Daily Gut: Murder Needs No Footnote
by Greg GutfeldPresident Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which by some weird circumstance also includes hate crime legislation.
Now, I’m no fan of hate. Hate in all forms is ugly, even when performed by beautiful people (that’s a shout out to Stephanie Von Pratt, who turned me down for my senior prom). But here’s what I don’t get: If I kill someone, I’m a killer. But hate crime law says that I also broke a new law, one that has to do with my thoughts when I committed said crime.
So it’s a thought crime more than a hate crime. Which begs the question: How can a thought be against the law?
Now I can barely read, so I don’t want to get too deep into this, but if I were to kill my co-host Bill Schulz, whether I hated him or not, that’s a crime. But, if we find out later that he was a sequential hermaphrodite, one might say it could be a hate crime.
I don’t get that at all.
What of terrorists? Does the fact that they hate us make their crimes worse? Not to them; punishment is meaningless. Which is the real truth about hate, anyway: Hate crime laws won’t stop hate or crime. It’s an after-the-fact gesture that does nothing to stop evil.
Even more, focusing on the killer’s outlook diminishes the victim. It’s no longer Bill Schulz is dead, but “Bill Schulz, the sequential hermaphrodite, is dead.”
Humanity should come before identity. We need to see people as people, not as part of groups. We know bigotry is bad. But murder in any form is so substantially worse, that it needs no footnote.
And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably racist.
Tonight we’ve got a humdinger of a show!
-Dr. Michael Baden (a special Halloween edition)
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
105 Comments
my problem is now adding gays to the mix, how does one proove they don't hate gays? i mean while either they are born that way, or throught life expierence become gay, but that does not mean i have to like them. where am i wrong? i once lived in a gay area in chicago, it did not bother me they live in my building, and the neighborhood, but it also didn't want me to try and befriend them either. i like what i like, i was wired that way, and that lifestyle does not fit inot my relm of friends, or fun. so am i a hater of gays, because i choose not to associate with them, even on a professional level?
Hate crime laws are social engineering. The entire concept is to declare certain special interest groups as 'off limits' and thus influence social interaction towards them. This perfectly explains why the idiocy has been expanded to include 'homophobia'. It's blatant pandering to the gay community.
The reason they stick around as a concept is because it's a difficult position to argue against: nobody wants to be seen as arguing 'for hate'.
I agree. Like unions, any purpose that hate crimes once served is now moot. We are a post=racial society, and I haven't heard of any gay-lynchings in the news in a long time. If I recall correctly, in the 90s they were as commonplace as school shootings, and those seemed to happen every other week.
Hate crime laws are a twist on the Orwellian "Some are more equal than others" principle. Some murders are more heinous than others if the victim falls within a protected class. It's ironic that this stand comes from leftists that otherwise fall all over themselves to release criminals from any responsibility for their actions, therefore, from serving any meaningful penalty.
But it's only a hate crime if the perpetrator is white. Ever hear of a black man prosecuted under a hate crime law if he killed a white man? Me either.
Most crimes are hate! Or based on some sort of hate. We need to stop labeling these events, just to let someone feel better. Murder is murder, plain and simple. Funny there's no hate crime for abortion. That's just convenience.
there is no such thing as a "hate crime", all there is is crime.
if you are killed, you are dead. and he/she/it who took your life is more than likely a murderer. unless they are liberal, and are striking a blow for libdom, in which case they are heroes and won't be held accountable.
anyway, hate crime law tries to divine intent, and that intent is the beginning of thought crime.
I will wager one fine mexican dinner of my choice, at a place i will choose, that the first test case of this statute will be against a white guy.
and if you disagree with me, blah blah blah
Matthew Shepard's killers beat and tortured him to death, not because he was gay, but because he only had $30.00 in his wallet and therefore had wasted their precious mugging-for-drug-money time.
The intent of murderers is always hateful, whether they're murdering because of your skin color and ethnicity, or because they want your Nike shoes.
You've got it on the money, Greg: this is the opening for thought crime legislation.
hate crime's not that straight forward, at least not in Canada. You have to publicly incite hatred against a particular group in a way that might incite violence or you have to publicly support something like genocide against a particular ethnic, religious or racial group.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/l...
I don't know if that's exactly what's been passed in the U.S.
pretty simple on an orwellian level, thought crime. so it will enable the prosecution of the thought of the act whether the act was committed or not.
i don'tmind if they can ladle on the years ,we know that they have been peeling them off for years. but the insidious aspects of this tie into the identity and empowerment of the so-called oppressed. let's look at less violent crimes and consider how it can be used in those areas. murder,assault, etc. are too simplistic, the devil is in the details here
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Fernando Colon. Fernando Colon said: Daily Gut: Murder Needs No Footnote http://bit.ly/XkzMP [...]
then can we go after the whitehouse, they are going after conservatives?
Okay. You murder, assualt & battery, rape, etc. someone and that's a crime. You hated that person because of some criteria that is listed as a hate crime or you didn't hate them for anything listed but the victim is part of a group that is listed. So if you don't commit murder, assualt & battery, rape, etc. but still think hateful thoughts about that person. Isn't that still a crime? Or is the hate crime tied to the physical crime and if so then it isn't really a crime. But if it is, then it is a crime to have certain bad thoughts. So when will liberals become a protected group on this list? Scary stuff we are heading toward.
My take is that to attach it to a defense funding bill is wrong. It shows you couldn't pass it on it's own merits and have to bribe your collegues into voting for it. I'm not for hate either, but attaching bills to others just to pass it should be outlawed. I'm sure congress will get right on that.
If we need hate crime laws it stands to reason that we need legislation directed to the epidemic of " I really, really like you" crimes that plague our society.
I think in Mass. if you married "Bill Schultz the sequential Hermorphadite" first it then is only a crime of passion.
Then you would only have to worry about your future cell mates proclivity and It will look so much better in the newspaper for you
i'm eighteen, and even i see the Orwellian parallels. i persistently get in arguments with my radically leftist friends concerning the fact that in the last 10, almost 11, months, we've been inching closer and closer to a f451/1984 society. everything is growing to be "offensive" and now having an opinion can be illegal. dworkin writes that merely suggesting an idea or thought doesn't mean its being acted out. just because someone doesn't like gay people [and if they don't, it really doesn't bother me] doesn't mean theyre going to go out on a homosexual killing spree. plus, sometimes you can hate someone regardless of their skin color or gender, but it seems like everyone i know cant get that past their heads.
i'm just waiting for parlor walls that monitor me, government issued produce, and thought rehabilitation. its not that far away.
The ironic thing is we know Islamic Terrorist kill because they hate us yet to the left their hate is not their crime, it is ours. What did we do to make Terrorist hate us? However were we to kill an Islamic Terrorist we would be accused of doing so because they were Arabic and therefore committing a "Hate Crime". It is a very twisted rabbitt hole we are falling down and I don't know where it ends.
Nancy,
It's good to see someone your age who sees what is happening. The good news is most people your age will grow out of Liberalism once they are away from school for a few years and see how much the government takes from our labor. This is where the saying "a Conservative is just a Liberal who has grown up" comes from and is also why the focus of Democratic campaigns is the 18 to 25 demographic, with no life experience they often don't know what they're agreeing with.
Hate crimes are like affirmative action for crimes… But why? Aren't all crimes equally bad? This just confuses the point. Why twist the law up like this instead of keeping it simple?
Thought Crimes Legislation? How does one prosecute newThought crimes? What dangerous new precedents will this set? Do juries now have to weigh newThought into every case no matter how minor (or only those cases where the accused looks WASPy)?
The ACLU just got the green light to go after Christians WITHIN their own churches.
Goodbye free speech. They just stabbed you in the heart.
I guess you could try.
It's funny that someone gave me a -1. All I did was give an example of how hate crime laws work here.
You are a wise latina woman!
Everyone is missing the most important item from the post, so I'll take the lead: Greg, exactly what kind of uniform is Courtney Friel wearing?
Where does it end? I hate University of Louisville. So if I run onto the field and disrupt a football game, can they charge me with a hate crime?
I hope that the courts can strike this down quickly.
But it seems that BHO thinks the constitution is just a G=D D–n piece of paper.
You're right to be uncertain of what this means. Hate crime legislation is in fact Orwellian "Thought Crime" legislation bundled with your usual laws against murder or assault. However unconstitutional or unenforceable it is, decent folks won't protest it because they don't expect to do any murdering or assaulting. However you can see how once Government gets this one past us, once we get used to it, it will become a stepping stone to further throught crime legislation.
Also sadly, this elevates some groups above others in the eyes of the law, giving them extra protection under the law. Which is unconstitutional. And yes, this legislation will not stop hate or murder. And it might take decades before we overturn it. Congress will never repeal it.
I gave it back to you as I appreciate an honest lefty.
What about the problem of defending or even prosecuting hate crime charges? I know they do this already, but I'm baffled as to what body of tangible evidence could be produced to promote either case. I'm no lawyer, but how could any such evidence be anything other than hearsay? Part of the reason why hate crimes are prosecutable is because the defendant is already on trial for something more egregious. What would happen if I were charged with some crime and a hate crime as well and I plead guilty to primary offense, but I challenged the hate crime charges, alone? I'm half tempted to go assault someone and give it a try.
While we are paying attention to healthcare and Cap-n-Tax these are the little goodies our leftist radicals are slipping into American society. Hate Crimes are simply part of the overreaching liberal conspiracy. Pay attention America much more of this crap to come.
Crimethink is doubleplusungood!
Hate crimes are thought crimes. Which means we're not in a free country anymore, the government can tell you whether what you are thinking is ok or not. Come on people! Don't you remember Orwell?! 1984?!
Thanks Man.
Hate Crimes are just a method by the left to break down society into groups that can be manipulated. By charging "the White Male" with a hate crime, the left can gin up it's base. "The Black", "The Woman", "The Gay", etc. By polarizing these groups to perceive the majority (White Male Christian) society as being against them, the left can then claim the position of protector and benefactor of those groups.
So of course, it would be rare for the White Male to be victim of the "hate crime", regardless of any statistical reality. He is the perpetuator of hate, and the liberal is the beneficent protector of the weak.
This is why the democratic voter is an aggregation of psychologically damaged people.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by bighollywood: Daily Gut: Murder Needs No Footnote http://bit.ly/1mEA5u…
Awesome. I mean, doublepluscool.
Its worse really, while your thoughts may be pure, or as pure as a man that just commited the crime can be,
its what some ACLU sympathizing ambulance chaser can accuse you of in front of your 12 peers.
Its not what you thought its what they say you thought. Confusing, I would say so but thats the way they like it.
Well, that settles it: I can only kill straight WASPy chicks. And I had such high aspirations… guess I'll have to settle for being a generic serial killer. Ho hum.
But seriously, Greg is right on here. Hate crimes legislation has created a new kind of crime: thought crime. And it's doublepluscreepy.
There are 2 reasons for hate crimes laws. The most important to the pols is it lets them "stroke" one of their special interest voter groups. The most important to Joe American is they allow the pols and their special interest voters to attack the First Amendment.
I love Red Eye. Putting aside all the slapstick humor and all, this show really shows the truth and some insight into the insanity of today's world. And Gutfield really does makes sense many times in his "Gregalouge". More so then vile despicable sickeing hater Bill Maher.
If the majority of citizens are kept confused on what is or is not a crime, they will eventually just sit in their rooms with there mouths closed, hoping no one comes looking for them. Then the politicians can continue to rape and pillage the treasury with impunity.
Confusing laws keep the public off balance.
LOL!! @ generic serial killer
The Congressional softheads made it impossible to vote against. Who would vote against war funding? This attaching riders like this doozy to vital bills should be illegal.
This is the Orwellian nightmare of thought crime coming to fruition; however, I can't imagine this new "hate" crime statute will hold up in the US Supreme Court. In the future a major case regarding this is bound to occur sooner, or later.
You nailed it! +
Yes, but the One may just control all Courts by that time. A frightening thought, but a strong possibility.
We already have sensitivity training. That is your thought rehab. Hate speech is becoming the trend for the radical lefties. If you disagree, if you form your own opinion contrary to theirs and you vocalize that opinion, however benign it is, you are using hate speech and it should be silenced. That is their thinking. Calling someone a racist is starting to not work, so they had to think of something new. Hate speech.
I know what you mean and that thought did occur to me.
In this case, it's disgusting to tack anything unrelated to a bill like this.
For a bunch that totally ignores the constitution and apparently is not afraid that anyone
will stand up to them for the constitution an attachment of a few riders of questionable
legality I would classify small potatoes, did I spell potatoes right?
I hope the next congress if staffed as we hope take office they will take time to correct
these errors/laws of poor judgement. It is usually the moderate side of Republican party that says lets not go back we must move on and get this contry started again. Lets not revisit the past.
I say spend the first two years revisiting the past and correcting these injustices.
Back in the early 90's when I was getting my B.S. in Criminology, hate crimes were coming into vogue and were often discussed in class. They do nothing to prevent crime, but what they are able to do is get a crime recorded as something much more nefarious than it would normally be. It was near Halloween when some hate crime laws were on the ballot back in the early 90's. A fairly normal 'crime' for the Halloween season was egging. On any random street in America this crime could occur. So if X-number of cars were to get egged on a particular street then they are just chalked up as criminal mischief, but if Y-number of those cars had something that indicated that the owner was gay, such as a bumper sticker, then those crimes were then classified as hate crimes, and they all of a sudden take on a whole new meaning, thereby furthering an agenda showing an increase in hate crimes that needs further laws to protect those persons who are targeted by said "hate". We already prosecuit people depending on the reasoning behind their actions, we don't need to come up with new laws merely to push an agenda after the fact.
So if you kill someone who's black or gay or a cross-dresser or whatever in Canada, and it comes out later that you made fun of those groups in the past, but this didn't evidently have anything to do with the killing itself, does that constitute a hate crime? Not engaging in "gotcha" stuff here, I know practically nothing about the Canadian legal system and I do know enough to admit when I'm out of my depth.
Potatoes – I had to consult my Dan Quayle commemorative dictionary. I'm sure the Republicans will pick up a good number of seats next year. But if they take over, it will take some time and effort to fix the effects of the excessive spending. The stuff that came from Bush and the constant spending spree by Obama and this congress.
Having been disappointed by Newt and his leadership tho he did some good things.
I believe you have a bit more confidence in "politicians" than I do but there is hope.
Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount:
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Obviously, these Democrats are constructing a theocracy in which the only real sin is being conservative.
Scary, yes. But I do find incouragement in sites like this that allow us to sound off on issues. Like the biblical tower of Babel, the media market is so fractured these days the goverment can't control everything. They can put out slick press releases all day long, but you and I know what's going on, and we refuse to be fooled. The dissapointment comes from seeing our (MINORITY OPINION) MSM try and tell us everything's normal and the goverment's doing the right job and passing laws that are for the good of society. They used to be able to get away with that crap, but not anymore. They've lost significant marketshare, and they're loosing more by the day.
Newt started off great and had a great idea. It was good enough that the 100 days thing has stuck with everyone since, including Obama and Pelosi. I hope that the Republican's have heard enough sincere dissention in the ranks that they might actually pull their heads out. There's younger blood in now and the old dogs are retiring, but not quick enough. I'm still not holding my breath that if the house is taken and a one term Obama happens, that they'll keep to principles. One could only hope.
either way, i get a good meal out of it!
They have no respect for the Constitution. They believe it's something that should be periodically edited in Word to keep up with the times.
It depends on the "ONE" if he had recently given U of L a big stimulus amount I would say
cancel your home delivery as you may be away for awhile. If U of L is the hated rival of
"NBR TWO" the missus then you are ok. Where it gets a bit iffy is what school the Judge
you will be faced with went to. With this new found power and the Judges wife attended………
well you get the idea.
I bet more hate crimes are commited by minorities than by whites. Think about it, do you know any cities dealing with rampant white gangs?
The worst part of this new law (even worse than its overarching stupidity) is that double jeopardy pertains. If tried in state court and not convicted under this law you can be tried in a federal court. Look for it to hit the Supreme Court and be overturned. Even a wise Latina racist won't let double jeopardy go.
Actually, no… women have been officially designated as a Victim Group (TM) by the Democrats, so that would still be a hate crime. So, you need to stick with killing men.
Though, now that I think about it, conservative women are officially Not Real Women (TM), so you can kill conservative women. And conservative African Americans… they've forfeited the protection of Big Brother by their heretical ideology, so they're fair game, too.
Now that I think about it, stick to killing conservatives, since they don't count in the Age of Obama.
What if a gay guy kills a straight guy, is that a hate crime? Is it possible to murder someone without it being a hate crime? What if the gun has a smiley face on it, could it be classified as a happy crime? But more importantly, how did we get these retards in congress?
Hate crime legislation is just another way liberals pretend to care about the people who vote them into office.
I'll just refer you all to one of my favorite intellectuals, Thomas Sowell, who wrote this article 8 days after the Matthew Shepard murder in 1998
"Murder is Murder!", Thomas Sowell, 10/20/1998:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell10209...
Wow! Thanks for the link! They have a great archive.
So… the only way to settle this for sure is to find someone sent away specifically under a hate crime conviction, and help them appeal all the way to the Supreme Court to get the law proven unconstitutional. (Ugh. I hate the thought of even remotely siding with a criminal, even if they're right) But if you overturn it on the grounds that all lives are equal, and therefore the killer of a specific group doesn't deserve a harsher sentence…what happens to cop or child killing criminals who will in turn argue, by the same logic, that their death sentences were too severe specifically because of the nature of their victims? I sort of foresee a very ugly can of worms (even uglier than an actual can of worms) if/when the law gets challenged.
…..what happens to cop or child killing criminals………
They should be charged with special circumstances, no need for redundant laws such as "hate crime" when murder, battery, etc are already against the law. I think those that murder people in places of worship should automatically get the death penalty, along with child killers and cop killers.
But again, why would the fact that a murder takes place of worship make it worse? Murder's murder, and you're just as dead as if you got killed at 7-11.
Because houses of worship are traditionally recognized as "safe havens" for lack of a better term.
Different context I think: traditional safe haven from state intrusion (as illegal aliens using the sanctuary defense continue to claim), not criminal, who are pretty barred from committing crimes _anywhere._
Who voted these luna-ticians into office ???
The g0d d9mned p1gs enable this sw1ll. The s00ner th0se b9st9rds r0t in h311, the better off we'll be.
South Park, anyone?
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151849
What if you hate hate crimes?
It seems that it takes a certain amount of hate to murder someone. That someone did or did not commit murder is provable in court. How do you prove what someone was thinking? It is scary legislation and needless.
Gosh, I think it's worse if you don't hate somebody when you kill them. I mean, isn't there a special animus directed at "cold-blooded" killers? At least hate implies a reason as opposed to killing for no reason at all.
But, but, isnt all of life just about feeeeeeeeeelings? Just ask any lib, they seem to think so. Good gravy, death is death, usually you were pretty miffed if you killed someone over something. Do we need a decorder ring for everything in this country?
I just hate hate crimes, wait a minute I can't hate hate crimes because then I would be committing a hate crime, and then that's like a crime. But what if I liked hate crimes? Then would that make me a liker of hate. So am I a hate crimer or like crimer? Or who is to say what I am supposed to hate or like? What am I supposed to not hate? Mmmm – is there a list of things not to hate or to not like? Or to like and not hate? Or uh-oh – I think we're in trouble. But am I supposed to hate trouble? or like trouble?
So now, if you are ever a victim of a crime, just be sure to tell the cops "Oh Yeah and he also called me a queer", that will get the jerk 10-20 more years!
Canada's hate crime laws are truly screwed up. Read this article and then decide if they've got it figured out.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/04/the-interne...
So, when some mystery person slashed my parents' car's tires Halloween night before last year's election …AND removed their pro-McCain sticker from the car at the same time — does that make it a hate crime? Should, I would think…And by the way, never did catch the folks, and they continued to slash random tires in the neighborhood randomly on several other occasions. Police were relatively uninterested in the crime. Perhaps if it was a HATE crime they would have stepped up patrols in our area??
Yeah, this is my big problem with the hate crime laws: they are not color-blind and end up acting as minority-crime laws instead of hate crime laws.
I say this because it seems that whenever a white man commits a crime against a non-white man, the immediate assumption is "hate crime". On the other hand, any crime against a white man or woman by a non-white has to be "carefully considered" before the "hate crime" label is attached.
Either apply it to everything or nothing. If not, you end up with what we have now.
If you did any sort of research instead of relying on your personal slant, you would in fact find there are cases of black men being prosecuted under hate crime law. Here's one instance from our state (since I live in CA too): http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/20...
Can you please give evidence of anybody being prosecuted for a hate crime against a known Islamic terrorist, before making really broad, sweeping generalizations like that? The term "Hate Crime" is a pretty limited term for crimes committed against a person SOLELY because that person is of a certain group. If you take it upon yourself to murder a Muslim terrorist because he's the terrorist that bombed a building, that's just regular murder. If you murdered a random Muslim because you think all Muslims are terrorists, that's a hate crime. It's not really a difficult distinction to make, so I don't know why people are really so confused about it.
The lawyers are probably rejoicing over this. More frivolous law suits to handle now.
Thought crime legislation is patently absurd….
but let's not let common sense and logic get in the way of social engineering and profits
we have to 'save and create' jobs somewhere!
Hate crime laws further divide us, which is what the libs are shooting for. We are all equal, it is just some of us are more equal than others. That is evident when the Justice Department comes swooping in immediately once a crime is commited against a protected or favored class. On the flip side, a crime against, say an average straight white guy by any combination of the following, gay, black, hispanic, transgendered, disabled, overweight, sexually confused, mentally challenged, etc. and there is a call for all the facts to be in before any jumping to a conclusion.
It is interesting to note that is not just the average straight white slap that gets left out of being favored, but Asians. All you hear is crickets chirping from the US Government when an Asian shopowner is murdered in the inner city.
Dave, I'm citing more the logic or lackthereof in this whole idea. All violent crimes on some level are committed out of some hatred to give special categories based on skin color is both ludicrous and frankly racist. Also the absolute double standard wherein only white people can be accused of hate crimes is even more idiotic. Find me one case where a person of a different ethnic group has been accused of one.
In Knoxville we had two white college students brutally raped, tortured, and murdered (google Channon Christian for details) in one of the most horrific and gruesome crimes in US history and it was committed by four black men who had apparently bragged about killing white people. When request by the victim's families asked that it be prosecuted as a hate crime they were told no because and I quote the murderers "had white friends".It's the crime that should matter, not the skin color or sexual orientation. This is just more liberal white guilt and feel good reverse discrimination.
I looked up the details of the case, and here's the quote "‘It was a terrible crime, a horrendous crime, but race was not a motive. We know from our investigation that the people charged in this case were friends with white people, socialised with white people, dated white people.
'So not only is there no evidence of any racial animus, there’s evidence to the contrary,’ he added."
This quote fits in with the whole idea of a hate crime as a crime against an individual for the sole reason of them being part of a certain group. If you can prove that the suspect has a history of not hating that group, it ceases to be a hate crime. I doubt the DA in this case, or the quoted person – John Gill – are bleeding heart liberals who just can't see a hate crime happen against white people.
The whole idea that only white people can be brought up on hate crime charges is very much due to a heavy case of confirmation bias. If a white person is charged with a hate crime, you're going to notice if a lot more than if it were a black person because that already fits in with your preconceived notion, and it doesn't hurt that the the grave injustice being committed toward upper middle-class white people by the liberal media is a large Republican talking point so they'll never miss a chance to bring such cases to light. You could, though, check the actual statistics. In 2005, there were 935 offenses charged for anti-white crime. It does happen, and it happens fairly often; http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table1.htm
Thank you for the link. I had asked the question honestly simply because there are a plethora of white-attacking-black hate crimes that are publicized and almost no black-on-white hate crime coverage. The only "personal slant" I have is in the unevenness of application – I agree with Ken in that the laws should apply to everyone equally, and I feel that it isn't happening here.
Again, thanks for the information!
I think the premise of the piece is purposely a little too disingenuous. Thoughts aren't against the law as we all well know. You are free to think whatever vile, criminal, violent, deviant thoughts against whomever you wish. It's when you act on them that they become crimes. Crimes make you a criminal, not your thoughts. Having said that, I agree with the initial thought that hate crime laws are about 30 years too late. But since I don't plan on committing any crimes, the passage of this law bothers me less than the myriad anti-smoking-anywhere-at-all ones here in California–and I don't even smoke!
Good question. To be honest I don't really get it myself. I know that they prosecuted this guy named Ernst Zundel a few years ago. He was a holocaust denier with a following. You could say he incited persecution toward Jews by saying they made up the whole thing. On the other hand there's a French activist who wants the province of Quebec to separate and he says outrageous things about the English all the time and they leave him alone so I guess they're kind of selective.
I'm encouraged to see you posting your thoughts here! You have a good brain! Just be careful of those radical leftist "friends." When it comes down to it, they are not friends, nor are they friends of liberty, yours or mine. They'll be the ones behind the monitors looking to throw you into the re-education camps. It is a terrible situation we find ourselves in when the schools have indoctrinated so many young people into totalitarianism, socialism, and communism.
Hold your head high and know you are entirely correct! Maybe you can sway those radicals enough to see that their liberty is threatened and their country is doomed with their philosophies.
I do not plan on committing any crimes either, and so this law will not affect me, that is unless i am the victim of a crime. Then, I can be damn certain that if i am so unfortunate to be a victim, that is all I will be, not a hate crime victim, just a victim. If the law is applied equally across the board, regardless of the race or whatever of the perp, then many of the complaints will go away. But this is not the case, the feds show very little interest in pursuing a perp if the victim is a straight white male, or an Asian. This would be a very bitter pill to swallow if your child is the victim of a hate crime but it does not get prosecuted as a hate crime. Maybe someday we will take a look at lady Justice and see that she is blindfolded, or maybe not.
How does adding *hate* to the crime make it more criminal? A bunch of kids attacked an adult. End of story. Every crime has a motive, yet some motives are now worse than others. I don't care about motives except that they tell us how we can predict and avoid that crime in the future, not as an enhancement to the crime itself.
Note to self: Commit Love Crimes. Apparently they negate each other.
Would we even have heard of Matthew Shepherd had he not been gay? I seriously doubt it. Whatever happened to the Jesse Dirkheising story? That's all forgotten about. But the perpetrators were gay so they could not/would not be convicted of a hate crime.
I agree with California Dave with one addition – the perpetrator also has to be straight. Being a Christian would help too.
Doesn't matter if he was killed for being gay, or because he happened to be low on cash at the moment. The guy was murdered. Period. A heinous crime, indeed. But I would defend to death the right of those scums to think or feel about Matthew (or anyone else for that matter) however they like. Once we start criminalizing thought and making Matthew's life more valuable because he's gay, we are ALL screwed.
Also, guns/weapons are traditionally not allowed in churches…hence victims of a prospective crime are unarmed there.
*MissQuinn
So if I'm unarmed, and get shot in the mall, my murderer should get a lighter sentence than a church shooter because I chose not to carry a gun?!?
No, because last time I checked, you can't carry a gun into the mall (at least my local mall, signage is posted that you can't)… so the sentence should be equal.
*MissQuinn*
Ok…so what if it's a mall in…Texas? Or any other concealed carry state?
I do see your point.
But it also makes the argument that if you MUST have hate crime laws, they should be on a state by state basis. :-p
*MissQuinn*
What?! You dare give me the tongue-sticking-out-emoticon?!? I am outraged! :-O!
Quiet or else I shall stick my tongue out a second time, you and your silly English knights!! :-p
*MissQuinn*
You must be logged in to post a comment.