Other Columns by Paul M. Weyrich
Paul M. Weyrich Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Page 2 of 3

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."

>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3