A bill is currently circulating Congress that could provide certain individuals additional legal protection.
According to the Family Research Council, the federal “hate crimes” bill, H.R. 1913 will give the government freedom to “step in and prosecute” any criminal act that “is motivated by prejudice against a number of protected characteristics, including sexual orientation and gender identity.”
This would make distinct groups “protected classes” under the law, and safe from hate crimes. Though the title sounds rational, it is deceptive. As one looks closer, the bill is really aimed at controlling thought rather than criminal activity because it punishes “politically-incorrect beliefs, attitudes, and thoughts rather than actual crimes.”
The law is likely to pass, gaining support from the Obama administration and homosexual activist groups nationwide.
Instituting the bill would allow a greater amount of protection to a certain group of people while sacrificing the security of others, thus violating equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Don’t get me wrong, any violent act should not be tolerated, but elevating the protection of one person above another is not equality. If homosexuals receive protection under the law from hate crimes, so should others.
There have been plenty of instances where institutions were sued and lost because they chose to exercise their freedom of belief. A Massachusetts man was jailed after requesting permission to teach homosexuality to his child.
In the same state, Catholic charities were forced to close adoption programs because they refused to allow same-sex couples to adopt. What about their freedom of speech, religion and protection from the government? Their loss was not considered as a hate crime.
Where does one draw the line on the definition of a hate crime? In several regions where the law has been implemented, basic freedoms such as speech have been labeled as hate crimes and “verbal assaults.” Those who choose to express contrary views will be labeled as haters and prosecuted with criminal charges.
If speech can be prosecuted as a federal crime, then freedom of speech will be violated — not to mention freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.
Last week, contestant Carrie Prejean lost out on the Miss U.S.A. crown after she stated she was against homosexual unions. Celebrity judge Perez Hilton lashed out with profanities against Prejean on his blog following the pageant calling her offensive names and stating that her statement on same-sex marriage was the reason she did not win.
According to Fox News, Prejean was an obvious front-runner until she made the statement. Prejean also received plenty of criticism from other celebrities and many media outlets just for stating her opinion.
If this statement ruffled the feathers of many prior to the hate crimes bill, wouldn’t this be considered a verbal offense or assault? If someone could lose a job, freedoms of speech or religion by exercising their rights, their voices could be completely silenced in order to prevent them from offending others — if the bill passes.
It seems that those who desire to state their differences will have to bear the consequences for their “hateful” actions. And I thought we lived in America.
Becky Yeh is a junior journalism major and a columnist for the Daily Forty-Niner.
“Your name” – I wasn’t arguing that the federal government had the natural right to withhold funding. I was just stating that they could, based on legal precedent. Specifically, per Evans v. Berkeley. Also, I thought we were a federal republic, not a democracy?
It was interesting to me that Miss California was vilified for expressing the same opinion about same sex marriage that President Obama expressed in the 2008 Presidential campaign. I have also read that Committee analysis of the proposed hate crimes legislation would allow prosecution of any clergyman who preaches against homosexuality within the teachings of his or her denomination because it could lead to violence against homosexuals. So contrary to popular belief expressed in many of the comments about this opinion piece, no other crime need be attached for this law to be enforced. I’m not making this stuff up.
The thing that probably makes me more afraid of this proposed Bill than anything else is that to speak out against pedophiles would subject the speaker to prosecution for speaking out against them alone. They are one of the protected classes in this proposed law because it specifically covers sexual orientation. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. I’m sorry to see our legislators seriously consider such unworthy legislation. Our children deserve to be protected.
Ever since the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation made political speech illegal within 60 days of an election and the Supreme Court upheld it, I have little faith that our first amendment freedom of speech rights would be upheld against this bill should it become law.
++
nothing like leading the sheep to their own slaughter under the guise of protection. *sigh*
==
To Michael Yee, the federal government has NO rights by the true definition of “democracy.” Take an intro poli sci course. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, notably the 14th Amendment in this case, not the First, are the double edged sword of rights and responsibilities. To Dana: even “hate speech” is protected speech unless it is inflammatory enough to provoke a violent reaction: Example–If you stand on the steps of the courthouse and use slang derogatory name calling like the “N-word” and somebody punches you in the beak, you can both go to jail, but the name caller could face both criminal and civil litigation, while the one doing the punching will likely be slapped on the hand for your incendiary provocation.
Interestingly, it was proposed by a legislator in opposition to this bill that perhaps veterans ought to receive the same protections as homosexuals under this proposed law. Of course he wasn’t really proposing greater protection for veterans since we veterans are already protected by the same laws that protect everybody else in our society, but he wanted to show the unnecessary need for separate, special, and enhanced laws designed to protect only specific elements of the society and exclude others. To his surprise, and mine too, the Majority committee response was that veterans did not warrant special protection, but homosexuals did. Really? Such a law would never stand up to judicial review. This whole fiasco is politics and nothing more. Further hate crimes legislation needs to end now. Law enforcement and the courts should abide by the hard fought, hard earned Equal Protection Clause of the 14 Amendment. Anything less is making a mockery of our Constitution and our overall society.
Interesting commentary. I can see how certain dogmatic aspects of traditional religious belief (or as quoted below – canon law) can easily be rendered illegal by the adoption of this law. Those constitutional law scholars who believe that the US Constitution is an outmoded and antiquated legal document will find great impetus for their arguments in the constitutional conflicts that will arise from the adoption of this law (vis-à-vis: freedom of religious expression and the right of the individual). It may well be that the passage of this law, and others that result in similar conflicts (such as the adoption of agreements that ratify dubious international legal documents from the Hague), may be part of a larger strategy to diminish the relevance of the constitution in US law. Frightening indeed.
if anything would be worthy of an armed revolution, stopping hate crimes legislation is it.
It’s sad that the media like this article no longer reports facts. There is nothing about the hate crimes law that would outlaw opinions. Assault/murder/etc has to be involved, and the last time I checked – sticks and stones may break bones, but words will never harm us. Quit over-dramaticizing the facts – you’re as bad as the liberals.
Dana, if you new ANYTHING about the Bible you would soon learn that every human being needs a supreme being that dictates to said individual how to live his or her life. Perhaps YOU should dig a little deeper into why this legislation is the most horific to come along ever. Being a Bible-believer does not make one a propagandist, it makes one a sinner saved by grace. But then, I would guess that you nothing of this, but prove me wrong.
I am a Russian Orthodox Christian. In our faith, Christ is seen as the prototype of deified humanity. In this belief system we are encouraged to struggle against passionate impulses that cloud the nous (spiritual mind) and render it incapable of the vision of God, and thus becoming a copy of the prototype (Christ). Many of the Holy Fathers of our church (2000 yr old spiritual tradition based on the practice of mental prayer – a practice forgotten in the west) described in great detail what these passions are, where they come from, and how they cloud the nous. In truth mental prayer is called “The art of arts and the science of sciences”.
They describe how the passion of lust between men is not only forbidden by commandment from God through the scriptures and canon law of the Holy Orthodox Church, but also the reasons WHY. This descriptive material concerning the movement of passion in the soul, and the darkening that results from destructive sexual practices form the basis for the strict regulation of sexual contact that exists in the monastic life of the Orthodox Church.
Now, if you do not believe in Christ as the prototype of deified man, and the above descriptive material is hard to grasp, you can surely at the least understand that it is not based on hate, but on love. The Fathers of the Eastern Church were masters of the acquisition of virtue, and love sits at the pinnacle of those virtues. They spoke only with love.
My concern is that this law that is being proposed will make such confessions of faith illegal, and those who maintain them culpable of breaking this law, and as such open to incarceration. This is very serious, and would be a conceptually deep deep departure from what has made the rule of law in this land so attractive to those who harbour deep religious faith.
I think that one should be careful that a great mistake is not made here.
Becky Yeh needs to explain the “Catholic charity” bit – if they were completely reliant on public funding and chose to discriminate against gay couples, the federal government has the right to withdraw its funding, and therefore, they would have no choice but to close.
I absolutely agree with Becky Yeh & her column – Hate crimes legislation would criminalize all opinions
Becky Yeh is right on mark with her discussion about coming trends.
Commentary from DANA below is without merit as she attacks Yeh as a propagandist. It is DANA who is fearing truthful discussions.
Additional protected rights or extra protections for specific groups are never to comprehended – these are concepts outside the rule of law. It is DANA who is fearing truthful discussions. There are never to be additional protected rights or extra protections for specific groups.
It is DANA’s statements above which are naive & fascistically farcical, which ooze with politically correct rhetoric.
Hate Crime legislation is an absolute THOUGHT POLICE …. evidence demonstrates that Hate Crime laws will incriminate any one according to disagreements …. if someone doesn’t like a pageant contestant because she has a different opinion – then crime charges may certainly be eligible to be filed in the future. It won’t be a disagreement of one’s opinion – forget First Amendment & Freedom of Speech, miss pageant contestant may be charged with a crime & facing jail because she stated an opinion – only an opinion which isn’t popular within some circles.
Where does free speech exist in a situation like this? What right does a minor population group have to control a vast majority with regard to what one thinks about behavior?
‘Hate Crime’ legislation is a mockery of any truthful consideration regarding the protections of majorities of peoples everywhere. ‘Hate Crime’ legislation is no protection for anyone – it’s the complete opposite. In reality Hate Crime protections allow a small population group to over rule the majority population. In 1776 this was called tyranny & these concepts are the oppose of democratic rule of law.
Hate Crimes legislation is Thought Police. It is judicial tyranny & decision making against the ability of people to live according the First Amendment & Freedom of Speech. It is so unbelievable that so called Hate Crimes legislation could even be considered for authentic consideration on floor of Senate.
Yes, all free people are entitled to one’s own opinion – and, no one person or set a people has any will or right to discriminate against free speech which includes the world view of DANA to whom I personally disagree.
Provisions of freedom & free speech have been declared from standards of the Magna Carta to the first amendment of the US Constitution – which uphold foundational tenants of recognized law. But special discreet groups & especially minor sized population groups are never to be given special priviledges to then take control over the remainder of the population. There are never to be additional protected rights or extra provisions for specific groups. All must live under the same set of laws.
What DANA hopes for in ‘Hate Crimes’ protection & desires without discernment is called ‘tyranny’ in capital letters.
Oligarchy or Authoritarianism were opposed in all forms by the Framers of America who sought to establish within their insight – no culture which is redefined from the natural states of law shall ultimately survive under tyrannies and redefinitions.
If you care about the US Constitution & your own ability to speak your views freely – it is not out of the question to seek to contact the one party controlled senate in Congress today – YOUR SENATOR & declare NO to ‘Hate Crimes’ legislation. Your own ability to speak freely may depend upon your speaking out today.
“If homosexuals receive protection under the law from hate crimes, so should others.”
And they do. Sexual orientation includes heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals. The bill also covers violent crimes commited against people solely because of their race, color, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity and disabiity.
Your discussions of hate speech is off the mark. There are no laws in the U.S. that punish hate speech only violent acts. This bill specifically relates to “violent acts” and “willfuly causing bodiliy injury”. Hate crimes laws based on race, religion and national origina have been on the books since 1968. Yet, the KKK and other white supremicist groups continue to be allowed to verbally denegrate and demean non-whites, and religious leaders continue to be allowed to verbally denegrate and demean other religions. So, people will continue to be allowed to denegrate and demean homosexuals as they choose. My question is why would anybody want to denegrate or demean somebody else in the first place?
A couple of other things, the Massachusetts man was jailed for trespassing not for requesting that his son not be taught about homosexuality. And if you look at the incident closely, you will probably realize what others have — it was a staged event.
Catholic Charities was forced to shut down its adoption service because of discriminatory actions using public funds. They wanted to continue using public funds for their organization so they had to make a choice. In the same city a Mormon ogranization is still oprating, and they do not place children with gay people. They continue to be able to operate in such a way because they do not take public funds.
Because you are a jounalism student I would caution you to dig a little deeper and look at all sides of an issue. Otherwise your not a jounalist, you are a propagandist.