Legal Issues

Sotomayor attacked from the abortion left

President Obama has chosen his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, to replace David Souter. As expected she’s very liberal and she’s not a pro-lifer by any means. But then we couldn’t have expected anything else from the most pro-abortion president ever, and anyway she’s replacing another liberal member of the court and so the conservative-liberal balance remains.

So, it’s interesting to see the abortion-related criticism against Sotomayor coming from’pro-abortion groups. It’s not that she’s too pro-life, there’s certainly no evidence of that. No, it’s that she’s not quite rabidly pro-abortion enough.

In a 2002 case, she wrote an opinion upholding the Bush administration policy of withholding aid from international groups that provide or promote abortion services overseas.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position,” she wrote, “and can do so with public funds.”

In a 2004 case, she largely sided with some anti-abortion protesters who wanted to sue some police officers for allegedly violating their constitutional rights by using excessive force to break up demonstrations at an abortion clinic. Judge Sotomayor said the protesters deserved a day in court.

Judge Sotomayor has also ruled on several immigration cases involving people fighting deportation orders to China on the grounds that its population-control policy of forcible abortions and birth control constituted persecution.

In a 2007 case, she strongly criticized colleagues on the court who said that only women, and not their husbands, could seek asylum based on China’s abortion policy. “The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child,” she wrote, also taking note of “the unique biological nature of pregnancy and special reverence every civilization has accorded to child-rearing and parenthood in marriage.”

And in a 2008 case, she wrote an opinion vacating a deportation order for a woman who had worked in an abortion clinic in China. Although Judge Sotomayor’s decision turned on a technicality, her opinion described in detail the woman’s account of how she would be persecuted in China because she had once permitted the escape of a woman who was seven months pregnant and scheduled for a forced abortion. In China, to allow such an escape was a crime, the woman said.

In my quick read of these summaries I see only a judge abiding by the law, who doesn’t undermine it just because she might not like the pro-lifers’ position. Did these radical abortion groups want her to rule against the pro-lifers who thought police used excessive force, to deny them their day in court simply because she doesn’t like their politics? I suppose it’s some small— very small—measure of comfort that she’s not one of those judges who rules on a whim. (What does it say for our society that we have such low expectations for our jurists?) Was she supposed to deport the Chinese woman to a country that would subject her to a forced abortion?

I say this reveals a lot about those who support so-called abortion rights in this country, that these groups don’t really care about women having a choice, but that they view pregnancy and childbirth as evil by default.

Meanwhile, the White House, instead of telling the bloodthirsty mob of Moloch-worshippers to back off, has tried to placate them with assurances of Sotomayor’s reliable vote on any abortion-related case that would come before the Court.

But White House officials appeared eager to send a message that abortion rights groups do not need to worry about how she might rule in a challenge to Roe v. Wade.

“He did not specifically ask, as we’ve stated for the past several days,” Gibbs said. “But as I just said, I think he feels — I know he feels — comfortable, generally, with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his.”

Win one for the blood-red horde.

Photo credit: Official White House photo.

Boston College Police to Mac, Linux users: We’re watching you

Linux and Mac-using students at Boston College should watch out. Apparently, using those two operating systems—which have command-line prompts and are not the “regular B.C. operating system”—is a sign of criminal intent. That’s what we’re to believe after Boston College Campus Police seized a student’s laptop computer and other electronic gear in a hunt for the person who identified another student as gay on a mailing list, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The warrant used for the seizure of the student’s possessions says the police are seeking evidence of the crimes of “Obtaining computer services by Fraud or Misrepresentation” and “Unauthorized access to a computer system.” And yet, according to the EFF, the cited behavior in the warrant application is laughably broad and contains no specific allegations that would constitute criminal behavior.

There are no assertions that a commercial (i.e. for pay) commercial service was defrauded, a necessary element of any “Obtaining computer services by Fraud or Misrepresentation” allegation. Similarly, the investigating officer doesn’t explain how sending an e-mail to a campus mailing list might constitute “unauthorized access to a computer system.”

Of course, we might surmise that the real crime here is the outing of a student as gay, a politically incorrect move to be sure no matter whether the student was actually gay, although an article in the campus newspaper BC Heights leads one to believe that this is a standard case of two roommates who just didn’t get along, each one determined to make life hell for the other. If you’ve ever lived in college with a random stranger, you probably know what that’s like.

Yet, the greater issue is the equation of Mac or Linux use or the use of a bash shell with potential criminal behavior. Looks like someone at the BC police, the Mass. State Police, and the Middlesex DA need to get a little more familiar with the wide world of computing. And Mac users, Linux users, and all computer science majors at BC need to watch out!

Photo credit: Flickr.com user 96dpi. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Let the wine flow

A federal judge has ruled that a Massachusetts law banning almost all direct sales by out-of-state wineries to in-state consumers is unconstitutional. (Warning: PDF link)

This is great news for everyone except the big alcohol wholesalers who got exclusive government-mandated rights essentially to impose a tax on wine sales. What this means is that we will soon be able to buy those local wines from smaller wineries throughout the country. My first purchase will be some Bettinelli Vineyards wine, I think.

Then I wouldn’t stay ticked at my fellow residents for voting down beer and wine sales at supermarkets and convenience stores. At least ticked so much.

Photo credit: Flickr user Joe Pitz. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Can you copyright a recipe?

Can one copyright a recipe? You might be surprised to learn that you cannot. Then again, since recipes have been freely traded for ages, you might not be surprised.

The key is to look at the components of a recipe. In the 1996 decision Publications Intl. v. Meredith, the Supreme Court ruled that the a listing of ingredients and their quantity is a statement of facts and one of the most basic principles of copyright is that you can’t copyright a fact. If I write that the sky is blue, I can’t copyright that fact such that everyone else would have to get my permission to say that the sky is blue. Likewise, even though there are many variations on the recipe, you can’t copyright the fact that a particular recipe for, say, enchiladas, contains 1 pound of cooked, diced chicken.

As for the directions, that’s even more clearly not copyrightable. Because the recipe directions are either a “procedure, process, [or] system,” they can’t be copyright either, although unique systems can be patented. Of course, the patent process is long and expensive and it’s unlikely anyone will bother to file a patent for the instructions on how to make Grandma’s Chicken Soup.

What that leaves are the chef’s notes, illustrative description, photos and illustrations, and the layout of the cookbook. For example, you could take every recipe in Mario Batali’s latest cookbook and copy them onto a web site, leaving behind the introduction, the photos, and his notes on the preparation of the dish. That may not be ethical, but it’s probably legal.

But rather than steal someone else’s hard work, the spirit of the recipe exchange is that we all share good food. There is something about food and cooking and eating together that is essential to man’s communal nature. It’s why one of the symbolic meanings of the Mass is that of a ritual meal. So, yes, apart from all the legal and technical reasons why we don’t copyright recipes, there’s also the ineffable reason as well, the one that tells us that sharing good food made with love is essential to the human experience.

Child tax credit?

I was filling out a W-4 form at work the other day—seeing as we have another tax deduction now—and I noticed a section entitled Child Tax Credit. Apparently, we fall within the criteria which would nearly double the number of exemptions for which we qualify.

However, I did not take the extra exemptions because I was afraid of taking too many. So what’s the deal? What is this Child Tax Credit?

Are there any tax professionals in the audience who can explain it in layman’s terms? Of course, I would abide by the proviso that it would be purely for information purposes only, that I would not hold you liable for subsequent actions I take, and that I will consult a tax professional in my pay before taking any action. Just to satisfy the lawyers, like.

That said, can someone translate?

Into the (abortion) danger zone

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley—to absolutely no one’s surprise—has declared that wider restrictions of the free speech of pro-lifers in Massachusetts are not, in fact, restrictions on their free speech. Her brief in response to a lawsuit by pro-lifers makes the same argument she made before the Legislature last year when she backed the law that expanded abortion clinic buffer zones from 18 feet to 35 feet.

What the abortion clinics and their pet politicians want is to use the coercive power of the legislature and courts to silence an inconvenient opposition

(The buffer zones prevent pro-lifers from approaching or talking to anyone with that distance from an abortion clinic’s entrance or a 6-foot floating buffer around people going in or out of a clinic. How you’re supposed to guess the intention of someone walking down the sidewalk in the general direction of the clinic is beyond me.)

Of course, Coakley is trying to feed us baloney and tell us it’s prime rib.

The “act does not ban any expressive activity, but instead ‘merely regulates the places where communications may occur’ during clinic business hours,” Coakley wrote in the brief.

Typical political doublespeak. So-called “expressive activity” is being banned within a particular place. And, yes, that’s permissible under the Constitution. No one has the right to say anything at any time. Yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre is the standard analogy. But let’s not beat around the bush here.

The “suggestion that under the act ‘leafleting and solicitation [are] completely banned from public places’ is incorrect,” the brief said. “… Plaintiffs, and everyone else, may continue to hold signs, pray, sing, chant, leaflet, converse, and engage in any other kind of lawful speech so long as they do so from outside any buffer zone.”

I haven’t seen the original complaint she’s quoting, but this is disingenuous too. At how many feet of buffer zone does our free speech become effectively nullified? 35 feet? 50 feet? 10,000 feet? What if the whole state of Massachusetts were one, big buffer zone? We’d still be allowed to hold signs, prayer, etc., as long as it’s not within the boundaries of the state. Free speech!

If we’re pushed beyond the limits of the human voice (or eye, in the case of signs) such that we can no longer effectively communicate our freedom of speech has become irrelevant.

The question should be: What is harassing about a sign or a prayer or a conversation or any kind of lawful speech.

Speech should be restricted only for a very compelling public safety and order issue. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre puts lives at risk because it can cause a panic. Making a false police report puts police and the public in danger as they search for a non-existent criminal. Using “fighting words” puts people in danger because it cold cause violence.

How does a Hail Mary endanger a life? How does a level-headed request for a conversation with a woman about to abort her child risk public order?

If inconvenience and undesirability were to be the guidelines, I’d like them to pass laws against aggressive panhandlers and petition holders and people canvassing for politicians with whom I disagree and so on. But part of living in a free, democratic society is putting up with speech we dislike, disdain, or disagree with.

What the abortion clinics and their pet politicians want is to use the coercive power of the legislature and courts to silence an inconvenient opposition whose success is success at saving lives—and siphoning coins from their coffers—depends on being able to warn these mothers of the truth of what they contemplate.

If they have to ravage the Constitution to accomplish this goal, so be it.

Dad walking baby and praying threatened with arrest

As I type this now, I still find it hard to believe. But then I’ve been to pro-life demonstrations before and have seen with my own eyes that the laws of our nation can be suspended when pro-lifers (and marriage defenders) are involved. Check out this video.

This dad was walking on a public sidewalk with his infant daughter asleep in the stroller and because he took out a book to pray to himself, he was stopped by police, questioned (including about the content of his prayer!) and then told that he had to stop or be arrested.

It should be noted that this occurred in Aurora, Illinois, the location of a very contentious public dispute over a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. This gentleman and his wife have been among the demonstrators outside the clinic, although on this day, the dad was not part of the demonstration outside the area of the protest, and the mom was simply praying and looking for an opportunity to talk to any woman who might be considering an abortion.

I have to admit that the dad handled the situation with more aplomb and calm than I might have. And, I do understand that there are circumstances in which constitutional rights can be ... is “held in abeyance” the right phrase? ... for the sake of public order and safety. But watch the video and tell me that this is the case. Then go to this post at the Catholic Dads blog and read the background material. And then tell me that this isn’t a travesty and trampling of the Constitution.

Police send prisoner to hospital unaccompanied and he walks away

It seems that if you are arrested by Boston Police but tell them that you feel ill, they’ll send you to the hospital unaccompanied by police, where you can then walk away with ease.

Isn’t the “sick prisoner” schtick the oldest trick in the book?

On Saturday, the victim called police and reported seeing Aponte in the South End on Berkeley street. Officers apprehended the suspect and took him to the South End district station for booking, police said.

Between 2 and 4 a.m. Sunday, Aponte complained he was feeling ill, and police called an ambulance. He was taken to New England Medical Center.

“We believe at that point, he must have walked out,” Driscoll said.

Department rules allow duty supervisors to determine whether a prisoner can go to the hospital unaccompanied, but such allowances normally are not made for prisoners charged with serious and violent crimes.

Even better, the police didn’t alert the community until the Boston Globe inquired about the matter on Tuesday. This guy was charged with assault with intent to rape, indecent assault and battery, and assault and battery. He was recaptured this morning.

Someone’s about to … well, probably get a brief suspension with a reprimand and early retirement or something.

Professional courtesy or special treatment?

I got this link to a site where various law enforcement officers complain when others in their profession don’t extend “professional courtesy” to them or their family and friends, which apparently means that they think that they shouldn’t be issued tickets or citations for breaking the same laws that would get civilians cited.

There are dozens of stories listed, plus a “d**k of the month” award for the “most egregious” offenders. I would hope that most cops would be appalled at such disrespect for brother LEOs just doing their jobs.

What’s especially ironic is that on a page on the site entitled “What cops want you to know” is this piece of advice to the general public: “Here’s how to get out of a ticket. don’t break the law.” Seems like excellent advice for the cops too.

Police do a difficult job under difficult circumstances, which is why they are compensated pretty well in general. (Look at the lists of top-paid public employees in your town, city, or state, and cops will be well-represented.) We should accord them the respect and honor they deserve.

But that doesn’t put them above the law or entitle them to special treatment under the law. I can’t think of anything more corrosive to a democratic republic than arbitrary special treatment for a protected class.

If I get stopped going 75 in a 50, the officer stopping me can give me a warning or a ticket. That’s his discretion. If he stops an off-duty cop or a family member doing the same thing, he should use that same discretion. It should not just be an automatic warning or a turning of a blind eye. That’s not right.

Mass. court rules archdiocese can close parish

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that it can’t interfere in parish closings by the Archdiocese of Boston because of First Amendment restrictions. The ruling was in response to a lawsuit brought by parishioners from St. James the Great Parish in Wellesley.

The challengers said the land had been donated by a family and subsequent donations were made to renovate to the archdiocese on the condition that a church would always be located on the land.

The court wrote in its decision that “the claims in this case raise matters of internal church governance that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids us to consider.”

The court said it can get involved in some property disputes between churchgoers and church leaders, but this case did meet the standard.

“Among the religious controversies off limits to our courts are promises by members of the clergy to keep a church open,” the court wrote.

Attorneys for the archdiocese wrote in their legal brief that the transfer of the property to the archdiocese was in a charitable trust, to use the property as a church for the benefit of the public and for the advancement of religion.

They argued that only the state Attorney General has legal standing to file lawsuits over alleged breaches of trust by a charity.

Technorati Tags: Catholic | Boston | parish closing | court | lawsuit |

Court says victims can sue formators

A Washington state appeals court has ruled that victims can sue the religious order that trained the priests who abused them. In this case, it was the Sulpicians who operated the now-closed seminary outside Seattle who are under the gun.

The crux of the lawsuit is that those charged with forming the seminarians should not have advanced them for ordination if they allegedly knew they were likely to abuse.

At the seminary, each student was assigned a “spiritual director,” a priest who oversaw the student’s development and acted as a confessor, court documents said.

O’Donnell has testified in depositions that he was open with his spiritual director about his interest in sexual contact with children and his struggle with his sexual orientation, the opinion said.

Lawyers for the seminary contended the spiritual director, identified in documents only as Father Basso, could not have shared with others what O’Donnell told him in confession. Thus there is no proof that seminary directors knew O’Donnell was a pedophile, they argued.

O’Donnell served as a priest from 1971 until 1985. At least 65 boys have accused him of abusing them, court records showed.

Are all meetings between the spiritual director and his charge covered under the sacrament of confession and its seal? Maybe some priests or seminarians can clarify, but my understanding is that they are not. In fact, I seem to recall that other court cases have determined that they are not all covered, but only those which are actual confessions. Correct me if I’m wrong.

On the other side, this is an interesting legal tactic, i.e. holding the formators responsible. I wonder how far the various lawyers will take this. After all, didn’t the several treatment centers to which the perverts were sent clear many of them for return to ministry, only to have them abuse again and again? It seems this might open the door to lawsuits against St. Luke’s in Maryland and the Servants of the Paraclete in New Mexico and others like them. Wouldn’t those trials and depositions be interesting? I think we’re not done with the purge yet.

Technorati Tags: Catholic | sex abuse | scandal | lawsuits |

The infallibility of Massachusetts’ highest court

Harry Forbes noted some additional information about Mass. Attorney-General Martha Coakley’s recent public comments that, even if passed, a constitutional amendment to protect marriage would unconstitutional. He found an Associated Press story that filled in some blanks that the Boston Globe story left unfilled. Here’s what he quoted from the story with his emphasis added in bold:

Coakley said that even though the Supreme Judicial Court ruled last July that the proposed amendment could be placed on the ballot if approved by the Legislature, at least two justices also questioned whether the amendment is constitutional.

She quoted a joint court opinion by Justices John Greaney and Roderick Ireland saying the 2003 SJC decision that legalized same-sex marriage “may be irreversible because of its holding that no rational basis exist, or can be advanced, to support the definition of marriage” as only between a man and a woman. The opinion also noted that the amendment would discriminate against same-sex couples by removing rights they already had been granted.

In other words, no matter what the people say or how the constitution is amended there can be no basis for denying that marriage can exist between two men or two women because the Supreme Judicial Court justices say so. This is not law by consent of the governed, but law as handed down from above by an oligarchy.

Sola constitutionalia and judicial infallibility

Technorati Tags: Massachusetts | same-sex marriage | constitution | Supreme Judicial Court | judges |

Continue reading...

Spokane parishes asked to pay for settlements

How much worse can it get? The Diocese of Spokane is asking parishes to raise $10 million toward legal settlements for clergy sex-abuse. That’s got to be a tough sell.

The diocese declared bankruptcy because of the lawsuits and now must pay $48 million to victims in 177 claims of abuse. Now $10 million falls on the the 95,000 parishioners and 82 parishes. That’s $105 per person or $121,951 per parish on average. That’s over and above what the diocese itself has to raise. The diocese needs to come up with $6 million; independent Catholic agencies like Catholic Charities and children’s homes need to give another $6.5 million. Insurance will cover the rest.

Think of all the corporal works of mercy that could be accomplished with that money, the children that could be served, the poor that could be helped. Think of all the capital improvements that could be made in parishes, the ministries that won’t happen.

Some parishioners are angry at Skylstad for taking the diocese into bankruptcy, while others balk at paying bankruptcy lawyer fees. Still others question why they should pay for priests who molested children decades ago in other parishes, Borchardt said. The pastor has evoked the parable of the good Samaritan, who stopped to help a man who had been beaten and robbed as others looked the other way.

If the Devil were looking for a way to seriously undermine the work of the Church in the world, he couldn’t have found a better way. In one fell swoop, he undermines the confidence in the priesthood and bishops and then strips parishes and charitable agencies of badly needed funds to do the good work of worshipping the Lord, forming the people in faith, and carrying out the corporal works of mercy.

It truly is the butcher’s bill.

Technorati Tags: Catholic | Spokane | sex-abuse | lawsuits | settlements |

Katrina-hit parish sues bishop over rebuilding church

Speaking of closing parishes, they’re dealing with this on a massive scale on the Gulf Coast. A parish in Pass Christian, Mississippi, is suing the diocese because it won’t rebuild their church. But the implications are more wide-reaching, raising questions of the balance between clericalism and congregationalism.

Bishop Thomas Rodi of Biloxi, Mississippi, had decided to merge St. Paul Parish with Holy Family Parish after St. Paul’s—which was located on the beach—had been destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. About 150 parishioners have sued Rodi and the pastor of Holy Family, claiming that the property was deeded to the congregation, not the diocese, and that the diocese was only holding it in trust for the congregation.

This is not how the Church organizes parishes. Dioceses do not hold property in trust in that fashion and would not accept the sale or donation of property to the congregation itself and not the diocese. For one thing, the congregation does not exist independent of the diocese or bishop, that is a parish can only exist as part of a diocese or under the authority of a bishop.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs claims that the lawsuit is not about getting the parish rebuilt in the same location, but only about demanding an accounting for the assets of St. Paul’s. If that’s the case, then that’s their right under both civil law and canon law. Under canon law, a parish’s property belongs to it and cannot simply be appropriated by a bishop for his own use. He must account for it. If the parish is merged with another parish, then the closed parish’s property goes to the new parish. If a parish is suppressed, then it’s assets would go to the diocese, but they must follow proper procedure.

Bishop Rodi responded to the lawsuit with a public statement published in the diocesan newspaper and the local newspaper. In it he outlines the background of the situation, including the fact that there were originally three parishes in the town, one of them staffed by a religious order. But after the hurricane, the order decided to pull out of the parish. That left the diocese with a decision to consolidate the two parishes. At first they were going to maintain two locations, but then they changed their minds, saying that both financial and spiritual considerations led them to decide to rebuild only one.

The bottom line of the lawsuit is that it is an attempt to have the courts order the Catholic Church to have a church building at a specific place. If this lawsuit would be successful, it would mean, in effect, that the courts would tell the Catholic Church where God must be worshipped, where Mass and the other sacraments must be celebrated, and how the Catholic Church must use the financial resources of Holy Family Parish. This lawsuit attacks both the unity and liberty of the Church.

[…]

Any pastor desires to create unity in his parish and the pastor of Holy Family Parish reached the conclusion that having two churches would tend to have parishioners identify with one church building or the other rather than identify as one Holy Family Parish. One church building would also allow for a combining and strengthening of parish ministries, especially those associated with the celebration of the Eucharist, which have been weakened by the loss of so many parishioners. At present only about 700 individuals (not 700 families) attend Mass at Holy Family Parish.

[…]

This deeply saddens me since this lawsuit is not in keeping with our understanding of the fundamental nature of the Catholic Church. We are a church, not independent congregations. In faith, worship, and practice, we are in union with the successor of Saint Peter, the Pope. The Pope appoints the bishop of each diocese to serve as shepherd of the diocese. The bishop in turn appoints pastors to serve as shepherds for the parishes. The pastor is to minister for and with his parishioners. In making decisions affecting the good of the parish, he is to carefully consider the advice of the parishioners, especially his advisory committees, but the final decision is his as pastor.

I’m left with a couple of questions: The plaintiffs’ lawyer says they only want an accounting for the assets of the parish, while the bishop says that the lawsuit wants to tell the diocese where to build its churches. They can’t both be telling the truth. What does the lawsuit actually say?

Second, the tension between clericalism and congregationalism in the Church is one of the most contentious today, exacerbated by the Scandal and the perception of “a pray, pay, obey and ignore the pervert in the corner” mentality on the one hand and a “we are the church”, “it’s my parish”, “I don’t like that doctrine” mentality on the other. Finding the correct balance is one of the challenges we have to deal with.

Technorati Tags: Catholic | bishop | parish | Katrina | Pass Christian | lawsuit |

Hate crime bill vote on National Prayer Day

The Democrat-controlled Congress has scheduled a vote on a “hate crimes” bill today, the same day as the National Prayer Day, which has angered some Christian groups. What does one have to do with the other? It would help to understand that the “hate crime” bill is actually a sort “special rights” bill for homosexuals and other politically correct groups, making crimes against them worse than the same crimes against others.

Many Christian groups object to the hate crime bill because they see it as another step toward criminalizing religious speech that is “intolerant” of gays and because it will further force homosexuality into the mainstream of society.

Conservative Christian activists worry that the measure would give individuals who engage in homosexual behavior (“sexual orientation”) or cross dressers (“gender identity”) preferential treatment over other citizens by elevating them to a specially protected class.

“This so-called hate crimes bill begins to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners and anyone else whose actions are based upon - and reflect - the truths found in the Bible,” Sheldon said.

Other conservative Christians are using the occasion to remind everyone that homosexual victims of crimes already receive special treatment compared to those who are victims of “hate” crimes, as so-defined, by homosexuals.

Justice should be blind,” CWA President Wendy Wright said in a news release. She said the assailants of Matthew Shepard - a homosexual youth who was killed in 1998 - should receive the same sentence as the killer of Mary Stachowicz, “a grandmother who was brutally murdered by a homosexual man [in Chicago in 2002].”

Stachowicz was murdered by her co-worker Nicholas Gutierrez, a 19-year-old homosexual, who went off the deep end when she told him to stop having sex with other men. For her temerity, he punched and kicked and stabbed her until he got tired and then suffocated her with a garbage bag. Stachowicz had a conversation with her killer as she came home from Mass and for that she was murdered. Gutierrez was not prosecuted for a hate crime even though he killed Stachowicz for her beliefs.

There are two problems with “hate” crimes prosecution. First, you’re prosecuting someone based on what you think he thought. And why should that be worse if he thought one thing and not another? Is not the victim still dead? Of course, we opened the door on this years ago with other “special circumstances” laws.

The other problem is that, as we see, the laws are rarely applied evenhandedly. The intent is to create a legal basis on which we can say that certain politically correct groups deserve special rights. If you want to see where this is going, look at Canada’s Human Rights Tribunals, which strip Christians of their rights and grant them to protected classes.

Technorati Tags: politics | hate crime | Congress | homosexuality | National Day of Prayer | religious freedom |