By Andrew L. Jaffee

Is it the letter or spirit of the law? What about when you can’t figure out either the letter or spirit of the law? Can we differentiate between 1) thoughts, speech, emotion and 2) tangible actions? Can things like thoughts, speech, emotion, and race be defined in a legal statute? I’ve read the text of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1592, which passed the U.S. House yesterday. I’m not a legal expert, but the bill seems to codify the concept “race” — i.e., “members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct ‘races’.” H.R. 1592 also specifies that a hate crime can be prosecuted on the basis of the victim’s “real or perceived” race, “whether or not acting under color of law.” Huh? Can race be defined? I thought true, open-minded evolution would lead us not to codify race, or single out only certain “races.” We’re all one human species, aren’t we? It is 2007, right? Patronizingly condescending on one end, eugenics on the other, or a bit of both?

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch points out that the pro-Islamist Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is celebrating the House’s passage of H.R. 1592. I’m not really into guilt by association, but CAIR has been “quite successful” at silencing free speech, casting their opponents as “anti-Muslim,” “Islamophobic,” “bigoted,” and “hateful.” You know that CAIR has an army of high-priced (and Saudi-funded) lawyers pouring over the wording of this legislation. What bothers me is how the following sections/phrases will be construed in a court of law:

…Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct ‘races’. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States. … [Is the bill's intent to limit protection only to the descendents of slaves? Was 9/11 not a hate crime?]

…At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that–is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws. … [What happened to only the descendents of slaves? Now the bill widens its scope.]

…Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), 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…

WorldNetDaily opines:

HEROES OF IRAQ CARD DECK

…about the misuse of “hate crimes” laws that give those claiming “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” discrimination special legal rights, pointing out that such a maneuver recently was used, as WND has reported, by the Hindu American Foundation to label a long list of Christian ministry websites who promote Christian beliefs and offer the choice of those beliefs to those involved in other religions as “hate speech.” …

Apparently, some Hindu group got upset with a Christian website for advising against practicing yoga. The Hindus branded the Christian site a “hate site:”

…Jan Markell, who has been with the Olive Tree Ministries since 1977, has written eight books and hundreds of articles about Christians and their beliefs, at first wondered why she would be listed among ministries hated by a Hindu organization.

Then she remembered a series of articles warning Christians against participating in yoga, a Hindu form of worship. …

There is a clause in H.R. 1592 which seems to guarantee free speech (below), but I can only wonder if the lawyers will be able to go to town with legalisms, silencing critics of yoga. What will be next, the silencing of the blogsphere, as in current-day Iran?

…Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

   

---

---

Related: Constitution, Law, Philosophy / Ideology, Society, United States

---