Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Hate Crimes


Jazzy Cat made a recent post regarding hate crime laws. Jazzy doesn't care for them. Regards them as laws which make thought a crime. I believe Jazzy is mistaken.

It is in fact the thought behind the crime which is targeted by such laws. It defines the nature of the crime. Hate is at its core. The motive of such crimes is not robbery, or passion as in domestic violence. Most hate crimes are committed against people unknown to the perpetrater(s.) The only motive is hate. Hate for the victim's race, religion, sexual preference, or whatever.

One cannot be arrested for hating others. But one can be held accountable for violent actions born of hate. It is proper for our legal system to recognize this distinction. People have been obsessed with race since before our country's beginning. White people began enslaving native Americans shortly after Columbus first dropped anchor. Soon after, red people were joined in servitude by black people. We made concerted efforts to complete our genocide against native Americans but fell short. The Emancipation Proclamation put an official (if not actual) end to slavery. But the hate has lived on.

Over the last 25 or 30 years targets of hate crimes have come to include homosexuals. More recently still, the polarization of the country into conservative and liberal camps has spawned new, almost equally virulent hatred. Legislation concerning crimes motivated by hate is both proper and necessary.

What is seen in the above image?

TLS

4 comments:

jazzycat said...

Jazzycat admires your dislike of hate by people and groups and shares it. Jazzycat has no sympathy for people who commit hate motivated crimes and would favor extra resources in solving these crimes, but the punishment should be for the crime not the motive. Please consider the following:
Politically correct hate speech in America is called freedom of speech and most of the left supports it….. Example: Ward Churchill, University of Colorado. Politically incorrect speech in America is often labeled as hate speech and the left thinks it is O.K. to shout them down and assault the speaker with pies, and objects….. Example: Ann Coulter speaking at University of Connecticut.
This makes Jazzycat really suspicious of the people that are setting the PC standards of what is hate speech and what is freedom of speech. The same double standard is applied in defining when a crime is a hate crime. To see a group or a person labeled as a bigot and hate monger simply because they do not conform to a politically correct view is scary. We already see people lose their jobs for having and stating non-PC views.

Terry S said...

But again, what you are discussing is responses by the media, the pundits, and the workplace. What hate crime laws address are actual physical violence against individuals or groups. Thre is a difference.

TLS

P.S. Do you think we are the only 2 beings in the world who have an interest in any of this? To date, you are the only uh, cat who has commented on anything I've written. It's a bit frustrating, but at least I am writing. It forces me to think things through, and the challenge of your comments help me to better define my position. So far, we've agreed to disagree. That ain't all bad.

jazzycat said...

Your are correct about us being challenged to defend our views. This always results in my learning and understanding more about my beliefs and opposing beliefs. It is nice that we can do this amicably in spite of such a wide difference of opinion. I think we both want a free prosperous country with a minimum of government interference. You are suspicious of the radical social conservatives interfering with freedom and I am suspicious of the radical socialist left interfering with freedom. I think concern over losing freedom is legitimate for anyone. At least we are not apathetic.

Terry S said...

I must admit that I do reach the boiling point at times. Of course the problem with that is, I am no longer rational. I believe that the only way we can hope to understand each other is through discourse such as this. This type of exchange is useful. I don't suppose either of us will move any mountains, but maybe we can create a small cloud of dust here and there.

If you have ever watched any of the news programs which feature 2 or more talking heads yammering at each other, you come to understand how useless that type of discourse is. About all that is ever gained is one upmanship. That is when one or more of the principals in the discussion get the better of their opponent(s) with a great one liner or a put down. But this is of little use to the audience.

I suppose that if you and I spent much time together in the same room, we could wind up in a shouting match. But in this way, we can each make our case in a thoughtful way, and respond to each other in kind.

I do think we sometimes surprise ourselves when we realize that, at least in some respects, we really aren't that far apart. As you stated, we both hope for a better life in a better country. We do, however, often disagree on how to get there, and of course about what happens after all is said and done. But, what the hey?

TLS