 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A young student at a Western college is brutally beaten, tied to a fence, and left in a coma. A short time later, he dies in a hospital.
In the Deep South, a man is dragged behind a car by strangers. He suffers unspeakable, fatal injuries.
Here are two instances of arguably the worst crime one human being can commit against another: murder. The intentional taking of an individual life. Coercion at its most naked.
Any decent person would find such actions abhorrent and despicable and applaud conviction of the perpetrators on first degree murder charges.
What made the above cases notorious, however, was less the unmistakable brutality of the crimes than the groups to which the victims belonged. In the first case, the young man was a homosexual. In the second, the target was black.
For some observers, those designations elevate such assaults on human dignity above mere murder. The murderers should be further punished by being charged with and convicted of "hate crimes."
The call for state and federal laws establishing "hate crimes" grows after each such celebrated incident of depravity. The question remains, however, whether such a move is warranted by the heinous nature of the attacks or whether any such trend in legislation is, in fact, a subversion of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
In one sense, the notion of "hate crimes" is an eerily logical outgrowth of other recent trends in our society. The widespread imposition in our education and business institutions of multiculturalism, speech codes, and sexual harassment laws has paved the way for a receptive evaluation of "hate crime" legislation. To oppose any member of this subversive quartet of involuntary guidelines is to mark you as "insensitive," "homophobic," "racist," "elitist," "sexist"...or worse.
Yet multiculturalism, speech codes, and sexual harassment rules when backed by the force of government each encroaches on our First Amendment right to free expression. The current push for enshrining "hate crimes" into our cultural environment assails that freedom yet again. As with its predecessors, "hate crimes" proponents appeal to collectivist ideals to promote and justify the inroads they are making into our liberty.
For quite some time, multiculturism has been the darling of educators from elementary school through college. Students are encouraged (some might contend, "forced") to celebrate their own ethnic and cultural traditions as well as those of their fellow classmates. No criticism of various less advanced cultures is permitted. Indeed, the more primitive the society, the more it tends to be lauded.
College textbooks in the humanities abound with chapters on "diversity," "intercultural" issues, or "multicultural" studies. Professors push this perspective as a way to make a subject "meaningful" to students...with the unspoken assumption that a mere pursuit of the truth is insufficient as a basis for learning.
With a nod towards Orwell, it rapidly becomes apparent, however, that some cultures are more equal than others. Western civilization is vilified. Its Enlightenment heritage becomes in the minds of the multiculturalists a tool for oppression of women, Blacks, and other minorities. Western heroes such as Christopher Columbus are branded as genocidal mass murderers. Literature, philosophy, and history reveal not glory but the distorted visions of white, European males such as Shakespeare, Aristotle, and George Washington.
In lectures, classroom discussions, and student papers and presentations, certain topics become verboten. A college instructor of my acquaintance confidently and self-righteously declares that her policy is to stop in mid-sentence any student who dares transgress against the standards she has declared acceptable. No exceptions allowed.
Even for professors, research into certain unpopular ideas can result in reprimand, dismissal, or demotion. For example, J. Philippe Rushton (a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario) details in Liberty magazine his ordeal in daring to hypothesize on the possibility of genetic differences among whites, blacks, and orientals on such traits as brain size, maturation, fertility, sexuality, and IQ levels. Unfortunately for him, in Canada there are national "hate crimes" (see footnote) but no First Amendment to which to appeal when being attacked by his critics...and his government.
Working hand-in-hand with this multicultural fervor is the insidious influence of college speech codes. While criticism of "political correctness" has diminished some of the overt posturing by those who would prohibit by proclamation certain words, phrases, or discussions, the power of these closet propagandists continues undiminished.
Indeed, Alan Kors and Harvey Silvergate in their recent book, The Shadow University: The Betrayal of America's Campuses, document just how prevalent and destructive of academic freedom such speech codes are. While on the one hand, such codes declare their adherence to "freedom of expression," on the other hand they prohibit such expression whenever someone finds it "offensive." Even worse, determining when an "offense" occurs is decided by the listener. Not even a feeble attempt is made to establish and abide by an objective set of rules.
As Kors and Silvergate point out, creating "thought crimes" results in self-censorship from fear of arbitrary charges brought by any person or group unhappy with what you believe or say. Power devolves to those unafraid to use it in advancing their political and philosophical agendas. Students or employees can be prosecuted for expressing unpopular opinions or utilizing "unacceptable" language. Sentenced to "sensitivity training" at the risk of their jobs or college careers, such people face the modern equivalent of "brainwashing."
If the "offensive" language you utter is remotely sexual in nature, you can be charged with the crime of "sexual harassment." Indeed, your offense may consist not of words but merely reading "offensive" material (e.g., a man's magazine) or posting "offensive" images (e.g., a scantily clad female). If found guilty, you may be fired, fined, sued...or impeached.
This poisonous atmosphere suffocates freedom and breeds contempt for any view different than that of the politically and culturally connected. The obvious double-standard inherent in calls for making "hate" a crime does not deter those seeking to impose their standards on the rest of us.
Favored groups such as women, blacks, and homosexuals are exempted from any requirements to refrain from "offensive" speech. Men, fundamentalist Christians, whites, or advocates of racial superiority (unless, of course, that idea is championed by blacks) are fair game for any manner of bashing, slurs, or insults. The fact that such "special protection" is an insult to the intellectual ability of selected individuals to withstand the rough-and-tumble of life on or off the campus is excused or ignored.
To extend this dangerous trend to such traditional crimes as physical assault, rape, or murder is a menacing slippery slope. The philosophical or moral thoughts, beliefs, or ideas of a criminal should not enter into any judgment regarding his guilt. Intent or motive is relevant only to the extent of deciding whether the suspect intended or meant to harm another individual or whether it occurred accidentally and peripherally to some other action. To add an additional "penalty" based on one's thoughts is to blur the important line between "saying" and "doing." With the arguable exceptions of libel or slander, speech cannot infringe on your rights. Only physical action on the part of another person can cross that invisible line.
As with its predecessors of multiculturism, speech codes, and sexual harassment, "hate crimes" violate equality before the law. By preferentially denoting some groups as covered under the law and excluding others, such laws demonstrate their collectivist underpinnings. By what logic is the murder of blacks, gays, or Jews somehow worse than the murder of atheists, libertarians, or businessmen? Because the former are "involuntary" groups and the later chosen? Then what of the murder of children, the elderly, or women? Are some groups "worth more" than others?
Proponents of "hate laws" imply that those who oppose them somehow condone hatred. This is as illogical as stating that those who reject government run education therefore are "against" education. The danger is that one day, as in Canada, a citizen of the United States may find himself an imprisoned felon merely for "hating" the wrong person or thing.
To fight against "hate laws" is not to champion hatred. It is to love freedom and all that it entails.
Footnote:
1. "The New Enemies of Evolutionary Science," J. Philippe Rushton, Liberty, March, 1998. According to Rushton, he was investigated for violating "the federal Criminal Code of Canada, Chapter 46, Section 319, Paragraph 2, which specifies: 'Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.'"
