Google Custom Search

Monday, February 26, 2007

Democrats Set to Expand 'Hate-Crimes' Legislation

Washington, DC (TLS). Democrats in Congress are set to expand the so-called 'hate crimes' legislation by broadening the definition of what constitutes a hate crime to include unlawful acts against gays. The proposed legislation will more than likely be tied to a bill that would target bias against gays in the workplace.

Certainly any decent American citizen wishes no harm to befall anyone of any stripe in this country. No decent, law-abiding citizen would want to see anyone become the victim of crime or discrimination on the basis of race, color, sexual orientation, or religion. But the question is, do we need yet another federal law that aims to categorize crime as if a so-called 'hate crime' is worse than any other crime? In addition, the legislation that is being proposed does not use the term 'discrimination,' which is against the law anyway. The term is 'bias.' And that, as they say, is a 'whole different ballgame.'

Bias is a subjective term with as many varied definitions as there are people. If, for example, the mainstream news media doesn't even recognize their abject bias in everyday news reporting, then obviously we are not all using the same definition. How do we know, for example, that an employee was passed over for a promotion because he/she was gay? Gay persons may well believe that this is the reason due to something as innocuous as overhearing an employer state his or her opinion on the subject of homosexuality. It never occurs to extremist activists that one can have personal opinions about the behavior of others without that opinion necessarily adversely impacting relationships in the workplace.

It is extremely difficult to prove 'bias.' Thus, the question arises as to why such legislation should even be considered in the first place.

But remember who presently controls Congress. There is the answer.

In addition, it has been nearly a decade since Congress first proposed so-called 'hate crimes legislation,' the result of proposals by the Clinton Administration and its apologists in Congress. When the term was first used to refer only to specific crimes against persons of color, many of us at the time cried foul. What, exactly, makes a hate crime any worse than any other crime?

A case can be made that a significant portion of most crimes committed in this country are the result of some form of hate. The Left exhibits a shockingly noticeable blind spot in this regard with all of today's emphasis on 'understanding the psychological motivation' of those who commit crime. One would think that the psycho-social profiling of criminals that is routinely conducted today would lead advocates of social policy to conclude that not only are violent criminals driven by a highly troubled and traumatic childhood, but that this troubled background also leads to a deep-seated hatred for society in general and individuals in particular who represent for the criminal the source of all that's wrong with the world.

Yet, one never hears the crimes of, say, Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer, referred to as 'hate crimes.'

The fact of the matter is that the Left in this country is very selective in what behaviors it considers to be 'hate driven.' Usually the one criterion that is used is the group to which the victim belongs, as in the victim's racial group, or religious group, or, in this case, the homosexual community. Thus, the focus of those who push for the 'hate crime' designation is not at all upon the nature of the crime but the group to which the victim belongs.

This is tantamount to the government compiling a list of 'protected groups,' much as environmentalists within government designate certain animals as part of a 'protected species.' The entire notion would be laughable if it were not so true.

Government has no business deciding that certain groups are so sacred that anytime an individual within that group is the victim of a serious crime it is thus to be viewed as a 'hate crime.' When government engages in this practice it is doing the very thing that supposedly these discrimination and 'anti-bias' laws are supposedly designed to prevent. One group is singled out over another and given extra protection. This means that, at the end of the day, when a Black man or a Muslim male of Middle Eastern descent chases down and runs over white students with a vehicle, such an act is not considered a 'hate crime.'

Yet this act is every bit as driven by hatred as tying a gay man to the back of a pickup truck and dragging him through the rough.

The overall, arching question that occurs to me is, when will all of this end? How many more expanded definitions must Americans endure? What other behaviors will the Left decide to include in the definition of 'hate crime'?

Remember, the very same people who push the concept of 'hate crimes' also gave us the term 'hate speech.' The speech police thus scan the communication habits of Americans to make sure that no one utters one of the dreaded 'hate words' that have come to be demonized in our society, as if real hatred is a matter of speech to begin with.

In fact, a case can be made that individuals and societies who are prevented from venting their deepest truest feelings eventually burst forth in a fury that causes the speech they use to pale in comparison.

With Democrats in control of Congress, it is entirely plausible that someone will think of adding crimes committed with a gun to the definition of 'hate crime.' Thus, using Barack Hussein Obama's logic when he was in the state legislature, if you use a 'banned handgun' to prevent an intruder into your home from murdering you and your family, not only would you be charged with having an illegal weapon but you would be charged with committing a 'hate crime' against a criminal with your weapon.

None of this is logical, my friends, I realize. But, when have these people EVER been logical?

Americans need to simply drop the term 'hate crime' from our vocabulary entirely, and politicians who promote such balderdash should be ashamed of themselves. No violent crime is worse than any other. In fact, in the final analysis, it doesn't even matter as to the 'motivation.' When bodily harm comes to innocent citizens, the motivation is not an issue at all. The issue is catching the perpetrator and making sure he/she pays to the fullest extent of the law.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

You say that no crime is greater than another. If that is so, how come your website shows shots of 9/11 as if it was an apocalypse? And how come you show youths with guns in their hands and call them the perpetrators- those people could be from anywhere around the world- so are you therefore saying that anyone with dark-colored skin is a terrorist?

The fact is, supporters of hate crime legislation would not be using the term "hate crime", nor would they be advocating such measures, were it not an issue that has not been fully recognized. People have to understand that hurting someone whom has done nothing wrong requires hate. It's true, it is sometimes hard to dtermine if someone is biased in their actions, but if someone has merited a promotion and there is no reason on earth for not promoting them other than their sexuality, that's bias.

Also, I need to clarify something. Hate crime legislation does not just protect "gays"- if you haven't heard the term "LGBTIAAQ..." (for short, "LBTQ") that also applies to bisexuals, transgender or transexual people, intersex people, etc. HAte crimes are also done based on someone's gender identity- of someone identifies themself as a different gender than they were assigned at birth or prefers not to have to belong to any gender at all.

And that isn't all. You don't even HAVE to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc. Someone can just perceive as being that and therfore attack you. That's making assumptions, which is bias, and endgendering stereotypes, which is prejudice.

You can say anything you want about I movement that you clearly haven't studied- that's freedom of speech, but I encourage you to sit in on a GSA (Gay Straight Alliance)meeting or talk to someone who is infertile because their parents made them go through an operation as a baby to be a boy or a girl or to someone who was beaten up and called a "faggot" because they were perceived to be gay, or a victim of sexual abuse who called the police but because of the policeman's prejudice against them was ignored or better yet, go see Jim in Bold- it's about a boy who committed suicide because of the awful treatment he suffered at the hands of his classmates.

I respect that you have expressed your opinion, but I felt obligated to speak the truth.

Welshman said...

You missed my point, therefore, your argument fails on that one salient point. So let me clarify.

Violent crime is violent crime. The results are the same no matter what the motivation. The thing that made 9/11 so bad is that it brought terrorism to our shores and targeted so many victims.

Using your definition of 'hate crime,' why, then, is it not a hate crime for a poor hispanic guy to target the nice homes of rich white guys for burglary? What did those white guys do to deserve such criminal behavior? These white guys did no wrong, therefore, to target their homes requires hate, according to your own words.

Therefore, for a hispanic guy to burglarize the home of a rich white guy is a hate crime.

And on and on we can go, ad nauseum. The whole notion is ridiculous.

The intent of hate crimes legislation is to add protected groups to the federal government's list of preferred races. This means it is racist to the core and its stench rises to high heaven.

Martyn

Anonymous said...

I'm following up to respond to your racist reply. Yes, racist. You assume that every Hispanic is going to rob some white person?! I would like you to take a survey next time before you make such an erroneous comment. If the Hispanic guy robbed the white out of spite because he was a white guy- which is not usually the case- then, yes, it is a hate crime.

No, I didn't miss your point. In fact, I read it loud and clear- that's precisely why I wrote what I did. (9/11 was perpetrated by a couple of Muslim extremists, not the entire Muslim commmunity. And 3,00 is far less than 6 million- Jews murdered in the Holocaust, and over 300,000- dead Iraqi civilians, dead why? Because Iraq got somehow linked to 9/11, which it isn't.)

If we're going to play the game of "you missed my point", you in fact missed the greatest point of all: what exactly hate crime legislation does for EVERYONE. You see, a hate crime isn't just someone beating up a gay person- seeing as you like to confine the movement solely to male homosexuals- it applies to anyone in a certain group. Let's take a look at the definition of a hate crime.


hate crime: an act of violence and prejudice- verbal, mental or physical- done on purpose to someone because of their (supposed or real) gender identity or lack thereof, ETHNICITY, RELIGION, sexual orientation,RACE,etc.

Take a look, if you will, at the words I have capitalized. You do not have to be gay or lesbian to be black or Native American (the last time I checked, that is)and if an act of violence or prejudice is committed against a black or Native American person, that's a hate crime. THIS APPLIES TO ANY RACE RELIGION OR ETHNICITY. YEs, if someone yells at a white person, "I hate you filthy rich whites!" then that's a hate crime. And the authorities will prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law. Nice, huh? Same thing if someone yells, "Heterosexuals should go to hell!" that's a hate crime. Now, let me make this clear- it is ONLY a hate crime if you fell you are hurt by it. The white guy you mentioned isn't feeling down on his self-esteem or drinking 'cause he's been robbed- he's just mad about the theft. That's NOT a hate crime. Plus, the Hispanic guy who's robbed him is not prejudiced- fact: most rich guys in the US are white, and he's just trying to get the money.

You say the notion of hate crimes is ridiculous. HAVE YOU EVER EXPERIENCED A HATE CRIME? If not, then I think it's about time for you to stop making assumptions, shut up, and listen to what I am trying to say.

You will, of course, respond to this email and try to ridicule what I am saying, dismiss it as posh or whatever you like, and try to attack me. But just as sure as you do, I will keep correcting your assumptions and speaking the truth.

Last point: did you do any of the things that I requested that you do- go to a GSA meeting...see Jim in Bold? If not, then I do not think that you should be talking. In fact, if you continue to do so despite this, I will ask my cousin to talk to you about a hate crime that he experienced- no, he's straight, but he was perceived as gay and got beaten up. And I will tell you about Trutti Levi, a Holocaust survivor who not only survived a death march- look that up if you don't know what it is- but a terrible situation afterwards. If you don't know a GSA nearby you, I can give you directions to one.

It's not a ridiculous notion- if you heard someone got beaten to death with a pipe because he was gay, you;d be pretty upset, too. Or would you?

DO YOU CARE?

Welshman said...

I care about ANYONE who is the victim of a crime, period. It does not have to qualify as a 'hate' crime in order to be despicable. Violent crime is violent crime, period. We don't need any qualifiers, such as 'hate' to make it seem 'real bad.' It's already 'read bad.'

So, no amount of lecturing on your part is going to change the basic fact that anyone, anywhere, who is a victim of a crime is a victim that needs our support. So-called 'hate crimes' are no different than any other violent crime. It is all bad and should be condemned.

As far as I can tell, the 'hate crime' bandwagon is just one more way for collectivists to try to limit free speech, for always, inevitably, on the heels of their 'hate crimes' designation come the determination that 'hate speech' is equal to 'hate crime.'

And that, my friend, is tyranny.

Martyn