In the past year or so, hate crime laws have become a big issue, largely because of the question over whether or not to include sexual orientation as a motivation for hate crime. I think it should. That is, if we are going to have hate crime laws dealing with race, religion, ethnicity and such, I think that sexual orientation should be included. That said, I'm not totally sold on the idea of hate crime laws to begin with. My libertarian beliefs say that including the motivation for a crime as an added penalty is a form of thought policing. I do want to say that I understand that hate crime laws do not protect a specific group, as a black person who beats up someone for being white is considered a hate crime (and I hope that the courts understand that hate is hate regardless of who it is to and from). I understand the rational thought behind hate crimes (though there is also irrational thought behind it, such as feeling the need to punish bigots for their beliefs). The rational thought is that hate crimes are intended to "send a message" to others of that group, which is a form of terrorism. I disagree on several counts with the opposition of social conservatives on the adding of sexual orientation to the list of hate crime motivations. First off, unlike libertarians and libertarian-oriented conservatives, social conservatives are not for limited government, and are for a legal system that has emotional motivations, so they cannot say hate crime laws in general are unfair. Secondly, their reasons include the fear that it will target Christians preaching against homosexuality. This is not true, because to be a hate crime, it has to be a crime to begin with. I personally do worry that some liberals want to enforce political correctness legally, but this is not evidence of it. Committing violence against someone for being gay is a hate crime. Telling a gay person that they are living a life of sin is not. The only speech that it would cover would be speech that intentionally incites violence towards homosexuals, and, if I'm not mistaken, inciting violence against anyone, even if not against done for reasons that would constitute a hate crime, is illegal anyway. Third, how can you call yourself a Christian? I understand Christianity motivating someone to be against same sex marriage (though, while I am a Christian, I am not against it), but to say that Christianity motivates you to say that a group that is often targeted (while making up only about 5% of the population, homosexuals account for about 15% of hate crime victims) doesn't deserve the protection that other traditionally targeted groups get? That, while beating up a gay person is not okay, the aspect of terrorism in that act is okay? They say that protecting gays with hate crime laws sends a message of affirmation towards homosexuality, although nothing in the law says that. I say that by opposing it, while not actually saying this, they are sending the message that it's okay to beat up fags. That's reeeeaallll Christian of them. Now I do think that with hate crimes we have to be careful. For example, if a gay dude persists in hitting on a guy who has made it clear that he is straight, and the guy punches him, that is not a hate crime. It is still assault, but he wasn't assaulting him because he was gay, he was hitting him because of his unwelcome advances. Now some might say that he wouldn't hit a woman who did the same thing, so by hitting a gay guy for it, that shows that hatred for homosexuals was his motivation. This is wrong, because the reason for not hitting the girl would probably be that most guys won't hit women. Some also might say that straight guys hit on women who don't appreciate it, so why should the gay guy doing it be any different? Well, if a woman hit a man for that, would anyone say it was a hate crime? I don't think so. But anyway that's my opinion on hate crimes and the sexual orientation part of it. I do feel that there is a better way to charge the intimidation part of a hate crime without being thought police, such as specifically charging the offender for intimidation. Please leave your comments, thoughts, disagreements, agreements and the like.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
