Replies

Every physical ATTACK is a hate crime; you don’t hit someone on the head with a brick to demonstrate love.

This begs for a sarcastic comment regarding BDSM, but instead I'll focus on one of the major faults I find with arguments against hate crime legislation.

A hate crime is an accusation of a specific act. Under US law, an accusation of a hate crime would have to be proven -- that is, it would need to be demonstrated that the crime was motivated by race/religion/sexual orientation/etc just as much as it would need to be demonstrated that the crime existed in the first place. Further, the legal wording of hate crime statutes do not set aside specific minorities -- it isn't just "blacks" or "homosexuals" who are protected, the law applies based on "race" or "sexual orientation", meaning that a white man could accuse a black man of a hate crime or a heterosexual could accuse a homsoexual of a sexual orientation biased hate crim.

Of course, I know better than to believe that prosecutors will ever bother to charge a black man with a race-based hate crime, and I don't see fault in pointing out specific examples where obvious crimes of that nature have occured. I also oppose hate crimes on principle, but I at least try to get the facts right before spouting off on them.

Dimensio, what you say is true. But the danger of misdirected punishment is extreme, in my opinion. The examples in this article are right on target. A man hurts someone and calls him a 'homo'. He will be hit with hate crime law, even though the that may well have had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the crime. This marks an insidious descent into a world with thought police. And beside, it's truly absurd in the minds of most to have smaller punishment for heinous acts, as long as juries think they can discern that the criminal in the case was thinking OK thoughts.

Whatever happened to the right of freedom of association? Personally, I do not wish to associate with homosexuals. I don't hate them, but I do hate what they do and do not wish to see it displayed at every turn. And let's just say for the sake of discussion that I did hate them. Am I to believe that emotions are now being legislated and that I no longer have the right to hate something or someone?

Bringing that argument a little close to where most of us live, the fact is that there are people who hate other people because of their race. At the risk of sounding insensitive, I say "so what?" As long as they do not commit a crime against the object of their hatred, do they not have the right to hate? I am not suggesting that hate is a good or healthy thing mind you, but simply that they have the right to feel the way they do whatever the reason.

And where do you draw the line. I hate the Clintons. Am I a criminal? I hate liberalism (although not all liberals). I say that makes me smart, not a criminal. I hate terrorism. Terrorism springs from Islam and is bred in the mideast. And while I am always willing to be convinced that there are exceptions, and I'm sure there are, that hatred doubtless shows in the way I look at them when I see them on the street. I could use other examples, but the point is, at the rate our freedoms are being taken away, soon we will be little more than caged animals working our entire lives to add to the government coffers. I for one, will not go down quietly. That is not the life I want for my child and grandchild.

"A hate crime is an accusation of a specific act"

I beg to differ, Dimensio. A hate crime accusation is an accusation of a specific thought. That's where the danger lies in hate crime legislation: an idividual's thoughts are no longer his/her private territory. Futhermore, the accused has to prove that He or She was not thinking the forbidden thought. How does one prove such a thing?