pageok
pageok
pageok
Should Being an Active Member of a racist, anti-gay, anti-Semitic organization

disqualify someone from serving on a state hate crimes commission? You would think so, but, at least in Illinois, you'd be wrong: "On Wednesday, [Governor] Blagojevich expressed support for Claudette Marie Muhammad, director of community outreach for the Nation of Islam, a black Muslim group led by the Rev. Louis Farrakhan... Muhammad recently invited commission members to attend a Farrakhan speech in which he accused 'Hollywood Jews' of 'promoting lesbianism, homosexuality' and other 'filth.'"

UPDATE: In answer to readers' comments, racism is central to NOI ideology, not peripheral. Just do a Google search on "Nation of Islam" "racism" and "yacub" or "yakub." And I find the analogy to a Boy Scouts leader extremely imprecise. The Scouts ban gays (and atheists, and girls), certainly, but I have never seen an example of the Scouts preaching hate toward gays (or atheists, or girls). A governor could nevertheless use his discretion not to appoint a Scout leader to any civil rights-related position, of course.

Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
Maybe they just want someone with experience in the field. Would you want a Securities and Exchange Commission lacking anyone who had ever invested? A Federal Communications Commission with no background in broadcasting?

It'd be a shame to have a hate crimes commission composed of people who have never considered a hate crime. Think of the errors that might result from inexperience and lack of understanding!

I'm sure that's what motivated the UN to put Libya and others such on the human rights committee. There's no substitute for experience!
3.2.2006 11:31pm
FXKLM:
A better example would be putting Joe Kennedy on the SEC.
3.2.2006 11:47pm
WB:
Is this what the Nation of Islam is about, or is this a guilt-by-association argument, where one takes a few of an organization leader's more inflammatory speeches and imputes them to everyone who's ever touched the group?

I'm asking a serious question, because I honestly don't know all that much about the Nation of Islam except for the speeches that Farrakhan has made, and I'm a bit concerned about the rumblings of Democrats trying to paint Wallace (newest CA5 nominee) as a racist because he worked for Trent Lott once.

DB or other commenters, please tell me more about the Nation of Islam and why we should question Claudette Muhammad's ability to serve on a hate crimes commission. I'm not doubting the argument, but I'd to see it made in a bit more detail.
3.3.2006 12:00am
Lev:
It doesn't disqualify anyone from the UN Human Rights Commission so why should it here?
3.3.2006 12:13am
Dave:
In response to WB's question, I looked up a bit on NOI. Here is their 1965 platform. I have no idea if it is still accurate. It does come out pretty strongly against any form of racial integration.

At least for me, the most surprising one was:
12. WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims.


I'll look forward to seeing what others post.

Dave
3.3.2006 12:22am
Kovarsky (mail):
I don't think there's any serious debate as to whether NOI is racist or not. There is some serious internal debate over how violent the means associated with those beliefs may be (Malcolm X was assassinated over this issue). Maybe I'm wrong, I'd appreciate if someone could correct me.
3.3.2006 12:30am
AK (mail):
"12. WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."

Um, the "long-awaited 'Messiah' of the Christians" was Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps these folks meant that W. Fard was the long-awaited Messiah of the Jews. We Christians already have a Messiah, and we like him just fine, thank you very much.
3.3.2006 12:38am
Lev:
Are the creations of the evil Doctor Yakub even allowed to discuss The Nation of Islam without Allah striking them down?

More seriously, are the members of the Nation of Islam actually engaging in hate crimes when they advocate racial separatism and discuss Not Noi's in uncomplementary terms? Are speech and opinion hate crimes? Should they be? Wasn't the original idea behind "hate crimes" to add some extra punishment to a regular actual crime that was performed out of some racial etc. hatred?
3.3.2006 12:39am
Justice Fuller:
She sounds perfect: she's probably a real expert in hate crimes.
3.3.2006 12:51am
John Thacker (mail):
Lev--

When you look at it that way, then perhaps Claudette Marie Muhammad could be a decent choice, as someone that truly understands that even offensive speech should protected. I might even be able to make the argument with a straight face.
3.3.2006 12:51am
Kovarsky (mail):
It's like sticking Dick Cheney on the don't do completely ridiculous stuff like shooting people in the face committee.
3.3.2006 1:23am
Wintermute (www):
I think there's a tendency of Hollywood elites to use the power of the movie medium to educate their customers as to what those elites consider politically correct. Plus, pushing boundaries is a way of attracting viewers and selling tickets and advertisments, padding the pockets of the producers. Homosexual behavior happens naturally; messages of condonation which may increase those behaviors in the young may not be perceived as a good thing by some subcultures. Derogatory label-throwing either way is not an expression of the highest intelligence.
3.3.2006 1:44am
Kovarsky (mail):
I know this is sort of a tangent, but there's a point I've been wanting to make about this "Hollywood's Homosexual Agenda" garbage.

I happen to think the idea that Hollywood has a coordinated, monolithic agenda is silly. I also think the idea that if they do have an agenda, they should be bound to create art/entertainment that speaks to its adversaries is equally silly. Neither of those is my point.

Let's call a spade a spade. All the O'Reilly types think - specifically - that Brokeback Mountain "promotes" homosexuality.

Say what? Have you seen the movie? How does it promote homosexuality? Through the mere act of depicting it? If that's the argument, boy, that's some stupid, stupid stuff. And if the point isn't that the mere act of depicting homosexuality encourages it, is the point based on the movie's plot? I mean the plotline more or less IS the modern social conservative take on homosexuality - not a crime, but we shouldn't encourge it as a lifestyle for others because bad things happen to them. The ENTIRE MOVIE is about 2 characters who aren't good and aren't evil in any way traceable to their sexuality, but that are more or less miserable for the course of their lives because of the various romantic, social, and economic tolls that their homosexuality takes on them.

Honestly, what are these people talking about? I don't get it. If somebody has a clear explanation for how that movie "promoted homosexual lifestyles," please by all means explain it to me. I'm a fairly literate guy - I dig on Cervantes, Homer, David Foster Wallace, Alan Bloom, Pynchon, De Toqueville, and Salman Rushdie - what on earth kind of reading is that of a fictional text?
3.3.2006 1:55am
jvarisco:
Would you also disqualify a boy scout leader? Or even the Pope? Both are certainly anti-homosexual.

The fact that we have hate crimes commissions is problematic in itself; perhaps it is best that such people sit on them, would you prefer a feminist or a gay rights activist who would actually try to enforce things?
3.3.2006 2:39am
finec:
Blagojevich has only default political support in Illinois. Given the right scandal/issue, and the right Democratic primary challenger, he's toast. None of the Democrats downstate actually like the guy. Illinois deserves better in the governor's office, and everybody knows it, from both parties.
3.3.2006 2:51am
Kovarsky (mail):
Jvarisco,

I think the idea is that if an institutionally appropriate body has made a decision that such a commission should exist, it's pretty dumb to populate it members that would sabatoge the mission for which the commission was constituted.
3.3.2006 2:52am
Frank Drackmann (mail):
Being a member of the democrat party, while odious, should not disqualify one from public office.
3.3.2006 6:40am
DNL (mail):
Maybe IL is just being incredibly liberal (in the classic sense of the word) and drawing a distinction between "hate" and "hate crime." After all, who better to show restraint than one who exhibits it daily?
3.3.2006 7:12am
Public_Defender:
The only difference between the Nation of Islam and many conservative Christians is that the NOI believes there is something immoral about being either Jewish or gay, while many conservative Christians see something immoral about being gay.

Or, to use the term many conservative Christians prefer, the NOI opposes both the Jewish and the gay "lifestyle" while conservative Christians opose only the gay "lifestyle."

Hasn't the Pope himself said that gays are "inherently disordered"? What's worse about the NOI's rhetoric? Would you exlude all Catholics from the commission?

Also, wouldn't an anti-gay Orthodox Jew also be excluded from the committee based on your view?
3.3.2006 7:58am
Anonymous Jim (mail):
I see nothing wrong with having a racist, anti-semite or homophobe ona "hate crimes" commission as long as they do not advocate or commit hate crimes and they are able to understand the difference between committing a hate crime and exercising free speech rights (which admittedly is tough to do).
3.3.2006 8:08am
ralph.m (mail):
MINORITIES CAN'T BE RACIST--THEY'RE OPPRESSED!

jk lol...

on brokeback mountain not being pro-homosexual: (1) the characters are not just gay, but gay cowboys, and the cowboy is a seminal manly character in american cinema; (2) the message cannot be isolated from the way it has been presented in the media. hardly anyone actually saw the movie, it was a symbol.
3.3.2006 8:16am
paulhager (mail) (www):
Why should there be such a thing as a "Hate Crime Commission"? If I buy wood, erect a cross in my own yard, and burn it, why is that a crime? If I do it in my neighbor's yard, why should it be treated as anything other than trespass and/or attempted arson? Why does it make a difference if you kill a man to steal $50 from him or because he's homosexual? "Hate crimes" are feel good laws that serve no other purpose.

The whole idea of laws against "hate crimes" is itself pernicious in that it becomes easier to criminalize the underlying beliefs. NOI's brand of bigotry is offensive but it's not criminal. It's pretty clear that the view of the commission member who resigned is that NOI's belief set is an insipient hate crime. Doesn't anyone else see this as a problem?
3.3.2006 8:27am
ralph.m (mail):
yeah, the author of the post wrote a book about it...
3.3.2006 8:29am
Anon1ms (mail):
If we are going to tie individuals too closely with the religions to which they belong, we may have a hard time getting any Catholics on such commissions.

Perhaps we ought to look at the individual rather than the group. The Chicago Sun-Times recommends this course of action:

But no one has yet produced a quote by Muhammad that can be construed as "hate-filled." Until then, Blagojevich should not be browbeaten into rescinding her appointment. To do so would be to treat Muhammad as if she were responsible for Farrakhan's actions.

If the commission members want to condemn Farrakhan anew as an anti-Semite, that is their call. But Muhammad should not be banned from that body because she represents the Nation of Islam.

Indeed, given the ugliness that exists between the Nation of Islam and Jewish leadership, the commission should be the place to deal with their latest fight.
Of course this becomes more difficult if some members leave the commission rather than serve with someone with whom they disagree.
3.3.2006 8:39am
AppSocRes (mail):
Those familiar with the "Zebra" killings in San Francisco in the 1960s - 1970s know that the Nation of Islam -- and in particular its Chicago headquarters -- were directly linked to those murders by confessions and law enforcement intelligence. In my opinion, that and the assassination of Malcolm X puts this organization utterly beyond the pale. Anyone comparing the thug-managed NOI with a legitimate religion needs some re-education in late twentieth century history or else some serious psychological counseling.
3.3.2006 8:56am
The Human Fund (mail):
Public_Defender said:


The only difference between the Nation of Islam and many conservative Christians is that the NOI believes there is something immoral about being either Jewish or gay, while many conservative Christians see something immoral about being gay.

Or, to use the term many conservative Christians prefer, the NOI opposes both the Jewish and the gay "lifestyle" while conservative Christians opose only the gay "lifestyle."

Hasn't the Pope himself said that gays are "inherently disordered"? What's worse about the NOI's rhetoric? Would you exlude all Catholics from the commission?

Also, wouldn't an anti-gay Orthodox Jew also be excluded from the committee based on your view?



Is it possible that this understates the relevant differences between the Nation of Islam and conservative Christianity? I was under the impression that the Nation of Islam is more prone to advocate violence against those it believes are immoral. I don't think you'll see many conservative Christians advocating physical violence against homosexuality, but it's my impression that the Nation of Islam has advocated violence against Jews. I suppose I could be mistaken about my understanding of the nation of Islam, though, as I'm not entirely sure where I've gotten these impressions.

I don't deny that many/most conservative Christians believe homosexuals engage in an immoral act. But, I think that there's a difference in believing that someone engages in an immoral act and advocating violence against them.
3.3.2006 9:02am
ralph.m (mail):
"I don't think you'll see many conservative Christians advocating physical violence against homosexuality,"

MATTHEW SHEPARD!!!!
3.3.2006 9:08am
The Human Fund (mail):
What I said was I don't think you'll see many conservative Christians advocating physical violence against homosexuality. I didn't say any.

Also, I'm not familiar with all the details of Matthew Shepard. I realize that he was brutally attacked and killed because of his homosexuality. Did his attackers claim to be conservative Christians and/or was there advocating of such violence by conservative Christians before or after the attack?

I realize that people have been physically attacked as a result of their homosexuality. I just don't think it's accurate to say that the violence has been advocated by most conservative Christians.
3.3.2006 9:17am
buzz (mail):
ralph: Care to elaberate on that?
3.3.2006 9:18am
ralph.m (mail):
It was a joke! it was a joke!

look, how many times do we have to hear about matthew shepard? I was being sarcastic. if you want to see what I'm talking about, go here.

it's an article by an gay organization called soulforce that is going to visit the "anti-gay" college I attend soon. the article is titled, "What the Bible Says, and Doesn't Say -- About Homosexuality". But guess what? On page 5, the author starts in on matthew shepard. now what does that have to do with the Bible?
3.3.2006 9:23am
The Human Fund (mail):
I apologize for my rant; I misunderstood your post.
3.3.2006 9:26am
Ted Frank (www):
Public Defender is wrong. NOI views me as evil because of my birth and skin color, not because of my lifestyle. What matters is that I'm not black, and therefore only a "potential human" who was a creation of "Yakub." The better analogy is to the Klan or Christian Identity.
3.3.2006 9:27am
Brown Line (mail):
As abhorrent as I find the creed of the Nation of Islam, the Constitution states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" (Article VI). Is anyone here saying that an exception should be made for the Nation of Islam?

Blagojevich's choice may have been foolish, but Claudette Muhammad must be judged solely on what she herself has said and done, rather than on anything said or done by any other member of her creed. Period.
3.3.2006 9:40am
Anon1ms (mail):
A statement from Ms. Muhammed:
I am proud of my record over the years in working to break down the barriers of hate and discrimination, as well as to bridge the differences between people. I believe in fairness to all people regardless of race, creed, color, national origin or religious beliefs. Further, I do not condemn members of our society who may be gay or lesbian and have always advocated for their human rights. And I believe the work of the Commission is important in reaching out in a spirit of love and understanding to the entire community.
But then, why give her an opportunity to live up to her statements?
3.3.2006 9:43am
Public_Defender:
Y'all are moving the goal posts. Professor Berstein suggested that a NOI leader should be excluded from a hate crimes commission because the organization was "anti-gay" and "anti-semitic" and because the NOI member invited commission members to a "Farrakhan speech in which he accused 'Hollywood Jews' of 'promoting lesbianism, homosexuality' and other 'filth.'"

How is it any less bad for the Pope to call gays "inherently disordered" than it is for an NOI leader to call Jews "filth"?

How is it any less bad for Christian leaders to condemn Hollywood for "promoting lesbianism, [and] homosexuality" than it is for NOI leaders?
3.3.2006 9:48am
great unknown (mail):
I have seen no evidence that the resignations were precipitated by the appointment of Ms. Muhammed per se . Rather, it was the invitation to the commission members to attend the Farrakhan lecture. This, apparently, was seen as an endorsement of Mr. Farrakhan's creed which, IMHO, does not advocate "fairness to all people regardless of race, creed," etc.

BTW, the definition of "fairness" is always subjective. The Nation of Islam members implicated in trashing liquor stores in California may have believed they were acting as fairly as the Federal Government feels it is acting fairly in confiscating marijuana from chemotherapy patients.

A problem with appointing a member of such a group to a position of prominence is that it may be taken as a tacit approval of their definition of fairness.
3.3.2006 10:02am
Houston Lawyer:
Who defines what a "hate" crime is? I nominate medically unnecessary abortions for "hate crime" status.

Right now we are starting the retrial of Andrea Yates for killing her 5 children. Arguably, she killed them out of her twisted sense of love. Nonetheless, but for double jeopardy concerns, I would support the death penalty for her.

Apparently, many on this string believe that viewing homosexual activity as sinful equates with bigotry. So apparently, only people who gleefully approve of all fornication must be excluded from "hate crime" commissions. Sounds more like an athiest swingers convention to me.
3.3.2006 10:09am
Opus (mail):
"Nonetheless, but for double jeopardy concerns, I would support the death penalty for her."

Actually, per Sattazhan v. Pennsylvania et al, I don't think there are double jeopardy concerns, at least in a legal sense. If you want a new trial, you get one, with the attendant risk of greater punishment.
3.3.2006 10:24am
Ty Webb:
Not entirely on point, but I would like to suggest that the definition of "hate crimes" here might be, even if unintentionally so, out of date.

Most people, including most commenters on this thread, think "hate crimes" are those committed on some sort of distaste for a particular group of people. That is, in fact, how most statutes are constructed. However, this definition does not get at the real motivation behind attacks on minority populations.

Hate crimes are crimes of opportunity. A group that has less power is less likely to be able to effectuate a response in the justice system to crimes committed against them.

Consider evidence that the rate of lynchings in the Reconstruction South went up and down as it became more or less necessary to control economic interests such as land and labor. The fact that whites could get away with violence against made them quite likely to commit violence without regard to hate and simply to exploit an opportunity.

Consider also that crimes against gay men are often motivated by opportunity. Groups of men may engage in "gay bashing" violence to establish status benefits within that group. Robberies and other financial shakedowns are also common where the perpetrator knows his or her gay victim, and realizes that this victim would rather part with their property than report the crime to the police.

In both cases described above, researchers indicate that it is not necessary for perpetrators to feel animus towards the group they are attacking--they may "hate" blacks or gays, they may not. The only thing tying hate crimes perpetrators together is a willingness to exploit supposed vulnerabilities of a minority group.

I'm not sure if this illuminates the original question on whether someone associated with a group advocating hate should be on a hate crimes board. I do think we should let her speak for herself and then make a decision. Regardless of your opinion on this woman, I am curious if the conversation changes when one realizes hate speech and hate crimes may not be motivated by the same factors.
3.3.2006 10:24am
Public_Defender:
Public Defender is wrong. NOI views me as evil because of my birth and skin color, not because of my lifestyle. What matters is that I'm not black, and therefore only a "potential human" who was a creation of "Yakub." The better analogy is to the Klan or Christian Identity.
So, would you find it acceptable if an anti-semite believed that Jews were "inherently disordered" but that Jews should be allowed to get married and have kids (and be free from other forms of discrimination) if they denounce their Judaism and lead a non-Jewish lifestyle?

That still sounds like a bigot to me.
3.3.2006 10:59am
Joe B. (mail):

a Farrakhan speech in which he accused 'Hollywood Jews' of 'promoting lesbianism, homosexuality' and other 'filth.

'"


Is it just me, or does it seem a little suspicious when a guy who surrounds himself with a cadre of tall, muscular "bodyguards" comes out so strongly against homosexuality? Seems like he's protesting a bit much. By the way, he refers to his always impeccably tailored protectors as "the fruit of Islam".
3.3.2006 11:04am
dk35 (mail):
Count me as one who agrees that under DB's logic, no Catholic could serve on the commission due to the Pope's anti-Gay stance.
3.3.2006 11:15am
Elwood:
"I hate Illinois nazis."

Apparenly Illinois has a track record?
3.3.2006 11:18am
james (mail):
It is now believed that Mathew Shepard was killed over drugs.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
3.3.2006 11:36am
David in NYC:
Kovarsky: While Brokeback Mountain doesn't actively promote homosexuality (unless you consider that the sex scenes may encourage young latent homosexuals to experiment, which would be frowned upon by anti-gay critics), it is most definitely a pro-gay movie. Don't you see it? The reason the poor gay cowboys are miserable is because of society. In other words, because of us. If we weren't all so anti-gay, these guys could have expressed their love for other men their whole lives, and would never have been forced into such a miserable, closeted existence by a bigoted, oppressive, anti-gay society. The only reason the movie exists at all is because the intellectual fascism of the elite Left demands that we believe that we are continually responsible for their misery. We are supposed to understand that to this day most gay men are forced into the closet, and they are not allowed to be out and proud. We are supposed to understand the tragic damage that we have done.

As for the Nation of Islam, the goal posts are not being moved. The NOI is different from Conservative Christians for a number of reasons, the most relevant to this topic being:

1. Conservative Christians are not all members of one organization with one credo and one leader. There is a gigantic difference between the thought processes of a monolithic, semi-fascist organization and a multitude of sects, churches, individual prayer groups, etc. There can be no comparison between the way beliefs are disseminated and shared in the NOI and among Conservative Christians. Neither can there be any legitimate comparison to the homogenaity of beliefs of the NOI and the millions of Conservative Christians.

2. The NOI advocates violence against Jews and gays to this day. While they certainly don't do anything about it on a large scale, there is potential for violence on an individual level every day. There is always the threat of violence in the air when they gather in groups, and I speak from personal experience. While there are Conservative Christian individuals that commit violent acts against homosexuals, there is no evidence that homosexuals have been threatened with violence when staying at the same hotel as a Conservative Christian convention, or walk into a Conservative Christian (or Catholic) church. Pope Benedictus XVI would not direct his bodyguards to beat the crap out of a Jew or a homosexual.

There is no comparison between the two.
3.3.2006 11:43am
Joe Friendly (mail):
This seems the most natural and logical progression of the entire line of "Hate Crimes" reasoning. Lots of libertarians were saying this is the inevitable sort of idiocy we were trundling off to. I bet from the NOI's perspective they're thinking "heck, Illinois has got a Holocaust Museum but no Black Holocaust museum - and Illinois has got nothing to do with Germany in the 40s. Those damn Jews control everything, always talking about their holocaust, etc. etc. etc." -- this whole thing is just a fine leftist chicken coming home to roost and all the great 'hate crimes' and 'sensitivity' thinkers and trainers of the Jewish left have mostly themselves to blame.
3.3.2006 11:45am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Also, I'm not familiar with all the details of Matthew Shepard. I realize that he was brutally attacked and killed because of his homosexuality. Did his attackers claim to be conservative Christians and/or was there advocating of such violence by conservative Christians before or after the attack?
Others have already provided links to ABC News coverage of the story, but let me reiterate: the evidence is pretty persuasive that Matthew Shepard's murder was not because of his sexuality. Indeed, ABC News interviewed a man who knew for a fact that one of the killers was bisexual, because he had sex with the killer frequently. Homosexuals decided to turn a tragic robbery and murder into a hate crime--in spite of no evidence for that--because they needed a poster child.
3.3.2006 11:55am
Elais:

only reason the movie exists at all is because the intellectual fascism of the elite Left demands that we believe that we are continually responsible for their misery


I thought that the movie existed at all is that it was a great story that the producers felt must be told. Why assume there is some conspiracy by the 'intellectual fascim of the elite left? What is an 'elite left'? Who are the 'elite left'. I would suppose there is an 'intellectual fascim of the elite right' that created created 'The End of the Spear'?
3.3.2006 12:14pm
Visitor Again:
It appears David Bernstein is willing to attribute to the woman any alleged goal of the organization to which she belongs. It violates the first amendment right of association to penalize a woman because of her membership in an organization unless proof is produced that she not only shares but has the intent to further the illegal goal of the group. This first amendment principle is at bottom one of fundamental fairness; the more general principle that guilt must be individual has due process roots.

Whether this woman should be given a discretionary political appointment presents a different legal question, of course, but it is not a different question as far as fairness is concerned. Perhaps the appointing authority is not as ready as Bernstein to jump on the guilt by association bandwagon. Perhaps the appointing authority feels it is more important to look at the conduct of the woman herself rather than that of the Nation of Islam as a whole. Perhaps her membership in the Nation of Islam has been accompanied by work against hate and perhaps she is superbly qualified to sit on the hate crimes commission. I doubt the Nation of Islam, unlike some other groups like the Klan, is as monolithic in its membership's views as Bernstein appears to believe.

When racial, ethnic, religious or sexual status is the motivation for the crime, it is a hate crime deserving increased penalty in my book. The status that is hated puts the group member at increased risk of being a victim of assault or related crimes. Crimes based on race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation strike a particularly harmful blow to the social order in a society that has even a modest commitment to equality and fair treatment. Condemnation for status is at least as bad as condemnation by association.
3.3.2006 12:30pm
Reverseretina (mail) (www):
Having grown up in IL I can tell you the one big difference between Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and NOI is that the first three have a long history of what the Vatican calls "Dissent". While it hard as hell to find it written down I discussed the topic with a priest in Italy when I was considering converting to Catholicism. Basically, as long as you believe in the "core" of a religion you may dissent, although not openly, with perpherial teachings. In my case it was the ascension of Mary. I could become a Catholic and not "believe" in that particular teaching. But I had to accept Christ as my saviour...I'm getting side-tracked. The point is that I grew up around and went to school with a few NOI's (or Black Muslims as we called them in my 'hood) and my understanding was that they had to accept all of the NOI teachings. They could not remove themselves from the organization. So while the Pope may say that Homosexuality is a sin and tell his flock not to interact with gays a Catholic may dissent on the opinion but not advocate against the teaching. NOI has no such doctrine. They must accept the teachings of Organization in whole as they see it as submission to Allah and you can't question God. So it is not guilt by association. If she didn't believe it she would just me a Muslim and not NOI. At least, that's the way I understand it from talking with people of the different sects.
3.3.2006 1:11pm
Brandonks (mail) (www):
On the issue of whether this individual should be on this appointed public body, it would seem that serving as the "Minister of Protocol" for the Nation of Islam is different than mere membership. It does imply active and official support of their racist positions.

As to the larger issue of a "hate crime" commission and the concept of hate crimes, it is important to examine the implications of that thinking, for example:

Supporting a Nazi Lover

It is a slippery legal and political slope.
3.3.2006 1:14pm
Visitor Again:
Look, I have no problem in saying that this woman should not be considered for the appointment if she herself engaged in hate speech. But produce some evidence she did, rather than merely relying on her membership in the Nation of Islam or on her post as minister of protocol, whatever that is, for the group. Surely that's not asking tooi much in terms of fairness? Surely if she were a hate-monger, it should't be too difficult to find proof of that. Guilt by association is for the lazy; just do the investigative work that fairness demands before condemnation is issued. The result might be predictable; do the work anyway for the sake of fairness. It's the American way.
3.3.2006 1:32pm
pst314 (mail):
I've met a few members of the Nation of Islam. More than anything else, they sounded like the few white supremacists I've met. Not at all like the conservative Christians I have known.
3.3.2006 1:35pm
Been There Done That:
Paraphrasing "Visitor Again":

Look, I have no problem in saying that this woman should not be considered for the appointment if she herself engaged in hate speech. But produce some evidence she did, rather than merely relying on her membership in the Ku Klux Klan or on her post as minister of protocol, whatever that is, for the group. Surely that's not asking too much in terms of fairness?
3.3.2006 1:48pm
Californio (mail):
"Guilt by association is for the lazy." ABBBBsolutely. Absent compelling, admissible evidence that the woman herself commited a crime (by definition which should require a conviction), then how can anyone protest her inclusion in the panel. Sure, the panel is about "hate" crimes - but this is in the eyes of the beholder, No? Ignore what they say. They don't "really" mean it. Ignore what they do. They don't "really" mean it. What is theirs is theirs, what is yours - well that is negotiable.
3.3.2006 1:55pm
Public_Defender:
OK. OK. OK. OK. OK. I get it. NOI is far more like the Klan than maintream politically conservative Christianity. But Professor Bernstein initially questioned only why someone who is anti-gay and anti-semitic should serve on a hate crimes panel. That's far different than asking why someone who is violently anti-gay and anti-semitic should serve on a hate crimes panel.

So, granting that the NOI is violent, would you find the following candidate acceptable for a hate crimes commission:
A non-violent anti-semite who argues that Jews are "inherently disordered" and should be barred from getting married, having kids, taking care of foster kids, sharing health insurance, and teaching in public schools. He thinks that Jews should be tolerated only if they don't "flaunt" their Judaism by doing or wearing anything in public that might make people think they're Jewish.

Showing compassion, this anti-semite also argues that Judaism is curable. He asserts that Jews should be allowed to get married and have kids (and be free from other forms of discrimination) if the Jews renounce their Judaism and lead a non-Jewish lifestyle?
That still sounds like a bigot to me.
3.3.2006 2:05pm
Visitor Again:
Paraphrasing "Visitor Again":

Nrrn There, Done That, I pointed out in my original message above that I doubted that the views of Nation of Islam members were as monolithic as those of groups like the Klan. Even if I'm wrong on that, the U.S. Supreme Court required actual proof of individual subscription to the unlawful goals of the Communist Party because mere membership was not enough. And as I pointed out in my second message, the result might be predictable, but do the investigative work anyway to find individual guilt for the sake of fairness; it's the American way.
3.3.2006 2:10pm
Public_Defender:
Back to the original question. Yes, I think having someone like Claudette Marie Muhammad on a hate crimes commission can serve two purposes, the first being far more important than the second:
1) It reminds the other members that vicious, violent hate exists.

2) It's a chance to change a bigot's mind.
Of course, one Claudette Marie Muhammad is enough.
3.3.2006 2:37pm
dick thompson (mail):
I have a problem with defining after the fact what is a hate crime. If a gay man is drunk and walking down the street and a group attacks him, beats him up, steals his money/drugs/whatever, how can you be sure that this happened because he was gay as opposed to he was there at the time? That is my big problem with defining something as a hate crime. If someone goes into a gay bar for the specific reason of beating up gays, then you have a hate crime. If a gay gets beaten up or a straight gets beaten up, then is the one a hate crime and the other not? That is the slippery slope that I see with the whole concept of hate crimes. The reason someone gets mugged is usually because he is there, available and muggable for whatever reason. If he happens to be gay that does not mean that he was mugged because he was gay. You need more proof than that to make it a hate crime in my opinion.

As to this case, if the person is an official of an organization that makes definite statements that are indisputably hateful and you are an official who is responsible for the statements that organization makes, then you should not be named to this type of commission. If you are a member of the organization and are not responsible for the statements of that organization, then the appointment should be based on you yourself and what you have to say. There is a difference between being a spokesman for such an organization and being a member. Your reason for being a member
3.3.2006 3:00pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

I have a problem with defining after the fact what is a hate crime. If a gay man is drunk and walking down the street and a group attacks him, beats him up, steals his money/drugs/whatever, how can you be sure that this happened because he was gay as opposed to he was there at the time? That is my big problem with defining something as a hate crime.
My understanding is that the status of the victim alone is not enough to establish that the violent act is a "hate crime." There needs to be some sort of evidence (statements by the criminal that shows animus directed towards the victim for being a member of a particular group, for example) before this can result in a conviction.

I have a problem with "hate crimes" largely because I think that violent crimes should be punished quite seriously, regardless of whether the motivation was wallet envy or racial hatred. It is because liberals have a hard time with the idea of punishing violent criminals that they decided that there needed to be a special enhancement when the criminal does it for the "wrong" reasons.

For example, if you plan going somewhere to attack a complete stranger and he dies, I see no reason for you to ever leave prison. You are clearly someone too dangerous to leave in civilized society. Because liberals oppose long sentences for violent crimes*, they have to have a special reason when a criminal attacks one of their pets.

* Before I get accused of a strawman argument: I spent a couple of years writing letters to California legislators trying get the penalty for rape increased from its laughable three year minimum, and the liberals were just full of excuses for why this was a bad idea. Richard Alan Davis was the poster boy for liberalism's notion of appropriate sentencing. California's liberals do believe in long sentences--but for gun control violations. When they passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, the minimum sentence for sale of one of the specified weapons was four years in prison--or longer than the sentence for forcible rape.
3.3.2006 4:20pm
Mark F. (mail):
Many conservative/orthodox Christians favor making homosexuality illegal again --- in other words, they favor government aggression against homosexuals. They don't want to beat up gays, but they would like to see them in prison.
3.3.2006 4:35pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Many conservative/orthodox Christians favor making homosexuality illegal again --- in other words, they favor government aggression against homosexuals. They don't want to beat up gays, but they would like to see them in prison.
I agree that there are conservative Christians who want homosexuality made illegal (although I'm not one of them), but I think you would have to search far and wide to find many that want homosexuals in prison.

The goal of those who want homosexuality criminalized are:

1. Make a statement about how the society feels about homosexuality. You might find that offensive; I find it silly. But it no sillier than many liberal efforts to "send a message," such as gun control laws that are unenforceable.

2. Put homosexuals in a position where they feel a need to exercise a little discretion--like not having sex in public view, or using the public library for meetings of the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
3.3.2006 6:06pm
JosephSlater (mail):
Clayton:

Was the guy arrested in his home -- not in public view, not in a public library -- in the Lawrence case not exercising sufficient discretion?
3.3.2006 6:13pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Clayton:

Was the guy arrested in his home -- not in public view, not in a public library -- in the Lawrence case not exercising sufficient discretion?
1. As I have repeatedly stated, I don't think that it is good public policy for the government to be passing laws that tell consenting adults what they may do in private (and it doesn't matter if that is sodomy or employment--if only liberals were willing to admit that). That this is poor public policy doesn't mean that such laws are contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't always match up to what I would like the likes to be or not to be.

2. I hope that you will agree that the circumstances of the Lawrence case are a one in a million shot? A false report of a weapons violation, the police show up at the house, find the door unlocked, and happen on two guys having sex. Why, if I didn't know better, I would wonder if this was a setup, to have a case to try, since prosecutions under the Texas sodomy law were almost unknown.
3.3.2006 6:37pm
Kovarsky (mail):
It also can't stop you from getting published by the Yale Law Journal:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=32184 - I don't know how to publish links, but that's the Kiwi Camara Article YLJ just took for its symposium. For those who don't know, Kiwi is the harvard student that referred to "nigs" in the notes he published online while in law school. He is also a prodigy, the youngest Harvard grad ever to graduate.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=32184
3.3.2006 6:49pm
TLB (mail) (www):
Thanks for getting around to this.

Blago also has close ties to another powerful and questionable group:

http://michellemalkin.com/immigration/2005/11/18/04:54.pm

Search at my site for more on him and them.

Also, rising Democratic star Antonio Villaraigosa is a former member of the racial separatist group MEChA, as are several other Mexican-"American" Democrats such as Fabian Nunez, Gil Cedillo, and Raul Grijalva. That should be even more worrying, considering that there's a foreign government involved and those people hold political office.
3.3.2006 10:56pm
WB:
What do the last 20 or so comments have to do with anything?
3.4.2006 3:18pm
MotownJeff (mail):
Cramer writes:
The goal of those who want homosexuality criminalized are:

1. Make a statement about how the society feels about homosexuality. You might find that offensive; I find it silly. But it no sillier than many liberal efforts to "send a message," such as gun control laws that are unenforceable.

2. Put homosexuals in a position where they feel a need to exercise a little discretion--like not having sex in public view, or using the public library for meetings of the North American Man-Boy Love Association.


As to the first, of course, it must be pointed out that society at large probably doesn't disfavor homosexuality to the degree that it did the halcyon days of the 19th century for which proponents of such laws yearn. Brown v Bd. aside, the SC is a lagging indicator, not a leading one, w/r/t public mores.

But if the first stated goal is at least arguable, the second is laughable. One hardly need criminalize sodomy to put people in a position to where discretion is necessary. Public lewdness laws apply equally to all, regardless of sexual orientation, and provide all the in terrorem effect necessary. Some homosexual men engage in George Michael-esque public sex; in such cases, the police need not resort to sodomy laws, nor do they. Similarly, many heterosexual men engage in Hugh Grant-esque publciu sex. And I'm guessing the "problem" of public sex is hardly of a magnitude to require even the police attention it does get.

Finally, why the attempt to tar all homosexuals with the NAMBLA brush? Fallacious argument of that sort would get you a big red F in a freshman logic course.
3.4.2006 3:48pm
Kovarsky (mail):
Here's a little helpful hint to people taking digs at the "left." When you invoke "NAMBLA" people stop paying attention to you. It would be like people saying "the pat robertson right" to talk about people like arlen specter.
3.4.2006 6:08pm
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
I am with Clayton on hate crimes. I was reading of a case last week where I think a Hispanic was being charged with aggravated assault on a Black man. It started in a bar, moved to the street, and the Hispanic ended up pulling a weapon. The problem was that they tried to enhance the penalty because he used the N word in the heat of argument. Some hate crime. If it had been another Hispanic, he probably would have imputed immorality about the other guy's mother or sister. That is what happens in the heat of this sort of fight. It wasn't about hate, it was about territory and respect. Luckily, the jury was smarter than the DA, convicting on the aggrevated assault charge, but dismissing the hate crime charge.

I am just waiting for DAs to start enhancing rape convictions through hate crime charges. After all, most serial rapists really do hate women. I am just surprised that the feminists haven't started pushing this yet.

Part of the absurdity is that a lot of crimes of violence are hate crimes. I hate my wife's lover, so I kill him when I catch him in bed with my wife. At that point in time, I probably hate her too, so kill her also. Hate crime? Or just the usual 2nd Degree Murder?
3.5.2006 9:55am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
The other thing I see is that this appointment does seem a lot like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. It also gives off the message that while White on Black violence is presumably a hate crime, and definately, straight on Gay, Black on White, etc. violence is somehow different. Somehow, Black on White violence is not a hate crime, while White on Black violence is.

The analogy I see that fits this best is the one where an open Klan member is appointed to the commission. Of course, the Klan isn't anymore as outspoken in its calls to violence as the NoI is, and hasn't really been in my lifetime (or at least since Superman exposed all the Klan secrets on TV). But somehow, calls of Black on White violence are different from calls of White on Black violence, and any resulting violence is somehow magically immune from hate crime statutes (the reality, of course, is that prosecutors are perfectly willing to swing either way here).
3.5.2006 10:02am
uncle lazar (mail):
I guess we will be stuck with the absurdities of "hate crimes" and "Hate Crimes Commissions" until such time as the current Multicult regime is overthrown. The fact that such pieces of "evidence" as literature found in the suspect's home can be used in court reveals their Orwellian(i.e. Stalinist) nature.
Gov. Blogo is a typical unprincipled, careerist Illinois politician(like his predecessor "Republican" Gov. Ryan, currently on trial on corruption charges). Like Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass says: "In Illinois the party labels are for the suckers". The GOP recently had one decent officeholder(US Sen. Peter Fitzgerald) and the GOP "leadership" itself warned him not to run for reelection. Unwilling to go up against the wheeler-dealers of both parties Fitzgerald took the "hint".
3.5.2006 12:01pm
xYSGWyIpmk (mail) (www):
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/index.html , index http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/index.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/dating.html , dating http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/dating.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/toons.html , toons http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/toons.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/spanking.html , spanking http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/spanking.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/toons.html , toons http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/toons.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/amateur.html , amateur http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/amateur.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/shaved.html , shaved http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/shaved.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/foot-fetish.html , foot fetish http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/foot-fetish.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/amateur.html , amateur http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/amateur.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/bdsm.html , bdsm http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/bdsm.html
http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/dating.html , dating http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/dating.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/bondage.html , bondage http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/bondage.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/peeing.html , peeing http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/peeing.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/femdom.html , femdom http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/femdom.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/mature.html , mature http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/mature.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/milf.html , milf http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/milf.html
http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/foot-fetish.html , foot fetish http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/foot-fetish.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/asian.html , asian http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/asian.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/foot-fetish.html , foot fetish http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/foot-fetish.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/bbw.html , bbw http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/bbw.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/femdom.html , femdom http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/femdom.html
XjtYEcDNQUaRnHZyx
3.7.2006 7:00am
HYlbBehUda (mail) (www):
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/celebrities.html , celebrities http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/celebrities.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/movies.html , movies http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/movies.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/bondage.html , bondage http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/bondage.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/interracial.html , interracial http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/interracial.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/cumshot.html , cumshot http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/cumshot.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/latina.html , latina http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/latina.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/toons.html , toons http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/toons.html
http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/lesbian.html , lesbian http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/lesbian.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/uniforms.html , uniforms http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/uniforms.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/bdsm.html , bdsm http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/bdsm.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/sex-story.html , sex story http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/sex-story.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/pantyhose.html , pantyhose http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/pantyhose.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/bigtits.html , bigtits http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/bigtits.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/blowjob.html , blowjob http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/blowjob.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/sex-story.html , sex story http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/sex-story.html
http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/ebony.html , ebony http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/ebony.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/bondage.html , bondage http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/bondage.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/amateur.html , amateur http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/amateur.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/femdom.html , femdom http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/femdom.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/mature.html , mature http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/mature.html
http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/peeing.html , peeing http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/peeing.html
wQbeKZSuxJBkMVaHr
3.7.2006 7:05am
ntETbxUIGV (mail) (www):
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/ebony.html , ebony http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/ebony.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/bdsm.html , bdsm http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/bdsm.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/latex.html , latex http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/latex.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/bizarre.html , bizarre http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/bizarre.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/hairy.html , hairy http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/hairy.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/blowjob.html , blowjob http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/blowjob.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/asian.html , asian http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/asian.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/dildo.html , dildo http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/dildo.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/bdsm.html , bdsm http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/bdsm.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/gays.html , gays http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/gays.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/paris-hilton.html , paris hilton http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/paris-hilton.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/big-cock.html , big cock http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/big-cock.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/mature.html , mature http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/mature.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/pornstars.html , pornstars http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/pornstars.html
http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/celebrities.html , celebrities http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/celebrities.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/dating.html , dating http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/dating.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/shaved.html , shaved http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/shaved.html
http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/hardcore.html , hardcore http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/hardcore.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/uniforms.html , uniforms http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/uniforms.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/pantyhose.html , pantyhose http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/pantyhose.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/index.html , index http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/index.html
lBPwHVJTbWUMqCXjn
3.7.2006 7:05am
fuKWAOIYXn (mail) (www):
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/sex-story.html , sex story http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/sex-story.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/mature.html , mature http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/mature.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/sex-story.html , sex story http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/sex-story.html
http://www.airdigm.com/lesbian.html , lesbian http://www.airdigm.com/lesbian.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/hairy.html , hairy http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/hairy.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/milf.html , milf http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/milf.html
http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/mature.html , mature http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/mature.html
http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/anal.html , anal http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/anal.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/pornstars.html , pornstars http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pipiska6/pornstars.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/bbw.html , bbw http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/bbw.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/toons.html , toons http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/toons.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/milf.html , milf http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/milf.html
http://www.airdigm.com/group.html , group http://www.airdigm.com/group.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/anal.html , anal http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/anal.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/toons.html , toons http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/8marta/toons.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/mature.html , mature http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/adultumer/mature.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/paris-hilton.html , paris hilton http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/paris-hilton.html
http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/drunk-girls.html , drunk girls http://c.1asphost.com/nenado/drunk-girls.html
http://www.airdigm.com/bigtits.html , bigtits http://www.airdigm.com/bigtits.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/sex-toys.html , sex toys http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/soska/sex-toys.html
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/babes.html , babes http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/nadoelo/babes.html
kmGRSzDivTYojQfKI
3.7.2006 6:08pm