- The biggest story in American politics isn't in the media-at
this dangerous moment we still don't know if Bush will veto the federal
hate crimes bill passed by both House and Senate. The military reappropriations
bill, H.R. 1585 (to which Sen. Kennedy's hate bill amendment is attached)
is now months overdue. With our troops still dying in the Mideast and needing
new supplies, Bush may sign the arms bill with hate bill attached
to his regret.
-
- Since we may soon join the league of western
hate law bureaucracies, we should listen to those who already messed up
their legal system this way, say, the Brits. Lawmakers in Britain unintentionally
reveal the folly of hate laws by trying to add more and more groups to
special federal protection. They currently want to add the elderly and
handicapped to the list of hate laws' protected victims. Who's next? Women,
short people, redheads, sci-fi geeks? Maybe eventually they'll add enough
groups and we'll all get equal protection again.
-
-
- At NPN, we have amply warned that hate crime
laws are selectively enforced; they award "special victim status"
to those in favor with the architect of hate laws worldwide ADL.
In the US, homosexuals and Jews will particularly benefit. But these laws
are so dangerously malleable-based on politics, not basic principles of
justice-that they will create enormous bureaucracies and endless paperwork
and dangerously complicate the important job of law enforcement.
-
-
- The British lawmakers say old and disabled
people deserve special protection because they are frequent targets of
crime. But these crimes are already illegal (hence, the word crime). Seeking
to punish a "bias motivation" won't help end injustice; it will
only further complicate the process of protecting old or handicapped people,
and the rest of society!
-
-
- Britain's Telegraph published an excellent
column by Jenny McCartney articulating some of the dangerous stupidity
of hate crime laws. Her piece is worth the read. It's also heartening to
read the comments on her column; almost all express righteous rage at hate
crime laws.
-
-
- McCartney sums up wryly, "perhaps,
one day far in the future, we will beckon in so many plainly worthy sub-categories
that we will arrive at the only position that makes any sense: that we
are all equally valuable citizens under the law, deserving of the full
protection of the police and justice system. That was, I think, the principle
we started out with."
-
- Our northern neighbor, Canada, is also a
hate crimes bureaucracy. The Ottawa Sun reports that its police unit receives
70 to 75 "hate crime" complaints per year.
-
- "In Ottawa, the bulk of hate-crime
complaints involve incidents of mischief, such as graffiti messages, but
others are based on language." The outgoing head of the hate crimes
unit explains that people get "downright rude."
-
- Um, too bad! When did rudeness become a
crime?
-
- Unfortunately, Americans don't seem to hear
the message from England or Canada. Both countries provide clear stories
of brainwashed lawmakers and law enforcers with scarily confused attitudes
toward crime treating some of its victims as more attention-worthy
than others and treating language as if it were as serious as the sticks
and bones that break our bones. Yet we are quickly hurtling toward that
same dangerous confusion.
-
- The National Action Network is organizing
a big march on Washington to demand federal action against the "rash"
of noose-hanging in American states. On Nov. 3, activists marched on Washington
to demand that the horrific torture of Megan Williams be prosecuted as
a hate crime. They reason that the six suspects used the n-word against
Williams while abusing her. Just reading what was done to this young black
woman makes you sick. But what if she had been white and was called a "ho"
each time she was stabbed? Would six men have deserved hate crime charges
for their misogyny? And what if it were six women abusing a man because
of their rage because of mistreatment by fathers and exes? Would they deserve
triple penalties for going against one member of a larger group? Strangely:
no. Individuals should be punished when they commit crimes against other
individuals, regardless of why. And every person deserves equal protection
under the law, no matter to what larger group they belong.
-
- The evil of making speech into a crime is
still another reason to reject hate laws. Besides criminalizing or chilling
legitimate speech, laws against speech or symbols just scream out for violation.
A Houston Chronicle column points out that these are "times in which
any knucklehead with a rope or a felt-tipped pen can make national news
by hanging a noose or scrawling racist graffiti in a conspicuous location."
The column lists several hate crime hoaxes-such as when a young black woman
sent threatening letters to minority students, because she hoped her parents
would let her drop out.
-
- Yes, racially threatening symbols should
be discouraged. But criminal law exists to punish actual crime, not to
enforce social niceties. The law-simple, fair, and evenly applied-is our
best defense against true violations of our personal rights.
-
- Criminal law doesn't exist to protect people's
feelings, change their beliefs, or "reform" their thoughts! That
has been tried before. We have to preserve the necessary weapon of the
law by not melting it down and using it for some other purpose. You might
want a garden hoe, but what will you do when you need a gun?
|
