Image Map

Douchebag Decree: Chuck Norris doesn't have the facts

"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!


Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Media Matters: Chuck Norris' facts on hate crimes bill are missing in action

Change.org: Chuck Norris should shut up about hate crimes

O.C. Register: Hate crimes increase against blacks, Latinos in O.C.

Guess what? Subscriptions to Bitch—our award-winning, 80+ page print quarterly—are 20% off to help us reach our $25,000 funding goal by September 30. Pitch in to support feminist media: Subscribe today

Subscribe to Bitch


Comments

8 comments have been made. Post a comment.

Chuck Norris sucks ass and

Chuck Norris sucks ass and Bitch mag rocks.

183-10-2(3)

You throw around the word douchebag like it's a bad thing. Douchebags are very useful (nobody wants intestinal bacteria in their vag-hole). You should try "used douchebag" on for size (because that's not good for anything). Chuck, we all know you've never been paid to think so why don't you hop off the Total Gym®, pop open a book or something, and break a mental sweat before you sound off with the ignorant rants.

Either you're attempting to

Either you're attempting to be funny or don't realize that here at Bitch a Douchebag is always bad and never a good thing ever. In case you didn't know...they have no usefulness at all and only serve to make things worse.

But I do agree that Chuck is ignorant and fanning anti-gay flames that will ultimately harm us all.

Agreed

The vagina is a like a self-cleaning, um, oven. It doesn't need any assistance. Using a douchebag to flush out the baddies also flushes out the good bacteria, which can result in a yeast infection.

Oh, and, Boo, Chuck Norris, boo!!

Biggest fan

My cat, Marietta, is a huge fan of Chuck Norris. She has a toy mouse with red hair that spin kicks when you twirl it on a string. We call it her Chuck Norris Mouse and it's her favorite toy. Also, one time the tv was left on mute and I walked into the room and she was sitting on the footstool watching Walker Texas Ranger.

I won't tell her what you said about him.

1st Amendment

It's interesting to me that "progressives" are limiting our speech when it's all of the conservative judges in the court set the precedents that cut back the 1st Amendment, especially for young readers and journalists, like those that read here and write for high schools and universities... all those Voices of Tomorrow being cut back.

Who cares what Chuck thinks?

I'm still amazed that people bother propping up ideologs with outdated star power. The only reason Chuck is getting headlines is because he and the right wing ideologues want to exploit star power to push their conservative agenda. Don't take the bait, stop giving a no-talent marital arts film "star" the time of day.

Way to have a thoughtful discussion...

I don't agree with hate crime legislation for many reasons, i.e. there is no proof that such legislation deters crime and I think it opens a can of worms as the above blog points out when deciding which groups will be selected (and by whom) to be protected by such legislation. I also have a huge ideological problem with the "thought police" trying to punish offenders for there beliefs rather than for their actions.

That said, I understand that the other side of the debate is well-intentioned and there is definitely room for discussion and real debate over the concerns from the bitch mag followers and the Chuck Norris fans.

Sadly, I don't think a whole blog and it's comments devoted to shouting out what a douche someone with an opposing viewpoint is lends much to insight or progress; more likely, it probably lessens feminist credibility within political discussion. I'd love to have a grown-up conversation on the topic...