The government definitely has no legitimate role prohibiting hate, real or imagined.
Former NBA star Tim Hardaway made waves on the airwaves recently by remarking that he hated homosexuals. It became the story du jour the following day, prompting the obligatory posturing and feigned outrage. Pundit Bill O’Reilly said (I’m paraphrasing), “We can’t have this in America,” although at least he was sincere.
Now, I know we should hate the sin but not the sinner, so far be it from me to advocate hatred for anyone (his actions and beliefs are a different matter). But given the West’s increasing embrace of hate crime/hate speech laws, we need to ask ourselves a question. Do we have a right to hate?
The Shill Media won’t discuss it, but the aforementioned laws are metastasizing in the supposedly free countries of the West. I’ve often written about the case of Mark Harding, a Canadian pastor punished for criticizing Islam. But such examples abound; Bob Unruh writes at WorldNetDaily.com,
Two Christians in Australia have been indicted for criticizing Islam, and another for criticizing Zionism. A filmmaker has been threatened with arrest for using the word ‘homosexual’ rather than ‘gay.’ Now a German priest faces jail time for publicly criticizing abortionists, and in Holland, ‘fornicators’ and ‘adulterers’ are protected classes and cannot be criticized.
And just in case you think it can’t happen here in the US, I’ll point out that on October 10, 2004, eleven Christians were arrested in Philadelphia for criticizing homosexuality. They were arrested under a Pennsylvania hate crime law, which, ominously, is almost identical to one (H.R. 254) going through Congress at this very moment.
Now, I must point out that it’s unlikely the individuals in the above cases were motivated by hate, unless it’s hate of certain behaviors or beliefs. Yet, the law has prosecuted them under hate laws, Orwellian legislation predicated on the notion that the government belongs in the hate business. So I ask again, do we have a right to hate?
In terms of moral rights, the answer is no. For that matter, however, we have no moral right to embrace or indulge any evil idea or tendency. This includes not just wrath but the rest of the Seven Deadly Sins as well: Lust, pride, greed, envy, sloth and gluttony. But the issue here isn’t one of moral rights, but legal ones.
If I were as shallow as some of my critics, I’d now rail against “legislating morality,” but I know better. A law by definition is the imposition of morality, as it prescribes or proscribes something based on the idea that it is, respectively, a moral imperative or morally wrong or a corollary of that which is so. If this isn’t the case, why create the law? It would make no sense to outlaw that which isn’t bad or mandate that which isn’t good. Thus, those who dislike such intrusion need to be heedful: To have government legislate morality as little as possible means to have it legislate as little as possible, which is why it needs to be as small as possible.
The government definitely has no legitimate role prohibiting hate, real or imagined. And here I think of radical Moslem groups like the Taliban, which are condemned for enforcing laws based on a different deadly sin. When Moslems punish those who indulge in lust (note: Lust is “disordered sexual desire”), they sometimes stone adulterers or homosexuals. Their medieval penalties are most disproportionate and I’m the last one who would want to live under the iron burka. Having said that, in certain respects they are morally superior to our Thought Police.
Insofar as the above goes, what the Moslems proscribe actually is wrong, whereas the Thought Police often punish those who criticize what is wrong. Put differently, the Moslems do actually target lustful acts but, while the Thought Police claim to want to eliminate hate, their true focus is eliminating expression that refutes their agenda. Thus, the latter are far more contemptible in their deceit and sanctimony.
Their dishonesty is evidenced in double standards that would inflame the electorate if the Shill Media actually brought them to light. While Pastor Harding was hauled into court for criticizing Islam, the true hatred expressed by Moslems outside who chanted, “Infidels, you will burn in Hell” was met with the sanction of government silence.
This is par for the course. When did you last see someone punished for criticizing Christianity, whites or those with normal sexual desires? Why do you think so-called hate crimes perpetrated by a member of these groups becomes front page news while one perpetrated against them is swept under the rug? Hate laws are used as a hammer to silence politically incorrect dissent and persecute those not enjoying victim-group status. Hate laws have nothing to do with opposition to hate and everything to do with hating opposition.
Thus, another question should be, do we have a right to hate whom we wish? Governments are more and more the arbiter of who and what can be hated and, in fact, play God as they would have us accept that hate is whatever they deem it to be. This is why I recoil at any intimation that people have no legal right to hate. The Tim Hardaways of the world have every right to hate whom they wish, and, too, you have a right to scorn and ostracize them for it. But he who implies we have no right to voice our beliefs is the most contemptible of haters: A hater of liberty.
A big part of our problem is that people tend to be as blind to hang-ups collectively as they are individually. Just as Moslem Wahhabis may believe infidels are the bane of humanity and that any means to subjugate them is justified, we have hate on the brain. Wrath is merely one of the Seven Deadly Sins, not the be-all and end-all. We have become errant radicals, much like the Shakers, who taught that all copulation was a sin, even that within marriage. The only difference is that we focus our tunnel-vision elsewhere.
Personally, even where real hate is concerned, I’d much rather have it expressed and know where people stand than see it bottled up, simmering beneath the surface, perhaps only becoming evident when it explodes in a fit of violence. It’s ironic, the irreligious Left would call the Shakers sexually repressed. Yet, the same set wants to create repressed haters.
Getting back to moral rights, one the government does not enjoy is the moral right to remove the legal right to make moral pronouncements. Governments have long done this, such as that of Korea and China, which imprison dissidents. And we would do well to remember that if we walk the same path, silencing those who disagree with the prevailing ideology, we will have no moral capital with which to condemn them. They will simply be the man in the mirror.
We have every right to hate. In fact, I’m starting to hate the government with a passion. And that’s a hatred we should indulge without temperance.
SD@SelwynDuke.com
http://www.SelwynDuke.com
Read more articles by Selwyn Duke
So, can the American Nazi Party still parade through a Jewish neighborhood?
Comment by sedonaman | February 22, 2007
Sedonaman,
Yes. Should it not be able to?
Comment by Katzen | February 22, 2007
how about parade through a muslim neighborhood?
Comment by Dean | February 22, 2007
There are laws that consider the emotional state of the perpetrator, like aggravated assault, for example. I do not necessarily find it troublesome that some laws contemplate emotional status.
What I do take issue with is laws that pinpoint an emotional state based on political orientation. If it is wrong to disagree with gays, it also must be wrong to disagree with straights. In essence, then, the government would be obligated to tell everyone that they must be nice to everyone else under penalty of law. The criteria is, of course, how the aggrieved party "feels."
Government has the constitutional authority to do this? The Founders must be turning over in their graves.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 22, 2007
Selwyn Duke has published several articles on this topic and they make an important point; namely, that the idea of "hate crimes" puts us on a slippery slope that will eventually rob us of freedom of speech as we weigh people's actions in light of what is "politically correct" at any given moment, rather than simply what is legal/illegal.
Obviously the "right" to do something isn't equivalent to condoning it. Although I don't condone in any fashion the KKK, they have the right to express their views publically and march through the projects of Detroit or Chicago should they have a hankering for severe bodily injury or death. The Nazis likewise have a right to parade through a Jewish neighborhood. Muslims have a right to parade through christian neighborhoods and vice-versa. War protesters have a right to picket outside military funerals.
I remain a firm believer that we should punish people for actions, not thoughts. The idea of adding some type of punishment factor on top of murder charges because it was done in "hate" opens up a Pandora's Box. What about the abusive husband who kills his wife? Should his punishment be less severe than if we could somehow categorically show that he harbored hatred against all females - not just his wife? The only distinction that should be made in my opinion is between intentional and unintentional - manslaughter versus murder. Other crimes can vary in severity and the punishment can be meted out accordingly, but trying to ascertain the degree of "hate" that motivated a crime and punishing based on the ideology one holds is very dangerous. This is why the Bible has one punishment for murder, not dozens based on "severity" "ideology" and "motive."
Duke has already given examples in other columns of the extremes to which these hate crime laws will be taken, abridging freedom of speech. Pastors are already being prosecuted in Canada and Sweden for speaking out against things they consider to be sexual perversion (homosexuality) and with our increasing fascination as a nation with becoming part of the "global community" in terms of laws and morals, it won't be long before we see such situations arise with our own hate crime laws.
It isn't a stretch to imagine any of the following eventually:
- Those who vocally criticize global warming hype will be accused of hating science and hating the earth. If they break the law in a protest, they would be punished more severely than, say, an anti-war protester.
- Those who oppose affirmative action will be accused of racial hatred. Let's say they deny a job or college placement to someone who they genuninely believe to be lesser qualified than other applicants. They are sued and they lose. The damages become greater and more punitive because an attorney shows the motive was "hate."
- Those who oppose abortion will be accused of hating women. If they break the law in one of their protests, they would be punished more severely than, say, an anti-war protester who was "hating the right things" (i.e., hating war).
Comment by nevadamistermom | February 22, 2007
"Katzen", et al:
"Should it (the American Nazi Party) not be able to (parade through a Jewish neighborhood)?"
According to the apparent logic of the proponents of hate speech laws, they wouldn't. The courts have held that a demonstration, parade, etc. are a type of speech. However, a hate speech law would render the parade illegal. No?
Comment by sedonaman | February 22, 2007
"nevadamistermom":
It isn’t a stretch to imagine the installation of a camera in every room in the country to enforce such laws.
Comment by sedonaman | February 22, 2007
Sedonaman,
I don't know if there are "hate speech" laws on the book in this country yet, but it seems like their are those who are actively pressing for such censorship. Even without "hate speech" laws, the general idea of "hate crimes" basically establishes a link between what one thinks/says and what one does that creates a very, very slippery slope.
At present, however, I'm not aware that there are laws banning "hate speech" - only "hate actions."
Mountain Man pointed out quite rightly that the emotional state of a perpetrator can have a bearing on the punishment, such as "aggravated" assault. But this is different than the concept of "hate crime." I see no reason to need to make certain actions more "heinous" because they were done purely out of spite or hate. It makes little difference to the victim if he/she was randomly singled out for a mugging because they were simply carrying money on their person, or if they were singled out because of their ethnicity/beliefs. They still carry the same broken bones and bruises. They still lie in the same grave.
Comment by nevadamistermom | February 22, 2007
Sedonaman,
I misinterpreted your first post as ironically lamenting the Nazis' current freedom. Yes, a hate speech law may indeed render the parade illegal.
Comment by Katzen | February 23, 2007
There's a parallel between preemptive strikes and laws against thought crimes in that both seek to preempt attacks. This is what we get after embracing the Iraq War…
I'm all for banning porn and drugs at local gas stations and prostitution on the streets. However, thought crimes are not a traditional way of legislating morality.
I dunno the arguments behind allowing Nazis to parade, but I wouldn't want anyone parading in my neighborhood. Can't they express their views in some other fashion?
Comment by Frank | February 25, 2007
With all the obvious intelligence written here, can noone see the big picture. Liberals are using "GAY" rights as the tool to destroy the institution of religion in the United States. They are going to do this in two parts. Their first goal is get the same minority status for homosexuals ( a sexual preferance), that exist for blacks and hispanics. This is going to protect them under affirmitive action. Then they will use existing "Hate Crimes" legislation to show that religious leaders (pastors, ministers, etc.) are discriminating against a protected minority. Heaven forbid they would ever get a "Hate Speach" law on the books. Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this.
Comment by detn8or69 | March 5, 2007