Hate Crime: "Crime of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal homicide, motor vehicle theft, robbery, sex offenses, and/or crime involving bodily injury in which the victim was intentionally selected because of the victims' actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability."
Recently nine churches have been burned to the ground. No one has mentioned the term "hate crime." Well, that's not entirely true. I heard someone say that if those churches were burned because they are primarily black churches then they would be considered "hate crimes."
A few buildings in Denmark have been attacked by Muslim rioters because the papers printed a picture of Mohammad. Is this a "hate crime?" These people have been targeted because of their perceived (and actual) non-Islamic religion.
Why are these two occurrences not being labeled as hate crimes? Is it because hate crimes can only be perpetrated against people that it's unfashionable to repress? Who do we often hear of hate crimes being committed against? Homosexuals, blacks, Jews, and Muslims (since 9/11). If these churches were synagogues or Mosques, would they be hate crimes? If the rioters were burning down a gay bar, would it be a hate crime? What if gays were torching the homes of black people?
I recognize that the arson by the Muslims is occurring in another country that may or may not have such laws. If it were here, in America, does the sheer number of people involved prevent it from being a hate crime? What if a group of incensed African-American citizens attacked a despicable white supremacist group?
Either hate crimes need to be labeled as such every time they occur, or the definition needs to be reworked.
The above is, as always, just my opinion.
4 comments:
I agree. Please note that rape, in and of itself, is not considered a hate crime, either. It is only considered a hate crime if the rapist is of a different ethnicity than the woman being raped. However, the crime is only taking place because the victim is a woman. Wouldn't that be gender discrimination? Then shouldn't it, therefore, be labeled as a hate crime as well, regardless of the race of the victim or rapist?
I completely agree! Especially seeing as rape is more about power (which is the end goal of all hate crimes) than sex.
I would very much like to know where this 'rape is more about power than sex' thing comes from. I don't disagree, but I'm not convinced of its truth.
I dislike this competition for the phrase 'hate crime.' Isn't any violent crime hateful? In-court terminology matters here, not what we call it. So, a particular defendant might be found guilty with prejudice, but let's leave it to the courts. Resist the call to hype; it's what incites riots and shiz.
In short, I think I agree with you Marc but, as always, a bit less fundamentally.
(If this shows up a thousand times, I apologize. Blogger's having issues)
AZ, I agree. I think the only place one can accurately use the term hate crime is in the confines of the law. I just don't think this will be treated as one when these people are brought to justice.
Post a Comment