by Klaus Rohrich
april 1, 2004
Human nature is funny. We can love, laugh, cry and hate, and do so without rhyme or reason. Yet finally the government has gotten around to legislating some of these emotions.
I am talking about the plethora of hate crime legislation that is currently being enacted in an effort to make sure that we all learn to play nice. So, if you kill someone during a robbery, you get life. But if you kill someone because he or she is Polish, then it’s considered a hate crime and you get life-plus.
It’s frankly confusing. Does the victim of a hate crime hurt more than the victim of a common assault. Is a dead robbery victim less dead than the person who became a corpse because of his skin colour? In Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, Shylock asks, after stating that he is a Jew: "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?". Indeed, these are valid questions. But, here’s one even more valid: Does this not apply to everyone in the same way?
It’s curious how in our cosmopolitan society we have softened our approach to violent crime, meaning that a "life sentence" can amount to as little as 15 years of incarceration. There are even people that have been let out on parole after serving a portion of their "life" sentence only to kill again. Yet those who commit a crime out of blind hatred for groups of others, be they gays, people of other races or other nationalities, are somehow held more accountable and punished more than those who commit crimes because they don’t give a damn or they enjoy the act.
What’s more, the term "hate crime" only seems to apply to crimes against minorities, which are committed by WaSPs. Don’t believe me? When is the last time a Muslim was prosecuted in Canada because of a blood libel or a call to kill all Jews? Instead of cracking down on this type of drivel, our government seems to justify and encourage it through "root causes", such as the plight of the Palestinians.
Do the police prosecute gang members who kill one another under the hate crimes legislation? Surely the Crips and the Bloods hate each other enough and kill and maim each other enough to qualify. Yet, they are barely prosecuted at all, as their apparent community solidarity proscribes sharing eyewitness accounts with police. Isn’t that a hate crime because they hate the cops?
Moving from the ridiculous to the sublime in the realm of hate crimes legislation is the private member’s bill introduced into Parliament last session by Svend Robinson that would make slagging gay people a criminal offense. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"? I guess in this era of celebrating victimhood, words have become as harmful and damaging as those sticks and stones.
I’ve always believed that the concept of human rights was limited to just a few, as in the right to pursue a peaceful life, the right to free speech and assembly, the right to have one’s property protected under the law and especially the right to enjoy one’s religious beliefs. The bill is now back before the house and it appears it will become law. Thanks to Mr. Robinson’s legislation, the freedom of religion would be superceded by the freedom to enjoy one’s gayness. anyone who viewed being gay as an "abomination under God" would be guilty of a hate crime. as all three of the world’s major religions officially view being gay in an unfavourable light, the majority of the people of Canada could theoretically be held guilty of a hate crime (unless, of course, they were members of the United Church of Canada).
Even more sublime is the movement now forming to protect obese people from so-called hate speech. Calling someone "fatso" could become a criminal offense punishable by a stint in the slammer. Never mind that obesity, like smoking, is a lifestyle-related affliction, which could be remedied through the exercise of a little will power. But then, again, we are all vicitms and fat people are victims of the fast-food industry and they should not be held accountable because they can’t help themselves. Hence referring to their "affliction" in derogatory terms could qualify as a hate crime.
What seems to be an emerging trend here is Boutiquecrime©, where criminal acts do not apply equally to all members of society. Rather, they are applied on an ad hominem basis, meaning that the concept of crime is sublimated to suit societal evolution. This of course is in keeping with the concept that there are no absolutes, just infinite shades of gray, each of which in need of its own interpretation.
Right and wrong have become antique concepts, only applicable to religious squids and dinosaurs. If there is any doubt of this, refer back to how we punish criminals. Our penal system is no longer "penal" in nature. We do not "punish" convicted felons by incarcerating them. We attempt to rehabilitate them.
However, when it comes to hate crimes, we are definitely into punishment, which I believe is a dangerous trend, as it sends the message that similar crimes commited under different mindsets do not warrant similar punishment. What’s more, in defining words spoken as a criminal act, we all risk losing one of life’s most basic human rights, that of freedom of speech.