Posted on 05/09/2002 9:32:19 AM PDT by suspects
SHOT DOWN FOR HIS BELIEF
“I think he was shot down for nothing. He was shot down for his belief.”-- Dutch food inspector Tom Kursten, 20, on the assassination of politician Pim Fortuyn.
“I wonder if it was a hate crime?”
That odd, random thought bolted through my brain as the news that right-of-center Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn had been gunned down at a radio station outside Amsterdam. As of this writing press accounts lean toward a lone, loony gunman, now identified as an environmental whackjob. But after two weeks of hand wringing about the terrifying wave of neo-Fascism supposedly threatening Europe, how ironic that the first-ever political assassination in the history of Dutch democracy was committed by a member of the Left who targeted a politician of the Right.
Kind of.
Fortuyn (pronounced fore-TOWN) is an odd political figure for Americans to characterize. To begin with, he’s from The Netherlands, which most Americans think—but aren’t quite sure—is another name for Holland (It is.) Why does the country have two names? Who knows? But in a place where a guy named Wim Kok can be elected Prime Minister, one expects the unusual.
Pim Fortuyn is classified in the media as “far Right.” This is modern Europe’s label for a candidate who supports 50% income tax rates, legalized marijuana and prostitution, euthanasia, and is openly homosexual. That’s “right wing?” Which means if Hillary Rodham ran for public office in Holland, she would be, what—a Nazi?
Fortuyn earned his “hard right” reputation by opposing immigration. “The country is full up,” he told his fellow Netherlanders. “We have to slow down and take stock.” He also criticized Islam as “backwards,” not a surprising sentiment from a man who would be executed in Saudi Arabia for his sexual orientation.
Before any Americans mock the Saudis, keep in mind that we have our own odd laws regarding homosexuality, and I don’t mean sodomy laws. I’m talking about the idiocy known as “hate crimes.”
Imagine that Fortuyn had been killed in the US in a state with a hate crimes law offering special protections for homosexuals. Assume the assassin is captured on the spot. Do you prosecute him for a hate crime?
For liberals, the answer is “It depends.” If, for example, Fortuyn’s assassin screamed, “Kill the fags!” as he fired, there might be a case, they’d say. OK, fair enough. But what if Fortuyn’s killer is a homosexual himself, one opposed to the politician’s right-wing views? What if he tells the police “I hated Fortuyn for being gay and a right-winger,” what then?
The killer certainly hates Fortuyn, so it appears to be a hate crime. But it’s not, because hating right-wing politics isn’t a criminalized form of hate. Hating homosexuals is. This is the unpleasant truth about hate crimes laws: They don’t punish hate. They only punish government-banned hate.
Because Pim Fortuyn is so rude as to not fall into a stereotypical category, the court would have to analyze his killer’s opinions and philosophy very carefully. If the criminal had the wrong, or should I say “Right” beliefs, he would face an increased penalty for hating illegally. But if he killed Fortuyn because he hated the man’s politics, he gets a pass from the Thought Police. Hating conservatives, you see, is allowed by law.
And so the murder of right-wing homosexual Pim Fortuyn would be prosecuted under different laws depending on which aspect of the victim’s character the murderer disliked. Only a liberal could call this justice.
In some states, the difference between a crime and a “hate crime” can mean the difference between a life sentence and execution. This gives rise to an interesting question: If a prisoner gets the death penalty because of his bigoted, hateful beliefs, what’s the difference between him and Pim Fortuyn?
According to his supporters, Pim Fortuyn died “for his belief.” Isn’t that exactly what we would be doing to the prisoner in question—killing him for his beliefs? If he killed for greed or for sex, he would be alive. But if he had unpopular, perhaps even loathsome, opinions, he gets the ax.
Hate crimes laws are unfair to the criminal because they judge his ideology, not his actions or motives. They are dangerous for society because they allow the government to criminalize unpopular opinions. But perhaps most disturbing is what they do to the crime victims themselves.
Hate crimes laws reduce the victims of crime to members of groups, not individuals who have been wronged. They highlight the meaningless aspects of race, ethnicity and sexual preference.
Imagine what Fortuyn would think if he could be resurrected and watch an American hate-crimes trial of his own killer. How outraged would he be to discover that being killed for what one thinks isn’t nearly as significant in the eyes of the court as being killed for how one has sex?
I don’t think he’d like it. Then again, who would?
###
Michael Graham is a radio talk show host in Washington, DC. His new book, REDNECK NATION: HOW THE SOUTH REALLY WON THE WAR (Warner Books, 2002) is scheduled for release in October.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.