Wednesday, January 25

Jazzy explains hate crimes part 3

Jazzy continued, “Another huge problem with hate crime laws in America is that hate crimes and speech against groups and thinking that do not conform to the current political correct held views are not even considered hate crimes. In the shooting incident at the Dallas area Baptist Church there was no outcry about hate crime from political leaders or the media. Conservative speakers at universities get assaulted, have items thrown at them and get shouted off the stage and there is no mention of hate crimes or hateful behavior, but let a religious leader speak against same sex marriage and they are labeled as bigots and hate mongers by politicians and the media. The most graphic example of this double standard occurred at the University of Colorado where Professor Ward Churchill made the infamous hate filled anti-American statement about the victims of 9-11. The reaction from the left who sets the PC standards was to champion his freedom of speech and right to academic freedom. There were no calls for sensitivity training or for him to apologize. When the football coach at the same University of Colorado said the girl that tried out for the football team was not a good player, there were calls for him to take sensitivity training and to apologize. I, your humble Jazzy Cat, am quite suspicious of the objectivity that human’s use in what is called hate speech and what is called freedom of speech. Since speech comes from thought and reveals the reason a person takes action in hate crimes, it is obvious to Jazzycat that fairness and objectivity in making the motive of hate a crime is not very likely. The solution is simple…. Punish the actual crime against people and property and don’t get involved with motives. Most crimes leave discretion for judges in sentencing which is ample opportunity for motives to be considered.”


Terry S said...

I think you are talking about two different things. Hate crime legislation is not aimed at speeches or opinions. People have been booed off the stage as it were for voicing unpopular beliefs for as long as there has been civilization. Hate crime laws are aimed at curbing actual physical violence spawned of hate. There are nutballs on the fringe of all points in the political spectrum. As I noted in my recent posts, it was such nutballs who, left unbridled, took over Germany in the early 1930s.

While the majority of people in this country are not nutballs, there are just enough such idiots that, if given the opportunity, would love to gain a foot hold in our society. Some have. Fear and intimidation are the tools of their trade. As the brown shirts in Germany grew in power, they eventually won through violence against all who opposed them. The majority fell in line behind them largely due to fear.

This may seem to be an over statement of what is going on here. But European Jewery repeatedly shook their heads and refused to believe that, what they feared, was actually happening. By the time most of them finally understood the nature and scope of the coming genocide, it was too late.

That is part of the mission, if you will, of the ACLU. It acts as a kind of watch dog. I don't always agree with some of the causes they take up, but, overall, I'm glad they are out there. And, I think hate crime legislation is an extension of those efforts.


jazzycat said...

You make good arguments for hate crime legislation. However, my concern is for what I believe will be an inevitable intrusion into freedom of speech. I have already heard liberal political leaders use the term, ‘hate speech’ when referring to the homosexual issue and how ‘hate speech’ should be banned. There are nuts from the extreme right who profess a hatred for homosexuals just as there are nuts from the extreme left who hate conservative Christians. The church denomination that I attend (PCA Presbyterian) strongly disagrees with the practice of homosexuality, but do not hate them as we know that we are all sinners and fall short in many ways. We would be more than willing to minister to them and help them if they are willing. To say that disagreeing with homosexual practice automatically means a person or a group hates them is just not true. Some European countries and I think Canada have prosecuted Christian preachers for what they have said on this subject, so I think my concern is legitimate.