|
|
Topic started on 5-7-2005 @ 06:05 PM by NoJustice
|
ADL's New 'Hate Bill' The Death Knell For Talk Radio
Rev. Ted Pike | June 30, 2005
The Anti-Defamation League's new, tougher hate bill, "The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005," HR 2662, if passed, will very
soon end FREE SPEECH and FREE SPEECH TALK RADIO. The ADL, through similar legislation, has already ended free speech in Canada. It wants to do the
same in America.
Here's a summary of how this bill would make law.
HR 2662 intends to enforce nation-wide the working ADL/federal definition that 'hate' equals bias against federally-protected groups. Particularly
against:
Homosexuals. Any specific public criticism of homosexuals will eventually be considered a hate crime, just as it already has been for eleven
Christians under the ADL's Pennsylvania hate crime law on Oct. 10, 2004.
Transvestites. Female impersonators, and persons with confused or altered gender, will gain special federal protection against bias-motivated threat.
This includes transvestites who are threatened for sexist reasons by males who perceive them as really being women. Such men will be prosecuted as
'hate criminals' against women, even though the 'woman' they were biased against was actually a man!
Women. Any woman who claims, "The last time I had sex with him, he used a sexist word against me. He raped me!" can press charges for a 'hate
crime' of rape. Punishment will be triple the usual penalty - about 30 years in prison.
Jews. B'nai B'rith, a Jewish religious organization, invented 'hate laws' to make public criticism of homosexuality a 'hate crime.' Yet this is
only a step toward B'nai B'rith's REAL objective: making public criticism of Jews, matters Jewish, and the State of Israel, a hate crime.
www.infowars.com...
We have to do something and stop letting these bills pass from right under our noses. America is losing it's freedom right in front of all of us. I
don't believe this bill has passed yet, but it would only take one hate crime exposed by the National Media to pass. So don't be surprised if it
does.
[edit on 5-7-2005 by NoJustice]
ed. to shorten cut & paste and add BB quote
[edit on 5-7-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]
|
copyright & usage
|
Click here for more Political Conspiracies topics
Hot Topics
|
Top Topics
|
This Week
|
Subscribe
|
Home
|
reply posted on 5-7-2005 @ 06:36 PM by muzzleflash
|
hi
good read
i agree; i think everyone should be equal 
giving special privlidges to protect special groups is very primitive
they are screwing things up
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 5-7-2005 @ 06:46 PM by Jamuhn
|
thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.2662.IH:
I couldn't find anything about curbing free speech, just about committing crimes based on prejudice. But, I still don't agree with hate crime laws,
because bodily harm or murder is inexcusable (barring extenuating circumstances, such as self-defense) no matter the person's identity.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-7-2005 @ 06:51 PM by BlackJackal
|
Here is a link to the bill in question
Link
I have read it and I don't see where this bill could be interupted to say what the article above is alleging. All I see is authorizing states access
to federal money to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Also anywhere hate crime is defined you will find the line
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an
explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national
origin of any person
I just don't see the correlation the article is attempting to make.
[edit on 5-7-2005 by BlackJackal]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 5-7-2005 @ 06:55 PM by NoJustice
|
Originally posted by Jamuhn
thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.2662.IH:
I couldn't find anything about curbing free speech, just about committing crimes based on prejudice. But, I still don't agree with hate crime laws,
because bodily harm or murder is inexcusable (barring extenuating circumstances, such as self-defense) no matter the person's identity.
(8) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
That could be what's refered to in the article I mentioned above. However, you could be correct in that there may have to be a violent crime involved
for the person who made the speech to be liable. Guess it could of been the writer of the article making a big deal over nothing. If so I apologize
for this whole topic. 
Mods feel free to delete as I think it could just add confusion to the many already confused on this board.
[edit on 5-7-2005 by NoJustice]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-7-2005 @ 06:58 PM by Jamuhn
|
That line was one of the Congress' findings, and I believe it refers to cars, and other vehicles in relation to the line above:
(7) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-7-2005 @ 07:53 PM by djohnsto77
|
Originally posted by NoJustice
(8) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
They have to put something like in there to give the bill a semblance of consitutionality since the Congress doesn't have the right to pass criminal
legislation that doesn't involve interstate or international commerce.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-7-2005 @ 10:40 PM by Frosty
|
Hate crimes are so confusing. So are these new proposed laws.
(8) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
What will this do for South Park?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-7-2005 @ 03:47 AM by Flyer
|
Why does it matter if you kill someone because theyre gay, a jew or just dont like the clothers theyre wearing? Why get a different sentence depending
on the perceived motivation for the crime?
It makes no sense at all.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-7-2005 @ 07:04 AM by RANT
|
Originally posted by NoJustice
Guess it could of been the writer of the article making a big deal over nothing. If so I apologize for this whole topic.
Mods feel free to delete as I think it could just add confusion to the many already confused on this board.
It's fine. If nothing else, it let's everyone see the kind of rhetoric being thrown around by the likes of Reverend Pike.
Not all conspiracies are what they appear. In fact, most conspiracy theorists are the conspirators.
Jesuits, that actually did run the world, began the myth that the Illuminati are out to control the world. Nazi's followed suit with the Jews. Now
it's the gays out to get us. Oy.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 6-7-2005 @ 01:28 PM by guinan24
|
Our Declaration of Independence was clear, but the First Amendment is even clearer: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press." The ellipsis marks conceal "the establishment clause," the corruption of which even saddens agnostics. But as to the freedom of
speech proviso, the implications of which can be easily read and understood by people in China, or by someone with a powerful telescope who is
stranded on the moon Triton: Really, If there is an absolute in the Constitution comparable to the single god in monotheistic religious law, that
portion of the First Amendment dealing with speech is it. "Hate speech" laws are patently and blatantly unconstitutional. Even freedom of the press
applies to free speech, although in that instance it protects the speech rights of the publisher and/or owner, not the writer (believe me).
But how did a law involving "hate speech" become "Law of the Land? One way to answer that question is to ask another question: How did two
observant Jews slip under Christian/Republican radar and assume seats on the U.S. Supreme Court? Altering a phrase: riddle me that. Guinan24
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-7-2005 @ 01:32 PM by junglejake
|
California has already implemented a rule in their local elections making any issue involving gay rights unacceptable to be discussed in the negative
if any gays take offense to it. I haven't heard of this one, as Rant said, the source really needs to be questioned in its intentions, so further
digging is required. It is not unprecidented, though, and like much of this legislation, California led the way.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-7-2005 @ 03:10 PM by Delta 38
|
As I recall this type of legislation began to come under consideration after two racist rednecks tied a black man behind their truck and drug him on
a road until it ripped him apart enough that it killed him. Their only reason for doing it was because he was black. The idea behind these types of
laws, at least in the beginning, was to deter these types of crimes motivated simply by hate for another's race/ethnicity/sexual preference etc...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-7-2005 @ 07:47 PM by Flyer
|
Originally posted by Delta 38
As I recall this type of legislation began to come under consideration after two racist rednecks tied a black man behind their truck and drug him on
a road until it ripped him apart enough that it killed him. Their only reason for doing it was because he was black. The idea behind these types of
laws, at least in the beginning, was to deter these types of crimes motivated simply by hate for another's race/ethnicity/sexual preference etc...
Why is that worse than them doing that to some random person?
How was the current law not sufficient in dealing with this murder?
If this happened now, would they get less time in prison if they did it to a white guy?
If so, does anyone believe thats ok?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-7-2005 @ 08:02 PM by junglejake
|
Originally posted by Flyer
If this happened now, would they get less time in prison if they did it to a white guy?
Yes, substancially so. Like the judge in South Park who convicted Cartman of a hate crime stated, "I'm going to use you as an example to everyone.
If you intend to harm another individual, you'd better make damn sure they have the same skin color as you!"
Hate crimes breed hate. Hate crimes breed racism. They ain't good.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-7-2005 @ 09:12 PM by DontTreadOnMe
|
Originally posted by Flyer
Why is that worse than them doing that to some random person?
How was the current law not sufficient in dealing with this murder?
If this happened now, would they get less time in prison if they did it to a white guy?
If so, does anyone believe thats ok?
Along the same lines:
Can a black commit a hate crime upon a white?
How about can a gay do hate crimes on non-gays?
I understand the need to defuse hatred, but the effectiveness of this law remains to be seen.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 6-7-2005 @ 09:14 PM by evildoer
|
This crap is always pushed by these jewish organizations such as the ADL.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-7-2005 @ 09:47 PM by junglejake
|
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Along the same lines:
Can a black commit a hate crime upon a white?
How about can a gay do hate crimes on non-gays?
I understand the need to defuse hatred, but the effectiveness of this law remains to be seen.
For the most part, no. Hate crimes are designed to curb the inherent racism in whitey by eliciting extreme punishments on that racist. Those comments
may seem extreme, but are actually very close to some professor's explanations for racism, hate speach laws geared towards whites, and hate crime
legislation. I can back those words, and have been writing an op/ed piece which will, but it's taking me a little time to gather all my
examples...And it's up to 4 pages long in word right now, may end up breaking it up into 4 parts.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-7-2005 @ 10:30 PM by NoJustice
|
It's just another form of Reverse discrimination. You know it's funny because despite being white I don't remember owning any slaves, or being
racist, or any of that. So stop passing stupid laws like this that are making me pay for past crimes that my culture did and not me.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-7-2005 @ 12:40 AM by Amethyst
|
My mother, who considers herself a moderate liberal, says most of the violence against blacks is BY blacks, and same for gays. A gay couple used to
live next door to her, and one of the guys got his vehicle vandalized...turns out it was another gay guy who was jealous and was trying to make it
look like a straight was the guilty party.
There's really no such thing as a "hate" crime, the way I see it. Aren't all crimes, by definition, driven by hate to begin with?
Notice that people can hate on Christians and no one says a word....HMMMMM....
|
copyright & usage
|
|
