BCT Editorial – 5/8/07

This page was last updated on May 12, 2007.

Thought police; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 8, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Let the crime speak for itself.

“The U.S. House of Representatives last week voted to expand the federal hate crime law to include attacks motivated by the victims’ gender or sexual orientation.

“The Associated Press reports hate crimes under current federal law apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national original. The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. (A similar bill is moving through the Senate.)

“In the past, we have opposed the adoption of hate crime laws because they, in effect, punish thoughts, not deeds. That’s a dangerous precedent.”

[RWC] The editorial failed to note hate crime laws also generate groups to receive special consideration. This omission was probably because groupism is a fundamental tactic of liberalism, and opposing it here would cause consistency problems with other issues.

What do I mean by special consideration? Let’s say two people are attacked, robbed, etc. and receive exactly the same injuries. One person is a member of a covered group attacked by someone shouting a derogatory comment. Someone shouting, “I hate people with blue eyes,” attacks the other person. Why should the exact same crime against one person be considered more deserving of punishment than the other?

“Please understand that we in no way condone the vitriol that spews out of the mouths of bigots. The anti-homosexual hatred of some people does create a hostile environment that can lead to violence.

“However, criminals should be punished and convicted for what they do, not what they think.”

[RWC] Heaven knows I jump on editorials when I believe they are wrong, so it’s only fair I note when I agree with the Times on a position. The Times is taking a decidedly unliberal position on this issue.

I do have one nit to pick, however. In what was I’m sure an honest oversight <g>, the editorial failed to note it was Democrats who pushed this bill. Democrats voted 212-14 in favor, while Republicans voted 25-166 in opposition.