[I]t’s not a stretch to say that hate crime laws, by their very nature, punish people for their opinions. A mugger who robs a Jew because he’s well-dressed is punished less severely than a mugger who robs a Jew based on the belief that Jews get their money only by cheating Christians. A thug who beats an old lady in a wheelchair just for fun is punished less severely than a thug who does so because he believes disabled people are leeches.

The rationale for such unequal treatment is that crimes motivated by bigotry do more damage than otherwise identical crimes with different motivations because of the fear they foster. Yet random attacks arguably generate more fear, and hate crimes cause anxiety in the targeted group only when they’re publicized as such. In any case, judges can take a crime’s impact into account at sentencing.

From Looking for Hate in All the Wrong Places by Jacob Sullum

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

Westmoreland says no to Thought Police

U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland voted against the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which passed the House today.

“If you commit a violent crime against another person, you should be punished to the full extent of the law,” Westmoreland said. “In the eyes of the law, it shouldn’t make a difference if the motive was hate or greed or even boredom. The law should look at a crime, determine what punishment it deserves and then consistently apply the punishment. As a society, we should have a zero-tolerance policy toward violent crime.

“I don’t think a perpetrator should get less time behind bars because he wasn’t motivated by hate. This legislation implies that violent crime isn’t as bad if it’s random or simply senseless. I disagree. I think they’re equally despicable and the law should treat them equally harsh.”

“I received many calls and letters from constituents in Georgia’s 3rd Congressional District asking me to oppose the hate crime bill. Many of those constituents are ministers and church-goers concerned about the chilling effect that a federal law such as this would have on teaching their moral beliefs. I agree with their concerns. Churches should be free to teach that some lifestyles are wrong according to their belief system without fear of criminal prosecution. In fact, local hate crime laws in New York City and San Francisco have already been used to suppress the free speech rights of religious and pro-family groups. It’s ironic that this bill passed on the National Day of Prayer.

“My additional concern about this bill is that it grows the national government by federalizing crimes that traditionally are in the purview of local and state governments. Our federal law enforcement agencies, in my opinion, have enough on their plates without adding the responsibility of serving as ‘Thought Police.’ ”

For U.S. citizens: I suggest that you contact your U.S. Senators and make your feelings known on this issue. A letter sent to the White House is a good idea too. God help us, we will soon go the way of the “morals police” in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, if this baloney isn’t stopped soon!

M.E. Huffmaster

I wonder if the Uniting Church could be targeted by the new ‘hate crimes’ legislation against those with dissenting opinion? Or is it all one way traffic?

Damien Spillane

So you know, I have a long time friend who really did suffer a hate crime because of his homosexuality. This is not about someone who lives flamboyantly or participates in gay pride parades, but a brother in Christ who has made the decision to live a celibate lifestyle. When rumors about his homosexuality started to get around, dog poop began appearing in his mail box and bricks wrapped in letters filled with threats began crashing through his windows…..and that’s just for starters. He finally had to leave his home, a job he loved, even the town for the sake of his own safety. And who were the perpetators behind this terrorism? They were called upstanding pillars of the community (“fellow Christians”?)who were never charged.

Do I consider what my friend endured a hate crime? Of course! But would we have prosecuted the Virginia Tech mass murderer for hate crimes had he not killed himself? Almost nothing is being said about this crime being based on hate, just on Cho being mentally unstable and what may have been the final straw that led to this tragedy. Yet it most certainly was a hate crime if you take his rantings about hating rich kids on the video tape he sent to NBC between shootings in account.

To put it bluntly, there are only two types of crimes, crimes of cold indifference and hate crimes. Cold indifference makes no distinctions, if you’re blocking the way, you become a victim. Hate crimes are personal in that they are commited for personal reasons whether the victim is familiar or a stranger to the perpetrator. But crime is crime and punishing the act is what the scales of justice demands. God help us if a government takes it upon itself to begin punishing thought and not just deeds!

M.E.Huffmaster

Ewan McDonald, Victoria