it's about fairness, isn't it?

I understand the sentiment behind hate crimes legislation: I understand the well-meaning people who want to end the continuation of hate crimes

I understand the seeming high-minded and noble belief that we, as a society, must combat despicable human attitudes like racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia.

I understand.

Yet I cannot support hate crime legislation, despite the good intentions behind it.

Despite the good intentions, the "noble" idea of enacting hate crimes legislation, I believe the end result is not a solution of discrimination but rather a perpetuation of discrimination.

The most noblest, high-minded ideals, when enacted and legislated, can result in evil.

------------

Now, it is not evil to combat racism and unfair discrimination.

I remember reading a counter-protest in Austin, TX against a Neo-Nazi Rally that far outnumbered the Nazis themselves; some 20 Nazis vs some several thousand counter-protesters.

What I like about that instance was the protests highlighted the mass opposition to the debunk ideology of Nazism and white supremacy by exercising their right of assembly, their right of free speech, and their right of protest.  The counter-protest voiced its opposition to the racist wet dream of stripping the innate rights away from minorities (religious, sexual, racial, ethnic minorities).

And yet, despite the media narrative of" good counter-protesters fight the evil Nazis", we have to keep in mind that many of the protesters, while good-hearted, did not protest and voice their opinions against the Neo-Nazi's belief system, but rather the fact the Nazis were holding a rally in the steps of the state Capitol.

I agree that the scene of Nazis, in their quaint brown-shirts and flying the swastika on the steps of my state's Capitol is repulsive.  But despite their flaws, these people are humans, and have the right to rally, not just in the state Capitol, but any where that other interest groups hold their rallies and marches.  Free speech is an innate, unalienable human right.  But this right applies to all people, even those we disagree with.

We cannot be hypocritical and agitate to restrict the speech of those who want to do the same to others.  Why stoop to their level?

----

The crux of my argument is that if we expect the majority to respect and tolerate the minority, then the minority and its supporters can not then ask for preferential treatment and protection from the government.  If the goal of the civil rights movement was to demand the equal protection of all citizens under the law, any hate crimes legislation is anathema to the ideals of civil rights.

I am of the opinion that the way our justice system should enforce criminal law is if someone commits the crime, not why they committed the crime.

If I assaulted a Mexican guy, I would be naturally charged with assault and be tried for that crime.  It should not matter if I assaulted the person because I though he was a dick or if he ran over my dog, assault is assault and the crime was committed regardless of rationale.

On the other hand, I assaulted that same guy, and if I was White, then I would not only be charged with assault, but also of suspicion of committing a hate crime against a minority.  Right there and then, there's a suspicion of committing another crime, even if I had the assault had nothing to do with the race of the assaulted individual.  Such legislation would adversely affect the presumption of innocence on the part of the individual who had committed a crime against the affected minority.

Following up on my example, even if a white person assaulted the Mexican guy out of racial animosity, then it should not matter  the rationale for the assault.  The person who has committed a crime should only be tried for the crime.  Nothing else, nothing more.

Oddly, enacting hate crimes legislation would bolster hatred by some members of the majority towards minority groups.  If there is the sense that the majority is purposely prosecuted for crimes against a minority, even as crimes against the majority by minorities are treated by the justice system in a completely different manner, then it should not surprise anyone that animosity against the minority group will rise.

Ironically, hate crimes legislation will simply fuel the fires of bigotry.

The intentions of the supporters of hate crimes legislation are not rooted in evil or malice.  I just think that if we are serious in achieving true equal rights for racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities, then the goal is to eliminate laws that discriminate (e.g. drug laws, same-sex marriage laws, religious laws) against minority groups and achieve true equal protection under the law.

sickening support for sterilization

A few weeks ago a story emerged that a Massachusetts woman, who was both a mother of nine children and was receiving welfare, was accidentally sterilized after requesting a contraception to be inserted to prevent any future unwanted pregnancies. You can read up on this story here:  http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mother-sterilized-lawsuit-claims/story?id=9474471

I will not comment on the litigation filed against the doctors who either botched the operation or purposely sterilized her.  No, I will write about the many people who have thrown their support to the doctors who sterilized the woman.  These people tend to pop up in comment threads on various news sites praising the medical mishap of the operation and moralizing against having 9 children while on welfare.

Now, before I go on, let me be clear that I have nothing against the notion of personal responsibility and I have nothing against saying that this woman should have been more careful as to protect herself from getting pregnant.  Birth control is readily available and cheap to buy, especially in comparison to the money to raise a kid.  There was no reason for this woman to get pregnant and give birth nine times.

That being said, my opposition is to those people in support of sterilizing this woman.

I might be someone on the fringe of society for saying this, but who has ownership of your body?  Society?  Institutions such as religion or governments?  Your spouse or family?  I'd figure most people would unequivocally say that the only person who has ownership over your body is you.  You have absolutely zero right to tell someone what they can do over their own body.  If society was to demand that you be sterilized, would you agree to this demand and peacefully comply?

You may counter,"this woman was getting welfare!  If she is accepting the public dole, then society has the right to demand a change in her lifestyle...or enforce it upon her."

On an emotional and visceral level, this may make sense.  This course of action feels right.  But it is not if something feels right, it's if that something is an anathema to the purpose of governmental institutions and is an inherent contradiction to highest ideals our society is built upon.

What do I mean by this?

The main argument that the supporters of the doctors who sterilized this woman point to the fact she gets welfare as proof that this woman was irresponsible and thus deserving of her misfortune.  This argument falls apart when you consider how much taxpayer money is drained up to support everyday activities that take a larger chunk of taxes than an irresponsible woman.  Our society is in love with automobiles and our highway system.  Tens of million of dollars are spent on the building of new roads and buying new cars...but also clearing up the mess when accidents occur.  Tens of thousands of people die every year on motorways.  Thousands more are injured and disabled permanently as a result.  The deaths and disability of thousands of people each year means that the productivity of these people they would have done during their lifetime is erased.  The cost to emergency responders to the wreckage of accident scenes is in the millions of dollars.  The societal costs of automobiles exceed the cost of welfare queens.

If it is okay to sterilize a woman because she got pregnant 9 times, then it follows that cars should be banned.  It's an idiotic line of reasoning, but if the infringing of a woman's right over her body is perfectly acceptable to save society money, then the banning of automobiles to all will also do the trick, right?

Same thing with alcohol: the societal and economic costs of alcoholism, liver disease, and drunk driving exceed that of welfare queens.  But no one in their right minds will respond to these costs by pushing forward another era of Prohibition.  But why not prohibition when it's okay to sterilize a woman against her will?

What I'm trying to get at is that when we pay taxes, we are already paying for other people's mistakes and fuck ups.  When we fund welfare, we ideally hope that we will support people who are down-in-there-luck.  But there are the people who exploit and leach off the system.  Likewise, we fund our fire departments and police force to not only protect the community, but to protect the community from the idiocy and mistakes of people in that community.

No matter what you may want and feel that you need, tax money will be used to fill in the costs caused by idiots and people who are socially irresponsible.  To try to infringe on the civil liberties of a person because you want to save a dime is akin to torturing people to prevent a crime.  It may "feel" right, but it is something easily said by people who cannot realize they will fuck up and leach off the system as well.

Civil Liberties are another part of this story.  I will not dwell on this too much, but I will say that I am someone who is pro-choice.  I feel that a woman has the right to end a pregnancy.  A woman has the right to her body, after all.  If a woman has the right to her body, she has the right as well to have as many kids as she wants.

You can't pick and chose what civil liberties you want to fight for and which ones you want to dismiss and ignore.  It's all or nothing.