Hate Crime Horrors

The “Hate Crime” laws on the federal and local levels are nothing more than draconian punishment for not being PeeCee.

One of the critical elements of a free society is the freedom of each individual to express oneself.  However, there are common-sense limitations to consider when “free speech” affects the safety of individuals. It is self-policing in a society with morals, values, and principles; individuals will act within the accepted norm. Unfortunately, the accepted standard morphed into relativism, and it is super elastic as anything goes. What is the solution? More laws to curb the problem, but are such laws indeed applied in an equal manner?

When certain groups perceive special privileges and the legislators change or add laws to fit a perceived special right, we are entering the realm of tyranny. These are harsh words, and it is necessary to explain the real horrors of Political Correctness (PeeCee) — the resulting laws that make specific thoughts a crime. Orwell was just a few years off.

The issue to tackle is “Hate Crimes.” If a person commits a physical crime or even “hate speech” against a person, the perpetrator knows that they may serve time if convicted for the act. However, such a person might reconsider when facing stiffer sentencing if the action is a “Hate Crime.” As an example, a person who does not practice sodomy harms a person that performs such acts. They go to jail for the action and the thought (“Hate Crime”). If the reverse occurs and the person who engages in sodomy harms a person who is “straight,” will the sodomite be subject to the same sentencing? We know the answer to that question.

The “Hate Crime” laws on the federal and local levels are nothing more than draconian punishment for not being PeeCee. Some people will snicker at the notion that PeeCee connects to hate crime laws. If you are a new Frederick R Smith Speaks reader and chuckling, may I suggest you reconsider? That is a serious business, as any particular interest group can successfully get what they want. No matter how microscopic the general population, some influential groups will continue to get their way. Example: 2020 riot age. These people (through their particular interest organs) have some potent allies on their sides, such as the mainstream media, academia, legal eagles, and legislators. That is dangerous stuff, my friends, but most people buy into the endless mantra about tolerance and inclusiveness.

How about pedophilia as the next right? As crazy as this may sound, some very influential people are making the pitch to legitimize this activity.

If one believes in moral relativism, this is the logical step, as one must ask where the elasticity of morality ends? For further proof, think about the trash promoted on television today compared to thirty years ago. Monogamous heterosexual relationships face mockery while Hollywood spends immeasurable energy to encourage all other types of “relationships.” And the people shell out money to watch movies that glorify debauchery and sodomy. Entertainment that focuses on traditional values fails. But one must ask, does Hollywood spend as much on advertising for wholesome flicks as it does for the putrid ones? While some say that the open promotion of debauchery is like “farting in the wind” concerning our downfall, I respectfully say otherwise. Acceptance of debauchery in the media is equivalent to death by entertainment.

Senators and Representatives (regardless of party) are pushing more federal “Hate Crimes” legislation. If this occurs from the federal side, we have completely lost any semblance of a local authority. The best people to deal with local crimes are the local professionals and local citizenry (juries). Centralization does not work, and it never will. While more Federal Hate Crime laws are on the horizon, there are malignant polyps that have cropped up locally and statewide. For example, in 2002, Pennsylvania enacted legislation encouraging a pro-sodomy person to report a preacher citing Biblical passages condemning unnatural sexual practices.

While such legislation applies to “hate” and attached physical crimes, we must ask the thresholds. What is hate? It is easy to see that we are on a profusely well-lubricated slippery slope. Specifically, not only do we need to worry about an elastic definition of “hate,” but also rest assured that these draconian laws will, in time, apply only to “hate” (no physical violence).

The PeeCee crowd quickly links the entire conservative movement whenever somebody commits violence against a pro-debauchery person. ¹ Even though that person may be on the fringe, we hear the news organ gush forth the mantra of “conservatives fomenting the violence.” Soon (if not now), we will be experiencing the Orwellian controls on the freedom of expression because particular speech alone will be a crime.

It gets even worse because only certain forms of thought/violence are “Hate Crimes.” A quintessential example is the establishment’s penchant for sweeping crimes committed by environmentalists under the rug. There have been many crimes committed by the leftist group called Earth Liberation Front (ELF). However, when was the last time we heard the mainstream debasing the entire environmental movement? Rest assured, if a “conservative” committed an act of violence, the whole conservative movement would somehow face shamming.

The media quickly pitch that conservatives and religious believers’ opposition to sodomy and debauchery creates the climate for these hate-filled crimes. Does the media do the same concerning the extreme policies of some of the mainline environmental groups that may have “created the climate” (no pun intended)? Along with the burning of businesses, the ELF has “spiked” trees, which can be deadly to loggers. Concerning the environmental movement, in general, being willing promoters of the ELF, I do not think so. Just as I do not believe so on the other end of the spectrum. As the conservative movement should not blame Al Gore for Ted Kaczynski’s actions (Gore’s book “Earth in the Balance” was among Kaczynski’s possessions), the mainstream should not link the “climate of hate” to conservatives. Nevertheless, we must not forget there are crazies on both ends of the spectrum. Violence committed by the overly zealous anti-abortion types and the extreme environmentalists is both inexcusable.

The media has been predictably lopsided in their coverage of the violent environmentalists vs. the “right-wingers.” The proof is in the pudding as it is easy to find people who consider “right-wing Christians” to be scary or “dangerous.” How many people think environmentalists are scary? For me, I would feel a lot safer in a neighborhood of conservative Christians vs. an enclave of ELF people.

Hopefully, the above illustrates that “Hate Crime” designations can be dangerous principally due to moral relativism.

Cogent Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Cogent Editor, Sean Tinney

1. Conservative/right and liberal/left people must avoid the broad-brush tactic to be fair and honest.