105 Peavey Rd, Suite 116, Chaska, MN 55318
952-361-4931 www.edwatch.org - edwatch@lakes.com

July 17, 2007

"Speech and Thought Crimes" Plan
        There seems to be no limit to the arrogant abuse of power among some members of Congress. Using the terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," a whole range of sexual activities will be given special federal civil rights "protected" status just as race and gender are today. And they're tacking it onto a defense bill. What are they thinking?

        Efforts to criminalize any condemnation of homosexual activity passed the U.S. House last May, in spite of an outpouring of opposition (see "Congress denying equal protection"). The House roll call vote can be seen here. The legislation would undermine the equal protection of heterosexual and traditional marriage advocates, whether students, teachers, or administrators by creating federally-protected minority group status for practitioners of all forms of sexual behavior. President Bush has warned the Senate that he will veto the bill if they send it to him.

        In response to the veto-threat, Sen Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) has shamelessly announced that he intends to add the hate crimes bill to the defense spending bill -- to tie the inalienable rights of free speech about what is right and wrong to funding for our national defense.


        In our schools, students are being bombarded with the message that promote homosexuality and more. Last April, some schools suspended students who objected to the pro-homosexual advocacy of the Day of Silence. (See "Boycott Day of Silence," and " Students punished for opposing 'gay' advocacy"). This legislation is a move to harshly silence dissent among our teachers and our youth.

        Is hate crime legislation harmless to free speech, as the ACLU claims? Here are some real life examples of how existing state hate crimes legislation has already violated free speech (from Janet Folger, WND columnist).                         "Intimidation" is a hate crime in this bill. No actual act of violence is required for a person to be prosecuted. They only need to "feel" intimidated. Chuck Colson writes:
This bill would give the federal government jurisdiction over local criminal offenses believed to be "motivated by prejudice." Not just any prejudice, mind you, but prejudice based on "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim." Watch those phrases sexual orientation and gender identity, because they tell you which groups are pushing hardest for this bill. The committee rejected amendments that would include other groups, like veterans, the homeless, and senior citizens.
        Hate crimes "criminalizes speech and does nothing to prevent violent crimes," according to Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel in an interview with WorldnetDaily. "All crimes are motivated by hate. Hate crimes laws will not be used to punish the perpetrator, but will be used to silence people of faith, religious groups, clergy, and those who support traditional moral values."

        Do laws against assaults on people and property already exist? They do. In fact, crimes against homosexuals in the United States constitute far less than 1 percent of the cases of aggravated assault.

105 Peavey Rd, Suite 116, Chaska, MN 55318
952-361-4931 www.edwatch.org - edwatch@lakes.com

EdWatch is entirely user-supported. The continuation of our research and distribution work depends upon individual contributors. Click here to contribute to our work. To subscribe or unsubscribe to this EdWatch e-mail service, mail to: edwatch@lakes.com. Put "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the SUBJECT of the message. EdWatch shopping cart here.