Daily Archives: October 21, 2009

 According to Pravda’s Herb Silverman there’s really nothing to see here, Move along now everyone.

Q: Congress is expected to expand federal hate crimes laws to add “sexual orientation” to a list that already includes “race, color, religion or national origin.” Is this necessary? Should there be special laws against crimes motivated by intolerance, bigotry and hatred? Isn’t a crime a crime?
Some cultures discourage women from smoking, and may even punish them severely. I agree that women should be strongly discouraged from smoking. The difference is that I would discourage women and men equally.”

So bashing someone’s head in is just like smoking.


“By the same token, I think crimes motivated by hatred of the victim’s sexual orientation should be treated no differently than crimes motivated by rage or anything else. I don’t want to hold the accused guilty of having an opinion, in addition to the crime committed, because even a reprehensible criminal deserves a free speech right to express an opinion.”

See? Those guys in the video were simply excercising their free speech rights.

“We have the right to hate, but not to commit crimes.”

And this “right to hate” trumps any sentencing consideration, right?

“A crime is a crime, regardless of the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. A murdered white heterosexual male is no less dead than an Hispanic, gay Christian. Suppose three murders occur: one for money, another out of jealousy, and a third because the victim is a black, gay Wiccan. If the first two murderers are sentenced to 20 years in prison and the third is sentenced to 30 years, would the families of the victims in the first two cases feel they had received equal justice under the law?”

The families of the victim are of course only part of it. Such crimes are committed to terroize the groups to which the particular victim belongs.

And of course since you’re not gay you don’t give a shit.

Unlike this gentleman —

“I think criminal penalties should be based more on deterrence than on retribution. My opposition to the death
I’m somewhat conflicted over this issue, because I certainly support laws that prohibit acts of discrimination. A hotel owner should not be allowed to deny accommodation to African-Americans, gays, or women, even if the owner claims it is against his religious beliefs to associate with such people. The more serious problem in criminal cases, I think, is that race, color, religion, or sexual orientation of the participants may sway the jury. For example, an atheist who refuses to swear an oath with his hand on the Bible, and states his legal preference to simply affirm, would undoubtedly prejudice some on the jury. Or, more accurately, the jury likely would act on its prejudices.”

MY what an outre “example” you have to reach for — when gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders are beaten and murdered every day of the week.







And you’re exceedingly put out by anyone who thinks you ought to.

“I don’t see what we can do about such legal injustices, other than use our free speech rights to dissuade those who discriminate. We would all be better served if they turned their hatred toward a more loving orientation.”

Words fail.

Sing us out Adam.