Hate speech laws: A new cross for Christians to bear

By Paul M. Weyrich
web posted March 7, 2005

When Pennsylvania was amending its "hate crimes" law, the
Ethnic Intimidation and Institutional Vandalism Act, a few years
ago, proponents readily dismissed the concerns expressed by
Christians about the inclusion of protection for "sexual
orientation." The reason the advocates of traditional values
protested was not because they wanted physically to bash
homosexuals -- believing Christians do not operate that way --
but because they realized that their own First Amendment rights
easily could be jeopardized.

Such concerns were dismissed as the figment of overheated
imaginations by those legislators and advocacy groups pushing
for the hate crimes law. The idea of jailing the purveyors of
tasteless jokes was derided; the amendment was about the
throwing of sticks and stones, not name-calling. State Rep. Mark
Cohen (D–Philadelphia) promised "This bill is not about what
ministers or Sunday School teachers say. This bill is about what
thugs, hooligans and murderers do." It was about "blood in the
streets" rather than bad jokes.

Then came the homosexual sponsored "Outfest" in Philadelphia
last fall.

A small group of Christian activists decided to protest at the
event that occurred on October 10, 2004. A self-proclaimed
homosexual security group called the Pink Angels decided to
prevent the Christians from exercising their constitutional
liberties. There was plenty of jostling and heated words but the
videotape of the event shows no actual violence occurring. The
Pink Angels went free. The Christian protestors were not so
lucky.

Eleven Christians ended up in jail. Five Christians faced charges.
Four adult Christians were ordered by Judge William Austin
Meehan to stand trial on charges of criminal conspiracy,
possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of
another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse,
disorderly conduct and obstructing highways. The Christians
who quoted Scripture (which led to their being charged)
confronted the possibility of total prison sentences as long as 47
years. A teenager was charged as a juvenile.

A requirement for bail prohibited the Christian activists from
staying at least 100 feet away from any homosexual event.
Fortunately, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

Judge Pamela Dembe overturned that requirement because it
represented an "unusual restriction on a person's right to speech."

Diane Gramley, President of the American Family Association of
Pennsylvania, reminded Pennsylvanians, "Our prediction of the
arrest of Christians under this law became true in October."

San Francisco filmmaker Michael Shaw of Enough Said
Productions had been interviewing a leader of Repent America,
one of the Christian protest leaders facing charges, for a
documentary. He told WorldNet Daily's Ron Strom that he
almost ended up being charged although he was simply filming
Repent America's Michael Marcavage for a documentary on the
protests against same-sex marriage. "I've seen a lot of people
from where we're from do a lot worse things and get in a lot less
trouble," Shaw told Strom. "Everyone thought they'd just get a
slap on the wrist."

Fortunately, in mid-February, Judge Paula Dembe ruled that
there was no basis for the charges. She said, "We are one of the
very few countries that protects unpopular speech…We cannot
stifle speech because we don't want to hear it, or we don't want
to hear it now." That is not really the end of the affair for as long
as the hate crimes provision is on the books in Pennsylvania the
fact is that Christian activists remain at risk for simply speaking
what they believe.

There is a move by State Rep. Tom Yewcic (D -- Cambria) in
the Pennsylvania Legislature to remove the language that was
used to prosecute the Philadelphia Five. The bill has been
referred to the State House Judiciary Committee and has the
support of Concerned Women for America and the American
Family Association.

Yewcic reminded The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "When we
argued on the House floor in 2002 we [said] this particular
amendment would result in hate crime changes geared toward
censoring religious speech."

The Philadelphia case should only be more troubling when one
realizes that the USA-PATRIOT Act has changed the definition
of domestic terrorism from those acts that are true acts of
violence to any violation of federal of state criminal law --
including misdemeanors -- that are deemed dangerous to human
life and could be used to "intimidate or coerce a civilian
population." Put a definition like that in the hands of prosecutor's
intent on pursuing prosecutions for Politically Incorrect activism
and who knows what would happen.

The Philadelphia case also takes on added salience because the
British Parliament has been considering legislation cracking down
on hate speech. Crosswalk.com writer Kevin McCandless noted
in a recent article "UK Edges Closer to outlawing Religious
‘Hate Speech'" that Home Secretary David Blunkett had tried to
dismiss concerns that the law would not be used for frivolous
prosecutions but to pursue extreme advocates who are whipping
up hate against Muslims or atheists.

However, the Barnabas Fund, a British organization that exists to
aid persecuted

Christians, in its January 2005 analysis of the legislation, noted
"The government says the law will not affect legitimate criticism,
missionary activity or jokes. However, there is nothing in the text
of the law to guarantee this." In fact, the Barnabas Fund argued
that the determination of what kind of language is acceptable
would be "subjective decisions" left to the discretion of the
courts.

The House of Lords is expected to consider the "hate speech"
provision this month. A letter that the Barnabas Fund hopes its
supporters will mail to members of the House of Lords
expresses concern that the legislation containing the hate speech
provision will be fast-tracked through that chamber before the
campaigning begins in earnest for the Parliamentary elections that
are anticipated to be held this spring. "There is now the danger
that it will be rushed through the Lords before the election, again
without allowing the proper time for debate. This is deeply
worrying on a law known to be controversial and potentially
damaging to free speech," says the letter.

Every American state and the District of Columbia have laws on
the books to bring perpetrators of violence against any law-
abiding citizen. The idea of "hate" crimes represents a significant
departure from the Anglo-American conception of justice. As
my colleague, Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq., wrote last year in
his Washington Times commentary "Hate Law Pitfalls": "There is
great danger in changing the common law and the tradition of
American law to increase penalties or to make unlawful the
commission of an act because the criminal had some motive --
especially a political motive -- unrelated to the damage the
criminal seeks to do by committing the act."

Now the case in Philadelphia demonstrates how a Politically
Incorrect viewpoint expressed in an assertive manner -- without
violence -- can endanger one's right to Freedom of Speech. The
British "hate speech" law with its open-ended definition is as
troubling given our very similar conceptions of law. The
Christians in Philadelphia who were arrested for simply
expressing their beliefs were fortunate that the Judge took into
account the real facts of the case. Others may not be so
fortunate. Being a believing Christian was never supposed to be
easy. Cases such as the one in Philadelphia and the possibility of
a "hate speech" law being placed on the books in Britain are
signs that it may become just that much harder.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress
Foundation (www.freecongress.org/).

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com