The Nature of Hate Crime Legislation
The Nature of Hate Crime Legislation
By Punkerslut
"The FBI defines a hate crime (AKA bias crime) to be 'a criminal
offense committed against a person, property or society which is
motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a
race, religion, disability, sexual orientatio, or
ethnicity/national origin.'" ["Hate Crime definition," FBI
(http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_98/).]
Is the government justified in making an emotion illegal? Is it
at all a creed of liberty that conscience should remain under
the jurisdiction of the state, that what thoughts we are allowed
to have should be chosen by politicians? There is no law more
unjustified than this Hate Crime Law. Men have died in thousands
of wars, defending themselves against tyranny and monarchy.
After all these people have died, the government has now put a
law enslaving the most precious, the absolutely most valuable
right of every individual: to think for themselves. If a person
is beaten and murdered, should the beliefs of the offender
matter in their trial? If a person is beaten and murdered, do
they suffer more because of the convictions of their offender?
If a woman is robbed for the sake of profit from thief, and
another woman is robbed for the sake of race from a Racist, do
not both women suffer the same? You cannot battle emotions or
opinions with crime legislation. One may argue that a Hate Crime
is an action and not a thought; but it is already illegal to
beat someone to death. Hate Crime Laws only make it illegal to
beat someone to death because of their race. Hate Crime Laws
enforce the mentality that the government has the right to weed
out those they detest and those they hate. It is Totalitarianism
and I for one cannot stand it.
The Hate Crime Laws target those with differing opinions, and
enforces a stiffer penalty to those who commit crimes because of
their beliefs. This is ludicrous. It is equally justifiable for
a government to make Hispanic or African Crime Laws -- that
simply because someone is of one descent, when they commit a
crime, the punishment is stiffer. Would it be justifiable if the
government made a Woman Crime Law?; that, if a woman commits a
crime, the punishment against her is harsher? Or what of an
Islamic Crime Law, that Muslims will be punished harder when
they commit a crime? Or we can institute Jew Crime Laws, where
Jews suffer harsher penalties, or we can institute Disabled
Crime Laws, where disabled people suffer harsher penalties, or
we can institute Illiterate Crime Laws, where illiterate people
suffer harsher penalites. All of these crimes would be unjust.
The reasoning is this: no matter the color of a man's skin, nor
the gender of a person, nor their condition of education or
physique, a crime is a crime, and cruelty is cruelty. If a black
man beats a woman to death, it is just as much a crime and just
as much an atrocity if a white man beats a woman to death.
Similarly, if a punishment cannot be toughened because of one's
gender, ethnicity, or condition, how then can the punishment be
toughened because of one's opinion? The fact remains, whether a
Racist or a non-Racist beats a woman to death, the same amount
of damage is done, the same amount of suffering is caused. To
say that the Racist should suffer a stiffer penalty because of
his Racism is tantamount to saying that a black man should
suffer a stiffer penalty because of his ethnicity, or that a
woman should suffer a stiffer penalty because of her gender, or
that a person confined to a wheelchair should suffer a stiffer
penalty because of their condition. If a nation values freedom
and liberty, then it is not illegal to be of any ethnicity, nor
is it illegal to be of any gender, nor is it illegal to be
disabled, and it certainly should not be illegal to hold an
opinion. These laws, Hate Crime Laws or Jew Crime Laws or Woman
Crime Laws, all break this code of liberty: they create a
stiffer penalty to individuals who commit a crime, not because
it had to do with the crime in even the slightest, but simply
because of the offender's background -- this is a grave
injustice.
Some may argue, though, that comparing Hate Crime Laws to Race
Crime Laws (such as having a stiffer penalty for Africans or
Hispanics) is a false analogy. One Crime Law argues against
opinion, whereas the other Crime Law argues against race. If it
is true, then, that we can make laws against opinion -- such an
unspeakable law -- then it would be acceptable for Congress to
disallow other opinions, for the sake that they are unpopular.
If Democrats dominated congress, they could easily pass a
Republican Crime Law: if a Republican commits a crime, the
punishment is double, but if a Democrat commits a crime, the
punishment is halved. Or, since both Democrats and Republicans
seem to have near equal power in Congress at this time, there
could be a Non-Partisan Crime Law: if a non-Republican or
non-Democrat commits a crime, the punishment is doubled, but if
a Republican or Democrat commits a crime, the punishment is
halved. Or the government could make Crime Laws against those
who like a particular food, or a particular sports team, or of a
particular philosophical background. In fact, if Congress can
make crime laws that impose a stiffer sentence on those who
differ in opinion, solely because of their difference in
opinion, then Congress would probably have no problem make laws
that simply limit opinion. If the state is given jurisdiction to
control opinions, then soon we will delve into intellectual
Totalitarianism. Every thought that differs from the mainstream
is a heresy, every opinion that sways from what our governors
believe is blasphemy, and the great tree of liberty will be torn
down by the vines of iniquity. Ignorance and censorship,
oppression and tyranny, this is what a Hate Crime Law is. It
limits opinions and seeks to destroy intellectual freedom. I
oppose it not because I am a Racist nor because I am a
Homophobe, but because I believe in liberty and freedom, and I
believe that men and women should be allowed to create their own
opinions without the government making these gross violations of
our rights.
There are many Human Rights advocates who wish for Hate Crime
Legislation. Winnie Stachelberg, from the Human Rights Campaign,
said of Hate Crime Laws, "It would just level the playing field.
It would close a very big loophole that sexual orientation,
gender and disability are not part of current law." [Martha
Kleder, "Constitutional implications of hate crimes," Focus on
the Family
(http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/A0013173.html).] But
what Human Rights does this group actually advocate? From this
legislation, it is clear that they do not believe that humans
have the right to freedom of thought, the absolutely most
necessary of rights. Even if there were no governments, even if
there was no army or police to protect us, we would still have
this essential right: the right to compose our thoughts as we
wish, governed by no law, restricted by no statute. I detest
Hate Crime Legislation because it makes it a crime to have
thoughts that are contrary to what is popularly believed. If a
Racist kills a person because of their race and a non-Racist
kills a person, both crimes are of equal suffering -- the fact
that a Racist holds thoughts of Racism does not mean he is more
deserving of an even more cruel punishment, just as the
non-Racist does not deserve a lesser sentence because he is not
a Racist. With all things considered, Hate Crime Legislation is
brutal and horrific. It attempts to take away from us the very
right to think! This is absolutely appalling.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut