Posted by
RME KRNL on Thursday, May 07, 2009 11:20:24 AM
The U.S. House of Representatives has recently passed a bill, now on its way to the U.S. Senate, on new (more) hate crimes legislation.
That means, with everything else Team Obama and this Congress are taking onto their plates (running banks, auto companies, finding new things on which to spend tax money we don't have for things which many question we need, trying to influence a federal bankruptcy judge, socialize our national healthcare, etc.), some committee somewhere in Congress is, once again, spending our tax money considering some kind of new hate crimes legislation, as if Congress doesn't already have enough other stuff to get done.
Congressman Louie Gohmert, himself a former judge, told Human Events about the radical nature of this so-called hate crimes bill and what happened when House Republicans tried to amend the bill so it did not offer protection to pedophiles:
"When we tried to get the term sexual orientation narrowed down to where it didn't include something like a pedophile ... that was voted down on party lines ... there are about 30 different types of sexual orientations, and they can include exhibitionism and voyeurism or things that are so offensive such as pedophilia or necrophilia. The problem is that the supporters of this bill did not want to exclude any of those and even voted down the amendment that would have excluded pedophilia."
Gohmert pointed out the absurdity of the legislation as written, as it would warrant the prosecution of a woman under the federal hate crimes statues if she hits a flasher with her purse after he exposed himself to her, because exhibitionism is a protected sexual orientation under this bill.
"The one who did the flashing committed a local misdemeanor," Gohmert said. 'The one who hit (the flasher) with the purse singled him out because he's an exhibitionist, and therefore she has now committed a federal hate crime and is looking at felony time."
Kevin Theriot with the Alliance Defense Fund said it best:
"So-called 'hate crime' laws actually serve only one purpose: The criminalization of citizens based on whatever thoughts, beliefs, and emotions they have that are not considered to be 'politically correct.' No one should fall for the idea that this bill does anything to bring about greater justice for Americans."
Well, my take on this is even more simple - not simplistic, just more simple: I cannot think of one subject of so-called hate crimes legislation for which there are not already adequate laws on the books. If you are heterosexual and I assault you, I have committed assault. If you are homosexual and I assault you, I have still committed assault. If I am White and you are White and I murder you, I have committed murder. If I am White and you are Black and I murder you, I have still committed murder.
In most, if not all, capital crimes, it must be proven that one had the intent to commit the alleged crime, but the "why" of that intent does not have to be proven. The "why," as you sometimes hear lawyers, mainly on TV, say, is "irrelevant and immaterial." The intent itself, e.g., to commit murder, not the rationale behind it, is what is important. That's why someone may be found guilty of manslaughter and not murder, but in both cases the result for the victim is the same - he or she is dead. In the case of murder, the intent was to kill, but in the case of manslaughter there may have been intent to harm, or to accidentally or negligently cause harm, but not to kill.
Hate crimes legislation, instead of making various classes of people more equal before the law, actually attempts to make them more equal than other classes, and in the process represents adding another and unnecessary layer to the jurisprudential system.
Besides, it should be remembered that morality cannot be legislated, and that's exactly what hate crimes legislation attempts to do.