Monday, October 26, 2020

Hate Crime Horrors


Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

One of the key elements of a free society is the freedom of each individual to express oneself.  However, there are common-sense limitations to consider when “free speech” affects the safety of individuals. In a society that has morals, values, and principles, it is self-policing; individuals will act within the accepted norm. Unfortunately, the accepted norm has been subjected to relativism, it is super elastic as anything goes. What is the solution? More laws to curb the problem; but are such laws truly applied in an equal manner?

When certain groups perceive special privileges and the legislators change or add laws to fit a perceived special right, we are entering the realm of tyranny. These are tough words, and it is necessary to explain the real horrors of Political Correctness (PeeCee) — the resulting laws that make certain thoughts a crime. Orwell was just a few years off.

The issue to tackle is “Hate Crimes.” If a person commits a physical crime or even just “hate speech” against a person, the perpetrator knows that he or she may serve time if convicted for the act. However, such a person might reconsider when facing stiffer sentencing if the act is a “Hate Crime.” As an example, a person who does not practice sodomy harms a person that performs such acts. He or she goes to jail for the act and the thought (“Hate Crime”). If the reverse occurs and the person who engages in sodomy harms a person who is “straight,” will the sodomite be subject to the same sentencing? We know the answer to that question.

The “Hate Crime” laws on the federal and local levels are nothing more than draconian punishment for not being PeeCee. Some people will snicker at the notion that PeeCee connects to hate crime laws. If you are a new Frederick R Smith Speaks reader and chuckling, then may I suggest that you reconsider? This is a serious business, as any special interest group can and will be successful in getting what they want. There are some immensely powerful groups, no matter how microscopic in relation to the general population, who have gotten and will continue to get their way. Example: 2020 riot age. These people (through their special interest organs) have some immensely powerful allies on their side such as the mainstream media, academia, legal eagles, and legislators. This is dangerous stuff my friends, but most people simply buy into the endless mantra about tolerance and inclusiveness.

How about pedophilia as the next right? As crazy as this may sound, there have been some very influential people who are making the pitch to legitimize this activity. If one believes in moral relativism, this is the logical step, as one must ask where does the elasticity of morality end? For further proof, just think about the trash promoted on television today as compared to say thirty years ago. Monogamous heterosexual relationships face mockery while Hollywood spends immeasurable energy to promote all other types of “relationships.” And the people shell out money to watch movies that glorify debauchery and sodomy. Entertainment that focuses on traditional values fails. But one must ask; does Hollywood spend as much on advertising for wholesome flicks as it does for the putrid ones? While some say that the open promotion of debauchery is like “farting in the wind” with respect to our downfall, I respectfully say otherwise. Acceptance of debauchery in the media is tantamount to death by entertainment.

Senators and Representatives (regardless of party) are pushing more federal “Hate Crimes” legislation. If this occurs from the federal side, we have completely lost any semblance of a local authority. The best people to deal with local crimes are the local professionals and local citizenry (juries). Centralization simply does not work, and it never will. While more Federal Hate Crime laws are on the horizon, there are malignant polyps that have cropped up locally and statewide. For example, back in 2002, Pennsylvania enacted legislation that encourages a pro-sodomy person to report a preacher who may be citing Biblical passages condemning unnatural sexual practices.

While such legislation applies to “hate” and attached physical crimes, we must ask what the thresholds are. What is hate? It is easy to see that we are on a profusely well-lubricated slippery slope. Specifically, not only do we need to worry about an elastic definition of “hate” but also rest assured that these draconian laws will in time apply only to “hate” (no physical violence).

The PeeCee crowd is quick to link the entire conservative movement whenever somebody commits violence against a pro-debauchery person. [1] Even though that person may be on the fringe, we hear the news organ gush forth the mantra of “conservatives fomenting the violence.”  Soon (if not now) we will be experiencing the Orwellian controls on the freedom of expression because certain speech alone will be a crime.

It gets even worse because only certain forms of thought/violence are “Hate Crimes.” A quintessential example is the establishment’s penchant for sweeping crimes committed by environmentalists under the rug. There have been many crimes committed by the leftist group called Earth Liberation Front (ELF). However, when was the last time we heard the mainstream debasing the entire environmental movement? Rest assured if a “conservative” committed an act of violence the entire conservative movement would somehow be targeted.

The media is quick to make the pitch that opposition to sodomy and debauchery by conservatives and religious believers creates the climate for these hate-filled crimes. Does the media do the same with respect to the extreme policies of some of the mainline environmental groups that may have “created the climate” (no pun intended).  Along with the burning of businesses, the ELF is known to have “spiked” trees, which can be deadly to loggers. With respect to the environmental movement, in general, being willing promoters of the ELF, I do not think so. Just as I do not think so on the other end of the spectrum. As the conservative movement should not blame Al Gore for Ted Kaczynski’s actions (Gore’s book “Earth in the Balance” was among Kaczynski’s possessions), the mainstream should not link the “climate of hate” to conservatives.  Nevertheless, we must not forget there are crazies on both ends of the spectrum. Violence committed by the overly zealous anti-abortion types and the extreme environmentalists is both inexcusable.

The media has been predictably lopsided in their coverage of the violent environmentalists vs. the “right-wingers.” The proof is in the pudding as it is easy to find people who consider “right-wing Christians” to be scary or “dangerous.” How many people think environmentalists are scary? For me, I would feel a lot safer in a neighborhood of conservative Christians vs. an enclave of ELF people.

Hopefully, the above illustrates that “Hate Crime” designations can be dangerous principally due to moral relativism.

Note:

  1. To be fair and honest, conservative/right and liberal/left people must avoid the broad-brush tactic.

###

Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Editor, Sean Tinney

Fred Smith’s clipped news items

Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

    Recommend (serious) Humor
    Recommended Videos (all top shelf)

    Posted by at
    Labels:

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)