Monday, March 15, 2010


Oh yes, we've progressed as a civilization. We now have laws which forbid us to hate each other.

More specifically ... we haven't quite got to the "Thought Crimes" as described in Orwellian literature.

Or have we?

Case In Point
England, March 10, 2010: a five year old child (or here a ten-year-old boy, depending on the source and the incident) may/will be "reported", and an entry is made in his semi-permanent academic record because he called a school-mate a "gay boy" in the schoolyard.
The scale of the effort to stop children using homophobic or racist language was revealed after the parents of a ten-year-old primary school pupil in Somerset, Peter Drury, were told that his name would be put on a register and his behaviour monitored while he remained at school.

The boy was reported after he called a friend 'gay boy'. His parents fear the record of homophobic bullying will count against him throughout his school career and even into adulthood.

Case in Point:

New York, USA. March 11, 2010: a man who ...
... blogged at that the three judges of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals should be “killed” for upholding a Chicago handgun ban in June.

“Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions,” the 47-year-old blogger wrote.

He also posted addresses, photos, maps and other identifying information about Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer.

Case In Point:

USA, March 8, 2010 -- "Islamic Jurists Decree Giving Food to Soldiers Not Permissible":

American Muslims are banned from helping U.S. soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq and other "Muslim lands," according to a shocking fatwa, or religious decree, recently issued by American-based Islamic jurists.

One of the most respected Islamic law authorities in America has decreed it is "not permissible" for even Muslims who are citizens of America to send food or other aid to American troops serving in those Muslim countries.

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, or AMJA, ruled it is a "sin" to help the U.S. military in its multi-front war on terror.

These are only three examples of "Hate Crimes" in the world today.

A child -- even those hardly past toddler stage, and placed in school supposedly to help him learn social skills -- uses a socially unacceptable epithet in reference to a schoolmate, and must live with the consequences of that momentary laps for the rest of his academic life.

A blogger not only excoriates members of the American Judiciary System for their legal decisions; not only encourages others to kill them; but even includes their photo, address, and personal information.

And an "Islamic Jurist" (speaking under the umbrella of a national society of Islamic Jurists) states that ANY support of American Troops fighting overseas -- even to include " the sending of food ..." -- is a sin.

Which of these three incidents are legitimately "Hate Crimes"?

In America, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects public expression of personal opinion, no matter how hateful or how heinous, no matter how distasteful or how outrageous. The principle is that those expressions which are most unpopular (or even those which are most 'politically incorrect') are specifically protected.

But if a little boy uses an epithet in England, is he protected? Apparently not.

And if an American Blogger encourages others to kill judges, is he protected? Perhaps not.

And if an American Muslim Jurist declares it a sin to support American troops overseas, is he protected?

Damn right!

What can we conclude from these examples?

I don't know the answer.. The main stream media, and our governments, swing so rapidly from left to right that I have no idea how to interpret the information provided.

Am I the only one who can't keep up with the difference between Right and Wrong?

No comments: