Conservative's Conscience

Political Hate Speech

Is a criminal act worse when the criminal hates?

By Robert Kelly

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1992 and in 1993 ruled that state laws establishing hate crimes could be constitutional. (1)

Because of these rulings, a crime of murder, for example, becomes worse if the murderer hates the victim.  The ruling apparently assumes that some murderers are friendly chaps. 

And the law can also be applied against a person who is found innocent of the alleged crime, but is found guilty of the hate that motivated the non-crime.  Duh?

In other words, thoughts can be illegal -- you can be sent to the pokey because you hate me even though you have not been found guilty of hurting me.

Most states now have hate crime laws that have been carefully tailored to meet the politically correct tests that were imposed by the above-mentioned Supreme Court decisions.  The People’s Republic of Massachusetts, of course, is a leader in this respect with its hate crime laws that cover race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and, presumably, the eating of sweet pickles.

When a crime motivated by hate is committed, it is true that hate speech is often the most important match that ignited the deed.  We see that example every day in the Middle East where endemic killing is fed by huge daily doses of hate speech in the media and, most importantly, in mosques. 

Young Muslims do not emerge from the womb as killers-to-be any more than do young Americans or Jews.  But after years of hearing hate speech they look at Americans and Jews with hatred so instinctive that it needs only the slightest excuse to explode into an orgy of killing.

But because hate speech can have such terrible consequences does that mean that it should be criminalized even when no provable criminal act took place?  Apparently the answer to that is yes and no.  It all depends upon who is doing the hating.

For example, the Congressional Black Caucus concluded its four-day, 35th Annual Legislative Conference in Washington on September 25, 2005.  In addition to the members of the black Caucus, Democratic Senators Clinton (NY) and Obama (IL) attended and heard (and did not disassociate themselves from) the remarks of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) who, among other things, said that President Bush is the modern day version of Bull Connor (the poster-boy bigot from Birmingham, Alabama, who in 1963 turned a fire hose and attack dogs loose on a black protest march led by Martin Luther King, Jr.), and that being poor and black in the United States is “not an inconvenience – it’s a death sentence.”  (2)

 Rangel conveniently overlooked the fact that Bull Connor, two of the most racist governors of the time, Wallace (AL) and Maddox (GA), and Senator Robert Byrd (W. VA – with a Klu Klux Klan background) were all Democrats, or that the Civil Rights Act that gave political life to blacks would not have passed if Democrats of the day had their way. 

Rangel is a demagogue and a hypocrite.  And the congressional leaders who, by their silence, accepted Rangel’s distorted opinions regarding America and its president share his guilt.

Hundreds at the conference heard Rangel’s remarks plus, according to Caucus leaders, another 100,000 over a live Web cast.  Millions more became aware of his comments through the general media. 

Young blacks are listening to such demagogues – and reacting.  

Rangel and others have peddled racism for 40 years.  He and his ilk are a powerful deterrent to the progress of the people that they allegedly represent because they feed their trusting constituents a steady diet of hate speech.

And they are living insults to those who have through their taxes have spent billions to assist black Americans and who, through their generosity, are doing the same today in the hurricane-battered cities of the Gulf of Mexico.

Bur Rangel and other America-hating left wingers are not accused of hate speech.  How come?

Sources: 1) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 1992; Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 1993; 2) New York Sun, 9/23/05, Meghan Clyne, “President Bush is our Bull Connor …”

7 comments »

Don't fix it - Treat it

Laws which violate the will of the majority

By Robert Kelly 

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but a new trend began a few decades ago that is epitomized by the headline over an article in the Boston Globe of June 8, 2006 that read:  Senate OKs syringe sales.

 The article deals with a bill that passed in the Senate 26 to 8. It now moves to the House for approval before it goes to the Governor. House approval is expected because it did so once before by 115-37.

Gov. Romney disapproves, but the bill seems to be veto proof, and it will probably become law in a matter of weeks.

Legislators defending the bill (that will permit over-the-counter sales of syringes) note that dope addicts often swap needles during the course of an orgy. By making clean ones more readily available, the argument goes, the spread of diseases like HIV will be curbed.

Opponents of the bill, like Gov. Romney, argue that legalizing the sale of syringes will have the opposite result.

The action of the legislators is typical of the long-term drift of American society that goes something like this: 1) Detect a problem; 2) Label those who have it as “victims” of society; 3) Call it a disease; 4) Invent a pill (in this case, a syringe); 5) Ignore the primary cause of the problem (in this case, the defining sexual act of homosexuals). 

Legislators fail to realize that the laws of the state are often confused with moral laws, especially in the unformed minds of the young who tend to confuse the “legal” and the “good.”

And this confusion has become dangerously important in American life. The U.S. Government has increasingly passed laws that violate the moral principles of the majority population, which for them has made obedience to law more difficult than ever before.

It is perfectly obvious for example that the law in question is being passed to convenience drug addicts. The benefit to them is clear – easy-to-get needles; alleged benefits to society – less HIV -- are, at best, prospective.

But in addition to these consequences, another message is being sent to society, especially the young: Massachusetts has legalized the sale of syringes to addicts therefore the use of drugs has been indirectly legalized. And whatever is legal, many say, must be moral.

The U.S. is on a dangerous road. It legalizes abortion because births to unmarried women are a problem. Condoms are freely available to the young because sex among teenagers is rampant. Homosexuals are inconvenienced by cultural norms, so same-sex marriage was legalized. A kid’s grades are poor in school so social promotions are invented in order to protect his/her self confidence; illiterate immigrants are a problem, so stuff them into the overburdened school system and complain about school efficiency.

On and on it goes. Do everything – anything. But, by all means, avoid the problem and close your eyes to the social consequences.

The song goes: God Bless America….
Will he?

1 comment »