ACLU Rejects Equality
Posted on May 4, 2007
The ACLU recently said:
The American Civil Liberties Union today cheered the House of Representatives for passing H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, with strong bipartisan support
In other words, they cheer unequal treatment for some classes of Americans — with homosexuals being especially privileged. How does that square with the usual Leftist religion of equality for all? Search me! It’s just another example of the utter lack of any principles on the Left, I guess. But they often tell us that “There is no such thing as right and wrong” so that should not really surprise us. They really believe it when they say that. They are actually telling us what guides them — and it’s not morality, ethics or principles of any kind. We should believe them.
But various Christian groups seem to be attacking this bill on the wrong grounds altogether. It is an assault on equality before the law, not an assault on free speech. You can say anything you like about queers as long as you keep your hands off them. That should not be too hard! The bill concerns “bodily injury” only. Read it. Whatever else they do, the ACLU describes the content of the bill accurately.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
10 Responses to “ACLU Rejects Equality”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I agree with your criticisms of hate-crime laws. Laws prohibiting assaults in general should be sufficient, but history shows that it often isn’t. If some group seems to get a large share of assaults and prosecutors are very lax in prosecuting the perpetrators, shouldn’t something be done? If the prosecutors don’t prosecute and no one seems willing charge these negligent prosecutors, what remedy would you suggest?
What would you think of a hate-crime law that had a sunset provision? That way maybe society’s perception of the targeted group could change over a five or ten year period, but society would not be stuck with this law for generations to come.
No dice Pat. All crime victims deserve equal justice every time.
The poster boy for this movement, Matthew Shepard, was brutally murdered by two demonic thugs.
Guess what? They are both serving life in prison.
Being that most people who are supporting this bill are also opposed to the death penalty, what else could they have expected? What better outcome could there have been? They got what was coming without this unnecessary constitutional atrocity.
Not only should justice be color-blind, justice shouldn’t require a gaydar.
(Side note: the story of Shepard being murdered because he was “gay” has been utterly debunked. The two killers beat him down for cash. If the perceived problem that this bill purports to address were so widespread, you’d think the homosexual legal lobby would have come up with someone who was actually killed or beaten for being “gay.” It’s not that they don’t happen, but the fact is, incidents of “gay-bashing” are very uncommon.)
All you need to know about this bill is that its partisans rejected amendments to guarantee that this bill would not turn into a Euro-Canadian Anti-Religious Thought Crimes bludgeon and those that would have included protections for military, police and the elderly. It shows that this bill, to borrow a little Civil Rights era language since the homosexual movement has tried to hijack it anyway, is like Rosa Parks sitting down on the bus and saying I got my seat, the rest of you are on your own. This bill was for one group and one group only and that is not how this country works.
This bill will die a well-deserved death by veto.
Pastors: Act now or prepare for jail
Brace yourself for “hateful,” “bigoted” and “intolerant” speech said to be responsible for murder. (Note: If you’re under 18, you may want to ask your parents before reading it.):
We believe every human being is precious to God and is entitled to respect. But when we see great suffering among homosexuals, it’s an inherent Christian calling to show compassion and concern.
Wow. With words like “precious,” “respect,” “compassion” and “concern,” you can understand why the city of San Francisco would be prompted to accuse us of murder:
It’s not an exaggeration to say that there’s a direct correlation between these acts of discrimination, like Matthew Shepard, such as when gays and lesbians are called sinful, and when major religious organizations say they can change if they try, and the horrible crimes committed against gays and lesbians.
– City of San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Oct. 19, 1998.
We now have a governmental body on record connecting speech and violence. It’s not even violent speech. They are saying that the hopeful message that homosexuals can change is responsible for murder. That, my friend, is why the hate-crimes legislation is the most dangerous legislation in the country. It will lead to silencing our speech just as the city of San Francisco tried to do.
At the end of all the caterwauling from the members of
The Culture of Conniption(tm), where will be a veto.
And for that I thank God.
.
Glib
You wrote:
“No dice Pat. All crime victims deserve equal justice every time.â€
Exactly, but that is what you failed to address. The situation under consideration is when a group routinely fails to get equal justice. In other words when a systemic problem exists. Of course “all crime victims deserve equal justice†the question is, what’s the remedy when that isn’t happening.
Since you seem to hate gays and I have no particular partiality to that group, let’s imagine the targeted group was conservatives or evangelical Christians. If a segment of society repeatedly attacks conservatives and prosecutors put little or no effort into prosecuting the crimes, your answer is tough luck?
I don’t expect a honest answer because we all know that law enforcement is conservative, so as you don’t ever expect that you or your friends will be in a victimized group you’re not going to bother to take this seriously. But it would be nice if recognized that this is a very real problem for a number of different segments of our society, that our legal system gets almost as much wrong as they get right and gave me a realistic, serious answer.
I’m not going to search for data to dispute your assertion that gay bashing is rare, but I’m pretty skeptical about that. I have friends that are or recently were homeless and I have firsthand reports of attacks against them, none of which were reported to the police because the police never do anything. So the problem of homeless bashing exists at least in this city, and yet is probably not known to you. So, why would I think that you have actually done a thorough and open minded search for the truth about gay bashing?
It just occurred to me to wonder who it is that wants these hate crime laws, if no gays are actually worried about being attacked for being gay. You must have a conspiracy theory about that that you would like to share, right?
Your whole response is rhetorical flotsam and jetsam.
1) You can present no evidence that crimes committed against homosexuals are “not being prosecuted.”
I provided you the neon lights example of how the homosexual legal agenda advocates manipulate words and people with their use of Matthew Shepard as their poster boy.
2) This bill tacks on extra penalties should a vicitm of “higher status” be attacked.
3) If what you are saying were true, that crimes against homosexuals are not being prosecuted, how would this bill help if crimes committed against homosexual are not, errrrrrr, being prosecuted?
4) I do not “hate gays.” That is a lazy, anti-intellectual tactic.
5) Are you telling me that the SFPD is “conservative?”
6) If Christians were being being routinely attacked for being Christians, I would support the prosecution of the criminals just as I support the prosecution of those who would attack people because they engage in homosexual behavior, just as I support the prosecution of those who attack “urban campers.” You see, I don’t think that some victims are superior to others.
7) Check the FBI hate crimes stats. You will find that I am correct about the incidence of “gay-bahsing” and you’ll also find out something interesting about the virtual non-existence of “hate crimes” against Muslims. But of course I bet you think we a re a racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic society.
Pat Says: “Since you seem to hate gays and I have no particular partiality to that group,”
And you wonder why many people take issue with “hate crime” legislation?? Probably because the minute a conservative tries to have a debate on an issue, they are immediately accused of hate? Yet the nice gay people are always completely impartial; the reasonable ones…..um-hmmm.
Hate crime laws, even when specifically written to protect against physical violence, are still way overstepping a person’s right to think whatever they want in their own head. There are already laws in place to protect against violent acts. You want to add penalties for what the person was thinking; and worse by your own very broad definition of what is a hateful thought or idea. You want to criminalize opinion and the free expression of it.
If prosecutors are not prosecuting your special victims’ cases, then go after the prosecutors. How is it going to help as a whole to add additional penalties to the person who committed the crime? And you don’t expect an honest answer because law enforcement is conservative?? Hey, did you hear about that case at Duke university where that flaming liberal prosecutor went after a bunch of straight, white guys because he thought he had a hate crime against a very “special†stripper?
Having read the bill, and noticing that nowhere in it does it even mention the words “homosexual” or “gay.” Nor does it designate certain groups as better than others. This bill would cut both ways, if a white attacked a black because he was black the same as it would if the black attacked a white because he was white, same as gay attacking a straight or straight attacking a gay.
The reason these bills are needed is because as a society we are saying that attacking someone for no better reason than the fact that they belong to a certain group is particularly henious, more so than attacking someone for other reasons, thus they should be punished more.
Under this bill everyone is equal before the law, anyone, no matter what race/religion/sexual orientation they are, will be treated the same under this law. Quoting from the bill:
“Whoever…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 religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person”
Note this does not say that when a white, christian willfully causes, it says whoever, meaning anyone.
“Having read the bill, and noticing that nowhere in it does it even mention the words “homosexual†or “gay.â€
Oh really Matt?
To what do these terms refer: “sexual orientation, gender identity”
Nice try, but you buried yourself. The bill doesn’t say “black” or “white” or “straight” either, yet you felt free to use those unnamed “classes” in an attempt to make a point in support of this atrocious, likely unconstitutional legislation. The bill also doesn’t use the word “murder” anywhere. Does that mean that murders can’t be prosecuted under this statute? The word doesn’t appear Matt…I’m using your standard of analysis here.
The bill “cuts boths ways?” OK, then why were amendments to include the elderly, armed forces and police sunk? Why was a religious liberty amendment rejected? OK, I’ll answer — because this bill is meant to benefit one special interest and one only — you know which one.
Matt: “The reason these bills are needed is because as a society we are saying that attacking someone for no better reason than the fact that they belong to a certain group is particularly henious, more so than attacking someone for other reasons, thus they should be punished more.”
So attacking someone because they are gay or black is more heinous than attacking someone for whatever cash they may be carrying? Is it more heinous than drive-by shootings? More heinous than shooting a convenience store clerk? More heinous than any of the other random rape, robbery & murder crimes that take place every day? No, it really isn’t….because if you are assaulted or dead, it doesn’t really matter why. The result is the same.
So if you are delivering unequal justice for crimes that produce the same result, you are literally penalizing a person for their thoughts & words, not their actions. You are actually advocating that certain groups can dictate what other groups can and cannot think or say.