We need more "hate crimes" legislation?

On a vote of 249-175, the House passed and sent to the Senate a bill backed by the new Democratic White House to broaden such laws by classifying as "hate crimes" those attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.

"All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted," Smith said. "Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system -- 'equal justice for all.'"
"Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim," Smith said. "It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime."

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53S8IM20090429

Don't we have more important issues? I guess this is what we get for electing lawyers to represent us. Doesn't this mean that even pedophiles will have protected status?

I remember a couple of incidents when this insanity took root. Some whites beat up a black. This was a hate crime. Then, a bunch of blacks beat up a white. This was assault.
The solution? Toss the color crap and just enforce the "Thou shall not ...."
Do the crime; you do the time.
Case closed.
Rose colored glasses will not change our world. Live with it.

Big Brother is listening, too.

So right now, you can be additionally sentenced for your state of mind when you commit a crime but how long will it be before the state of mind is the crime in and of itself. Ala Canadian law.

Didn't take long...

Jay Severin, the fiery right wing talk show host on Boston's WTKK-FM radio station, was suspended yesterday after calling Mexican immigrants "criminaliens," "primitives," "leeches," and exporters of "women with mustaches and VD," among other incendiary comments.

Respectfully disagreeing here, Springer, but he wasn't criminally charged for his speech, so this has nothing to do with hate crimes. His employer suspended him, which is something every private employer has the right to do.

I am strongly against the hate crimes legislation, because it enhances criminal punishment for what a person was thinking (and how do we even know that?) I am strongly for upholding contractual rights, and employers should be able to fire employees who disgrace their employer. Whether we agree or disagree with what he said, or how he said it, his employer should have the right to suspend him, take him off the air, or let him go.

And I do agree with you in all that you say. I guess what I was pointing out was the hypocricy between the left and the right. The left is all about tolerance of views as long as it is the right tolerating the left. But the opposing view seldom stands.

I agree completely. Leftists can get away with saying just about anything, including calls for assassinations of political figures and celebration of their deaths. But let a conservative question the policies of a leftist, and he's just a hatemonger.

Hate crimes are taken to a new level in Canada as well as Europe. Diversity and multiculturalism will lead us into a very troubled world.

I don't understand why more people are not up-in-arms about this type of legislation. It is protectionism for some and an injustice to others.

In Europe, you can go to prison for speaking against a "protected" race.

Charlie Hustle wrote:

I don't understand why more people are not up-in-arms about this type of legislation. It is protectionism for some and an injustice to others.

I think the reason is three fold.

1. Ignorance. It sounds good. Who could not be against hate?
2. Intimidation. It is very politically incorrect to oppose hate crime legislation. People will think me a racist.
3. The slow frog boil. It doesn't apply to me so I don't pay attention. (and by the time it does, it will be too late)