The left is a big fan of victims. It’s so much of an issue that they manufacture things to be victimized by, just so they can be victims. It’s a driving force in their lives.
However, in their quest to either become victims or to look out for those they see as victims, they’re creating new ones, only not from the side of the aisle they’ll prefer.
You see, a California lawmaker has decided to step into it by targeting police officers who might utter unapproved opinions.
A new bill introduced by California State Assembly Member Ash Kalra in San Jose would prohibit police officers from serving if they have used arbitrarily defined “hate speech” or are affiliated with a “hate group.”
The bill, known as the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act (CLEAR Act), claims to combat “the infiltration of extremists in our law enforcement agencies” and would mandate a background check for all officers who have “exchanged racist and homophobic messages.”
Kalra claims that AB 655 is necessary to prevent “the apparent cooperation, participation, and support of some law enforcement” in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
The bill defines hate speech as “as advocating or supporting the denial of constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”
Pacific Justice Institute Senior Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds said this broad and purposefully arbitrary definition could give way for Christians and conservatives to be classified as “hateful” based on the premise of rejecting abortion or supporting Proposition 8 in California, a same-sex amendment that passed in 2008.
In other words, anyone to espouses opinions that don’t meet certain aspects of liberal orthodoxy must be legally barred from their career.
See, on the surface, those words look like they make perfect sense. After all, we’re talking about folks who deny constitutional rights for some reason. Yet it’s deeper than that.
It’s because these are the same people who believe that biological men playing sports as women because they say they identify as such is a constitutionally-protected right and that there’s absolutely no discussion to be had about it. These are some of the same people who see Muslims potentially instituting Sharia Law in the U.S. as part of their faith and above reproach.
Things like this can go on and on and on.
Yet note what’s not protected. There’s no effort to protect people of different political ideologies. They know liberals won’t be targeted, so they’re focusing on the right, and they’re being blatant about it.
The thing is, while departments can and should have policies in place for things like racist or anti-Semitic comments by police officers, creating a law creates an issue. It makes it so any departure from the orthodoxy.
And it will expand.
For example, if an officer takes issue with welfare recipients—most of whom are actually white, for the record—then they might be accused of racist language and see their careers destroyed.
Hell, in a day and age where every political issue is being twisted so as to have racial ramifications, this would deprive officers of their First Amendment rights.
That’s right, in the process of claiming to defend constitutionally-protected rights for certain people, they will destroy the constitutionally-protected rights for another group.
Which, of course, is kind of the point.
They don’t like police, so they see no issue with silencing them. They’ve labeled some groups as “extremist” and claiming they’re “infiltrating” law enforcement, but ignore the fact that not only are these opinions not that extreme but that there’s a reason law enforcement officers tend to have a rightward bias.
In other words, rather than wonder how they can influence more of their own to become police officers and shift law enforcement left, they just want to stamp their feet and force officers to shut up.
Make no mistake, we will see more of this in the future. It’s not going to go away. They’ll keep trying to silence the opposition because they know that they’re ill-equipped to win in a battle of ideas.