Thursday, April 23, 2009

ACTION ITEM - Fight "Hate Crime" Legislation!


The House of Representatives are probably voting today on H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009!

This bill is atrocious. It seeks to elevate some members of society above others by writing into law the idea that some lives are worth more than other lives. I am Hispanic and under this law, any attack or assault against me would require the perpetrator to receive harsher punishment than if he had attacked my fiance, a "white guy." Presto, my safety and life are worth more. Even if the person had not attacked me for being Hispanic, I or someone else could make that claim, and how could we be proven wrong? Hate crime legislation goes against everything upon which our judicial system is based. Hate crime legislation does not presuppose innocence before guilt. Rather, you are guilty until proven innocent, and there is no way to prove you did not have racial/sexual/gender motivations behind your crime.

It is disgusting that we even humor bills like this or that this has any credence whatsoever. I thought we acknowledged the equality of all people in the fourteenth amendment to the Consitution. I would say this hate crime legislation is unconstitutional in that it makes some lives more equal than others. Is not ALL crime "hate crime" anyway? A white murder victim's family is just as distraught as the family of a minority victim. Is his/her life not as precious? It boils my blood to think that some people's lives will now be worth more simply because of their skin color, sexual orientation, or other arbitrary status and label.

What about when people give talks against illegal immigration? What if their talk is centered around describing how illegal immigration is a very dangerous concept to our economy as well as to our national security? Guess what. That could be a hate crime. Even without fallacious legislation to back them up, entitled college brats act like Neo-Stasi speech wardens.

Lastly, what about crimes committed against white people because they are white? There are puhlenty of cases like that out there. Do I think that those criminals should face tougher consequences because their actions were racially motivated? He** no. However this is a serious and innate flaw of any hate crime legislation - if you are not a protected minority, then no one can commit a "hate crime" against you. There is so much injustice built into these types of bills that it is sickening, and anyone that claims to be an advocate or supporter of equality and civil rights ought to be OUTRAGED.

Let your voice be heard. All crime is hateful, and the lives and safety of every person should be protected equally.*

White House Switchboard: (P) 202-456-1414 (F) 202-456-2461
House of Representatives Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
Senate Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

*The House GOP members tried to add amendments to this legislation that would protect the unborn, members of the military and pregnant women. Well, those amendments were defeated. Not surprising, eh?

(H/T: WND)


  1. This analysis is odd, because it is illogical and not based in fact. First of all, most hate crime accusations are exactly done against minorities who attacked a majority (like blacks attacking whites) "Because of" the fact that they are white. That is one of the cruel ironies of the legislation. And further, I put "because of" in quotation marks, because that is the key issue in all of these cases: can it be proved that violence was done "because of" a certain, socially loaded fact that marks the crime as a hate crime.

    And this is also why you are slightly mistaken on the burden of proof issues. It is actually VERY DIFFICULT to win a hate crime accusation, because you have to prove that the attack was "because of" the given identity marker (race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.) and this is very difficult to do. Such clear moments of aggression are rare, and that is why hate crime cases are rarely won. (Another reason is also because the phenomenon is actually more rare than its supporters want us to believe...)

    Nonetheless, I don't think the mere idea of hate crime legislation values one life over another. What it does is mark a certain kind of aggression as more socially dangerous than other kinds of aggression. And I think there is good cause for this purely from a psychological perspective. Crimes based on identity markers have a much easier time fomenting into "riots" and "cleansing" scenarios. Two people getting in a fight for any old reason is a crime, but it's not socially dangerous in the sense that it can't "spread." The key example is violence against the Jews. First, in the 30s, it became acceptable, then in the 40s it was totally de rigueur. In the 50s and 60s it became completely verboten, because its simple existence was too dangerous in the rebuilding German republic (I of course am referencing Germany throughout this example.) Beating up a Jew, speaking publicly as if Jews were a part of a conspiracy, all of these things were just too dangerous to allow to proliferate during that time. Things are easing up a bit, but still not much for the same reasons.

    In our country the problem is violence against immigrant groups very often. There are people who just go out to find an illegal to get in a fight with. This DOES happen, and it's dangerous not only to the person who gets beat up, but to the entire community of people who have to continually live in fear of someone doing this. Thus, we have a law that gives them some exceptional legal recourse when this happens, which will encourage them to act on it, and thus protect the whole community.

  2. Anonymous, you've called the original post illogical and not based in fact, but have posted any sources to back up your own claims. I find it hard to beleive that the majority of "hate crime" prosecutions are minority on majority. Your opnion of the original post being illogical is exactly that, and my opinion is that she is right.

    It should not matter why a crime has been committed. We should allow the accused to make a defense, but not even give them an outlet for their hate or rants. If there are no extenuating circumstances, who cares why they did it? A crime is a crime, and should be punished. Is justice blind or isn't it?

    Your example of violence against Jews does not fit. It was officially sanctioned, encouraged and actively participated in by the state. Hitler and the national socialist party blamed the Jews for almost everything that was wrong with Germany. Most race riots or cleansing scenarios could fall into one of three categories. They were satisfacoritly controlled by law enforcement and outside resources, like many in the US. They were supported by the government, like the oppression of the Jews. Or they were not controlled because there was no fuctioning government.

    The fact that the amendment to include veterans was defeated proves that this is just liberal partisanship, in view of the many hate crimes perpetrated on veterans during the Vietnam war.

    If it is, as you say, so difficult to prove, why does the government waste our time on it? People should be prosecuted for what they've done, not why they did it. Are we not all entitled to our own opinions? If those opinions lead us to do wrong, we should pay for what we do, not what we think.

    Beating up an illegal immigrant or a legal resident should carry the same penalty. In both cases, the offender should punished.


I believe in free speech, including offensive speech, and especially political speech. Comments that are left on my blog do not necessarily represent my views nor do I necessarily endorse them. I am not responsible for other people's views or comments. That is how the 1st Amendment works.