"Hate Crimes"

Sixteen years ago, nineteen members of al Qaeda, an Islamic terrorist group, boarded four planes in three cities. Within minutes, three thousand people were dead. It was the first act of war by a foreign group on continental U.S. since the burning of Washington, D.C. in August 1814. More people died that bright sunny morning than American servicemen at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, or American soldiers on June 6, 1944.

The war against Islamic militants continues to this day. For anyone who does not believe they pose a threat to western civilization, your naivete is only exceeded by your ignorance. Since 9/11, tens of thousands lie dead in dozens of countries, on every continent except Antarctica, victims of the murderous rampage of Islamic extremists from numerous groups, like ISIS and Boko Haram. Make no mistake; it is religion that drives them. They believe they are serving God. Osama bin Laden is dead, thank goodness, but al Qaeda has quietly rebuilt. It is estimated that they have 20,000 fighters in Syria, 7,000 in Somalia and 4,000 in Yemen.

The end can only come when millions of moderate Muslims rise-up, against those who have hi-jacked their religion. 

But this day is also one my family celebrates, for it was on this day 51 years ago that our first child was born – a son and now husband to a beautiful and talented wife and father to four wonderful grandchildren.

These two events are reminders that in death there is birth, that life moves on. They are reminders that, while the past is all of ours, the future belongs to the young. And the greatest legacy we can leave is a knowledge of history, the willingness to face facts unafraid, and to love all those we hold dear.

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Hate Crimes”

September 11, 2017

“A misunderstanding arising from ignorance breeds fear,

and fear remains the greatest enemy of peace.”

                                                                                                Lester Pearson (1897-1972)

                                                                                                Nobel Peace Prize winner and PM of Canada

Social media platforms, when used to foist political views, show little respect for differing views. In that regard, these platforms are distinctly not social. Like most, I enjoy Facebook and Instagram for the opportunities they provide one to stay in touch with family and friends, but they have become vessels for messages of hate. Recently I saw on Instagram a photograph of a roll of stickers, with the logo “F**k Trump.” The photo was presumably in reaction to the President’s decision to abrogate President Obama’s executive order that created DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), and to have Congress determine its future. The mendacious caption under the photograph read: “Ultimately, this is about basic decency.” Really? And who is calling whom indecent?

While hatred is not one of the seven deadly sins, it should be. It is worse than anger, as it is calculated, not spontaneous. It is more intense than envy, and it is not victimless, like pride, gluttony or sloth. Hatred implies an intense loathing. It can be manifested in thought, speech and in criminal acts. While definitions of hate may depend on the accuser, most of us feel, as Justice Potter Stewart did when he was asked, in 1964, to define pornography: “I know it when I see it.”

In the U.S., hate crimes are prosecutable. Two laws apply: The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 and the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The laws trace their roots to the Third Force Act (Ku Klux Klan Act) of 1871 and to the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The FBI defines a hate crime as “a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.” While all of us would agree that hatred and bias are common to many criminal acts, the concept of a hate crime is riddled with ambiguity. In an August 13th New York Times article “Was the Car Attack a Hate Crime?”, Charlie Savage, writing about Charlottesville, noted that section 245 of Title 18 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 “makes it a crime to use force to willfully injure or intimidate any citizen because the victim was ‘participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly’ opposing the denial of certain civil rights to other people…” Antifa, it would seem, could be prosecuted for the violence they have caused on college campuses across the country.

According to Jack Levin and Jack McDevitt, authors of Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed, a “hate” crime is not about hate, but about bias or prejudice. They raise questions: What is meant by prejudice? Which prejudices qualify for inclusion under the hate crime umbrella? Which crimes, when attributable to prejudice, become hate crimes? How strong must be the casual link between the perpetrator’s prejudice and the perpetrator’s criminal conduct? Some prejudices are considered good, like the biases of those who say ‘f**k you’ to the President, while others are thought of as harmless, like preferences for tall people over short people, or blonds versus brunettes.

To be a hate crime, intent and motivation should be clear and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If a white policeman shoots a black man, did he do so because he thought he, or others, were in mortal danger, or did he do so because he hated blacks? If a black policeman shoots a white man, are the same questions asked, or is there an assumption that bias is not probable? Why was the burning of a mosque in Victoria, Texas a hate crime, but the slaughter by an Islamist extremist of thirteen soldiers at Fort Hood workplace violence? Was President Trump’s decision about “Dreamers” racist, and therefore hateful, or was he right that legislation is the purview of Congress?

When society functions with order and a distinct moral sense, such questions are mute. Morality and ethics are understood – we know unethical behavior when we see it, to paraphrase Justice Stewart. In such cases, civil behavior is standard. Laws are obeyed. Civil disobedience is allowed, but destruction of private property is not. But today, Western culture is in decline and multiculturalism is in ascendancy. Questions of right are wrong go unanswered, for fear of offending those whose cultures may be at odds with our Judeo-Christian heritage. Worse, political correctness and identity politics have become de rigueur among the elite. Victimhood is assumed, despite its humiliating implications. The sanctimonious supposition is that victims are unable to fend for themselves.

A government that yields to multicultural demands, but which leaves moral behavior in abeyance, fails its’ constituents. Jay Cost, in a recent Weekly Standard article, noted that James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, felt government should proceed slowly and cautiously, but public discourse should be vigorous and unfettered. But we now expect government to act vigorously, and dissenters from orthodoxy to shut up. Mr. Cost wrote that, in Madison’s view, “for the people to rule wisely, they have to be able to communicate with one another – freely, without fear of reprisal.”

The irony is that hatred has become ubiquitous, in part, because it is an unintended consequence of identity politics. Its progeny, the concept of hate crimes, amplifies our political dissonance. A free people will disagree and disagreements should be aired without physical or legal retribution. Our country’s government is based on the idea that the people are sovereign – that we are not subject to the wishes of a small number of elites in Washington – and that the diverse and collective wishes of the people should prevail. Hatred of people because of their political or personal views is not mentioned in the law…nor should it be, yet the left-leaning SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) has labeled the Alliance Defending Freedom, a “hate group,” because it adheres to traditional views about human sexuality and marriage. But they won’t cite Anifa as a hate group. How do we get this train back on track?

Criminals should be prosecuted. Bad guys should be punished. There is no question in my mind that there are those in our society for whom hate is the principal motivator behind crimes committed, but we must be careful lest the vagueness of what constitutes a hate crime is not defined by those seeking political advantage, and that the actual crime, therefore, goes unpunished.

The study of totalitarian governments, whether on the left or the right, show that granting federal governments police powers can lead to dangerous precedents; consider, for example, the Gestapo and the NKVD. We already have an FBI; do we want another, and more powerful, J. Edgar Hoover? Hate is a motivating factor in many crimes. But, since the definition is imprecise and judgments are subject to interpretation, is it worth the risk to our basic liberties if the wrong person occupies the White House and places the wrong person in charge of a federal police force? Can we not investigate, prosecute and punish those who are guilty of crimes, without adding another layer of bureaucratic, legal higgledy-piggledy?