Illinois Girl Denied Bail

#1

[Taken from TexasHold'emBlogger]

ILLINOIS GIRL DENIED BAIL
May 25th, 2007 · 5 Comments
This is a serious civil rights violation on all accounts.

One of the 16-year-old girls discussed here under arrest for a felony hate crime in Crystal Lake, Ill., has been denied bail and will be held in jail until her trial.

A 16-year-old Crystal Lake girl facing a felony hate crime charge alleging she and a friend distributed anti-homosexual fliers at her high school must remain locked up until her case goes to trial, a McHenry County judge ruled Tuesday.

Citing concerns over the girl™s home environment and her already lengthy juvenile record, Judge Michael Chmiel denied the girl™s request for home detention. Instead Chmiel ordered her held in the Kane County Juvenile Justice Center while the case is pending.

Anyone who is legitimately concerned about civil rights should be outraged. We are talking about speech, folks. Words. On paper. Representing someone™s point of view.

And now she is not only under arrest, charged with a felony that will affect the rest of her life and have her spend time in prison, she has been denied bail. We have killers and other real criminals who make bail all the time. Heck, if you recall, here in Wisconsin we even let criminal illegal aliens charged with sexually assaulting children out on meager bail amounts of $5,000.

But the girl will be held in a Kane County jail because of words she said. Or more accurately, wrote.

For the record, the words on the paper were the same ones that Fred Phelps has on his signs. We don™t approve of Phelps™s message, nor do we condone those words anywhere. They aren™t appropriate, but they are not and should not be criminal. They are just words.

This is a very serious threat to all of our civil liberties, but instead we have hand-wringing lefties all concerned because some Al Qaeda terrorist at Club G™itmo got his lemon chicken at room temperature or because he got unscented deodorant and dull reading material. Or screeching like Chicken Little because the feds are actually listening in on the jihadists™ phone calls.

Tick, tock. They™re coming for you. Whether you realize it or not.

#2

Has anyone come up with a good international relocation spot..? Cause seriously man, I think the U.S. is going to collapse upon itself, and I'd just rather not be here...I'd rather pack my family the fuck up now and cut my losses...I'm thinking Australia...

#3

THE CRIMINALIZATION OF THOUGHT
May 19th, 2007 · 5 Comments
[More from Texas Hold'em Blogger]

Look what™s coming if the federal hate crimes bill is ever passed and signed into law. This is wrong on many levels.

Two 16-year-old girls in Crystal Lake, Ill., are under arrest, charged with felony hate crimes simply for printing and distributing an anti-homosexual flyer.

[The girls] were arrested by Crystal Lake police about 1:45 p.m. Friday after they distributed about 40 fliers in the student parking lot at Crystal Lake South High School, 1200 S. McHenry Ave., Crystal Lake.

The fliers had a photograph of two males kissing and included œwords of an inflammatory nature, said Police Chief Dave Linder. One male in the photo was identified, Linder said.

The girls were charged with a hate crime because the fliers œwere not written for informational purposes but rather were to incite a breach of peace or cause injury to the person or persons the message was directed against, said Thomas Carroll, McHenry County first assistant state™s attorney.

Notice they didn™t actually physically assault anyone. It was just words. On paper. Representing a point of view.

The First Amendment guarantees them the right to do this.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

But they are now facing felony convictions, criminal records and prison simply for expressing a point of view. They didn™t even urge physical violence against anyone, so there goes the œFire in a crowded theater argument.

Words. Critical of a politically correct lifestyle. On paper. Their viewpoints. Their beliefs.

Now they will become convicted felons simply for having a politically incorrect point of view, disapproving of a lifestyle they ” and many Americans ” find to be amoral.

This is the real purpose of hate crimes and hate speech legislation ” the criminalization of viewpoints, opinions and beliefs that are not politically correct. Eventually, those who don™t conform will wind up in prison.

Where are the usual suspects who are in constant paranoia about the alleged loss of rights under the Bush administration? Cue the chirping crickets.

This is the real erosion of our rights, particularly that of free expression.

The Tolerance Nazis strike again.

-- For the record the flyer said 'God Hates Fags' witch is innapropriate tastless words shouldnt have been used but its not a hate crime

#4

This is so messed up. I heard that Congress was trying to pass a law that said you can be arrested for hate crime if anyone is offended by what you say. You're going to offend someone with whatever you say! Our country is going down the hole like Ja said....jeez

#5

Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
May 03, 2007

(1st Add: Includes comments from Focus on the Family and Reps. John Conyers and Lamar Smith.)

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush looks likely to veto a "hate crimes" bill under debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday if it is approved by Congress. Conservatives quickly responded by thanking the president for upholding "our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law."

"The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion or national origin," according to a statement released by the Executive Office of the President.

"However, the administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable," the release stated. "If H.R. 1592 were presented to the president, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." The sentence containing the veto reference was underlined in the statement.

"State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592," the statement said.

In addition, "state and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively."

"There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government," the office said.

"In addition, almost every state in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the state's own hate crimes law."

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues with Concerned Women for America, was quick to praise the statement.

"We thank President Bush for honoring our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law," said Barber in a statement.

Barber told Cybercast News Service Thursday that according to his sources in the White House, the president is inclined to follow his advisors' recommendations to veto the bill if passed.

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson also welcomed the undertaking.

"We applaud the president's courage in standing up for the constitution and the principle of equal protection under the law," he said in a statement. "The American justice system should never create second-class victims and it is a first-class act of wisdom and fairness for the president to pledge to veto this unnecessary bill."

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the House is debating the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592), which would "provide federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes" involving "actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability."

The bill was first introduced on March 20 by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.).

He told the House Thursday that "there are no First Amendment disabilities about this measure in any way. As a personal advocate of the First Amendment I can assure you that that would be the last thing that would be allowed to be in this bill."

Conyers said a vote for the bill would not be "a vote in favor of any particular sexual belief or characteristic. It's a vote, rather, to provide basic rights and protections for individuals so they are protected from assaults based on their sexual orientation."

Of reported hate crimes, Conyers told the House, 54 percent are based on race, 17 on "religious bias" and 14 percent on "sexual orientation bias."

Opposing the measure, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the bill would result in disproportionate justice for victims of certain crimes.

"All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. However this bill, no matter how well intended, undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system. Under this bill justice will no longer be equal but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim," he said.

"For example, criminals who kill a homosexual or a transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, members of the military, a child, a senior citizen or any other person."

Smith also voiced concern that the measure would have a "chilling effect" on religious leaders and groups "who express their constitutionally protected beliefs."

He also argued that it was unconstitutional and would likely be struck down by the courts.

'Other classes would be without special status'

According to the Executive Office release, "H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim's race, color, religion or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

"The administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status," the release said. "The administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly."

Also, the bill "raises constitutional concerns" because "federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the federal government, such as the power to protect federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce or to enforce equal protection of the laws," the statement said.

Therefore, "it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592," the release added.

#6

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38708

^^^ A must read
trying not to make the posts too long.