Similarly, when a person states an intent to do harm to another, that is a valid threat – which should be punished as a threat. Using derogatory language, or racial slurs, regardless of how offensive we may find them, are TOLERATED in a FREE society.

Similarly, when a person states an intent to do harm to another, that is a valid threat – which should be punished as a threat. Using derogatory language, or racial slurs, regardless of how offensive we may find them, are TOLERATED in a FREE society.

Similarly, when a person states an intent to do harm to another, that is a valid threat – which should be punished as a threat. Using derogatory language, or racial slurs, regardless of how offensive we may find them, are TOLERATED in a FREE society.

Similarly, when a person states an intent to do harm to another, that is a valid threat – which should be punished as a threat. Using derogatory language, or racial slurs, regardless of how offensive we may find them, are TOLERATED in a FREE society.

This is like saying imprisoning someone for Murder is “dangerously close” to imprisoning them for having black hair. I mean, it's a slippery slope, isn't it?

Oh wait, he's on the Left, isn't he. That explains it.

“Crimes committed out of hatred or bigotry toward the characteristics of any individual or group cannot be tolerated. They must be condemned in the strongest possible language. Law enforcement must be encouraged to prosecute such crimes to the fullest extent of our criminal laws.”

But if they don't, well, we'll Condemn them, that's what we'll do! We'll write about it, and say how terrible it all is, and that it shouldn't happen. Perish the thought that we might actually do something about it though, no, that's too dangerous. Such actions cannot be tolerated, so we'll um, er, we'll tolerate them, that's what we'll do! With stern admonitions and a non-binding vote of censure! .

The problem is that pockets of local law enforcement has been proven, over and over again, to be so bigoted against certain minorities that a federal law is needed. Otherwise it's like trying to get a conviction against a white man accused of murdering a black man in 1920. Or against the police in Memphis Tennessee who were caught on videotape holding down a transgendered woman while beating her with makeshift brass knucks.

And when she made a complaint, she was shot, execution-style, on the streets. The Memphis police have no idea who could possibly have a motive for such a thing. Case closed.

Or the police who were last seen “taking a transgendered woman for a ride”, before she was found beaten to death. The whole Homicide case file has unaccountably gone missing there, and attempts to gain access to copies in other areas have been stymied – the authorities ignoring a court order to comply.

The most valuable part of Federal Hate Crimes legislation is that it allows the FBI to keep track of the hate crimes committed. Because if a group isn't covered, then people can always say “Oh there's no solid evidence that there's a problem”.

We make all kinds of distinctions in crime as to culpability and punishment. e.g, murder cases. To kill a policeman is not treated the same as unintentionally killing, or killing in a fight. Killing of a child is not treated the same as killing of an adult. Like murder, all hate crime is not hateful to equal consequence Every Western industrial nation has hate crime statutes, and a growing number of Aisian countries, because they have all seen the toxic results of racial, ethnic, sexual, disabled and religious bigotry in 2 devasting conflagrations in the last century. From that searing experience all western countries understood that persecution of vulnerable populations need to be staunched before majoritarian bias and hatred harms more of the vulnerable & usually powerless people thought to be inferior.

Just as society views child killing with more severe disapprobation than other killing, so too has societies found that greater protections must be afforded those shown to be most vulnerable to attack because of popular beliefs, such as inferiority of people of color or homosexuality being a crime against marriage, i.e. hertosexuality.

Society recognizes the greater harm of crime against a person, not becuase of the victim's individuality, but out of the person's belonging to, or percieved to belong to, a dispised minority in an effort to punish or strike out against all members of whatever is the hated minority. The reverberations of suffering and harm extends to all members of those with the victim's identity. Hate crime has always been used to enfoce the power of the status quo,

The justice system of all civilized countries has long recognized the importance of hate crime as a tool in the arnsenal of law enforcement as well asw the necessity of reducing the harm to the vulnerable. FBI statistics indisputably show exactly who are those most likely to be victim of bigotry. To deny them justice and protection has long been seen by policy makers and legislators as especially immoral and permissive to those most affected by bias and prejudice.

You can be sure, it is almost exclusively white males, exactly those wielding power, who argue against the necessity of affording those weaker the protections needed to assure the tranquility and equality under the law of unpopular minorities.. Hate crime law is not social action against thoughts, but entirely against actions.deemed to be evidence of irrational behavior based on bias or popular prejudice. There is no law about hating minorities, even speaking against a despised minority;, it is all about behavior. Hate crime is not about big brother thought police.

I would ask the blogger to ask those classified as a vulnerable minority with added protections under our enforcement of hate crime statute's coverage if they would like to see those protections nullified or withheld. Lastly, if time permitted, I would argue more forcefully that society has every right to recognize the heinous effects of hate crine against it and establish rules for its functioning with liberty and justice for all.
–Michael O'Neill, Wainscott