Christians and conservatives in California are celebrating a small victory in their fight against a bill that could discriminate against conservative police officers in the state, but others say the proposed amendments don’t go far enough.
Assembly Bill 655, titled “California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act (CLEAR Act),” seeks to “root out” police officers purportedly engaged in “hate speech” and those connected to “hate groups” by subjecting them to screenings, Life News reported when the bill was introduced.
The bill defined hate speech “as advocating or supporting the denial of constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.”
State Assembly Member Ash Kalra (D-San Jose), the sponsor of the bill, claimed the goal was to stop “the infiltration of extremists in our law enforcement agencies,” according to The Federalist.
But the backlash against the bill led by Christian and conservative groups such as the California Family Council (CFC) forced Kalra to add amendments to the bill to address at least one of its many issues.
“We have put in amendments to remove the specificity regarding denial of constitutional rights. Because, you do have the First Amendment right to be part of groups that may differ in opinion,” Karla told KPIX CBS.
As noted by The Federalist, the standard set by the bill would eliminate virtually any individual from serving as a police officer in the state of California if he or she harbored views that dissent from the Left on issues such abortion, marriage, or gender ideology, a point reiterated by David Levine, a constitutional law professor at the University of California.
“The definitions of a hate group in particular are so broad that it would encompass all sorts of groups that nobody would say would actually constitute some sort of a problematic hate group,” argued Levine.
The addition of the amendments should at least eliminate the possibility of discriminating against police officers who hold conservative positions on constitutional issues.
Opponents of the original bill are celebrating the changes to the bill.
“This remarkable turn of events shows that when we speak up and join together to oppose unconstitutional overreaches, we can still effect change even in dark-blue places like the capitol of California,” said Brad Dacus, president of the institute’s Center for Public Policy. “It is alarming that some of our legislators attempted to exclude conservatives and people of faith from the ranks of law enforcement. Had we and like-minded groups not spoken out against this outrage, it very likely would have become law.”
But Dacus notes the amendments are just a small victory.
“Much work remains to be done on this issue, because the bill attempts to divide people into groups of those belonging to a protected class and those that don’t,” he said. “All citizens should be free from threat of violence, not the chosen few.”
The Federalist observes that Californians should continue to demand further changes to the bill.
“Kalra still has not adequately addressed the persisting ambiguity of the claim that ‘participation in hate group activities, or public expressions of hate, as specified, and as those terms are defined’ would ‘disqualify a person from employment,’” the outlet writes.
The legislation was clearly intended to target conservative police officers. Kalra claims the bill is necessary to prevent “the apparent cooperation, participation, and support of some law enforcement” in the January 6 protests in Washington,D.C., ignoring once more the role that leftist organizations played in orchestrating the violence at the Capitol.
In its coverage of the bill, KPIX CBS said AB 655 would “weed out extremists in law enforcement like those associated with the 3 Percenters, Proud Boys, KKK, or QAnon” — no mention of violent leftist groups such as those associated with Black Lives Matter or Antifa.
During an interview with NBC News affiliate, Kalra virtually admitted that his bill was intended to eliminate “racists” from serving as police officers based on his own arbitrary definition of racism.
“You have a constitutional right to have racist and bigoted views. You don’t have a constitutional right to be a police officer,” Kalra said.
As noted by Life News, the bill is scheduled for consideration by the California Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 6. Opponents are encouraging California residents to contact their state lawmakers before then to voice their concerns with the legislation.
