MN Democrats violate the first rule of holes [updated]

They keep digging deeper. Bill Walsh posted his list of the top 10 bad things that happened at the state capitol last week. This week, he’s going to need a longer list.

While all the media attention was on the House voting to legalize weed, or the House’s efforts to infringe on your second amendment rights, Minnesota Democrats were busy in the background.

HF 447 is an omnibus bill dealing with civil law issues. Its various provisions run to 51 pages,

Article 3 of the bill amends state civil rights law, which bans discrimination based on a host of factors, including race, color, creed, religion, etc. To the list of protected classes, it would add “gender identity.” The bill defines gender identity as follows,

“Gender identity” means a person’s inherent sense of being a man, woman, both, or neither. A person’s gender identity may or may not correspond to their assigned sex at birth or to their primary or secondary sex characteristics. A person’s gender identity is not necessarily visible to others.

The underlining indicates that the text is being added to statute.

Current law already bans discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation. Existing law carves out an exception to this legal protection in one instance,

“Sexual orientation” does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.

As David Strom points out on Hot Air, the removal of the above language by the bill (which occurs on lines 26.3 and 26.4), has the effect of creating protections in state law for pedophiles.

State Rep. Harry Niska (R-Ramsey) will offer the A-5 amendment today, which reads as follows,

Sec. 30. [363A.265] GENERAL EXCLUSIONS.
The physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult is not a protected class under this chapter.

Common sense, correct? [Updated: in the end, Niska’s amendment was accepted in a unanimous vote of 126-0. However, the “gender identity” language remains in the bill.]

It doesn’t stop there. In a different bill (SF 2909, to which, coincidentally, the gun control measures are being added), the state Human Rights Commission is being deputized to create a database on hate “incidents” (beginning page 50, line 26).

(20) 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, or because of the victim’s actual or perceived association with another person or group of a certain 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 compile data in the aggregate on the nature and extent of the incidents and include summary data as defined by section 13.02, subdivision 19, on this information in the report required under clause (12), disaggregated by the type of incident and the actual or perceived characteristic for which the person was targeted.

The above is a single sentence. What does it mean? Let me give you an example, because I, in the paragraphs above, question the need to protect pedophiles from discrimination (now a protected class) this column will be entered into the “hate” incident database.

State Rep. Walter Hudson (R-Albertville) points out on Twitter the good work that his colleague Rep. Niska did last night fighting against this pernicious development.

What will this data be used for? Who knows? Social credit, blacklists, the sky’s the limit when progressive is your goal.

The UK Daily Mail covers the controversy.