• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after federa

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,668
Reaction score
58,042
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after federal court denies his petition to dismiss lawsuit | masslive.com

*The crimes-against-humanity lawsuit filed against anti-LGBTQ activist*Scott Lively*will proceed after a federal appeals court denied his petition to dismiss the complaint, which alleges the Springfield resident violated U.S. law by trying to influence the laws of a foreign country.

On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled against Lively, president and pastor of Abiding Truth Ministries, a vehemently anti-gay ministry known for its opposition to LGBTQ rights. The denial means the lawsuit accusing Lively of fanning anti-gay flames in the East African nation of Uganda, among other things, will proceed in federal court.

The suit was filed by lawyers for the human rights groups Sexual Minorities Uganda and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Lively had asked the 1st Circuit panel to dismiss the suit via a writ of mandamus – a writ issued by a superior court commanding the performance of a specified official act or duty – but the judges denied the petition.

The suit alleges Lively encouraged government-backed acts of violence against gays in Uganda as a result of his anti-gay rhetoric, specifically remarks he made when addressing members of the nation's parliament in 2009.

Not sure how I feel about this one, as far as I can tell he had no direct involvement. Also what about Ugandan officials?
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Well the situation in Uganda before Lively showed up was relatively small, like a small campfire. Lively comes along and pours massive amounts of fuel around it by giving speeches to Ugandan parliament for hours on end and supporting anti-gay pastors and now the entire country is on fire. He turned a relatively small issue that could have been solved into a full blown human rights issue.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

From the OP's link "Springfield resident violated U.S. law by trying to influence the laws of a foreign country."

I assume, and hope, that all attempts to influence the laws of a foreign country are not illegal. Otherwise pro-gay rights and other international human rights movements based in the USA would be illegal. Lively is despicable, but unless he explicitly and strongly urged the use of violence or other serious human rights violations by citizens and/or the government I don't think he should be convicted. He claims that he advocated imposing mandatory therapy on gays, not the death penalty, and that he would not support the law if it includes a death penalty (isn't he nice?) If Lively is telling the truth I don't think he deserves conviction.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

I dont have enough knowledge of the applicable laws but it seems like the Federal appeals court said that the district court has the authority to hear the case. I wonder if his lawyers would have chosen a different reason to appeal the case they would have had better luck.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Not sure how I feel about this one, as far as I can tell he had no direct involvement. Also what about Ugandan officials?

Good points. This whole proceeding is a farce that cheapens the definition of "Crimes against humanity". There is no evidence what so ever that the accused either directly, or indirectly called for violence. In addition, there is no evidence that those who actually harmed gays were motivated by the accused to harm them.

In short, what this man is "guilty" of is being stridently against gay marriage- a PC thought crime against humanity.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

From the OP's link "Springfield resident violated U.S. law by trying to influence the laws of a foreign country."

I assume, and hope, that all attempts to influence the laws of a foreign country are not illegal. Otherwise pro-gay rights and other international human rights movements based in the USA would be illegal.

I wonder if any Planned Parenthood activists have ever directly tried to influence legislation in other nations?

Wait a minute, Hillary Clinton was closely affiliated with Planned Death when she was a private citizen. During that time (Cairo Conference on Population) Planned Death may have been keenly interested in changing laws in developing nations in the areas of abortion, contraception and sex education. I am not saying that Hillary is guilty of anything, but what is "good for the goose, is good for the gander".

As you stated, there is no evidence that the accused directly promoted violence. That alone should lead to a dismissal. Then, there is the possibility of a culture war fueled "tit for tat" and cheapening the term "crimes against humanity".
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Good points. This whole proceeding is a farce that cheapens the definition of "Crimes against humanity". There is no evidence what so ever that the accused either directly, or indirectly called for violence. In addition, there is no evidence that those who actually harmed gays were motivated by the accused to harm them.

In short, what this man is "guilty" of is being stridently against gay marriage- a PC thought crime against humanity.

Actually he preached against more than just gay marriage:

For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=0
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Does anyone have a link to the wording of the American law against Americans influencing the laws of foreigh countries?
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Good points. This whole proceeding is a farce that cheapens the definition of "Crimes against humanity". There is no evidence what so ever that the accused either directly, or indirectly called for violence. In addition, there is no evidence that those who actually harmed gays were motivated by the accused to harm them.

In short, what this man is "guilty" of is being stridently against gay marriage- a PC thought crime against humanity.

Yeah, there ****ing is that evidence.

There's a documentary on it, you should watch it. I'll see if I can find it.

edit:
God Loves Uganda | God Loves Uganda - DVD release: out on May 19th, 2014

You should watch this.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Does anyone have a link to the wording of the American law against Americans influencing the laws of foreigh countries?
From the OP's link "Springfield resident violated U.S. law by trying to influence the laws of a foreign country."
He's not being prosecuted by anyone in the US. He's being sued by a Ugandan LGBT group for damages on the basis of the Alien Tort Statute, which allows non-citizens to seek in US courts reparations for human-rights violations committed against them. The text:

28 U.S. Code § 1350 - Alien’s action for tort
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

He's not being prosecuted by anyone in the US. He's being sued by a Ugandan LGBT group for damages on the basis of the Alien Tort Statute, which allows non-citizens to seek in US courts reparations for human-rights violations committed against them. The text:

28 U.S. Code § 1350 - Alien’s action for tort
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.

Well, unless someone can come up with a law or something he violated, I am totally against the law suit. I dont know about the ruling of the Federal appeals court though; it seems they said something similar to "they cant rule using the reason the plantiff provided."
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Actually he preached against more than just gay marriage:

For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

I can agree with you in this regard. I also agree with you that do not appear to have violated any law. What apears to have happened is:

- 3 US citizens (their socio political views are not really material), gave a series of "juiced up, fired up" presentations in another nation during which the activities of a rival socio political group were exaggerated.

- The US citizens did not call for violence, they were not volunteer fighters, and they had no ability to actually harm anyone in that nation.

-After the locals got juiced up, they passed a series of harsh laws, and some private citizens of that nation actually did harm gays. Meanwhile the US citizens distanced themselves (too a degree) from the laws and tried, though only to a degree, to soften the imapct of their "fired up" speeches.

- The US citizens then get sued by members of the harmed community for violating their human rights.... .

The Ugandans who were harmed need to sue the Ugandans who actually harmed them. Likewise, the liability of the US citizens should be restricted to cases where the US citizens actually called for violence.

In short one can be an inflammatory Christian, Muslim or secularist, who rails for or against religion, but unless one calls for violence, or perhaps in situations where it can be definively proven that they knew that their "fired up" speeches would lead to violence, it is just free speech.
 
Last edited:
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

"Pro Family" Groups from the US are almost exclusively responsible for whats happened in Uganda.

Again they couldn't win in the US, so they exported their hatred to a poor East African nation with a largely uneducated population that would easily lap up their message.

Says alot about them.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

I can agree with you in this regard. I also agree with you that do not appear to have violated any law. What apears to have happened is:

- 3 US citizens (their socio political views are not really material), gave a series of "juiced up, fired up" presentations in another nation during which the activities of a rival socio political group were exaggerated.

- The US citizens did not call for violence, they were not volunteer fighters, and they had no ability to actually harm anyone in that nation.

-After the locals got juiced up, they passed a series of harsh laws, and some private citizens of that nation actually did harm gays. Meanwhile the US citizens distanced themselves (too a degree) from the laws and tried, though only to a degree, to soften the imapct of their "fired up" speeches.

- The US citizens then get sued by members of the harmed community for violating their human rights.... .

The Ugandans who were harmed need to sue the Ugandans who actually harmed them. Likewise, the liability of the US citizens should be restricted to cases where the US citizens actually called for violence.

In short one can be an inflammatory Christian, Muslim or secularist, who rails for or against religion, but unless one calls for violence, or perhaps in situations where it can be definively proven that they knew that their "fired up" speeches would lead to violence, it is just free speech.

Can you define "called to violence?" Do you literally have to say "hurt them?"
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

From the OP's link "Springfield resident violated U.S. law by trying to influence the laws of a foreign country."

I assume, and hope, that all attempts to influence the laws of a foreign country are not illegal. Otherwise pro-gay rights and other international human rights movements based in the USA would be illegal. Lively is despicable, but unless he explicitly and strongly urged the use of violence or other serious human rights violations by citizens and/or the government I don't think he should be convicted. He claims that he advocated imposing mandatory therapy on gays, not the death penalty, and that he would not support the law if it includes a death penalty (isn't he nice?) If Lively is telling the truth I don't think he deserves conviction.

The issue is that it is illegal to hold and promote ideas which are contrary to those permitted by our ruling elite. Lively is an enemy of the party, therefore will be punished.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Actually he preached against more than just gay marriage:

For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=0

Remember the old days, when Americans were free to think and speak any idea they wished?

Well, we're Obamunists now, that nasty 1st amendment is a thing of the past. Views contrary to party canon will be severely punished.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Good points. This whole proceeding is a farce that cheapens the definition of "Crimes against humanity". There is no evidence what so ever that the accused either directly, or indirectly called for violence. In addition, there is no evidence that those who actually harmed gays were motivated by the accused to harm them.

In short, what this man is "guilty" of is being stridently against gay marriage- a PC thought crime against humanity.

Where did you get that information? The evidence has not even been presented in a case as of yet. How can you make those determinate claims?

The ruling was on whether the case could be dismissed because the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The court over-ruled that defense contention.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

I guess the democrats have succeeded in repealing the 1st Amendment.

The democrats of Uganda? This case is being brought by an alien entity in US District court using US Law.

On March 14, 2012, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), a non-profit umbrella organization for LGBTI advocacy groups in Uganda, against Abiding Truth Ministries President Scott Lively, a U.S.-based attorney, author, and self-described world-leading expert on the “gay movement.” Filed in the United States District Court in Springfield, Massachusetts, the suit alleges that Lively’s involvement in anti-gay efforts in Uganda, including his active participation in the conspiracy to strip away fundamental rights from LGBTI persons, constitutes persecution.

This is the first known Alien Tort Statute (ATS) case seeking accountability for persecution on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The United States Supreme Court has affirmed the use of the ATS as a remedy for serious violations of international law norms that are widely accepted and clearly defined. Persecution is defined in international law as the "intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity."
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Can you define "called to violence?" Do you literally have to say "hurt them?"

Call to violence would mean just that: The speaker is commanding or encouraging his listeners to use violence. One can also use euphamisms such as "special treatment" when calling for violence.

Any definitions short of that lead to a very slippery slope of: No, you did not call for violence, but I dont like your speech. Furthermore, someone might have been partially influenced by your speech to actually commit violent acts.

The only exception to the above definition that I could see would be where it could be definitively shown that he knew that his speech would be taken as a call for violence:
- "Hey, everytime you have made these speeches, people have been attacked shortly afterwards, please not give anymore under these circumstances". or

- "I am a Ugandan police officer, please dont give the speech against the "X' people now- there is an aggitated lynch mob outside this buidling looking for excuses to harm "X" people."
 
Last edited:
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Remember the old days, when Americans were free to think and speak any idea they wished?

Well, we're Obamunists now, that nasty 1st amendment is a thing of the past. Views contrary to party canon will be severely punished.

The US Constitution does not follow Americans to every corner of the world...It only works here in the good ol US of A.

The Pastor will have to prove he has free speech in Uganda.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Well, unless someone can come up with a law or something he violated, I am totally against the law suit. I dont know about the ruling of the Federal appeals court though; it seems they said something similar to "they cant rule using the reason the plantiff provided."

The appeals court rejected their request for a 'writ of mandamus' which is an order from a higher court to a lower court commanding it to act in a certain way, in this case to dismiss the claim. These are exceedingly rare orders meant to control abuses in lower courts, but they are almost never granted so it isn't surprising this was denied. However I'd be very surprised if one way or another this claim isn't defeated.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

The US Constitution does not follow Americans to every corner of the world...It only works here in the good ol US of A.

The Pastor will have to prove he has free speech in Uganda.

But it's the US court system, yes? If he were being tried by Uganda's government, then yes. But ours would have to respect the rights we've established. I don't know, lots of groups try to influence foreign and international law, is that really a crime? And if so, are we really using it equally? If it's another one of those selectively enforced laws, we need to get rid of it.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

The US Constitution does not follow Americans to every corner of the world...It only works here in the good ol US of A.

The Pastor will have to prove he has free speech in Uganda.

No... that isn't true. If you're being tried or sued in a US court you are always entitled to your constitutional rights. The Alien Torts Act doesn't preclude those rights. It couldn't.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

The democrats of Uganda? This case is being brought by an alien entity in US District court using US Law.

Suit in US court generally regards product liability for American made goods sold in other countries. Acts of speech in other nations, are not subject to prohbition by America Courts, or at least they were not when we still had civil rights.

But hey, it's good to be Obamunists, nyet?
 
Back
Top Bottom