More Thought Crime in Britain
Topic: Judicial Tyranny
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From BBC News:

New religious hate laws unveiled

The home secretary wants to criminalise inciting religious hatred.

Inciting religious hatred is to be made a criminal offence under plans unveiled by Home Secretary David Blunkett.

The government failed to get laws introducing the offence passed by Parliament in the wake of the US terror attacks in 2001.

In a speech in London, Mr Blunkett revived the proposals.

He said he was returning to the plans as there was a need to stop people being abused or targeted just because they held a particular religious faith.

Will these new laws be used to punish the hatred spewed by UK Islamic groups such as Al Muhajiroun? No chance. Western civilization phobia is not considered a problem in Britain, but "Islamophobia" is.

Islamophobia fear

"Extending anti-discrimination law is only worthwhile if we actually change the processes on the ground," he said in a keynote speech to left-leaning think tank the Institute of Public Policy Research.

Earlier he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the legislation would not curb people's right to express their view of other people's religions.

"The issue is not whether you have an argument or discussion or whether you are criticising someone's religion. It's whether you incite hatred on the basis of it," he said.

There is already an offence of inciting racial hatred but this does not offer protection if someone is being targeted because of their religion.

The government is worried in particular about discrimination against Muslims.

The home secretary believes the law change would help tackle religious extremists who preach against other religions.

And the material difference between "criticizing" a religion and "preaching against" it is . . . what? Imagine the havoc judges and prosecutors could wreak, armed with a law containing this kind of ambiguous language. And, once again, don't imagine it can't happen here in the US.

Thought Crime in Britain
Topic: Judicial Tyranny
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Back in January, I and many others blogged the plight of BBC chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk, who faced prosecution for the crime of accurately describing the Arab world in a Sunday Express opinion piece. Finally, a decision has been made that Kilroy-Silk will not be charged.

The The Crown Prosecution Service seems really, really depressed over their inability to throw Mr. Kilroy-Silk in jail for his criminal thoughts. Well, maybe next time.

No charge for Kilroy-Silk over anti-Arab piece

Fri July 02, 2004 05:54 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Robert Kilroy-Silk, the former talk show host and now European Parliament member for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), will not be charged over a newspaper article condemning Arabs. [Ed. Note: Typical Reuters editorializing. The article, in fact, does not "condemn Arabs," but condemns Arab regimes and Arabs who loathe the West. Kilroy-Silk clarified this at the time of the controversy.]

The Crown Prosecution Service said on Friday it had advised police that no action should be taken over the article, published in January. . . .

"I acknowledge that many people found this article shocking and abusive and were deeply insulted by it," said Sue Taylor of the Crown Prosecution Service.

"But however offensive the material might be, we are constrained by law as to what we can and cannot prosecute and in this case we have had to advise the police that a criminal offence has not been committed," she added.

A former Labour MP, the outspoken Kilroy-Silk joined UKIP after losing his chat show and led the party to their best-ever results in last month's European elections.

The party is pledged to pulling Britain out of the European Union.

Since I know nothing about Kilroy-Silk's opinions on other issues, I can neither endorse or condemn them. But just imagine what it must have been like, waiting six months to learn whether you might be tried and jailed for the transgression of publishing your verifiable, fact-based opinions.

And while you're imagining that, don't imagine it can't happen here.

Porn and Political Speech
Topic: Judicial Tyranny
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Today's Wall Street Journal editorial page has some fine observations on the Supreme Court's twisted logic concerning free speech:

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the Supreme Court seems to be providing more First Amendment protection to pornography than to political speech?

This seems to be a fair question following the Court's decision this week to frown upon, for the third time in eight years, a Congressional law attempting to protect minors from sexually explicit material on the Internet. In contrast, the same Court was only too happy last year to endorse the substantial limits on political speech that were part of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform. Somehow we doubt this is what the Founders had in mind in passing the Bill of Rights.

And while pornographers have free access to your children, clergy do not:

School Officials Censor Biblical Views on Homosexuality

(AgapePress) - The Windsor Locks (Connecticut) School District has caved in to the demands of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union (CCLU), which recently threatened the district with an injunction if its officials allowed local clergy to give a biblical presentation on homosexuality at Windsor Locks High School.

This past May, Windsor Locks School District had permitted a group called the Stonewall Speakers to visit the high school and promote the homosexual lifestyle. Representatives of the Stonewall Speakers claim their organization was not there to encourage students to pursue homosexuality or lesbianism as a lifestyle, but to discourage bigotry and violence by dispelling myths about homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people.

Still, some local clergy and members of the public felt the pro-homosexual presentation needed to be balanced, and the school district agreed to allow a group to come into the school and present a religious perspective on the issue. However, when the CCLU threatened legal action, district officials decided to cancel the planned clergy presentation.

"The phones in Washington just aren't ringing"
Topic: Judicial Tyranny
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In the May 29, 2004 issue of World Magazine, Joel Beltz noted:

On the issue of homosexual marriage--almost unthinkable just a year ago--most evangelicals say they're opposed, but have profoundly disappointed conservative political activists by remaining largely silent on the issue. "The phones in Washington just aren't ringing," says Matt Daniels, author of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would limit marriage to a union of one man and one woman

For Evangelicals whose opposition to judicial tyranny goes beyond mere talk, Focus on the Family CitizenLink has a suggestion:

. . . Focus on the Family and other pro-family groups
hope you will dedicate yourself now to joining the fight
to preserve traditional marriage.

We have identified 10 U.S. senators whose votes on the
Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) -- which would define the
institution as solely the union of one man and one woman
-- are key to the legislation's passage. Without the FMA,
other states are certain to legalize or recognize gay
marriages -- making it a matter of when, not if,
homosexual couples will be married in your town.

To prevent that from happening, we'd like residents of the
states represented by the senators on our list to call
them at their district offices today and urge them to
support the FMA.

The senators, and their district office numbers, are
listed below.

** Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
Sixou Falls: 605-334-9596
Aberdeen: 605-225-8823
Rapid City: 605-348-7551

** Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
Indianapolis: 317/554-0750
Evansville: 812/465-6500
Ft. Wayne: 260/426-3151
Jeffersonville: 812/218-2317
Hammond: 219/852-2763
South Bend: 574/236-8302

** Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio
Columbus: 614/469-6697
Cleveland: 216/522-7095
Cincinnati: 513/684-3265
Toledo: 419/259-3895

** Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio
Columbus: 614/469-5186
Cincinnati: 513/763-8260
Cleveland: 216/522-7272
Toledo: 419/259-7536
Marietta: 740/373-2317
Xenia: 937/376-3080

** Sen. Bill Pryor, D-Ark.
Little Rock: 501/324-6336

** Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
Orlando: 407/872-7161
Tallahassee: 850/942-8415
Tampa: 813/225-7040
Miami: 305/536-5999
West Palm Beach: 561/514-0189
Jacksonville: 904/346-4500
Davie: 954/693-4851

** Sen. John Breaux, D-La.
New Orleans: 504/589-2531
Baton Rouge: 225/248-0104
Lafayette: 337/262-6871
Monroe: 318/325-3320

** Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.
New Orleans: 504/589-2427
Baton Rouge: 225/389-0395
Shreveport: 318/676-3085
Lake Charles: 337/436-6650

** Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo.
Jefferson City: 573/634-2488
Springfield: 417/864-8258
Cape Girardeau: 573/334-7044
St. Louis: 314/725-4484
Kansas City: 816/471-7141

** Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska
Anchorage: 907/271-3735
Fairbanks: 907/456-0233
Juneau: 907/586-7400
Kenai: 907/283-5208
Ketchikan: 907/283-5208
Wasilla: 907/376-7665

Even if none of the senators above represent you, though,
you can still play a key role in supporting the FMA. For
contact information for your own senators, visit the
CitizenLink Action Center and type your ZIP code into the
space provided.

http://capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/

And remember, you won't be connected to the senators
themselves, but to staff members, who will only want to
know whether you support or oppose the FMA. While it is
not necessary for you to have an arsenal of arguments when
you call today, if you would like more information on the
FMA, you can visit the link below.

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0024645.cfm

Thank you for doing your part to protect the traditional
family -- and to stand for God's truth.

Resources on Same-Sex Marriage
Topic: Judicial Tyranny
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Today, by order of the state's Supreme Judicial Court -- not by vote of the people, nor even the legislature -- same-sex marriages will be performed in Massachusetts.

I recall that several months ago when I e-mailed the Massachusetts legislature on this issue, one of the reps took the time to send me a personal reply equating me with racists in the Jim Crow south and asserting that he did not know why I thought I should be allowed to vote on granting the "civil right" of same-sex marriage.

What representative what's-his-name failed to grasp is that someone's votes will decide this issue. The question is whether the votes will be those of a few judges (maybe only one), instituting law created by unconstitutional judicial fiat, or those of all the states' duly-elected legislators, in acceptance or rejection of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

To help concerned citizens address the same-sex marriage issue, the Family Research Council has compiled an essential page:

The issue of same-sex 'marriage' will be debated not just on television and among lawmakers here in Washington, but around kitchen tables and in local communities across the country. You will have to be the spokesmen for the family.

If we are to prevail in the battle to keep the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it will be because you talked to your neighbor, you called your elected officials, you got your church involved. You are the foot soldiers in this battle.

To that end, FRC is here to arm you with the latest information, talking points and materials you'll need to engage your community. You are encouraged to not only read the information . . . but also forward to friends and make copies to pass out at your church. This is a crucial moment in America's history. Not only will our children ask us where we were when homosexual "marriage" became legal in America, they will ask us what we did.