Journal pudge's Journal: Hate Crimes Law Sucks 17
The Congress passed a law that, when signed by President Obama, will make ia a federal crime to assault someone because of their sexual orientation or "gender identity."
The "Human Rights" Campaign said, "We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country."
A few thoughts.
First, you cannot end hate through legislation.
Second, government has no business even trying to get people to stop hating. That's none of its business. Literally. Indeed, its duty is to protect our right to hate, and our faculties that lead us to whatever opinions we might have, including hate.
Third, this law is unconstitutional by the Tenth Amendment. I find it astonishing that anyone thinks this needs to be a federal law, which is utterly insulting to the state legislatures, which are, in fact, perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether this should be a crime.
Fourth, this law also runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment right to due process. In our judicial system, motive and intent are two different things, and motive is not a crime. This law makes it a crime. That is why people, correctly, compare it to Thought Police. Some say, but this is different, because the result of the crime is to intimidate a whole class of people; but if that is the case, then you need to show that the person had intent to produce that result
I would be perfectly willing to support a (state) law that said someone intending to, through a violent act, terrorize or intimidate a group of people, is committing a felony. But that would require evidence, which -- despite being constitutionally required -- is an unattractive prospect to many. So instead, they just tell us that some for assaulting people are worse than others, and get around that pesky "evidence" thing. And we're supposed to just nod in approval, because if you don't, well, you are a dirty hatemonger.
It's a sad day in America, that we incorrectly think we need such a paternalistic law, and that we are willing to toss aside civil liberties to get it.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
I just responded (Score:2)
I just sent emails to the Ohio senators, Brown and Voinovich (a liberal and a RINO, respectively).
The message from CCV was plain and clear, but I added the following to the Closing:
"Remember the 10th Amendment! IT IS YOUR **SWORN** CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY AS AN ELECTED OFFICE HOLDER TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THIS INCLUDES THE 10TH AMENDMENT. FAILURE TO DO SO SHOULD MAKE YOU LIABLE TO PROSECUTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS."
It's too bad no one has the ball
I disagree... (Score:1)
Unless my understanding is completely off base, I disagree with your assertion that it will remove the burden of proof. The prosecution will still be required to prove that the defendant is guilty of assaulting the victim. It is adding a more harsh punishment depending on the victim of the crime.
This is certainly a violation of the constitution, though I would argue the most grievous being the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. An assault on a healthy white straight Christian male is no longe
Re: (Score:2)
Unless my understanding is completely off base, I disagree with your assertion that it will remove the burden of proof. The prosecution will still be required to prove that the defendant is guilty of assaulting the victim.
You are misunderstanding what I wrote (which is my fault): if the crime is "terrorizing" or "intimidating" then there is no evidence required for THAT. It's just assumed, which violates due process.
Meanwhile, if the crime is having a certain MOTIVE, then that violates the First Amendment.
Either way the law is screwed.
It is adding a more harsh punishment depending on the victim of the crime.
Not quite: it is creating a new crime depending on your motive.
This is certainly a violation of the constitution, though I would argue the most grievous being the equal protection clause of th
More than that (Score:2)
"First, you cannot end hate through legislation."
You can't end hate at all. It's as much a part of our natures as love, lust, greed, courage and cowardice. This is just more of the same Star Trek-ish "humanity has evolved" bullshit from liberals who think that human nature is nothing but a malleable social construct, and that they can change it to their liking via government legislation. This is nothing more than a way of trying to enforce beliefs on those backwards rubes that are still clinging to their re
Re: (Score:2)
You can't end hate at all.
I don't agree. But such change cannot come from without, only from within. It can be influenced from without, but it must come from within.
If you mean that some people will not change, sure. But ... man in the mirror and all. If you mean individuals cannot change ... nope, don't accept it. The Pope held the hand of the man who tried to kill him. A lack of hate in a man is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you mean that some people will not change, sure. But ... man in the mirror and all. If you mean individuals cannot change ... nope, don't accept it. The Pope held the hand of the man who tried to kill him. A lack of hate in a man is possible."
Individuals can most definitely change. But our natures do not. They're eternal. We don't so much change our natures... impossible... as much as we learn, with discipline and integrity and love... to overcome them and live with them. The whole point of Christianity
Re: (Score:2)
Liberalism disregards the need for that by stating that human nature itself can be changed. That it can evolve, the same way Roddenberry had the Vulcans evolving from savages to total logic in his epics.
Yeah, but the Vulcans are often demonstrated in the Star Trek universe to be just as flawed as humans, and humans just as flawed as Ferengi. Maybe that's mostly post-Roddenberry, though.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't end hate at all.
Education ends prejudice, but if I hate you because of something you've done personally to me, no that can only be fixed by my own forgiveness.
Who cares what Christ, Paul, and Moses said?
Actually their messages were more liberal than conservative if you look at them from a US ideology standpoint. Even taxes; Jesus paid taxes, according to scripture (he sent one of the disciples to go fishing when irdered to pay tax, and a coin the amount of the tax was in a fish).
Re: (Score:2)
"Who cares what Christ, Paul, and Moses said?"
Most of the country.
"Actually their messages were more liberal than conservative if you look at them from a US ideology standpoint. Even taxes; Jesus paid taxes, according to scripture (he sent one of the disciples to go fishing when ordered to pay tax, and a coin the amount of the tax was in a fish)."
Have you actually read the Bible? Or are you just going on what you've heard? You wouldn't be alone if the later is the case.
I don't ascribe any political ideology
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I've read it. He never said "believe in me or suffer an eternity of torture". His whole message was one of forgiveness and nonjudgementalism. There are only two instances that I can think of that he even got angry, at the fig tree and the moneychangers in the temple.
It's the old testament that says "sin and burn in hell". The new testament says "your sins are paid for". You are not judged for your sins; Jesus paid for your sins (next time you do something wrong, think about a man being tortured to dea
Re: (Score:2)
He never said "believe in me or suffer an eternity of torture".
"No one comes to the Father except through me" is pretty close. What is the alternative to coming to the Father? Eternity without God. That is what hell is: eternal death, separation, from God.
His whole message was one of forgiveness and nonjudgementalism.
Forgiveness is offered as a result accepting Christ, and judgment is offered if you don't.
The new testament says "your sins are paid for". You are not judged for your sins; Jesus paid for your sins ...
... if you believe in and accept Christ as your savior.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually their messages were more liberal than conservative if you look at them from a US ideology standpoint. Even taxes; Jesus paid taxes, according to scripture (he sent one of the disciples to go fishing when irdered to pay tax, and a coin the amount of the tax was in a fish).
No, you're misinterpreting. Jesus didn't say taxes -- let alone HIGH taxes -- are good. He just said that there's no Christian/biblical justification for refusing to pay those taxes. This is not remotely incompatible with American conservative ideology.
Another common misinterpretation is that Jesus favored government caring for the poor, which is completely wrong-headed: Jesus favored individuals and churches caring for the poor. That's not to say government doing so is against what God wants, but I'd h
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus didn't say taxes -- let alone HIGH taxes -- are good. He just said that there's no Christian/biblical justification for refusing to pay those taxes.
True, but he never spoke out against taxes either. He simply paid when ordered.
Another common misinterpretation is that Jesus favored government caring for the poor
Also true. He actually didn't mention government caring for the poor at all. In fact, I can't remember a single passage in either testament that says anything about the subject one way or the ot
Re: (Score:2)
he never spoke out against taxes either
I never saw anyone imply that he did. I was just saying the expression you described -- "Jesus paid taxes" -- is not as you described it -- "more liberal than conservative."
I see that as being antimaterial; and it seems to me that both liberalism and conservatism are material and worldly.
My brand of conservatism certainly isn't worldly: it's about defending the liberty each person has because he is a human creation by God.
You skipped the first part of Romans 8: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law o
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I get it now. Conservative as in libertarian; I agree with that completely. I think there are probably a lot of different kinds of conservatives, and a lot of different kinds of liberals as well. I know some self-professed conservatives who confuse libertarianism with liberalism; IMO rather than being conservative, these people are authoritarian, but they still vote straight ticket every election, and hate Democrats. OTOH there are authoritarian liberals as well, who want to tax booze so you'll stop dri
Re: (Score:2)
Most grassroots Republicans are little-l libertarian, in my experience. Unfortunately we get electeds who are, often, statists of various flavors.
Social conservatives -- and I love them, mostly -- are part of the problem here, both in that they want statist policies to defend their interests (and I am not talking about "life" issues, which are separate from a libertarian perspective) and in that they are willing to overlook other statist policies to get their social policies in place.
Hate crime lawS suck. (Score:2)
ALL the hate crime laws suck. It shouldn't matter if you're beating someone because they're homosexual, black, or you just hate people with red hair (the last isn't protected). It's assault no matter how you look at it.
Odd how few "hate crimes" by blacks against whites there are, even though I've known far more black racists than white ones.