ACLU says it will sue to block a law due to "singling out Muslims"--and the law would ban...
I trust everyone knows what the hell "female genital mutilation" is by now. It's the totally barbaric Muslim practice of cutting the genitals of girls as young
as 7, allegedly to keep them from enjoying sex. Cuz the mullahs seem to
think it's wrong for women to enjoy sex or something.
This practice is increasing here in the U.S, so in Maine the state legislature passed a bill outlawing it.
Hard to find many people who'd find fault with that goal.
Ah, I see you haven't heard of the ACLU--which was originally supposed to be about "civil liberties" or some such. They've denounced the bill and will sue to have it declared unconstitutional.
And the reason? The ACLU claims the bill "singles out Muslims." Thus it allegedly discriminates.
Think about that for a second: According to the ACLU's reasoning, if a certain barbaric act was committed by the members of one specific group, neither the federal government nor any state could pass a law making that act illegal--because the ACLU would claim that the law singled out the members of that group.
Let's look at a real example: Back in the 1980s a new type of crime started, called carjacking. The perps would pull up to someone stopped at a stoplight, shove a gun in their face and demand their car. It was virtually risk-free for the thugs, and the number of carjackings quickly went exponential.
Because it could happen anywhere, cities seemed powerless to fight it. Finally congress passed a federal law making it a federal crime with a stiff sentence for it. As a result its popularity among criminals finally faded as thugs realized it was no longer worth the risk of a long sentence.
Statistics showed carjacking was committed almost entirely by blacks. But according to the ACLU's "logic" the federal law against it should have been ruled unconstitutional, cuz it *had the effect* of singling out one race. Or as many infamously idiot judges have phrased it, it had a "disparate impact."
A moment's thought will show that this type of thinking is getting close to some dire results. For example, many school systems in liberal cities have established a policy that school disciplinary actions such as detention or expulsion must be imposed on all races at an equal percentage, regardless of whether one group is way more disruptive or threatening than another. Cuz we can't have "disparate outcomes," right? So the principle has been seeded and is working its way up the ladder of liberal concerns and their goofy judicial allies.
This practice is increasing here in the U.S, so in Maine the state legislature passed a bill outlawing it.
Hard to find many people who'd find fault with that goal.
Ah, I see you haven't heard of the ACLU--which was originally supposed to be about "civil liberties" or some such. They've denounced the bill and will sue to have it declared unconstitutional.
And the reason? The ACLU claims the bill "singles out Muslims." Thus it allegedly discriminates.
Think about that for a second: According to the ACLU's reasoning, if a certain barbaric act was committed by the members of one specific group, neither the federal government nor any state could pass a law making that act illegal--because the ACLU would claim that the law singled out the members of that group.
Let's look at a real example: Back in the 1980s a new type of crime started, called carjacking. The perps would pull up to someone stopped at a stoplight, shove a gun in their face and demand their car. It was virtually risk-free for the thugs, and the number of carjackings quickly went exponential.
Because it could happen anywhere, cities seemed powerless to fight it. Finally congress passed a federal law making it a federal crime with a stiff sentence for it. As a result its popularity among criminals finally faded as thugs realized it was no longer worth the risk of a long sentence.
Statistics showed carjacking was committed almost entirely by blacks. But according to the ACLU's "logic" the federal law against it should have been ruled unconstitutional, cuz it *had the effect* of singling out one race. Or as many infamously idiot judges have phrased it, it had a "disparate impact."
A moment's thought will show that this type of thinking is getting close to some dire results. For example, many school systems in liberal cities have established a policy that school disciplinary actions such as detention or expulsion must be imposed on all races at an equal percentage, regardless of whether one group is way more disruptive or threatening than another. Cuz we can't have "disparate outcomes," right? So the principle has been seeded and is working its way up the ladder of liberal concerns and their goofy judicial allies.
posted by SF at
8:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home