Of course, two Republican legislators , who admit that the attack on Joshua Esskew, was "horrific," say that existing laws are enough to prosecute people who violently attack others. And spokesmorons for our asshat-wingnut governor, The Transparent Nikki Haley, say she doesn't support state hate crime laws either. Naturally.
 |
| Rep. John King |
Now, for those of you who think that hate crimes laws are unnecessary because we punish people who attack and mug and kill other people anyway, let me offer up a little scenario:
I'm walking down the streets of Smallville, and someone decides I must have a pocketful of money, and they hold me up at gunpoint and steal from me. Then, perhaps they don't think I'm handing over the cash fast enough, so they beat me to a pulp.
Hateful, yes. Hate, no.
But, say I'm walking down the street and some guy decides that, oh, from the way I walk, or my clothes or whatever, that I'm a big old queen, and he beats me to a pulp just for being gay.
Hateful, yes. Hate, yes.
We need hate crimes legislation, in the states and at the federal level, to protect anyone from being attacked simply because of who they are, or are assumed to be, This goes for your gender, your orientation, your skin color, your religion, your age.
If you are attacked, beaten and killed because of who you are, then it is an attack motivated by hatred.
If you are attacked, beaten, and killed because someone wants your money or your watch or your car, then that attack is motivated by greed.
Hate. Greed,
If you hate someone enough to beat them to unconsiousness, and leave them to die, say on a fence in Wyoming, or on street in Brooklyn, then you deserve the fullest punishment of the law.
Hate is hate and should not be diminished.
source
Awesome post - it seems that despite the Union being progressive on many fronts, the minds are closed to simply "what is right" - surely there is bias in the sense that it's OK if it's done to gays or someone of the wrong colour etc! When will they wake up???
ReplyDeleteThis tragic and outrageous case brings to mind the situation here in the U.K. where, leading the opposition to legislation for hate crimes against people because of their sexuality, whilst supporting the same on grounds of race or religion, are (surprise, surprise!)..... religious leaders! - on the same grounds that you refer to, viz. that there are already adequate laws in place. I think that attitude is quite pervasive the world over (among those countries who recognise that gays should have any rights at all!) though you manage to crystallise expertly the clear NEED for such specific laws.
ReplyDeleteI don't have much understanding in laws but what is the difference between hate crime laws and crimes of violence in general?
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. Hate crimes are of a different norm that normal crimes. If someone attacks you to steal your money yes that is still a terrible crime, but to attack someone based on their gender, race, sexual preference, etc is an attack on who they are, and they should be not only prosecuted but have mandatory counseling to make them work through their issues. Because if you're committing a hate crime there's obviously something wrong with you.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. I can't believe they don't hate hate crime laws there...do they have them in North Carolina? I was there for a wedding a few months ago and loved the area, I have friends from out there too...all white, though. So I doubt they've had to deal with much discrimination. I am part Asian and part white and people looked at me like I had horns growing from my head. No one was mean to though, thank goodness.
ReplyDeleteWow, I often forget that laws can vary by state...I think some laws - like this, should be federal. So sad they're not already...
ReplyDelete