Scott Lively faces suit for crimes against humanity in Massachusetts federal court

[float=right]IMAGE(http://i865.photobucket.com/albums/ab217/dianaroo/scott_lively.jpg)[/float]Scott Lively, the founder of Abiding Truth Ministries, goes on trial Monday at 11AM for 'crimes against humanity' in Massachusetts Federal Court.

New York Times:

The lawsuit alleges that beginning in 2002, Mr. Lively conspired with religious and political leaders in Uganda to whip up anti-gay hysteria with warnings that homosexuals would sodomize African children and corrupt their culture. The Ugandan legislature considered a bill in 2009, proposed by one of Mr. Lively’s Ugandan contacts, that would have imposed the death sentence for homosexual behavior. That bill was at first withdrawn after an outcry from the United States and European nations that are among major aid donors to Uganda, but a revised bill was reintroduced last month.

Mr. Lively is being sued by the organization Sexual Minorities Uganda under the alien tort statute, which allows foreigners to sue in American courts in situations alleging the violation of international law. The suit claims that Mr. Lively’s actions resulted in the persecution, arrest, torture and murder of homosexuals in Uganda.


queerty.com
:

Lively sparked international outrage when he worked with anti-gay forces in Uganda to foster legislation that would impose the death penalty for homosexual activity. While the future of that bill is still up in the air, a Ugandan LGBT group is suing Lively for crimes against humanity in Massachusetts federal court.

Scheduled to begin Monday at 11am, the case is believed to be the first use of the Alien Tort Statute—which gives American courts the right to hear human-rights cases brought by foreign citizens for conduct committed outside the US—involving sexual orientation.

Lively, who is being defended by the anti-gay legal Liberty Counsel. has distanced himself from the bill’s original death-penalty clause but endorsed an allegedly revised version that imposed life imprisonment.

He’s made a real habit of stirring up virulent homophobia overseas: Lively co-authored The Pink Swastika, which posits that “homosexuals [were] the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities,” and formed the anti-gay Watchmen on the Walls in Riga, Latvia. According to Southern Poverty Law Center, the Watchmen “are known for presiding over anti-gay rallies where gays and lesbians are pelted with bags of excrement.

Here are two related videos:

Lively delivers an hate-filled address (VIDEO) at a 2009 conference in Uganda.

The Rachel Maddow Show covered American involvement in the Ugandan "Kill The Gays" bill (VIDEO) on her show on MSNBC on December 11, 2009.

...and finally, here's an article, Massachusetts Tea Party Patriots: 'We will not be silenced by faggots.' about a rally on the Boston Common at which Scott Lively delivered a speech.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

AttachmentSize
Complaint against Lively0 bytes

Comments

Unpopular opinions are a "crime against humanity"?

It's deeply disturbing that a court would put someone on trial for his opinions. They're very disgusting opinions, to be sure, but still opinions. Under US law, he couldn't be prosecuted for them; the use of the Alien Tort Act is an attempt at an end run around the Bill of Rights.

If the US allows other countries to enforce their censorship laws on Americans, the floodgates would open wide quickly. It's illegal to make fun of Thailand's king, and the Thai government has tried to punish Americans for doing so. In Saudi Arabia it's illegal to practice religions other than Islam. Will US courts give their support to prosecuting the "crime against humanity" of aiding heretical religious groups or mocking a pompous monarch? Once you let other countries set the laws, you don't get to pick and choose.

This person doesn't just have

This person doesn't just have unpopular opinions. He went to another country and advocated for the murder of a class of people, and has now returned to the United States. If some American Nazi in the 30s had decided to go to Europe and had played a role in advocating for the extermination of Jewish people by actually lobbying political leaders to implement laws towards that purpose no one could reasonably decide that he is not liable for murders perpetrated as a direct result of his activities and is untouchable because he is now living back in the US. This is not a matter of free speech or of US sovreignity.

Right, basically this

To sum up Whit's point, when you're calling for laws enforcing the killing of people who you happen to hold as less than human, as Scott Lively has done, espousing your beliefs has exited the realm of a disgusting abuse of your rights to free speech which we must tolerate and become instead a criminal action that we can punish and oppress you for.

Not quite

Uganda has a big AIDS problem. The death penalty would not apply to homosexuals, just those HIV+ and spreading it. In the US, gay advocates have even endorsed barebacking to spread HIV and possibly get more services as a result. Did any of them get sued for telling people to spread disease and death?

In much of Africa, people think they won't get HIV from sex with the youngest, most virginal population. They are the general class of victims. Buggery, and again with the youngest partners is just another example of cultural belief that risk is lessened. Its all wrong in my book and US federal court is not the place to debate it.

Gay rights activists endorse barebacking?

I know the term barebacking. It's Gay lingo for anal intercourse without a condom. It always intrigues me when a person who, presumably is not Gay, knows the term. But then drag queen is part of everyday language so what do I know?

To the point however is the statement that Gay rights activists endorse barebacking to get government services. Please offer evidence. You didn't. Why? Because the statement is not just absurd, it sounds like the insane kind of lies that Lively spreads.

You're not Mr. Lively are you?

Barebacking

Adamg and the gay mafia have distorted this story, leaving out the bit about endorsing execution only to gays with HIV. With disease and fear rampant in Uganda, its unfortunate if they singled out a subclass of people spreading AIDS. In much of Africa, most all intercourse is bareback, hence little scrutiny if the infected was acting with some protection. I would hope gay/straight spreading HIV gets some punishment or isolation. Whatever, doesn't belong in US courts.

Try google. http://www.thebody.com/h/bareback-party-and-hiv.html
Like I wrote, I support gay rights and have many gay friends, so I learned some vocabulary and about some sub-cultures and popular trends over various time periods. I'm also old enough to remember Act Up! - Critical Mass seems to have copied their play book of antics...

Even in the US, personal rights take a back seat to public health in the face of epidemic.

Really? HIV? Really?

Perhaps you should check out the WHO website on how AIDS is spreading in Africa.

HINT: it isn't homosexual sex that accounts for the bulk of the transmission.

Also, it is pretty obvious to those of us public health professionals that you don't know shit about public health surveillance or practice. Not even the basics. Please own your hate, and go fly it under another flag.

OH, and NEWSFLASH: Anal intercourse is also fairly popular with married and unmarried straight people and has long been so where avoiding pregnancy is desirable ... say, in the sort of prostitution situations that ARE spreading HIV in Africa.

About the only "gay sex" that is "gay sex" that I know of is "docking". You need two men for that.

Yeah, HIV

The law Lively was supposedly backing was execution only for HIV+ gays spreading death, not for just being gay. Read beyond this site.

Like I wrote elsewhere, fear and HIV are both epidemic in Africa, and being mostly spread by hetero congress - and men in general don't want to use condoms. It is wrong to pick out a minority group for spreading aids. My guess is that young girls get targeted for being prime sex partners, and now the fear is that young boys are getting targeted by gay men looking for a less risky partner, so they want to protect them. Protecting boys from a small gay population is more practical than trying to protect girls from a huge one, so that seems to be what they are doing.

Scott Lively

1. He's been spreading hate and lies about gay people since well before HIV came on the scene and far longer than this site has been around.

2. Advocating HIV-related murder is also a hate crime.

(not to mention completely ineffective in a country where heterosexual activity is the primary vector)

"Rationalized" hate is still hate. Advocating murder is still murder. Put them together, and you still have hate crimes and crimes against humanity.

Please stop repeating that

The death penalty was also for repeat offenders - people who are convicted of having homosexual sex, and then going out and having it again. So it's not just some misguided health thing, thanks.

The idea that gays advocate

The idea that gays advocate sexual behaviour that intentionally spreads HIV/AIDS is exactly the kind of hate-speech Scott Lively engages in, in his crusade against the gays. For example, he inflamed Ugandans by telling them gay men would turn their kids out. This unleashed violence on gay men that cost lives.

Yeah but

there's always a minority of assholes in every group who think it's OK to do something completely disgusting to other human beings as a way to get attention or punish people for their own self-hatred.

Most people are good and decent, but in any group, there are a few outliers who think it's totally OK to travel on an airplane with a hideously contagious disease, spread STDs with impunity, or change diapers on restaurant tables because Those Other People Deserve To Get Sick.

It has nothing to do with anyone's particular demographic checkbox, and everything to do with the fact that they are Assholes.

That's part of the problem

"It always intrigues me when a person who, presumably is not Gay, knows the term."

In the day and age we live in, eveybody knows these terms, everybody thinks they are experts on homosexuality. That is part of the problem in general. As an aside, think how many times we have heard certain heterosexual female entertainers and other women who have an unusual fascination with gay men say "I am a gay man in a woman's body", "I love my gays", etc. As a gay man I find this extremely patronizing, though I realize there are many gay men who do not.

Crimes Against Humanity

washingtonpost.com: 1/4/13

Persecution, defined as the “severe deprivation of fundamental rights” on the basis of identity, is a crime under international law; to be exact, it’s a “crime against humanity.” This deprivation of fundamental rights of LGBT communities is exactly what Lively aims to bring about. Under U.S. law, foreign citizens who are the victims of crimes against humanity can sue American perpetrators of such crimes. And so Sexual Minorities of Uganda (SMUG) is suing Scott Lively for persecuting them. Staff from SMUG and other LGBT advocates who have suffered persecution --arrests, raids, and other severe deprivations of basic rights --will be there on Monday, when the Center for Constitutional Rights will have the honor of representing them in court.

nytimes.com: Jan 27, 2011

On Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Kato was beaten to death with a hammer in his rough-and-tumble neighborhood. Police officials were quick to chalk up the motive to robbery, but members of the small and increasingly besieged gay community in Uganda suspect otherwise.

“David’s death is a result of the hatred planted in Uganda by U.S. evangelicals in 2009,” Val Kalende, the chairwoman of one of Uganda’s gay rights groups, said in a statement. “The Ugandan government and the so-called U.S. evangelicals must take responsibility for David’s blood.”

Ms. Kalende was referring to visits in March 2009 by a group of American evangelicals, who held rallies and workshops in Uganda discussing how to turn gay people straight, how gay men sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” intended to “defeat the marriage-based society.”

The Americans involved said they had no intention of stoking a violent reaction. But the antigay bill was drafted shortly thereafter. Some of the Ugandan politicians and preachers who wrote it had attended those sessions and said that they had discussed the legislation with the Americans.

How do you get to hate?

Missionaries plague the world, for sure. How do you go from them trying to modify sexual behavior to inciting hate and murder?

Is is because you consider Ugandans uncivilized natives, too easily excitable to act rationally and be responsible for their own actions?

Seems like an attempt to silence free speech that may be unpopular with others. Should we ban all criticism of the Prophet Mohamed because some Muslims are excitable and go rampaging? If you think Lively is guilty, so are all those who taunt Muslims.

Preaching against sin versus advocating for murder of "sinners"

You get to say "I don't think this is right and so I don't engage in this behavior that otherwise harms no one and I don't think you shouldn't practice it, either, because that's what I think my God wants".

You don't get to say "we need a law that makes it legal to kill gay people and to make it possible for the government to execute them because being gay is sinful".

The line is drawn where there is active advocacy for murdering other people over their "failure" to agree with your religious beliefs.

If you can't see that clear distinction, nobody is going to be able help you understand.

That was more what I was looking for...

Let's compare penalties for homosexual behavior and adultery. The guy seems to be advocating that homosexuality have the same punishment that adultery does in some cultures.

Still, assuming the quote is accurate, he did not say "go kill a queer today" or "stone a fornicator".

His "crime" seems to most be speaking against a well funded global political agenda of full acceptance for homosexuality. "I do not think this is right..." is what both sides say, him about homosexual behavior, plaintiffs about him speaking his convictions. To me it seems like a witch hunt where those most hunted have become the hunters. Do we have US federal cases filed against people who call for stoning adulterers? Probably not unless adulterers give big financial backing to organizations they might form.

ho the funders of the global Gay Agenda?

Funding the global political agenda of full acceptance for homosexuality? Was that written tongue in cheek?

The idea of a global Gay agenda reminds me of the global control of the banking network by Jews. LaRouchies of course threw together Jews, the Queen of England and the Trilateral Commission. Are their Gay Illuminati managed by extraterrestrials committed to removing the vital juices of our bodies and souls?

The broad strokes that demonize entire groups is a fascinating, albeit dangerous, phenomena. Jews were described as eating Christian children, Black men were described as having animalistic, uncontrollable sexual appetites, Gays were described as recruiting children. The capacity to imagine all sorts of craziness is a marvelous thing.

Miss the point much?

You claimed that what he was doing was different than actual interpersonal violence.

I merely pointed out that he's been known to engage in that in his hateful pursuits, too.

Besides, the issues have been explained to you pretty clearly - you are just too caught up in all your conspiracy theories to comprehend them.

Gay bullies

The lawsuit is an action, more than thought, or speech. Corporations bully too with threats of libel. It looks like bullying, no matter what sympathy seeking list of downtrodden you list. Jewish domination of financial instruments like gold, diamonds, and banking far predates LaRouche, btw. Any kind of insular club discriminates against others participating and sharing rewards.

Here, gays look like bullied children who become bullies themselves once getting money, much like the nerd who sells his tech start-up and wants to date the hotties jocks did, but he never could in high school.

They earn the term gay mafia with actions such as this lawsuit. There doesn't seem to be any adulterers' mafia going after critics with claims of persecution like every ever occurring in human history, and that is a very long list with hundreds of victimized demographics. In term of victim numbers, queers are way down that list, sorry. The US won't even acknowledge the ethnic cleansing of Armenians, yet some gay seem to think themselves extra *special!*.

Don't be a dummkopf!

Please tell me that saying Jews dominate financial instruments...banks was tongue in cheek. I can't believe that anyone other than a dummkopf who likes to wear hats made to look like swastika shaped schnitzel really believes that hate baiting myth.

And who is the gay mafia? I have been looking for them for the longest time - maybe they could help me, an ordinary, boring, run of the mill Gay who apparently is out of the loop of global domination, etc. become a made member of the Purple Mob.

The validity of this case is based on his interference with the legal affairs of another nation. It is based on the fact that his interference was done with the intent to persecute a group of people based on bigotry and animus.

Mr. Lively is not being sued by another U.S. citizen or group for his demagogic speech and spiel of lies. He is being sued by people of another nation who object to his interference in another nation's affairs. That's not about free speech; it is about interference in the governance of a another nation. On the other hand since interference with the affairs of other nations is a regular part of all super powers perhaps Mr. Lively can base his defense on the precedence of his national government's history since the Monroe Doctrine. But that is for a different discussion.

In any case what matters most is that Mr. Lively's lies, deceits and maliciousness, and hopefully his backers and funders, will receive some sunlight. For all their whining about being presecuted Christians they in fact are a rabble of hypocrites that would make Jesus puke.

Seriously?

Wow.

Conspiracy theories abound with you, now don't they.

Gay people demanding safety and their human rights = global conspiracy
Local cyclists asking for their tax dollars to benefit cycle travel = global conspiracy

Maybe you should go back to covering your precious car with tin foil and stay off the web. Lots of conspiracy theories going on in your head, there.

I support gay rights

And have many gay friends. This discussion is not about me.

Its about Lively getting sued in US federal court for speaking political incorrectness per our, first-world culture.

Traditionally, people are punished for wrong action. This is about "wrong" speech. Next will be "wrong" thought. What Lively may have said is below the threshold of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Blush!

I'm really flattered to be asked out and all, but I don't care much for those testosterone fed action flicks. I was just being cynical on the loving Christian thing - I don't care much for missionaries or zealots of any religion, lifestyle, political beliefs, or transport mode...

He's being sued (not criminal

He's being sued (not criminal court) for actions in Uganda, not for actions in the US.You seem very confused. When you travel to other countries, you cant run around with a US flag saying "Your laws don't apply to me."

If you don't like that, don't travel abroad.

"opinions" = violence

Sir, Mr. Lively's "opinions" have manifested into something more than just opinions. He has deliberately lied about the gays in Uganda to bring forth hostile legislation against them. Those are not opinions that you're defending. They are violent words that have been converted into real, tangible action. This lawsuit seeks to hold him accountable for his words.

Have fun sympathizing with your precious zealot.

opinions vs. actions

You might want to pay some attention to the whole story. Lively has been actively seeking to have legislation enacting a death penalty against gays, fomenting lies about gay people in order to get that legislation passed and physically attacking gay people himself and encouraging others to do so as well. That's not legal. Opinions are one thing, seeking to murder people for being gay and scaring people into approving legal action involving a death penalty against anyone by making up lies about them is not simply opinion. It's defamation for starters and libel. Neither of these is legal unless we're talking about somewhere in your mind.

No

Inciting mass murder is a crime against humanity. Hope this helps clear up your confusion.

They are losing the fight in the US

and so exporting their hate is the only way to keep their organizations growing and their coffers full. It's like the tobacco companies, which are aggressively marketing cirgarettes in other countries as smoking declines here.

Abuse of a Right?

Who is funding Lively? He travels to Uganda but also to Eastern Europe charging with his campaign of historical falsity and his crusade to rid the world of Gay people.

One of the things that I questioned about the anti-Gay campaign in Uganda is whether it represents a campaign of demagoguery and witch hunts. Anti-Gay campaigns are often fronts for campaigns to accumulate power and/or to create enemies out of thin air. It uses an already existing bias as a means to create an enemy or scapegoat whom a politician can then use to prove that he is a crusader for what is good and right. Joe McCarthy used anti-Gay and anti-Communist witch hunts as a means for portraying himself as a hero and crusader for God and patriotism. But Lively is only the tip of the iceberg. Conservative Christians in this country, including power elites such as mega churches or The Family (conservative religious Senators) in D.C. are involved in the Ugandan campaign of sexual purification as well. The idea of purity - and the uses of crusades against impure elements - is alive and well in Uganda and this nation.

To me this also opens the question of where is the line between a right and an abuse? Free speech is not an absolute right. So is Lively's promoting legislative murder in another nation protected by the 1st Amendment or does it fall outside that protection? The Ugandan bill includes execution for "aggravated homosexuality." This would make Uganda the equal of Iran where Gays are hanged from building construction machinery. If Lively is found to have advocated death for Gays in Uganda then he guilty of advocating murder. I don't think that is Constitutionally protected.