WASHINGTON, April 26 /Christian Newswire/ —
“Hate crimes” bill H.R. 1592, which is on the fast track to passage in Congress, will officially give homosexuals and cross dressers special elevated status in society based upon their chosen sexual behaviors and/or wardrobe. Under H.R. 1592, the victims at Virginia Tech would officially be considered less valuable to society than homosexuals and cross dressers who are the targets of insults, intimidation, simple assault or other “violent acts.” The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees “equal protection under the law” for all citizens — regardless of their sexual preference. “Hate crimes” legislation flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. Such legislation would require the government to invest more resources in the investigation and prosecution of crimes against homosexuals than it would the victims at Virginia Tech. It is an irrefutable fact that H.R. 1592 would treat certain citizens unequally from others.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) asks Congress to grant equal government resources, concern and respect to the victims at Virginia Tech and their families as they do to the demands of liberal homosexual activists by reaffirming the precepts of the 14th Amendment and voting NO on this dangerous and discriminatory piece of legislation.
“If Seung-Hui Cho’s horrific actions were not an act of ‘hate,’ then what where they?” asked Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with CWA. “All violent crimes are ‘hate crimes.’ By H.R. 1592’s definition, Cho’s actions would have constituted a ‘hate crime’ except for the fact that he targeted his victims with the wrong kind of bias. In this case, Cho ‘perceived’ his victims to be ‘rich kids.’ However, under H.R. 1592, ‘rich kids’ are not a specially protected class like homosexuals, so Cho’s crime is second tier and would be considered less egregious.
“The FBI’s latest statistics show that there were zero ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against homosexuals or those perceived to be homosexual in 2005; yet we already know of thirty-two so-called ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against perceived ‘rich kids’ in a single day. But under H.R. 1592, those ‘rich kids’ would be denied the same protections and justice as homosexuals. The whole ‘hate crimes’ concept really places logic and reason on its head,” concluded Barber.
“If Seung-Hui Cho’s horrific actions were not an act of ‘hate,’ then what where they?”
“All violent crimes are ‘hate crimes.'”
First a word on mischaracterizing Cho’s outburst as a hate crime: I disagree. I think Cho’s mental state simply deteriorated more and more into mental illness over the years, reaching an inordinate mixture of despair, loneliness, hurt, powerlessness, and possibly incapacity in correctly deciphering various aspects of people and reality around him from a psycho-emotional perspective. He displayed severe introspection and a huge defensive by withdrawal behavior. Several of his recorded statements express enormous, profound hurt and despair, and abandonment. And then there is the gigantic anger and frustration that is the product of all this, which turns into a volcano of rage. To me, Cho’s rampage was more an expression of his own desolateness, his own suffering, his own despair, his own reaching a point where he saw no light, no way out, nothing. At a point like that, he could have decided he was going to end it all, but he felt he wanted to take out part of his anger at a blind target on the way.
All violent crimes are not “hate crimes,” because I would argue the definition of “hate crime” is selectively myopic and it enforces unequal protection and status under the law. I would even go further and argue that the concept of a hate crime is completely senseless, like saying pigs can fly, because it’s flawed in its fundament. (more on this later)
“In this case, Cho ‘perceived’ his victims to be ‘rich kids.’ However, under H.R. 1592, ‘rich kids’ are not a specially protected class like homosexuals, so Cho’s crime is second tier and would be considered less egregious.”
This is in itself one of the horrible injustices of having a “hate crime” law, but it also points to how the idea of privileging so-called “hate victim” categories is conceptually at fault from a law philosophy and legal rights standpoint.
Under the bill, the United States Attorney General could provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance if an incident constitutes a crime of violence, constitutes a felony under state, local, or tribal laws, or is motivated by prejudice based on race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of state, local or tribal hate crime laws.
The bill provides for penalties from 10 years to life imprisonment, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, such as whether or not bodily injury or death was caused, or sexual abuse, or kidnapping occurred.
The Associated Press story showing that of 1,115 people convicted of sexually abusing children in New York City between 1993 and 1995, only 44 percent went to jail. More than 30 percent received probation and 20 percent received conditional discharges.
So, if this H.R. 1592 bill passes, basically what we will have is a country in which we will continue to have an epidemic of child abuse, where the majority of such victims DO NOT get any support, technical, forensic, prosecutorial or any other form of assistance, and where the overwhelming majority of criminals roam around scott-free, because they aren’t even prosecuted, much less convicted. Why? Because children have no worth or voice in a society obsessed by homosexuality. A crime of torturing a child clearly merits secondary importance compared to the so-called “hate victims” groups.
or is motivated by prejudice based on race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of state, local or tribal hate crime laws.
So let’s take the following hypothetical example:
A couple sexually abuses their child, the child gets little or no assistance, nothing happens. Later as an adult, wants to sue parents, gets no government support, technical, forensic, prosecutorial or any other form of assistance.
A homosexual sexually harasses and carries out predatory behavior towards male adolescents. Victims get no government help in any way. Homo predator enters luxury rehab center and nothing happens.
A lesbian professor sexually harasses a student. Student wants to sue, but gets no government support, technical, forensic, prosecutorial or any other form of assistance.
Now a law-abiding person who has never committed a crime, who disagrees with normalizing homosexuality, expresses their views against the liberal conception of equating homosexuality to heterosexuality, and public money and energy will be used up to prosecute this person.
All things being equal, it means that if a 5-foot-2-inch grandmother is violently attacked on the street (such as the highly publicized incident videotaped in New York earlier this month where a 101 year old woman was brutally assaulted) she is less worthy of justice than a 6-foot-4-inch homosexual man who is attacked by the same assailant while leaving a ‘gay’ bar.
Unequal valuation under the law
Unequal measure of worthiness
Unequal access to justice
See this ancient post for more on hate crime conceptual problems.