"Hate Crimes" -
Another Perspective
The slippery slope of sensitivity
A recent column I wrote on The Minutemen generated
a bit of e-mail.
"A bit" as in "my inbox runneth over."
Most responses were positive and many of those who disagreed
with me – sometimes forcefully - did so in a civil manner.
Some respondents, however, had me wondering. From their tone,
I’d lay odds that whenever they come across anything that
doesn’t conform to their worldview (Mars would be my guess
as to that world), they immediately launch into a vein-popping
tirade. In their e-mails, they tossed around terms like "hate
speech" and "hate crime" like confetti at a New
Year’s Eve party. Such terms don’t sit well with me.
Here’s why.
I understand hate. I’ve seen it, heard it, lived amidst
it, and have even experienced it a time or two myself. There are,
indeed, individuals and groups out there who hate as part of their
daily lives. May they stew in their own juices.
Still, I don’t like the term "hate speech" because,
what’s defined by many of our politically correct betters
as "hate speech," all too often resembles a darned good
argument to which they do not have an honest response.
I understand speech that is hateful though. It’s something
ugly and vile and it marks the speakers as being a lot less than
what the good Lord intended them to be. The thing is, I’m
an adult and I can deal with such speech. While growing up, I
had parents, teachers, pastors, relatives, and even neighbors
who made sure that I was well armed in this regard. It was part
of the way many of us were raised.
In short, if someone wants to spew venom and make a complete
ass of themselves, that’s fine. They get to do that. It’s
called living in a free society. We get to ignore and even shun
them. That’s called adult behavior. It drives them batty.
I’m not particularly fond of the concept of "hate
crimes" either.
If someone steals my car or takes my wallet, does it matter if
they like me or not?
If they mug, maim, stab or shoot me, does it matter what they
call me while they do it?
The crime is in the act. That’s what can be proven and
that’s what should be punished. I don’t really care
to delve into the sewers of their minds to ask "why"
they did such thing.
In a just society, though, the penalties for such crimes should
be harsh. In fact, they should be so harsh that those convicted
of doing such things would think twice about doing them again
– after, of course, having spent a goodly amount of time
breaking big rocks into little ones in some truly godforsaken,
hot, humid, and smelly place. As for those who kill others in
cold blood, I’ll give you three guesses (the first two won’t
count) as to my stance on what should be done with them.
What truly scares me about "hate speech" and "hate
crime" legislation is the fact that it gives government the
power to codify the definitions of "hate speech" and
"hate crimes." Old Joe Stalin and the boys would’ve
loved, understood, and welcomed such power.
Beyond scary, however, is what would soon be the next step. That’s
when they’d get around to passing "hate thought"
laws. Make a face when you hear someone rattling on about how
we need to be more "inclusive" (a term I sincerely wish
would just disappear from the language) and some "PC"
twit would have you up on charges in a heartbeat. Nearly burst
out laughing when some kid with spiked blue hair rings your doorbell
and asks to see your daughter and they’d draw and quarter
you.
That last, by the way, was an actual occurrence. I wasn’t
expecting the hair, the piercings, the baggy clothes, and the
"sinister" slouch. I saw it and my "Oh, good grief"
gene took over. I apologized and went upstairs to keep from busting
a gut.
Hateful people have the right to be cretins. What they don’t
have is the right to harm or threaten others. And we already have
laws to deal with that. "Hate speech" and "hate
crimes" laws, however, give government the power to punish
based on something that’s quite a bit less than objective.
And such power, in any government’s hands, is a truly dangerous
thing.
|