[Peace-discuss] Thought crimes

[ewj at pigs.ag]

Warmongerism is a organized mainstream religion with an ancient history,
and has numerous gods and temples worldwide, and a collective membership
in the hundreds of millions.  It is the dominant state-controlled
religion
in most of the countries where Warmongerism is popular.  Although it
had never sought non-profit status, it's gross receipts far exceed the 
10% giving rate standardized among some religious groups.


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Thought crimes
> From: ewj at pigs.ag
> Date: Sun, July 19, 2009 5:10 am
> To: galliher at illinois.edu
> Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
> 
> If:
> this is a clarification of the extent of 1st amendment rights
> of religion and free speech...
> 
> "...if such exercise of religion was not intended to 1) plan or prepare
> 
> for an act of physical violence or 2) incite an imminent act of
> physical
> 
> violence against another."
> 
> Then:
> 
> The religion of "Warmongerism" promotes in its doctrines all manner of
> "violent acts based on race, color, national origin, AND religion" 
> and its apostles, "prophets", evangelists, "managers", teachers, and
> acolytes 
> are constantly about the planning, preparation, and inciting of
> physical
> violence.
> 
> (How strange that such a self-referential edict against Warmongerism
> is
> attached to a bill
> certifying funding for war activity that is supported by
> Warmongerites.)
> 
> This bill would also ban most of the activities of the religion of
> "Abortionism",
> (its indoctrinates are also known as "Pro-Choicers"), since its
> activities
> are clearly focuses on bigotry and promotion of violent acts of murder
> of
> persons based upon their disability.  It is also clearly demonstrable
> that
> the "Pro-Choicers" incite violent death based on race and color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Thought crimes
> > From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
> > Date: Sun, July 19, 2009 12:54 am
> > To: peace-discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
> > 
> > Senate Hate Crimes Bill Threatens First Amendment
> > 	By: bmaz Friday July 17, 2009 1:49 pm
> > 
> > There are inherent First Amendment and equal protection issues with
> any "hate 
> > crime" legislation as I pointed out when Eric Holder started
> aggressively 
> > pushing Congress for passage of a new bill. That said, if you are
> going to enact 
> > such laws, they must be targeted, rational and designed to effect the
> result 
> > desired and not any other. Such laws should not be vague and
> expansive, should 
> > not be able to be wielded by prosecutors as selective bludgeons and
> should not 
> > infringe on First Amendment rights to free speech and association.
> > 
> > Late Thursday night, the Senate passed a Hate Crimes Bill that
> arguably violates 
> > all of the above.
> > 
> > People attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender would
> receive 
> > federal protections under a Senate-approved measure that
> significantly expands 
> > the reach of hate crimes law.
> > 
> > The Senate bill also would make it easier for federal prosecutors to
> step in 
> > when state or local authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue
> hate crimes.
> > 
> > "The Senate made a strong statement this evening that hate crimes
> have no place 
> > in America," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said after
> the chamber 
> > voted Thursday to attach the legislation as an amendment to a $680
> billion 
> > defense spending bill expected to be completed next week.
> > 
> > The House in April approved a similar bill and President Barack Obama
> has urged 
> > Congress to send him hate crimes legislation, presenting the best
> scenario for 
> > the measure to become law since Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., first
> introduced 
> > it more than a decade ago.
> > 
> > According to the ACLU however, the Senate botched the job:
> > 
> > The Senate late Thursday passed an amendment as part of the
> Department of 
> > Defense Authorization bill that would give the federal government new
> authority 
> > to prosecute certain violent acts based on race, color, national
> origin, 
> > religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.
> However, 
> > the Senate version of the hate crimes bill lacks the strong
> protections for 
> > speech and association included in legislation passed by the House of
> 
> > Representatives in June. The American Civil Liberties Union believes
> that 
> > without the speech and association protections included in the House
> bill, the 
> > Senate hate crimes legislation could have a chilling effect on
> constitutionally 
> > protected speech and membership.
> > 
> > The following can be attributed to Christopher Anders, ACLU Senior
> Legislative 
> > Counsel:
> > 
> > “It has been our experience that the fight for better and stronger
> civil rights 
> > protections is more successful when free speech and association are
> protected 
> > along the way. Fierce protection of free speech rights has
> historically created 
> > the space for the improvement of civil rights protections. Unless
> amended to 
> > block evidence of speech and association not specifically related to
> a crime, 
> > the Senate hate crimes amendment could chill constitutionally
> protected speech 
> > and association. An otherwise unremarkable violent crime should not
> become a 
> > federal hate crime simply because the defendant visited the wrong
> website, 
> > belonged to a group espousing bigotry, or subscribed to a magazine
> promoting 
> > discriminatory views, however wrong and repugnant those beliefs may
> be. We urge 
> > Congress to instead adopt the House version of the hate crimes bill,
> which 
> > protects both civil rights and free speech and association.”
> > 
> > The actual bill passed is S 909 and it passed 63-28. The better House
> version is 
> > H.S. 1913. Basically, the upshot is that the scope of the legislation
> is so 
> > broad that it arguably can be used to criminalize and potentially
> prosecute 
> > protected free speech and association. This is a very real fear,
> witness how 
> > fast one lobby, the fundamentalist religious sect, went to work on
> the issue; 
> > they had an amendment tacked on prior to allowing the bill to reach a
> vote:
> > 
> > The amendment, which was introduced by Senator Sam Brownback
> (R-Kan.), 
> > essentially clarifies that speech from the pulpit, electronic or
> otherwise, 
> > remain protected unless its intent was to cause violence.
> > 
> > The amendment says that nothing "shall be construed or applied in a
> manner that 
> > infringes the rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of
> the United 
> > States, or substantially burdens any exercise of religion (regardless
> of whether 
> > compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech,
> expression, 
> > association, if such exercise of religion was not intended to 1) plan
> or prepare 
> > for an act of physical violence or 2) incite an imminent act of
> physical 
> > violence against another."
> > 
> > So the lethal right to life zealots will bath themselves in the
> trappings of the 
> > church and march on. No such protections for other groups though; in
> fact, the 
> > Senate version arguably expands the ability to use the legislation as
> a 
> > selective tool. The main provision contained in the House version the
> ACLU is 
> > complaining of being omitted from the Senate bill passed last night
> is as follows:
> > 
> > Evidence of expression or association of the defendant may not be
> introduced as 
> > substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically
> relates to that 
> > offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of
> evidence 
> > governing the impeachment of a witness.
> > 
> > Interestingly enough, this provision was contained in the original
> Senate draft 
> > of the legislation in 2007. The ACLU feels the language is necessary
> to block 
> > admissibility of evidence of speech and association not specifically
> related to 
> > a crime, and that the legislation without such language could chill 
> > constitutionally protected speech and association. How did it come to
> be 
> > removed? By relentless lobbying by the Department of Justice (Hey
> isn't that 
> > Eric Holder guy over there?). From a July 14 ACLU letter to
> Senators:
> > 
> > Although the Justice Department has argued that it usually avoids
> attempting to 
> > introduce evidence proving nothing more than that a person holds
> racist or other 
> > bigoted views, it has lobbied hard this year against having the
> Senate include 
> > the House-passed speech and association protections in the Senate
> bill. The 
> > Justice Department is specifically seeking to use evidence of a
> person’s speech 
> > or association even if the evidence does not specifically relate to
> the offense.
> > ...
> > The problem today is that there is an increasing focus on “combating
> hate,” 
> > fighting “hate groups,” and identifying alleged perpetrators by their
> membership 
> > in such groups--even in the absence of any link between membership in
> the group 
> > and the violent act. Those arguments are very different from the
> arguments made 
> > in support of the criminal civil rights statute when it passed as an
> important 
> > part of the historic Civil Rights Act of 1968.
> > 
> > There is a danger that--after years of debate focused on combating 
> > “hate”--courts, litigants, and jurors applying a federal hate crime
> statute 
> > could be more likely to believe that speech-related evidence that is
> unrelated 
> > to the chain of events leading to a violent act is a proper basis for
> proving 
> > the intentional selection element of the offense. The House-passed
> evidentiary 
> > provision would stop the temptation for prosecutors to focus on
> proving the 
> > selection element by showing “guilt by association” with groups whose
> bigoted 
> > views we may all find repugnant, but which may have had no role in
> committing 
> > the violent act.
> > 
> > The ACLU is exactly correct here, the provision, as elegantly brief
> as it is, is 
> > critical. It is my experience that prosecutors use hate crimes
> statutes much 
> > more as leverage to force plea agreements and prove defendants guilty
> simply on 
> > the basis of non-conforming speech and membership in gangs, fringe
> political 
> > groups and the like than they do for the righteous purpose intended.
> The DOJ is 
> > point blankedly saying that is exactly what they desire to do and the
> Senators 
> > allowing this are carrying their ill-conceived water.
> > 
> > Congressmen Conyers, Scott and Frank have vowed to keep the language
> included in 
> > any final hate crimes legislation, they deserve accolades for their
> efforts, and 
> > the DOJ and Senate deserve jeers for theirs. And there is another
> bastardization 
> > of the process in the offing too. On Monday, Senator Jeff Sessions is
> having his 
> > amendment to include the death penalty added to the penalty
> provisions of the 
> > Senate Hate Crimes Bill voted on.
> > 
> > Quite frankly, it is arguable whether hate crimes laws are
> appropriate in the 
> > first instance, but if they are to exist, they must not be allowed to
> be tools 
> > of selective prosecution and prosecution of thought and status
> crimes, and there 
> > is no need for the conservative fixation on the death penalty to be
> involved either.
> > 
> >
> http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/07/17/senate-hate-crimes-bill-threatens-first-amendment/#more-4509
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>