The government and many people have labeled some crimes as “hate crimes”. There is legislation making the punishment for these much harsher. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) website said "The term "hate" can be misleading." And "in this context 'hate' means bias against people or groups with specific characteristics that are defined by the law." The definition for these crimes is on the DOJ’s website…
“Hate Crime: At the federal level, a crime motivated by bias against race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.”
Even though they say "bias against race" is in this category, they don't apply that if a white person is attacked by a minority. So it's only non-white attacks that are considered a hate crime. And why is it not a hate crime to attack a Trump supporter, police officers, or the elderly? So, politically motivated or age motivated crimes are not considered hate crimes?
I understand that some crimes are motivated by prejudice or bias, but to label these as hate crimes is a dangerous precedent. Who determines what a hate crime is? Today, with Biden's Attorney General (AG) declaring parents as "domestic terrorists” for trying to protect their children (see my article), what’s to stop them from calling "protesting" a certain political party a hate crime. Peaceful protests are free speech in our Constitution, but could now be labeled a hate crime?
I know this seems extreme. But the world we live in today is extreme. MSM and others are calling violent riots, peaceful protests, and concerned parents “domestic terrorists”. Most states have made legislation defining hate crimes for their state. Here’s an example where it is taken too far. Woman faces hate crime allegation after stomping on ‘Back the Blue’ sign in Utah.
This woman (Lauren Gibson) was arrested on charges of criminal mischief and disorderly conduct. But, according to arresting documents, she was arrested “due to the demeanor displayed by Gibson in attempts to intimidate law enforcement while destroying a ‘Pro Law Enforcement’ sign the allegations are being treated as a ‘Hate Crime’ enhanced allegation.”
I don’t agree with what Gibson was doing. Arresting her for disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, or even destruction of property would be fine. But it appears they would not have arrested her except for her "demeanor" and then they declared it as a "hate crime". What happened to free speech? Who thinks that is okay?
Forbes.com said It’s Time To Get Rid Of Hate Crime Laws…
“…The law makes it illegal to assault anybody or vandalize anybody’s property. Adding enhanced penalties for hate crimes assumes that it is especially bad to, say, hit somebody because you don’t like their race, religion, sexuality etc.”
“Hate crime laws, like speech codes and other forms of censorship, sound great to people when they imagine that the rules will be made by people who share their political beliefs. But for every Barack Obama there is a Donald Trump. For every California, there is a Utah.”
Forbes also said...
“…Every person should be equally protected from assault and other crimes. The incident in Utah reminds everyone that once society decides to protect some people more than others, it’s impossible to predict how that will play out.”
Besides the laws that can go too far, who decides the person’s motive to commit a crime is bias-motivated? Sometimes the motives seem obvious, but other times it is assumed that it is a hate crime. Do we know what a person is thinking or feeling when they attack someone? Seems a little bit "thought police-ish" to me.
I like what Tom Selleck said as the commissioner on the tv series “Blue Bloods”... “All crimes are hate crimes. No such thing as a love crime.” I also agree with Forbes’ conclusion, it is time to remove hate crimes from the law books.
Thank you for reading.
If you are gift shopping on the zazzle.com store I would very much appreciate you using this link (zazzle.com) here so I can get credit for any sale. Thank you.
(The images are public domain from pixabay.com.)
