minnesotalawmag.law.umn.edu
Disclaimer: This article may contain the personal views and opinions of the author.
Did you ever think America would become a place where speech is tracked and could possibly result in your name landing on a government registry?
Just last week, journalist Brian Stelter, formerly of CNN, had a conversation with NBC fill-in host Tom Costello who asked if anyone on Twitter will be able to “police what [Tucker] Carlson says?”
Yes, a “journalist” asked that question.
Now consider what a Democrat-controlled state legislature is attempting in Minnesota.
The lawmakers approved a bill requiring the state’s Department of Human Rights to collect any allegation of perceived discrimination or microaggressions in a new “bias” registry.
According to the St. Cloud Times, citizens can snitch on others for “slurs or verbal attacks” even if they are not considered crimes.
The legislation, first introduced in January, has been added to a public safety bill that includes drastic restrictions on gun ownership in the state.
The bill, SF 2909, “allocates $934,000 to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights to ‘gather, analyze, and report on discrimination and hate incidents throughout Minnesota’ over the next two years.”
Life Site News is reporting that the bill specifically requires the department to:
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.
“The bill does not explicitly prevent collecting names of reported offenders.
“And it notably includes ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ and ‘gender expression’ as protected classes, meaning that opposition to LGBT ideology could land someone on the registry.”
Rebecca Lucero, the Minnesota Human Rights commissioner, admitted that there is a database that will ensure documentation and tracking of such incidents by the government.
She gave an example of someone yelling some type of slur at a person.
Can you imagine the potential for false claims in situations where two people are in an argument?
“So, under this bill, if someone gets their feelings hurt, it generates an incident report with the state Department of Human Rights,” Minnesota Republican Rep. Walter Hudson tweeted, and it’s what many of us are thinking.
Hudson condemned the proposal as a way “to manufacture legitimacy around the narrative of ‘hate’ as a growing problem and lobby further government action.”
“We should not be policing, tracking, or documenting speech,” Hudson continued.
During the debate over the bill on the House floor, Republican Rep. Harry Niska asked a couple of poignant questions of his Democrat colleague, Rep. Samantha Vang.
“If a Minnesotan writes an article claiming or arguing that COVID-19 is a Chinese bio-weapon that leaked from a lab in Wuhan, and someone reports that article to the Department of Human Rights, is that something that the Department of Human Rights should put in their bias registry under your bill?” he asked.
Vang answered yes citing biased motivation for such arguments.
“If a Minnesotan is wearing a t-shirt that says ‘I love J.K. Rowling’ and someone sees that and reports them to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights as an example of gender identity or gender expression bias, is that something that the Minnesota Department of Human Rights should put in this bias database?” Niska questioned.
“I’m not going to say yes or no to that question,” Vang responded.
Good luck living under such control. Florida will be welcoming a slew of Minnesotans soon.
