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.
