Posted on 02/20/2005 9:25:57 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K
(Still, One Group Concerned by Dembe's Comparison with KKK, Nazis)
The Philadelphia judge who on Thursday dismissed "hate crime" charges against a group of Christians is being praised for her decision. But one pro-family group in that state is a bit miffed by a statement the judge made in explaining the rationale behind the ruling.
Calling the charges against the group of Christian demonstrators "ludicrous" and an "abuse of power," family advocates are expressing their pleasure about this week's developments in the "Philly 5" case. Four members of the Philadelphia-based group Repent America who had been arrested in October faced charges that they had violated a state "hate crime" statute by peacefully protesting at the pro-homosexual "Outfest" event. But on Thursday morning (February 17), Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe dismissed the charges, saying the protestors' action were protected by the First Amendment and that they committed no criminal act by reading aloud from the Bible and singing worship songs at the outdoor rally.
Similar charges against a 17-year-old girl who was among those arrested are expected to dropped as well.
An attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund says Dembe's ruling was the proper reaction. "The judge saw this case for what it is," says ADF senior counsel Joe Infranco. "This was the right response to an outrageous abuse of power to silence speech that some people didn't like. What took place [during the arrest in October] was a government crackdown on disfavored speech."
In a similar vein, the chief counsel for Concerned Women for America commends Dembe. "The judge wisely pounded a gavel against the most egregious form of the 'Heckler's Veto' -- a criminal prosecution of protected speech," says attorney Jan LaRue.
The City of Philadelphia, in spite of video evidence to the contrary, continued to pursue its "hate crimes" charges against the Christians. That fact has incensed several pro-family leaders, who are now calling on state lawmakers to repeal the portion of state law that includes "sexual orientation" as a protected class. One of those calling for the change is Bob Knight, who directs the CWA's Culture and Family Institute.
"When Pennsylvania lawmakers added 'sexual orientation' to the law in 2003, pro-family leaders warned that it could be used against Christians to suppress freedom of speech, religion, and assembly," Knight states. "Their fears came to life last October, when prosecutors threw the book at a group of Christians from Repent America who were peacefully sharing the gospel in a public area."
"Now we hope lawmakers will take a second look and pass a bill removing that portion of the hate crimes act," he adds. Knight contends that the "Philly 5" case shows how hate crime laws can "easily be abused by overzealous liberal authorities."
Louis Sheldon of Traditional Values Coalition echoes those comments. "These Christians should never have been charged in the first place," Sheldon says in a press release. "This case is a clear example of the danger that hate crime laws pose to religious freedom and free speech when Christians can be charged with a felony for preaching from the Bible."
While they are expressing concern over application of the Pennsylvania hate crime law to silence the five members of Repent America, these same groups say they are "pleased," "grateful," and "expressing relief" the charges have now been dropped. But all is not well with every pro-family group.
'Bigoted Comparison' The American Family Association of Pennsylvania, like other conservative advocacy groups, is applauding Judge Dembe for her decision. But that group is taking issue with a statement the judge made in her ruling. That statement, says the PA group, compares the actions of the Repent America members to that of white supremacy groups.
"We are one of the very few countries that protect unpopular speech," the judge stated. "And that means that Nazis can March in Skokie, Illinois .... That means that the Ku Klux Klan can march where they wish to. We cannot stifle speech because we don't want to hear it, or we don't want to hear it now."
AFA of Pennsylvania president Diane Gramley is demanding an apology from Judge Dembe for what Gramley describes as a "hateful and bigoted comparison."
"In light of all that these Christians have been through in the last few months, to have the judge compare what they did in October to the demonstrations of two of the most notorious white supremacist hate groups in American history is unbelievable," says Gramley.
Instead of making that statement, Gramley suggests Dembe should have mentioned the law enforcement officials whose actions during the arrests were "more reminiscent of a police state."
Exactly! As you can see in the video
the fat police captian that was in charge at the event had a red arm band on. How appropriate.
Where Dembe's ruling were correct, her comparison of Christians rights to free speech to the KKK's an Nazi's was appalling.
See also:
U.S. attorneys complicit in arrest of Christians?
Excerpt:
Homosexual attorneys from the U.S. Justice Department Civil Rights Division not only attended a large homosexual event in Philadelphia last year, but they advised police on the scene who arrested 11 Christian protesters, says a source within the agency.
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
Ping
Need Federal Civil Rights charges against the Philadelphia officials who persecuted them ...
I thought hate crime laws were about violence against specific groups of people, not speech. Beating up or murdering someone because he is gay is a hate crime. Reading the Bible to him is not.
The way things are going, it will be unless Christians go more on offense and less on defense.
Time to file the lawsuits against the City and cash in big.
These men and women of Repent America are better people than I. I was just hoping someone with a softball bat would have came through there and cracked some heads. That temporary satisfaction would have been detrimental, sure. But how could something like this happen in broad daylight in America?
Beating up and murdering someone is murder. Hate crime is newspeak for thought control.
That is just words. That is not a crime. I am talking about violence.
She was pointing to the extremes that we have, and that those Christians were well within them. It wasn't a "comparison."
Perhaps, but imagine if someone made the same contrast with homosexual activist groups; do you really believe that they would not have been all over it?
Well, you are right on that score. My daughter teaches at a Christian school. She went to a teachers' conference recently. One speaker was a professor from Colorado. He is a Christian. He told them about a young professor who did not have tenure. He had invited a religious speaker in to speak to his class. Some students complained. He was fired. The professor speaking at the conference said he did the same thing. He was tenured. There were complaints, but he had tenure and they could not fire him. He said that the sad thing was that no one spoke up for him or the young professor who was fired. He said there were many Christians there, but no one spoke up for them. Yet hundreds speak up for Ward Churchill. He has so many followers. This professor said that if Christians, who have been taught that the meek will inherit the earth, do not begin to speak up, they will lose their freedom of religion and speech.
They might have cried, too. Maybe you could have shared a box of tissues.
IT IS ONE REASON WHY SUCH LAWS ARE SO BAD.
Both entitled to our opinions, but there is no debating that the judge did not compare their right to free speech with civil rights activists et al, she compared their rights with 2 of the vilest groups imaginable whose veiws are tolerated and percieved to be out of the mainstream. I find it interesting that where no personal negative statements were directed at you, you find it necessarry to respond with snide and sarcastic remarks?
No. Hate crimes (and of course this depends on each states definition) is when a crime is committed and at least part of the motivation is due to the victims membership in a particular protective class.
As you can see from this example, words are not exempt and hate crime laws are simply tools to control the "wrong" type of speech.
Punishing someone because of what they think, the liberal's definition of being tough on crime.
Oh. I see. Well, that is silly. If he called you a something something back, he could not be arrested. Right? Who writes these laws, anyway? Where were they when I was being called Porky Pig in grade school?
The law needs to be changed. I still think there should be special punishment for violence against a targeted group, but we all have the right to think what we want and to say what we want as long as we say it within the boundaries of the law. Ex; No yelling, screaming, cursing, etc.
But to call a gay person a gay bastard or to use some derogatory term against a person of color, referring to his color, is against the law.
This professor said that if Christians, who have been taught that the meek will inherit the earth, do not begin to speak up, they will lose their freedom of religion and speech
Agree, if Jesus laid down his life for you, can you not stand up for him?
Okay, I see. Some animals are more equal than others. Just get rid of that whole idea of equal under the law because assault on a member of "targeted group" is worse than assault on a non-member.
And you think yelling and screaming should be illegal as well, huh? I don't even know where to begin with you.
You got it! All crimes are hate crimes. There's always a motive.
But you can call me a "right wing nazi ba***rd" and that's not hate speech.
"Hate speech & crimes" are defined by the left. That's all one needs to know.
Firing is not a free speech issue. Tenure is a fool's paradise.
Well, it appears Churchill keeps his job because he has tenure and the one Christian professor kept his because he had tenure. I don't think free speech should be a reason to fire anyone.
You got it!
Churchill, if he is fired, will be fired for either falsifying footnotes or lying about his Native American ancestry. Neither is protected free speech in an academic environment where Churchill's supposed Indian blood was key to him getting his chair.
If you say you don't think homosexuals are normal, or you oppose same sex marriage you CAN be accused of a hate crime laws. That is hate speech to them, anything that is an opposing opinion.
You sound pretty hot...!
That is freedom. Even without tenure neither the Christian professor nor the mocker Churchill would lose any right to speak -- for they can go anywhere and speak whatever subject to the same liberty we all have, they can start their own college if they get fired because of such speech.
Exactly. He should be fired for that. He is a liar. I can't understand why they want to keep him on there.
Maybe I watch LAW AND ORDER too much. I just think it is a heinous crime.
Phrasing it the way you did though, I don't know if you would be charged by most officials (excluding the "authorities" in Philadelphia).
A bit philosophical. Not that anyone wants to be killed!
So consider a lesser crime. Burglary (that's stealling withour assault). It is better to be burgled by someone who picks your house at random, or by someone who picked you because -- well, you are a racial minority in your nieghborhood?
What does that add to the crime? What does it add to any remedy? What does it add to chances of recovery?
Who should be punished more harshly? The person who stole from you becuase, gee, you had the most face-less, non-descript home on the block, or the person who steals from you becuase they hate some aspect of you directly?
Which says more about what YOU are? Which makes you nothing!
Note that exclamation point on that last.
I know which I'd prefer, and why.
Pause a minute. Reflect not only what your own opinion and thoughts are on this, but those of others, even, even, even, include those who hate and those who steal.
Is there a God? Does God care about you?
If someone hates you -- can that hate be hidden? Would it come out in far more subtle ways? The act is a measure, and measured can be acted upon -- right?
Who more denies a G-d? The hater or the burglar who hits anonymously?
Who more *inspires* despair in those he steals from?
How does one measure a theft's motive anyway? The thief first must be a liar, even to himself -- no? How else can he justify his theft?
-deprived of their Christian sacrifice they will have to once again confront their depraved immoral existence and drown their sorrows seeking false and temporary solace in each others colons...
Yep, back to "square one" with their "round peg". LOL
Perhaps not charged, however in many places and in many corperations, you can lose your job! And you are also prohibited to voice any such opposition.
Indeed -- a police officer in the American Family Association's video of the incident tells the leader of the protest (at 2:20 in) "I've been advised by our legal people" that they couldn't stay where they were standing. When challenged as to what law they were violating, the Philly cop dodged the question and simply said, "I've gonna tell you right now, either leave, or you're gonna be arrested."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.