I was recently asked by my girlfriend about my opinion on a European nation outlawing the wearing of burkhas in public. I responded that this was a typical infringement on individual rights, which is an easy excuse for avoiding the source of the problem.
In frustration with rampant Islamic violence, Europeans will avoid dealing with the source of that violence. Instead, they will set a dress code to somehow alleviate the violence, infringing on individual rights, rather than giving the death penalty to those who terrorize and kill others, thus punishing the guilty.
Americans are as bad or worse. We have "hate crimes" and laws that govern the sobriety of a driver.
Reckless driving is already a crime. When the police proved impotent in stopping reckless driving, then we outlawed the conditions under which a person can operate a vehicle. Then came the rights-bashing organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), whose founder resigned in disgust with the group becoming an alcohol-abolitionist organization. Because this special-interest group believes that people should not drink, they have used drunk-driving legislation to further their goal in stopping drinking. They have lowered the level of alcohol recognized as causing "drunkenness." Now, in some states, the blood-alcohol level is so low that a person can be arrested for having a glass of wine with a meal at a restaurant then driving home. In some places, if a person starts to drive, recognizes he/she is drunk, and pulls over on side of the road to sleep it off, they can be arrested for drunkenly "operating a vehicle" simply because they are sitting behind the wheel!
So a noisy and irritating special-interest group has pressured our "esteemed" government officials into restricting our rights as Americans. I hope their damned kids end up arrested on DUIs if they drive after having one beer. Of course, we will see the double standard if this happens.
Our "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure at a major cost to the taxpayer, and to the benefit of organized crime. Let people live as they wish, and our society will benefit more.
Since the judicial system has failed with ordinary crimes, we now have "hate crimes." Somehow, if it can be determined that a violent crime is done in hate, it is somehow worse than if it is done without hatred. Please show me examples of the many violent crimes that are done where no hatred is involved! What is meant is that it is now illegal for one group of people to hate another group of people. And if a crime can be linked to group hate, the penalty is more harsh. In short, the government has determined the legality of the thoughts of the individual. Crimes are no longer determined merely by the cruelty of the act, but the CRUELTY OF THE INTENT--is this a verifiable criterion, or something to be manipulated by politicians to their arbitrary benefit? Where is our right to free speech when the thoughts of an individual can be determined to be criminal?
If a person hates me because I am a white, conservative, semi-atheistic American, why should I care? No doubt there are many minorities of "color," Christian evangelicals, and others who feel bigoted hatred towards me. If their hatred causes them to do violence against me, are there not already laws in place against such violent acts? If the penalties are not strict enough for "ordinary" crimes, why only raise the penalties for "hate" crimes? Why not across the board?
Of course, since I am not a racial minority, the law will probably not apply to me--white males seem fair game for hatred in our society. So are "hate crimes" not discriminatory against me? If I hate blacks and kill a black person, a gay person, a Muslim, or a Jew, it will be a "hate crime." Would the same apply if I were killed by a bigoted black person? Or do blacks have a right to hate whites? Does the law mean that I will face a stiffer penalty than a minority person for committing the same crime, simply because of my skin color and ethnic origin?
Thinking and dress are not what is criminal--actions are. Let's abolish these special-interest laws that only benefit the few.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, normally I would be on board with these posts. But here is my take on this one. First the Drunk Driving thing. Driving is a privilage, not a right. And like all privilages are governed by those who grant the privilage in the first place. The rules are made as we go. It is ultimately our choice whether or not we wish to continue to play the game. If the laws governing driving do not suit us, then we are in no position to complain as it is not a constitutional right. The M.A.D.D. organization while pressuring the law to abolish drunk driving, can not seriously believe they can stop the consumption of alcohol. They "can" pressure the lawmakers to the extent that it removes more irresponsible drivers from behind the wheel.
ReplyDeleteThe degree of responsibility or degree of drunkeness shouldn't matter. That is like saying that we shouldn't question a guy for wearing a ski mask in a bank. Even if he never intends to rob the bank, he is being irresponsible and creating an unneccesary fear among the other patrons. Drunk drivers scare me. I travel a dangerous stretch of highway on occasion. The highway is two lanes with only a strip painted on the road to separate the oncoming traffic. Along this highway is a bar. There are more people killed on that stretch of highway each year by drunk drivers than any other road in my county. When a person decides to have a drink, no matter how little, and get behind the wheel, they are initiating a gamble. And as all gambles go, some you win, some you lose. Yes it is our "right" to drink as much or as little as we want, but we do not have the "right" to drive. Sober or drunk.
Hate crimes. I think the action of killing a person because you simply don't like the color of their skin or religious beliefs or sexual preference "should" be treated differently. Hitler killed for the same reason. He was called a monster, hunted down, and was sought to be killed for his crimes. What makes him different from a man that kills a cheating wife? The action and end result is the same. Someone dies. Why are the penalties so different? A man that kills out of emotional distress is believe it or not, considered to be normal. We all have a breaking point. It is mostly self preservation that prevents us from killing one another. Not so much conscience. We understand the penalties. For this reason, we do not kill, until we have nothing to lose by doing so. However, a man that kills for pleasure, or predjudices has no remorse, conscience, or concern for his own well being much less anyone else's. No self preservation makes him dangerous. Dangerous and full of hate and predjudice makes him a threat. Since hate fuels rage, and rage fuels violence, you must strike fear of dire consiquence into the root of it all. The hate. Essentially the lawmakers are attemping that very thing. They are trying to scare you out of hating by imposing stricter penalties. A plan that will ultimatley fail, but will curb some less enraged folks from getting to that point. You have to remember that in war, you cannot save every soldier, there will be acceptable losses. Collateral damage is eminent, but there will be some sort of damage control to keep it to a minimum.
When the government hands down these strategies for controlling crime, they understand that it is not a finite solution therefore it is only damage control.
Clarifications:
ReplyDelete1. Regarding your comment "If the laws governing driving do not suit us, then we are in no position to complain as it is not a constitutional right." I must reply first, that free speech is our constitutional right, and with it complaining. Also, we as voters are in a position to change the law, with equal rights of every citizen involved with MADD.
2. I do not favor repealing drunken driving laws, but I do favor a reasonable approach in this. A couple of beers or glasses of wine does not constitute drunkenness.
3. Hate crimes to me are anti-white laws, whereby white heterosexuals get less protection under the law than minorities do. The Jena, Louisiana incident is a prime example of this. Personally, I reserve the right to hate whomever I wish, and I will defend the rights of my enemies in their hatred towards me. The freedom of thought and speech is a basic human right, as described in the Declaration of Independence and detailed in the Bill of Rights.
I was not stating that we have no right to voice our opinions, just stating that we should not feel as if our right to drive is being threatened when it was never a right to begin with.
ReplyDeleteAs for the drunk driving thing.
If you saw me put down a 12 pack in a couple of hours would you let me drive, even though you and I both know it takes way more than that for me to consider myself drunk?
Fact is, it matters not what MADD does to lower the limit or whatever.
There is always a point of responsibility on our part to be safe. I think if you only had one or two beers with lunch, you would not be likely to fail a field sobriety test. The blood alcohol test usually only occurs if there is reasonable cause to suspect you can not drive, or if you have failed the field sobriety test. It is mostly done to document your level of drunkeness after you have been arrested already.
And as far as the hate crimes go, if a man is dragged to death behind a pick up simply because he is black. Does it make his killer any less of a murderer than a serial killer who kills indescriminately? No, but what is the difference? Outcome is the same. The difference is, that even though they are both horrible crimes, the hate crime is not socially accepted. We as White Americans have been conditioned to believe that we should not hate and not be prejudiced as a way of repentance for the horrible things that went on back in the days of slavery. We should ignore race, religion, sexual preference or walk around feeling guilty about who we are and how we feel.
Meanwhile, the serial kiler is just plain old insane and everyone either rushes to study him, or get him treatment and rehabilitate him before they execute him.
We live in a screwed up world. The level of screwedness gets larger every day. Worrying about it would be like worrying about the sun exploding. It's pointless and much too big to fix one at a time.
This country is headed for a huge fall if the people do not unite. And the current government has a whole staff of over paid employees dedicated to keeping us divided.
Not much hope left I'm afraid.