In some dialogue on a posting from Riley Brown (July 4th's Outrageous behavior does bother most gay people) the conversation has taken several turns beyond LGBT issues. It brought to mind some thoughts I recorded just a little over a year ago following the Orlando nightclub massacre. The article touches upon several of the topics entered in the aforementioned dialogue. Though some of the events referenced are not present day I believe many of these thoughts to be germane to the further discussion.
For any who may find interest in the main topic there are further thoughts shared upon this in the article Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy and Hate Crimes at http://theburghalhidage.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Certain terms and expressions work their way into our modern lexicon. It is an inescapable fact. Though these may frequently be oxymoronic or grammatically incorrect they do still become a part of our discourse and are generally accepted to have certain meanings. Here is a fairly innocuous example: irregardless. One hears this in common use and though strictly speaking it is incorrect, within the context of it’s use the intended meaning is generally understood. I’ll demonstrate here.
“Irregardless of the hate crimes statute the victims were no less murdered.” See what I mean? It is not correct, but nonetheless having been said the word’s meaning within that context is understood. I am not making an apology for frequent misuse of the language, simply illustrating a point. Dialects, strictly speaking, are no more correct, but are indisputably part of any language. Colloquialisms, though improper, are recognized in our dictionaries. In a good dictionary they are in fact identified as such. It’s not an approval, just an acknowledgement.
Within the sentence citing this example there is another term which has entered the language and it is likewise incorrect but accepted. What are “hate crimes”? Aside from the use of the expression they are defined under statute. Without getting into the legalese I’ll give you a layman’s definition of the term. A hate crime is when an individual or group of individuals commit an act which is already prohibited by statute, but is deemed to be more illegal by virtue of it’s hateful motivation. This might come in the form of vandalism, assault, assault with battery, even homicide, just to name a few.
A law which prohibits certain acts will have attached some sanction, fine, improisonment, the death penalty,) which is intended to simultaneously to punish the act and to serve as a deterrent against the commission of such acts. So one must conclude that the purpose of any hate crime statute is to serve as both an added punishment for and deterrent against the perpetration of acts which are already deemed an offence against the law of the land.
The hate crime appendix simply magnifies the degree to which these acts are a breach of the social contract. As it is now a part of law in many jurisdictions we may assume that there was, at least at one time, an intended purpose to their enactment. Examined practically this purpose does not seem evident.
Hate crimes legislation are another example of feel good legislation. It is symbol over substance. The impetus for this now seems manifest in the reaction we see in our media to the Orlando massacre. With Paris and San Bernadino and Brussels there was an abundance of horror and dismay expressed over the airwaves. With Orlando we now see an orgy of outrage (whether sincere or manufactured) and moral indignation injected.
"It was a hate crime," scream liberals or progressives, as if the victims would be any less dead if the perpetrator had said, "No, I wasn't motivated by racial or religious hatred, homophobia, or political extremism, I just felt like killing some people. It wasn't personal, just everyday insanity."
There is an added layer to offence deemed 'hate crime' because of such acts having targeted a demographic group which has been bestowed some preferential status. There is, however, still the reluctance to call this what it is. Even with the heightened sensitivity attached to such monstrous act due to the nature of the targets the politically correct crowd still insists on pulling up short of decrying this as another attack upon our freedom and culture by extremist groups which, having been allowed to flourish in our tolerant society, now display total intolerance of those who hold different views.
This is not to diminish the seriousness of murderous acts in which the victime is targeted because of race, religion, sexuality or culture in any way. Making some special show of added abhorrence on account of the fact that these victims were Muslims, white, European Christians, or members of the LGBT community does more to diminish than anything I might have to say about it. Where the victims are law abiding citizens who were engaged in their commonly accepted rights to freedom of speech, expression, association and worship. They were murdered in cold blood.
Established statutes clearly identify these acts as crimes and law courts have the power to levy sanction upon the perpetrator should they survive to face a trial, another provision of human rights conventions identified as due process of law. Conferring an added level of offense to the perpetrator does nothing to elevate the victims. It only elevates the act and the perpetrator.
****
If there is any need to identify this as something other than or in addition to the crime of homicide it would be this. This was yet another act of war upon us and our way of life, in all of it’s many forms, committed by an individual in the name of Islam. If the same thing had been perpetrated upon these people by, oh I don’t know, let’s say a member of some Christian church who espouses the sinfulness of the gay lifestyle the reporters and pundits would be falling over each other to be the first to grab the microphone and condemn Christians for their intolerance. Anyone who would argue to the contrary is lying not only to their audience, but to themselves as well. Yet on the point of a condemnation of Islam? The silence is deafening.
For those members of the LGBT community who have been content to be pandered to by the politically correct crowd I would caution you to take careful note of this phenomenon. Not only because of but especially because of this tragedy. It tells you rather starkly where you stand with these people. A religion and culture that not only condemns in word, but also acts in deeds to punish what they perceive as a sin, is being given a pass by those same people who claim to have your back. Not only do they go to great pains to defend this great “religion of peace” they even go so far as twisting themselves into a pretzel to deny the nature of it even when it is on full, murderous display. I for one am tired of being lectured to about how we must be tolerant of the existence of this scourge in our midst.
As a community within our broader population the LGBT’s have, if in some instances rather begrudgingly, attained a measure of acceptance. Worth noting is that each of you as US citizens were already accorded the same constitutional protections as anyone else. Freedom of speech, assembly, equal protection under the law. You may wish to argue to the contrary, but as a point of law these are facts. I would not attempt to deny that there have been instances where this may not have been the actual practice, but again speaking in a strictly legal sense this is so. Just as there is no need to attach a special provision to a homicide for it’s motive there is likewise no need to enact a special, separate provision of protection under the law for your orientation. There just isn’t. You are protected, or should be, same as anyone else. There is only the need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. To make this argument does not automatically cast one into the category of homophobia. What the politically correct crowd continually succeed in selling is the notion that only a wholehearted embrace of your lifestyle constitutes you’re being treated fairly and sorry to rain on that parade, but I’m here to tell you that just isn’t so. Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision that everyone must like you and approve of the way you live. It only upholds your right to do so without the government infringing upon those rights. Your rights to engage in your life as you may see fit absent the interference of your fellow citizen is protected by the statutes of the state in which you live. No more, no less.
There are citizens of this country who engage in their right to the freedom of association and freedom of speech. They often may not agree with you or your choices, but their rights are no less sacred than yours. They don’t have to like you or approve of how you live. They are also free to say so. The only prohibition is that they may not, assuming that your activities are not in any way illegal, interfere with your free exercise of the inherent right to live as you please. The common interest that we all share is a right to be secure in our persons and homes. There may be people who personally do not approve of what you do, but if they’ve done nothing to interfere than they are guilty of nothing other than offending your sensibilities so get over it. Living in a free representative republic as we do it is a proposition rather like ( and I do apologize for the facile reference) a line from the GI Joe Movie: We all go home or no one goes home.
You may not care for or agree with the opinions of these people and nor do you have to. What you should bear in mind, however, is that as fellow citizens of this country you all have a stake in the preservation of these liberties. Despite what you may have been told the only threat to those same liberties is coming from nowhere else but Islam. In facing that threat we need to put aside the fact that 90% of it’s members may very well be people who simply wish to go about their lives undisturbed the same as us. That regrettably does not change the fact that this still leaves something of an order of 160-170 million members who mean us ill. They clearly, in fact rather proudly, display their desire and willingness to attack and destroy the lives and rights of homosexuals, women, Christians, Jews and even other muslims who do not adhere to their law.
I penned an opinion piece following the Paris attack last November. I will reiterate a portion of it now as it seems that nothing has changed. I will continue to say it until this madness comes to an end, which it appears may be for the rest of my days on this earth. We are not at war with terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. The ideology employing the tactic is Islam. It makes no difference that it may only be a minority of its members doing so. Islam is where it lives. Islam and western civilization are as two cars travelling in opposing directions upon a single lane. It could be a father or mother behind the wheel of our vehicle, it makes no difference. The driver of that vehicle is faced with this dilemma: riding in said vehicle as passengers are the driver’s family. The driver of the opposing vehicle likewise has their family riding as passengers. Those passengers are not the ones driving the vehicle. They may very well be innocent, but as they seem to be powerless to thwart their driver’s determination to plow headlong into your vehicle, thus endangering you and your family, you have to make a choice. Are their innocent lives so sacred that you are prepared to sacrifice your own family to spare them a fate delivered not by you, but by their driver? It is not a choice that one wishes to make, but it is no less the choice that is placed before us. It is foolish to pretend otherwise.
RELATED POSTS:
Police Forces Taking Days to Respond to 999 Calls …
While Hate Crime Declared a Priority
No comments:
Post a Comment