By Star Parker, founder and president of Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE)
WASHINGTON --- President Barack Obama has signed into
law the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Actually, he signed into law the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act tacked onto which was the
hate crimes legislation.
Sen. Harry Reid, our brave Democratic majority leader, slipped the
hate crimes bill into the defense authorization bill to avoid having to have our
senators consider the controversial hate crimes bill on its own.
It's for good reason that our Democratic legislators wanted to hide under a rock while passing this terrible piece of legislation. It may help them with the far left wing of their party. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be proud of. And that is exactly what this new
hate crime law does.
The bill adds extra penalties to violent crimes when they are deemed motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or disabilities. It's the first major expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed in 1968, targeted then to crimes aimed at
race, color,
religion, and national origin.
After signing this new law, Obama celebrated it by saying that in this nation we should "embrace our differences."
But law isn't about embracing our differences. It is about providing equal and non-arbitrary protection to all citizens.
Equal protection for every individual American under
the law is what the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed after the Civil War, guarantees. That this nation takes this guarantee seriously -- that there are no classes of individuals treated differently under the law -- has been a justifiable obsession of blacks.
A
society in which all life is not valued the same, where
murder of one citizen is not the same as the murder of another citizen, is a horror that black
Americans have known too well.
So it is a particular irony that this major expansion of the politicization of our law has been signed by our first black president.
What could it possibly mean that the penalty for the same act of violence -- for murder -- may be different depending on what might be deemed to be the motivation?
Can you imagine a
football game where the penalty for roughing the passer is 20 yards rather than 15 yards if the referee concludes that the violence perpetrated was motivated because the quarterback was homosexual?
Is it not a sign of our own pathology that we now have codified that it is worse to murder a homosexual than someone who has committed
adultery, even with your husband or wife, or who has slandered or robbed? Isn't the point murder?
Can we really believe that someone capable of murder is less likely to do so if the victim is a homosexual and the penalties are greater?
It should be clear that hate crime law has nothing to do with improving our law but rather with creating favored political classes. It is something that should be hateful to everyone who cares about a free society, and particularly hateful to those, such as blacks, who have been victimized by politicization of law.
How about the sad and pathetic recent murder of a 16-year-old Christian black honor student in Chicago by four teenage thugs, also black?
A hate crime?
Black on black homicides are tearing up our inner
cities. Hate crimes?
The social breakdown that produces the disproportionate violence in black America is the product of the same moral relativism and politicization of law that has produced hate crime bills.
We already have a source, which instructs against murder and to love your neighbor as yourself.
But this has been banned from our
schools and our public spaces.
So once again, in what is becoming our Godless nation, we mistake the disease for the cure.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION:Conservative Black Group Says Hate Crimes Law a Mistake
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Proselytizing
"Sen. Harry Reid, our brave Democratic majority leader"
"...in what is becoming our Godless nation" - which has NOTHING to do with the subject of the opinion.
Rarely does one see the Christian right calling Harry "brave."
Hate crimes are nonsense. Why is it that if I murder someone that I "love" I receive a lesser penalty than if I murder someone that I "hate?"
Does the murderee care?
Dennis
- Kayaker
November 2, 2009 7:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Because
Because hate crimes are acts of terrorism against a community of people. In the same way that we add penalties for acts of terrorism beyond the actual crime , itself, so we add penalties for hate crimes. This is because, while the physical act of violence is the crime against the victim, the hate crime (in which the criminal defines his/her act as being directed at a group of people represented by his/her victim) is an act of terrorism against a larger community of people.
- Babaroni
November 2, 2009 10:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
playing lawyer...
as usual you have your ficticious facts all wrong! terrorism and hate crimes are not synonymous, whether applied to individuals or groups. A hate crime can be unintentional, incidential or accidential; where as terrorism is a calculated premediated act.
- CitizenZebra
November 3, 2009 12:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How can that be?
Isn't the very definition of a hate crime based on the intention of the perpetrator?
- Russell Fine
November 3, 2009 8:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Precisely
You're precisely correct, Russell. Prosecution of hate crimes must, by definition, prove intent.
- Babaroni
November 3, 2009 9:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
you must enjoy...
being wrong! hate crimes are specific acts by statute. Get educated. If I write on a Lesbian's house in spray paint, " lesbians are %&*)(^&^()" it doesn't matter what my intention was, the act itself constitutes a hate crime .
- CitizenZebra
November 3, 2009 9:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
intentions
If someone did spray paint such slurs on a lesbians house ... or racial slurs on a black church ... or anti-Semitic slurs on a synagogue then would it not be reasonable to look at it as a crime directed at those minority groups?
- MrBook
November 3, 2009 10:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your act
Your act, itself, shows your intent. If your intent was not to terrorize "lesbians," then you would not have written a hateful statement about lesbians *during the commission of a crime * (vandalism) against a particular lesbian. That is the crime, and the intent to incite fear in the larger community, contained within the act you describe. That's why it's a hate crime .
- Babaroni
November 4, 2009 8:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No....
"Hate crime " generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions . Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying , harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters. The act itself is the crime, not the intent, or motive, etc.
- CitizenZebra
November 3, 2009 9:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
exactly...
It is the less perceptive and less intelligent that pursue these types of laws!
- CitizenZebra
November 3, 2009 12:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More ad hominem, huh CZ?
When you can't think of a logical argument, go with the ad hominem, right? Great debate technique, there.
- Babaroni
November 3, 2009 9:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your problem is...
You think you know it all, in actuality , you comment from a prejudiced point of view and an uneducated one to boot!
- CitizenZebra
November 3, 2009 9:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nothing like..
Nothing like some good old-fashioned "I've got mine." It's all very well to have hate crime legislation in place which allows special prosecution of those who target their terrorism at blacks, but heaven help us if we try to provide similar protections to the gay community.
- Babaroni
November 2, 2009 7:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I need a new irony meter...
"Can you imagine a football game where the penalty for roughing the passer is 20 yards rather than 15 yards if the referee concludes that the violence perpetrated was motivated because the quarterback was homosexual?"
Wow, that's just like what happened after the first hate crime legislation past... remember how white football players couldn't sack black ones anymore?
- MrBook
November 3, 2009 6:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good post
And great visual. :)
- Babaroni
November 3, 2009 9:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Only valid response: WTF?!
Every single article or opinion peice I've ever read or comment I've read against hate crimes legislation can be used to argue against "degrees" of murder without changing more than the nouns!
Black on black crime is obviously not a racist motivated crime... Only a complete moron would fall for such a lame non-sequitor.
- Rice klowN
November 3, 2009 8:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well, I guess anyone can play that game...
So, if a strait guy shoots and kills a gay guy, not knowing he is gay, then they find out later he was a closet gay, can the murderer say that he is gay too and get a lessor sentance?
If any person kills a known gay person, can he say he didn't know? Can he turn gay instantly to avoid the heaveier sentance?
Here's more food for thought...If a parapelegic kills a quadripelegeic is it worse than if the deceased was just parapelegic? And on that same train of thought.. if a gay black quadrepelegic person working alone intentionally kills a crowd of ambulatory white persons with his car, how would they know it was a hate crime , or could he just get off with vehicular manslaughter?
Congress and our President are set out to ruin our country from the inside out. This was a stupid, poorly thought out addition to a good law .
- harleyjames
November 3, 2009 3:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wow,
This adds a few groups to the list of a law you admit is a good law.
How can you call it a good law if you don't even know how it works?
Hate crimes laws don't apply just because you are a member of a different group than your victim. Prosecutors have to demonstrate that "hate" was a motivating factor.
If you shoot a closeted homosexual, it is not a hate crime unless you shot him *because* you thought he was a homosexual. The prosecution is required to demonstrate intent. A straight man shooting a gay man is not automatically a hate crime, just like me shooting a black man is not automatically a hate crime just because a law requires extra punishment for hate crimes against blacks and the perpetrator is white.
For instance, if you rob a convenience store and beat or shoot the clerk, it's not a hate crime if the clerk just happened to be gay. Even if you have a history of gay bashing.
If you think it was a good law before, why do you think it was a good law when you aren't even aware of how it is implemented?
- Rice klowN
November 3, 2009 3:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You made my point for me...
My comments were intended to be taken as sarcastic because that is the "perception of reality" you put up with in a court of law . I'm in the legal arena daily and I assure you I know the law and how it works. The street and the court room are two different places in the universe my friend.
In your world, the gay store clerk guy that just got bashed doesn't speak up in retribution and say "he said he hates gay people before he hit and robbed me" to the responding officer. Very short sighted on your part. You should get out of the house more often...
What happens on the street is a guy gets bashed and an officer writes the report based on available evidence at the scene. Thats reality.
But the only thing that matters to the jury is the "perception of reality" created by the lawyers for each side. "Motive and Intent to commit" are easily shown by the prosecution. Now your lawyer has to rebutt that and show you didn't know he was gay after he said you bashed and robbed him because of it.
It's up to 12 people (maybe some are gay, hard to tell on the outside sometimes) to decide your fate after that. Meet Bubba...your new cell mate for the next 20 years. You and he are going to be real good gay friends...
- harleyjames
November 3, 2009 4:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
huge number
then there must be a huge number of hate crime convictions under the law as it exists... right?
- MrBook
November 3, 2009 5:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wait and see...
A conviction for an aledged crime doesn't always end in court the way it begins because lawyers are deal makers...but the ability to construe the law is what gives lawyers a reason to get up in the morning and make a living...
Never depend on the law to keep you safe . Reality is irrelivant, perception of reality is all that matters in court. Forget the letter of the law and learn how the law really works to protect yourself from becoming a statistic.
- harleyjames
November 3, 2009 5:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
yet....
Yet historically speaking did a huge number of convictions for hate crimes follow the passage of the original hate crime bill?
- MrBook
November 3, 2009 6:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Kudos..
Amazing how many people don't have a clue, yet rave on as to how something is or isn't. Common sense, or the lack of, is the greatest impediment to Americans today!
- Argenious November 6, 2009 8:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
They haven't far to go...
There seems to be an "industry" for creating what is counter-intuitive for the cohesion of Americans as a people.
- Argenious November 6, 2009 8:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
cohesion
the cohesion of the American populace is hurt by those who commit hate crimes ... not the prosecution of those who commit hate crimes.
- MrBook
November 8, 2009 7:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You
have a real problem understanding comments.
- Argenious November 8, 2009 6:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
verstanden sie mich?
What is there to misunderstand? My point is that the disruption to cultural unity comes not from those seeking to be recognized but from those who actively discriminate against minority groups.
- MrBook
November 9, 2009 5:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Du bist ein Narr
you like to rant about something you are not educated about. You simply are expressing your own ideology which is scientifically and factually incorrect.
I nothing further to engage you with since to fail to recognize fact!
- Argenious November 10, 2009 5:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.