CLOSING THE BORDERS TO FREE SPEECH
By Harmony Grant
26 Feb 09
As immigrants flood our nation in record numbers, many Americans
want to talk frankly about the situation. But could this someday
be a crime? Could honest talk about immigration someday be as illegal
as stabbing a Latino while yelling, “Wetback!?”
It seems unthinkable that the government could deny open debate on a subject
like immigration. Yet a federal hate crimes bill before Congress will ultimately
do just that—crush freedom of speech to favor “protected classes” (especially
racial and religious minorities and homosexuals) and criminalize so-called “hate
speech” against them. Such “hate speech” includes the most
legitimate critiques of racial difference, protected religions, cultures, or
behaviors—and especially immigration.
Hate crime laws—already passed in 45 of our 50 states—ride a wave
of propaganda and misperception. Who isn’t against hate? Who doesn’t
want to stop crime? But the reality of these laws is dark as any Orwellian tale.
Hate crime laws intensify punishment for crimes motivated by bias against specially
protected groups. This would be bad enough; our government representatives have
no right to create more (and less) protected classes, and they certainly have
no right to mine our thoughts and beliefs, then punish what they deem incorrect!
But hate crime laws get even worse. In hate law countries such as Canada, they
are quickly broadened to punish pure speech, even if no crime is committed.
The White House website’s agenda vows to expand hate crime laws and pass
the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This bill, HR256, is currently
before Congress, along with the David Ray Ritcheson Act, HR262. The
first will enhance federal authority to invade states’ law enforcement
when a “hate crime” is committed. Expanding an already existing 1968
federal hate crimes law (Title 18, Sec. 2a), HR 256 could punish “as a
principal” any writer, radio host, or even average person whose “counsel” incites
another to commit a hate crime.
David Ray Ritcheson was a Mexican-American high school student brutally attacked
and sodomized in 2006. He later testified in Washington, giving his state Rep.
Sheila Jackson-Lee the opportunity
to say lawmakers should “redouble our efforts to prevent hate crimes
by juveniles, which I believe is in the long run the best and most effective
way of eliminating the scourge or hate-motivated crimes from our society.” To
lawmakers like Jackson-Lee, “prevention” means silencing those who
allegedly teach juveniles to hate—namely, leaders and politicians who speak
taboo truths about minority populations or issues like homosexuality and immigration.
To silence the politically incorrect, HR 262 will establish a federal hate crimes
command center and a massive re-education program in all American public schools
from kindergarten through college. Unlike HR 256, which empowers the government
to punish hate crimes in states at will, HR 262 empowers the government
to ostensibly “prevent” hate crimes in states.
Obviously, this should disturb every American. It raises special concern for
those worried about immigration. More and more, immigrants are the poster children
of hate law advocates. I have researched hate law news for the National Prayer
Network since 2006, and have seen a noticeable shift in hate law propaganda,
from anti-homosexual toward anti-immigrant violence. Indeed, a few years ago
the federal hate bill was named for Matthew Shepard, a homosexual allegedly attacked
because of his orientation. Today, it’s named for a Mexican-American.
We know the future of American conservatives—especially if their concern
is immigration or traditional morality—if speech-chilling hate laws are
passed. It is dark. Look at Europe and Canada. Geert Wilders is a Dutch
politician being prosecuted for a hate crime because he critiqued Muslim
culture, which is fast supplanting the formerly dominant white culture in the
Netherlands. “If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe
will nearly double by 2015,” says a Brookings scholar, “while the
non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent.” Surely Europeans can
discuss the culture flooding their nation, as Americans can freely discuss the
waves of Latino immigration…right? Well, not so much.
In 2008 Wilders released a 10-minute, self-produced film, “Fitna.” Most
of the film isn’t even his own speech; it’s made of quotes from the
Koran and scenes of an Imam calling for Jews’ deaths. Now Wilders is being
prosecuted for hate speech, six months after the court declared his speech valid.
To demonstrate the hostility of the rest of Europe to free speech, Wilders
has been barred from entering Great Britain, told he would “threaten
community harmony…and therefore, public security.”
Soon the only place for dissidents like Wilders to be kept from disrupting “community
harmony” will be within the four walls of a prison cell. Wilders warns
that soon any Dutch citizen will face trial if they oppose the Islamization of
Europe. He told the BBC that “the
judgment of the court [is] an attack on the freedom of expression.... Participation
in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion,
you risk being prosecuted.... Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?””
Naturally, Wilders says he wishes for “a European kind of 'First Amendment.'
I want all the hate speech laws that are only used against us to be to be abolished
in Europe.”
Unfortunately, it’s looking very much like America will turn into Europe,
not the other way around. Latino leaders have demanded that the FCC investigate “hate
speech” on American airwaves and asked for an update of the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration’s hate speech report. Rather than pushing
for specific laws, the Latino advocates want a report on the link between hate
speech and hate-based violence. This will add even more force to the battering
ram that threatens to crush the First Amendment by making speech itself as illegal
as the crimes it is blamed for inciting.
In 2008, seven teens were accused of a “hate crime” after the brutal
stabbing of an immigrant from Ecuador. Hate law advocates seized the opportunity
to blame political speech. Leaders of the local immigrant alliance blamed the
debate on immigration for fostering hate. A local pastor and immigrant advocate
charged that “some of the highest leaders of our community also have blood
on their hands.” Local county executive Steve Levy especially drew fire.
An immigration reformer, Levy has passed measures such as requiring contractors
to check workers’ status. A prominent Latino leader told the press that
Levy “brought this hate that exists here amongst the Hispanic community.
He has legislated over and over again against Hispanic immigrants. ... He should
be the person not welcome in this community."
Wow, so now a lawmaker who enforces the law—isn’t that his job?—is
responsible for this brutal killing.
A NY Times editorial brought up the immigrant’s murder as a final
zinger after smearing vdare.com’s Peter Brimelow, Pat Buchanan, and every “Latino-bashing” politician
who wants to seal the border. “It is easy to mock white-supremacist views
as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out…But
racism has a nasty habit of never going away…” These abusive slams
(equating immigration critics with white supremacists and racists) would be easier
to overlook if prison chains weren’t rattling behind them.
This is the terrifying way media and hate law advocates equate certain speech
with violent crime. Hate laws will put bite behind that rhetoric, first allowing
for federal surveillance of non-violent “haters” like Peter Brimelow,
and for widespread police and public education against their dangerous views—and
then, finally, allowing for arrest and prosecution of people who have never committed
any crime except to open their mouths.
Just look at mainstream media’s reporting on “hate crimes.” Generally
speaking, “hate crimes” by whites against minorities or homosexuals
are quickly reported. But the MSM and hate law advocates never mention that most “hate
crimes” are committed by minorities against each other. A full
80 percent of violent crimes involve victims and criminals of the same race. “For
the 20 percent of violent crimes that are interracial, 15 percent involve black
offenders and white victims…” (Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity
Politics, 1998, James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, p.17) Only two percent
are white-on-black. Is this a staggering epidemic demanding unprecedented federal
intervention? I think not.
Why are only white crimes trumpeted as a problem? These laws are aimed at controlling
political discourse not violent crime. In Germany and most of Europe, political “hate
speech” doesn’t have to be connected to any kind of criminal act
to be prosecuted. The speech itself is the crime.
The German Law Journal
says its nation’s hate laws “specifically refrain from requiring
that racist messages lead to a clear and present danger of imminent lawless
action before becoming punishable [emphasis mine]. A distant and generalized
threat to the public peace and to life and dignity, particularly of minorities,
suffices for legal sanctions irrespective of whether and when such danger would
actually manifest itself…hate speech is generally prohibited—it
is 'speech minus' or 'low-value speech,' even if it addresses issues of high
political importance.”
Since President Obama powerfully supports these hate bills, the House Judiciary
Committee says it will move HR 256 and 262 rapidly through. If these bills arrive
on the floor of the House, they will almost certainly be passed by the Democrat
majority. It is vital that all who cherish freedom should call their members
of Congress now to protest this legislation. To do much more to save freedom,
call the 40 crucial members of the House Judiciary Committee (available at www.truthtellers.org). Call
toll-free 1-877-851-6437. Toll is 1-202-225-3121.
