There Are Not Enough Hate Crime Laws
Oct 12th, 2009 by thatsElbert
Last Thursday, the US House passed HR2647, a bill authorizing appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for the Department of Defense. Stuffed away in this bill are some controversial expansions of so-called “hate crimes”. If passed in the US Senate and signed by the President, it will add “sexual orientation” to a list of federally protected classes.
These extremist measures threaten First Amendment rights of free speech and the freedom of religion. Charisma News reports:
Several Christian leaders have decried the hate crimes law, saying it could criminalize preaching against homosexuality. They point to cases in Canada and Sweden, where Christians have faced criminal prosecution for preaching that homosexual practice is a sin.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins states additional injustices of the bill:
Congress should protect all Americans equally and not provide special protections to a few politically favored groups. A vote in favor of so-called ‘hate crimes’ legislation is a direct violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, since all violent crimes are hate crimes, and every victim is equally important. All of our citizens deserve equal justice under the law. Do we somehow care less about victims violently assaulted in the act of robbery or during a personal dispute than we do about those assaulted because they belong in a federally designated, politically motivated category?
Rep. Tom Price of Georgia adds to Mr. Perkins’ statement:
No American should be more protected from violent crime than another… Justice should be blind, but Democrats have rejected the credo of our Founders that all people are created equal. This legislation will eventually invite the prosecution of Americans for their thoughts and religious beliefs, basic provinces protected by the First Amendment.
Sad to say Rep. Mike Castle did not stand with the GOP, instead he voted in favor of this bill.
Liberals who are quick to point out their First Amendment freedoms are just as quick to rip them from anyone who doesn’t agree with their extremist views. By the force of law they will make Americans adopt their far-left ideas. Should this legislation pass it can and will have a chilling effect on religious expression, that is if your religion doesn’t line up with theirs.
Mike Castle needs the votes from a certain Rehoboth Beach crowd and should not be faulted for his brilliant politics. We should not be worried about the Constitution but winning an election. Who really gives a damn about the First and Second Amendments when you need to maintain a continuum of tenure?
Let no one criticize our leader.
Keep our priorities straight.
Thanks for the much needed perspective Art. I almost got distracted by principles there for a second, and we all know that we should never let principles and the Constitution get in the way of the all-important campaign.
I appreciate the sarcasm.
The “friendly” divisivness of “hate crimes” legislation will become a set of shackles on the American people. All the while what divisions and hate does exist between different classifications will continue and in some cases be exacerbated.
If this stuff were at face value, it would at least be understandable. When you look into these bills it is a wonder why anyone would vote for them. No wonder Senator Carper and others would rather be ignorant of the details.
It is just another reason why I am unease about our Congressman’s record. When people ask me why I don’t jump on the bandwagon, I have to say its the record. He has my respect, but he is not earning my vote.
I can actually see the rationale for hate crimes. Just like there are “degrees” of things like assault and murder, so too can there be something added if one is motivated (all or in part) by an irrational hatred of different races, ethnicities or sexual orientation.
That being said, the problem with hate crimes laws are how they’re so selectively enforced. I’m not certain if there is a 14th Amendment violation, but when a member of a minority group is a crime victim by a member of the majority (whites) the possibility of a hate crime invariably comes up. When the reverse arises, officials will twist themselves into pretzels to explain how the incident was not a hate crime.
I agree. I have no problems with protecting a minority group from victimization and attacks. That includes gays and lesbians. If the law were just its face value it would be understandable. The problem with criminalizing hate and the perception of hate is that it allows mischief. In many cities with it, free political and religious speech have been categorized as hate speech and used to bolster reported incidents to make it look as if more laws are needed in education, employment, etc. Legitimate differences have been used to deny public accommodations to people because they did not subscribe to the PC mantra. It also opens the door to Kevin Jennings type reeducation to prevent “hateful attitudes.”
That is why I would rather include them under the existing civil rights code section that forbids violence. I never liked hate crimes laws. They seem to duplicate existing laws, but also undermine freedom of speech.
“When the reverse arises [white person victim of crime by black person], officials will twist themselves into pretzels to explain how the incident was not a hate crime.”
Another straw man fallacy here, therefore near meaningless.
That said, I favor leaving this determination to a judge, using sentencing ranges for a given crime, choosing longer terms when the evidence indicates the crime to be motivated by racism, or by homophobia, or by misogynism, misandrism, and the like.
Another straw man fallacy here, therefore near meaningless.
The only thing that is meaningless around here, Perry, is your tired, old partisan hackery. The evidence is quite substantial regarding that statement; only senile old fools who keep their head in the sand and who promote blind hatred while preaching peace and understanding fail to realize it.
Prosecutors RARELY enforce hate crime laws. It’s just too damn difficult to figure out what the hell someone was thinking when they robbed the gay, black, hispanic of his IPOD. Prosecutors will usually go for, say, ROBBERY, say, in the IPOD example, even if a hate crime will get the perp more time.
Hate crime laws are silly things Democrats enact to make one of their little side groups happy. They mean pretty much nothing except to make the minority group feel like someone really, really loves them.
Heh.