Read on Twitter
A thread on the pernicious "hate incident registry" about to become law in Minnesota.
As we've noted before, the demand for hate crimes in Minnesota vastly exceeds the supply.
And there is an entire industry in the state (bureaucrats and nonprofits) dependent on producing more.
As we've noted before, the demand for hate crimes in Minnesota vastly exceeds the supply.
And there is an entire industry in the state (bureaucrats and nonprofits) dependent on producing more.
The language is contained in SF 2909, the "public safety bill" on page 50, beginning at line 31.
revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php…
revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php…
The language is a 15-line run on sentence that begins,
"solicit, receive, and compile information from community organizations, school
districts and charter schools, and individuals regarding incidents committed in whole or in
substantial part because of the victim's or...
"solicit, receive, and compile information from community organizations, school
districts and charter schools, and individuals regarding incidents committed in whole or in
substantial part because of the victim's or...
"...another's actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity,
religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, national
origin, or disability as defined in section 363A.03..."
and continues in that same vein. Note that the first word is "solicit"
religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, national
origin, or disability as defined in section 363A.03..."
and continues in that same vein. Note that the first word is "solicit"
The bill is now in conference committee, but the above language is in both the House and Senate versions so it will become law, barring a miracle.
Minnesota already logs all "hate crimes." So now the state Department of Human Rights can go out and solicit items for the registry.
Minnesota already logs all "hate crimes." So now the state Department of Human Rights can go out and solicit items for the registry.
The actual hate crimes committed are too few and far between to justify the state and local bureaucrats and scores of nonprofits dedicated to the issue. So now they have to create a bias "incident" registry to justify their jobs and salaries.
In the House, members @HarryNiska and @WalterHudson have done great work shining a light on this Orwellian (more like Philip K. Dick) proposal.
It's received national and international attention, but little coverage in local media.
It's received national and international attention, but little coverage in local media.
So what qualifies as an "incident" to be recorded by official state government?
Literally, whatever the "victim" decides. It's bringing the college campus and the fight against "microaggressions" to society at large.
And the contents of the registry have been deemed "secret."
Literally, whatever the "victim" decides. It's bringing the college campus and the fight against "microaggressions" to society at large.
And the contents of the registry have been deemed "secret."
Aggregate data will be published by state government, but you won't know whether or not your name is on the list, because they have exempted data on private individuals from data practices requests (the state version of FOIA).
Two examples of what qualifies as an "incident" were brought out during the debate on the bill:
--The origins of the COVID 19 virus
--Support for author J.K. Rowling
The first is a matter of fact. The second is a matter of opinion.
--The origins of the COVID 19 virus
--Support for author J.K. Rowling
The first is a matter of fact. The second is a matter of opinion.
If you say "Covid-19 came from China." That is considered a bias incident. It is, apparently, biased against Asians (race) or Communists (creed).
Even though everyone agrees it's true. Truth be told, the more factual the statement, the more likely it is to cause perceived harm.
Even though everyone agrees it's true. Truth be told, the more factual the statement, the more likely it is to cause perceived harm.
Whether or not you like author J.K. Rowling is a matter of personal opinion.
But if you publicly express support for her, you have committed a bias incident against certain groups who don't like her and you will be recorded in the registry.
Forget the First Amendment.
But if you publicly express support for her, you have committed a bias incident against certain groups who don't like her and you will be recorded in the registry.
Forget the First Amendment.
What's to be done with this secret data that you can't see?
Other than justifying budgets and head counts, they won't say.
But consider its use in a world of "social credit"
Other than justifying budgets and head counts, they won't say.
But consider its use in a world of "social credit"
One day you can't renew your license tabs, because your name is on the secret incident report.
One day you can't run for public office, because your name is on the list.
The use of this data is only constrained by their imagination (limitless) and their scruples (none).
One day you can't run for public office, because your name is on the list.
The use of this data is only constrained by their imagination (limitless) and their scruples (none).
And those who believe that a state court would throw out this law, are unfamiliar with the current makeup of our state Supreme and Appeals courts.
One reason you haven't heard more about the MN hate/bias incident reporting registry is that it's buried in an omnibus bill that also carries the gun control measures.
All of the local attention has been focused on the gun provisions.
All of the local attention has been focused on the gun provisions.
Interestingly enough, the original version of HF 181 dealt with expanded reporting of hate *crimes*, which are defined in law.
As the bill moved through committee, it became an *incident* registry, not defined in law.
As the bill moved through committee, it became an *incident* registry, not defined in law.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
