A perfect example was pointed out yesterday by People for the American Way's Religious Right Watch.
According to the site, Liberty Counsel member Matt Barber was exploiting an incident in Britain to claim that lgbts in America want to imprison Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin:
When it was first reported that Dale Mcalpine, a Christian street preacher in Britain, was arrested for saying that homosexuality is a sin, you know it was only a matter of time before the Religious Right in the US started using this incident to work up fears about how this is exactly what gays want to do to Christians here in America.Liberty Counsel Cultural Affairs Analyst Matt Barber raised the warning that such cases will be seen more and more in America, too.
"We know that what's happening in Europe and what's happening in Canada offers us a window into the future of what will happen here in the United States," he said. "The hate crimes laws and employment sexual orientation laws such as ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act here in the United States, have been the precursor to the more oppressive hate speech laws," Barber explained.
In the original World Net Daily article, Barber cites the tired example of the 11 individuals who were arrested in 2004 for disrupting a gay pride event in Philadelphia. He claims that the 11 were merely "preaching the gospel."
Of course Barber conveniently (more like intentionally) omits several facts such as those 11 so-called Christians were disruptively pushing their way into the middle of the festival and got arrested after they refused to follow police orders and that the hate crimes charge was dismissed.
And it is the only example from this country he cites as proof that American hate crimes legislation will lead to the imprisonment of Christians. All of his other examples are from foreign countries.
But before there is even time to ruminate over the irony of Barber listing foreign examples in order to smear laws in this country, he then tells an even more suspicious tale:
This WND article also contains audio of the entire interview with Barber, during which he also claims that after he first learned of this incident, he "started perusing a number of homosexual news sites and homosexual blogs" and found that "the majority of homosexuals and homosexual activists for this same kind of homophobia/hate speech persecution here in the United States"
Just what blogs and news sites did Barber peruse to get this opinion? Certainly not mine, because I've said a number of times that I don't believe in arresting people for declaring homosexuality to be a sin. I know that Barber didn't get his opinion from any post on Pam's House Blend, Box Turtle Bulletin, Goodasyou.org, Truth Wins Out, Queerty, Towleroad, Joe.My.God., or any of the other prominent lgbt blogs. And I suspect the same thing from lgbt news sites.
In short, I don't think Barber told the truth here. He made a vague, unprovable accusation. It's not the first time he has done this.
In September 2008, Barber tried make the case against GLSEN's Day of Silence event. In the piece, he said the following:
In fact, multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one's health than a lifetime of chain smoking.To the consternation of "gay" activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study - conducted by pro-"gay" researchers in Canada - was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.
On more than one occasion, religious right groups have distorted this study. They are always so quick to cite it as proof that lgbts have a "short life span" but never seem to mention that in 2001, the researchers of the study claimed that it was being distorted.
But Barber did mention the 2001 complaint by saying the following (I bolded the most important part of his statement):
Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, "[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group."
And where is Barber's proof of this "tremendous pressure?" He does not give any citations.
Then in June of last year, he told a story about the so-called dangers of allowing gays in the military. According to Barber:
I served twelve years in the Army National Guard. During basic training a young man who later turned out to be homosexual was discharged after making unwanted advances toward other soldiers and for inappropriately touching several while they slept in the barracks.
"A lengthy investigation ensued. Troops were pulled away from their regular training to answer questions. It was a tremendous distraction for our entire platoon. This incident most definitely disrupted unit cohesion and harmed troop morale.
At the time, I thought the juxtaposition of his claim was bizarre. I said the following back then and I continue to stand by it:
. . . Barber is quoted repeating the alleged incident in a One News Now article which also quotes Elaine Donnelly. Donnelly is the head of a the Center for Military Readiness and has been vocal with attacking the concept of gays in the military.
The question I have is where was Barber and this story last year when Donnelly was figuratively and deservedly butchered in front of a Congressional committee last year for her abysmal testimony against allowing gays in the military.You will remember that one example she cited about an alleged incident in 1974 concerning a white female who was accosted by a group of lesbians. Why didn't Barber supply her with his incident, which would have been a more up-to-date story.
One thing is clear. It doesn't matter if George Rekers was caught with one escort, two escorts, or even three. Five years from now, Barber and company will be citing his discredited work as if nothing happened.
between the terms *intent* and "motive"
If you want to understand the *legal* meaning of "intent" google the term "Mens Rea" (the legal term for criminal intent)
*Motive*" is simpy evidence to help the prosecutor show the jury that the defendant had a plausible reason to commit the crime, and thus it is *evidence* that his guilt is more than just plausible
On the other hand, *intent* simply means he/she intended to commit the murder period. Regardless of *why* they did it (motive) they are guilty and are sentenced-according to statutory guideline.
(for the crime committed) not a hateful attitude, or bad motives. (most all crimes have bad motives)
Often prosecutors are unable to establish a motive for a jury-then they must convince the jury that the defendant killed the person for no apparent reason-which is somewhat harder- though
certainly not impossible .
Defendants are not sentenced based on *motive* ie, what they intended for the act to accomplish; (such as get rid of competition for a girl friend, get insurance money, keep the person from testifying etc.) They are sentenced based upon whether they committed the crime, not because they had a
horrifying motive for *intending* to, and then actually doing so.
From the abstract:
"Motive plays an important role in criminal law. It is necessary to prove liability for some offenses; it is a key component of several defenses; and it has been a traditional consideration at sentencing."
I suggest that you read the whole paper as well. It addresses this very issue that we are discussing, while also pointing out how very, very wrong you are in your assertions about motives in both sentencing and determining the nature of a crime.
summary of a student paper-not any recognized legal authority.
Worse, this particular article, if the abstract quotes it accurately,
is an example of poor scholarship, for t he following reasons:
Rather than referencing legal authority, it refers
the reader to argue notions of “social theory†and
fair punishment†and other subjective extra legal terms
to make the case for hate crimes legislation.
The writer of the article, which an opinion piece
supporting hate crimes legislation,
uses the hate crimes legislation recently passed as
precedent for itself. Bad, real bad.
It’s really laughable for you to "recommend" that I read an “entire" articleâ€
that you have not even read yourself. (a foolish, and risky
practice ) It may turn out to contain material to
refute your own argument.
Come back when you have a verifiable legal precedent for the
ridiculous and likely unconstitutional practice of making
crimes against certain persons more severely punished based
solely on the victims ethnicity or sexual proclivities.
It's very telling that you have not produced even one
Supreme Court or appellate court ruling in favor of
making crimes against certain groups more serious than
the very same crimes when committed against
those not in the favored group. Unequal protection of the law?
It certainly is. (and unconstitutional)
I agree.
" Simply put, local law enforcement has historically been unreliable when it comes to investigating and prosecuting such crimes (lynching comes to mind as an example)."
I disagree. Every single "hate crime" that has been used as an example to pass "hate crime laws" has not only resulted in arrests and prosecution but also convictions and prison sentences. There is no evidence that there is a current problem of ignoring racially motivated crimes anywhere in America. The huge exception to this rule of course is crimes by the government, in which the institutionalized racially bigoted and motivated crimes of targeting minorities for being stopped, searched, siezed (formerly known as robbed), imprisoned, executed, etc.
"Hate crime legislation puts these acts under Federal jurisdiction to assure that they are properly handled."
I agree and disagree. From my own persective as a freedom loving individual, I disagree. From the perspective of the freedom hating central government, I agree.
"Why Can't Religious Right Groups Stop Lying?"
Because their entire universe is based on make-believe. The facts will never support their positions, because there is no invisible man in space making rules, and keeping track of who's naughty and who's nice.
They are committed to an unsupportable position, so they lie (or repeat lies that other people have told them). It's that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear promethean salvation, you are clearly not a lawyer, or even a paralegal, and haste to add that there's nothing wrong with that.
But, it does increase the risk, that you and
so many other self taught legal commentators here, will conflate the terms *motive* and *intent*. They are not the same, and are not used interchangeably-except by lay people with strong opinons who watch too much nancy grace shows or court tv. (not saying you do..but i suspect many do)
It's late and I have to be up very early tomorow, but will be home around 11:30 pm sunday evening.
I'll explain to all of you (who confuse the terms) at that time
You also have an incomplete understanding of the other laws you cited. (which vary state to state)
sufice it to say, None of them take into considerarion the race, ethnicity or sexuality of the victims.
have a great weekend.
PPS: the difference in manslaughter and murder is one of *intent* to kill-or no intent to kill.
one is intentional killing ; the other is accidental, but may have been caused by other criminal behavior (drunk driving and speeding or hitting someone too hard in a fist fight, etc) Motivation is an purley and exclusivly and evidentiary term- see you tomorrow evening.
It's reached an all-time low, on both sides.
---------------------------------------------------------
yes, but he is correct that much of what is labled a "lie" in political dialogue, is
clearly a matter in plausible dispute over certain facts, or the
likely result or application to factual situations of
certain legislation-like the ahem, hate crimes bill.
The word "lie" along with the words "racism" "anti-semitism"
"hate" "phobia" have been abused so much they no longer
have the desired effect
of horrifying others.
Hence, we end up seeing more and more three words that are automaticaly placed together, "Conservative", "Christian", and "Right", which are not intrinsically linked in the way the words, say, "ice", "cold", and "beer" are. There was a time when you could be "conservative" and simply believe in lower federal government spending and lower taxes, without all the other nonesense we've come to expect; "Christian" should not include anybody that hates gays, can't have an intelligent conversation with anyone who chooses to believe otherwise, and blame jews for everything from Jesus dying to the financial collapse to why it rained last weekend when I was at the beach; and "right" shouldn't be allowed to apply to anyone who decries making sure that everyone has access to health care and a much needed economic stimulus package as "socialism" but who collects their farm subsidy check every month.
Many, many crimes that contain the exact same elements of the crime... the actions, the premeditation, the end result... can be wildly differentiated due to something called "Intent" and "Motive".
And the philosophical basis for hate crimes legislation exists because the belief is that when a violent crime is committed against someone due to race, sexual orientation, etc, ignoring that intent or motive of the person commiting the crime is an implicit condonement that such victims are more deserving of being victims of violent crime because of their nature.
I think the hate crime legislation has the potential for vast abuse, but it's still a good idea. What is beyond debate is that the legislatin has lots of precedence throughout our legal code.
"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I practiced law for 20 years and don't remember reading this mountain of legislative precedent. Please help me out with specific statutes that make hate based killing of some groups more severely punished than members of a non favored group. It flies in the face of the Constitutional
mandate for equal protection of the laws. Hope it's challenged soon...if it is, hate crimes may disappear..
"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you rightly point out that it does have vast potential for abuse,
it's puzzling why you would support it.
It is incorrect that "the legislation has lots of precedence throughout our legal code. "
Please cite and document one legal precedent for a law that makes the punishment for a crime more severe
if the victim belongs to a particular ethnic, religious, or racial goup.
Can you not see that such legislation necessarily gives some groups more protection
under the law than others,and hence denies those not intvhe favored group unequal protection of the law, in violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?
-----------------------------------------------------
I wholeheartedly agree. You certainly *shouldn't* be able to do that. Its ridicuous and wrongheaded,but PC foolishness has reached a fever pitch, aso now we have the Knox Case from Stae College Pa.
Thanks to the spineless bill clinton and deval patrick (and Justice Scalia) . There were really egregious violations of the rights of a
(deservedly) unpopular defendant.
consider yourself fanned!
Don;t let the luddites get you down!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The better question would be" why don't all people stop lying?
Butthat might hit too close to home.
Because religion (any religion) does not know how NOT to lie. Religions are the cause of division, wars, and hate, since time began.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
generalize much?
But 1. that does NOT mean we're all evil, and as for not knowing how NOT to lie... well, some of us do our best to tell the truth when we can and live good, moral lives. You make it sound like everyone who believes in God is an evil liar and a killer. 2. Religions are "THE" cause of division, wars, and hate? You're kidding, right? How about you do a little research into societies that have seen plenty of all of the above and have had nothing to do with religion. Organized religion may not be all peace love and harmony, far from it, but don't even try and say we have somehow cornered the market on hate and violence.
As far as hateful words being spewed goes, we should all learn to be strong enough to stand up to it and shout it down with greater vigor. That's just the libertarian in me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly!!! fanned!!