Why I don’t like Hate Crimes
I see all the time – everyone sees it – this discussion of “hate crimes.” There’s already laws on this, there’s more in the works: there are near screaming matches and much what I would call, um, “hate,” in the grand discussion of this concept of “more penalties for hate” for some predetermined list of a slightly more fragile, or more easily offended, or more oppressed, or more trammeled, or endured a long and bitter history by the “mainstream society” blah blah blah – there’s scads of so called reasons that some people, but only some, are listed in these hate crimes laws. Others? Well, it seems there might be some who might be said are never hated by anyone. Would that be so. Still, I got my reasons to not like these laws. I shall explain, it ain’t easy:
First, as a gay man, it’s supposed I must be for this – this is some “goal” of the “gay community.” Well, no, I’m not for this. Apparently, then, perhaps, as a gay man who’s never even tried to smooch a girl, never mind go further towards home base, I suppose, to some, I’m not a member of the “gay community.” I have seen enough commentary on dozens of gay-centered websites to know that gays who are not “for” various things that the “gay community” wants are not really “part” of the in crowd. Some people on some sites comment along the lines of: “He’s self-loathing” or “he’s blind” “stupid” “moronic,” a “traitor” and various other less decent things. Even foul words used, oh my. I never did like using foul words in writing. Still, a “traitor” to the “community.”
And then, too, it is assumed by many heterosexuals – nay, 100% of heterosexuals! That I must be for this sort of legislation because I’m a gay man. Yes, liberals think so, because they are of the strange belief that all people of a certain sort think the same way, and express themselves through self-proclaimed leaders of the “gay community” who are “active in the community” and are working diligently on getting us the “rights” we deserve – which “hate crimes” is a very important part, it’s said. Meanwhile, conservatives, of all stripes, are also of the opinion that gays all speak with one voice and everyone is in on some grand cooperative endeavor to do something or other – some as lame “hate crimes” legislation or “anti-discrimination proclamations” or some other sweet platitude of the alleged glories of the “gay community.” So that these spokespeople, who I don’t know, are now to be my spokespeople because they say so – but forgot to ask me. Folks, you’re fired!
For instance, in the recent Chick-fil-a “hate” fest – I saw this: liberal heteros simply saying the “gay community is against this company and will stop them from their nefarious deeds” – and gay websites bandying about the words “hate” and “bigot.” And of course, conservatives were all “for” Chick-fil-a merely because the company was for “traditional marriage” and against “gay marriage.” And that “all” those homosexuals (we’re are so scientific to these people,) are “for” doing something to wreck their world, because we “hate” and are “bigots.” Yes, there is apparently only one “Homosexual” “gay community” spokesperson – or, the mighty agenda, if you will. Or some other bizarre concept where in which all gays must think and say alike, and be in grand collusion with each other in the “lobby” and the “agenda” and, no doubt, “the militant” “radical” wing of the powerful “gay community.”
Meanwhile, heteros might be on different sides of an issue with who they smooch not being a part of the equation at all. No one ever says two heteros with different views are against the “heterosexual community.”
Some gays and all liberal heterosexuals think that all gays are for liberal big government people’s rights and who knows what confab of so-called leftist causes. And too, every conservative I ever talked to has wondered somewhat about, even questioned my belief in, my politically rightward lean. Ergo, some gays and all heterosexuals think all gays are left-leaning, big government, for the people mush heads waiting for Obama’s third term. And for “hate crimes” and “anti-bullying laws.” Except me, of course. Which always puts me in a weird position.
Why I’m “against” bully-laws is more easily dealt with, but leads to the other: I’m for them – and better yet – we got them! Yep, every state has ample laws for these very situations. First, there’s the “hazing” laws that are in each state; then assault and battery, stalking, etc etc. But yes, hazing = bullying. Aw, the kids are different ages! Yes, well, I would think then that your classmate beating the daylights out of you in High School sports clubs and fraternities being illegal and certainly morally wrong, it must be legal to beat the living daylights out of a classmate when one is only 15 years old and in junior high, right? For there’s no “bullying” laws, and for this we need them. Egad, how dumb or ideologically driven are the “gay community” and its erstwhile ample legal council, and the plethora of liberal do gooders, that they have not simply asked the rather reasonable question: “Hey, why don’t we use the hazing laws?”
Yes, folks, just pull the book, look up “hazing” in the index, and throw it at any kid for any reason who beats up a classmate with a “hazing” charge. Simple, eh? For even if the “clique” of youngsters who egg on the real nasty kid is not “formal” with a secret membership handshake and other paraphernalia of officialdom, well, a clique is a frat in every sense but a club house. Hell, they often have that too – the tree house. Oh, it’s a staple of movies, admit it; the tree house where one kid is always kept out. He’s always a little weird, no? Sometimes he’s even beaten up. Usually the biggest and stupidest, or, weirdly, the prettiest, best bodied, fair haired, boyish, almost feminine, jock kid – aka, the Aryan perfect American, or of Anglo-Saxon fortitude, does the beating. Pick one. Create your own. You know these guys. They do the beating.
But, they are egged on. In a sense they belong to an informal club, and the poor sissy boy merely wants to join, aka “pledge” – and so they put the kid through the gauntlet: and yes, that’s hazing. Of course, our opponents ever on the guard for extending an already existing law to cover “homosexuals,” will say that “hazing” is only for fraternities, not for little sissy boys who deserve to get beaten up for not being what others desire for him – for that’s “promoting the homosexual agenda.” Yes, to be included in existing American laws, how utterly dastardly of such “radicals” and “militants” to ask that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the IRS code, (we want to pay our taxes, and not get beat up, for heaven’s sake, how bad can we get?,) and the Hazing Laws, apply to us, too.
Still, hazing – that’s bullying – use the laws. Let them argue that beating up one sort of kid is OK, and beating up the other is not nice and prohibited even; perhaps a felony for more egregious cases. And since these are “hate crimes” – for hate is involved – it’s sort of odd that these religious righties and conservatives of some sorts, are exactly for “hate crimes” laws. Why, if it’s not OK to beat up one sort of kid, and it’s OK to beat up another sort, then you are giving protection, a “special right” even, to one group, and denying the same right to the other group. You folks are for “hate crimes” indeed – it’s just a matter of whom you deem worthy of special protection – who gets, in short, “special rights.” And it being not OK to beat up a 16 year old high school student because he’s pledging for a frat it would seem to not be OK to beat up a 15 year old junior high student because he’s um, pledging for frat.
Hate crimes mete out different penalties for the same sort of thing – one group, the “hated,” gets a bonus points protection plan. What the “hate” is, of course, is very subjective, in some cases. It’s truly impossible to know what was going through the mind of some beater. That would be mind reading – that’s um, not real, you know. Whether he “hated” the person, or he just didn’t like his face is not knowable.
But sometimes it’s said that the “hate” in the crime is automatic, and a law should be passed for making it a special crime. For instance, in the cases of “hazing,” the frat pledge boy is automatically covered by a “hate crime” different status penalty law, while the sissy boy is not covered by the hazing law when he wants to join the clique – and merely because the beaters of the gay guy don’t have an official logo or something.
Now, the real gay guy pledging for a real frat is in a different situation. Because is he being “hazed” and thus protected, or is he being “bullied” for being gay, and not protected? Or is he just a citizen who’s being beaten? Your judge and jury, and prosecutor, with all their biases, will let you know. Or it might be said that members of a club recognized by the school (aka, the state,) are protected from beatings by a special law: the hazing law – but that all the other students might be pulverized with relative impunity, since it’s not called “hazing” but merely “bullying” or “high jinks” or even “the queer deserved it, he smiled at me.” The beating is the same – the perps and victims are different – but, still, “hazing laws” might be called “the conservative’s hate crime law.” Strange, no?
Still other interesting examples exist. For instance, white guy beats up black guy: Hate. If a black guy beats up white guy: Not hate! For it is said that the historical repression of blacks by some white guys long ago (well, not that long ago,) black can’t “hate” whites of today. I suppose they merely, oh, “disdain” – (surely you don’t “Like” the guy who oppressed you, do you?) – Hmm, can we get at least some “disdain crimes” for the white heteros? They feel so put upon. Frankly, I’d rather have them on my side, than in any conflict. Still, it’s alleged: only whites can “hate.” And only hate blacks. And gays, transgendered and maybe, sometimes, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, or other various and sundry other “communities,” with a spokespeople group.
Apparently no white guy can hate another white guy – that just can’t be a hate crime at all! A black on black crime? Ah, not hate, but something else: the expression of black anger at the white power structure. Weirdly, when it comes to white gays, black America lumps us right in with the white heteros, sometimes – for of course, we’re also the “militant homosexual lobby.” But, too, it’s said none of these groups above can “hate” white folks – for white folks, especially of the American Christian Heterosexual Male variety, were, of course, the only folks on earth who ever oppressed and “hated” anyone. Ahem.
Truly that’s wrong, all that is wrong. It’s perfectly possible for these other groups to hate other groups. Why, Arabs kept slavery going for centuries, some say to this day. They oppress woman here in the USA and in their own societies by every single metric proposed by the women of this nation who are not Arabs or Muslims. And against the Jews? Oy vey. They are “hateful” indeed. Yet, blacks and Arabs are “together” against the whites in general, and the gays specifically (we are a special class of white folks, I think, and even lumped in with the black and Arab gays as something else entirely: the “gay community” which knows no color or faith at all,) – but not against each other. For some reason, however, despite all the concern for “hate” in our society, on any given street in New York and many another burg, you will see many people of many types getting along rather famously, and peacefully, and cooperatively with each other. Nary a spec of “hate” to be seen. Not even from white people, oddly enough. I’m not sure there’s enough “hate” to really legislate about in the first place; there being so many fine laws already about beating up one’s fellow citizen. I think sometimes it’s only the political class, those “fighting for our community” however defined, are in this “hate” business.
Still, let’s get to the White Gay Guy. Oooh, scourge of humanity, it’s said. And rather plainly by some otherwise responsible people: gays need a beating to find a girl, so it’s OK to beat us up. So, say me, the white gay guy, gets beat up by some Muslims and Blacks in community harmony with each other for being a European-American – because these few “hate” such people without doubt. I’m the one they found. Yet, no “hate” crime can be charged. “Hate” can’t exist in this situation, by law! Ergo, say, 2 years in the pokey. In a sense, my damages, my recompense, meted out by society, is 2 years. Let’s say the fine fellows earned $20 K a year – I’m worth $40 thousand per beater convicted. Sweet!
Now, say these same guys beat me up for being gay. Can they be charged with a “hate” crime? Probably, though not definitely – for the question arises, to some bright lawyers for the defense: did these guys beat me up because I’m a gay guy who happens to be white, or a white guy for happening to be gay? Ergo, the “hate” is now in question. For if “white” is paramount, then, no “hate” crime. And if “gay” is paramount, then “hate” crime, maybe – for we are special yet. Our smiling at someone alone is often sufficient provocation to beat us up legally. Still, the “hate crime: with different penalties. In one, my guess is 2 years, in the “hate” crime, what? 5 years? That makes me worth considerably more in time, or cash, as one sort or the other – and yet, intrinsically I can’t be separated into one or the other; and the beating just as painful, I assure you. Since I’m the victim, I should have some say in the penalty, no? There’s laws to that effect, too. So, I say, 5 years for either reason.
However, subjectively, it is up to the prosecutor, or the jury, and the judge, to decide if there was “hate” or not. Though, weirdly, me the guy who got beat up, is considered to be worth only 2 years in jail for being white, but 5 years in jail for being gay. Unless prosecutor, judge and jury decide that being gay is not that important after all, and the “hate” perhaps even justified, and the perp only gets 1 year and a dash of parole. I’m pretty sure I don’t give a damn their motive, I give a damn their actions: 5 years in the pokey I say, regardless of what they were thinking for the reason for their beating.
To think of an attacker taking the time to pull together a rationale for a beating is just weird, when you think about it. So I question if even considering delivering a beating to someone a “thought.” I can’t imagine a black guy thinking just before the beating – “I’m going to beat him up for being white, so there’s no hate crime, and I’m not beating him up because he’s gay – to get the lesser penalty.” No, he’s thinking – “I’m going to get away with this no matter what the hell I think.”
Then there’s the case of a white guy or group beating up a gay guy who is white. Now, the beaters might be all White Catholic Italian heritage goombats from Bay Ridge Brooklyn, and the gay guy might be of White Greek Orthodox Greek heritage cheeseburger server from the family that ran the Nebraska diner on Stillwell Avenue in Coney Island. The two ‘hoods close enough for contact, the differing religious, ethnic, and sexual things are clear and apparent. For what reason did one beat up the other? Frankly, who cares? It’s the beating, not the thoughts, not the motives. It’s all hate. All the way through to the famous: “I just don’t like your face.” There’s also personal chemistry. There might have been words or a jostle or some other childish thing which sets off heterosexual young men in frenzies of violence. Why, even Charles the Fat, King of France, in the late 800s (yes, Eight Hundreds,) had to call out the knights to quell the students of Paris’s weekend brawls outside the city gates. This is not new.
Still, that’s a lot of guessing by everyone in the legal system to determine if the fine white heterosexuals beat the poor Greek kid to a pulp for being Orthodox, Greek or gay or just have a face not liked. And that’s just wrong. It should make no difference subjectively, only objectively. The value of the beaten-up can’t be different if the beating is supposed to be for one reason or another. That’s nuts.
If the people who want hate crimes want to say “5 years in the pokey for a beating.” Well, then, 5 years it shall be. I rarely stand in the way of rational public order; especially from libertine liberals. Beating people up surely deserves the stiffest penalties which society will allocate. Yes, 5 years. But not 2 for some beatings, and 5 for the others.
Meanwhile, suppose there’s gay me and my hetero brother walking down a street – we are beset by a bunch of screaming heterosexuals who beat us up. They beat us up for being “gay” (we don’t look alike, they suppose us boyfriends,) – ooh, “hate.” Now the jury and judge find out C. is hetero – does that mean that they can only get 2 years for beating up him? – and 5 years for beating up me? Or perhaps they will now proclaim me straight too, so no hate crime at all! Wonders of confusing laws, eh? Weird, though, I didn’t think my brother is less equal to me, or not worth as much to society than I am. Strangely, if you’re for the different penalties than you are not for “equality” but instead: “Disequality” – we need a new word for some of the mush of the day. For inequality is a natural state of being – rocks and feathers are unequal or share inequality, clearly. But me and my brother are “equal” as humans, regardless of our characteristics or inner beings or outer auras. To say differently is “disequality” – it’s purposeful to make us “unequal.” With hazing it’s a conservative thing, with liberals it’s “hate crime” – for the rest of us it’s a beating and who cares why?
Meanwhile, those who think that the penalty should remain at 2 years, the conservatives who argue that no “hate crime” increased penalty should exist, are not for their vaunted tough stand on law and order. They are for lesser penalties. They should be arguing, “Hey, heterosexual white guys are as important as gay men, make the crime 5 years for both of us!” Instead they complain that gay folks are calling for more law and order, in a sense a more conservative stance, by demanding stiffer penalties for the beatings. So they call for the lesser penalty (except for hazing good hetero pledges in frats, then “hate crime.”) Frankly, if gay groups had a brain they’d go to the conservatives, the vaunted White Christian Heterosexual Male of all power for all time, and say “Hey, let’s raise the penalty for all of us!” That would be wise, and a bit brain twisting to the conservatives without a doubt. Perhaps then they’ll join us, for our gumption at least.
And so no matter how you slice this – it’s simply unfair and not equal, and special to some and not to all – I’m against it because it’s unfair and illogical, and not the American way. It doesn’t bear the scrutiny of liberty and justice for all. And it’s strange when Liberals call for more penalties for poor misunderstood cretins out for public mayhem, who are often said to not be so responsible for themselves because social condition and society made them whom they are – if you’re black, but if you’re white, well, then, you created the oppressive system and social condition and society didn’t do a damn thing to make you whom you are – while the Right is all for less criminal penalties for these creeps, to let them off lighter from their responsibility as individuals, and only because one group, the gays, might be included. My, how the deeper thought twists the perceived reality, eh?
So, to recap – this gay guy is not a part of the “gay community” if those folks call for hate crimes for some and not for all. And I’m not part of the White Male conservative community (which I resemble until I say “Geez, he’s cute,” and then I’m a member of the “militant homosexuals,”) if they are for lesser equal penalties. For I would prefer the larger penalties for all the creeps beating people up for whatever reason floats their boats – For they sink the boats of others on the high seas of life. And that’s just wrong in every case, and deserving of equal penalty. and we got assault and battery laws from the Middle Ages to help us.
And that’s just not rational, and not logical if we are all to be equal under the law, no matter what and who we are. If equality, the great liberal goal, or freedom, the great conservative goal, are to be met – hate crimes of any sort should not exist.
- Posted in: Uncategorized