Free speech about to be squashed in America . . .

This article blew me away. Hate Bill Passes in the House:

[T]he federal hate crimes bill, HR 1913, passed last week in the House of Representatives by a vote of 249 to 175. . . .

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R, NC) said HR 1913 will open a new category of “thought crimes” in America, moving us “down a slippery slope” to loss of freedom. She said such has happened under hate laws in Canada and Europe. . . .

Rep. Roy Blount (R, MO) echoed Foxx’s admonition that hate laws have taken away free speech in Canada and Europe.

Rep. Steve King (R, IA) repeated the warning of his amendment in Judiciary last week, saying pedophiles and many other deviants will obtain special rights and protection under HR 1913.

Rep. Mary Fallin (R, OK) referenced loss of free speech in Canada and Great Britain but also how the “Philly 11″ Christians were persecuted under Pennsylvania’s hate law. . . .

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R, TX) charged HR 1913 will divide America into groups of more favored versus less. He again cited USC Title 18, Section 2a, the foundation of HR 1913, which says anyone who through speech “induces” commission of a violent hate crime “will be tried as a principal” alongside the active offender. He said there is no “epidemic” of hate in America.

Rep. King cited the American Psychiatric Association which lists 547 different kinds of paraphilia, or sexual deviancies. King said all of these would merit special federal protection under the class “sexual orientation” enshrined in HR 1913.

Rep. Foxx testified, “This bill itself will spread fear and intimidation.” She was referring primarily to Christian/conservative critics of homosexuality, Islam, illegal immigrants, etc. Such critics from the pulpit or airwaves would be increasingly silenced under the hate law’s chill on free speech.

Rep. Hastings (D, FL), a proponent of the hate bill, brazenly agreed that HR 1913 would give a galaxy of sexual perverts special protection. He said that under hate bill protection they will not “live in fear because of who they are.”

One particularly striking argument was made by Rep. Randy Forbes (R, VA). He said if Miss California had slapped the homosexual judge who derided her on the stage (and across the internet) under HR 1913 she could be indicted as a “violent hate criminal,” facing a possible 10 years in prison. But, Forbes said, if the homosexual judge had slapped her, she would have had no special protection under HR 1913. His act would have been simple assault, a misdemeanor.

The testimony of Rep. Todd Akins (R, MO) was also unique. He said HR 1913 would actually increase hate in America. He said the American people, including young people, recognizing that they are now second-class citizens, with homosexuals receiving special federal rights, can only resent (hate?) those who have rights and privileges above them. He also said that with the legal system already backed up, the federal hate law will create havoc within our legal system, requiring judges to also become “psychologists,” divining motives of offenders. . . .

Democrat testimony concluded with a special entry, followed by CSPAN camera, of Rep. Barney Frank (D, MA). He pooh-poohed the arrest of the Philly 11 Christians in 2004, saying that, although it was unjust, Republicans were irresponsible in not pointing out that the Christians were acquitted. Fortunately, Rep. Gohmert had the last word, indicating that the very fact that persons can and have been arrested for speech under state laws has a chilling effect on free speech.

Gohmert tried to send the hate bill back to Judiciary for amendments but was overridden.

It is now time for all who love freedom to turn their full attention to defeat of the hate bill in the Senate, where Sen. Edward Kennedy just yesterday introduced his federal hate bill, S. 909, which is certain to be moving rapidly to a vote.

Call 1-877-851-6437 toll free or 1-202-225-3121 toll. Names of Senate Judiciary members are posted here at www.truthtellers.org.

I think Rep. Hastings' comments deserve special attention--as does the Rev. Ted Pike who wrote this article.

Pike comments,

[W]hen Rep. Alcee Hastings defiantly proclaimed on the floor of the House last week that not only pedophilia but all of the other 546 sexual deviancies, or paraphilias, listed by the American Psychiatric Association would be specially protected under the hate bill, I knew the Lord had delivered the hate bill forces into our hands. We had been given an issue capable of defeating the hate bill where other arguments would fail. Every American, whether conservative or liberal, religious or non-religious, has a visceral disgust at those who rape little boys and girls.

Within hours of Hastings' verbal indiscretion, I increased my media warnings that the hate bill was a pedophile-protecting bill! The next day, our new video, making visual and audible Hastings' declaration, was posted at www.truthtellers.org.

Here's the video. It really is amazing:



People--let's be honest: virtually all men--who engage in pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, etc.,are all to become members of the protected class. (See Hastings' comments, beginning at 6:03, but the specific verbiage begins at 6:22 into the video.) Amazing!

And now, as Rep. King noted, a mother--or any woman--who slaps such a pervert, or "attacks" him with her purse will be subject to being charged with a federal hate crime, while the pervert himself might be prosecuted for a misdemeanor.

******
Fascinating--and distressing--additional commentaries from a pro-hate crime perspective:

From the Anti-Defamation League--why the ADL pushed for hate-crime legislation in the first place. (I should confess: I tend to "buy" their reasoning. And yet. And yet. . . .)

And from someone who explains this (pro-hate crime legislation) reasoning in additional detail.

And then, finally, an argument against this kind of legislation. Talk about slippery slopes!

Finding a soul mate?

Robin Phillips and I have a little--very slight--history together. He has written a book, The Way of a Man with a Maid, available online, that critiques the "courtship" movement--a form of male-female relationship that was--and, in certain circles, still is--popular in homeschool circles. He mentions me and my book, Dating With Integrity, within his work. At one point, almost exactly five years ago, we engaged in correspondence on this subject of mutual interest.

And now, today, while surfing the web for some information about biblical and historical arguments concerning usury (the practice of charging interest on loans), I bumped into Robin once more. (The happy reunion, as it were, was the result of an extremely circuitous path which I will recount in a separate post, momentarily.)

Anyway.

So there I was on Robin's blog when, what to my wondering eyes should appear, but an article of deep--and ever deeper--personal interest . . . An article wholly unrelated to the subject of male-female relationships but, rather, free speech and, even, epistemology: Robin's Readings & Reflections: Thought Police article in HTML.

"And so we meet again!" I thought. [Apologies to Snoopy--or was it the Red Baron? ("Snoopy vs. The Red Baron" by The Royal Guardsmen, 1966)]

I was first intrigued by Robin's introductory remarks about the increasing restrictions on free speech being enforced by so-called "liberal" protectors against so-called "hate speech":

[T]he reign of Big Brother is being introduced to Britain from the liberalism of the far left, a tradition that has historically championed Orwell’s defence of civil liberties and free expression.

This observation is particularly germane when considering the new corpus of offences restricting speech, religion, public debate and, in some cases, even thought itself, to that cluster of ideas which the liberals have designated ‘politically correct.’[2] The State’s eagerness to function as Guardian, not simply of law and order, but also of the ideologies of its citizenry[3], was made patently obvious last year when New Labour tried to push through legislation as part of the Religious Hatred Bill which would have made it an offence to criticise different religious truth-claims.

Even without the impetus of such a law, UK police currently operate under ‘guidance’ that defines a ‘hate incident’ so broadly that it can include debating another person about their lifestyle.[4] Although this guidance has no statutory force, and has been called ‘pseudo-law’ by one distinguished constitutional lawyer, it can influence the policy of police constabularies provided it does not lead to an actual charge being issued.[5] The effect is that simply to express certain viewpoints is at least treated as criminal.[6]

It was this tendency to police beliefs that Dr. N. T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham, lambasted in an address to the House of Lords on 9 February, 2006. Dr. Wright referred to a new class of crimes which “have to do, not with actions but with ideas and beliefs.” He said:

"People in my diocese have told me that they are now afraid to speak their minds in the pub on some major contemporary issues for fear of being reported, investigated, and perhaps charged. My Lords, I did not think I would see such a thing in this country in my lifetime…. The word for such a state of affairs is ‘tyranny’: sudden moral climate change, enforced by thought police."[7]

From religious organisations that must now navigate the increasingly complex labyrinth of gay rights laws[8] to Christian Unions that are being forced to admit atheists into their ranks[9], it is clear that today’s liberals are making sure Big Brother does more than merely watch us: he’s checking out our credo.[10] Chesterton was surely prophetic when he conjectured that, “We may eventually be bound not to disturb a man’s mind even by argument; not to disturb the sleep of birds even by coughing.”[11]

But my eyes grew wider when I saw the second subhead within his article: "The Self-Destruction of Epistemology."

Wow! I think I may have found a fellow-traveler in the world of thought!

******

I didn't really have any further purpose for this post than what I have written here. Just a desire to record my bemused astonishment.

******

But, y'know, while we're on the subject of Big Brother and the problems of eroding freedom of speech, let me quote from Robin's footnote #11 concerning Chesterton's quote about disturbing men's minds and the sleep of birds. After attributing the quote to G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy: The Romance of Faith (New York: Doubleday, 1908), p. 113, Robin continues:

Chesterton’s words are a pretty good description of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997. Worded so vaguely that almost any form of repeated conduct can become a crime, it gives the crown authority to prosecute anyone causing a person ‘alarm or distress’ if this involves ‘conduct on at least two occasions.’ Because such conduct ‘includes speech’, and because it is not necessary to demonstrate that the person causing distress has used abusive or insulting words, merely disturbing a man’s mind by argument could become a criminal offence if another person finds it distressing. The penalty is six months imprisonment or an order preventing the person from repeating the offence on pain of 5 years behind bars. It is now used routinely against peaceful protestors.

The anti-intellectual implications of the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005 is equally disturbing. Although this Act is most known for removing freedom to demonstrate outside Parliament, it also includes a section on ‘harassment intended to deter lawful activities’. Under this act, it is an offence to cause alarm or distress to ‘two or more persons’ by ‘harassing’ them. ‘Harassment’ is defined as seeking ‘to persuade any person ... to do something that he is not under any obligation to do’. This means that if I try to persuade two or more people to change their philosophical views, then because they are under no legal obligation to do so, in theory I could be taken to court for harassment if the other person finds my axioms sufficiently distressing.

See George Monbiot's article 'I'm pleased the case against this ranting homophobe was dropped', The Guardian, October 3, 2006, available online at
www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1886185,00.html. See also my article ‘The Orwellian Legacy of Tony Blair’, available online at http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2007/05/good-bye-tony-blair.html See also Peter Kitchens, The Abolition of Liberty (Atlantic Books, 2004).