CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Fake Hate Crimes

May 3, 2007

There are two general truths about so-called hate crime legislation, regardless of where they appear around the world. One, they are largely the work of homosexual activists and their allies, seeking to gain ever greater acceptance of their lifestyle, and use the force of the law to silence their critics. Two, it is invariably Christians who are the real target of such laws.

Thus for all the rhetoric about justice and tolerance, the real purpose of much of this kind of legislation is to expand the homosexual hegemony, and restrict the freedoms of bible-believing Christians. So it should come as no surprise that the other side will use every trick in the book to coerce and confuse a gullible public into accepting such draconian anti-freedom of speech laws.

Of course the media is happy to play their game. Thus plenty of emotive stories appear on a regular basis about homosexuals being ‘discriminated’ against, meant to pull heart strings while bypassing the head. And mind you, we hardly ever hear the stories about homosexual discrimination against others.

So the idea of anti-homosexual ‘hate crimes’ has been invented to further see the radical homosexual agenda enforced throughout the Western world. The trouble is, much of the basis of such laws turns out to be ephemeral upon closer inspection.

Matt Barber picks up this story in a May 3, 2007 townhall.com article. He begins, “The Associated Press is reporting the latest in a string of fraudulent high profile ‘hate crime’ reports by homosexual activists who are evidently having trouble coming up with legitimate incidents of ‘hate crimes’ against homosexuals to bolster their deceptive agenda. ‘No problem, we’ll just keep making them up,’ apparently goes the mindset. As Congress reportedly prepares to vote Thursday on ‘hate crimes’ bill H.R. 1592, the evidence is overwhelming. The entire concept is built on a foundation of fraud.”

He gives as one example a report from the AP: “A gay rights group is canceling a planned rally on the Minnesota State University Moorhead campus. This after police say a previously reported assault was not a hate crime. The Fargo-Moorhead Ten Percent Society says it supports the decision of Moorhead police and it will be canceling its march planned for Thursday night. Edina native Paul Marquardt had reported that he was taunted for his sexual orientation and attacked by four men last week. But Moorhead Deputy Police Chief Bob Larson says investigators heard a conflicting story. So they interviewed Marquardt again and he said he didn’t hear any anti-gay remarks and believes he was pushed down and injured by unknown assailants.”

Says Barber, “Although there may be very isolated incidences of legitimate bias-motivated crimes against homosexuals, they’re anything but epidemic as homosexual activists would have you believe. Truth be told, the whole ‘needle in a haystack’ thing comes to mind.”

Then there is the case of 72-year-old “gay”-identified Andrew Anthos of Detroit, Michigan. Investigators there found that “this ‘hate crime’ – the very ‘hate crime’ – which was exploited by liberals in Congress to whip up an emotional frenzy of support to justify introduction of H.R. 1592, was a false report from the start. Anthos was the victim of an unfortunate accident. That’s right, the ‘hate crime’ never even happened. The left should be ashamed for using this poor man as their ‘hate crimes’ poster boy for this fraudulent piece of legislation.”

He continues, “But this is just par for the course; the list goes on and on. In fact, you need only look at the most famous ‘hate crime’ of all – Matthew Shepard – to arrive at that conclusion. The evidence determined that Shepard’s murder was not a ‘hate crime’ (a lie still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), but rather, was a bungled robbery attempt.”

“Nonetheless, the two thugs who committed the crime received life in prison for killing Shepard without the ‘benefit’ of any ‘hate crimes’ law in place. But despite that fact, Ted Kennedy and other liberals in the Senate have introduced their own ‘hate crimes’ legislation (S. 1105), shamelessly calling it the ‘Matthew Shepard Act.’ This type of exploitation is disgusting! Again, liberals should be ashamed for their dishonesty and for disrespecting Matthew Shepard’s memory by making him a false martyr for their false cause.”

He concludes, “Folks, although ‘hate crimes’ legislation may very well make its way through Congress, the case for this ‘gay’-friendly legislation continues to rapidly unravel. It’s a fraud on its face, and America is beginning to catch on and speak out against it.”

Quite so. We need to be on guard in Australia as well, since the militant homosexual lobby will not rest until its complete agenda is actualised. And that includes the complete public acceptance and exaltation of their lifestyle, and the suppression of any voices to the contrary. While all people should be treated with respect and dignity, the law should not treat some people more equal than others, which is just what hate crime legislation does.
 
www.townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2007/05/03/fake_anti-%e2%80%9cgay%e2%80%9d_%e2%80%9chate_crimes%e2%80%9d_keep_piling_up

[835 words]

7 Responses to Fake Hate Crimes

  • What’s happening here is that one group of people (homosexuals) have come out of the closet and now are trying to put another group (Christians) in the closet.

    Ewan McDonald, Victoria

  • Ewan,
    Consider the Uniting Church’s official position which backs homosexuality and its unofficial position of not giving jobs to clergy who have taken a stand against apostasy. This has put many clergy into “the closet”
    Stan Fishley, Wantirna

  • Hate crimes? What constitutes as a hate crime? One gangsta shooting down a rival in the never ending drug/turf wars? A man beating his wife until he kills the near term baby in her womb? A man going into a postal office and randomly shooting everyone within range? What about Richard Rimirez, whom terrorized L.A. with his brutal rape and murder spree? What about a man who dynamites a school filled with children, blaming the children for being on the verge of losing his farm due to not being able to pay his taxes? Would 19th century London’s Jack the Ripper’s murders be considered hate crimes against women and prostitutes? Or a mother who takes out a hit against another in order to advance her child’s chances of becoming a cheerleader?

    So you know, I have a long time friend who really did suffer a hate crime because of his homosexuality. This is not about someone who lives flamboyantly or participates in gay pride parades, but a brother in Christ who has made the decision to live a celibate lifestyle. When rumors about his homosexuality started to get around, dog poop began appearing in his mail box and bricks wrapped in letters filled with threats began crashing through his windows…..and that’s just for starters. He finally had to leave his home, a job he loved, even the town for the sake of his own safety. And who were the perpetators behind this terrorism? They were called upstanding pillars of the community (“fellow Christians”?)who were never charged.

    Do I consider what my friend endured a hate crime? Of course! But would we have prosecuted the Virginia Tech mass murderer for hate crimes had he not killed himself? Almost nothing is being said about this crime being based on hate, just on Cho being mentally unstable and what may have been the final straw that led to this tragedy. Yet it most certainly was a hate crime if you take his rantings about hating rich kids on the video tape he sent to NBC between shootings in account.

    To put it bluntly, there are only two types of crimes, crimes of cold indifference and hate crimes. Cold indifference makes no distinctions, if you’re blocking the way, you become a victim. Hate crimes are personal in that they are commited for personal reasons whether the victim is familiar or a stranger to the perpetrator. But crime is crime and punishing the act is what the scales of justice demands. God help us if a government takes it upon itself to begin punishing thought and not just deeds!

    M.E.Huffmaster

  • Stan

    I wonder if the Uniting Church could be targeted by the new ‘hate crimes’ legislation against those with dissenting opinion? Or is it all one way traffic?

    Damien Spillane

  • Copied……..

    Westmoreland says no to Thought Police

    U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland voted against the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which passed the House today.

    “If you commit a violent crime against another person, you should be punished to the full extent of the law,” Westmoreland said. “In the eyes of the law, it shouldn’t make a difference if the motive was hate or greed or even boredom. The law should look at a crime, determine what punishment it deserves and then consistently apply the punishment. As a society, we should have a zero-tolerance policy toward violent crime.

    “I don’t think a perpetrator should get less time behind bars because he wasn’t motivated by hate. This legislation implies that violent crime isn’t as bad if it’s random or simply senseless. I disagree. I think they’re equally despicable and the law should treat them equally harsh.”

    “I received many calls and letters from constituents in Georgia’s 3rd Congressional District asking me to oppose the hate crime bill. Many of those constituents are ministers and church-goers concerned about the chilling effect that a federal law such as this would have on teaching their moral beliefs. I agree with their concerns. Churches should be free to teach that some lifestyles are wrong according to their belief system without fear of criminal prosecution. In fact, local hate crime laws in New York City and San Francisco have already been used to suppress the free speech rights of religious and pro-family groups. It’s ironic that this bill passed on the National Day of Prayer.

    “My additional concern about this bill is that it grows the national government by federalizing crimes that traditionally are in the purview of local and state governments. Our federal law enforcement agencies, in my opinion, have enough on their plates without adding the responsibility of serving as ‘Thought Police.’ ”

    For U.S. citizens: I suggest that you contact your U.S. Senators and make your feelings known on this issue. A letter sent to the White House is a good idea too. God help us, we will soon go the way of the “morals police” in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, if this baloney isn’t stopped soon!

    M.E. Huffmaster

  • How often do you find that something that just ‘feels’ wrong is often a house of cards built upon a lie? It reminds me of some of the left-leaning revisionist history that has become accepted dogma to be taught in schools being based on actual lies and now widely accepted as truth not only in academic circles but by the next generation, all to pursue particular agendas. I could cite other examples. I’m sure that many of those who push these agendas are deliberately disingenuous, believing that the means (lies and twisted truths) justify the end (achieving a certain deceived and deceiving position in society for homosexuals and cutting down the position of those they wish to denigrate and marginalize, people who, based on moral objections, cannot condone the homosexual lifestyle)
    Ultimately, we are heading towards a society so confused between what’s black and what’s white, up and down, good and bad that nothing is solid any more; a hazy hell of moral relativism gone mad, where noone is allowed to say the emperor’s got no clothes any more.
    Dee Graf

  • [I]t’s not a stretch to say that hate crime laws, by their very nature, punish people for their opinions. A mugger who robs a Jew because he’s well-dressed is punished less severely than a mugger who robs a Jew based on the belief that Jews get their money only by cheating Christians. A thug who beats an old lady in a wheelchair just for fun is punished less severely than a thug who does so because he believes disabled people are leeches.

    The rationale for such unequal treatment is that crimes motivated by bigotry do more damage than otherwise identical crimes with different motivations because of the fear they foster. Yet random attacks arguably generate more fear, and hate crimes cause anxiety in the targeted group only when they’re publicized as such. In any case, judges can take a crime’s impact into account at sentencing.

    From Looking for Hate in All the Wrong Places by Jacob Sullum

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

Leave a Reply