Just Right: ‘Obama’s America ‘going Canadian’ on hate crime’

How many ways are there of saying:  NOT GOOD!  NOT GOOD!  NOT GOOD!

Just Right has the story – with the video:

Sneaking it in under cover of a defense authorization bill with debate scheduled for the wee hours of the morning the Democrats succeeded in passing sweeping new federal hate crimes legislation.

Just as the ‘general awareness’ of this intrusive oppression is rising in Canada, Americans are going to be blindsided by it!

Of course, the majority of Americans will remain oblivious to the danger, thinking their constitution will protect them and their rights… till one of these neo-fascists smiles primly at them, explaining that ‘Freedom of speech is not an American concept’…or some such thing.

They’ll never believe it could happen to them – even though it already has!


5 Responses to “Just Right: ‘Obama’s America ‘going Canadian’ on hate crime’”

  1. JR Says:

    Thanks for the link, Xanthippa. This is depressing stuff coming from a country we often think of as one of the last bastions of freedom. Then you read in the AP story that “Some 45 states have hate crimes statutes on their books…“.

    Reading about increasing “soft despotism” leads one to wonder how long it will be before it mutates into the “hard” variety. The Canadian sytem of “human rights” commissions and tribunals certainly seems a further step in that direction.

    Xanthippa says:
    Thanks, JR, for digging this up!

    This ‘creeping oppression’ must be revealed for what it truly is: giving more and more power to ‘faceless institutions’ which are less and less accountable…and more and more power-hungry!

  2. Today’s Lynch List « The Lynch Mob Says:

    […] Just Right on Jim DeMint and goin’ Canadian ( with more at Xanthippa’s Chamberpot ); and censorship in the Internet age, or how your average Australian forklift is a dirty, dirty […]

  3. The LS from SK Says:

    Well X – I am not so against “Hate Crime” legislation provided it is administered by a competent authority – which in most cases would be a law enforcement agency that is overseen by judicial review and due process.

    The USA has a long history of groups like the KKK, White Supremacists (commie postetatus?) and Abortion/anti-abortion rights that are in fact very anti race and anti-sexual orientation.

    The Canadian and UK’s are often “target driven” and overseen by faceless Marxist minions in various non-accountable HR industries.

    They scare me for as you say – they are “…less and less accountable”.

    Look at the CHRC and the CHRT. Testimony has been proven to be tainted and yet they continue moving on – no review of what might be considered “unsafe convictions” or penalties – just the blindness/smugness their philosophy bestows upon them of the rightness of their mission.

    Xanthippa says:

    The key here is what is meant by ‘Hate Crime’….

    In my never-humble-opinion, the emphasis ought to be on ‘Crime’. As in, people ought to be judged on the basis of their actions – not on what motivated those actions.

    If I go out and break the window in my neighbour’s car, the window will be equally ‘broken’ whether I did it because I ‘hate’ my neighbour and smashed it with a baseball bat, or because I was playing baseball nearby and accidentally hit the window. Either way, I caused property damage and I ought to be liable for the repair costs. Action leads to consequences.

    ‘Hate’ is not an ‘action’. It is an emotion – something that happens in a person’s head. Governments ought to legislate ‘actions’ – not ‘what is happening in a person’s head’.

    If we permit governments to pass laws about ‘hate’, this will give them the power to ‘legislate emotions’: as in, the law says you must ‘love big brother’! This is not a joke: legal precedent permitting governments to legislate ’emotions’ is a dangerous thing indeed!

    As for KKK and such: they killed and tortured and terrorized people – those are actions which are against the law. They must be tried and, if found guilty, punished as much as the law permits – for these actions. The motivations for the actions are something which can demonstrate motive and so it can be brought out during the trial – but only to show the ‘motive’!

    But the ‘motive itself’ is not something a person ought to be punished for – ‘having a motive’ is not a criminal action, nor should it ever become one. Many people ‘have a motive’ to want to harm someone – without ever acting on it!

    As for the Illinois Nazis: again, they broke the laws when they illegally blocked roads. They must pay the price for their actions which broke the law. Not for what they do or do not believe, or for what their motive was.

    So, I agree with laws against ‘Crime’. I disagree with laws against ‘Hate’.

  4. thejuggernauts Says:

    No worries!

    Knowing the U.S. political system well, I am pretty sure that this proposed bill would hardly be enforced even if it passes. I’m sure it will provide a negligible amount of funding to the cause and it would probably just be a placebo at best. I don’t believe this will cause any bureau interrogations like the human rights commissions in Canada. Obama is most likely supporting this bill for one reason: to gain higher approval ratings from homosexuals and women.

    So, don’t expect much from this bill.

    – Derek

    Xanthippa says:

    I certainly hope I am wrong…. but:

    Already, these HRC monstrosities ARE springing up in the USA – and they have power over people. It was about a year or so ago that a restaurant in Philadelphia got dragged in front of a city version of the HRC because they had a sign in their window that they only provide service in English. English was the only language mentioned on the sign. Still, they were forced to remove the sign, provide service in more than English in the future – and pay a fine for discriminating against non-English speaking people.

    And a part time student at Purdue (unless I am mistaken) who also worked there as a janitor got suspended both from his job and his studies, because during a break, he was reading a book (related to his studies) about preventing racism… but it had the word ‘racism’ (or some such) on the cover, which offended one of his co-workers, so he got called in by the ‘race-relations office’, yelled at and berated, then fired and suspended. Yes, action followed, and he has since been reinstated, but his reputation has been smeared as a ‘campus racist’….

    It is already happening in the USA!

    This will just make it more prevalent.

    These people are relying that most of you will not believe that this could be happening to you – until these things are so strongly entrenched in power over you. It had happened in Canada, and it has already begun to happen in the US.

    This has already happened.

  5. Derek Says:

    But the proposed legislation is not really stand-alone. It’s main purpose is to polish an anti-discrimination law which was passed in 1968, at that time anti-discrimination laws did more good than harm, but it does seem a bit random to propose something like this now. This is just another one of Obama’s ploys to recover his lost approval ratings from gay’s and it’s part of his plan to “please everybody”.

    If this problem were to expand, it would not be because of legislation since the president is in charge all federal bureaucracies anyway. It’s not this legislation that I am worried about. The president already has all of the power he needs to create a police state if he really wanted to.

    This problem cannot really gain momentum or spread. It will appear where and when it chooses to.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: