|
Anyone who thinks hate crime laws are a good idea here in the U.S. should take careful note of their impact in other countries, where no First Amendment exists to safeguard freedoms of speech and religion.
Incidents in four Western nations—Sweden, Australia, Britain, and Canada—send a chilling warning to Americans. They clearly show how hate crime laws are colliding with liberty and religious freedom.
Horrors Beyond Our Borders
Burdened with “deep sorrow” over how homosexuality had “engulfed our society,” Ake Green knew he had to speak out. It did not matter to him that the penalty under Swedish law for expressions of disrespect toward homosexuals is up to four years in prison.
He told his small congregation in Borgholm, Sweden, in 2003 that homosexuality is “a deep cancerous tumor in the entire society” and “an evil force.” He also offered “abundant grace,” to those “who live under the slavery of sexual immorality.”
A prosecutor read Green’s sermon in a local newspaper and charged Green with disrespect toward homosexuals. “One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals,” prosecutor Kjell Yngvesson said. “Collecting Bible citations on this topic as he (Green) does makes this hate speech.”
A district court agreed and sentenced Green in 2004 to one month in prison.
Preachers "As Criminals"
“I am not a criminal,” Green said at the time. “I don't feel like a criminal, but this new law makes us preachers ‘as criminals’ if we speak up."
When Green appealed, the prosecutor argued that his sentence should be lengthened to six months or more. Sweden’s leading homosexual rights group, RSFL, agreed. “Hatred and defamation is [are] not to be accepted, just because it’s [they’re] based on religious beliefs or religious scriptures,” an RSFL spokesman said.
An appeals court acquitted Green on February 11, 2005, ruling that his sermon was not “incitement” against homosexuals, but a sermon faithful to the Bible, which he had a right to preach. The Swedish Supreme Court agreed, clearing Green in a unanimous ruling on November 29, 2005.
“Together, with the help of God, we won the battle, and my case is now known in courts across Europe,” Pastor Green told the Alliance Defense Fund, which provided legal aid. “We won the battle, but the war is far from over."
Thought Crimes Down Under
While Pastor Green was fending off the thought police in Sweden, two pastors in Australia faced a similar challenge from Muslim accusers.
The two evangelical ministers, Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot, were accused of vilifying Islam, after a 2002 seminar on Islam taught by Scot at Nalliah’s invitation. More than 200 people attended the event—held inside a church—at which Scot explained Islamic beliefs and urged his audience to reach out to Muslims in Christian love.
Three people linked to the Islamic Council of Victoria were also in attendance and later brought complaints under Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, a 2001 law that makes it a crime to incite hatred toward a person or a group. A court convicted Scot and Nalliah in December 2004 and ordered them to publish an apology—written by the judge—in their newsletter and website, and pay for eight apology “advertisements” in two newspapers. They were also ordered to never repeat their views about Islam in public.
Both men refused and appealed the ruling. As Nalliah later told Coral Ridge Ministries’ 2007 Reclaiming America for Christ conference, “I said, “No, I will not apologize. I’ll go to prison for not apologizing and speaking the truth."
The Supreme Court of Victoria vacated the lower court ruling in December 2006, and the Islamic Council, which was ordered to pay half the pastors’ legal fees for the appeal, dropped its lawsuit seven months later.
“The Pastors’ commitment to conscience was literally put on trial, but they stood firm and won,” said Roger Severino, an attorney for the Becket Fund, which assisted the pastors in court.
The Chilly British Legal Climate
In Britain, a street preacher, elderly pensioners, a bishop, and a member of parliament have all been forced to answer to the law after speaking publicly against homosexual conduct.
Police arrested street preacher Harry Hammond, 69, in 2001, after a mob attacked him because he held a sign reading, “Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord.” The protesters wrestled him to the ground, threw dirt, and poured water on him, but the arresting officer blamed Hammond for disrupting public order by opposing homosexuality. A court fined him £300 plus £395 costs, ruling that his sign was insulting, because it linked homosexuality with immorality.
Police interrogated a retired couple, Joe and Helen Roberts, for over an hour in 2005 after they complained to their town council about its pro-homosexual policy. The Roberts said that the officers warned them that they “were close to a hate crime” and were “walking on eggshells."
Police investigated the Bishop of Chester in 2003, after he said that homosexuals could “reorientate themselves” with medical help. That sparked a complaint and a visit from police, who “consulted at length” with prosecutors before determining that no crime had been committed.
Police in Northern Ireland said they were investigating a June 2008 complaint against Iris Robinson, a Member of Parliament, after she said on BBC Radio that the Bible calls homosexuality an “abomination."
The British legal climate is now chilly enough that many Christians contact the Christian Institute, an evangelical advocacy group, because they “fear censure if they express their orthodox Christian beliefs on homosexuality."
The same chill has settled over Canada, where it is a crime punishable by up to two years in prison to “incite” or “promote hatred” against protected groups such as homosexuals or Muslims.
Youth pastor Stephen Boissoin sent a letter to his local newspaper in 2002 in which he criticized homosexual activists, but offered compassion for people enslaved by same-sex desires. A reader complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which ordered Boissoin to pay $5,000 to his accuser, who was not even mentioned in the letter. The commission also ordered Boissoin to apologize and banned him from publishing any future “disparaging remarks” about homosexuals.
He is appealing the ruling. “I should have the equal right to freedom of speech in Canada,” Boissoin said. “Right now, myself and Christians at large do not have that right."
Free Speech Is Being Throttled
British Columbia’s Human Rights Tribunal forced a Canadian newsmagazine to answer for its alleged editorial sins in a weeklong “trial” in June 2008. The tribunal hauled Macleans, a leading news publication, into the dock after it published writer Mark Steyn’s lengthy warning about the coming Islamization of Europe. An offended Muslim group asked the tribunal to order Macleans to print a rebuttal and pay for the alleged injury to the “dignity, feelings and self-respect” of Muslims.
No verdict had been rendered in the British Columbia matter as of this writing, but the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which heard the same complaint, dismissed all charges against Macleans. That surprising decision—the first time in 31 years that Canada’s human rights commission has ruled a defendant innocent—came in the wake of intense media scrutiny and a growing awareness among politicians that hate crime laws are throttling free speech in Canada.
That awareness has not yet dawned on America’s elected leaders, who continue to press for hate crime legislation that could put our freedom of speech in jeopardy. |