ELEVEN CHRISTIANS JAILED FOR CRITICIZING HOMOSEXUALITY
By Rev. Ted Pike
4 Nov 04
It is no accident that two days after the federal "Hate Crimes" bill
was defeated in Congress on October 8, "thought police" in Philadelphia
arrested eleven evangelical Christians for witnessing peacefully
at a gay pride parade. They were charged with "hate crimes" (3 felonies
and 5 misdemeanors) and jailed for 21 hours. The preliminary hearing
is December 14th.
The message to Christians and conservatives from "speech crime" forces
is clear: "Don't think that just because you won temporarily on the
federal level, you can escape indictment as hate criminals. State
'anti-hate' laws, defining bias against homosexuality as 'hate,'
are just as harsh as the federal bill. If you criticize homosexuality
publicly, expect jail time!"
The Anti Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has persuaded 48 of the
50 States to adopt its "model anti-hate law." This legislation creates
a new category of crime, the hate crime of "intimidation." "Intimidation" occurs
when a member of a protected minority, such as homosexuals, is the
victim of any illegal action motivated by bias. In order to prove "intimidation," then,
the state must establish that bias motivated a crime.
According to our traditional justice system, it is enough to simply
ascertain that a crime was committed and who committed it. Our jury
system adequately takes into consideration questions of motivation
and severity of punishment.
Yet ADL/State anti-hate laws want more. Because the ADL teaches
us that bias against minorities is very, very bad, it is crucially
important to hate crime enforcers that any accusation of bias as
the motivation behind a crime be looked into very deeply.
Yet the very term "bias" is ambiguous. What is "bias"? Is "bias" bad?
Is "bias" really hate? Is the defendant really biased? Did he act
out of biased motives, or just rage? All these are problematical
questions, best answered by a psychologist, or even God. Unfortunately,
the very ambiguity of the term "bias" as criteria for guilt creates
distinct characteristics in the way hate laws are enforced. We are
seeing this form of indictment clearly acted out in the arrest of
the Philadelphia eleven.
In traditional law, when it is thought that a crime has been committed,
it is necessary to determine if sufficient evidence exists to warrant
arrest. However, under "anti-intimidation" law, since bias is so
difficult to determine, guilt for bias crime often requires a full
court inquiry, summoning expert testimony. Therefore, in countries
such as Sweden, Canada, Germany, etc., the hate crime justice system
tends first to arrest, leaving evidence of "intimidation" to be determined
in court.
This is exactly what happened in Philadelphia on October 10th.
The police hate squad, having been indoctrinated by the ADL to believe
that bias against homosexuals equals hate, arrested the eleven Christians.
They left the court to decide whether bias really motivated the Christians.
Similarly, they began a "fishing expedition," hoping that out of
3 felony and 5 misdemeanor charges they might dredge up some kind
of crime. For example, if they could prove that one of the Christians
had stepped off the public sidewalk onto private property, the crime
of "criminal trespass," coupled with "bias" might qualify as "intimidation" under
ADL/State hate laws.
For the eleven defendants, however, the anti-hate nightmare could
be just beginning. That nightmare is largely financial. In Canada,
popular columnist Doug Collins was fined $3,000.00 for questioning
whether the 6 million figure of the holocaust might be somewhat less.
Yet he spent $200,000.00 in court costs and appeals before his death.
Defense of the Philadelphia 11 could be even more expensive. Thus,
the necessary probing into bias motivation, plus an antagonistic
court system, always makes hate crimes trials and appeals much more
time consuming and expensive than conventional ones. In addition,
intense media and public bias against those indicted for "hate crimes" creates
a scenario which has proven exhausting for those ensnared in the
thought crimes tribunal system.
After reading this, you might be exclaiming, "Thank heaven I do
not live under anti-hate laws as capricious and ensnaring as Canada's
or Pennsylvania's. The truth is that you probably do. If you do not
live in Wyoming, Florida, or Georgia (which recently ruled its hate
law unconstitutional), then your state has an ADL-inspired anti-hate
law which is probably just as stiff and cruel as Pennsylvania's -
one that is just waiting to descend on you if you should "intimidate" a
homosexual, black, Indian, Jew, or a woman. If you are a pastor,
talk show host, publisher, and you hurt the feelings of a homosexual,
beware! The hate crime bureaucracy in your state could well descend
on you, burying you in false accusations and court costs. It happened
to eleven Christians in Pennsylvania. It can happen to you.
While America has been sleeping, the ADL has been placing a legal
noose, which can be progressively tightened, around our freedoms.
There is a hopeful sign, however. Recently the Georgia Supreme Court
ruled Georgia's "anti-intimidation" law unconstitutional. This was
not because of criticism of the idea of an anti-hate law, but because
the law was too broad and thus unenforceable. Yet the fact is, Georgia
is now without an anti-hate law, reverting to the solid, workable,
fair justice system which has stood Georgian's so well for centuries.
I hope the people of Georgia appreciate the reprieve from the anti-hate
nightmare which has temporarily blown their way. I hope they protest
re-enactment of another hate law. In fact, I wish they could set
the example of re-examination and ultimate repeal of state hate laws
throughout the rest of the United States. If that happens, there
might never be a repeat of what occurred on October 10th, 2004 in
Philadelphia.
For more information on the arrest of the Philadelphia eleven,
go to www.repentamerica.com
For a free brochure explaining hate laws write:
National Prayer Network
P. O. Box 828
Clackamas, OR 97015
