Official website of the BPP

Pastors at risk; U.S. Hate Crimes Bill favouring certain "classes" more than others - House agrees to muzzle pastors with 'hate crimes' plan

USA, April 1st 2009: The U.S. House today approved a federal "hate crimes" bill that would provide special protections to homosexuals but leave Christian ministers open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a "gay."

The vote, 249-175, came despite intense from Republicans who argued the measure would create a privileged class.

Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. of the High Impact Leadership Coalition also condemned the action, offering a warning about the nation's future.

Jackson said the action puts "sexual orientation" in a specially protected class under federal law.

"Based on history, it really isn't something that needs to be protected," he said. "There's a problem that this is going to mark the first time that a protected class status is given to whatever sexual orientation one has."

He said the experience in other countries has led to prosecution of Christians. In Sweden, for example, a minister was sentenced to 30 days in jail for preaching from Leviticus.

Similar state laws have resulted in similar results. In Philadelphia several years ago, a 73-year-old grandmother was jailed for trying to share Christian tracts with people at a homosexual festival, Jackson said. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said H.R. 1913 will create "thought crimes," and U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said it will end equality in the U.S.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, charged the plan will divide America into groups of more favored versus less. He again cited USC Title 18, Section 2a, the foundation of H.R. 1913, which says anyone who through speech "induces" commission of a violent hate crime "will be tried as a principal" alongside the active offender. But there is no epidemic of hate in the U.S., he noted.

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., introduced a striking argument: If Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who supports traditional marriage, had slapped the homosexual judge who derided her on the stage under H.R. 1913 she could be indicted as a "violent hate criminal," facing a possible 10 years in prison. But, Forbes said, if the homosexual judge had slapped her, she would have had no special protection under H.R. 1913.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, said, "The Anti-Christian Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives has acted today to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, youth pastors, Bible teachers, and anyone else whose Bible speech and thought is based upon and reflects the truths found in the Bible.

"A pastor's sermon could be considered 'hate speech' under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on 'sexual orientation.' The pastor could be prosecuted for 'conspiracy to commit a hate crime'" she said.

"This Democrat-controlled Congress has now elevated pedophiles and other bizarre sexual orientations, as well as drag queens, transgenders, lesbians and gay men to the level of protection of that already given to African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities in the law," she said.

House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the Democrats have placed a higher value on some lives compared to others, a decision he said is unconstitutional.

Not happy with just making Christian teachings on homosexuality illegal, supporters have approved a law that also provides grant money for so-called "sensitivity-training" to provide pro-homosexual propaganda, noted the public-interest legal group Liberty Counsel.

When a plan virtually identical to the current Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 was developed in the last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., admitted during a hearing on the bill it could be used to prosecute pastors merely for preaching against homosexuality under the premise that they could be "inducing" violence in someone.

The bill ultimately failed then because President Bush determined it was unnecessary - the crimes banned in the legislation already are addressed by other laws - and it probably was unconstitutional.

"The federal hate crimes bill is bad news for everyone," said Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute, who testified in Congress against the bill two years ago. "Instead of treating all crime victims equally, it creates a caste system where select groups, such as gays and lesbians, are given greater priority in the criminal justice system. This is not progress; it is political correctness. In other nations and states, the adoption of hate crimes legislation has been the first step toward widespread suppression of speech and ideas critical of homosexuality," he said.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel has spoken out against H.R. 1913 a number of times. "As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling 'hate speech' laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence - under penalty of law - morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle," he said.

Barber said the 14th Amendment already provides that victims of violent crimes are afforded equal protection under the law "regardless of sexual preference or proclivity." Barber cited FBI statistics showing there were about 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2007, but only 1,512 were presumed to be "hate crimes." And two-thirds of those involved claims of "hateful" words, touching and shoving. Under the specifications of the law, a Christian needn't touch a homosexual to face charges, he noted.

"If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in 'apprehension of bodily injury' by the Christian's words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony 'hate crime,'" he said.

WND reported previously that the plan was introduced by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who said, "The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way."

Section 10 of the act states, "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

However, critics cite United States Code Title 18, Section 2, as evidence of how the legislation could be used against people who merely speak out against homosexuality. It states: Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

Jeff King, president of International Christian Concern, warned Christians to speak up before the legislation passes. He said they are acting like the proverbial frog in a slowly heating kettle that boils to death. "They need to wake up and take action to oppose this threat to religious liberty."

"And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father.

And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made."

I Kings 15:11, 12

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

First Amendment of the United States Constitution

"And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers,

take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:"

Luke 12:11

PERVERTS DEMAND THAT CHILDREN SHOULD BE BRAINWASHED

German Parents Convicted after Withdrawing Daughter from Explicit Sex-Ed Program: Appeal Filed

Alliance Defense Fund solicitors are representing two German parents in an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights filed Tuesday. The two parents were convicted under German law when they chose to educate their child at home on the subject of sexuality rather than allow her to participate in a four-day "sexual education" course and related stage production at her school, both of which taught views of sexuality in conflict with the family's Christian faith.

"Parents, not the government, are the ones ultimately responsible for making educational choices for their children," said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska.

The parents, Eduard and Elisabeth Elscheidt, and their three children are active in the Christian Baptist Church. The Elscheidts were concerned about allowing their 11-year-old daughter Franziska to attend four school days of "sexual education" and a mandatory, interactive stage play titled, "Mein Körper gehört mir" ("My Body Is Mine") in February 2007. They regarded the play and lessons as morally harmful.

The parents, being convinced that they were within their legal and moral rights to protect their daughter, removed her from the offending play and accompanying lessons, instead opting to educate her according to their own views on sexuality during those days. They did not withdraw their daughter from any other school programs or classes. The parents believe that the play and lessons were not only opposed to their faith, but also obliterated their rights under Protocol 1, Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Elscheidts argued to a German court that no scientific proof existed that the programs prevented child abuse (the play's stated purpose) but, to the contrary, taught the children to become sexually active by ultimately teaching the principle that if something feels good sexually, then it is acceptable to do it. The court nonetheless convicted and fined the Elscheidts in June 2008.

Two subsequent appeals were rejected, resulting in the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights filed Tuesday. The application objects to the punitive measures applied by the German court in convicting the applicants and seeks to establish that such opt-outs of "sexual education" programs are in line with ECHR Protocol 1, Article 2.

ADF Counsel Kiska said, "These parents were well within their rights under the European Convention of Human Rights to opt to teach their children a view of sexuality that is in accord with their own religious beliefs instead of sending them to a class and stageplay they found objectionable. These types of cases are crucial battles in the effort to keep bad decisions overseas from being relied upon by activists who attack parental rights in America."

NEW ULSTER BPP WEBSITE

The new website of Ulster BPP can be viewed at http://ubpp.webs.com

ULSTER BPP MENTIONED ON BBCNI

Ulster BPP made 'Talkback', a programme transmitted by the BBC in Northern Ireland. Ken Wilkinson, the crypto-Marxist Progressive Unionist Party's South Antrim Chairman, was asked his views on the sudden emergence of the Ulster BPP. He stated that we were 'sick racists' and that he meets us head on for debate!

Ulster BPP look forward to that day when we can answer "Red Ken's" lies and inuendos.

NEW ULSTER BPP CONTACT NUMBER

The Ulster BPP contact number has changed due to security issues to 07732655571.

FOURTH EDITION OF TODMORDEN BPP NEWSLETTER OUT NOW

Reproduced below is the fourth edition of the FIGHTING BACK newsletter (see here for larger version). Local support for the BPP in Todmorden is growing due to the distribution of Fighting Back across the town. Well done to Lancashire organiser and BPP Commissioner Dave Jones for his efforts in Todmorden and across Lancashire.

If any other units feel like designing their own version of the FIGHTING BACK newsletter, get in touch with HQ and we'll help you all we can.

BRADFORD BPP GET THE SEARCHLIES BULLSHIT BUS BANNED
We are thrilled to announce that after an extensive campaign by the British People's Party Bradford Branch, the Searchlies 'Hope not Hate' tour will now not be visiting Bradford as publicised!!

After the BPP applied to carry out a 'Rights for Whites' demonstration last year in Bradford, we were informed that all public events must now comply with the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and in accordance with this legislation, organisers must adhere to certain criteria. One of these is that if there is a possibility that opposing factions may clash the organisers have to make provisions for medical staff. The entire application is overseen by the Public Safety Liaison Group committee [PSLG] so when I discovered the Searchlies event was announced as a public event in Bradford, I officially informed those representing the PSLG that the BPP would be attending the event to protest, thus opposing factions became a public safety issue and so I applied under the Freedom of Information Act for all paperwork relating to the application for the event to ensure all legislation had been adhered to.

It became apparent quite quickly that no application had been made by the organisers of the event, so two weeks ago I lodged an official complaint. This morning I was notified that the Hope not Hate tour will no longer be visiting Bradford!!

I shall now of course be checking the organisers have complied with legislation in the remaining areas they plan to visit and if they have not, I shall be lodging more complaints.

I do hope Searchlies hadn't bought the fuel for the bus in bulk because I think they might not be needing so much of it!

Bradford, and indeed Britain, does not want your bullshit here!

A QUESTION FROM A MEMBER

We often get enquiries from new members or interested supporters (even opponents) and we are always happy to reply:

Sir:

I would very much appreciate it if you could answer some of these questions for me. I was just thinking about certain aspects of the BPP ideology, and how the country would actually be run should the party gain power.

First of all, I understand that the BPP is of course a non-sectarian party, and holds no specific religious affiliation. Does this mean that the BPP is less corrupted by Christian dogma than the likes of the National Front? After all, Christianity was a religion invented by multiracialist Jews, and originates in Israel.

Second of all, the BPP is party based on leadership. Does this then mean that if you brought us into power, you would deliver us from the liberal democratic system we live in today? Democracy as it is in Britain today only leads to an inefficient and indecisive government, as I'm sure you know yourself. I would hope it possible for us to develop one-party state with a firm and uncompromised law, to ensure our left-wing enemies cannot attempt to bring down our country again.