Will Politically Incorrect Opinion Become a Hate Crime?

In my recent thread I HATE "No Place For Hate" zones plenty of folks came out of the woodwork saying I was being paranoid about the percieved agenda behind the signs.

It looks like a "Human Rights Comission" in good ole' California tends to agree with me on this one, and they intend to test whether they can charge public officials with "Hate Crimes" for making some politically incorrect statements.

Many of us have heard about Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian currently on trial in Holland because he criticized Islam. It’s shocking to many that you could be charged with a hate crime for expressing an opinion, but such prosecutions are not unheard of in the Western world beyond American shores. After all, most nations have nothing tantamount to our First Amendment. But could such a thing happen in the land of the (mostly) free as well?

If a “human relations” task force in California has its way, the answer will be yes. Its victims are two Lancaster, Calif., city officials: Mayor R. Rex Parris and Councilman Sherry Marquez. Their sins? Parris told a group of Christian ministers, “We are growing Christian community — and don't let anybody shy away from that.” And Marquez posted quotations on her Facebook page from Muslim leaders encouraging adherents to win the world for Islam along with excerpts from the Bible that encourage Christians to defend themselves.

Mayor Parris had expressed his sentiments previously as well, during a State of the City address; this prompted a federal civil-rights complaint by the Council on American-Islamic Relations based on the separation-of-church-and-state principle. Now, while the mayor didn’t violate the the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause (properly understood), this isn’t surprising given how it is almost universally misinterpreted and misapplied. But now some are pushing the envelope and wish to do to freedom of speech what has already been done to freedom of religion. Jody Brown at OneNewsNow.com reports that “according to the Antelope Valley Press, the local human relations task force will convene on Monday evening [February 8] to discuss whether those remarks could potentially be ‘hate incidents.’ Darren Parker, chairman of the task force, tells the newspaper that if the mayor's comments are so deemed, ‘a complaint will be made to the [federal] Justice Department’ and to state and county district attorneys.”



This is why you should know that “hate speech” is but a euphemism for “expression the tolerance crowd just won’t tolerate” — meaning, anything they can’t refute in the arena of ideas. Yet, there is also a Trojan horse here, one of which most are unaware. I speak of the “local human relations task force.”

Understand that in Canada — where citizens have been prosecuted for criticizing Islam and homosexuality — the inquisitor entities are called “human rights commissions” or “human rights tribunals.” Of course, the term “human rights (or relations)” sounds like something no one should object to, just as hate speech sounds like something everyone should object to. That’s the whole idea: People won’t knowingly embrace tyranny, so you must cloak it in an appealing guise. But here’s why I mention these bureaucracies:

They have proliferated in our nation as well.

Don’t believe me? Just check your county government, as odds are they have already instituted a human rights commission. Oh, this doesn’t mean they’ll be arresting your politically incorrect tongue today or tomorrow. After all, no precedent justifying that has yet been established in American jurisprudence. But once one is (I explained here the process by which we may lose our freedom of speech), all bets are off. Because with human rights commissions peppering our nation, the mechanism for tyranny is already in place. The thought police will be able to hit the ground running — or, perhaps I should say, chasing.

Read more:The New American

I'd be willing to bet the farm that this town is just plastered with those stinkin "No Place For Hate" signs.



I HATE THOSE FREAKIN SIGNS!!!

[edit on 8-2-2010 by FortAnthem]

"Hate Crime" is just another way of saying "Thought Crime". How thoughts can be illegal is beyond me, but we are slowly moving towards that direction.

Scenario 1: I murder someone who is a homosexual.

Scenario 2: I murder someone because they are a homosexual

Under hate (read "thought") crime laws, I would be punished more severely in scenario 2.

Tell me how this makes sense? A murder is a murder, regardless of intent, unless of course we are dealing with things like self-defense or unintentional manslaughter type charges. I just do not understand why my thoughts, beliefs, and opinions about someone should be taken into consideration when judging me for a crime. Oh, I know, because my opinion is against what those in power want, and to silence all dissidence and free speech, they enact these insane laws.

This doesn't even have to be as serious as murder. Simply stating a controversial opinion or making a derogatory remark about someone could be considered a "hate crime". People who support these laws simply support the repression of free thought and are seeking to force their agendas and beliefs upon the masses.

reply to post by OrderOfTheDragon


That's how they start out by adding punishments based on your thoughts during the crime but it's not a large step from there before they outlaw the speech itself.

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article's tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean's magazine, the nation's leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self respect."

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions in Vancouver last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean's violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up animosity toward Muslims.

New York Times

Many European countries already have hate speech laws and they're trying to get the EU to impose them on the rest of the EU countries as well.

European plans

Plans by the European Union to regulate free speech have been around for a long time, going back to at least 1991, when an investigative committee set up by the European Parliament issued 77 recommendations to combat “racism and xenophobia”. The ideological justification for this step can be found in a 1985 report by another European Parliamentary investigative committee warning of “increasing fascism and racism in Europe” (Document A 2-160/85). Over the years these plans have become increasingly concrete culminating in the “Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law” (Official Journal L 328, 06/12/2008 P. 0055 - 0058).

A framework decision is a legal instrument with clearly defined implications. According to Article 34 of the EU Treaty, such a decision is binding on the member states in regard to the intended objective. However, it is up to national authorities to determine in what form and by what means it is to be implemented. This means that every member state in the European Union is obligated to bring about a legal order that complies with the demands of the Framework Decision as interpreted by the EU’s highest court, the European Court of Justice. The ECJ has the ultimate say on matters of EU law in order to ensure its equal application across all EU member States.

Source

[edit on 8-2-2010 by FortAnthem]

It can only work in their favour if the people allow it to work

If the majority continue expressing their opinions in the face of 'hate opinion' legislation --- what are they going to do ? Arrest millions ? Try millions ? Jail millions ?

And what do they imagine that would achieve ? Wouldn't the friends and families of the jailed millions express their opinions of the 'hate opinion' legislations ? So what then --- arrest and try and jail the friends and family of the already jailed as well ?

On and on

Ok. Stalin murdered 20 to 40 million. It's do-able

So what, though ? So they kill millions. We're going to die anyway, right ? So if they jail us for expressing our opinions, it simply means we don't need to work to provide for ourselves. If they kill us, it means we don't have to endure life or provide for ourselves

Are we all expecting to live forever ?

Are we all expecting to endure a painless death ?

No

Makes sense then to fight them, to keep on expressing our opinion of them, to keep on unmasking them and their lies

All in all, to do that would very probably be our greatest contribution to 'life' and the future

Yes it will. Unless of course you are an angry Muslim fundamentalist.

reply to post by FortAnthem


The biggest complaints came from a terrorist organization that enjoys sueing people that they think they can win against. C.A.I.R. should have it's entire organization investigated and alot of it's members sent to jail. If they ever get the fairness doctrine through in this country, nyes the scenario you asked about will probably come to pass.....s&f for you.

reply to post by Dock9


I sure hope you're right and people DO stand up to this BS. I'm afraid that the majority of American's are sheep and would be afraid to stand up for fear of being labled "racist or homophobes".

That's why they call the hate crimes police "human rights commissions". Who can say they are against human rights right?

Luckily, it seems like some of the worst laws are being rolled back without violence.

Hate speech law unconstitutional: rights tribunal

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on Wednesday ruled that Section 13, Canada's much maligned human rights hate speech law, violates the Charter right to free expression because it carries the threat of punitive fines.


The shocking decision by Tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis leaves several hate speech cases in limbo, and appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.


It also marks the first major failure of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, an anti-hate law that was conceived in the 1960s to target racist telephone hotlines, then expanded in 2001 to the include the entire Internet, and for the last decade used almost exclusively by one complainant, activist Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.

Read more: The National Post

I guess the world isn't ready for their agenda just quite yet. It may take a few more years of conditioning before we're really ready to give up our free speach rights.

In the mean time they'll just have to settle for putting up these signs until we're sufficiently brainwashed.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83b3b3452e3f.jpg[/atsimg]



I HATE THOSE FREAKIN SIGNS!!!

Originally posted by OrderOfTheDragon
"Hate Crime" is just another way of saying "Thought Crime". How thoughts can be illegal is beyond me, but we are slowly moving towards that direction.

If you believe this, then you also have to not draw any distinction between cvoluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, neglectful homicide, and hte various degrees of murder, because the differences between them all are based on intent, and making different degrees constitutes "thought crime"

Do you buy that? of course not, Let's look at your example

Scenario 1: I murder someone who is a homosexual.

Scenario 2: I murder someone because they are a homosexual

Under hate (read "thought") crime laws, I would be punished more severely in scenario 2.

In the two scenarios you have different intents, and you perceive the victims differently.

In scenario 1, you're killing a guy because he stole your wallet or something.

In scenario 2, you're killing him because you think all people like him need to die.

I'm sure you can see the difference here

Tell me how this makes sense? A murder is a murder, regardless of intent, unless of course we are dealing with things like self-defense or unintentional manslaughter type charges.

...Maybe I was wrong with my initial assessment. If this is how you actually perceive things, then I think the problem with our legal system isn't hate crime laws or anything related to them, but ignorant goofs who really have absolutely no concept of how the law does and should work.

I just do not understand why my thoughts, beliefs, and opinions about someone should be taken into consideration when judging me for a crime. Oh, I know, because my opinion is against what those in power want, and to silence all dissidence and free speech, they enact these insane laws.

because when you, to use your own example, murder someone because they're gay, you're presenting a real threat to anyone else who is gay. "I killed him because he was gay" is very obviously a threat against anyone else who is gay, don't you think? Some dude murders your neighbor and proclaims "I'm killing him because he was a straight white guy! They all gotta die!" wouldn't you perceive that differently from "I killed him 'cause he was shacking up with my wife!"

This doesn't even have to be as serious as murder. Simply stating a controversial opinion or making a derogatory remark about someone could be considered a "hate crime". People who support these laws simply support the repression of free thought and are seeking to force their agendas and beliefs upon the masses.

I'm all for free speech, mind. In my opinion, "hate crime" should always be a secondary appellation to an existing crime. Simply screaming out "I hate Jews!" makes you a jackass, not a criminal. Doing it while beating up a Jewish guy or vandalizing a synagogue or something, and now we have a crime, and can add hate to that.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
because when you, to use your own example, murder someone because they're gay, you're presenting a real threat to anyone else who is gay. "I killed him because he was gay" is very obviously a threat against anyone else who is gay, don't you think? Some dude murders your neighbor and proclaims "I'm killing him because he was a straight white guy! They all gotta die!" wouldn't you perceive that differently from "I killed him 'cause he was shacking up with my wife!"

It depends on how many neighbors were shacking up with that guy's wife. In some cases that guy could put half the state in fear for their lives.

Originally posted by OrderOfTheDragon
"Hate Crime" is just another way of saying "Thought Crime". How thoughts can be illegal is beyond me, but we are slowly moving towards that direction.

Scenario 1: I murder someone who is a homosexual.

Scenario 2: I murder someone because they are a homosexual

Under hate (read "thought") crime laws, I would be punished more severely in scenario 2.

Tell me how this makes sense? A murder is a murder, regardless of intent, unless of course we are dealing with things like self-defense or unintentional manslaughter type charges. I just do not understand why my thoughts, beliefs, and opinions about someone should be taken into consideration when judging me for a crime.

They SHOULD be taken into account when deciding on the severity of the punishment, not as a question as to your guilt.

The difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 - Scenario is much more likely to be pre-meditated, which could go as high as capital murder, punishable by death. By discovering intent and punishing hard, you set an example that this sort of behavior is unacceptable and will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Scenario 1 could be something as minor as involuntary manslaughter if the death were unintentional. If it were intentional, but were committed in the course of, say a robbery, and the killer had no idea the man he killed was gay, then the hate crime angle is out of it and you only need to deal with motive. Was the man killed by the robber intentionally or did the robber get spooked during the course of the robbery, panic and fire his weapon?

There's a huge difference between the two scenarios, as you can plainly see.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


So if an angry liberal intentionally kills a member of the Tea Party movement because they assume he is a conservative but instead happens to be an independent, is that a hate crime?

You bet it will have you not noticed the lengths the progressives will go to stop free speech, history is a good look inside what the future will hold. If they ever get real power they will determine what is right and wrong and will even kill to stop free speech just take a look at Hitler and Stalin they are born of the same father. And I fear history may very well be repeating itself again.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

The biggest complaints came from a terrorist organization that enjoys sueing people that they think they can win against. C.A.I.R. should have it's entire organization investigated and alot of it's members sent to jail. If they ever get the fairness doctrine through in this country, nyes the scenario you asked about will probably come to pass.....s&f for you.

You mean the ADL right?

Lol just kidding.

I honestly think that if political dissent as it involves our freedom of speech were to be reclassed as a "no no", it would have happened by now