Granted, we at Hoosier Access typically don’t quote this blogger, but he finally makes a case against a cause which he typically fights ferociously in favor. I’m referring to Gary Welsh’s advocacy for hate crimes laws. While I don’t speak for the directors of HA, most I believe agree with me that “hate crime” laws are ripe for abuse and criminalize anything non-politically correct and stifle free speech. Is Orwell’s “Thought Police” not too far in the future with these “hate crimes” laws?
Gary Welsh wrote today about a Hispanic woman near Chicago that was a Obama superdelegate to the DNC. This Hispanic woman saw her neighbor children [who happen to be black] playing in a tree and she yelled at the kids to get out of the tree and quit acting like little monkeys. The use of the word “monkeys” drew fire from her neighbor and the Hispanic woman was cited and issued a fine for violating some ordinance, likely associated with a hate crimes law. As a result, B. Hussein Obama tossed her under the bus and removed her as a supporting superdelegate. Sounds like one more vote for Hillary.
Mr. Welsh wrote “The misapplication of [hate crimes] laws feeds into the hands of the opponents who claim hate crime laws infringe upon a person’s free speech rights. You could certainly make that argument in this case.”
(Read more after the leap)
No Gary, hate crimes laws DO infringe upon free speech rights. Imagine a prosecutor or other elected official using hate crimes laws to go after a newspaper reporter that reported negatively against him or her, or a television reporter, or even a blogger.
What hate crimes laws create is protected classes of citizens, free to wave around hate crimes laws any time advantage could be gained.
Suppose someone cuts you off in traffic on I-465. You display the finger, like most drivers on I-465. Next thing you know a state trooper is cuffing you because the person who cut you off in traffic just happened to be gay, was offended by the hand gesture, got your license plate number, and you’re being arrested for a hate crime and face hard time in jail, and heavy fines.
Extreme cases such as Matthew Shephard and The Jasper Texas Incident are isolated extreme examples of very bad people doing very bad acts. Compare that to the number of people who would be prosecuted under perceived violations of overly broad “hate crimes laws”. This is why such legislation is a bad idea.
Part of the irony in this issue is that in the sad case of the Matthew Shephard death, it was determined that the murder was NOT a hate crime. Rather, it was discovered that Shephard died as a result of an inter-gang battle over drugs.
Oh Brian, I think you just opened a can of worms.
I will simply link to this article and refrain from further comments.
This was well written.
These Hate Crime/Thought Crime laws have been abused in Canada/EU/UK to persecute many people, not just Right Wing Conservatives, nationalists.
In Europe, the French Film star Brigitte Bardot was persecuted under hate speech laws for criticizing some Muslim’s abuse of animals. In Canada it was a liberal/Left publisher who reprinted Danish cartoons making fun of Islamic extremists.
Under the proposed HR 1913, the US Government would set up similar EU/Canadian style Human Rights Commissions where regular Americans would be dragged in front of tribunals and forced to explain their motivation – their thoughts for writing or saying something – the bill of rights no longer apply, all that matters is if someone is offended by what you say, write or think.
Please help us resist these Orwellian thought crime laws – it shouldn’t just be Religious Right Christians fighting these terrible laws.
Jack Ellis
bikers4freedom.com
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
Secured by Super-CAPTCHA © 2009 MLW & Associates, LLP. All rights reserved.