Stacy at MediaSoul reports that her car was vandalized not once but twice by a new category of hate crime thug: the hetero-hater! She writes:
A few months back I wrote about how my Marriage equals one man plus one woman bumpersticker was vandalized. In that incident the perp had used a pen to make the figures the same sex.In tonight’s incident, the heterosexual hater had taken off one bumpersticker that said protect marriage, and found my previously vandalized sticker underneath it. So they placed a rainbow sticker over the figures of the man and woman.
And they also took my God Bless America magnet that was on my car and cut through the word God.
Do we need to create new categories of protected classes? If you assault a heterosexual or God-of-the-Bible worshipper because he/she is a heterosexual or God-of-the-Bible worshipper, have you committed a hate crime?
Only in America could someone come up with a concept called “hate crime.” But it’s not just any hate, you see. It’s a certain kind of hate. If you’re black and you kill a white person for whatever reason and call them “cracker” while you’re doing it, in addition to murder you’ve committed a hate crime. Maybe. Whites may or may not be protected under the statutues, but you get the idea. If you kill someone for sleeping with your husband and call her a whore while you’re doing it, you’ve committed murder but no hate crime. As of this writing, “whore” is not a protected class. Sorry.
Now, about that “God” bumper sticker, if you strike out God in “God Bless America” because you hate God or don’t believe in him, who or what are you appealing to for this blessing? (Why not just strike out the whole phrase while you’re at it?) Where is it supposed to come from? The sun, moon and stars? The universe? Trees and rocks? Perhaps man himself?
“Man bless America!” That’s rich. It’s also sexist. How about “Humankind bless America!”
“Humanity bless America!”
“Humans bless yourselves!”
Doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, does it?
Important Note: I do not want this thread to become a discussion on homosexual “marriage.” I will likely delete such comments. You’ve been warned.
For people reading this blog for the first time or who think I support so-called hate crime law, read this.
{ 61 comments }
← Previous Comments
“Actus, I fully understand your repeated “class†and “category†classroom rhetoric;”
I don’t know what you mean by “classroom rhetoric.” It’s just what it is.
“If I get beaten senseless by a brick wielding thug, it makes absolutely no difference what category or class of thug did it, and whatever segregated pigeonhole you assign me to makes absolutely no difference either.”
It really doesn’t matter who the thug is and it really doesn’t matter what I think of you either. What does matter is the bias motivation of the thug.
Actus,
“What does matter is the bias motivation of the thug.”
Why? He is just as guilty of the crime regardless of what his motivation is. As I said, the only real value to proving bias is to formulate a motive to increase the probability of conviction. It should not be the basis for another criminal charge that wouldn’t be presented if another motivating factor were to be determined.
“Why? He is just as guilty of the crime regardless of what his motivation is”
The whole point is that its not the case when its bias motivated crimes, and it assumes the answer when you say “he’s just as guilty”. Thats what we’re deciding, whether to have an aggravating factor for bias motivation. Just like we have aggravating factors for crimes committed with guns, as part of a gang, as a third strike, etc…
Actus,
What you fail to grasp is that adding an enhanced penalty for say, the use of a gun during commission of a felony, is based upon something that has enhanced the danger to the victim during the commission of the act.
Policing thought can only lead us down the road of policing speech, which would curtail this exchange we are now having. One or the other of us would be on the wrong side of the argument and thus be subject to criminal penalty for thinking and/or saying something that the gGvernment finds goes against the mainstream of societal norms.
Those other factors are provable, as well. The degree of nastiness in the mind of the perpetrator is not provable in any meaningful sense, and therefore the whole hate crime legislation house of cards comes tumbling down around a faulty foundation.
“Policing thought can only lead us down the road of policing speech, which would curtail this exchange we are now having.”
We can stop well short of that. We do right now, for example.
“The degree of nastiness in the mind of the perpetrator is not provable in any meaningful sense”
State of mind is proved everytime someone is convicted of murder.
no sense in trying to restate your point, montie. actus will have a talking point at the ready for you every time.
funny how most of the vandalism that takes place in these types of matters is always directed at someone who is conservative or voted for 43. you never much hear about conservatives vandalizing the cars of liberals.
that’s right, we’re too busy plotting our next hate crime to worry about ripping a bumper sticker off of a car.
better yet, we’re too worried about making sure blacks only have 2 voting machines at their precints while we have 10 (according to howard dean).
or, we’re too busy trying to bring back the days of segregation by nominating janice rogers brown to an appelate court position.
i’m wondering when the libs are going to come up with common sense solutions. i like them better when they vandalize and throw verbal bombs like noted above. shows how ideologically bankrupt they really are.
Chris, did you pencil in your calendar for our next VRWC meeting & potluck?
I hear tell the agenda will be to discuss ways we can reduce funding for CBC and other black vote getting and channel the money to 527s. I’m bringing a spam dish and a can of whupbutt. What’re you bringing.
I’m bringing my Minuteman chili.
“I’m bringing my Minuteman chili.”
Now that the cameras aren’t there you left the border?
Nah actus, I leave the camera hogging to people more up your alley, like the Rev. Jackson and Sharpton.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }