California seeks ban on Christians, political conservatives from law enforcement
Bill seeks to ban 'hate groups' from police ranks, leaves wide open the possibility of banning conservatives and evangelical Christians
Police officers have a duty to protect all citizens, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other identity. Governments have an interest in preventing violent criminals and members of the Ku Klux Klan from joining police forces.
A new bill supposedly aimed at preventing gangs and hate groups from being represented on police departments and in sheriffs’ offices could prevent conservative Christians from taking the blue or it could result in the firing of current officers..
California Assembly Bill 655 would require police departments to investigate whether or not potential recruits had “engaged in membership in a hate group, participation in hate group activities, or public expressions of hate.” It would make such activities “grounds for termination.”
When the vast majority of Americans think of “hate groups,” they envision the KKK, BLM or Antifa — the Fascist Left’s objection to that characterization for the latter two groups not withstanding. Yet some transgender activists and organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) use the term “hate group” as an epithet to demonize their political and ideological opposition.
The SPLC has become notorious for branding mainstream conservative and Christian groups as “hate groups” because the biblical teachings they espouse do not allow them to endorse or perform ceremonies for same-sex marriage or approve of transgender transition and activism.
Assembly Member Ash Kalra, the author of A.B. 655, told ACV that he does not intend his bill to “curtail freedom of religious views or political affiliations — conservative or otherwise.” He acknowledged that the bill’s “definitions are a work in progress.” If so, he should seriously reconsider his broad definition of “hate group.”
The wording of the legislation is virtually identical to H.R. 842, introduced in the U.S. House in January 2019 but which never got a favorable vote out of committee. With Pelosi’s Fascists holding the narrow sway they have in the 117th Congress, it is doubtful it would far better now. Do not make the mistake of thinking the Democrats won’t be watching this California bill’s progress, however.
California State Assemblyman Ash Kalra is the sponsor of a bill that the state may use to bar conservative or Christian police recruits from service and remove officers already on the street. (Photo: California State Assembly/Ash Kalra’s office)
A.B. 655 defines a “hate group” as “an organization that, based upon its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or by its activities, supports and advocates for or practices 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.”
That definition may seem reasonable, until one considers the accusations made by officially sanctioned hate groups like the SPLC against mainstream conservative Christian organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The Alliance opposes the Orwellian redefinition of civil rights laws to kowtow to transgender activism.
In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that when Congress outlawed “discrimination on the basis of sex” in the 1960s, that law also applies to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity today.
As Justice Samuel Alito warned in his dissent, the Bostock ruling creates serious threats to religious freedom, free speech, fair play in women’s sports, women’s privacy, and women’s safety, among other things. There are serious problems with the logic Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch used to reach his majority opinion in Bostock, and the decision arguably should be overruled.
According to Bostock, organizations like ADF that advocate against transgender activism may fit A.B. 655’s definition of a “hate group.” Furthermore, pro-life organizations arguably fit the definition, as they seek to deny women the unfounded “constitutional right” to abortion established in Roe v. Wade (1973).
Matthew McReynolds, senior staff attorney at the Pacific Justice Institute — a conservative legal organization the SPLC falsely brands a “hate group” — warned that the overbroad definition of “hate group” in A.B. 655 raises important questions.
“Are the many conservative organizations pejoratively labeled ‘hate groups’ by the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center — because they oppose radical LGBTQ ideology — actual ‘hate groups’ within the meaning of this legislation?” McReynolds asked. “Is the Catholic Church a ‘hate group’ because it advocates for the sanctity of life and thereby rejects the constitutional rights of women to obtain abortion?”
Officers of faith could become the targets of California’s A.B. 655, which uses language broadly defining “hate groups” so as to possibly include Christian or politically conservative officers. (Photo: Randall Coble/Blue Lives Matter)
“Are the thousands of churches in California which voiced support for Proposition 8, the traditional definition of marriage, ‘hate groups’ because they opposed LGBTQ constitutional rights to marry?” he added. “Are the careers of Muslim officers in jeopardy if the mosque where they offer prayers has ever spoken out against homosexuality or gender equality? Is the Republican Party a ‘hate group’ because it does not endorse gender identity as a constitutional right?”
Republicans in the California Assembly, though a decided minority, told ACV that, if it is not the author’s intent to exclude from law enforcement the millions of Californians who identify as Catholic, Southern Baptist, Pentacostal, other conservative evangelical, Muslim, or Republican, this bill must be substantially rewritten to communicate a very different intent than what currently inheres from its language.
McReynolds noted that the definitions are so broad that even someone who does not adopt all of the organization’s views — such as a pro-choice Catholic — would still be excluded because the Bill targets mere membership in these “offensive” organization. Worse, AB 655 would exclude past members or associates of such groups, regardless of how much time has passed since that association.
Kalra, the author of the legislation, denied any attempt to target conservatives or Republicans in the bill.
“I believe the simple requirement of conducting thorough background checks of law enforcement officers is critically needed and that the measure is a step in the right direction. Extremism, racism, and animus have no place among our law enforcement agencies and only contributes to the erosion of public confidence in the legitimacy and fairness of our justice system,” Kalra told ACV.
“This bill is in no way intended to curtail freedom of religious views or political affiliations — conservative or otherwise,” he insisted.
Kalra attempted to claim this so-called “CLEAR Act” — as he has styled it — was drafted in a way that recognizes there can be nuances in a person’s affiliation with a ‘hate group’ and the legislation is not meant to identify specific groups.
However, ACV’s review of the proposed legislation tells a very different story. It is quite clear from this review that A.B. 655 attempts, under the guise of addressing so-called “police gangs,” the bill launches an inexplicable, unwarranted, and unprecedented attack on peaceable, conscientious officers who happen to hold conservative political and religious views “
Kalra did not answer ACV’s questions about whether he considers the SPLC’s “hate group” accusations reliable. Democrats in Congress have repeatedly cited the SPLC’s “hate group” accusations to demonize former President Donald Trump’s nominees, and Attorney General Dana Nessel (D-MI) also cited the SPLC’s accusations in launching his state’s hate-crimes unit in 2019, effectively announcing government surveillance and targeting of conservative groups.
Given California’s Fascist bent, it stands to reason that many of the state’s police departments might interpret the term “hate group” along similar lines as the SPLC and that Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom other his replacement after a successful recall might direct them to do so.