- A statute's words do not tell how the law will be interpreted
and applied.
-
- All laws are expansively interpreted. For example:
-
- The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
was directed at drug lords. Nothing in the law says anything about divorce;
yet it soon was applied in divorce cases.
-
- The 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly bans racial quotas
and defines racial discrimination as an intentional act. Yet, quotas were
imposed by the civil rights bureaucracy on the basis of the 1964 Act, and
intent was replaced by statistical disparity.
-
- The Clean Water Act makes no reference to wetlands and
conveys no powers to the executive branch to create wetlands regulations.
Yet, for example, Ocie and Carey Mills, who had a valid Florida state permit
to build a house, were imprisoned by federal bureaucrats, who claimed jurisdiction
under the Clean Water Act. The bureaucrats ruled that the clean dirt used
to level the building lot constituted discharge of pollutants into the
navigable waters of the U.S. No navigable waters were involved, and according
to the state of Florida, no wetlands.
-
- The Exxon Valdez accident was criminalized. An unintentional
oil spill became the intentional discharge of pollutants without a license,
and the bird kill became killing migratory birds without a license. An
accident was prosecuted as crimes of intent.
-
- Well informed attorneys can provide many examples. Others
are documented in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Awareness of what can
be pulled out of even clearly written laws is essential to the preservation
of civil liberty.
-
- With this in mind, consider the Hate Crimes Prevention
Act.
-
- Opponents criticize the bill for adding a second punishment
to existing punishments for acts of violence. Assault, murder, rape are
crimes regardless of motivation. The penalties are sufficient, or can be
made so, without applying a new crime of motivation that creates specially
protected classes, such as homosexuals and minorities. To commit a violent
act against a member of a specially protected class will carry a heavier
punishment.
-
- How will a court know whether a violent act was committed
because of hatred or because of sexual lust or the need for money? As case
law is made, the likely direction will be to eliminate intent. The issue
will be resolved by whether the attacked person is a member of a protected
class. The mugger who beats as well as robs a victim who turns out to be
homosexual or Jewish will have committed a hate crime.
-
- It will prove difficult to separate speaking against
members of protected classes, or criticizing their practices, from hate.
The two things are easily conflated. Once enacted, hate crimes will become
independent of specific violent acts. An eventual likely outcome will be
that speaking against members of specially protected classes will itself
become a violent act of inciting violence.
-
- Since the passage of the Global Anti-Semitism Review
Act in 2004, the US Department of State is required to monitor anti-semitism
world wide. The State Department is not required to monitor anti-Americanism
or sentiments against Christians, Muslims or Arabs. Thus, the act created
a specially protected class worthy of careful monitoring by the US Department
of State of negative sentiments expressed against Jews.
-
- In order to monitor anti-semitism, the term must be defined.
The definition is subjective and will be widely, rather than narrowly,
interpreted. The State Department has come up with its attempt. The State
Department's approach could include any truthful statements about Israel
and its behavior toward the Palestinians that the Israeli government or
AIPAC or the Anti-Defamation League would deny or contest.
-
- Anti-semitic speech can be interpreted as inciting hatred.
Inciting hatred can be interpreted to be a violent act. "Excessive"
criticism of Israel is a subjective, undefinable concept that can be used
to determine anti-semitic speech. It is easy to conflate "excessive"
with "strong." Thus, demands that Israel be held accountable
for war crimes committed in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, or elsewhere
become acts of the hate crime of anti-semitism.
-
- ____
-
- Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He
can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
|