Anti-Hate Bureaucracy and the Hate Crimes Statistics Act
Although the participants in the Hofstra Conference were divided concerning the feasibility of such blatant censorship, the ADL remains determined that some kind of anti-hate legislation become law—even if it is only rudimentary. Thus, the ADL helped to create the “Hate Crimes Statistics Act.”1 Here are the specifics as it was submitted to Congress in 1990.
The “Hate Crimes Statistics Act” requires states to determine if crimes committed under their jurisdiction were motivated by prejudice. These include serious crimes, but also such relatively minor offenses as “vandalism, trespass, and threat.” States are required to relay such information to a federal anti-hate data bank, then to be shared with law enforcement officials throughout the nation.
Thus, if a homosexual is the victim of an offense as minor as “vandalism, trespass, or threat,” states are forced to determine if the offense was motivated by prejudice—a tedious task. If so, details of the homosexual’s case are to be forwarded to the federal government. If the person or group who committed the crime had not yet been found, the government’s policy of sharing information concerning the case with state and local agencies might help to apprehend such persons.2 Thus the long arm of the federal government could come to the aid of a homosexual victim in a way that would be out of the question for victims of crimes not motivated by prejudice.
A second bill establishes a “Commission on Racially Motivated Violence,” a blue-ribbon panel of 12 members which would receive statistics from the states, define what constitutes “violence” and “prejudice,” and report their findings to the President. This panel would dramatize on a national level the problem of violence against gays and other minorities.
A major reason why this legislation is so dangerous is that prejudice
A major reason why this legislation is so dangerous is that “prejudice,” the condition it claims to oppose, is extremely ambiguous. For example, a minister would not think it a form of prejudice to warn a homosexual from his deviant, soul-damning lifestyle. Yet gay rights groups and the ADL would.
Whose definition of prejudice would the government follow if these bills became law?
The testimony of the ADL before Congress makes it clear that the ADL is pushing hard for national acceptance of its definitions The ADL would prefer that:
Federal definitions of “prejudice” should be modeled after the point of view of the ADL
Law enforcement personnel should defer to ADL definitions of prejudice when filling out reports on criminal investigations
Law enforcement personnel should submit themselves to ADL-led sensitivity training, making them compliant with ADL definitions of prejudice
Investigating officers should be allowed to determine before trial if the accused is motivated by prejudice. (This would set up the local police, assisted by ADL guidelines, as a sort of preliminary jury, opining on matters usually relegated to the psychologist. This power over the accused is very ominous because…
If prejudice is determined, the crime should be considered much more serious, with a stiffer sentence.
this legislation is an opportunity for the ADL to intimidate and manipulate Americans
Clearly, this legislation is an opportunity for the ADL to intimidate and manipulate Americans. As stated earlier the ADL exerted relentless pressure upon the Canadian government to ban “group defamation.” They succeeded. Now it is illegal in Canada to rebuke homosexuality publicly, or even to publicly state that gays have a higher rate of AIDS than anyone else. In America, the ADL is working even harder. Their initial intention is not to ban free speech entirely, but to convince us that certain forms of speech can be outlawed without doing violence to freedom of expression in general.
Incredibly, despite its Orwellian overtones, this legislation has encountered little significant opposition. Few recognize it as the foundation upon which a system of police state spying and censorship can be built.
Although the “Local Law Enforcement Act of 2000” was voted down, the ADL will introduce a similar bill, with a different title, in the next session of Congress. Now is the time to protest. Inform your senators and congressmen that existing laws adequately criminalize all forms of slander and violence. Not only would anti-hate legislation be costly (up to ten million annually) but, if ADL requests are followed, it would allow “Big Brother” to probe the “motivational” mindset of Americans unconvicted of crimes – a very dangerous, and far-reaching precedent.
