Hating On Hate Crimes
What exactly is a hate crime? Is it hurting someone because of who they are or what they believe? Do only certain people count? Such questions marinate on my mind these days as debate twizzles over a new bill passed by the House on the issue 
of hate crime.
At first you might guess that a hate crime is when a member of a minority group is targeted. If a black or Jewish or gay person is targeted, then you have a hate crime right? I hear women also count. So every crime is a hate crime unless it’s against straight white people? No, because minorities are killed everyday without mention of a hate crime. So if blacks or Jews or gays or women are killed just because, then don’t sweat it, but look out if the killer acted because of skin color, religious belief, or sexual orientation.
Look, if someone kills me I’m pretty sure they hate me. I don’t think my family cares much what motivated my murderer. What if I was killed for being 6’3″? Maybe some angry, short guy hates tall people. That would be a hate crime right? As a dead person I don’t think I would really care.
***
The current scuttlebutt revolves around fears that anyone opposing gay lifestyles or marriage will get nabbed when someone they know does something bad. According to Fox News contributor James Osborne: “For much of the last decade gay rights activists have been fighting for inclusion within the federal hate crimes law, which places greater penalties on crimes that are committed based on race, ethnicity and religion.”
Many conservatives are up in arms over the bill saying that prosecutions will be extended against groups, particularly Christians, who teach that homosexuality is morally wrong. Another group against gays would be Muslims, but I don’t want to go off course here. Back to the Osborne article:
“Frederick Lawrence, a law professor at George Washington University, said there is nothing within the language of the hate crimes bill that would
allow for the prosecution of individuals who simply speak out against a particular sexual or ethnic group.
‘The only language that would be criminalized is language that would meet the requirements of conspiracy or solicitation or direct incitement,’ he said. ‘Sharing opinions on things, even opinions others consider discriminatory, can not be criminalized.”
I hope the professor is right, and since this is still America I’ll go ahead and hope for the best. Unpopular opinions have long been protected by the Constitution. I don’t believe that a nation which defends the rights of Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi members to hold hateful beliefs will suddenly outlaw the rights of hundreds of millions Americans to have an opinion on homosexuality. And while we’re on the subject, let’s get some facts straight.
- Opposing gay marriage is different than opposing gay people. I know lots of parents who don’t support legalizing pot, but they still love the children who smoke & toke. Calm down, the comparison is about illegal activities. I’m not comparing gay people to potheads; although all the people I know from both groups are super nice.
- The majority of Americans, including President Obama, oppose gay marriage. I wonder if Perez Hilton will take time out from hating Carrie Prejean to condemn Obama.
- Over 90% of Americans identify themselves as heterosexual. Of the remaining 10%, as many as half define themselves as something other than or more than gay.
So in the context of people being punished for opposing gay marriage, you have a pretty tough sell. As far as hurting or killing gay people, I’m all for punishing the crime. Not because a victim is gay or black but because they are human. I do find an interesting disparity when some death penalty opponents defend death sentences for certain kinds of killers (hate criminals), but that’s also a different story.
***
> |
| John Brown After Church |
In the 1850s, wide-eyed name taker John Brown devoted his life to the abolition (ending) of slavery. Brown looked like a cross between Doc Brown from Back To The Future and the Grim Reaper. While other abolitionists printed papers and gave speeches condemning the institution, Brown decided to take a more proactive approach by slaughtering settlers who supported slavery. After a failed revolution in which his two sons were killed, Brown was found guilty of treason and hanged. Many haters of slavery / lovers of freedom were repulsed at the execution. Poems were written in support of the condemned man. Ralph Waldo Emerson compared Brown’s gallows to the cross.
John Brown stood for the right cause, yet he acted for the side of evil. Cold-blooded murder can not be detracted from or added to. The end result is loss of life, someone else’s, and it doesn’t matter whether you hated or loved the victim. Motivations for such acts can only help us understand why a twisted person killed. So 
what if their mother never loved them or daddy used his belt on them nightly? Who cares if they heard a speech by a politician or went to a church service or played too many video games? We are responsible for our own actions regardless of the life we’ve lived.
***
The 1998 murder of gay student Matthew Shepherd was tragic because his life ended. The 1953 murder of black teenager Emmett Till was tragic because his life was stolen. If the murderers are found guilty of committing the crime, what difference should it make if some lawmaker calls it a hate crime? Are some murders not really a big deal? You don’t usually hear someone saying that so and so got killed but he was a real jerk anyway.
Murder is murder; violence is violence. To elevate any potential victim throws the whole idea of equality under the law out of whack. Is a mother walking home at night any less important than a gay man? Aren’t both equally free and unique humans? Wouldn’t any violence against either of them be intolerable?
If you’re on the side that says preachers are going to jail for reading the Old Testament, you can probably calm down. If you think that some murder victims are more important than others, you should probably check your own hatred. The American Constitution protects minorities whether it be a despicable racist or a weaker human. The first right is life and we are all afforded it. Everything else follows.
What do you think? You can also Subscribe to my feed or you can click here to receive posts via email.
6 Comments »
Jump into the discussion!
Life. Culture. Education.
Life as Pop Culture Professor Clay Morgan
In The Matrix, Morpheus tells Neo he can take the blue pill and go on believing whatever he wants to believe. Or he can take the red pill to stay in Wonderland and find out how deep the rabbit hole goes.
This is a red pill type site that provides information in an entertaining way. It’s about clear thinking and good writing. It’s about finding meaning amidst the absurd. It’s about humor and truth.
I’m a writer / speaker who teaches history and political courses at a couple of local colleges. Where is local, you say? Well, that would be Wonderland of course.
On topics ranging from pop culture to the meaning of life, my brain’s always poppin’. Take the red pill and unplug.
Well put!
Very interesting take on so-called “hate crimes.” Here’s an interesting anecdote:
In Shakopee, MN, recently, a teenage thug smacked the ass of a girl standing in line for a ride at ValleyFair. The girl’s father was nearby, and of course jumped in and chastised the boy. After a verbal argument, he then called a bunch of other thugs on his phone to come to his defense. Later on, the group brutally beat the father into a coma.
It so happens that the perpetrators of the crime were black. However, the father involved was ALSO BLACK. Under hate crimes legislation, penalties would in theory be more severe, HAD THE FATHER BEEN WHITE. In America, should penalties for a crime be more or less severe because of a victim’s race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc? Of course not! All are equal, so the penalties should be equal as well.
-Chef @ 2bb
Hi Clay,
Thanks for stopping by my page and commenting. I’m with you on your thoughts about the Perez comments about Miss CA. I think they were rude and inconsiderate. I don’t believe he is a spokesperson for gay people. He is a gossip columnist saying things that will gain readers.
About hate crimes, the way I understand it, a crime of violence is classified as a hate crime if the perpetrators target the person(s) specifically because of the perception that they are a certain religion, race, nationality, disability, sexual orientation … with the end result that others within that same group are terrorized by that crime. It is a hate crime if the attack on one person terrorizes others of the same group, because it was a symbolic attack on that group.
I would label the white-on-black lynchings of pre-Civil Rights years as hate crimes. They were not specifically between the people involved, not 1-on-1 violence, dysfunctional family violence or, as this post described, gang violence against a man who tried to protect his daughter. Lynchings were done not only to to kill the people who were murdered, but to keep an entire group of people afraid and submissive.
I agree that any murder is horrible, no matter what the reason. I only differ in the interpretation of the meaning of hate crimes. I don’t believe they give certain groups more protection or more status. To the contrary, what they do, or are intended to do, is to bring those groups up to the same level others already have. I think that is the purpose.
I think the law is aimed at people who target others, and commit violence against them, specifically because of something about them, because they hate everyone who is that way. People who attack people solely because they fit some description, or the attacker thinks they do, need to know that those people are respected by the law just as they are. It is not okay to kill people just because you don’t like their skin color or their religion or their gender, and so on.
I don’t think that people who are protected by hate crimes legislation are being treated as more important than others. But rather, they are being acknowledged as being AS important as any other murder victim. What I’d like, more than hate crimes legislation, is a world where everyone respects each other. If all people were free to live and let live, and people didn’t attack strangers who look different from them because they look different, there would be no need for such legislation.
I’d like to see a world where “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” are the personal laws we all live by.
Great response dhconcerts. I think many of us would love a world without hate. Utopia has always been out of reach. I guess the point of hate crimes is to provide extra discouragement for these types of violent acts. The problem in my mind is that someone who hates that much, who is so filled with rage, will not stop to consider that their punishment might be extra bad after the murder someone. What killer will stop themselves by thinking “I would have murdered that black guy, but then I’ll be prosecuted under hate crime laws.”
Nice Job! I enjoy your writing style
[...] would have to be Hating On Hate Crimes. Sometimes you know what you are saying is not offensive, but that it won’t matter. [...]