Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Pastor Acquitted of Hate Crime Charge

In 2002, Pastor Stephen Boissoin sent a letter to his local newspaper, criticizing the pro-homosexual rights curriculum in the education system.

His letter carried the heading, "Homosexual Agenda Wicked," and said in part, "From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren, are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators."

A human rights activist filed a complaint against the pastor, supporting his case with the fact that a homosexual had been beaten two weeks after the letter had been published. The activist contended that the beating was evidence that the pastor's speech could incite violence, therefore it was a "hate crime."

This month, Judge E.C. Wilson overturned the ruling of the Alberta, Canada Human Rights Commission that had ordered Pastor Boissoin to stop all public criticism of homosexual behavior and to pay $5000 in damages to the plaintiff.

Can that happen here in the United States? Is this a snapshot of our future?

I believe it is.

Having personally experienced the wrath and rage of the homosexual activists and their friends in the media, it is not difficult for me to see this as a very real possibility.

The Christian Post, in reporting this story says, "The case of Boissoin, which had been on going for more than seven years, was used by conservative Christian leaders as an example of what could happen if DC lawmakers passed an expanded hate crimes law."

In October our Congress did indeed pass the expanded "hate crimes" bill, over the strong objections and lobbying of James Dobson, Chuck Colson , Tony Perkins and millions of conservatives and people of faith across the nation who predicted that such a law could lead to actions by "thought police" who consider verbal attacks or speeches to be "hate crimes".

Although these men lost the battle to defeat this bill, some of us believe it was a battle that had to be waged. We thank them.

With the roll out of SB 5688 in Washington State and it's direct impact on the discussion in public school classrooms across the state, we wonder how homosexual activists will use the federally expanded "hate crimes" legislation to silence and punish those who think differently and say so out loud.

Time will tell.

Public education is indeed a petri dish for social experimentation. There is no doubt that some in public education in the state will seize the opportunity provided by SB 5688. They will strategically target our children and grandchildren, psychologically abuse them with biased information regarding sexual orientation and brainwash their thinking, suggesting that homosexual behavior is normal. They will use the passage of SB 5688 as support, in that it normalizes homosexual behavior and rewards adultery for those over 62.

We will continue to stand, God willing, for what we believe is consistent with Judeo-Christian values and against what is not.

Thank you for your support in standing with us.

God bless you.

________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

19 comments:

  1. My pastor's brother lives in the State of Maine and has been leading an effort to stop the legalization of gay marriage there. Very recently, someone threw a rock through his livingroom window; and people are banging on his door at all hours of the night and calling on the phone yelling death threats. Homosexual activists are hostile and will stop at nothing to shut up all voices that disapprove of their sexual licentousness, but nevertheless, God wants His Church to continue speaking the TRUTH in love.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find it amusing that you use an example of a preacher in Canada who was ACQUITTED of a charge that his speech was a hate crime as a warning of what could happen here.

    Even in Canada, where freedom of speech laws are not as strong as here, this preacher was still found NOT guilty of a hate crime. In the US, this case would surely have not even made it as far as it did in Canada. It would have been tossed out right away, as it should be.

    In the US, hate crime laws have been in effect since the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968. Some 45 states have state-level hate crime laws. The laws cover crimes executed against individuals for their religious beliefs, race, disability, and many states covered sexual orientation, too, before the federal expansion in October.

    Despite more than 40 years of hate crime laws, there is not a single case of a conviction in the US of a person speaking out against a protected group – against blacks, Christians, Muslims, gays – nada, nothing. That’s why Gary brings up this old Canada case – there are no other examples of the dangers he predicts.

    And now that this preacher was acquitted, there’s not even this.

    Finally, same-sex marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than 5-1/2 years, and civil unions (like the DP law we have in WA state) have been in effect for almost a decade. Still, there is not a single case of a preacher convicted of any kind of a crime at all for speaking out against homosexuality. Not a single one.

    It’s easy to find people denouncing homosexuality as a perversion or sickening “lifestyle” (in fact, Gary does it here all the time), or Christians as loonies (there are several new books at Barnes & Noble along this theme), or blacks as uneducated criminals… Yet it’s impossible to find any of these spoken words leading to a hate crime conviction.

    If you can find a case, please post it here in the comments… Anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Homosexual activists are hostile and will stop at nothing to shut up all voices that disapprove of their sexual licentousness..."

    Anon 10:12

    I asssume you are interested in being fair and truthful. As you know, homosexuals are routinely targeted with violence and oppression (FNF is a good example of latter). The exact same kinds of behavior here can be cited against homosexuals and homosexual rights supports. However, I would not say that ALL Evangelical activists "are hostile and will stop at nothing to shut up all voices that disapprove...". In the interest of honest and truthfulness before the Lord, I would say that a certain minority of Evangelical, anti-homosexual activists engage in violence, oppression and hostility towards homosexual rights supprters. Likewise, if you are interested in accuracy, it would be more accurate to say that a small percentage of homosexual rights activists engage in such activities.

    What do you think? Are you will to stand up for the truth in Jesus Christ?

    Your friend in truth,
    Patrick

    ReplyDelete
  4. Forget the religious resistance to same sex marriages. Same sex marriages serve no purpose to society, other than to gratify the egocentric desires of those involved in the relationship. For whatever reason homosexuals seem to feel they have something to prove to the heterosexual majority, and unfortunately our educational system does resort to brainwashing our young on this topic. Could someone gay out there please tell me how a gay couple contributes to our societal model?

    ReplyDelete
  5. How does any couple? Answer that and you have your answer. More telling would be you saying what feature a gay couple doesn't 'contribute' when there are already far more straight couples that don't for any criteria you can mention. And since when in a country where all have equal rights is 'contribution' a criteria for those rights anyway?

    (my 'word verification is 'phagy' just FYI)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Re: Could someone gay out there please tell me how a gay couple contributes to our societal model?

    First, I’d like to mention that heterosexual couples are not required to show that their marriage will somehow contribute to society. In fact, any two non-related opposite-sex couples of a legal age can marry, whether they are drunkards, child abusers, in prison, complete strangers, or not even in love. So why apply this rule only to gay couples?

    Of course, you ask this to point out the biggest difference between ALL gay couples and SOME straight couples: Two people of the same sex cannot reproduce together, so how do they “contribute” to society? Well, like many straight families, either only one parent is a biological parent, or both parents are non-biological. Either way, gay people are parents of children just like many straight parents are.

    So why do we allow straight couples who have no children, or who are not both biological parents of their children to marry? Simple: Because there are many additional benefits to society when they marry besides the “hope” they might reproduce. Marriage makes these two responsible for each other. If one cannot repay debts, the state can collect from the other. If one becomes ill, the ill partner can receive care from the other’s health insurance or in-home care. If one loses a job, the other can pick up the slack. If a biological parent dies, the remaining parent assumes responsibility for the non-biological children so they don’t end up in foster care.

    Families who do not have legal protections to care for each other, or devastated families that become a burden on the state or, in extreme cases, become homeless, are not good for our communities. You do pay a price for burdening these families that have, for all intents and purposes, become integrated into our communities and lives. Many of these benefits are available ONLY through marriage.

    A study recently showed that the lifetime “cost” of being gay and denied marriage is more than $400,000! That’s an enormous burden on any family, outside the Hiltons and Rockefellers. Those effects on our families have repercussions in our communities, our schools, and in our families.

    No one believes anti-gay laws will make gay families go away. We’re way past that point. And gay people are not heading back into the closet for lives of loneliness and despair. We are way past that point, too. Given that, why do you insist on prohibiting gay families the protections your family enjoys? In fact, I’ll flip the question: How does it benefit society to deny same-sex families marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "If you can find a case, please post it here in the comments… Anyone?"


    I really do not think there are many examples of hate crimes that have been successfully prosecuted period ? Seems like a hard crime to prosecute because you have to prove motive and not the act itself. Its a feel good liberal law in my opinion , based on a moral view that bashing some ones head for their race is worse then bashing their head for money .



    Its not so far fetched to see with a secular view point of relationships, marriage , morality , that their is a louder and stronger rejection of those principles of life that often come along with a Belief in Christianity in those regions that support those issues. . For example reading and listening to the way political leaders and the media portray those who support say gay marriage in King County is different then in many areas with a more traditional and Spiritual/Christian foundation in their communities.

    It is easy to associate pro gay/ anti Christian . Just as organizations like this can tend to make people appear to be pro God appear anti gay. But to your point , when people claim that supporting traditional marriage laws is equal with slavery and racism how often do homosexual activists speak to that and condemn that comparison ?
    Name one time ?


    Because the homosexual activists themselves Bibical morality is equal with racism , I have never heard saying living together in heterosexual relationships is racism.

    Mick

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mick,

    First you need to provide one example of marriage equality advocates claiming that opposition to marriage equality equals either racism or slavery. Did it never occur to you that no one on the pro-equality side is denouncing these equivalencies because they are only being made as part of the straw man arguments of groups like NOM?

    While I have heard marriage equality referred to as a civil rights issue, that doesn't mean it is being claimed as equal to slavery or racism. If that were true than Gary and his cohorts are claiming releasing the names of R71 signers is equal to slavery and racism and no one I'm the anti marriage equality crowd is condeming them. Don't believe me? Read their arguments in court!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mick, you are wrong. There are literally thousands of hate crimes prosecuted every year across the country. Hate crimes against individuals because of actual or perceived sexual orientation constitute the second most common type of hate crime, second only to race.

    Yet, those who claim hate crimes lead to prosecutions based on speech cannot come up with a single example, despite how long hate crime laws have been around. That's because hate crimes are about CRIMES, and free speech is not a crime.

    So, again, can anyone come up with a case where someone was convicted of a hate crime in the US for speaking out against a group included in the hate crimes law?

    The bit about comparing gay rights to slavery and such is just a change of subject.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It seems to me that lots of crimes are done out of a fit of anger for whatever reason, but then there are the crimes that are the "stick and run" type which were intent on doing evil and not getting caught. Things like throwing rocks through windows and calling in death threats are of these type.

    I was hoping that hate crimes laws will work against the very thing they were designed to promote, but if they use the "stick and run" tactics, maybe it won't happen.

    Crazy times we live in. If abortion becomes health care, what does a baby become....a disease?

    I suppose only if it's not wanted.

    If lawmakers legislate without any standard what becomes of a nation? What can it produce except
    corruption of all sorts?

    Maybe I should rejoice because the world's systems are falling.
    They're falling to pieces are they not?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Mick, you are wrong. There are literally thousands of hate crimes prosecuted every year across the country. "

    Really , I did not know that . You would think you would hear more about it ? I hear the debate ,I understand the concern , but not the actual prosecutions . About 20 years ago we had a cross burning on a lawn of a White and African American couple in my county , Kitsap , but other then that . no hate crimes . I am sure crimes originate from this hatred .

    Perhaps you could provide some way of showing me this . The links I tried to learn by from google did not provide much .

    Mick

    ReplyDelete
  12. So, again, can anyone come up with a case where someone was convicted of a hate crime in the US for speaking out against a group included in the hate crimes law?


    Morris Deees , Poverty Law Center . Prosecuted a White Supramicist Organization in Portland for his hate literature saying it caused the death of a black man .

    ReplyDelete
  13. In Washington state, 104 people who reported hate crimes in 2007 were targeted because of their race; 17 were targeted because of religion; 39 were targeted because of their sexual orientation; 34 because of their ethnicity; and one person was targeted because of a disability

    This is all I found in this state. I will qualify my comments saying this is reported and not prosecuted or proven . I assume the number is disingenuous because the actually crimes could be much larger because often crimes go unreported, But at the same time the number of actual prosecutions is way lower . I can't recall ever reading about any cases that actually went to trial , a few that caused national attention , but they were few also.


    At the same time it could be perceived bigotry and not really hate crimes.


    But again as in the case of Morris dees proving the white supremacist CAUSED others to commit hate crimes because of their literature and comparing those who say stood up for traditional marriage with those who supported segregation and such is what the concern is about . Not too far from saying white supracimist caused hate crimes then it is a Preacher who is preaching from the pulpit in regards to sexual sin . How often do you hear a link between between the church stand against homosexuality and their stand against slavery or other issues that churches in the south at one time supported . To say you have not heard about this makes me wonder if your being truthful or just sheletered ? I hear it all the time , its a conversation stopper.


    To say abstinence till marriage is equal to racism is of course ridiculous, but saying marriage is between a man and a woman is often compared to racism. I would agree that bigotry is part of the issue in regards to how people speak about homosexuals , or even treat them .

    Its not too much of a leap to see that when our culture accepts marriage for all sexualities , that there will be a strong gap in world views and what is considered hatred and not .

    Abortion to some is just a medical procedure , its called basic womens health , and to be pro life is also taken to be that you are AGAINST womens health care or womens rights . You appear to be arguing a point that was used effectively by the far left to gain political consenus and now saying it is not something to be of concern to people who happen to believe sex outside of marriage is just morally wrong . The left wins politically with a tactic that will for ever divide and hamper our mutual goals of treating people with respect . If respect is important to you I can not see why this is so hard to see. Murray wrote an editorial recently where he brought this subject up , but is was only targeted to blacks because of their Evangelical traditions that are prominent in the Black Community . I found it interesting you had to be a person of color to be respected by Murray for your morality and traditional religious beliefs. .

    ReplyDelete
  14. 2:34 AM,

    Bzzzt, incorrect answer!

    Tom Metzger and his group, "White Aryan Resistance" were tried in CIVIL COURT by Dees and the SPLC, there was no hate crimes conviction or any other criminal conviction, save that of the thugs, who did the actual beating. The jury decided that a $12.7 judgement against WAR was appropriate, effectively shutting down that incarnation of his hate group. But again, there was no hate crime conviction for speech, so try again.

    I'd post links proving all this, but educating people with facts seems to be against FFN policy, so you'll have to google "Morris Dees Tom Metzger" to educate yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Maybe I should rejoice because the world's systems are falling.
    They're falling to pieces are they not?"

    Sometimes i think we Evangelical Christians are too prone to the world is falling apart syndome . The Bible Study I just finished had a good coversation about this . Consider all the ways our lives have improved , 30 years ago you had to be wealthy to have a cell phone , ahomeless person I was getting to know called me on one last week .
    Tvs in every house have grown to computers almost in everyhouse , or at least accessible by the library. Even our poor 100 years ago would be considered wealthy with all the things they have available to them now. Heat piped into our homes by wires , etc.

    God continues to bless us, perhaps yes we are not thank full enough to Him as a nation , but I believe Evangelicals should realize we are still be blessed and perhaps try not to let our bunker down mentalities that somewhow have taken root in our Christian Culture to stop us from reaching out with smiles on our faces , and share the Hope in our hearts .

    Did not mean this as a sermon , I am guilty of this, thought I should share it .

    Merry christmas to all !

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Morris Dees example of the Southern Poverty Law Center is not an example of someone being convicted of a hate crime.

    The Portland man was sued in CIVIL court and was found liable to the tune of $12.5 million dollars by a jury of his peers.

    No one has ever been found guilty of a hate crime for exercising freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 234

    So lets get this right , you are defending the example I gave as an example you are right ? I said Morris Dees was convicted of causing ANOTHER person to commit a hate crime .

    A person spewing speech was taken to court convicted of being responsible for the death in a civil lawsuit in the 1988 murder of Mulugeta Seraw. For some of those who may forget , metzkers kid was on Realdo show when a fight broke out on TV and he got his nose broke .

    You are really missing the point, a persdon was blamed for spewing hate and found guilty in a court for causing a hate crime . He did not commit it no , his speech caused it to happen was the verdict .

    The concern is that the same could be said for a preacher quoting scripture and people using that in court to prosecute a church . Especially when people link sex out of marriage to racism.

    If you go to gay activist sights they promote taking churches to court now that are politically active , of course not Uniterians . ;0)

    So i repeat if you want to be splitting hairs you said hate words leading to a hate crime conviction. I would think ina n normal conversation someone would see the point . Unless your not concerned about a conversation. I don't feel too much remorse for Metzket loosing everything , but somewhat concerned how he was taken down .



    Mick

    ReplyDelete
  18. Matt

    Can you show me a conviction of a hate crime where words of hatred were not used to show the person was commiting the act because of a prejudice . What you are saying is illogical , if a person kills a Black Man because he is robbing him , its not a hate crime , but if he kills him because of a bigotry it is . Using the words a person uses is one form of proof that he hates black ,.

    Hate Crimes have Flaws in them . One of them is that you are proving a motive. You can be mad because I made a point you were unable to rebuke , now if you insulted me in the next conversation we had I could not prove it was because I proved you wrong or that I was a Christian .
    If say you beat me up , I would use as proof that you hated Christians , thus using some of the rhetoric said about Christians if there were any.

    If you had no bigoted comments about Christians , I would not be able to get a conviction on the hate crime , but just the beating part .

    Enough said , others have read what we stated .

    And the point is if a gay person is beat up because they are gay , they should be prosecuted because its as pathetic in my opinion for beating them up for robbing . Both are immoral, and for a human being to state which one is worse morally is somethign I do not believe humans have the capacity to decide . But obviously from our conversation , it is easy to see how different our morality has allowed to disect each others words to make us think we were right . I don't think courts should have that ability to use our own prejudices to decide a persons motive , especially when those motives could be compartmentalized, say perhaps the robbery was based thinking the person was weaker because they were a religious person from a persons perspective that all religious people were weak and cowards.

    Mick

    ReplyDelete
  19. More decisions based on hate crimes because of speech.


    View Decision
    ADL Urges Court To Uphold New York Hate Crimes Act
    ADL Welcomes Decision Upholding New York Hate Crimes Act


    Virginia v. Black (2003): The question at issue in this case is Virginia's cross burning law. The statute outlaws the use of a burning cross as a means of threatening another person, but not for other purposes. ADL argues that a cross burning statute does not run afoul of the First Amendment if it punishes only criminal behavior such as intimidation and that the government has the clear power to outlaw serious threats of violence as criminal conduct is not immune from punishment merely because it is disguised as expressive activity.

    View Supreme Court Decision
    ADL to Supreme Court: 'Cross Burning Statute Does Not Run Afoul of The First Amendment'
    ADL Welcomes Supreme Court Decision Upholding Virginia State Ban on Cross Burning

    R.A.V. v. St. Paul (505 U.S. 377 (1992)) This case concerned a local bias-motivated criminal ordinance which prohibited the display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender." A local teenager was charged under this ordinance after allegedly burning a cross on a black family's lawn. ADL's brief argued that the ordinance was constitutional. The brief stated that punishing hate crimes advances clear and compelling public policy and that a municipality may properly prohibit cross burning when that act constitutes a bias-motivated personal attack. Further, ADL asserted that the ordinance prohibited only conduct which constituted fighting words or which incited imminent lawless action. As so construed, the ordinance was neither overbroad nor vague. The Court, however, held in a 9-0 opinion that the ordinance was overly broad and impermissibly content-based in violation of the Free Speech Clause. PDF 174 kb

    View Decision

    State of Wisconsin v. Mitchell (508 U.S. 476 (1993)): The question at issue in this case was whether or not hate crime legislation, which authorizes increased penalties for bias-motivated crimes, violates the First Amendment. In its brief, ADL successfully maintained that these laws do not impermissibly penalize thought or speech, but rather punish a particularly egregious and socially unconscionable type of conduct.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.