Will lies about hate crimes legislation ever die?

As Congress gets ready to take up the issue of adding lgbts to existing hate crimes laws, the religious right have quietly been trying to rally the troops against it by using the same old inaccuracies.

Yesterday, Matt Barber wrote a piece in One News Now which was full of his usual hyperbolic exaggerations. One passage in particular caught my attention:

While debating the notion of "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" in the last Congress, Representative Artur Davis (D-Alabama) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of "inducement" to violence.

This in an inaccuracy and I have a feeling that Barber knows this. Let's look at the original transcript passage courtesy of goodasyou.org (who broke the story of how Davis's supposed admission was a distortion in 2007 when the incident took place):

Mr. Gohmert: Even with your amendment, you still have to go back to the "rule of evidence" at page 15 of the underlying bill. And it says that these things may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the offense.

And if I understood the gentleman's amendment—and I will put the question back to you—if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?

Mr. Davis: No.

Please bear in mind that this exchange said nothing about putting ministers in jail.

If someone commits a crime and blames a third party, then the police have an obligation to question that third party.

Then Barber relates this blatant lie (which was debunked by Pam Spaulding):

But the Christian needn't even touch the homosexual. If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in "apprehension of bodily injury" by the Christian's words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony "hate crime." The FBI has included mere words – "insults" and "intimidation" – in calculating "hate crimes" statistics and – under the current political regime in Washington – there's every reason to believe they'll subjectively consider "insults" and "intimidation" (read: traditional sexual morality) for purposes of prosecuting "hate crimes."

Spaulding said:

This law wouldn't do anything to stifle free speech. The ACLU's Washington Legislative Office passed along this document outlining that the legislation protects First Amendment rights of free speech and free association:

III. The New Bill Provides Strong Protection of Free Speech

The ACLU has a long record of support for stronger protection of both free speech and civil rights. Those positions are not inconsistent. In fact, vigilant protection of free speech rights historically has opened the doors to effective advocacy for expanded civil rights protections.

Fourteen years ago, the ACLU submitted a brief to the Supreme Court urging the Court to uphold a Wisconsin hate crime sentencing enhancement statute as constitutional. However, the ACLU also asked the Court "to set forth a clear set of rules governing the use of such statutes in the future." The ACLU warned the Court that "if the state is not able to prove that a defendant's speech is linked to specific criminal behavior, the chances increase that the state's hate crime prosecution is politically inspired." The evidentiary provision in the House bill will help avoid that harm.

And I would be remiss if I didn't include one of Barber's personal tactics - making wild unsubstantiated claims:

The entire push for federal "hate crimes" legislation is rooted in fraud. In fact, many of the most high-profile reports have turned out to be false. For example, investigators determined that the very "hate crime" (Andrew Anthos in Michigan) exploited by liberal lawmakers to justify the same legislation in the last Congress, was a false report. It never happened. (See report from Detroit News) And instances of such fabricated and politically motivated "hate crimes" continue to pile up.

If politically motivated hate crimes are truly piling up, then the proof is obviously somewhere in Barber's head because he doesn't elaborate on this point (much like last year when he attacked six Canadian researchers for complaining about how the religious right was distorting their work. Barber said they were under "tremendous pressure" to do such but he conveniently didn't elaborate on that either)

But Barber isn't alone in his pathetic attempt to talk against hate crimes legislation. Regina Griggs of the ex-gay group PFOX wrote a piece also. She should have left well enough alone:

Griggs say the bill puts hatred of ex-"gays" into legislation. "The legislation doesn't protect my organization, and it doesn't protect the rights of former homosexuals to live free, happy out of the closet, if you will, and to be getting their message out to the public and into the schools," she adds. "Change is possible; it's proven scientifically."

God. Where to start in proving that this statement is beyond stupid? First of all the legislation adds sexual orientation in general to exisiting hate crimes legislation; not just the lgbt orientation. This means a group of gays who physically assault a heterosexual simply because of his orientation could be prosecuted under the legislation.

This means it would in fact protect those who call themselves "ex-gays."

And lastly, if it has been scientifically proven that people can change their sexual orientation, then perhaps Griggs keeps that knowledge in the same place Barber keeps his knowledge about the "epidemic" of phony hate crimes.

Really though, if this is the best the religious right has in their attempts to stop hate crimes legislation, then I actually feel sorry for them.

Perez Hilton and Peter LaBarbera - two different sides of the same idiot coin

Oh please make this situation go away. I will do penance, I will go to church every Sunday, anything.

But make this nonsense about the Miss America pageant go away.

Who am I kidding? This situation is juicy and it's not going away any time soon.

And it's just as I figured yesterday - Perez Hilton is now front and center on Peter LaBarbera's Americans for Truth webpage.

Peter is trying to link Hilton to all of us:

You see, it’s all about holding the “right” position — that is, the “gay” position — and shutting up or overriding your beliefs, or risk being smeared as a hateful “homophobe” if you dare to disagree. This is the emboldened Queer Lobby’s and their Amen Corner’s M.O. — whether it’s forcing a New Mexico Christian photographer to shoot a lesbian “wedding” against her convictions; trying to get Prop 8 thrown out and declared “unconstitutional” because you lost at the ballot box; equating opposition to “gay marriage” with rank bigotry, or moral opposition to homosexual behavior with “bullying gays”; or pressuring the media into rejecting ads featuring successful ex-”gays” (as GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, has done).

Not all of us like Hilton and not all of us agree with his actions. To link his stupid behavior with lgbts trying to gain our God-given right of self determination is homophobia defined.

It's no different than linking the behavior of black gang members to the African-American male in general or the behavior of a black woman you see on the Maury Povich show testing four men for the paternity of her child to all black women.

Really though, you can't blame Peter for trying to take advantage of this situation any more than you can fault a vampire bat for sucking blood. Both parties need to feed off of others to survive.

But I want to know something.

Am I being too hard on Perez Hilton?

I mean I don't think so. He asked a question. Miss California answered it. It may not have been the answer he liked but that should have been the end of the story. Of course it probably wouldn't have been but Hilton didn't make things better by getting on youtube and calling her a b*(#&& and a c*^$!

Whether we like it or not (and I hate it), Hilton is in the public eye and yes he has a responsibility to act as if his mother gave him good sense. But he didn't.

He called Miss California out of her name. She in return got on the Today show and took the position of Joan of Arc on the stake while at the same time talking about how she will pray for Hilton.

Who looks better? The pushy gay or the beauty queen?

Or a better question is who looks better? The lgbt community or the religious right?

It's too depressing to think about. One more question though:

African-Americans have Julian Bond, Cornel West, and a host of black intellectuals gaining attention. Women have Gloria Steinhem and, to an extent, Phyllis Schafly espousing their point of view about the role of women.

Just who in the hell does the gay community have to speak for us besides an immature gossip columnist whose claim to fame is outing a few celebrities and drawing ridiculous doodles on the pictures of other celebrities?

I know. We have many others who are far more intelligent and mature to espouse our community's values.

Okay, but then why is Hilton gaining all of the attention?

Tuesday midday news briefs

Video: Poignant - THIS is what we should be focused on. Forget beauty pageants.

Autumn Sandeen writes from from Angie Zapata murder trial - Another issue we should focus on

Suicide Vicitm's FamilyBlames School - This has to stop!!

NARTH To Export Ex-Gay Message To London - Super. The road show from hell.

I love my beautiful black people but sometimes I think they have lost their minds

And IT begins.

Miss California and Perez Hilton are now doing the morning news show circuits, no doubt sparring with each other over her answer to his question and whether or not it cost her the Miss America crown.

Why Lord, why? I still think it's a dumb controversy.

And in another "Why Lord, why" moment, I ran into an interesting gossip site yesterday and it put made me think about what lgbts of color have to deal with in the black community.

There is this belief that black folks are more homophobic than other Americans. I don't believe this is the case. What I do believe is that there needs to be some serious discussion in the black community regarding homosexuality. Sometimes those who are in leadership positions in the black community shirk their duties when they don't encourage (and in some cases try to hinder) this conversation.

I also think that trepidation about gays and lesbians in the black community goes beyond that of a religious issue. We are a threat to the ideas of gender roles.

And as these items (and comments) prove, there is a salacious aspect that many want to throw at the lgbt community; an aspect that wouldn't exist if lgbts of color would have more support in the black community:

EXPLOSIVE!!!! RADIO SHOW CLAIMS TO HAVE EVIDENCE OF RAPPER CHINGY'S SECRET LIFESTYLE!!!

HMMMMM!!! R&B Singer Brandy Spotted LEAVING THE CLUB With A VERY BUTCH Looking Gal Pal!!!

LMAO!!!! Vivica Fox Is Trying To Date THAT GAY LOOKING BOY From High School Musical!!!

ON BLAST!!! Gay Community ANGERED By Rapper Bow Wow's HOMOPHOBIC Comments!!!

Why the Miss USA controversy is a STUPID issue

Oh God no.

There is a dumb controversy brewing over the Miss USA pageant that took place last weekend.

Apparently in the question and answer segment, Miss California stated her opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

So batten down the hatches because here comes a whole lot of nonsense.

I should have known it couldn't last. For the past weeks, the lgbt community was on a unparalleled streak of good fortune. Iowa, Vermont, the mocking of NOM - we were hot.

Then this happens.

Now we are going to be distracted by a non-issue that only has the potential for us to look like bad guys.

You know what? I don't care what this woman said. It was her opinion. She expressed it. She didn't win the crown. Big whoop.

She will probably benefit from the controversy by becoming the newest religious right cause celebre. I can just see the spin now - "She was denied the crown because she stood up for the American family."

The optimist in me (I ate an optimist for dinner last week - you know us gays are also cannibals. Paul Cameron said so) sees a silver lining to this potential cloud.

If anything, maybe this controversy will teach my lgbt community not to canonize lgbt celebrities.

Gossip columnist Perez Hilton was a judge during the competition and since the controversy took place, he has been consistently rude to Ms. California and basically acted like a damn fool.

Way to go, Perez. Expect to see your vapid self in One News Now or on the Americans for Truth webpage as indicative of the entire lgbt community.

For the record, Hilton is simply a gossip columnist and a very immature one at that. I don't give a crap how many interviews he does or how many youtube videos he presents on the issue, or how often he is in the public eyes in general, Hilton does not represent the entire lgbt community.

And while some of us may be distracted and momentarily angry at Miss California, it's not a good thing to take crucial time away from the big picture of lgbt equality to talk about a single incident in a beauty pageant that will most likely be forgotten in a year.

Let this be a lesson to us all. Just because someone is an actor, singer, or gossip columnist and just happens to be gay does not mean that person shoud be taken as a sort of a spokesperson for the lgbt community.

We owe it to ourselves to adhere to a higher standard than that.

Monday midday news briefs

There has been a very interesting update in my last post. Check it out

Mormon Scion Matthew S. Holland Quits the NOM Board - And the hits keep coming to NOM.

David Mixner: Rick Warren Badly Needs A Private Retreat - Ya think?

Uganda’s Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign Is Now In Full Swing - This ain't good AT ALL!

Too young to vote. Old enough to be publicly condemned by LaBarbera - Peter is now picking on children. Big man he is!

Mocking "Gathering Storm" from start to finish - Go ahead. You know you want to check out the link.

Anti-Day of Silence video creator alleges gay conspiracy

(Editor's note - This post has been updated. See below)

The Day of Silence has come and gone. Now it's time for the so-called counterpart - The Allied Defense Fund's Day of Truth.

Haven't heard anything about it? My point exactly.

On Saturday, I talked about a video put out about it by Capitol Resource Institute which claimed that Day of Silence supporters were "threatening" pro-family groups.

The video uses negative phone messages, alleged emails of a threatening nature, and footage of Proposition 8 protests in an attempt to twist the argument of lgbt teen safety into a semantic one about tolerance (i.e. claiming that while Day of Silence supporters want tolerance and safety for gay teens but they aren't capable of showing tolerance themselves.)

All in all, the video does a poor job of connecting the Day of Silence to any acts of violence.

This weekend, I spoke to the self-described creator of the video (on youtube, he calls himself the Dark Lord of Debate). I asked him specifically about the inaccuracies of the video, most specifically its attempt to link the Day of Silence with the Proposition 8 protests. This is what he said:

Regardless of the exact connection of each event in the video to the Day of Silence, I believe the video is illustrative of the intolerance of those advocating the gay agenda to silence all who disagree with them--of which the Day of Silence is only a small part. The message was that those of us who believe in traditional marriage and sexuality are not going to allow our voices to be silenced the way they have been in other countries where the gay agenda has been more successful than in the US. In Canada, Australia, and several Scandinavian countries pastors have been imprisoned for merely preaching that homosexuality is immoral. We won't stand for that, and if you are as tolerant as your side claims I hope you won't either.

My answer to him was short but to the point:

You speak of anecdotes taken out of context. Also whatever the case is, these situations happened in foreign countries - countries that do not possess the same laws or constitutions as America. The error in your statement lies in the belief that there is some worldwide conspiracy on the part of gays and lesbians. And that notion simply isn't true. The situations that you allege happened in Canada, etc. have nothing to do with the situations in the United States because they do not have the same "cast of characters," so to speak.

All in all, your statements are extremely debatable but what is not a debatable point is:

1. You unfairly generalized about all of those who support the Day of Silence - not to mention all gays and lesbian in general

2. Your video is so over the top that its credibility is questioned - the footage of alleged violence has nothing to do with the Day of Silence. And the phone calls and emails are equally questionable.

The semantical argument you put forth regarding "tolerance" is merely a dodge. And it's a sad one.

The "Dark Lord" didn't answer me back as of yet, but his first message is interesting.

To him, the video was not about truth or accuracy but about fighting the "alleged gay agenda."

I personally fail to see what the Day of Silence has to do with alleged incidents in foreign countries. And anyone with good sense would fail to see the connection also.

But those on Dark Lord's side of the argument aren't necessarily known for their good sense.

UPDATE - Dark Lord answered me back and admits to a degree of exaggeration:

To a certain extent I agree with you. I know full well that not all gay activists are like those portrayed in the video, and to that extent the video is somewhat of an exaggeration, though no more than any typical political attack ad, which is basically what this video was intended as. The video is however accurate in exposing the fact that not all gay activists are as tolerant as they claim, and are fully capable of engaging in hateful behavior themselves, which is important to counteract the common view of conservatives as hateful bigots and liberals as paragons of tolerance.

I also disagree that there is no connection between the Day of Silence and prop 8. CRI is a Californian organization which also worked for the passage of prop 8, and you can bet many of the people making those calls and sending those emails (which were all authentic, btw) were the same people protesting prop 8. The Day of Silence and the response to prop 8 are very much connected the way I see it.

As far as the idea of a gay conspiracy, I fully recognize that there is no organized conspiracy of gays against Christians, but the gay lobby worldwide does have a fairly unified political agenda and both in other countries and the US that has included silencing any dissenting voices which object to homosexuality as normal. These other countries were also western democracies, and their laws started out as "hate crimes" legislation like we have in the US. Sure we have a constitution that protects free speech, but that only works as long as the courts are willing to follow it, which is why I'm not convinced the same thing can't happen here, and why I will continue to oppose all efforts to silence our voice.

At any rate, I know I'm not going to convince you, but maybe that will at least help you understand my perspective in making this video. I'm sorry you disagree with it, but that is your right. See you around.

Now I could go on a tangent like he did but I want to zero in on something that bothers me. This is my return message to Dark Lord's newest email:

You are going all over the place with these tangents regarding hate crimes and the alleged worldwide gay conspiracy. But I won't follow you up on it.

What bothers me basically is your admittance that the video is exaggerated. Don't you think it's bizarre to accuse gay activists of being hypocritical because some don't practice the tolerance that they claim to espouse when you aren't practicing the Christian tenet about truth that you want to portray yourself standing for?

Aren't you guilty of the same hypocrisy you have accused them of?

How can you defend Christian beliefs through a video which you have admitted makes exaggerated claims? Just when did it become appropriate for those who follow Christ to get their point across via cynical attack ads?

Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the light." He didn't say "I am the way, the truth and the light but feel free to exaggerate in my name when you are trying to talk to sinners."