Monday, July 30, 2007

Censorship cited in hate crimes debate

Hate crime legislation is one of those issues that makes absolutely no sense to me.

What difference does it make if Tom kills Bill because he is black, white, bald, gay, or even because Bill is sleeping with Tom's girlfriend. Bill is dead. Tom committed murder.

There is absolutely no reason to have an "add on" to the murder charge just because Tom was yelling racial insults as he was beating Bills brains in. If longer sentences will help to lower the murder rate, then all murders should be subjected to longer sentences, not just ones based on race.

Now that there is federal legislation to include homosexuals as a "protected class" under hate crime laws, more people are starting to speak out against them.

From the Star Telegram:

By Anna M. Tinsley

FORT WORTH -- When the Rev. Carl Pointer prepares a sermon, he sets out to share what he feels in his heart, mind and soul.

The last thing he wants is for the federal government to tell him what he cannot preach about.

"I should have freedom of speech and freedom of religion," said Pointer, an associate pastor of the Greater St. Paul Baptist Church in Stop Six. "A preacher has the right to spread his love ... and shouldn't be censored if some find it unpleasant."

Rev. Kyev Tatum

Pointer and many other preachers oppose a proposal in Congress to expand federal hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation, gender and disability to the racial, ethnic and religious categories already covered. They say the bill would censor their preaching, especially their sermons about homosexuality.
The Reverend Kyev Tatum stated:
"If a person is accosted ... for any reason, the person who committed the crime should be punished to the full extent of the law based on one's human rights, not based on one's sexual rights."
I have to wonder if the Reverend would support the overturning of all hate crime legislation?

I also wonder how hate crime legislation passed the constitutional test. You would think that "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" would mean that it is unconstitutional to punish Tom more for killing Bill, than you would punish Bill for killing Tom.


Anonymous said...

"A preacher has the right to spread his love..."

Does that extend to homosexuals, too?

Anonymous said...

Well put, this variation in sentencing is rediculous.

I think it's deplorable to kill someone just because they are gay. It's also deplorable to kill them because they insulted you, cut you off in traffic, worked at the gas station you held up, etc. That's why we punish murder.