Robert Wenzel has this post on Rand Paul being the only U.S. Senator who is holding up an “anti-lynching” bill, and Wenzel includes several tweets by ignorant people who aren’t considering Paul’s objections. However, I don’t think that Rand Paul himself is understanding why such a bill is objectionable.
Wenzel posts the relevant section of the bill:
(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.–Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person– (A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both;
Rand Paul’s objection, as quoted in Wenzel’s post, is that the bill will “conflate someone who has an altercation where they had minor bruises, with lynching…” and “would allow altercations resulting in a cut, abrasion, bruise, or any other injury no matter how temporary to be subject to a 10-year penalty…”
Now, Merriam-Webster online defines “lynch” as “to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal approval or permission,” so, just as I had thought, lynching someone involves killing someone, and usually by hanging.
I agree with Rand Paul’s conclusions. However, that’s not the real problem with this new bill that apparently 99 ignorant Senators are supporting.
The real problem is that it is a “hate crime” bill. With the other “hate crime” laws and even the Civil Rights Act, these acts of legislation are criminalizing thought, feelings, and perceptions.
But thoughts, feelings and perceptions are not crimes.
In that proposed Senate bill that Rand Paul is holding up, “Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin…”And, “attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person…”
So “hate crime” laws criminalize how someone thinks of someone else or something. Sorry. Only make it a crime to actually DO something to someone else that involves an act of physical aggression (or actual threat thereof). But for decades now the U.S. and the world has gotten out of control in going beyond condemning someone for racist, anti-Semitic or otherwise “offensive” speech or expression, but criminalizing such thoughts. (Jonathan Turley wrote a recent post on the criminalization of thought and speech.)
So, the police officer who murdered some guy committed that act of killing someone. It may be relevant to the case that the officer did so because of racist sentiment (if that were the case), but the racist sentiment itself is not a crime.
It is not a crime to be an ignorant hater of others based on race, whether the haters are black and hate whites or whether the haters are whites who hate blacks. Hate is not a crime. it is an emotion, an attitude, a mentality. I don’t condone that, by the way. The only people I hate, if I do hate anybody, are politicians and bureaucrats. They are scum.
Related to that stuff, Wenzel also has a post on the entertaining “civil war” going on within the New York Times. Some of the staff of the Times were apparently triggered by the microaggressions of neanderthal Sen. Tom Cotton who wrote an op-ed promoting Trump sending military in to deal with protests.
Some at the Times are saying there is an “Old Guard” there concerned with civil liberties, vs. the younger crowd concerned with being “woke,” and “social justice,” i.e. being irrational kooks far removed from reality.
Wenzel quoted some of Times staffer Bari Weiss’s tweets, including, especially: “The New Guard has a different worldview, one articulated best by @JonHaidt and @glukianoff . They call it ‘safetyism,’ in which the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe trumps what were previously considered core liberal values, like free speech.”
Sorry, Ms. Weiss, no one has a “right” to “feel emotionally and psychologically safe.” (Keyword “feel.”) And thus, it has been implied, the millions of brainwashed “woke” millennial sheeple have a “right” to silence other people through censorship or violence, those others who have the guilt of “offending” or of causing the snowflakes some sort of anguish merely by speaking one’s mind or by expressing an opposing or dissenting point of view.
“Anti-racism” has gotten to the point that millions of brainwashed sheeple just couldn’t stand to hear Trump brag about how his policies (signing tax cuts into law and deregulation) resulted in the lowest unemployment rates for black Americans in history, so some of the more powerful “anti-racist” Trump-haters got into the “lockdown” business-closure mentality causing some of those same black Americans to LOSE their jobs, and now the “anti-racist” activists burning down or looting from entire businesses which effected in even MORE job losses of black Americans!
Talk about Stupid! You ignorant “anti-racist” activists have caused black Americans to lose their jobs!
It’s real craziness now. Our society apparently hasn’t learned anything when it comes to “Civil Rights,” and yes, TOLERANCE! That is, tolerance of dissenting or disagreeing points of view.
And how awful that the younger generation are being brainwashed to tolerate actual physical violence against innocent people and their property, homes and businesses (such as in the ongoing riots), but NOT tolerate speech or thinking that is “unapproved.” Not good.