Another one of Oklahoma’s reputable, conservative state legislators has thrown his name into the ring to see whom among them can be the most outrageously conservative.
State Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, said he plans to propose a bill that would make Oklahoma exempt from the recently enacted federal hate crimes law (see page 1 for details).
Russell said he thinks the law, which would provide funding to Oklahoma law enforcement agencies to investigate hate crimes, would encroach on the rights of Oklahomans to express themselves.
Russell stated in a press release, “For example, if a minister, rabbi or imam preached to a congregation about immoral issues, and then someone took that message to an extreme and actually committed a crime, neither the minister nor the congregation could be charged themselves.”
We agree that if the above scenario took place, the minister should not be held accountable. But we wonder if this is actually a problem in Oklahoma?
Do ministers feel like they can’t fully express themselves for fear that they’ll be prosecuted? Highly unlikely.
Frankly, it seems as though Russell has misunderstood what a hate crime actually is. And this is unfortunate because the legislation would call for Oklahoma to refuse funding for law enforcement.
Now, we do have some reservations about enhancing the punishment somebody must endure for committing a crime based on what that person was thinking at the time of the crime.
A crime is a crime, regardless why it was committed.
But that is a debate for another day. What we are really angry about is that one of our legislators is wasting his time addressing a problem that doesn’t seem to exist.
Oklahoma has a lot of real problems, including a preponderance of people who are uninsured, a broken education system and a need to refurbish roads and bridges. Protecting the right for ministers to speak freely when that right is not being threatened is a massive waste of time.
We wonder why Russell is bringing this up, and we can’t help but believe it might be in an effort to get his name out there.
This is not his responsibility. His responsibility is addressing Oklahoma’s problems.
So we ask all state lawmakers to get to our state’s real problems, and then worry about addressing the ones that don’t exist.
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print Story
Mail to Friend
More Stories
Comments
How is it "outrageously conservative"?
A murder is a murder. It doesn't matter who you murder. One group of people shouldn't be more protected than others.
I'm not at all saying we shouldn't protect gay people from being murdered, but they already are.
Murder already faces some pretty stiff penalties. . .
You even say yourself that you have reservations about enhancing punishment of a crime based on who was the victim. Then you go right on to say you see no problem with the bill.
That's the problem with hate crime legislation, it separates people.
While you're attacking our congress for not getting on the issues, why not point out that the legislation they're responding too is also addressing a problem that doesn't exist?
"Another one of Oklahoma’s reputable, conservative state legislators has thrown his name into the ring to see whom among them can be the most outrageously conservative."
Another Daily article that automatically depicts conservatives as "outrageous" people. Have an opinion and disagree with conservative philosophy if you like, but do it with fair and rational arguments, rather than by using language that merely seeks to marginalize people with conservative values - in case you hadn't notice, the majority of Oklahomans value conservative principles, thus they elect conservative legislators.
"But we wonder if this is actually a problem in Oklahoma?"
This statement ignores the underlying issue that conservative legislators have with the new federal hate crimes law, which is that the legislation is too vague in its definitions of "hate crime" and "hate speech", and that it could open the door to extreme interpretations of the law by prosecutors that may effectively penalize people merely for speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle. It may not be a problem in Oklahoma so much, but what about in a state like California? The principle here is that this federal legislation affects all the states, and in principle, it may violate the Constitution by infringing on freedom of speech rights. Another potential issue for conservatives is that the broad language of the law also opens the door for extreme interpretations by a federal judge, which could threaten free speech further down the road. Then, of course, is also the question of how much authority the federal government really has to define new protected "classes" or people. Is this really something the federal government needs to be involved with, or is this more of an issue for the States to handle?
These are legitimate issues that should be further looked into and addressed with fair dialogue and debate, rather than simply dismissing the concerns raised by conservative legislators as "outrageous".
People err when assuming that expanding the hate crimes statute to include sexual orientation (meaning Gay AND Straight, by the way) will "criminalize" a person’s thoughts. The current hate crimes law has been on the books since 1969, and NEVER over the past 40 years has someone been prosecuted for expressing prejudice against members of a race or a religious group. Christian pastors have been invoking Scripture against non-Christians for as long as there have been Christians, and the hate crimes statute has never been used against them.
Yesterday (Nov. 16) a little group of conservative Christians held a rally near the Capitol Building in Washington to express their frustration over the amended hate crimes law. They preached their hatred of Gay people as always, and guess what? No one was arrested. Who cares what they say? I don't. I'm used to it. Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Sean Hannity can spew their bigotry toward Atheists, Muslims, and Gay people until the cow come home for all I care. All it does is illustrate their own prejudices, and frankly it just makes them look silly.
But there is a BIG difference between expressing personal prejudice against a group, and being motivated by that prejudice to attack someone’s person or property. If someone uses Scripture as a justification for beating up someone who is Gay, that’s a different story.
Likewise when it comes to delineating between different crimes against property: There’s a big moral and ethical difference between someone who spraypaints a "tag" on a highway overpass, and someone who spraypaints swastikas on the front of a synagogue.
Until conservatives mount a concerted effort to repeal the federal hate crimes statute that has been in effect for past 40 years, I’ll continue to see their arguments against the legislation that President Obama signed as pretty disingenuous.
I think it's a little outrageous that Mesocyclone thinks there's a conspiracy to turn hate crimes legislation into thought crimes legislation. Wake up! The real world is calling and it doesn't care about your bigotry.
Using WBC as your example of Christianity and throwing around the words "ignorant" and "bigotry" like they're parade candy is just pathetic and lazy. Honestly, come up with a new angle.
One thing I always wondered about hate-speech is when exactly is it not a crime?
Imagine; a member of a "protected" group breaks into your house and assaults you with a crow-bar. After receiving several severe wounds you get the weapon away from him and proceed to put him in a wheelchair. Thanks to Make-My-Day there is no problem. But what if he tells the court that while you were beating on him, you called him a derogatory name, whether you did or not. Would that qualify your entire actions as a hate crime?
IOW if an assailant, who happens to be in a protected group, puts you in severe danger can words said in the heat of defending yourself be held against you?
The current hate crime legislation wasn't a product of the efforts of our federal legislators. Rather it was completely written by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in concert with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)and simply presented to congress for its rubber stamp.
Your courageous state senator Sen. Steve Russell is wise enough to know that Europe has a history of ealier, similar laws which have been used to put critics of such things as homosexuality, excessive immigration, and especially Israeli government atrocities into jail.
He also knows that hate crimes are a form of double jeopardy, something that our Founding Fathers were specific in prohibiting because they had suffered its use under the British government which used it to punish those whose opposed the tyrannical edicts of the English parliament.
Ex Congressman Paul Findley of Ohio has proven conclusively that the ADL is totally under the control of the Israeli government. The real intent of this law will be to silence critics of Israel. Do we really want laws created by this foreign government's propaganda arm controlling our behavior?
Uh.. Apparently there aren’t any aspiring lawyer types willing to tackle my above query.
Polishbear has an interesting take although I think he is wrong on the swastika bit. There isn’t good vandalism and bad vandalism. How can anyone say what constitutes innocent “tagging”? How is a swastika any more offensive the anarchist symbol ( the circle with the A in it). The anarchist symbol is certainly meant to be intimidating. What about all these guys driving around with the rear window sticker of the running hatchet-man. As I understand it, that is the mark of a devotee of the hate group Insane Clown Posse. Anybody with that on their car is someone of which to be very leery.
Young skin-head groups, or any other person likely to draw a swastika in order to be offensive, is most likely influenced by the hedonistic counter culture rather than any realistic political ideology.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.