The Folly of "Hate Crimes"

Okay, so here we have a story of a woman gang-raped by four deranged men.

Now, this stuff often makes the local news of any given area. But, US national news? Oh, wait, its because the woman's a lesbian. And the four men committed what is called a "hate crime".

What is a "hate crime"? Another moronic invention of stupid Western intelligentsia. It is an additional charge (and penalty) placed on top of a criminal act if it was committed against members of certain "protected" groups. 

First of, aren't all crimes already driven by some kind of hate or malice? Crimes are mitigated by circumstances, not by the quality of motive. Why? Because, simply put, a supposedly liberal (in the classical sense) society cannot penalize thought or belief. All crimes are "hate crimes". Therefore, an additional distinction is useless. Worse, its arbitrary.

If the woman who was gang-raped was straight, does it mean that the crime was somehow less serious because it falls outside of some retarded legal definition of "hate"?

One might object and say that the purpose of "hate crime" laws is to prevent certain people from being sigled out for harassment due to prejudice. If that is the case, then why isn't the burning of Gov. Palin's church considered a "hate crime"? (Note the snarky caption below the pic.) What about an old lady being pushed around by a bunch of angry gay activists? Maybe they'll charge the old lady, because gays are in the "protected" column.

In the end, what you're punishing is not the crime, which has already been punished with the first sentencing, but the thoughts of the one being charged. I thought secularists and liberals were all about free thinking? If we as a civilization start punishing thought, we are a few steps away from tyranny. Remember, even Galileo walked away from his trial without being charged.

Second, "hate" is such a subjective concept that any attempt to derive a legal definition or category out of it will always involve the projection of the definer's biases. This problem is twice exacerbated in the application. Who gets to define "hate"? Why?

And, how is anybody ever certain of a person's thoughts? The article about the rape tries to put the scare in you by saying:

Gay rights advocates note that hate crimes based on sexual orientation have increased nationwide as of late. There were 1,415 such crimes in 2006 and 1,460 in 2007, both times making up about 16 percent of the total, according to the FBI.

Now, how certain are they that all those 1460 "hate" crimes in 2007 were motivated by actual hate? Does the FBI employ mind-readers? What is this, Minority Report?

From the article:

Authorities are characterizing the attack as a hate crime but declined to reveal why they think the woman was singled out because of her sexual orientation.

You know why they declined to reveal it? Because they can never be 100% sure of the criminals' motivations! No hate crime conviction will ever be based on 100% certainty. Any consideration of "reasonable doubt" ought to outright dismiss every "hate crime" charge. In this case, on what basis will they hang a "hate crime" charge? On the fact that the criminals knew the victim was a lesbian? What if they raped her because they found lesbians (femme lesbians, at least) to be hot? Is it now a hate crime to think that lesbians are hot?

If thinking THIS is hot is now a crime, then sue me. I plead guilty.

That's just for starters. Imagine trying to determine the "hate" in every crime against people in the "protected group". The absurdities you'd have to go through are astounding.

The subjectivity of hate would make hate crime legislation an easy cudgel for the hands of tyrants.

Considering the fact that we've never had hard "race" issues, "hate crimes" legislation in the Philippines will likely come from either homosexual activist groups like the one led by Danton Remoto, or xenophobic nationalist groups hoping to tar and feather every foreigner who sets foot in this country. It is easy to let your compassion allow you to be manipulated into going along with these victim-mongers in helping enact disastrous legislation.

If you ever value your freedom, never let that happen.