"Chuck Norris" has become a household name again thanks to the Napolean Dynamite-meets-machismo of Chuck Norris facts and his campaigning for Mike Huckabee, but if he's going to have a political megaphone, he should use it wisely. (Or you know, write poems, that's cool too).
What's troubling is his column encouraging his readers to protest the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, claiming that it would offer "elevated protection to pedophiles." As Media Matters points out, this is false, false, and triple false.
As Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) noted during an April 23 House Judiciary Committee hearing, the term "sexual orientation" is already defined by federal statute as applying only to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality," thereby excluding pedophiles, who engage in nonconsensual sexual relationships with children.
Pedophilia is also not considered a "disability" under current federal law. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), specifically excludes pedophilia, thereby precluding protection for pedophiles from the hate crimes bill.
Both FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com have also written that the hate crimes bill would not protect pedophiles. FactCheck.org wrote: "[P]edophiles would get no breaks under this bill." PolitiFact.com wrote that "we've found nothing to support the opponents' claims that pedophiles would be protected by the hate crimes bill" and concluded that the claim is "Pants on Fire" wrong.
Then in his May 19th article, "Outlawing Opinion," (where he defends both Rush Limbaugh and Carrie Prejean!) he hints that should the Hate Crimes legislation pass, America would basically ride the slippery slope to Saddam-era Iraq.
Sounds so far-out, doesn't it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track — a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture.
For example, presently bill S. 909 is on the fast track through the Senate, poised under the guise of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. In the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles.
...It's simply un-American and unconstitutional to impede, harass, threaten or persecute anyone who is guilty of nothing more than sharing his opinion or even exercising his right to vote. This is America, not Saddam's Iraq!
So on a scale of American to un-American, where does beating someone to death based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim rate?
As Change.org puts it, "It's one thing to be against expanded federal hate crimes legislation protecting sexual orientation and gender identity. It's another thing to completely lie and spread misinformation." Put down the Bowflex and get the real facts straight!