I emailed this story to some of you. For those who haven't heard of this, brace yourselves: it's quite shocking. (Read about it here.)
So you probably never heard of this story. Wonder why? Well, it wasn't because the great civil rights defenders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were raising a ruckus to make this case known. Oh no. These two were up in arms about Don Imus calling some young ladies "nappy-headed hoes," a comment that actually hurt no one. But two white people get raped, tortured, murdered, and mutilated by five black people and these two shysters disappear. Civil rights? Not for Channon and Christopher.
Because there was no public outcry, it seems that "hate crime" charges will not be filed in this case.
"Hate crime" itself is a dangerous concept. Why? Because it is quite speculative. Case one: a black man murders a white man. Case two: a black man murders a white man. What makes one a hate crime and the other a love crime? Exactly -- you laugh because it's ridiculous. The reason you commit a crime is because you don't love. So then, by definition, isn't every crime a hate crime? I understand the intent of the "hate crime" laws -- to protect the minority and persecuted in society, and to prevent retaliation. But when the "hate crime" label fails to be applied evenly across the board -- as in the case of Channon and Christopher -- then we ought to question either 1) the nature of "hate crime" itself, or 2) how we determine "hate crime." I hope that neither is ever determined by the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Well said. Why not call it what it is? A Race-Crime! Perhaps that would lead one to think of NASCAR... what if we just called the so-called 'hate crimes' something with a more lasting impact - "Crime(s) against Culture." Not only would that include the now-labeled hate craimes, but we can initiate and combine an actual Fashion police, and have such violations tagged as 'crimes against culture.'
Post a Comment