LaBarbera to Homosexual Activist: Would You Support Laws Censoring Our Free Speech?

By Peter LaBarbera

After being “cc’d” on the latest hateful e-mail sent by Bob Schwartz of the Chicago-based Gay Liberation Network — calling Illinois Family Institute (my former employer) the “Illinois Fascist Institute” for opposing a pro-homosexual federal “Hate Crimes” law — I sent the following e-note to Schwartz. We ask the same question of Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solomonese, NGLTF’s Matt Foreman and all homosexual activists: would they support laws — and government actions — to censor speech opposed to homosexuality?

My note to Schwartz: 

From: Americans for Truth [mailto:americansfortruth@comcast.net]
Sent:  Saturday, April 14, 2007 11:37 AM
To:  Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network
Cc:  David Smith, Exec. Dir., Illinois Family Institute
Subject:  Hey Bob, admit it…

…. You’d love to censor groups like IFI and Americans for Truth, wouldn’t you? If you had the power, you’d want to shut us down or ban certain aspects of our speech and conduct? For example, would you favor a federal “anti-hate” law that would have made our last email (“Satan’s Talking Points” [ Human Rights Campaign’s Harry Knox Promotes Ultimate ‘Big Lie’ in MSNBC Debate with CWA’s Matt Barber]) illegal? Or am I wrong and you actually support freedom of speech in the USA on the homosexual issue (which does not include direct harassing threats or advocating violence)? Would you favor using anti-discrimination hate speech laws to curb anti-gay speech? Which speech if any would you censor? Do you support anti-“hate speech” laws in Canada and England that are rapidly criminalizing (“discriminatory”) speech critical of homosexuality and are resulting in Christians being sued for discrimination or being jailed because they publicly oppose homosexual behavior? Did you support the jailing of the pastor in Sweden, Ake Green (www.akegreen.org) [Green was arrested in 2003 and later sentenced to jail for preaching a sermon in his church against homosexual behavior as sin], or do you think he should not have been prosecuted and what the government did to him was an injustice?  Since you’re charging us with being fascists, don’t we have a right to know? Would you use state power to restrict anti-gay speech, or not, and if so, under what circumstances?

Schwartz’s note to IFI: 

Fwd: IFI Makes it Easy to Contact Congress Members to Back Hate Crimes Legislation 

 

The kooks at the Illinois Fascist Institute want their followers to tell Members of Congress to oppose the recently re-introduced  Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.  Charging that this bill would provide the dreaded “special protection” to gays, in fact IFI wants to retain the right to discriminate based upon some presumed divinely sanctioned hatred of gays. 
 
Sorry, IFI, the Constitution and not a collection of ancient writings called the bible is the fundamental law of the United States.
 
While hate crimes legislation is by no means a panacea to counter antigay bigotry and violence, it does help isolate the haters, a fact at least indirectly acknowledged by IFI opposition to the bill which frames its hatred of gays as the “beliefs, thoughts and attitudes” of “religion.”
 
Thanks to IFI, there is easy access to Congressional contact information.  Is that Christian generosity, or what!!
 
Bob [Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network, Chicago, IL]
_______________________________________________

Original E-Alert by Illinois Family Institute:

IFI E-Alert: New Hate Crimes (Thought Crimes) Legislation in Washington D.C.
(Federal Issue)

4/13/2007 3:00:00 PM
By David E. Smith, Executive Director -Illinois Family Institute 
 
Bill would create special protection for homosexuals.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592) will be called for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives next week. This bill would extend existing federal hate-crimes laws that already cover crimes motivated by race, color, national origin and religion to include crimes based on “actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity (including gender-related characteristics).”

ACTION: Contact your Congressman today and urge him/her to oppose this anti-religious piece of legislation and vote ‘NO’ on H.R. 1592. Hate crimes legislation is really “thought crime” legislation because it penalizes politically-incorrect beliefs, attitudes, and thoughts, rather than actual crimes. (Phone calls are the most effective means to communicate with elected officials.)

Bobby Rush (D-1st District)
202-225-4372

Jesse Jackson (D-2nd District)
202-225-0773

Daniel Lipinski (D-3rd District)
202/225-5701

Luis Gutierrez (D-4th District)
202-225-8203

Rahm Emanuel (D-5th District)
202-225-4061

Peter Roskam (R-6th District)
202-555-1212

Danny K. Davis (D-7th District)
202-225-5006

Melissa Bean (D-8th District)
202-225-3711

Janice D. Schakowsky (D-9th District)
202-225-2111

Mark Kirk (R-10th District)
202-225-4835

Jerry Costello (D-12th District)
202-225-5661

Judy Biggert (R-13th District)
202-225-3515

Dennis Hastert (R-14th District)
202-225-2976

Timothy Johnson (R-15th District)
202-225-2371

Don Manzullo (R-16th District)
202-225-5676

Phil Hare (D-17th District)
202-225-5905

Ray LaHood (R-18th District)
202-225-6201

John Shimkus (R-19th District)
202-225-5271

Legislate Thought Crimes Act?
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592), which we’re calling the Legislate Thought Crimes Act, would add the words “sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability” to the existing federal code.

The proposed Legislate Thought Crimes Act is different from current hate crimes law which permits federal prosecution of hates crime if the crimes were motivated by bias based on race, religion, national origin, or color, or because the victim was exercising a “federally protected right” (e.g. voting, attending school, etc.). This is because it would extend government protection and therefore official government recognition to sexual behavior as a legitmate protected class — a very dangerous precedent for U.S. law.

This bill removes the federally-protected activity requirement and adds “actual or perceived sexual orientation/gender identity,” gender and disability to the list of covered categories–bringing additional confusion to federal law. The proposed law would give unprecedented power to overzealous federal officials and liberal judicial activists who view opposition to homosexuality as “hate.”

Law would be homosexual tool
In short, this bill, if passed into law, could be used as a tool to advance the homosexual agenda through the enactment of federal laws that recognize homosexual behavior as civil right that needs special government protection. IFI will continually strive to educate people of the fact that unlike race, sexual orientation is a behavior that is changeable — as evidenced by the thousands of ex-“gays” living happy lives today.