Came back from CA on Friday and didn't check the news carefully. Saturday, I was at a CHRISTmas party and heard from a local GOP unit chairman he had been contacted by an Allen staffer that Sen. Allen had fixed his position on including homosexual behavior as a protected class of persons in a hate crimes amendment to a crime bill. Today, I find the news in Virginia blogs and at Newsmax (dated Friday). Here is the piece.
Friday, Dec. 9, 2005 9:58 p.m. EST
Sen. Allen Withdraws 'Hate Crimes' Support
This article by Jeff Johnson originally appeared at CNS.com
Republican U.S. Sen. George Allen will no longer support "hate crimes" legislation that includes "sexual orientation" as a protected status, even if the proposal is identical to a bill he voted for in 2004. The Virginia senator acknowledged Friday that such legislation could be used by federal courts to extend civil rights protections to homosexuals and to squelch free speech.
"Senator Allen is going to vote against adding 'sexual orientation' to federal 'hate crimes' laws," Mike Thomas, Allen's state director, told Cybercast News Service Friday.
Thomas said Allen has two serious concerns after monitoring how the federal courts have applied similar laws.
"The first is, he feels that those changes to hate crimes laws could have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights," Thomas said. (Editor's Note: Click on the comments button below to read the rest of this article.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Allen's position helps him with his Right Flank during the 2006. But, frankly, I am surprised and pleased to see this movement when the conventional wisdom is to moderate, mush, weaken, pander, pacify and wimp Conservative positions to run for President in 08.
Hooah x times.
Hate crimes are thought crimes. Protected classes of persons are anathema to the Republic. Homosexuals as a class of persons protected from hate crimes (including 'hate speech') is a stealth assault on the First Amendment free speech and free exercise of religion against Evangelical Christians.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Editor's Note: I have snipped some of the text from the article cited in Jim Bowden's original post and placed it here. We try to keep our posts from running at excessive length.
Secondly - even though he doesn't feel that the legislation that was voted on in 2004, in and of itself, would elevate 'sexual orientation' to civil rights status - it's becoming clear that there are some courts that would use that as a building block toward civil rights status, which he is opposed to."
Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, shares Allen's concerns.
"These are the warnings that the pro-family groups ... have been making for years to politicians like George Allen," Glover told Cybercast News Service. "We're just happy that George Allen has seen it, now that it's actually coming to fruition, before it's too late."
Both Glover and Thomas referenced an October 2004 incident in Philadelphia where a group of Christians were arrested and each faced 47 years in jail for publicly reading Bible verses condemning homosexual behavior during the city's "Outfest," a "gay pride" celebration.
"He's seen religious liberties being threatened in Philadelphia," Glover said, "because of a 'hate crimes' law there that includes 'sexual orientation.'"
There are other cases as well, Thomas said. "There are indications that the courts are willing to use 'hate crimes' statutes to go after free speech and that is of great concern to Senator Allen," he said.
Glover had previously criticized Allen for what pro-family advocates saw as a reversal on this issue. As Cybercast News Service previously reported that Allen wrote supporters during his 2000 Senate campaign, telling them that he would "take no action that would have the effect of elevating sexual orientation to civil rights status including, but not limited to, adding sexual orientation to Federal Hate Crimes legislation or any other similar legislation."
Allen denied changing his position when he voted in favor of a 2004 bill that included "sexual orientation" as a protected class, because he believed, at that time, that the law would not provide civil rights protections to homosexuals. Thomas said it is now the potential effect of the legislation, not the senator's position that has changed.
Copyright 2005, CNSNews.com. All Rights Reserved.
Yes, "hate crimes" are silly, and we shouldn't have such legislation. But since we do have such laws, they certainly ought to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. There are a good many laws on the books that I don't think should be on the books but, if they're there, let's do 'em right.
To claim that to protect gays in this manner is "a stealth assault on...the free exercise of religion against Evangelical Christians" is registering pretty high on my crazy-o-meter.
Waldo,
Facing 47 years in prison simply for reading the Bible out loud on a street corner seems to me to be the crazyness, and yes it is an assult on religious liberty.
As long as we also protect those who read the Koran, the Talmud, the Book of Mormon, the Boddhisavta, and all other religious texts. If it is only about readers of the Bible, then that would be wrong.
And as long as it is reading from the text and not adding to it. No one should have to endure mean or hateful language simply because they believe a different truth than what is interpreted to be in the holy scriptures of different belief systems.
Unfortunately, it rarely seems to just stop with the readings of scriptures.
Which brings up an interesting point - what would constitute valid religious matter? Does it have to have survived some test of time? ...be adopted by vote of assembled "experts" to be considered canonical? ...represent the dogma or doctrine of a sufficiently large religious faith community?
Sorry Terry I don't care how offensive the speech is to some, or even the majority of people. It is constitutionally protected. Just look at what's going on out in Ohio with the Nazi party. While I agree they espouse extremely hateful views, as a believer in free specch, I don't think they should be jailed for it.
If people disagree with them, they don't have to listen. They can choose to just move along peacefully out of earshot.
I believe in free speech too.
That said, does that mean I can stand outside your church on a Sunday morning during service with a loudspeaker and tell you how wrong you are for your beliefs and interrupt your services?
Some of that has been going on as well.
Exercising one's freedom of speech in order to prevent another person from engaging in practice of a constitutionally or legally protected activity is also wrong.
And some times you just can't keep walking by.
Terry, your first example could be answered by charging the person with trespassing, or even noise pollution if they are being too loud.
From what I understand in Philadelphia, the situation was that a crowd gathered around the speakers there and tried to shout them down. Then the speakers were arrested, not the crowd. Sounds to me like it was the crowd that used their freedom of speech in order to prevent the speakers who were arrested from exercising theirs.
I have no problem with police enforcing good order and peace on the streets, but calling what these people were doing a "hate crime" and charging them with a potential 47 years in jail is draconian and should make everyone's spine shiver! It is a perfect example of repression and intolerance.
From the way you describe it, it sounds like the original speakers could be charged with inciting to riot.
And now, checking the Urban Legends site, we find indeed, they were not charged solely with hate crimes, but inciting to riot and criminal conspiracy.
As usual, there is more to the story then actually provided.
Rtwng Extrmst, I actually agree with you - as long as we allow all the same access to free speech, not just those reading from the Bible, or any other text.
Freedom of Religion means we celebrate the fact that all faiths are welcome in America...that ALL can worship without fear of persecution.
Freedom of Speech means we celebrate the ability for all parties to speak or to make statement through actions that do not cause harm to others.
However, without a basic mutual respect for each of us to practice what we believe without being hassled, then it is all garbage.
I wonder why Allen felt the need to change his position on this? hmmm...
Can anyone clear up for me why a hate crimes law may have been used in the Pennsylvania case? I thought you could only use this law if there was bodily harm or a particularly heinous display of hate that causes mortal fear or something to that effect.
Is the law he's backing away from federal or state?
Anon 3:43: I hope that George Allen's staff gave him a heads up on the Constitutional freedom issues and he learned wisely. But that might be drinking my own bath water.
Anon 9:50: PA passed a law, opposed vainly by Conservatives, that made hate speech a hate crime. So, reading from the Bible became a hate crime with bigoted public officials.
Waldo Jacquith: Please adjust your crazy-o-meter. Perhaps I can link you up with the Tidewater homosexual activist (U Va Law Grad no less) who told me that saying, "homosexual behavior is immoral according to the Bible" is hate speech and should be punished as a hate crime in Virginia. That is what he is working towards. How does he register on your crazy-o-meter?
Or, you could look at the Canadian who was fined for publishing a Bible verse, nothing else, on a billboard as a hate crime.
Or, you could look at the elderly Swedish minister who was charged with a hate crime for preaching in church that homosexuality was sinful. He was acquitted, but he got the message and promised to never preach that again.
Free speech is free speech. The limits on this freedom - libel, slander, riot, and panic in public places is well established and doesn't need improvements based on the content of the speech.
I'd love it if homosexual activists came to protest, legally and peacefully, at my church or any other Christian house of worship. The folks on the inside would have some names and faces to pray about. And the protesters would get invited in to worship joyfully, not protest, and probably, at the least get a nice cup of coffee, maybe a invitation to a fried chicken dinner or crabcakes.
oops... limits... are
Ought to try proofreading.
Thank you, Mr. Bowden.
Wow! Crab cakes!! Can I come too?
This doesn't happen often, but i actually agree with a few of JAB's points (though not all of course). Hate speech is deplorable, but it is covered under the first amendment IMHO. The key element of a "hate crime" is a crime. Speech should not be a crime. A hate crime should be where the act itself committed is a crime, regardless of any motivation or speech assocaited. Once thats established, we're getting into territory where JAB normally starts looking for the "though police", and things get a little tenuous.
I agree. A crime should be a crime not thoughts or words. If it keeps on we won't even be able to say "good" or "bad" or "Thank God it's Friday" without being arrested.
Even in Pennsylvania, it is not a crime simply to speak or read the Bible on a street corner. Here's a link to the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission page describing their hate crimes law, http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/PHRC/bias/bias_legal_extracts.html.
Just as is the case with the federal hate crimes law, even in Pennsylvania, you have to commit a predicate offense before you can be charged with the additional offense of "ethnic intimidation." Predicate offenses (the list of which is longer than that in the federal hate crimes law) include property crimes (like arson) and threats to person (like assault, terroristic acts, etc). There is one predicate crime linked to speech, it deals with harassing phone calls and similar verbal assaults directed at a specific person.
The folks arrested in Pennsylvania were not arrested simply for standing peacefully on a corner reading Bible excerpts about homosexuality as the internet calls to action suggest. They were charged for acts (not speech) aimed at some other folks conducting a peaceful demonstration.
The "Christians" were not treated differently than members of the Klan would have been if they actively tried to disrupt through physical threat, etc, the free speech of NAACP members conducting a peaceful march or Jewish folks who physically confronted Nazi marchers in Skokie.
There does appear to be a clear need for police to be careful in exercising judgment in such circumstances. And, it may well be that those charged in the Pennsylvania melee will be found not guilty in a court proceeding. But, if there is a breach of the peace whether by M13 gang members or Christians following their strongly held beliefs, I would continue to hope that there would be arrests.
It is sad to see that folks need to twist the facts to win an argument on the hate crimes laws. I challenge those of you who seek to defend George Allen's decision to do so based on what these laws actually say and on the real facts of cases where they are applied rather than on hyperbolic internet screeds that seek to paint a picture of hate crimes statutes that no reasoned person could see in a positive light.
I guess I forgot to mention...all charges in Pennsylvania were subsequently dropped by mid-February 2005.
In short, this simply has not been an issue since then. I posted the link hoping someone would read it and admit that the conservatives pushing the issue were being selective about which facts to present.
And yes, liberals do the same.
CG2: We've chatted about hate crimes, speech crimes and protected classes of persons before. It is fundamentally wrong to create ANY hate crime, any speech crime, and any protected class of persons for hate crimes and speech crimes.
JAB: I've made clear in our prior chats that I agree that it is wrong to create speech crimes, but I know of no hate crimes law that punishes speech in the absence of direct and intentional harm to others or their property.
As John Stuart Mill said in his essay On Liberty, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. ... To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else."
The federal hate crimes law is designed to deter evil conduct (not speech) that is designed to produce harm to others based solely on their race, religion, national origin, and, if the law were to change, sexual orientation.
I continue to think that painting a swastika on a Jewish synagogue to cause fear in a defined religious community is patently different from spray painting graffiti without religious malice on a wall, and should be sanctioned differently. Assaulting or killing someone simply because he or she is black, gay, or Christian is an act meant to harm more than the person killed and his/her loved ones, it is an act meant to cause harm to all who share the characteristic reviled by the perpetrator and penalty enhancement is appropriate.
From what you've said before you either don't see or don't value the reality of this larger harm to others and the evil hate crimes do to the underpinnings of our democracy. That is the evil addressed by hate crimes laws, an evil deserving of separate sanction.
So, I guess we'll continue to respectfully disagree.
CG2: Ma'am, you're lawyer, not me. I do love the Rule of Law though. It means freedom and peace in Virginia.
Aren't the crimes you want to be covered by hate crimes at the Federal or State level already crimes of assault etc?
I see the greater evil lurking in hate crimes that require juries to determine thought crimes and in creating in law protected classes of persons. To the degree we have those class distinctions today, we as the People are in error. I hope we can fix it in my lifetime.
Allow me to digress a minute on the larger harm to others issue. As a student of American history when I was a kid, I read about the property rights that would make business segregation (food, motels, etc) Constitutional. Yet, living in integrated Army communities overseas and then returning to de-segregating Virginia, it was absolutely clear to me that the right of an individual to exercise racial segregation was far less important, and very sinful, for the hurt it caused my fellow citizens. The pain that segregation caused on innocent victims can't be quantified. It was too terrible, shameful and sinful. Yet, that awful wrong doesn't make the hate crimes bit right.
Post a Comment