Among the most absurd and idiotic concepts to roll out of Western culture in the past few decades is the concept of "hate crime". What the West has devolved into is a war of adjectives, where such incompatible ideas as "free speech" and "hate speech" can be held in one's mind simultaneously.
The concept of "hate crime" has two components: feelings and greater wrong. Think of "hate crime" as similar the to Catholic Church's concepts of venial and mortal sins, some sins are greater than others.
Let's just examine the crime of murder for a moment. All murders involve the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime. These are the three things investigators try to prove in an investigation.
Murder is further divided into degrees (first, second and third) and manslaughter, or crime of passion. First degree murder requires the existence of mens rea, or the guilty mind. In other words, a murderer is aware he is committing a crime. It also requires malice aforethought. Malice. Hatred, Anger.
Long established Western law already assumes that a murderer has malice aforethought. They are committing a crime out of hate or anger, and taking the time to think about it in advance.
So how in the hell can someone commit a hate crime if hate is already part of the equation? If a murderer kills a black man because he hates blacks, that is a motive. The hate part is already included in the definition of the crime.
Furthermore, if the punishment for murder is life in prison or death, then how can convicting someone of a hate crime make the punishment even worse? The whole concept from top to bottom is contradictory, and is nothing more than a social hot-button used to try and convict someone in the media before they receive a trial.
In the case of hate speech, we have even more contradictions. In this case, it is not unusual to hear someone rail in support of free speech, but then condemn hate speech. How does a human hold these contradictions in a single brain without exploding? Either speech is free, or it is not. There can be NO exceptions for speech which one doesn't like.
Hate speech is also a completely arbitrary thing. What you consider hateful could be music to my ears. There is no established criteria for "hate", any more than there are solid legal definitions for "love". Emotions cannot be defined or categorized. They are irrational and as such apply differently to different people at different times.
If I allude to William Shakespeare by saying we should kill all the lawyers, have I committed a crime? I have taken no action and caused no one harm. I've only expressed an opinion, at the most extreme, and quoted a literary passage at the most benign. And even if we assume that I could commit a crime through speech, is it worse because I have singled out one group, rather than insulting everyone everywhere?
Perhaps the vast majority of society agrees with me that we should kill all the lawyers. Have I committed hate speech if the majority agree? Or is hate speech only reserved for a select few or privileged minorities?
In the extreme case, I could be charged with hate speech against hate crimes for what I've written here. It sounds absurd now, but the definition is completely arbitrary and is subject to the whims of society.
Here in the Muslim-dominated world, there is something similar. It is called blasphemy. It is an arbitrary designation for speech that assumes the accuser can speak for God. The accuser pretends to know that God is offended by another's speech and can convict and even kill the accused based on this conceit without ever having to place God in the witness stand to find out if he was offended.
The West is far more secular and blasphemy laws went out quite some time ago because they were so absurd and arbitrary. However, hate crime has taken its place and, like blasphemy laws, is used to persecute people that are hated by the establishment.
And here we come to the crux of the problem. Hate crimes are not actually crimes, but rather a means of persecution against individuals or parties that are out of favor with the establishment. Any CONTENT of speech that the establishment fears can be shut down by simply labeling it "hate". There is no formal definition of criteria, just the emotional appeal to the masses.
Since the masses, on the whole, are quite stupid, they are easy to stir up with trigger phrases like hate crime or hate speech, and the establishment can rest assured that no one will think critically about what is actually being done.
Throughout time, governments and rulers have always come up with some term to punish rivals and thinkers. Whether it's blasphemy, hate crime, sedition, or any of a number of other terms, most people only pay lip service to free speech and never internalize it enough to see when freedom is being attacked.
Hate crime is indeed a crime, but not in the sense of describing a murder or speech, but in the sense of how it is used to silence criticism in ostensibly free societies. The definitions are vague for a purpose, so that the finger of accusation can be turned on whatever group or ideas are out of favor with the ruling class.
It is time to recognize hate crime for what it is, a crime of hate against the disfavored members of society. The entire concept should be eradicated, or at the very least turned back upon the ruling elites, for it is they who are actually committing crimes of hate.
As I've said before, a revolution does not occur from within a system. That is reform. A revolution occurs when those outside the system see the criminal behavior of those within and tear down the entire system in favor of something more amenable to actual freedom.
If nothing else, hate crime is only a means to create favored victim classes in society to provide entertainment for the elites - and safety by redirecting and venting unrest.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to leave your own view of The Far Side.