Tag Archives: Topic: Hate Crimes

CitizenLink: “‘This particular hate-crimes bill would be the first time the federal government disapproves of a valid, sincerely held religious belief held by a majority of Americans,’ [Erik Stanley] explained. ‘And that’s very troubling for free speech and free exercise of religion.’”

WorldNetDaily: “‘Christian groups shouldn’t be prohibited from expressing their beliefs at public locations,’ said attorney Rick Nelson, who is allied with the Alliance Defense Fund.”

Ezra Levant writing in the National Post: “Pesky civil rights — like the right to speak the truth — are a big reason why police don’t have a 100% hate speech conviction rate like the CHRC does. So in its new report, the CHRC suggests that the defence of truth be removed from the Criminal Code.”

AP: “The number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people killed in bias-motivated incidents increased by 28 percent in 2008 compared to a year ago, according to a national coalition of advocacy groups.”

Catholic League: “Factcheck.org has skewed the discussion, the effect of which is to make light of the concerns of religious conservatives. Those concerns are rooted in experience and are not the product of conjecture, something a check of the facts easily confirms.”

Related: Erik Stanley: “FactCheck.org: Missing the Point on the Hate Crimes Bill”

Tiffany Stanley reports at USA Today (RNS): “There is no evidence that a lack of prosecutions is occurring,” said Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel of Alliance Defense Fund. “There is a well-documented pattern that these crimes are being punished under current criminal law without adding any kind of hate crimes provisions.”

Daily Kos: “Kerry Elevald is reporting that John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, speaking at Washington D.C.’s Capital Pride Festival Sunday, told attendees that the Obama administration hopes to ‘secure secure passage of Hate Crimes this coming week.’”

Chris Johnson reports in the Washington Blade: “Senate leadership has decided to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment to another bill instead of a standalone piece of legislation, according to the Human Rights Campaign . . . . A Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Senate has planned to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment for some time. He noted that a standalone bill would be open to amendments and the Senate amendment process is much more open than the House’s.”

Press Association: “Victims of crime who are targeted because of their sexual orientation or disability have been given greater legal status.”

WorldNetDaily: “Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., today confirmed he will fight the ‘hate crimes’ legislation pending in the U.S. Senate and, if necessary, will launch a filibuster against the plan that critics have dubbed the ‘Pedophile Protection Act.’”

ADF attorney Erik Stanley took part in a publicsquare.net podcast debate with Frederick M. Lawrence on the “hate crimes” bill pending in Congress.

ADF attorney Erik Stanley, who heads up the ADF Pulpit Initiative, writes at Townhall: “FactCheck.org recently posted an article that proposes to “answer” some questions about the impact of the Hate Crimes Bill, currently pending in the Senate as S.909…but perhaps they ought to check their facts. The article summarily dismisses claims that the Hate Crimes Bill would muzzle pastors and churches and states, ‘In reality, there is nothing in the bill that says pastors must zip their lips rather than denounce homosexuality… The article misses the point entirely.’”

WorldNetDaily: The head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has written to Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, calling on him to battle approval of a “hate crimes” bill critics have called “The Pedophile Protection Act.”

Religion Clause Blog: “In People v. Ivanov, (NY Sup. Ct., Sept. 12, 2008)– decided several months ago but posted online for the first time last Friday– a New York trial court upheld New York’s hate crime statute.”

Robert A. J. Gagnon writes at the Christian Post: “The problem is that the analogy to race and gender doesn’t work well. Race and gender are 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily non-behavioral conditions of life, and therefore, intrinsically benign. Homosexuality and transsexuality are none of these things. While there probably are some biological risk factors for some homosexual development and even transgenderism, science has failed to establish that homosexuality and transsexuality develop deterministically like race and gender. Even the Kinsey Institute has acknowledged that at least one shift in the Kinsey spectrum of 0 to 6 is the norm over the course of life for those who identity as homosexual (75%). Most importantly, unlike race and gender, homosexuality and transsexuality are in the first instance impulses to engage in behavior that is structurally discordant with embodied existence (as male and female). They are therefore not intrinsically benign conditions.”

Jeff Jacoby writes Jewish World Review: “Hate-crime laws serve a symbolic function, not a practical one: They proclaim that crimes fueled by certain types of bias are especially repugnant. But that is the same as proclaiming that crimes fueled by other types of bias, or by motives having nothing to do with bias, are not quite as awful. Is that really a message any decent society should wish to promote?”

ADF attorney Erik Stanley appeared on the Michael Medved show to discuss hate crimes legislation pending before Congress.

The mp3 runs just over 34 minutes.

Mats Tunehag writing at Varlden idag: “This proposed law amendment is stupid and detrimental, going in the same wrong direction as the UN resolution banning criticism of Islam. One cannot have freedom of speech and at the same guarantee that no-one will ever raise a dissenting voice that others may dislike.”

Andrew Sullivan writing at his Atlantic blog, The Daily Dish: “The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings. Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for HRC, more gay human beings will be crucified on fences.”

Todd A. Heywood reports in the Michigan Messenger: “Introduced late last month, the legislation, HB 4835 and HB 4836, would add sentencing guidelines for violations of the state’s bias crimes act. That bill would make it illegal to target a person because of their real or perceived involvement in any of a variety of protected classes, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, veteran’s status, race or religion.”

Steve Chapman writing at Reason Magazine: “Federal law enforcement officials are not plagued by idleness these days, thanks to the demands on their time from terrorists, drug traffickers, human traffickers, Ponzi schemers, and crooked politicians. But Congress never stops trying to ensure full employment for FBI agents and U.S. attorneys. The latest stimulus is the Matthew Shepard Act, billed as an overdue effort to prevent violence against gays and lesbians.”

Katherine T. Phan writing in the Christian Post: “[T]he 1,400-member National Religious Broadcasters says Christian broadcasters and even pastors covering culturally unpopular views, such as preaching homosexuality as sin, could face prosecution just for expressing their religious views because their teachings could be blamed for inciting violence.

Legal groups specializing in constitutional rights, including the American Center for Law and Justice and Alliance Defense Fund, have also been working with the NRB to propose revised language for the bill.”

James A. Smith, Sr. writes at the Florida Baptist Witness: “The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a bill protecting homosexuals and transgendered individuals from so-called ‘hate crimes.’ With action on the bill remaining in the U.S. Senate, the president has indicated his intention to sign the bill.”

ADF attorney Erik Stanley appeared on Reality Check with Mike and Clairie Monokian to discuss the “hate crimes” bill pending in Congress.
The mp3 runs just over 7 minutes.

Wired: “Proposed congressional legislation would demand up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to ‘coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.’ Instead of prison, perhaps we should say gulag.”

“Sixteen people banned from entering the UK were ‘named and shamed’ by the Home Office today . . . The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host . . . The list of the 16 ‘least wanted’ includes radio talk show host Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner.”

Politics.hu: “Hungary’s governing Socialist party will initiate an amendment to the Constitution so as to ban Holocaust denial and hate speech and make them punishable by law . . . ”

The Independent: The list of the 16 “least wanted” includes radio talk show host Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner. “This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country,” Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast.

Christian Post: “Attorneys at a Christian legal group are urging the U.S. Senate not to pass the expanded ‘Hate Crimes’ bill, which the House this week voted 249-175 in favor of. The attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund insist that the bill, H.R. 1913, could severely impede Americans’ constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression while creating additional legal protections for those engaged in homosexual behavior that are not available to everyone else.”

Baptist Press: “‘So-called ‘hate crime’ laws serve only one purpose: The criminalization of citizens based on whatever thoughts, beliefs and emotions they have that are not considered to be politically correct,’ ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot said in a written statement.”

If it becomes law, ADF attorneys say the bill could severely impede Americans’ constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression while creating additional legal protections for those engaged in homosexual behavior that are not available to everyone else.

“On a vote of 249-175, the House passed and sent to the Senate a bill backed by the new Democratic White House to broaden such laws by classifying as ‘hate crimes’ those attacks based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.”

Human Events: “‘What’s at risk is the ability to preach the Gospel.’ So said Bishop Harry Jackson, standing with other black religious leaders and Republican congressmen at a press conference yesterday. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) led a group of members of Congress and Christian leaders yesterday in denouncing HR 1913, the federal hate crimes legislation that was passed on a straight party line vote out of the House Judiciary Committee late last week.”

CBN: “The House is expected to act on hate crimes legislation Wednesday. Opponents spoke out against the bill, Tuesday, on Capitol Hill calling it a ‘gag bill for ministers.’”

WorldNetDaily: “House Democrats have announced a vote could come as early as tomorrow on a “hate crimes” bill that supporters admit might allow federal officials to prosecute Christians who speak out against homosexual behavior.”

Las Vegas Sun:
“The chancellor of Nevada’s public higher education system said he will ask UNLV to rewrite a proposed campus policy that the ACLU of Nevada’s general counsel has called unconstitutional.
The proposed policy, which the university was aiming to implement in July, outlines how members of the university community should deal with possible hate crimes and ‘bias incidents.’”

Liberty Counsel: “On Wednesday, April 29, the U.S. House is scheduled to vote on so-called ‘hate crimes” legislation, which would give ‘actual or perceived’ ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ the same federal protection as race. Last week the House Judiciary Committee refused to exclude pedophiles from the bill’s protection. The Committee also refused to include veterans. Moreover, the bill does not include the elderly.”

WorldNetDaily: “Members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee today rejected an opportunity to protect Christian pastors who preach the biblical condemnation of homosexuality and approved on a 15-12 vote a ‘hate crimes’ bill that supporters admit could be used to bring charges against religious leaders.”

Citizen Link: “The U.S. House Judiciary Committee voted 15-12 today in favor of legislation that would create a new class of crimes based on the victim’s ‘actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.’ Under “hate-crimes” laws like H.R. 1913 . . . ”

One News Now: “We exposed the fact that they claimed, they have fraudulent claims that there was an epidemic of hate against homosexuals and drag queens, transgenders — and that claim was the foundation of the bill,” she notes . . . “We nailed them on the fact that that’s a lie.”

Tony Perkins writes at Christian Post:
“The House Judiciary Committee will on Wednesday consider a proposed federal ‘hate crimes’ bill, H.R. 1913. It would, for the first time, allow the federal government to step in and prosecute any violent crime anywhere in the country that ‘is motivated by prejudice’ against a number of protected characteristics, including ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ (that is, cross-dressing and sex changes).

All violent crimes should be vigorously prosecuted – but this novel legal approach violates several core principles and holds a number of dangers . . . ”

Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law: “This paper attempts to illustrate the boundaries of freedom of speech in connection with the protection of other values. The burning question is how free speech can be discerned from hate speech.”

Townhall: “It inarguably codifies unequal protection under the law, creating a two-tiered justice system made up of first-class victims such as those who self-identify as homosexual or “transgender” and second-class victims such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, veterans, the homeless and others who choose not to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors.”

Christian Newswire (Concerned Women for America): “The Hate Crimes Act constructs a ranking of victims based on actual or perceived ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.’ This legislation flies in the face of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees ‘equal protection under the law’ for all citizens — regardless of their sexual preference.”

Citizen Link: “Democrats in Congress are pushing to create a new class of crimes based on the victim’s ‘actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.’. . . The U.S. House Judiciary Committee is expected to take up the legislation — H.R. 1913 — this week.”

Liberty Counsel: “On Wednesday, April 22, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on so-called ‘hate crimes’ legislation, which would give ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ the same federal protection as race. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) have reintroduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 1913). Liberty Counsel has published a legal memo explaining how hate crimes laws threaten freedom.”

Christian Post: “The U.S. House Judiciary Committee will vote on a controversial legislation next week that seeks to add homosexual and transgender people to the list of classes federally protected from hate crimes.”

Christian Post: “The Evangelical Fellowship of India expressed outrage and condemned the use of hate speech by BJP candidates to fan communal feelings in Orissa. With the election just around the corner, the Christian group said the attempt to further polarize the voters is deeply disturbing.”

Brown Daily Herald: “Calling for the state to classify crimes based on ‘gender identity or expression’ as hate crimes, the bill, sponsored by Rep. Edith Ajello, D-Dist. 3, and four other representatives, was introduced in the Rhode Island House of Representatives in early February. The committee decided Tuesday to hold the measure for further study.”

H.R. 1913 was introduced in the House Judiciary Committee on April 2nd by Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14]. The official title: “To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. as introduced.”

Bob Unruh, writing at WorldNetDaily: “Christian organizations are warning constituents of a potential stealth attack on their faith in Congress with the launch of another “hate crimes” law, similar to a previous measure adopted with only minutes’ notice.”

Don Feder writing at FrontPageMagazine: “When asked if fascism could ever come to America, Huey Long (the Depression-era governor of Louisiana) replied, “Sure, only here they’ll call it anti-fascism.” Hate-crimes laws are fascism in the guise of protecting minorities. They’re fascism in crime-prevention drag. They’re fascism in the name of combating bigotry and hatred.”

Religion Clause Blog: “In India, the battle over the candidacy of Varun Sanjay Gandhi, grandson of former Prime Minister Indira Ghandi, continues. Varun Ghandi, a member of the BJP, is a candidate for the lower house of India’s Parliament, running from a district in the state of Uttar Pradesh. BBC News reported last week on the March 22 Order of the Election Commission (full text) recommending that Ghandi not be nominated as a candidate because of two speeches he made last month that contained highly derogatory references to the Muslim community.”

The Illinois Family Institute has posted this article on OpposingViews.com in response to its being placed on a “Hate Groups” list prepared by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Penny Starr, reporting at CNSNews: “Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said . . . that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a ‘homophobe.’ . . . Frank also predicted that Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress will pass three pro-homosexual laws in the coming months and years . . .”

The University of Washington Daily has an article by Kaitlin Strohschein discussing Washington Senate Bill 5952 which “modifies the definition of “sexual orientation” for malicious harassment prosecution purposes”: Although there have been no reported hate crimes on the UW campus …

MyNC reports: A UNC System Task Force said Tuesday a uniform policy on hate crimes is needed on all 16 of the System’s campuses. This comes in light of the November incident where someone painted racist graffiti on NC State’s …

BBC:  A new law to widen the definition of hate crimes to protect gay communities and disabled people has moved closer. Holyrood’s justice committee has backed the bill being put forward by Green MSP Patrick Harvie. The Scottish Government has …

Most people have not been closely following the implications of the promotion of the homosexual agenda in other Western countries, especially Canada and Sweden, or even in selected areas of the United States. Here are some results that would follow from granting homosexual marriage or its legal equivalent and making “sexual orientation” a specially protected civil rights category for “hate speech” and “non-discrimination” laws.

Assemblywoman Pat Eddington (D-Medford) is introducing legislation that would require law enforcement to treat any crime committed by a man against a woman as a potential hate crime.

LifeSiteNews: “The UK Guardian reports that a document known as Contest 2 reveals plans to widen the definition of “extremist” as part of the antiterrorism effort to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared …

Christian Web News: “Americans these days are very focused on issues with the economy, but many are completely unaware of threats to their First Amendment rights. Christian Web News spoke with Erik Stanley of the Alliance Defense Fund – ADF …

The editor and publisher of a major Indian newspaper have been arrested for “hurting the religious feelings” of Muslims after they reprinted an article from The Independent. Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha, the editor and publisher of the Kolkata-based English daily The Statesman, appeared in court yesterday charged under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code which forbids “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings”.

The Religion Clause Blog: The Simon Wiesenthal Center yesterday announced the release of a new report titled Hatred In Hard Times– And How to Combat It: Lessons From History For the 21st Century.

A controversial one-hour paid program on the “radical homosexual agenda” scheduled for WOOD-TV is delayed for the second time as partisans on both sides debate its merit.

“The Canadian Broadcasters Standards Council . . . has ruled that comments made by a radio talk show host were ‘sweeping, abusive and unduly discriminatory criticism of Islam’ in violation of the CAB Code of Ethics.”

LifeSiteNews: “Federal MP’s will be looking today at proceeding with curtailing or scrapping Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and will consider the misuse of the Section by the Canadian Human Rights Commissions.”

Rep. Steve Israel Thursday visited the Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth Center in Bay Shore, and announced legislation that would create a federal hotline for hate crimes.

20090203 – A Liberal Plot against the Pope? Several Italian religious journalists (including Rodari, for Il Riformista, Tornielli, for Il Giornale) are reporting today on a dossier circulating within the Vatican which could reveal that a plot was planned for …

In this Essay, I consider whether recent scientific findings about the nature of human attitude formation and decisionmaking, and the social cues that drive behavior, might have the potential to shift the hate speech debate such that some areas of common ground come into view. Specifically, new insights in the areas of social and cognitive psychology and brain development suggest that there may be a “third way” that escapes some of the most difficult criticisms of both the strong free speech and the procensorship positions and that incorporates some of the most important insights of each.

Americans and Europeans have very different ideas of the strength of their respective free speech guarantees. In an article by Professors Russell Weaver, Nicolas Delpierre, and Laurence Boissier on the Gayssot laws of France, we encounter an account of a free speech regime that would be an anathema to most Americans. In this Essay, I explore the different thoughts an American lawyer and a European lawyer have to help us understand why arguments that are persuasive to lawyers of one country might not be similarly persuasive to lawyers from other countries with very different cultures.

In Europe, where citizens lack the protection of a First Amendment, hate crime legislation is used to punish citizens for the expression of negative opinions concerning minority groups. In Europe the concept of hate crimes make sense because hate crimes are crimes of opinion and sentiment. Unlike America, Europe criminalizes opinions and sentiments. However, in the United States, with its First Amendment, it is difficult to see what purpose hate crime legislation can serve. The Matthew Shepard Act contains a “Rule of Construction” explicitly stating that “Nothing in this Act… shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

Over the backdrop of the Megan Williams case, this comment highlights some of the universal difficulties state prosecutors have in pursuing hate crimes. The analysis considers the tangential implications that failure to prosecute hate crimes has on society, the potentially curative effect of passing proposed federal legislation, and the necessity of overlaying restorative justice to both heal damage from and decrease incidents of hate crimes.

It is the swiftness of the onslaught, not the scope of the agenda, which surprises. Repeatedly, during the campaign, Mr. Obama affirmed in speeches and on his Web site his wholehearted support for the homosexual legal and political agenda. Now, that agenda has moved en masse to the front and center of the new president’s parade of “change.”

One News Now: “An author and critic of Islam says the recent decision by a Dutch court to prosecute a Dutch lawmaker for comparing the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf does not bode well for the future of free speech …