Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Who is the protected class?

Jill (J.R.) Labbe of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Texas) was literally whining about introduced "hate crime legislation." And opined the hypothetical that if her son was killed in a robbery would he be any less dead than someone who had died for other reasons? Then goes on to opine that no one should be considered a "protected class." Basically, that we should all be equal under the law. If that is so, then what of making:
  • Fetuses as the protected class. Anti-abortionists try to ban various abortion procedures as well as opposing any and all birth control measures. The fetus is already regarded as worth far more to society than the woman herself. Worth far more than born children seem to be.
  • Christians as a protected class. Christians want to push the bible on everything, putting up the 10 commandments in every possible public place. But what about non-Christians, agnostics and atheists having an equal say in what they believe or don't believe.
  • White males as a protected class. Starting in the 1980s while Ronald Reagan was president, there were a series of court challenges against Equal Employment Opportunity laws; laws intended to guarantee the right of minorities to enter the work force. The challenges to the law, were much like Labbe's and Bush's challenges to hate crime legislation; "equal opportunity" should apply to white males. Never mind that the original intent of the law was to give equal opportunities in employment as well as in education to people who originally did not have it.

Then we have the next trotting out of a "terrorist cell" who with little training and openly firing assault weapons at a gun range, wanted copies of a self-video of their activities. They went to "Circuit City" to have a copy of a DVD that included among other alleged statements: God is great and that they wanted to kill as many soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey as they could. The "Circuit City" clerk then notified the FBI as to what was found on the DVD. But on an idea alone, instead of an after-the-fact arresting of these men for actual murder, was this "terrorist plot" foiled. And this time, it might have been the real thing. Because this time, the information came from a fellow who feared the worst if he did not act. But isn't hate the prime motivator of terrorist acts? If GW vetoes "hate crime legislation" doesn't he simply undermine an effective tool for a continuing war on terror? Terrorism as a result of hate was the prime motivator for opposing the Aryan Nations here in Idaho and setting in motion the first ever hate crimes legislation.

But then, there may be another reason for why GW doesn't want "hate crimes legislation" federalized. His own background. Kitty Kelly had a lot to say about Bush's background that showed him to be less than a civil and decent fellow. Plus, "hate crimes legislation" might just move into the "protected class" Muslims who are the current boogie men in the war on terror. They could then challenge the federal government itself for "hate crimes" against their communities where members of their communities were arrested, detained for questioning, potentially tortured, and deported. All on the claim, not proven of terrorist connections.

How about business interests being more protected than the average consumer? Such as major tax cuts for multi-billion dollar businesses? Give aways for oil and energy companies even as they rake the consumers over the coals with ever increasing gas and energy prices. Or for that matter, job sell offs to foreign countries where labor is cheap. Or invitations to foreign labor to come to this country for cheaper labor than Americans would put up with.

So what would make "hate crime" different from an armed robbery gone terribly wrong? You would have to have lived with the threat that the Aryan Nations have posed for a great many years to distinguish the difference between hate crimes and any other. Where the factor is, because you are Jewish, or Gay, African-American, etc. Not because of the stereo equipment found in the house. Nor the cash in the cash register at the local 7-11. When the motivation for killing you, is you; because of who and what you are, that is a hate crime.

By the way, the New Testament has a law against hate crimes. Christ taught his followers that to merely hate one's neighbor is the same as murder. Therefore, the idea is just as punishable before God as is the act. GW Bush is such a Christian and he doesn't know that? Labbe has often pushed a Christian message and she doesn't know that? A shame. Here GW could push what amounts to "biblical" legislation and prefers to veto it instead. And Labbe defends such a veto as "people shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else." Well now, if all people, no matter what, were truly equal before God, as found in the bible, then we probably would not need hate crime legislation. The fact that is not so, means we do need it, very much.

No comments: