The Specter of Political Crime
When it comes to political crime, a fundamental difference has existed for long centuries between English-speaking societies and others. The former would never countenance the very concept; the latter were unable to function without it.
But now, as with so many new policies this nation would never knowingly tolerate, a backdoor has been created through which to introduce that most un-American of institutions: The Political Crime.
It masquerades under the label: "hate crime." President Clinton spent the entire Monday, November 10, at George Washington University discussing it with interested groups.
The very appellation "hate crime" flies in the face of reason because at the moment of inflicting injury, torture or committing murder, all perpetrators hate their victim. The resulting harm, in any event, is independent of motive.
Our laws are supposed to (and do) protect all members of society from harm, and punish the offender. The tradition of depicting the goddess of law wearing a blindfold emphasizes the need to apply the law without regard to the perpetrator or to the victim.
Hate crime takes off the blindfold. The new goddess wants to see who is doing the beating up, the burning down, the killing. The punishment will then be assessed based not just on the harm inflicted, but on the "collective history" of all people to whom the perpetrator and the victim may bear resemblance.
The collective history so applied is not based on actual events, but on prototypes manufactured in assorted university departments of history. According to these, white people are bad, non-white people are good. Men are bad, women are good. Christians are bad, non-Christians are good. Anglos are bad, Hispanics are good. Heterosexuals are bad, homosexuals are good.
Footnote: Those designated as "good" become "bad" if they happen to be Republican, or Conservative, or simply refuse to see themselves as members of their "community."
If bad people cause harm to good people, a hate crime has been committed. If good people cause harm to bad people, they may have acted on "justifiable rage."
The current, progressive destruction of the world's best legal system does not stop here. A charge of "hate crime" does not require that actual harm occur. Mere words - intentional or inadvertent - suffice for legal proceedings to commence. The designation then becomes "hate speech."
And that is where we are crossing inexorably into the realm of political crime.
Opinions and sentiments are expressed through words. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor those elected pursuant to its articles have the authority either to permit or to forbid opinions and sentiments - or their expression. If nonetheless such authority is claimed, its basis is temporary political power. The rule of law, as opposed to the rule of men, was established here precisely to prevent the possessors of political power from exercising such authority over our minds.
Once words, and the thoughts they reflect, are subject to retribution, we are no longer entitled to the description "free society." The concept of a free society is predicated on the absence of any restriction on thoughts and words. Thomas Jefferson thought so, if we are to believe the words carved on the Jefferson Memorial.
(At this point those at odds with the U.S. Constitution habitually make the case against free speech by bringing up the example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. As other arguments of similar pedigree, it has no relevance to the present discussion.)
In less happy lands, people ended up in detention camps, prisons and the gulag for holding opinions and speaking words that the rulers of the day considered undesirable, which is the definition of political crime. It is utterly irrelevant for what reason opinions and statements are held to be undesirable. If rulers have the authority to make that determination and follow it with punishment, they have in fact established the legitimacy of political crime.
And yet, opponents of the Constitution will beat their chests and proclaim that their concepts of hate crime and hate speech are entirely different because they spring forth from the goodness of their heart. They are intended to shield the weak from the aggression of the strong, and further to civilize society in general.
The evidence is that hate speech directed against those designated "bad" is freely available to all those designated as "good." Apparently, there is no limit to the open incitement against white Americans and men. The evidence may be viewed every night on television, heard on compact discs, or over the radio while riding in a D.C. taxicab.
But most alarming has been the tone Democrat politicians have permitted themselves since the 1992 presidential campaign. Most alarming because, apparently, those on the "politically correct" side are exempt from the designation "bad," with the result that even some white males are allowed to engage in hate speech without incurring a charge of hate crime.
When the commission of a crime depends on the perpetrator's political position, the concept of a political crime has been accepted by society.
And that is the beginning of the end.