My favorite left of center blogger from Lexington celebrated the addition of new protected groups under Federal hate crime law. It’s funny because after almost a year in office this is President Obama’s most successful legislation signed to date. Obamacare has been trapped within a Congressional stalemate between the hard-left and slightly less radical Democrats. Obama being completely ineffective in providing any leadership whatsoever the only green twig he can find to say that he accomplished something is this laughable enlargement of hate crime constituencies. Even so, Obama is still quite capable of making permanent and unconstitutional changes even with his obvious leadership handicap.
Supporters of expanded hate crime laws always bring out the most grotesque examples of murder and mayhem. To make the false argument that such crime can only be punished under these laws. The truth is that standard laws already exist for every variation of mental, emotional, and physical abuse possible.
Appropriately, it is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay young man tortured and killed eleven years ago this month, as well as James Byrd, Jr., the black man who in that same year was dragged alive behind a truck in Jasper, Texas by three white men, until his limbs and head were severed.
Yes! Yes! Yes! The deaths of these two men were horrific. I would support the death penalty for everyone who was involved. The death penalty is not used often enough period! Why is my life less important than a disabled man if both of us were murdered in the same manner? All U.S. citizens enjoy the equal protection of the law yet how can this be when it is made explicit that some men are more equal than others?
Standard crimes of theft, terrorist threatening, or murder are all based on the provable actions of someone to commit said crimes. Hate crimes are different in that it does not require any action to commit a hate crime. Hate speech laws are used mostly to silence the opposition when they speak the truth. Actual crimes of libel, slander, and defamationÂ already cover the valid reasons for stopping the speech of another person.
Harassment, as vaguely defined in the directive, allows an individual to accuse someone of discrimination merely for expressing something the individual allegedly perceives as creating an â€œoffensive environment.â€ The definition is so broad that anyone who feels intimidated or offended can easily bring legal action against those whom he feels are responsible. Moreover, the directive shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, who has to prove the negative, i.e. demonstrate that he or she did not create an environment which intimidated or offended the complainant. If the accused fails to do so, he or she can be sentenced to paying an unlimited amount of compensation for â€œharassment.â€
This comes from the European Union. Hate speech laws have no purpose other than to club the opposition into submission.