Lemon of a Law
The New Thought Police
by Curt Wikstrom
Among the
more serious threats to our liberty are those new laws that permit our notions
of decency to be called “hateful” thoughts. For example, those who believe
homosexual behavior to be “sinful” are to be subject to disciplinary action and
sensitivity training in California schools. The insidious aspect of these
new laws is that while they do include behaviors which do need to be kept in
check, they also are intended to punish people for their beliefs and for
speaking honestly about their beliefs, or defending their point of view.
Another insidious aspect of these laws
is that they elevate behavior that should be handled on a personal basis as
ethical training within the school into a criminal reporting system. This level
of intimidation is unprecedented in America. In the name of tolerance, those
who promote and pass these laws are fostering the worst form of intolerance.
Most of us learn to grow up and settle
most socializing issues with our peers. Give and take between individuals is
necessary for people to grow up and learn to live with others. To the extent
these laws extend the heavy hand of the oppressive bureaucracy into this aspect
of our lives, they are also wrong. Local adult authorities can no longer
interact with the student peer culture in a responsible manner when they are
converted into the thought police of the state and the homosexual political
movement.
Real tolerance requires that we permit
others to use words that they feel necessary to express themselves. We need to
try to interpret others as they truly intend, not as we allow ourselves to be
offended. That is the only way others can be free to speak their minds
honestly, and the only way we can retain our freedom as well. The philosophy of
others often challenges or questions ours, or even condemns ours. I am sure
that slave owners were furious at the condemnation of those who advocated the
abolition of slavery. They would have called talk of abolition hate speech.
People should not be penalized for “telling it like it is”, or for pointing out
the errors or hypocrisy of the thought police. Those who are unethical
themselves are always offended when they are challenged.
We need to listen to others and debate them,
not punish them for thinking differently, or using words differently. Just as
we are free to disagree with various religious doctrines, we must also be free
to disagree with the unhealthy and unnatural practices of homosexuals.
It is also a mistake to establish
“hate crimes”. We punish people in this country for what they do wrong, not for
what they think wrong. Would it be right to punish someone more who hurts us
slightly but “hates” us, while punishing someone less who kills us but does not
“hate” us. And what is going to be considered “hate”, disagreeing with us,
disliking us, being repelled by us? Should we punish someone more if he is
repelled by us when he robs us of $10 than we would punish someone who really
likes us when he robs us of $10,000? Should hurting an ugly, obnoxious,
aggressive, mean (hateable) homosexual have a higher penalty than hurting a
sweet, innocent child? The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to our
Constitution were meant to protect us from a government that would punish us
because it didn’t like us or how we thought. Hopefully our Supreme Court will
strike down these hate speech laws and hate crimes laws for the evil that they
are.