"The crimes that took place have absolutely nothing to do with the content of the hate crimes bill, which only really is focusing on the special treatment and special privileges of protection to be granted to people because of their homosexuality or transsexual status," [Dacus] contends.Actually, the hate crimes bill accomplishes nothing remotely close to anything in that statement. Being that it is a hate crimes bill, you would have to commit a crime to be affected by it, and generally "legitimate, peaceful opposition" doesn't qualify. The bill also refers specifically to violent crime - it's not about bias-motivated tax fraud or anti-gay jaywalking - and it specifically excludes any "exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech" so again, any type of genuinely "peaceful opposition" would not be impacted by this bill at all. And last time I checked, committing an act of violence against someone because you have issues with their sexual orientation or gender identity was not remotely legitimate or peaceful.
Dacus adds that "the bill is not about providing equal treatment -- it's providing unequal treatment," which he believes is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
"The hate crimes bill accomplishes nothing except to intimidate and silence legitimate, peaceful opposition to the never-ending demands of the gay and transsexual activists," he concludes.
I do have to agree with him on one point though - those wacky LGBT activists are really out of control, always making their outrageous demands for things like equal rights.
You really have to wonder sometimes. If people like Brad Dacus are so completely sure that they're right about bills like this one, then why can't they ever put forth a counter-argument that's based on what the bill actually says rather than on deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation and just outright making shit up? It's pretty hard to have any respect at all for a "legitimate opposition" that is based on nothing but fear and lies.
1 comment:
So, if I've got it right, this bill just provides permission for the justice dep to intervene in these cases when the mood happens to strike? Is that right? What sort of results are expected to come from this? Do the motivations behind people's committing of hate crimes really pivot around the degrees of legality? Or severity of punishments?
Or am I just confused in thinking the purpose of the bill is to prevent and reduce these crimes, rather than just helping us to 'get even' w/ the perpetrators?
Post a Comment