Jackson.

The perpetrators feel pretty confident that no one will convict them...
So the question is, will the state do the right thing so the feds won't have to?




animalgirlisback
thanks for your comments... here is the problem as I see it.. though the charges were dismissed.
What was the cost of those charges.
All it takes is a few a these cases, before, Ministers, etc. will began to regulate their speech. That is what I beleive this whole thing is about... If you can shut down a few, it's worth it...

March on Washington
How about a March on Washington for our 14th amendment rights... Any takers?

I shouldn't have to repeat myself
But you know what, the same ministers who are objecting to this hate crimes legislation SELECTIVELY because it's about gays and lesbians...

Then I want to see them LEAD THE CHARGE to abolish ALL hate crimes legislation

ESPECIALLY for religious background. THAT is a chosen lifestyle, without question and irrefutably.

They SHOULD be leading in the courts on commentaries, in legislature that protections for the religious MUST GO.

And the biggest reason of all...
From many centuries before, to 9/11, to all the violence representative of religious background and belief, shows that intractably religious people can also be irrational.

And might follow up that irrationality with violent and oppressive laws.
Ask Native Americans, ask Jews, as women..ask gay people.

So by any measure, religious people can be as dangerous as any other entity that wields absolutist doctrine and power.
And the whole world suffers.

Hence, THIS group deserves LESS protection under the hate crimes statute more than any others.
Rev. Jackson, I'm sure will disagree.

He will inevitably violate that inconvenient directive about wanting his neighbor to be treated the way he wants to be treated.

Even Rev. Phelps doesn't get arrested because of his invective. It happens because he trespasses.
So for any minister to say this law is about THOUGHT, is lying through their face.

The WORST kinds of examples, like Fred Phelps or Mike Savage don't get censored or arrested.
However, remember that terrorist threat, conspiratorial threat ARE actionable.

I do have to wonder though...why IS editorializing, demonizing or inciting fear and loathing about gays and lesbians SO important to do?

It's a fair question. Is this hammering and hammering the point of what you really think about gays and lesbians going to be a matter of life of death for you?
This isn't cancer we're talking about. Or terrorists.
Seriously, MUST there be diarrhea of the face coming from straight folks about gay people ALL the time, most of which isn't even true?

Free speech isn't that free. But what is the price that's really paid, and who has to pay it?
Looks to me as long as it's just gay folks, are you just fine if THEIR free speech is restricted and THEY get silenced?

du
Sorry to take so long but here's my $0.02 worth.

"Fair point to make cad-man...but what alternatives are there when the states are DERELICT in their duty?"

The feds have stepped in before to deal with civil rights violations but on a case-by-case basis, not as the entity in charge at all times. Having the feds running the show in all cases is not desirable because then the feds have their agenda and it AIN'T protecting civil rights. Consider what is happening at the border: two Border Patrol agents were railroaded to prison for allegedly shooting a Mexican drug trafficker who regularly crosses the border illegally to deliver his cargo. Evidence that the bullet that hit him in the @$$ didn't come from either agent's gun was withheld and the criminal was given immunity from prosecution -- in spite of the fact that he continued to smuggle more drugs in. Reminded me of the Navy's vendetta against the skipper of the USS Indianapolis where the Japanese sub captain who sank the ship was brought in as a prosecution witness.

And then there is the case of the property owner who caught illegals sneaking across his property and held them for police. The Mexican government sued him and our federal govt turned its back on him and he had to sell his property to pay his legal fees. And guess what: the illegals wound up living in HIS house.

The feds can't be trusted to do the right thing.

"...decided to tap these thugs on the wrist for their brutal beating of three young white women, two of whom are still very injured and not recovered yet.

I am disgusted with that, and DESPITE the fact that THIS WAS a hate crime by it's definition AND one of the defendants has since committed another assault..."

BINGO!

"Now, just WHAT is going to happen now, to those defendents who commit a hate based crime against someone of the LGBT community, and the judge is equally derelict because he's got his own prejudice?"

That would be a federal judge and some of them are incompetent, to say the least. What passed for a trial in the Martha Stewart case is evidence of that. That judge should have retired long before while she still had some brain cells left.

"Pardon me, but it doesn't look like we can trust many of the people who post on this board to care about what happens to a gay victim. And their killers or bashers are usually very candid about their motives and plans precisely because of people LIKE Jackson."

You misjudge Jackson and the posters here. All of us would be, and were, FTM, in a previous case, when a gay was beaten and murdered. But murder is still murder regardless of sexual preference, race, religion or national origin. A federal "hate crime" law is unnecessary.




correction
This should have read, "All of us would be, and were, FTM, **horrified and angered** in a previous case, when a gay was beaten and murdered."
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.