Describing a "hate crime" isn't as easy as it looks. Usually, the descriptive words we use to classify different types of crime are easy to understand. We have violent crimes, like assault, robbery or rape as opposed to non-violent crimes such as fraud or shoplifting. There are gun-related crimes as opposed to crimes committed without use of a weapon. But what is the logic behind referring to certain criminal deeds as "hate crimes"? We call it "hate crimes" as opposed to what? Love crimes?
Some would interpret "hate crimes" as crimes that are motivated by hate, as opposed to crimes motivated by greed. If so, then almost any violent crime could be defined as hate crime. After all, when a dozen of street thugs assault an innocent passer-by and beat him half to death, it's hard to argue that they've done it out of love. Ditto with every single case of rape and domestic violence, as well as those murders that weren't motivated by greed. But almost none of those crimes are regarded as "hate crimes".
So we get another explanation - a "hate crime" is the one in which the victim gets singled out because of his ethnic, religious or cultural background. So let's say, if white supremacists attack a passer-by just because his skin is darker than theirs - that's a hate crime. But what if aboriginal protesters in Caledonia, Ontario beat up a construction worker who is white? That was never viewed as a "hate crime".
The "hate crime" label is applied to broad range of crimes - from assaulting people to harming property and even to "inciting hatred". But no matter what kind of a crime we are talking about, we get the same inconsistence when it comes to a question whether or not this is a "hate crime". Vandalizing a homosexual bookstore is a hate crime. Vandalizing a business just because the owner supports traditional marriage - is not. Sending hate mail to a Hindu is a hate crime. Sending hate mail to a Catholic - is not. Desecrating the Koran - is a hate crime. Desecrating the Bible could easily pass as art. Obviously, there's much more to the notion of "hate crime" than just protecting people from being assaulted (or even - from being insulted) just because they look or act or worship differently.
And here's another paradox that is worth noticing. Somehow those "hate crimes" are the only crimes for which the bleeding-heart Liberals want tougher sentences. That too is somewhat inconsistent with their beliefs that crime has "social roots" and that criminals need as much help and sympathy as their victims. Suddenly we hear them saying that there's a certain type of criminal actions that don't have "social roots", therefore those who commit those crimes, must be dealt with severely, so nobody else dares even to think about doing something similar...
So how do we explain these paradoxes? What is the reason behind applying the definition of "hate crimes" not to just any hate driven crime, but to those that are committed against the members of specific ethno-cultural groups? And how come the very same people who demand compassion to the ordinary criminals, suddenly want stricter penalties for those who commit those specific "hate crimes"?
Here's my explanation: the proponents of the "hate crime" laws need them to silence anyone who speaks (let alone - acts) against their utopian beliefs. Hate crime laws are against those who believe in absolute truth and refuse to accept moral relativism which denies the existence of good and evil, right and wrong. They are against those who insist there is a difference between masculine and feminine sexuality. Against those who don't believe that all cultures are equally beneficial to our society; and against those refusing to agree that a culture which gave the world the concept of human rights and accountable government is "no better" than a culture which finds a multiple rape victim guilty for "just being there" and sentences her to public flogging, doubling the number of lashes for daring to appeal...
A policy which is based on nothing but beliefs may look good on paper. But what if those beliefs often go against the facts? Well, too bad for the facts; those who impose moral relativism on our society want us to ignore them. But you can't completely ignore the way the world works. If you put a wolf and a sheep in the same barn, the sheep will get eaten. Well, let's blame it on the sheep and suggest that anyone who thinks otherwise simply has a grudge against the poor mistreated fuzzy gray animal which looks just like a big dog. That's when "hate crime" laws come into play. If the establishment has decided that a sheep and a wolf can live together in peace, then anyone who disagrees is a "hate monger". And if he dares to take a rifle and to shot the wolf dead, protecting his sheep - he'll be accused of committing a "hate crime".
That's exactly what "hate crime" laws are for - to silence those who has the courage to tell the truth and to prosecute those who dares to fight back, instead of just letting his family suffer for the sake of yet another Utopia. Proponents of the "hate crime" laws suggest that these are laws against hatred and discrimination. But the fact is that "hate crime" laws are designed to perpetuate discrimination and hatred. That's why I believe they must be repealed.
No comments:
Post a Comment