Most folks here know me from the cafe across the street, and know that I am pro-Israel and pro-Jew. You may not know that I got tossed out of there for (most proximally) calling the reprehensible anti-Semite lawyer from the southwest a “broken toilet of a man” for his continued dancing-with-the-rules harassment of this one lady over there whom we all like a lot. Except that one jerk who didn’t like her at all — I helped get him chased out of there.
I broke the rules, and I’ll accept my fate. I’m as proud of my enemies as I am of my friends — no need to thank me.
But comes now before us this awful law which proposes to protect Jews and will instead outlaw Christianity, secular criticism of Israel, and oh by the way Islam. If the powers that be wish to outlaw Islam for its breathtaking incompatibility with, and implacable hostility to, any government but a theocratic despotism — we can talk. But both the immediate and presumably long-term goals of this legislation will better be achieved by enforcing the laws already on the books! We already have laws against assault, battery, menacing, brandishing, death threats, trespassing, unlawful gatherings, bodily harm, attempted or actual murder or wrongful death, and yes, illegal discrimination.
The problem with the laws on the books is that enforcement is not uniform, that is, it is not robust except against whits, and these days, orientals and Jews are coded hard white by the Marxist agitators who run our schools, our human resource departments, and increasingly our “justice” system.
Germany has had laws on the books outlawing anti-semitism, and while I have always understood why, it still doesn’t sit well with me. Well, they had different demons to drive from the body public, and they were willing to squelch some freedom in order to do it. Given their conduct and subsequent experience in WWII, I get it. The US does not need any such new law.
Whatever problem you think this bill might fix, it will not, for the same reason that the existing and sifficient laws on the boooks do not already solve the problem. We have no shortage of laws. We have a poverty of will. And any power granted, any interpretation gained, any rule of construction introduced by this bill will simply be used against Western Civilization.
This is a piece of crap bill, a weapon aimed at the First Amendment, and a guaranteed time bomb.
Our jackass former acquaintances who can’t keep the Jew hatred out of their mouths may not be welcome on various pieces of property, digital or otherwise, but they retain the RIGHT as American citizens and as human beings to express unpopular opinions, and to offer dead-wrong facts claimed as truth.
I also DEFENDED (slightly) our busted ceramic former compatriot when I thought the attacks against him (boys will be boys!) were coming from the wrong basis. He may be a piece of garbage, but garbage has rights too.
And so I don;t know if I have stated this baldly before, but freedom of speech is utterly incompatible with “hate crime” laws, which are just regular crime laws, but with added penalties for certain thoughts. These are selective criteria, not universals such as intent, passion, or premeditation, and the hate aspect of hate crimes are exclusively used for the state to accomplish retributive justice for (presumably) the sins of the father. It stinks from bowsprit to drain plug.
Hatred may be harmful and it may be self-destructive, and it may keep you from getting to Heaven (heck if I know), but it is NOT illegal. These days, it may become necessary to display some hatred in public just to re-affirm our rights to our own opinions, our own counsel, our own speech. We carry guns in part because a right unused withers. Exercise of rights is not “firing for effect,” so to speak, but a necessary bit of maintenance.
I’m probably hard-pressed to come up with anybody I actually hate. But I’m working on it.
Suggestions gratefully accepted below.
A vigorous discussion across the street. Tucker Carlson said the proposed law would ban parts of the New Testament. When asked to clarify, a member posted the following:
from newstatesman.com:
Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
* Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
* Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
* Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
* Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
* Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
* Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
* Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
* Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
* Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
* Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Anti-Semitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of anti-Semitic materials in some countries).
I require significant provocation to get all the way to hate.
If I’m a sarcastic asshole when I talk to you, it’s either because I like you and feel comfortable enough to tease you … or you annoy me and I don’t care if you know it.
Have fun figuring out which.
Such things are shams to say you did something without doing anything.
1) State and local officials could simply start by enforcing laws against assault, battery, false imprisonment, kidnapping, malicious mischief… And big time enforce conspiracy laws involving these?
2) Private litigants and the feds can then enforce civil rights laws against those who fail to do #1.
3) Congress can then impeach federal officials (including judges) who fail to do #2.
How many in Congress would vote for this bill but would not do #3?