DUTCH LAWMAKER TO BE TRIED FOR "HATE CRIMES" - You Be The Judge...

On August 10, 2009 I posted a profile of a Dutch parliamentarian named Geert Wilders. It seems that old Geert's outspokenness has since created a bit of a problem for him. Freedom of speech is apparently being attacked on a worldwide scale. There are very few places in the world that enjoy the level of freedom that we in the United States do, but, in the past, the Netherlands has roughly approximated our freedoms.

Geert Wilders is what we in the USA would call a "maverick". As the parliamentary "herd" moves along in lock-step, Geert tends to drift away from the main body and "do his own thing". This is not necessarily a bad thing. The world needs more mavericks to keep things in balance... especially in a socialist nation such as the Netherlands, where their "liberalism" is applicable only to those things with which they agree.

But then, that is true of any liberal, socialist government. Basically the philosophy is one of, "We will support your right to kill unborn children, but not the right of another to speak out against such acts." Then that philosophy is "broad-brushed" across the entire spectrum of political and social issues. The Dutch government has demonstrated an attitude such that it is acceptable to speak of Islam in glowing terms, but not to find fault with it. Wilders produced a video entitled "Fitna" (I found it for rent at my local video store) which means "strife", a 17-minute anti-Qur'an movie, which features quotations from the Qur'an interspersed with footage of terrorist atrocities and speeches by Muslim preachers.

The controversial MP has also been criticized for writing anti-Islamic articles and letters which were later published in a mainstream Dutch newspaper. As this case progresses through the Dutch court system we will see that it is more than one man that is on trial... it is the entire concept of FREEDOM OF SPEECH (and thought, and self-expression), and - when one loses that freedom - the other freedoms are in danger of perishing as well!

There is no nation on this planet which can, or does, guarantee it's residents the right to never be upset, disappointed, or offended by something somebody else may say or do. Life isn't easy, and human beings are not perfect, so we have to learn to just suck it up and get on with whatever we were doing.

The Qur'an, as with most religious texts, is subject to the interpretation of man. And there is much discussion over the seemingly conflicted instructions given to Muhammad by Allah. There are those verses that council conversion to Islam through beautiful preaching, persuasion, kindness, understanding and forgiveness. Then there are the "Sword Verses" (Qur'an 9:5-9:29), which are believed by the majority of non-Muslims to essentially say, kill the non-believer. These verses are probably the leaders among those sparking controversy. For example, three well-respected Islamic scholars (two Muslims, one western scholar) translate Qur'an 5:29 as:

1. "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

2. "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

3. "Do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam."

With the exception of the final thought in each translation, the interpretations are quite similar. I can see where the Muslim extremists could believe that acts of terrorism are, if not demanded, at least encouraged by 9:5. Which brings us to another problem - the Muslim extremists do not wear signs that allow the rest of the world to differentiate between them and the "moderate" Muslims. Instead they hide themselves among the populations of those (assumed to be) peaceful, moderate Muslims. Another Islamic scholar even said this - "The later verses, known as the “Sword Verses” (9:5 and 9:29), were considered by Muslim scholars to have canceled the previous verses mandating kindness and persuasion. Expansionist jihad became the explicit norm."

Personally, I agree with Wilders' evaluation of the Islamic threat. The goal of Islam is to rule the world. Islam brings with it the draconian Sharia "law" - made in the 7th century and has stayed in the 7th century. Sharia is the antithesis of our constitution and it is the enemy of freedom - especially for women. Sharia is the equivalent of a rules book for social lynch mobs.

Dr. Kamau Kambon - An Intelligent, But Severely Delusional Man

Racial bias and hatred are not strictly the domain of white supremacists, like the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood, as evidenced by Kamau Kambon's harangue on October 14, 2005. (Perhaps Dr. Kambon should be the first person tried under our lovely new hate crimes legislation for "hate speech"... or is that charge specifically reserved for members of the clergy preaching against homosexuality?)

"RALEIGH‚ NC ¬ A Raleigh activist and bookstore owner told a panel at Howard University Law School on Oct. 14 that the solution to many of the problems faced by black people is the extermination of "white people off the face of the planet.” Dr. Kamau Kambon, who taught African Studies 241 in the Spring 2005 semester at North Carolina State University, also said this needs to be done‚ "because white people want to kill us.”

Addressing a panel on‚ "Hurricane Katrina Media Coverage,” broadcast in its entirety on C-SPAN, Kambon told the audience that white people "have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they are monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea.

Prior to his call for acts of genocide against white people, Kambon, who owns Blacknificant Books in Raleigh, told the panel that‚ "we are at war.” He said that white people had set up an "international plantation" for blacks, which made "every white person on earth a plantation master.” He said that, "You are either supporting white people in their process of death, or you're for African liberation.”

He stressed one point in particular. "White people want to kill us. I want you to understand that. They want to kill you,” he said. "They want to kill you because that is part of their plan.”

Kambon closed his remarks by urging participants and C-SPAN viewers to "get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem, and the problem on the planet is white people."

Before teaching at NCSU, Kambon was a professor of education at St. Augustine's College in Raleigh, a historically black institution. The Triangle, and a left-wing newspaper, The Independent Weekly, gave him a Citizen’s Award in 1999. Ironically, Kambon is also an opponent of the death penalty.

Propagating the "Final Solution”, his words are extreme, but Kambon does however make some interesting points. Lets not forget that similar views to Kambon’s also exist amongst those he condemns. Many White Supremist, Right-Wing and other groups argue similar points, but receive much less publicity. There is state sponsored genocide and segregation evident in places such as Iraq, Sudan and Palestine, while blacks are concentrated in the countless inner-city slums of the West.

Those words were uttered by Dr. Kamau Kambon while speaking to an audience Howard University Law School (and broadcasted by C-SPAN). Obviously, he felt quite comfortable sharing his views."

(There is little doubt that Dr. Kambon's personal views on genocidal acts against white people made it into his classroom teachings at NCSU.)

Kambon is as nutty as was Hitler, or George Lincoln Rockwell (founder of the American Nazi Party), or Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder, and first Imperial Wizard of the KKK). There are haters of all colors, ethnicities, cultures, philosophies and religions in the world. Luckily, they are in the minority in most cultures. Given the history of the black man throughout the world, some slight degree of paranoia is understandable. However, there are no remaining slaves from the Antebellum South, nor are there any "White Only" or "Black Only" signs publicly displayed throughout the modern south. We have more than one-half century of civil rights for black Americans, which followed about 90 years of emancipation (quick head math, ± 10%)... but, it was emancipation with discrimination. No person should ever have thought they had the right to own another human being, or to treat them as lesser beings because of their skin color.

However, "mans inhumanity to man" has been with us since the beginning of time, and will probably remain with us until the end of time. In fact, that concept may be responsible for bringing about the end of time! If you need further proof, just look at the condition of the world today - most of which is involved in conflict of one sort or another.

I could be entirely wrong about Kambon. His soul may be overflowing with "the milk of human kindness", and I just totally misunderstood his use of the phrase, "the solution to many of the problems faced by black people is the extermination of "white people off the face of the planet.” He may have meant "exterminate" in the nicest possible way... but, I doubt that.

Suspect in Kan. Doctor's Death Warns of Violence - Associated Press

"WICHITA, Kan. – Abortion providers say that threats of more slayings from a man accused in the shooting death of a high-profile Kansas abortion doctor proves the existence of a "violent, terrorist movement" coalescing around the issue.

Scott Roeder called The Associated Press Sunday from the Sedgwick County jail, where he's being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting death of Dr. George Tiller last week at the doctor's church in Wichita.

"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said. When asked by the AP if he was referring to another shooting, he refused to elaborate.

"He is a terrorist — there is no question about that. I don't believe he is an isolated terrorist," said Dr. LeRoy Carhart, a Nebraska abortion provider who also practiced at Tiller's Wichita clinic." My guess is that the only terrorism being perpetrated is inflicted by Carhart's conscience.

Terrorist? From what I have heard about the case so far, Roeder is probably no more a terrorist than the Pope. But, if he is not a part of a vast nationwide conspiracy to kill baby killers, what is he? Can you say NUTJOB? Roeder is a psychological anomaly among the ranks of the anti-abortion crowd. I read a statistic today, that claimed 3-4% of our population could be classified with some degree of psychopathology. For the sake of a number, let's say that the anti-abortionists have an active membership of 10,000 across the country. That would give them roughly 300-400 seriously mentally disturbed members... or, about the same number of mentally deranged members as we have serving in our Congress.

Maybe it's time to re-think "hate crimes" and include profession as one of the specially protected categories. We can reach that conclusion through the process of elimination: if somebody willfully takes the life of another human being - a person that they don't even know - and the taking of that life wasn't during the commission of robbery, or other felony or capital crime, then it must be a "hate crime" since all other motives have been eliminated. And the legislature will certainly include attorneys in that special protections group. After all, what profession is more despised than lawyers? And lawyers comprise 90% of our legislators.

An Objective, Unemotional Look At "Hate Crimes"

Another attempt was made today, by our Congress, to expand protections for a specific minority group. A bill was presented to extend these "special protections" to include PEDOPHILES. Now, of all the categories of persons gaining the "special protections" of hate crimes legislation, pedophiles are probably the least deserving. But, that's not really my point tonight.

As I have said before, there are already laws in place for the identification, apprehension, prosecution, and punishment for all crimes against persons, property, and humanity. And these are the true crimes. Crimes in which something physically palpable occurred. There is a provable fact involved in all those crimes and, usually, an identifiable loss of some kind.

"Hate Crimes", in most cases are currently connected to another provable crime, but they try to punish the miscreants state of mind, or attitude toward a specific minority group to which the victim may belong. Crimes involving physical aggression against persons are seldom committed out of a sense of love, or even mild fondness. The criminals thoughts regarding the victim's race, religion, sexual preference, how he parts his hair, or what color shoes she was wearing are now punishable.

Inasmuch as our government seems determined to codify "hate crimes", I would suggest the term "hate crime" be restricted to actions which cause neither physical injury nor loss of/damage to private or public property. Those are crimes for which we already have remedies at law.

"Hate crimes" would be actions, which because of their intensity, are readily perceived as designed to cause severe emotional distress or fear of injury or death. These types of "hate crimes" could be classified into three progressively punitive categories (i.e. - infraction, misdemeanor, or felony) to identify the severity of the violation. For example:

1. First offense racial/ethnic slurs would be considered infractions, with minimal sentences (public service, fines and/or work release confinement [spending all hours other than employment hours in jail] not to exceed 5 days). Subsequent offenses would increase punishments or move them up to the next higher tier (infraction to misdemeanor, or misdemeanor to felony). Records would be expunged after 5 years if there were no subsequent arrests for any "hate crime".

2. First offense spitting upon or throwing of non-injurious matter (tomatoes, marshmallows, Nerf balls, etc.), without direct physical contact, or racial, ethnic, religious or sexual graffiti could be classified as a misdemeanor "hate crime", if combined with qualifying epithets. (Punishments to be decided by smarter people than I.) Subsequent offenses would increase punishments or move them up to the next higher tier.

3. First offense cross burning, effigy hanging, burning of the AMERICAN FLAG, etc. would be classified as a felony "hate crime". Subsequent offenses would increase punishments.

Also, anyone assaulted during the commission of any "hate crime" should have no legal recourse against the intended "victim". If ones goal is to anger or install fear in other people, and it works to the extent they come after him/her, the hater brought it upon himself. At the worst it should be classified as "mutual combat", which is generally punished by a severe butt-chewing form the judge, with the admonition of "Don't do that again!"

These are just examples of how I think "hate crimes" should be managed by law enforcement and the judiciary, since it appears that we are being forced to have laws against "hate crimes", and providing special protections (as opposed to equal protection) under the law. But, let's not piggyback a "hate crime" onto a real crime! (Punishments to be decided by smarter people than I.)

I suppose I could be wrong about this... or I could be wrong in that supposition!

Have The Members of Our Congress Not Heard of The CONSTITUTION?

Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives passed, and forwarded to the U.S. Senate, "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (LLEHCPA), H.R. 1913." As I have said before, the concept of "hate crimes" creates special punishments for the state of mind of individual(s) at the time of committing an otherwise already identified and punishable crime! It also has the potential to allow the courts to ignore the First Amendment of our Constitution -

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Emphases added for clarification)

In H.R. 1913 there exists language which will allow the prosecution of Christian, and perhaps other clergy, for speaking out against homosexual behavior, which would, in effect, be prohibiting the "free exercise of religion" and "abridging the freedom of speech". Apparently the desired result by the present Administration is the rapid marginalization of the Constitution of the United States of America, by removing our Constitutional guarantees one-by-one under the guise of "equal protection". Perhaps the politicians in Washington D.C. have redefined the meaning of the word "equal", to something other than "as it is for one, so it is for all".

The recent attitudes expressed by the Administration and left-wing liberal media toward the peaceable Tax Day Tea Party assembly of over two million people across the nation - with absolutely NO reported "incidents", is strongly indicative of their willingness to ignore the rights of the people to engage in peaceable assembly and to petition the government for redress of grievances. The participants therein have been improperly labeled as "anti-tax" and "right-wing extremists", and in some instances "racists" who resent a black man being elected President. The government fears a grassroots movement that dares to point out the abuses of American taxpayers hard-earned money. Anybody who is not in total agreement with the Marxist Administrations every edict and action is obviously a right-wing extremist. As for the "racist" accusations... our local Tea Party, in Grants Pass OR, stifled a small neo-Nazi group after one outburst of "White Power" from them. However, this was done in a peaceful manner, and neither side became obnoxious or aggressive. Few people have a problem with a gray man in the Oval Office, but many have a problem with a man holding the office who may not be Constitutionally eligible to even run for the office - a man who continues to refuse to provide indisputable legal documentation regarding his place of birth.

The general attitude of the current Administration notwithstanding, the point is that they are attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Chip away a bit here, and a bit there, modify this, "correct" that, and the next thing you know... there is NO MORE CONSTITUTION!

I could be wrong about this... oh, my error... NO WAY COULD I BE WRONG ABOUT THIS!

(Hate) Crime and Punishment - Do The Math

The Associated Press headline reads: "Trial set to begin in slaying of transgender woman". The murder took place recently in Denver, Colorado and the article goes on to say that the victim was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. Then the potential seriousness of punishment for the crime is explained - "Andrade, 32, of Thorton, is scheduled to go on trial Tuesday on charges including first-degree murder and a bias-motivated crime, which could add three years to his prison sentence if convicted."

As I recall, the punishment for first-degree murder is either death or life in prison... exactly how does the court add three years to either of those punishments? Do they hold a semi-execution and then pause for three years before finishing the job? Or perhaps, after the prisoner dies of old age, they hold onto the body for an additional three years? Sound silly to you? It's no sillier than adding time to a capital crime based on the fact that you didn't particularly like something about that person. The crime is that the act of murder was committed, not the thought of committing murder! If we were to be imprisoned for our thoughts of doing something against the law, there would be few people walking around our streets. The second crime was committed by the government... in that they created such a stupid law.

I could be wrong about this... and the Constitution could be wrong about "equal protection under the law". Our government, in their infinite wisdom, has created a class that now receives special protection under the law, which is itself a violation of the Constitution.

Freedom of Speech vs The "Fairness Doctrine" = The U.S. Constitution vs. Congress

Here we go again ... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided we should - once again - ignore that pesky old document called the Constitution, and do things the way the loony left thinks they should be done. That damned First Amendment just keeps impeding their progress toward turning the USA into a genuine 3rd world country. Amendment I says, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..." etc. I added the emphasis for ... emphasis! Where is the need for discussion there? Does some moron not understand the meaning of the word "abridged"? Here's the first 3 meanings shown in one 'Dictionary of The English Language':

1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book. 2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish, curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one’s freedom. 3. to deprive; cut off.

I'm assuming that - if you have read that - you can, in fact, read! Comprehension is an entirely different skill though, so let me make it eve more clear: Congress cannot make into law anything that would lessen your ability to say what you wish ... other than the recently created concepts of "hate speech" and "hate crimes", anyway. (Am I wrong, or is defining hate speech, and making it illegal, creating a law that abbreviates our right to free speech? Keep in mind though, that through the exercise of hateful free speech, you may discover the meaning of "Can o' Whup-ass".) Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee us the right not to have our feelings hurt!

At the same time we must understand that the Constitution does not require the Government, or any other entity, to provide a platform for your free expression of thoughts. If there is no commercial support for the way you exercise your 1st Amendment rights, then you have no right to expect somebody else to pick up the tab! The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" would be more appropriately called the "Liberal Left Loser Doctrine". If the ultra-liberal NPR (National Public Radio) can't hold its own in the marketplace - even with the assistance of George Soros' millions of dollars - that should be an indication that the vast majority of American citizens don't believe in the crap that's being broadcast on NPR!