Hate Crimes Bill – who benefits?

The United States Senate recently passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA/S.909), a “Hate Crimes Bill” that provides authorities with the power to increase prosecution and punishment for crimes which were already covered under current laws but which will now receive special attention. The new American law ostensibly only covers “hate violence,” but, if we look to Europe and Canada as examples of how it will truly be used, we can see that a seriously threatening can of worms has been opened. Although it sounds at first to many to be a good thing, this legislation in fact represents a slippery slope, the thin edge of the wedge, for tremendous oppression, including increased censorship based on perceived “hate speech.”

Who really benefits from “hate crimes” censorship?

According to opponents, this legislation most certainly does violate the American Constitution, specifically the Fifth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as possibly the First, if we do go down that slippery “hate speech” slope. Certainly this issue must continue to be investigated in detail, and as always we must keep an eye on whether or not special deference is given as concerns what “hatred” is more acceptable than others.

Taking a closer look at some of the most obvious proponents of this type of legislation here and abroad, we can see what their objectives might be and who will benefit most from these various bills.  The most glaring player on the American scene is the ADL or Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization widely known for assailing perceived “anti-Semitism” and criticism of Israel, Jews and Judaism, which is odd in consideration of the fact that this hate crimes bill was named after a young man who was viciously murdered for being gay, not Jewish. Matthew Shepard’s death was obviously latched onto for the protection of other special interest groups.

Also oddly, the clarifying paragraph on the Congressional website for the bill reads:

A bill to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

What “other purposes,” we must ask? For prosecuting “hate speech” as well?

We in the U.S. may assume that only those who commit heinous acts of violence will ever be charged with “hate crimes,” but it is clear from recent actions in other countries that such legislation is not always confined to violent crimes.

If the U.S. follows suit with Canada and Europe, the first groups that will benefit from this hate crimes legislation will be those defending Jews, Judaism and Israel, as this legislation has been applied in those places to prosecute “Holocaust Deniers,” including scholars and journalists who question the historical details of  World War II. Thus, for “thought crimes” or expressions of unpopular ideas, even where there is no incitement to or commitment of violence, people are being swept up in the net of what smells like classic tyranny.

At the same time, however, it seems this legislation is not being used in Europe to prosecute Islamists who likewise deny the Holocaust, rabblerouse in favor of Hitler and call for the destruction of Israel, along with violent attacks on Israelis and other Jews. Indeed, the hate crimes legislation is being utilized in Europe to protect such Islamists from criticism of their violent speech and the ideology behind it.

For example, an English blogger who complained about violence and crime committed by Muslim immigrants (“Asians”) in his neighborhood was arrested for “hate speech.” Meanwhile Islamists roam the streets of Great Britain carrying signs with dire, violent threats to Europeans and others who “insult Islam.” In this regard, after being cleared of “hate” or “racist” speech, this Christian blogger has now been issued an “official notice” that his life has been threatened, evidently by Islamists, whose own hate speech, including calls to violence and death threats, apparently is not at issue.

So, what is really going on here? Again, cui bono from hate crimes bills? And who suffers?

Hatred is engrained in “holy scriptures”

From these examples, it seems obvious that certain religious fanatics will gain the most from the hate crimes legislation in the West. “Minority” religionists will be protected, while those of a perceived majority will be prosecuted. No attention will be turned to the fact that religious scriptures themselves often constitute “hate speech” which has been used repeatedly to commit atrocities worldwide, including the murders of millions over the centuries.

In many places in the Bible, for instance, the Hebrew prophet Moses makes violent commentary that would be prosecutable today under hate speech legislation as found in Europe, Canada and elsewhere. This Mosaic hate speech led to the wanton massacre of the non-Israelite peoples of Canaan at the time. According to the Old Testament, only the Jewish tribal god Yahweh is divine, while everyone else’s gods are “abominable” and “demonic.”  One biblical scripture that has been taken to heart by Jews, Christians and Muslims is the following from the book of Exodus (22:20):

Whoever sacrifices to any god, save to the LORD only, shall be utterly destroyed.”

The “Lord” in this case, of course, is the biblical god, as interpreted through the eyes of Hebrew, Israelite and Jewish men.

A chronicle of atrocity and bloodshed—indeed, the word “kill” appears in over 300 biblical verses—much of the Old Testament constitutes one long hate speech designed to justify the slaughter of the native peoples of the Levant and the theft of their property, including their virgin girls, as at Numbers 31:17, concerning the Midianites:

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Deuteronomy 32:9-43 is also full of calumny and vitriol against non-believers, as is Deuteronomy 13:6-10:

If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

Hence, people who believe in other gods, as well as those who attempt to draw Jews away from Yahweh, should be destroyed and killed, according to this scripture.

Christianity, of course, has been used abundantly throughout the world to stir up hatred for native cultures and to destroy them through violence. One passage attributed to Jesus that has been employed pointedly over the centuries by Inquisitors and others appears at John 15:6:

If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.”

Jesus addresses the crowd at Luke 19

While telling a parable (Lk 19:27), Jesus makes it a point to end it by saying:

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.”

The only way we can interpret his intention in telling this parable and ending it thus would be that he was essentially speaking of himself—and this parable has been used over the centuries to justify violence against non-Christians.

According to the New Testament, Jesus also incited his followers to hate their parents, as at Luke 14:26:

If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

If he were in Canada or Europe today, would Jesus be arrested and charged with hate speech?

Islam is now catching up with its scriptures going global—such writings having been used countless times over the centuries to incite the commission of violence, such as Surah 9:111, which calls for the believers in the Abrahamic god to “kill and be killed” in his name. Koranic verses constantly remind believers in Islam that non-Muslims are inferior “infidels” with whom they should not associate, thus causing extreme enmity—and hatred—for non-Muslims. For example, at Surah 8:12-8:16, the Koran states:

Open Koran by el7bara

God revealed His will to the angels, saying ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!’

“That was because they defied God and His apostle. He that defies God and His apostle shall be sternly punished God. We said to them: ‘Taste this. The scourge of the Fire awaits the unbelievers.’

“Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except for tactical reasons, or to join another band, he shall incur the wratch of God and Hell shall be his home: an evil fate.”

There are many other scriptures in the Koran and additional Islamic texts that would constitute hate speech against non-believers.

Will the non-religious suffer most?

In many instances, it seems that hate crimes legislation represents an attempt to protect religion against criticism, no matter how violent and hateful the faith may be, while those who object to such calumny and associated atrocity are not protected.

Will the hate crimes legislation cover religious scriptures that incite people to commit violence against each other? Or is hate crimes legislation meant only to protect individuals of a certain ethnicity or religious leaning? Will it end up backfiring as it has in Canada and Europe, protecting individuals with the most insidious plots?

How do we “combat hate,” which is claimed to be the real reason behind this legislation? The first step would be to get it out of texts billions of people consider to be “God’s Word!” And if that step is impossible, because these texts are so filled with hatred, then we need to scrap them in favor of new ideologies that are not bigoted, biased, prejudiced and full of hate speech.

Source: