What does that even mean? You need to check your line of reasoning! Since when does the “why” matter in prosecution. I understand these people were picked out because of their race/religion/sexual preferences, but does that make their beating or murder any worse than someone who was beat or murdered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? If I, as a white Christian straight male, am assaulted by another white person for no reason, does that make me less assaulted than someone who is assaulted because of their race or sexual preference? No, and if any of you say yes, then you yourself are more of a bigot than any those dastardly nasty Republicans.

“Please don’t reply to Sojurn. She/he is a troll who has been banned.”

But…but…but…sojourn is a human piñata. It would be a crime against nature not to give him/her a good whacking…

OK, fine. *pouts*

What’s this article about anyway? Oh yes, the AG is stating the bloody obvious. Unfortunately, he’s fighting an uphill battle to convince some people of the necessity for expanding existing hate crime legislation. On the one hand there is the very real argument “isn’t all violent crime a hate crime”, and those who make this argument have a point.

The difference is in mens rea – the criminal thought, what the criminal had in their mind at the time of the crime. If their intention is to commit a crime in furtherance of their hatred or bigotry towards a group of people, they should receive an enhanced prison sentence as a result. As far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter if that group of people are black, white, straight, gay, Christian or atheist. Hate crime legislation should be expanded to offer protection against bigotry to everyone.

Why? Because while prejudice against Christians is far less common in America than prejudice against gays, it happens, and if we believe that discrimination against gays is wrong we have to accept that discrimination against Christians is also wrong. And if someone attacks me because I’m gay, because they hate gays, I see little difference if someone else attacks a person because they’re Christian.

So expand hate crime legislation to cover everyone, and if it can be shown that a person committed a crime in furtherance of a prejudice towards a group of people, they will receive an enhanced sentence. This also removes the ammunition some groups have for arguing that gays should not be a protected group, and in a sense they’re right. If we really want equality, why should we have special protections under the law? Why should a crime against one of us be treated any more seriously than a crime against one of them? Expand hate crime legislation to cover ALL crimes motivated by prejudice, we will still get the same benefit from it, we won’t be singled out as a “special case”, those opposed to such legislation will have less ammunition to argue against it and everyone’s happy.

Problem solved…until someone comes along and points out a crucial flaw in my logic…

“Some are protected groups and get special protection under this law.” So me wanting a law to deter people from beating me to a pulp for being gay is considered special protection?

“A Crime is a Crime. It is wrong. Just like Homosexuality is WRONG.”

Except homosexuality is not a crime. It pleases me that fact keeps you awake at night.

Please don’t reply to Sojurn. She/he is a troll who has been banned.

James