Hate Crimes in Terre Haute

Remarkable news out of Terre Haute from a town hall meeting at ISU.  State Representatives Greg Porter (D - Indianapolis) and Clyde Kersey (D - Terre Haute) reveiled some disturbing information that we here at Veritas Rex have been attempting to alert people to for quite some time.  Rep. Porter claims that his hate crimes legislation is not aimed at punishing thought, rather punishing action.  However, Rep. Kersey had this to say:

“in my opinion, freedom of speech ends when it induces a group to action or violence against another person.”

So are we punishing thought or aren't we?  Rep. Kersey's statement is quite a dangerous one for those who value free speech, when you get down to what it really means.  First of all, how is a judge to decide when speech induces a person to commit a crime, how is a prosecutor to prove it and who should be punished for that speech?  This has been a big problem in other parts of the country and the world where this type of legislation has been passed.  In some instances pastors and others have been targeted merely because they exercised their God given right to educate others on what the Bible has to say regarding homosexuality.  There is the potential that, if passed, this law would put anyone who speaks out against homosexuality at risk.  It would seem that Veritas Rex could even be targeted.  If we continue to speak out against government promotion of homosexuality and some nut reads it and does something stupid, I could see a scenerio where we could be held responsible for that crime, under this law, though we see violence against all innocent people as abhorrent.

Furthermore, the Tribune-Star reported:

"But both Porter and Kersey said the question of application would still rest with the judge, prosecutor and jurors involved in each case, who would have to assess whether the intent of the crime was to target a specific group or not.

Kersey said some crimes might be fuzzy, but most in fact are clear."

Wow!  That makes me feel much better!  So basically, some forms of free speech are in jeopardy and we are going to dump this problem in the laps of judges to figure out.  "...some crimes might be fuzzy...."  Thanks, but no thanks.  I think creating fuzzy laws is a bad idea...call me crazy.

Gay activists are the main group behind this legislation and their definition of what kind of speech should be silenced is almost unbelievable.  Here is an example of what I am talking about (from the Family Research Council):

Pro-homosexual activists like to claim that "hate speech" (which they define as any disapproval of homosexual behavior) leads directly to "hate violence." For example, the 1998 murder of homosexual college student Matthew Shepard occurred the same year that pro-family groups had mounted a compassionate "Truth in Love" ad campaign highlighting the fact that many people have found happiness after leaving the homosexual lifestyle. When the Today Show's Katie Couric asked Elizabeth Birch, Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign (the nation's largest pro-homosexual activist group), "Do you believe this ad campaign launched by some conservative groups really contributed somehow to Matthew Shepard's death?," Birch answered, "I do, Katie." (There is no evidence that Shepard's murderers even knew about the ads, and ABC's 20/20 reported in 2004 that Shepard was not killed because he was homosexual at all.) The rhetoric of pro-homosexual activists makes it clear that their goal is not just to protect homosexuals from violence, but to protect them from criticism altogether by silencing those who seek to discourage homosexual behavior.  (from FRC)

So you see how this works.  Gay activist groups consider those people who speak out in favor of helping those who struggle with same-sex attraction to change and leave the homosexual lifestyle as guilty of "hate-speech", which (they say) contributes to violence or other crimes against people who identify themselves as homosexual (the true instances of which they have a hard time coming up with) .  So, in their mind, people who are attempting to help these individuals are guilty of a hate crime themselves and should be punished. 

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  I haven't even talked about the other equal protection issues, like why someone who is the victim of a crime because they are redheaded (for example) will get less justice than if they identify themselves as homosexual.  Or what happens if one person who claims to be homosexual assaults another person who claims to be homosexual because of the victim's sexual preference?  Hate Crimes legislation is such bad public policy on so many levels.  If gay rights groups really wanted greater justice for victims they would work with police, prosecutors and judges to enforce the laws we already have on the books.  Oops...I forgot...that wouldn't force government to promote their sexual preference by inserting "sexual-orientation" within Indiana law, which is the real motivation.  Silly me, I keep forgetting that promoting one's sexuality is more important than truly helping victims of crime.