- Hate Bills Move Forward in House Judiciary New

[Pepsi]

Since Feb. 9, subcommittees of the House Judiciary have considered two pending federal hate crime bills—HR 256 and 262. Our strategy to defeat them requires high-volume calls of protest, but Capitol phone lines have been jammed all week because of the stimulus bill. Now that controversy has dimmed.

It’s time for you to take action.

The Judiciary told me that, because of the president’s support, this legislation will be moved forward much more rapidly than usual. The previous version of hate bill HR 256 passed overwhelmingly in the House two years ago. Today, the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary could move these bills onto the floor of the House with blitzkrieg rapidity.

Unless Americans determine not to let our nation turn into an “anti-free-speech” police state like Canada and shout “NO!” right now.

To stop these hate bills, we must repeat the sensationally effective and simple strategy that helped defeat the hate bill two years ago:

http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/hatebillsfowardhousejudandvid.htm

[ihsv]

Sick.

[Pepsi]

All Americans should protest the “anti-hate” bills before Congress, HR 256 and 262, which threaten our freedom of speech. But pro-lifers are especially at risk of arrest and censorship for “hate speech.” Incidents in Germany and Canada—as well as recent events in our own “free” nation!—demonstrate the danger of hate crime laws to pro-lifers.

Last Thursday, nine college-age pro-lifers were arrested and jailed in Alabama on charges of “criminal trespass.” They were giving out literature at a local high school, while standing on the public sidewalk! Police “handcuffed and arrested all nine [pro-lifers] without warning. One of the team members who did not assist in the distribution of literature was also arrested and handcuffed so tightly that it caused her to cry in pain… police confiscated the team’s video cameras and personal belongings, and impounded and searched the Campus Life Tour van. The police also asked the team members where they were staying so they could conduct a search in their hotel as well.”

Pro-lifers fare even worse in other states. In Oakland, CA, pastor Walter Hoye faces up to two years in jail and a $4,000 fine for carrying a sign, “Jesus Loves You. Can We Help?” outside an abortion clinic. He is charged with “harassment.”

Police were sensitized to Hoye and other pro-lifers by California’s 2004 “anti-hate” law SB 1234. Police in California now receive hate crime training called "multi-mission criminal extremism." A new category has been added: "anti-reproductive-rights crimes." Pro-lifers are automatically suspect.

Janet Folger of Faith2Action writes, “If I lived in California, I have a feeling my picture would be found at the local post office. If you think killing children is wrong, they're training people against you, too.”

Since pro-lifers are already persecuted under existing statutes, we can only imagine how the crackdown will intensify if federal “anti-hate” laws HR 256 and 262 are passed. Soon all American police will be trained to specifically target “hateful” pro-lifers, as they already do in California.

No Freedom for Canadian Pro-Lifers

Persecution of pro-lifers under existing statutes demonstrates the ferocity of public authorities to attack defenders of the unborn. As we have warned all along, the plight of our neighbors in Canada—where federal hate laws have already shattered free speech—will soon be ours if we don’t stop these bills. In 1994, Canadian pro-lifer Bill Whatcott spent 6 months in jail for praying on the public sidewalk outside an abortion clinic. In 2003, he was sentenced to 8 days in jail for displaying images of aborted fetuses. Police charged him with “criminal mischief” and “disturbing the peace.” In 2004, he was fined $15,000 for protesting Planned Parenthood on a public sidewalk. His total legal debts to date in defense of these charges, and others stemming from criticism of homosexuality, total at least $250,000.

In Canada, as in Europe, the government, and university administrators, are now speech police. Toronto Sun columnist Michael Coren writes of “pro-life clubs defunded and barred from meeting on college property in two universities in Ontario, pro-life stalls vandalized in Manitoba…” The German Law Journal explains, “Although the dangers of hate speech are concededly abstract, they are nevertheless seen as being real enough to warrant management by the government, whose task in this area can be termed as control of the political climate [emphasis mine].” This is the clear intent of hate crime laws: ultimately to control whatever the government defines as “hate speech,” thus “controlling the political climate”—and silencing objectors like those who fight for life.

But more on Germany later—there’s even more bad news from Canada. Last November, students at the University of Calgary faced police intimidation for their campus pro-life display. The university demanded that their large color photographs “face inwards”—obvious censorship—and threatened arrest and expulsion. The students courageously erected their display, which was no less gory than previous displays such as of torture in China.

“Under the watchful eye of numerous media cameras, the university did not arrest the students. But two months later, the university instructed Calgary police to deliver summons to these same students -- privately at their homes, with no media present.” This quote comes from John Carpay, a lawyer for the students, published in the National Post. These students have been charged with “trespassing” on their own campus, and will appear in court this Feb. 27.

Also this month, in Nova Scotia, pro-life presenters at St. Mary’s University were commanded to disband. Protestors descended on the event, which was called “Echoes of the Holocaust,” with “chants and yells,” disrupting the main speaker less than a minute into his speech, yelling, “No hate speech in our school!”

“They continued to shout until [the speaker] was forced to type on the projected screen in order to get his message to the audience…” Campus security did nothing, and then an administrator told the pro-lifers to break up the meeting!

Federal “anti-hate” laws were not even used in every case—official antagonism is so great that authorities used trumped-up charges of “harassment” and “trespassing” to persecute pro-lifers. Hate laws turn this antagonism into a clubbed fist because they empower the government to define the pro-life position itself—regardless of any action taken—as “hate.” That makes any pro-lifer vulnerable to prosecution the moment he or she takes a stand.

Hate Laws in Germany

Elsewhere, federal hate laws have already shown their practically exponential power. In 2007 in Ireland, a pro-lifer was arrested for displaying “offensive” material. She was detained and her “display board showing photographs of abortions was also seized.” Police showed up after just an hour of sharing leaflets and collecting signatures. Apparently someone found the work “offensive.”

It is terrifying that the words “offensive,” “hurtful,” or “hateful” have now become actionable legal concepts. This alone should spring pro-lifers into protest against hate laws. What could be more “hurtful” than showing an image of an aborted fetus to a woman who killed her child? What could be more “hateful” than stating the truth that abortionists kill babies?

The simple truth about this loaded issue can unsettle communities and hurt feelings—and that’s the point of pro-life protest! Few areas of public debate are more threatened by hate laws.

The German Law Journal explains the intentional vagueness of Germany’s own federal “anti-hate” law:

Similar to applicable provisions of international law, German statutes specifically refrain from requiring that racist [or other politically incorrect] messages lead to a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action before becoming punishable [emphasis mine]. A distant and generalized threat to the public peace and to life and dignity, particularly of minorities, suffices for legal sanctions irrespective of whether and when such danger would actually manifest itself…hate speech is generally prohibited—it is "speech minus" or "low-value speech," even if it addresses issues of high political importance.

Shamelessly this journal says German laws criminalize pure speech—even if it doesn’t incite violence! Any speech that might create a “distant and generalized threat to the public peace…suffices for legal sanctions!”

Germany first picked on Johannes Lerle, an outspoken Lutheran pastor few people will defend. In 2007, Lerle was sentenced to one year in prison for a sermon comparing abortion to the Holocaust. He was charged with “inciting the people.” According to one source, Lerle previously spent 8 months in jail for calling abortionists “professional killers.” The court said that was slander since the unborn aren’t humans, so abortionists aren’t killers.

There is controversy over whether Lerle was jailed for being pro-life or being “anti-Semitic.” Regardless, the pastor was jailed for speech, not a physical crime or violent act. Tragically, his association with “anti-Semitism” and his alleged Holocaust denial caused most American Christians to either fail to defend, or retract their defense, of Lerle.

Two years previously, “In 2005, a German pro-lifer, Günter Annen, was sentenced to 50 days in jail for saying 'Stop unjust [rechtswidrige] abortions in [medical] practice,' because, according to the court, the expression 'unjust' is understood by laymen as meaning illegal, which abortions are not.”

Throughout Europe, pro-lifers face stigmatization which will eventually make them as detestable as Lerle the “anti-Semite.” In Britain, the BBC this month again aired a two-part drama that portrays pro-lifers as violent terrorists who kidnap children and lethally inject one of their hostages.

These incidents in Canada and Europe pose a sober warning to the American pro-life movement. For the last decade, our National Prayer Network has faithfully warned pro-lifers that they are in the crosshairs of “anti-hate” legislation. Yet, many seem to view white supremacists or critics of homosexuality as the only ones who should fear hate laws. Wake up!

If you believe in the sanctity of life, you must protest HR 256 and 262 to Congress. Call 1-877-851-6437 toll free or 1-202-225-3121 toll. Also, alert your pro-life organization about how hate laws can persecute and even destroy the pro-life movement in America. Watch our recent 10-minute video, How to Kill the Hate Bills — and take action.

We must rescue the lives of women and helpless, innocent babies from abortion. But pro-lifers must also save the freedom of the living. Otherwise, we will have no voice left to speak for the unborn.

http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/prolifersatgreaterriskfromhatelaws.html

[Pepsi]

If there is anything a politician wants to know, it is who his opposition is and what he is thinking and saying. As Democrats move their two federal hate crimes bills through the House Judiciary subcommittees, liberal staffers are very curious as to who is generating the rising level of protest calls.

As I have been calling House Judiciary members this week, I tried something new: I encouraged Representatives not to vote for the hate bills but then told their staff to watch an excellent 10-minute video at www.truthtellers.org. I said it completely explains the danger of the two hate bills. I was surprised at how receptive staffers were, even saying they would tell their legislative experts.

What if large numbers of Republican staffers, eager for ammo against the hate bills, plus Democratic staffers, morbidly curious about the source of opposition, watch my latest video How to Kill the Hate Bills? It could powerfully encourage Republicans and rattle Democrats. It could create inquiry and debate as never before in the traditionally almost impenetrable halls of Congress. This has been an institution dominated by ADL pro-hate bill propaganda -- hermetically sealed from the realities of hate law abuse worldwide. If every member of Congress received repeated invitations and a percentage of their staffers watched the video, it could permanently damage the credibility of hate crimes laws for years to come.

It's time, I believe, to shake up your members of Congress with this new, unexpected approach. Call each again today saying: "Please don't vote for the hate crimes bills HR 256 and HR 262. To learn much more about their threat to freedom, please watch the excellent 10-minute hate laws video at www.truthtellers.org."

If enough people fax, email or call with this message, sooner or later many Democrat and Republican staffers will watch the video. Their curiosity will get the best of them. As a result, they will never be the same. At www.truthtellers.org they will also read other articles documenting hate law abuses throughout the western world. This could deliver a mortal blow to hate legislation in Congress from which ADL, architect of hate laws worldwide, can never recover.

Such saturation of Congress with the whole truth behind hate laws could even cause the present hate bills to die in the House Judiciary Committee. Defeated five times in the past ten years, liberals may not want to tarnish hate legislation, or themselves, with another defeat. Call now!

http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/floodcongresshatebillvideo.htm

[Pepsi]

As immigrants flood our nation in record numbers, many Americans want to talk frankly about the situation. But could this someday be a crime? Could honest talk about immigration someday be as illegal as stabbing a Latino while yelling, “Wetback!?”

It seems unthinkable that the government could deny open debate on a subject like immigration. Yet a federal hate crimes bill before Congress will ultimately do just that—crush freedom of speech to favor “protected classes” (especially racial and religious minorities and homosexuals) and criminalize so-called “hate speech” against them. Such “hate speech” includes the most legitimate critiques of racial difference, protected religions, cultures, or behaviors—and especially immigration.

Hate crime laws—already passed in 45 of our 50 states—ride a wave of propaganda and misperception. Who isn’t against hate? Who doesn’t want to stop crime? But the reality of these laws is dark as any Orwellian tale. Hate crime laws intensify punishment for crimes motivated by bias against specially protected groups. This would be bad enough; our government representatives have no right to create more (and less) protected classes, and they certainly have no right to mine our thoughts and beliefs, then punish what they deem incorrect! But hate crime laws get even worse. In hate law countries such as Canada, they are quickly broadened to punish pure speech, even if no crime is committed.

The White House website’s agenda vows to expand hate crime laws and pass the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This bill, HR256, is currently before Congress, along with the David Ray Ritcheson Act, HR262. The first will enhance federal authority to invade states’ law enforcement when a “hate crime” is committed. Expanding an already existing 1968 federal hate crimes law (Title 18, Sec. 2a), HR 256 could punish “as a principal” any writer, radio host, or even average person whose “counsel” incites another to commit a hate crime.

David Ray Ritcheson was a Mexican-American high school student brutally attacked and sodomized in 2006. He later testified in Washington, giving his state Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee the opportunity to say lawmakers should “redouble our efforts to prevent hate crimes by juveniles, which I believe is in the long run the best and most effective way of eliminating the scourge or hate-motivated crimes from our society.” To lawmakers like Jackson-Lee, “prevention” means silencing those who allegedly teach juveniles to hate—namely, leaders and politicians who speak taboo truths about minority populations or issues like homosexuality and immigration.

To silence the politically incorrect, HR 262 will establish a federal hate crimes command center and a massive re-education program in all American public schools from kindergarten through college. Unlike HR 256, which empowers the government to punish hate crimes in states at will, HR 262 empowers the government to ostensibly “prevent” hate crimes in states.

Obviously, this should disturb every American. It raises special concern for those worried about immigration. More and more, immigrants are the poster children of hate law advocates. I have researched hate law news for the National Prayer Network since 2006, and have seen a noticeable shift in hate law propaganda, from anti-homosexual toward anti-immigrant violence. Indeed, a few years ago the federal hate bill was named for Matthew Shepard, a homosexual allegedly attacked because of his orientation. Today, it’s named for a Mexican-American.

We know the future of American conservatives—especially if their concern is immigration or traditional morality—if speech-chilling hate laws are passed. It is dark. Look at Europe and Canada. Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician being prosecuted for a hate crime because he critiqued Muslim culture, which is fast supplanting the formerly dominant white culture in the Netherlands. “If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015,” says a Brookings scholar, “while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent.” Surely Europeans can discuss the culture flooding their nation, as Americans can freely discuss the waves of Latino immigration…right? Well, not so much.

In 2008 Wilders released a 10-minute, self-produced film, “Fitna.” Most of the film isn’t even his own speech; it’s made of quotes from the Koran and scenes of an Imam calling for Jews’ deaths. Now Wilders is being prosecuted for hate speech, six months after the court declared his speech valid. To demonstrate the hostility of the rest of Europe to free speech, Wilders has been barred from entering Great Britain, told he would “threaten community harmony…and therefore, public security.”

Soon the only place for dissidents like Wilders to be kept from disrupting “community harmony” will be within the four walls of a prison cell. Wilders warns that soon any Dutch citizen will face trial if they oppose the Islamization of Europe. He told the BBC that “the judgment of the court [is] an attack on the freedom of expression.... Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted.... Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?””

Naturally, Wilders says he wishes for “a European kind of 'First Amendment.' I want all the hate speech laws that are only used against us to be to be abolished in Europe.”

Unfortunately, it’s looking very much like America will turn into Europe, not the other way around. Latino leaders have demanded that the FCC investigate “hate speech” on American airwaves and asked for an update of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s hate speech report. Rather than pushing for specific laws, the Latino advocates want a report on the link between hate speech and hate-based violence. This will add even more force to the battering ram that threatens to crush the First Amendment by making speech itself as illegal as the crimes it is blamed for inciting.

In 2008, seven teens were accused of a “hate crime” after the brutal stabbing of an immigrant from Ecuador. Hate law advocates seized the opportunity to blame political speech. Leaders of the local immigrant alliance blamed the debate on immigration for fostering hate. A local pastor and immigrant advocate charged that “some of the highest leaders of our community also have blood on their hands.” Local county executive Steve Levy especially drew fire. An immigration reformer, Levy has passed measures such as requiring contractors to check workers’ status. A prominent Latino leader told the press that Levy “brought this hate that exists here amongst the Hispanic community. He has legislated over and over again against Hispanic immigrants. ... He should be the person not welcome in this community."

Wow, so now a lawmaker who enforces the law—isn’t that his job?—is responsible for this brutal killing.

A NY Times editorial brought up the immigrant’s murder as a final zinger after smearing vdare.com’s Peter Brimelow, Pat Buchanan, and every “Latino-bashing” politician who wants to seal the border. “It is easy to mock white-supremacist views as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out…But racism has a nasty habit of never going away…” These abusive slams (equating immigration critics with white supremacists and racists) would be easier to overlook if prison chains weren’t rattling behind them.

This is the terrifying way media and hate law advocates equate certain speech with violent crime. Hate laws will put bite behind that rhetoric, first allowing for federal surveillance of non-violent “haters” like Peter Brimelow, and for widespread police and public education against their dangerous views—and then, finally, allowing for arrest and prosecution of people who have never committed any crime except to open their mouths.

Just look at mainstream media’s reporting on “hate crimes.” Generally speaking, “hate crimes” by whites against minorities or homosexuals are quickly reported. But the MSM and hate law advocates never mention that most “hate crimes” are committed by minorities against each other. A full 80 percent of violent crimes involve victims and criminals of the same race. “For the 20 percent of violent crimes that are interracial, 15 percent involve black offenders and white victims…” (Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics, 1998, James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, p.17) Only two percent are white-on-black. Is this a staggering epidemic demanding unprecedented federal intervention? I think not.

Why are only white crimes trumpeted as a problem? These laws are aimed at controlling political discourse not violent crime. In Germany and most of Europe, political “hate speech” doesn’t have to be connected to any kind of criminal act to be prosecuted. The speech itself is the crime.

The German Law Journal says its nation’s hate laws “specifically refrain from requiring that racist messages lead to a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action before becoming punishable [emphasis mine]. A distant and generalized threat to the public peace and to life and dignity, particularly of minorities, suffices for legal sanctions irrespective of whether and when such danger would actually manifest itself…hate speech is generally prohibited—it is 'speech minus' or 'low-value speech,' even if it addresses issues of high political importance.”

Since President Obama powerfully supports these hate bills, the House Judiciary Committee says it will move HR 256 and 262 rapidly through. If these bills arrive on the floor of the House, they will almost certainly be passed by the Democrat majority. It is vital that all who cherish freedom should call their members of Congress now to protest this legislation.

http://www.truthtellers.org/

[Pepsi]

Three weeks ago, during the stimulus bill controversy, I queried House Judiciary aides if anyone was calling to protest the two federal hate crimes bills. No one was! Ten days ago, the news was better: four or five concerned people called every day. Last Friday, I called all 39 members to ask the same question. The results were even better!

Rep. Lamar Smith’s office said 25% of all callers were protesting the hate bills. Rep. Issa’s office said the hate bill issue replaced the stimulus bill in number of calls! Many Democrat offices also reported their phones ringing with this issue. Some had received no calls but others heard from as many as 10 or 15 people by early afternoon.

Six Judiciary offices said they are aware of NPN’s video How to Kill the Hate Bills. Before I could finish telling them about where the video was, the staff of Rep. Conyers, Wexler, Johnson, and Schiffs finished my sentence with “at truthtellers.org.” Two said they had watched the video.

One aide objected, “The Anti-Defamation League says the National Prayer Network is an extremist group!” I replied that ADL is the biggest name-caller on the planet. They call anyone who disagrees with them, or is critical of Israel, an “anti-Semite.”

Rep. Issa’s spokeswoman also knew of the video, as did the spokesman of Rep. Chaffetz. He said their office is very much against the hate bills and is delighted that even “five or six calls are coming in every day.” He told me that calls, not emails, are the most effective way to impact Congressional offices.

Although the number of calls is still low, I am very encouraged and I want to thank each of you who have already called. Just two days after my recent e-alert, “Let’s Flood Congress with Hate Law Video,” Judiciary offices are learning of our website and its grave warnings about the hate bills now moving through their committee. This video could spread like a benevolent virus through the halls of Congress! This is a strategy that must be pursued until no member of Congress is ignorant of the truth about hate laws! Hate crime laws can’t stand up to scrutiny. Under examination, the “statistics,” supposed need for these laws, and their freedom-destroying potential and record immediately invite ridicule and contempt. The last thing wanted by the Anti-Defamation League, architect of such laws, is accurate education about their hate bills to permeate Congress. If that happens now, these bills could possibly die in committee!

Right now, HR 262 is in Judiciary subcommittees and HR 256 has not yet been considered by the Subcommittee on Crime. But it could be approved in minutes by that committee’s dominant liberals. The same could be true in Judiciary. The best news we could have over the next few weeks is no news—that the hate bills are not moving out of the House Judiciary subcommittees.

If you haven’t yet called your members of Congress, plus the crucial 39 members of the House Judiciary, you must join us! You are the vital freedom-saving torch-bearer who can bring truth to the darkness that prevails in Congress.

Christian “Watchdogs” Don’t Bark Loudly

This responsibility is especially yours because most large Christian/conservative “watchdog” groups remain agonizingly unhurried to effectively warn against HR 256 and HR 262.

Focus on the Family has nothing current on its website, nor does Family Research Council on its homepage. (FRC did recently announce creation of fighthatecrimes.com, a site which encourages you to sign a petition to oppose all hate crimes bills. But the site doesn’t mention HR 256 or 262 nor does it encourage petitioners to call Congress!) Concerned Women for America has nothing on its website except older articles. Like a number of other watchdog groups, it erroneously urges protest of S1105, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act which was defeated in the last Congress.

As detailed in my recent article “Christian Silence Before Hate Bill Threat,” these presumed guardians of freedom still don’t urgently warn that it’s now or never to save liberty. They don’t make vivid that our freedom—to evangelize, criticize government, speak for the unborn or against immigration, or do any other Christian political activism—is on the block beneath the guillotine of impending federal legislation.

What if your local PBS station said the least possible concerning its need for public financial support? What if they posted their financial requirements in the recesses of their website? PBS knows no funds will come without in-your-face pledge drives night after night to passionately emphasize their need. All Christian leadership organizations could easily do this now, dramatizing that freedom from hate laws is as crucial to the survival of their ministries as oxygen to an athlete. Incredibly, they don’t.

The relatively low numbers of calls to Congress prove how ineffective Christian/conservative groups remain. I phoned members of the House and Senate to see if Congress in general was receiving many calls. They weren’t. Congressional offices said they were receiving no calls, or at most one or two, against “anti-hate” legislation. This reveals that the new right’s modest invitations to action are having little effect. But 15 or more calls (including emails, which one office said exceeded calls) are coming daily to members of the House Judiciary—showing that the vast majority of protest is being generated by the National Prayer Network.

You Can do More!

Thank you, to every listener who has heard my urgent pleas and taken action. We carry the torch for every American who ever gave their life, liberty, or time to preserve our Republic. Please don’t stop fighting.

Call other members of the House and Senate (listed at truthtellers.org) and encourage them to vote against any hate crimes legislation. Especially encourage them to watch NPN’s video at www.truthtellers.org. Also, come to www.truthtellers.org for the list of the highly influential Congressional aides to all members of the House Judiciary Committee, both local and federal, and call them.

Veteran political strategist Jack Ellis asserts from long experience that calls to such aides, both local and in Washington, is the most effective way to impact members of Congress.

It is sobering to realize that hundreds of thousands read my e-alerts or hear me on the radio, yet only several hundred actually pick up their phone to call. That’s one tenth of one percent. Many of us are tirelessly fascinated by conspiracies and events marking national decline, but are victims of apathy and fatalism. Even when God and the people defeated six Orwellian bills in the last Congress, most can’t believe their efforts can help make it happen again.

The greatest problem facing America is anti-Christ Jewish supremacism. But our apathy is a close second. Pick up your phone now!

Call 1-877-851-6437 toll-free or 1-202-225-3121 toll.


http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/werestartingshakejudiciary.htm

[Pepsi]

bump

[Pepsi]

Recently some readers complain, “I look at hate bill HR 256 and I don’t see anything about stealing freedom from Christians or punishing people who counsel hatred. Why are you saying this bill will end freedom of speech?”

This week, Robert L. Knight—former LA Times editor and Stanford fellow, current author and expert on “anti-hate” laws and conservative issues who contributes on TV, radio and online—wrote an excellent explanation. Published on Townhall.com, this article warns that the “federal hate law would imperil civil rights.”

Knight explains that HR 256, the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, will add homosexuals to the list of protected classes and “create penalties on top of criminal convictions, based on the perpetrators’ perceived beliefs, and create a federal slush fund for hate crime prevention programs for juveniles at the state and local level.”

He calls the bill “profoundly dangerous” and says it will “build the legal foundation” for violations of our freedoms of speech, association and religion.

“The proposed law, in effect, would make federal cases out of name-calling,” says Knight. “Legitimate opinion and free speech are thus recast as “hate speech” that can be suppressed via creeping judicial activism. “Hate crime” laws are already being used to silence people who speak publicly against homosexuality in the United States and Canada.”

Our point, exactly.

But readers are right: HR 256 doesn’t contain all the threatening language we describe. To see that language, simply refer back to the original 1968 law (U.S. Code: Title 18, 2(a) and Title 18, 245). This “anti-hate” bill now in Judiciary simply amends its “anti-intimidation” provision which was bad news in itself but lacked the teeth needed for the expansive federal enforcement that was its purpose. The current bills will expand the original language, adding homosexuals as a protected group and enhancing the federal government’s power to invade states’ rights in law enforcement against violent hate crimes.

The 1968 law was like a permission slip for a killer; these bills are the FedEx delivery of his weapon.

Mr. Knight’s article was followed by bright and articulate comments, most of which were supportive and expressed full understanding that hate crime laws will take away freedom of speech and empower the feds to punish our beliefs and thoughts.

But one reader objected bitingly, “I presume, then, that the author and all of you who don't support this law also want to repeal the existing law which provides further penalties for crimes committed due to animus against the victim's racial, national origin, gender, disability and religion? What, no? Oh, that's right. The arguments you make… you want to apply only to keep out the part about homosexuals.”

He’s wrong—we want the old law gone too!

Another reader quickly replied, “As a matter of fact I DO want to repeal the existing law which provides further penalties for crimes committed due to animus against the victim's racial, national origin, gender, disability and religion. If someone should physically assault you it is their ACTION I object to. I don't care if they do it because they hate some aspect of who you are, or if they just want the $5 in your wallet.”

And there, friends, is a good argument! The hate laws already on the books, both federal and state, should be struck down. The government should punish actions never beliefs.

We have had a bad federal hate law (without much teeth in it) since 1968! But right now it’s more important to stop the weapon being shipped to the federal government than to revoke the permission slip for their killing spree of First Amendment rights.

And that weapon is seriously in the mail. Yesterday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told journalists that expanded hate laws and ENDA are Democrats’ top priorities on the gay rights agenda.

She said, "the priorities have been hate crimes and ENDA, fully inclusive legislation in those two areas, so we'll have to have our strategy work around on how we can get those passed...”

As speaker of the House—and with Pres. Obama’s and the Democrat majority’s support—Pelosi has power to make this a reality. It’s time NOW to protest these dangerous and powerful bills. Call toll free 1-877-851-6437 or toll 202-225-3121. Tell your members of Congress: “Please don’t vote for the hate crimes bills HR 256 and HR262.”

http://www.truthtellers.org/

[Pepsi]

A skinhead with fury-filled eyes and a swastika is the typical first image of a hate criminal. An evangelical with an anti-homosexual sign might come second. But it’s hardly just Klansmen who will be prosecuted or just Bible believers who should worry about hate laws’ threat to free speech or belief. “Anti-hate” laws threaten the liberty of a least suspecting group—secular liberals!

Today, two hate crime bills are before our government: the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HR 256) and The David Ray Ritcheson Hate Crime Prevention Act (HR 262). The first bill expands the original 1968 hate law and also commands the Federal Sentencing Commission to study “adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes.” The Sentencing Commission will thus enhance punishment for people who incite hate crimes. This vague language could be interpreted by activist judges to punish adults whose “hateful speech” against immigrants, homosexuals, or other protected groups allegedly inspires hate crimes.

HR 262 also is a sinister blueprint for an American hate crimes bureaucracy. It establishes a federal database and clearinghouse on hate crimes, a national hotline for hate crime or “discrimination” complainers, and a federal hate crimes website. It demands special privileges—including tax-supported unemployment compensation, relocation and housing, and counseling—for hate crime victims. It sets aside money for “education” against hate in American schools from elementary to university, poisoning minds against politically incorrect opinions from the cradle and preparing America’s future leaders to accept speech laws against them. Cost to the taxpayer: 20 million dollars annually.

Where these hate laws are not an abusive expansion of federal power they are redundant of existing law’s protection of crime victims. They set the precedent for criminalizing certain beliefs (biases)—a precedent that will inevitably harden into a pure speech code, leaving our First Amendment broken in the basement of history.

Christians are rightly worried about our rights under hate laws to express religious beliefs that might be seen as “hateful.” But what about the free speech of non-Christian Americans? What about the free speech of liberals?

Many liberals wish to criticize religion, especially Christianity and Islam. This freedom is endangered by speech laws. In 2002, a French writer, known for despising the three monotheistic religions, was hauled before judges for calling Islam “the stupidest religion.” French actress and animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot has been convicted five times for hate speech, including a description of Muslims as “invaders.” Last year she was fined $23,000 for a letter to France’s interior minister demanding that animals be stunned before slaughter at a Muslim festival. Under hate speech laws, what might happen to the atheists who rake religion over the coals, or ex-Christians who write with biting disgust about the Bible? Browse any bookstore—especially in a liberal city like mine—and you can find plenty of vitriolic speech against believers.

Many liberals are also ardent critics of Israel and the Zionist movement. This, too, could land them in hot water for hate speech. In 2007, Richard Dawkins was accused of anti-Semitism for saying the American Jewish lobby is “monopolizing American foreign policy.” Students and teachers at colleges across the nation have gotten their hands dirty in the Israel-Palestine debate, which would be severely restricted by broader bans on “hate speech” against Jews. What if one of them was indicted for expressing their righteous anger—like the senior British diplomat who was arrested for what he yelled at the gym TV while watching coverage of the Israeli attacks on Gaza?

It wouldn’t be America as we know it. It would be America under hate laws.

In each of these countries—France, Canada, Britain, Australia, etc.—seemingly well-intentioned laws were passed to shield minorities from “discrimination,” “defamation,” or the trauma of bias-driven crimes or pure speech itself. Those laws empowered government to crack down on the free expression it decided was offensive, giving unjust power to whichever people happened to hold office or wear police uniforms. Hate laws also caused immeasurable self-censorship by artists, thinkers, writers, and average citizens who could not risk sinking their lives and bank accounts into legal defense against a charge of “hate speech.”

In the US, most people mistakenly take freedom of speech for granted, naively believing we are an eternal exception in the freedom-losing west. But a tidal wave of speech codes already swamps most American universities and workplaces, where everyone knows there are certain things you just can’t say. The concept of “discrimination” (against race, religion, sexuality, age, gender, the list goes on…) has vastly and dangerously limited freedoms in the western world.

An expanded federal hate law in the US will be the last crest of that suffocating wave. It is actually more dangerous if the real theft of freedom isn’t contained in the legislation itself—but meted out by precedent-setting judges and courts defining the intentionally broad and vague terms of law. As Robert L. Knight writes in a recent column about HR 256, “The proposed law, in effect, would make federal cases out of name-calling. Legitimate opinion and free speech are thus recast as 'hate speech' that can be suppressed via creeping judicial activism.”

No Laughing Matter

The western world provides many examples of hate laws’ threat to the free speech of all citizens, both conservative and liberal. Raucous comedian and actor Rowan Atkinson (of Mr. Bean fame) routinely critiques religion and wants his right to do so. In 2004, he described proposed British hate laws as “draconian” and dangerous. Politicians promised the laws wouldn’t damage freedom of speech, just as American advocates say today. But Atkinson knew better and launched a campaign against the law, joined by other members of Britain’s liberal artistic elite.

In a 2005 speech he said, “As hatred is defined as intense dislike, what is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion, if the activities or teachings of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve to be intensely disliked?”

“I think that the right to offend is far more important than a right not to be offended,” said Atkinson. His protest was joined by the director of the British National Theater, among others, who brought up the example of a 200-year-old play that excoriates Roman Catholicism. Indeed, much of modern and postmodern art and media offends religious believers. Could such art potentially mire the courts in hate crime charges? Critics of Islam—publishers of “blasphemous” cartoons—have certainly found that true in the last years.

Atkinson’s statements are uncannily similar to what’s happening in the US, only he spoke of religious groups, not homosexuals (prime advocates of US laws). "The excuse for this legislation is that certain faith communities have suffered harassment and a law is required to address it…But it is not the real reason behind it. The real reason, it seems to me, is that since the day of the publication in 1989 of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses, a hard core of religious thinking in this country has sought a law to grant religious beliefs and practices immunity from criticism, unfavorable analysis or ridicule."

Britain’s law against inciting religious hatred was passed in 2006.

If it can happen in Britain, it can happen here. Hate laws enacted by liberals to protect minorities, or to protect libertine sexuality, could potentially be used by religious groups to silence liberal criticism.

For example, the organization American Atheists is planning to protest the UN Geneva Convention in April, which will again discuss bans on defamation of religion. The American Atheists national communications director wants unbelievers everywhere to proclaim with him, “I openly and freely state that religion is ridiculous, and all gods are fictional. I also state that Islam, specifically, is a barbaric religion, based on the teachings of a false prophet, that promotes ignorance, hate, and violence (including terrorism)…I do this in direct violation of the UN resolution, and I personally challenge President Obama to rebuke this resolution, or order my arrest.”

An atheist should be free to say this, as Christians, Muslims, and Jews should be free to express their own metaphysical convictions. It’s nice this particular atheist is defying the UN. But what about defying our own government and its proposed limits on freedom of speech? Why aren’t liberals doing that?

Maybe they think American hate laws (and federal amendments) simply punish violent acts or speech they themselves consider barbaric. They should think again. Any time, any place that big government is allowed to swell and to deprive any group of basic freedoms such as speech and thought—or to educate the young against their ideas, or set up a national hotline for complaints against them—everyone loses. The Soviet regime burned Bibles and killed believers. It also burned poetry and protest; it killed free-thinkers, intellectuals and artists. The nature of power is to grab more, relentlessly swallowing the rights of potentially rebellious individuals.

When you have a speech code, what happens, for instance, to the right to criticize government itself?

In Canada, a Marxist feminist professor faced a hate crimes investigation after saying Americans are “bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood.” I wonder how many American professors, writers, and comics could have gotten in trouble for similar words during the Bush administration if we’d had a more expansive federal hate law.

Secularists Speaking Truth about Hate Laws

It should be clearer now that Christians and far-right fanatics aren’t the only ones who should protest hate laws. But let’s conclude with more arguments from secularists themselves. Reason’s senior editor Jacob Sullum opposes the laws. He explains the rationale behind hate laws is that “crimes motivated by bigotry do more damage than otherwise identical crimes with different motivations…Yet random attacks arguably generate more fear, and hate crimes cause anxiety in the targeted group only when they're publicized as such …”

I contend that hate crimes are only publicized as hate crimes because of an aggressive campaign to criminalize certain beliefs. The crimes themselves are already illegal.

Last year, journalist John Cloud, who wrote about the Matthew Shepard case, said in Time magazine that while he found it difficult to oppose the hate law bills (then called the Matthew Shepard Act), he had to.

“Hate-crimes laws feel great to enact,” Cloud writes, “but they criminalize something vital in a democracy: the right to be wrong. Let's say you chop off my arm because I'm gay. I would hope you go to prison for a long time, but should your sentence be even longer just because I sleep with guys and you disapprove? Don't people have a First Amendment right to disapprove?

“When did the U.S. government get into the business of criminalizing people's thoughts?”

http://www.truthtellers.org/

[BlackTerrel]

Ted Pike? really?

Perhaps you could make your point without posting about 10 different articles all from the same idiot writer...