When the Rev. Carl Pointer prepares a sermon, he sets out to share what he feels in his heart, mind and soul.
The last thing he wants is for the federal government to tell him what he cannot preach about.
“I should have freedom of speech and freedom of religion,” said Pointer, an associate pastor of the Greater St. Paul Baptist Church in Stop Six. “A preacher has the right to spread his love … and shouldn’t be censored if some find it unpleasant.”
Pointer and many other preachers oppose a proposal in Congress to expand federal hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation, gender and disability to the racial, ethnic and religious categories already covered. They say the bill would censor their preaching, especially their sermons about homosexuality.
Sadly, the Rev. Carl Pointer is either willfully ignorant or lying.
Federal hate crime laws have NOTHING to do with actions that consist solely of speech. The Federal hate crime law concerns ACTIONS that are already criminal–specifically “violent acts that result in death or bodily injury”–and stiffens the punishment when the MOTIVE is to intimidate based on the perceived traits of the victim.
Contrary to claims of the law’s opponents, our legal system has a longstanding tradition of considering a perpetrator’s mental state–including motive–when determining the punishment for a criminal action.
Given events in Canada, England, and Sweden, fears of censorship are not unwarranted. We see that once homosexuals become a protected – hence, an affirmed – class of persons, they proceed to suppress all dissent, particularly that of Christians (who would, at the end of the day, be the ones to speak out against actual violence).
It’s good to see black ministers start to speak out against the spurious identification of same-sex attraction with race. Another Stop Six minister – arguably the most liberal of black ministers herre in Fort Worth, was quoted in the Startlegram last year on the same theme.
To say that this law is related to censorship is to bear false witness about the contents of the law.
I have received several circular e-mails about this law threatening free speech. Each time, I read the Code and find that only violent acts are prohibited and, lest there be confusion, there are specific religious exemptions. Pick one: lying or misinformed.
4, violent acts are already a crime. So what does the hate crime legislation add? The answer is an increased penalty base on the motive. This is a new development in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence which here to fore as only punished the act regardless of the motive. Note that “motive” has nothing to do with criminal intent. In proving up motive for the purposes of a hate crime you must of necessity get in to a persons mind and how do you do that? By examing a persons speech, wiriting, reading, TV and Movie watching habits. In short everything that the first amendment is designed to protect.
On the flip side I heard about a Muslem father who killed his Christian daughter for becoming a Christian. The crime was excused because he did it for a good motive, the protedtion of Islam. This is the flip side of hate crime legislation. The Germans also usede the good motive rationale to excuse crimes against Jews in the Third Reich.
This is very dangerous legislation and its only purpose is to control speech and end debate by criminalizing it.
But consideration of motive is not a “new development” by any means. We have long had the distinction between first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter; this distinction is entirely based on the mental state and motivation of the perpetrator.
If Brother Michael has read this thread and claims that the federal law’s “only purpose is to control speech”, then he is telling what we call in my world a “bold-faced LIE”.
This is exactly how censorship and lost of freedoms start out. First, it targets a hated group to sell the public on the idea of censorship. For instance, the idea of tracking chips for children. The media pundits say, “It’s to protect them against child molesters. You’re not for the child molesters, are you?†Then, through incrementalism, chips will encompass more and more groups, until everyone will have to have chips.
The same with hate crime bills. We already have laws on the books to protect people against acts of violence. If a person kills someone because they are black or gay or whatever, it is still murder. We have laws on the books that deal with murder. We don’t need “special laws.†Hate crime bills will destroy free speech, the internet and most outlets that are independent of “approved†government outlets.
Don’t be deceived by the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
-Vincent
If someone burns down the house of black neighbors in order to discourage other black families from moving into that neighborhood, that is NOT the same crime as a random house arson by someone who just wanted to look at the pretty flames. The crime is both a property crime against the immediate victims and an attempt to threaten and intimidate other black people who might consider the neighborhood.
That is the sort of case that the hate crime law addresses.
Of course, various penalties apply to the same acts, in many cases. As a parole officer, if I am killed by someone because of my position, that becomes capital murder, as if I were a police officer. If I am murdered randomly, the killer gets life, or less. I can, therefore see the “hate crime” laws as a possible good, at least in theory. The problem is determining motive. For example, did Matthew Shepherd’s killers hate gays? Or were they hopped up on meth and out of control?
Tegularius, it would probably be helpful if you calling people who disagree with you “liars”. The issue isn’t what this bill contains, but where it leads us.
Hate crime legislation is yet another case of what happens when liberal power has an opportunity to institutionalize what is merely fashionable, yet another reason to bury political correctness with a stick of mistletoe in its heart.
Hate is treated as if it is a simple motive, when it is in fact complex. A man might kill his wife because he hates her. Is this a hate crime? A man might kill his neighbor, who is male but not a minority of any sort. Is this a hate crime? In fact, it isn’t. A mafia hit man may x a differentl family member because his capo hates him. Is this a hate crime? No in isn’t. Hate crime law is a special pleading, for it only covers those favored by the left.
Criminal law should never be a special pleading, obviously.
In reality, how many murders are at last the result of hate, one way or another, or the result of hate and power, inextricably mixed? If I hate my neighbor because he is black and if I hate my wife because she has made my life miserable, and I whack them both, these are both hate crimes, aren’t they? And yet, they are clearly not the same, for the kind and quality of the hatred or very different. And if I hate Middle Eastern Moslems because my son died in Iraq, and I kill one who bumps into me and knocks me down on the subway?
Murder 1, the mes res demonstrable, is murder 1, regardless of my motive. The mens res is the crucial element, and hate crime legislation is, therefore, redundant, for it makes no difference what the mes res is as long as it is present.
And are the courts and juries now going to sort out the causes of the hatred to see if there is good hatred and bad hatred? Look at the origin of the present law. The hoi polloi see only that a homosexual was murdered. The truth is that he was hitting on one of the men, he was looking for sex.
What response is correct for being hit on by a homosexual? Murder? Well, unless there is understandable hatred and incomprehensible hatred, good hate and bad hate. Can a jury see into this motive, assess it correctly? And if the plaintiff really hates being hit on by a homosexual, has the homosexual committed a hate crime? Or is it sufficient to say that the evil intention was present, and that is sufficient. Hate crime legislation is like the ERA, legislation posed because affirming it is a sign that one’s union card has been stamped approved. LM
(1) Almost all criminal laws allow a range of sentences, so the court is able to hand out a harsher sentence for a nastier crime.
(2) Can anyone point to a single crime that cannot be adequately punished under state law without sinking the courts into a morass of “hate-crime” determinations?
(3) Why should this be a federal issue?
(4) Are we saying that we should go easy on La Cosa Nostra because their crimes are just business?
Tegularius, I am a lawyer. The distinctions between first, second, third degree murder and manslaughter hinge on criminal intent, not motive. This was one of the first things drilled into us at law school. Motive that favored concept of murder mystery writers has not place in the criminal law.
In fact your accusations of lying is over the top. The fact is criminalizing motive is so dangerous and subjective that, until now, the criminal law, has stayed away from it.
A jury can determine motive–for example that of Matthew Shepherd’s killers–the same way it determines other facts of the case. A case can incorporate the perpetrator’s remarks as evidence of bias intent in the same way a case of spousal murder can incorporate remarks about life insurance as evidence of financial intent.
There is a difference between calling someone a “liar” and calling a particular statement a “lie”. Saying that the current bill seeks to “control speech” is a lie.
And–in the example of arson when a black family moves into a primarily-white neighborhood–intimidation of other black folks IS a criminal intent.
“(2) Can anyone point to a single crime that cannot be adequately punished under state law without sinking the courts into a morass of “hate-crime†determinations?”
Assault is an obvious one. The penalty for targeted assault–beating someone up because of their skin color, particularly when intended to intimidate others of a particular race–should be stiffer than that for garden-variety assault when a fight breaks out.
The real concern at present is to expand the list of crimes for which the Federal government can become involved. Remember folks the federal government is one of limited power. The general police power belongs to the state. I think Tegularius is misinformed – the incitement charges if a victim were to claim that a sermon incited a person to commit violence which could evolve are a real concern. It could also strengthen a civil litigants hand. The bigger present issue is that people including Priests are easlily intimidated once someone starts throwing around words like “hate crime” whether the charge will stick or not – easier to keep quiet. The thought police know this -lets not give the PC crowd another arrow.
Just to be clear about my earlier comment:
I am opposed to this legislation because is is bad law. It allows the State/Government to put prejudicial information before a jury which would otherwise be inadmissable. Further, at least in Alabama, we are already overcrowded in prisons and don’t need the extra bodies.
My point was simply that the law does not say what this guy says that it says. It is the “thought police” to the extent that if you blow somebody up b/c they are black, the courts will be policing your thoughts. It is not censorship of the kind we have seen in Canada and other places b/c it punishes only the violent actions.
talithajd, are you a lawyer? You are making a typical lay mistake. Jurys try fact, not law, and criminal intent is different from motive.
You write: “The penalty for targeted assault–beating someone up because of their skin color, particularly when intended to intimidate others of a particular race–should be stiffer than that for garden-variety assault when a fight breaks out.” Under the same rationale your can lighten a penalty based on race. That’s what the Germans did. You are saying that some plaintiffs or victims are worth more than others.
It is much safer to treat like acts the same.
I don’t think I wrote that and I think I was clear that I am opposed to the legislation.
“You are saying that some plaintiffs or victims are worth more than others.”
No, I am saying that when a violent crime is undertaken for the purpose of intimidating a class of people, that there are additional victims beyond the person assaulted or the family whose home is burned. If, for example, racially-targeted assaults mean that black folks in general don’t feel safe moving into a particular neighborhood, those are victims in addition to the ones actually assaulted. And it’s quite reasonable for the law to take those additional victims into account.
The penalty for targeted assault–beating someone up because of their skin color, particularly when intended to intimidate others of a particular race–should be stiffer than that for garden-variety assault when a fight breaks out.
And this would apply equally no matter the color of the skin that is singled out for beating?
Under the same rationale your can lighten a penalty based on race. That’s what the Germans did. You are saying that some plaintiffs or victims are worth more than others.
I think Brother Michael is write and that there is a large danger inherent in what seems to be an act with benign intent.
I am saying that when a violent crime is undertaken for the purpose of intimidating a class of people, that there are additional victims beyond the person assaulted or the family whose home is burned.
Doesn’t every crime intimidate “classes” of people? If your convenience store is held up, aren’t other convenience store managers intimidated? If a serial killer takes out after blond-haired women aren’t all blondes a bit intimidated? (Laugh if you will, but Theodore Bundy went after a certain type of woman and women in the area were very much aware of that at the time.) There is no need for “hate” laws – there is only need for even-handed enforcement of the laws we have. Creating a hate law to protect any “class” automatically creates a privileged “class”.
“Doesn’t every crime intimidate “classes†of people?”
Not in the same way, no.
Let’s consider two hypotheticals:
Bubba likes fire and he likes beer. One night he gets himself lit, drives around, crashes into a mailbox, and decides that the people who put the mailbox in the way of his car are out to get him. He lights the bushes in front of the house to take his revenge, which causes the pine straw to catch and the house to burn to the ground.
Jim lives in an all-white neighborhood until a black family moves in two blocks away. Three nights later, outraged by this, he takes a gas can and burns the letters “KKK” in their front lawn; the flames get out of hand and burn the house down.
Assuming good fortune provides no loss of life or personal injury in either case, and that the values of the properties destroyed is comparable, do you really think Jim’s action is no worse than Bubba’s?
No, I don’t – but I think the laws on the books will deal adequately with both. If all are equal before the law would-be intimidators lose out just as you would have them do – which is why the KKK is in disorder and John Crow is no more.
[blockquote]Bubba likes fire and he likes beer. One night he gets himself lit, drives around, crashes into a mailbox, and decides that the people who put the mailbox in the way of his car are out to get him. He lights the bushes in front of the house to take his revenge, which causes the pine straw to catch and the house to burn to the ground.
Jim lives in an all-white neighborhood until a black family moves in two blocks away. Three nights later, outraged by this, he takes a gas can and burns the letters “KKK†in their front lawn; the flames get out of hand and burn the house down.
Assuming good fortune provides no loss of life or personal injury in either case, and that the values of the properties destroyed is comparable, do you really think Jim’s action is no worse than Bubba’s?
[/blockquote]
Ah, but what if Bubba hits the same family Jim is going after, say the night before Jim does the deed. How do we prove Bubba just likes fire, that he’s not a closet racist? So do we punish Bubba more harshly than we would have if he had happened to hit Jim’s mailbox instead? If not, why not? We can’t prove what he was thinking either way. And not all “hate crimes” are so nice as to burn KKKs or swastikas and remove all doubt as to motivation.
“How do we prove Bubba just likes fire, that he’s not a closet racist?”
By presenting convincing evidence to a jury, the same way we prove that it was Bubba in the first place rather than some other pyrotechnically inclined individual. Importantly, in these cases the burden of proof is in the other direction: the prosecution has to convince the jury of a bias motivation beyond a reasonable doubt.
And how do you prove racial or other bias? Membership in the KKK? And how do you prove homophobia? Membership in a Christian Church? Tegularius the devil is in the proof. Acts that are otherwise protected by the First Amendment become evidence of bias and can result in an enhanced penalty. How do you avoid the enhanced penalty, no longer do those acts. So you self-censor youself, watch what you preach, say, read and watch.
In the Matthew Sheapard case, assuming that it was in fact a “hate crime” what is the increased penalty for a crime bearing the death penalty? Go back to hanging, drawing and quartering which was supposed to be a triple death?
“And how do you prove racial or other bias?”
Well that’s the prosecutor’s problem, isn’t it? In the absence of clear evidence, you don’t get a conviction under hate crime laws.
“Acts that are otherwise protected by the First Amendment become evidence of bias and can result in an enhanced penalty.”
You can say the same thing about other instances of speech that relate to other facts of the case. The fact that speech is protected does not mean that speech cannot be used as evidence in a criminal case. Using biased speech as evidence in a hate-crime case is the same as using a claim that “I was soooo wasted!” as evidence in a drunk-driving case.
“…what is the increased penalty for a crime bearing the death penalty?”
It is true that with the death penalty (and life imprisonment) there are cases where the sentence cannot really be increased because of bias motivation–however there are plenty of other aggravating factors which also drop out in those cases.
I do think hate crime laws are generally more useful for actions like assault and arson than for murder, as those are the cases where there is room to make the sentence more severe.
Given that we’ve had at least some hate-crime laws on the books in the US for years now, I would appreciate seeing any evidence of [i]specific cases [/i] in which such prosecutions have been used for “censorship” or in which a hate crime law was used to bring about an unjust conviction. (I would like to suggest that such examples be limited to the USA, as countries without the First Amendment don’t really present a comparable legal system.)
Any crime for which the penalty is time served can be made more severe. You wear a red shirt while beating up someone, add another 5 years. Your beat someone up because they were wearing a red shirt add another five years.
I see a great problem in this sort of legislation which you do not. You don’t really understand the problem of proof and the fact that the principle behind “hate crimes” can be used to destroy our civil liberties. You put too much faith in the first amendment and its ability to curb government excesses.
But if you want motive to be an element of a crime go for it.
Yeah, Teg, the distinction between motive and intent is important. John may have the motive to kill his neighbor, Ivan, because John hates Jews, but not the intent when he negligently kills Ivan because he doesn’t see him as he is backing out of his drive way. Even if the prosecution of the case against John is bifurcated such that motive is an issue for sentencing only after conviction, how would the jury ascertain John’s motive. And, why should they be called to do so in this hypothetical?
Also, is the legislation directed to those who would keep homosexual people out of the neighborhood or is the hate crime defined simply by what/who the victim is? That is, is the defendant who kills a person guilty of a hate crime because he thinks the victim he purposely kills is a person who indulges in homosexual behavior or because the victim is such a person? If it’s the latter, how do we define the victim as one whose murder warrants the increased punishment?
While I disagree with those who espouse the need for hate crime legislation I do agree the law in instances punishes according to motive. The most obvious examples are state capital murder statutes. In Alabama a robber is subject to execution if death occurs to a victim of his robbery. If one shoots and kills the same victim because he looked at one’s wife lustfully, one is subject to life imprisonment at the max. The motive for the killing determines the extent of punishment available. I personally don’t agree with that distinction and I certainly don’t see a need for federal hate crime bills.
Promises, Promises, Promises. Here in Mass. the promise was made by liberals that giving Gays privileged status under the law would not affect people’s religion . It turned out to be Lies, lies, lies. Public schools are now re-education indoctrination concentration camps where if parents go to simply complain to a school superintendent wind up getting arrested. And where churches were driven out of the 2000 year old charity of working with orphans–while the lib-Dem legislature which made the fraudulent promises just walked away from the situation. So, anyone who believes Ted Kennedy on this issue clearly needs to do a reality check–by looking in Mass. and around the world.
29, good comment. You are describing felony murder where a killing in the course of committing a felony gives rise to a first degree murder charge. That is, you rob a bank, something goes wrong and, by accident, you kill a guard. While that killing might otherwise be manslaughter, because you were committing the felony of bank robbery, the law deems the killing a premeditated one and the state can seek the death penalty. I remember arguing about this in law school.
But even here motive is not a factor. Here we have a criminal act leading to another criminal act.
It’s kind of like shooting into a crowded bar. You didn’t mean to kill A because you didn’t even know A was in the bar, but you knew that the bar was crowded and, shot into the bar in reckless disregard of who was in the bar.
#29: “Also, is the legislation directed to those who would keep homosexual people out of the neighborhood or is the hate crime defined simply by what/who the victim is?”
The legislation is based on the intent of the perpetrator, not the identity of a victim. If someone commits a “gay-bashing” assault on a straight person they have misidentified, it could be prosecuted as a hate crime. If someone is robbing a convenience store and shoots a clerk who happens to be gay, it would not be considered a hate crime.
Ah, Teg, but what if he’s a notorious gay bashing s.o.b. whose robbing a convenience store and shoots a clerk who happens to be gay?
It took 30 comments to get to “concentration camps!” That may be a record. I must say the left wing media has done an excellent job of covering up the starvation and beatings employed by public schools to force the homosexual agenda.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but must there always be a Nazi whenever there is a political disagreement. I also have not heard about this person who was arrested at a school for disapproving of their sex-ed policy. If such a thing occurred it was not under the law being discussed here because: 1) this is a federal statute; and 2) it requires some bodily harm or danger of such.
Also, just as an FYI because somebody brought it up: an accidental shooting during a robbery is a felony murder and not subject to the death penalty. The death penalty requires specific intent to kill a person, although not necessarily the person killed.
Quesrion: Why is the mens res an insufficient standard in distinguishing one sort of killing from another?
Question: How does one determine what the “quality” of the hate was that formed a motive? Or the degree of hate involved? This is not what juries do, in fact.
Finally – and someone has mentioned this – the hate crime legislation does indeed alter freedom of speech by creating an environment of fear. Even if the actual law cannot be applied, the fear of its application and the potential for civil suits will silence those for whom such a threat is sufficient to enforce silence. Can a priest speak out against homosexuality? Well, is he preaching hate and thereby inciting to violence? If burning a flag is speech, then its reverse will also work, that speech is an act. The threat is sufficient to enforce silence.
And this is precisely how the hatecrime law is used, and this was indeed the intent of the left when it proposed such legislation. One need only read the leters in the newspapers when someone opposes leftwing legislation – esp. re: homosexuality. Suddenly there are letters screaming BIGOT and HATE SPEECH,demands that hate crime laws be applied, and the like, and such letters get to be deafening, and make no mistake, the threat they carry is real and effective. LM
talithajd, at one time it did. Actually you would need to look at the various state and federal felony murder statutes to determine the precise penalties.
Br. Michael: The person you responded to mentioned Alabama specifically. That is the law in Alabama.
We’re pretty far afied from the topic. Sorry.
[blockquote]Finally – and someone has mentioned this – the hate crime legislation does indeed alter freedom of speech by creating an environment of fear. Even if the actual law cannot be applied, the fear of its application and the potential for civil suits will silence those for whom such a threat is sufficient to enforce silence.[/blockquote]
This claim strikes me as a bit like killing your parents and asking the court for mercy because you’re an orphan–opponents of the bill first try to prevent it from passing by falsely claiming that it restricts speech, and then say that–even though the plain language of the law clearly does [i]not[/i] restrict speech–speech will be “intimidated” by the potential application of the law in cases where it clearly does not apply. Maybe this intimidation would be less if the law’s opponents were more honest about what crimes it actually covered?
If you censor your own speech because you think it might get you more severely punished when you commit arson, assault, or murder, I’d argue you’d do better planning not to commit the crimes and saying whatever you like.
[blockquote]And this is precisely how the hatecrime law is used, and this was indeed the intent of the left when it proposed such legislation. One need only read the leters in the newspapers…[/blockquote]
The hate crime law is not “used” by people who write letters to the newspapers or post screeds on the internet: it is used by prosecutors, judges, and juries who apply the criminal law. And, in response to my request for [i]specific[/i] cases in which the existing US and state hate crime laws have been used to censor or have produced an unjust conviction, the silence has been deafening. It’s just not actually happening.
[blockquote]Suddenly there are letters screaming BIGOT and HATE SPEECH,demands that hate crime laws be applied, and the like, and such letters get to be deafening, and make no mistake, the threat they carry is real and effective.[/blockquote]
Now you’re the one complaining about free speech. If calls for hate crime legislation to be misapplied were in fact “real and effective”, then there should be no shortage of specific instances in which there were wrongful prosecutions.
Remember that complaints about bigotry and hate speech are themselves protected speech, just as much as whatever original remarks may have inspired the complaints. Freedom of speech allows you to say what you want, but does not include the right to keep your tender ears free from the speech of your critics.
On felony murder:
[blockquote] Felony Murder
An unlawful homicide that occurs in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, which is considered first degree murder by operation of this doctrine. In many modern statutes, only homicides that occur in the course of certain specified felonies are “felony murders.” See N.J.S.A. 2C: 11-3 (3). The evil mind or malice that is necessary to find someone guilty of murder is implied or imputed from the actor’s intent to commit a felony. See 383 F. 2d 421, 426. For example, if someone burned down a warehouse and thereby committed arson, which resulted in the death of a person in the building, the arsonist is guilty of first degree murder (“felony murder”) even if he did not know of the presence of the person and he had taken special precautions to try to avoid any loss of life. The harshness of this doctrine has led to a limitation of its use except against the person who actually committed the underlying felony. See Model Penal Code §§210.1 et seq.[/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]Felony murder is typically the same grade of murder as premeditated murder. In many jurisdictions, felony murder is a crime for which the death penalty can be imposed, provided that the defendant himself killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. For example, three people conspired to commit armed robbery. Two of them went in to the house and committed the robbery, and in the process killed the occupants of the house. The third person sat outside in the getaway car, and he was later convicted of felony murder. But because he himself neither killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, he cannot be executed even though he is guilty of felony murder.[/blockquote]
See http://www.answers.com/topic/felony-murder?cat=biz-fin
Tegularius, there is not enough experience with “hate crime” laws yet to point to all the abuses. There is evidence abroad which you discount. I realize that there is nothing we can say here to convince you that criminalizing motive is a bad idea. You have more faith in government to not abuse the criminal laws than I have.
talit–The parent was David Parker. The school system was Lexington, Mass. Mr. Parker was arrested and incarcerated for trespassing after going to a meeting school officials agreed to, but then stonewalled any discussion. All he wanted was to be notified (as per state law) when his child’s kindergarten class was going to be propagandized on Gay issues in her classroom so he could keep her home on those days.
I’m not surprised you didn’t see the story in the MSM for it was barely covered nationwide just as the strong-arming of the Catholic Church’s adoption services was mostly ignored. You really don’t think the liberal MSM wants the rest of the country to know what happens to the First Amendment when Gays get power to destroy it.????
deaconjohn – I looked up David Parker, and found his story at article8.org (I mention that because this doesn’t seem like a site that would spin the story against Mr. Parker). It says there he was arrested for trespassing after refusing to leave until the issue was resolved. That’s quite different from being arrested for complaining about the same sex curriculum. I’m a reasserter, and no flaming liberal (though I might be called one for bringing this up), but while I respect Mr. Parker’s civil disobedience, refusing to leave a place after being asked to do so, possibly after the meeting was over, is trespassing.
Would they have called the police if someone who agreed with their position refused to leave? I don’t know. But saying he was arrested for his speech is simply hyperbole and untrue, according to the facts listed on this website that actually supports his cause. While I’m not a big fan of most hate crime legislation for many of the reasons already mentioned, I don’t think using misinformation to further the cause is ethical.
According to local accounts–I live a few towns away–the superintendent stone-walled serious discussion after agreeing to meet with Mr. Parker. And around here usually–since this is left-wing heaven and it is almost always liberals demonstrating etc.–everyone knows that if the shoe were on the liberal-gay foot-things would have been handled very, very much differently.
I don’t doubt that the superintendent stone-walled serious discussion, and I certainly can believe that the situation would have been handled differently if the argument was coming from the other side. However, the fact remains that he was arrested for trespassing because he evidently refused to leave. I applaud him for his conviction, but it’s not fair to say he was arrested for his beliefs or his speech. He was arrested for his civil disobedience.