Hate Crime of Course

The following important information came from the Aardvark Alley Blog

Hate Crime?
Of Course!

Any Christian hates crime. Is crime an expression of hatred? Many are. Should there be a special category of offenses designated as hate crimes? Now there's the rub.

Our U.S. House of Representatives passed a "Children's Safety Act" (H.R.3132) a few days ago. The initial bill was aimed at protecting our young people from sexual predators. An ammendment proposed by Rep. John Conyers passed and became part of the act. This ammendment has nothing at all to do with sex offenders attacking children and everything to do with special-interest pandering, promoting homosexual "rights," and allowing the federal government to intrude even more in local and state government.

Title X of the Act is now "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention." Following previously established language, a "hate crime" is "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." Such language prioritizes the heinousness of offenses over and above the actions themselves merely by the perpetrator's choice of victims and his feelings about a certain group of people.

My concerns are several. First of all, I consider any crime of violence to be one of hate. Second, I think that the bill far outsteps the (already stretched beyond belief) constitutional limits for federal jurisdiction. Third, the bill's fuzzy language ("perception" is used 7 times in Title X) leaves it open to broad and intrusive interpretation. Fourth, the bill especially addresses issues of sexual orientation and "gender identity," providing special protection for those choosing to wallow in immoral behavior. Finally, the bill is, in my opinion, a classic "slippery slope" and provides a rallying point for those who would tighten the screws against verbal and written condemnations of deviant lifestyles.

You'll probably find any number of blogs and news items concerning the bill. Before that, read its entire content and explore its background through Thomas — U.S. Congress on the Internet. To get started, just copy and paste H.R.3132 in the

<$Thomas$>

Thomas search field, click "Enter bill number," and "Search."

As for me, I've written the following letter to my two senators:

Dear Senator ____,

While I laud the initial Children's Safety Act, I'm appalled and alarmed at the inclusion of the "hate crime" ammendment. It seems poorly written and intentionally vague, yet also intended to stifle moral and religious objection to certain behaviors and lifestyles.

I urge you and the Senate to please return the bill to its original form or reject it outright.

Am I an alarmist? Consider that our "neighbor to the north" has moved on to a subsequent legislative step and is regulating "hate speech." Already a Canadian pastor, Stephen Boissoin of Alberta, faces his province's Human Rights Tribunal because of a letter published in a newspaper, the Red Deer Advocate.

Boissoin's letter didn't call for violence, boycotting, or any other damaging actions against Canadian citizens. He merely challenged the unbalanced promotion of homosexuality in public education. A sample sentence from his letter reads, "Children as young as 5 and 6 years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."

All of this stems from a new (April 2004) Canadian law initially sponsored by homosexual MP Svend Robinson. The law includes a "harassment by communication" — meaning that one could be censured, fined, and even imprisoned for calling homosexually "deviant" or "morally wrong." While Robinson himself claimed that the law will protect religious expression, he sounds as if that really doesn't matter: Instead, he paints rallying behind free speech and religious expression as "a mask for homophobia for people who don't want to be honest about the real reason why they don't want to include sexual orientation in the law."

I honestly think that Conyer's ammendment to the Children's Safety Act places U.S. law on the precipice down which Canadian jurisprudence has already tumbled.