State Senator Not So Tolerant

State Senator Darrell Steinberg has latched on to a recent Sacramento murder to further his radical social agenda. One of the legislature's most outspoken liberals, Steinberg recently penned a startling and revealing Sacramento Bee opinion editorial in response to the tragic murder of 26-year-old Fijian immigrant Satender Singh. Singh was struck and killed on July 1st by a group of "Slavic" men near Lake Natoma. Eyewitnesses claim that the attackers "hurled explicit gay slurs" at Singh before confronting him. Singh was hit in the face once, then fell backwards and struck his head on a rock, resulting in severe brain damage. Local police have not yet found the attackers so their true motivation is unknown, but Steinberg and other homosexual leaders are claiming the death was a "hate crime" of the worst kind.

As only a seasoned politician can, Senator Steinberg quickly moved to make Singh's death a political cause. Jumping on the "hate speech" that supposedly precipitated the young man's demise, Steinberg claimed that "words may give people the implicit license to take the next step and hurt people." In other words, free speech causes violence and is only free so long as it doesn't offend politically correct censors.

What about that pesky little document guaranteeing our freedom of expression? "The first amendment to our nation's Constitution protects speech, but our community has the right to expect that the exercise of free speech will respect the dignity of all people who live here and not instigate violence or murder," explained Senator Steinberg. It's true that violence is never appropriate, and leaders of the Slavic community have publicly and repeatedly denounced the killing. However, the senator's own words reveal his true intentions regarding "tolerance" and free speech: "We will not settle for tolerance alone; we will demand acceptance and love."

In recent years California has witnessed a breathtaking, outright assault on free speech rights. Just this year a proposed law would have redefined the term "tolerance" in schools to mean "attitudes and behaviors that convey respect toward individuals and groups, especially those individuals and groups that have been, and continue to be, systematically and historically marginalized. Tolerance does not mean a passive allowance or indulgence of the beliefs or practices of another individual." The agenda is clear: those who disagree with the politically correct definition of what is "good" will be labeled "intolerant" and considered bigoted. In fact this new definition of tolerance would require school children to stand up for "marginalized" homosexuals, even if their religious beliefs are to the contrary. Nothing less than total acceptance for controversial lifestyles is expected and demanded in this radical social agenda.

In his article, Senator Steinberg states that bigotry eventually expresses itself through violence. What would the senator consider bigotry? His colleagues in the state legislature have defined the term in various pieces of legislation, most of which advance the radical homosexual agenda. Bigots are not just those with extreme political or religious beliefs, they are anyone who does not agree with political correctness. Like the word tolerance, legislators are redefining the term bigot to include anyone who actually stands up for their religious beliefs.

It is shameful that the tragic murder of Singh is now being used to stifle free speech rights-a completely unrelated issue. Singh's murderers, regardless of their motivation for killing him, should be punished for their actions. However, in the eyes of those with a political agenda, bigotry must be assigned to certain criminals in order to advance that agenda. When government begins to punish citizens for their thoughts, we have entered very dangerous territory. Who will determine what thoughts are wrong or bad? How severely should one be punished for the wrong kind of thoughts? Who determines the victims of "hate speech?" Would people of faith be protected? In his fervor to punish the "bigots" who murdered Satender Singh, Senator Steinberg demanded that authorities work "double-time" to find the killers. One wonders whether the senator would demand such attention be paid by authorities if it were a Christian killed for their belief.

Senator Steinberg has made clear that he believes political correctness trumps free speech rights. His impassioned words are startling reminder of the battle we face in defending our freedoms: "We must not tolerate hate, hate speech or hate violence against the gay and lesbian community or any community of Sacramento. We must educate; we must persuade; we must cajole; we must nonviolently -- always nonviolently -- confront any radical community or individual who encourages or tolerates discrimination and hate. And yes, words do matter." Yes, words do matter-especially when the government takes away your right to use them.