The notion of 'hate crimes' must be completely decimated, along with 'hate speech'. These are dangerous totalitarian concepts that have been mainstreamed into Western society by aggressive, seething leftists.
All crime is 'hateful'. Are there loving, benevolent crimes?
Adding subjective, ideological considerations to the motivation behind a given crime goes into the realm of Orwellian thought policing.
This is a notion that must be continually resisted by all freedom loving people.
1 comment:
Hey, you needn't be in the closet about this one, chum; all thinking people recognize that the "hate crimes" concept represents an appalling metastization (sp?) of state power.
I mean that, when governments begin punishing people for their states of mind, not just their actions, the number of potential crimes becomes of course infinite. Mightn't anyone say or think anything, at any time, after all? Such is my experience, and yours; and such is the experience of everyone reading this, too.
Example. There's a bar fight in Vancouver: or more of a one-punch knockdown, really. Wherein an older guy is laid out by an exciteable young guy, falls unconscious to the concrete floor by the pool table, and, brain-damaged in the spill, wakes up to a life of porridge-consumption and drooling.
Sad, very; a crime, definitely; an intentional injury, almost certainly not. A punch to the head almost never results in real injury to its victim; in punching someone, you can't reasonably expect their death, either, right?
So we're looking at manslaughter charges for the puncher here -- some months or a year in clink to think about it, maybe...?
Naw. This was a *gay* bar in Vancouver; the puncher may have used the word "faggot* during the heated dispute they had; and the victim was of course an oppressed male-spirited homose -- wait! He was straight??
Well, probably. He had a wife and kids. He's in no condition to explain it all. His attacker's sexual preference, meanwhile, was not codified in court. Punchy was merely a young, single guy playing pool, apparently alone, at one of the biggest and gayest bars in the gayest big neighbourhood of Vancouver... whereas Punched was there with his pals, all but one of 'em apparently female-oriented.
Get the picture? It kinda looks like a young *gay* dude attacked an older vagina-appreciating man, and accidentally really hurt him. A lot of the leftoid press tried hard to work this up into a gay-bashing incident, and so, eventually, did the Crown, boldly asserting a near-omniscient insight into the participants' state of mind. A 'hate crime' prosecution will add *years* to the kid's sentence. What's the logic -- that he obviously went to a gay nightspot because that's what violently homophobic guys do? That his experiments with women in college ignited in him a virulent hatred of those as queer as himself? That the victim's likely heterosexuality made him, in that situation, an oppressed minority in need of special laws...?
The government does not know, cannot know, and should not know, what's in your heart. It's imperative to democracy, therefore, that only *actions* be submissible to regulation. The notion of "hate crime" is the same as the "wrongthink" power exercised by the Party in Orwell's *1984* -- I'm sorry, but it is.
Post a Comment