Hate Crimes – the Lesson Unlearned
by Chris Clancy
by
Chris Clancy
Recently by Chris Clancy: Those
Damned Derivative Thingies
My family moved
from Dublin to London in the early 1960s. A large Irish immigrant
family. We did not move into an Irish community. Maybe things would
have been easier if we had. As kids growing up in London, my brothers
and sisters and I quickly became aware that we were unliked and
unwanted – we simply accepted that this was the way of things –
as children do.
At school there
was a lot of teasing, name-calling, mimicking our accents, Irish
jokes and so on – but it was bearable – just.
I have to say
that we were never hit or beaten up. This was probably due to the
fact that we had an older brother who would take on anyone. Mess
with us and you messed with him. Mess with him and you wouldn’t
bother again – it just wasn’t worth it.
When the "The
Troubles" erupted in Northern Ireland at the end of the
1960s feelings towards us took a turn for the worse and stayed that
way for many years. We were getting a taste of what other minority
groups had had to put up with for far longer than us. I won’t bore
you with stories about how we "suffered," if that’s the
right word, but we lived through it and learned to cope with varying
shades of open hostility. As such, therefore, I feel well qualified
to write about prejudice, hate and discrimination, having been at
the sharp end of it.
Things started
to change in the late 1980s. I don’t know how much this had to do
with what was going on in schools but certainly the arrival of new
wave comedians went a long way to making entertainment based
on crude, insulting and vulgar jokes about race, religion etc. a
thing of the past. Why did they make such a difference? Because
they were original, talented and damned funny; they reached a hell
of a lot of people.
Much of what
had passed for humour beforehand gradually came to be regarded as
cheap, boring and tasteless. Things were changing for the better,
things were evolving by themselves – human
action in action if you like – a growing realisation that we
were all in this together, no-one was leaving – so we’d better just
learn to get on with each other.
OK, things
weren’t perfect – there was still a long way to go I’m not
looking back at the past like some old fart wearing rose-tinted
glasses, but things were changing.
However, that
didn’t stop the state and getting more and more involved. Here was
yet another gravy train for career politicians. The upshot is that
we now have a raft of legislation to do with "hate crime."
If free speech
means putting thoughts into words then this must be the ultimate
in statism – be careful what you think!
What does "hate
crime" mean anyway?
This, from
the UK
Home Office:
"Hate
crime is any criminal offence committed against a person or property
that is motivated by an offender's hatred of someone because of
their:
- race,
colour, ethnic origin, nationality or national origins
- religion
- gender
identity
- sexual
orientation
- disability"
Hate crime
can take many forms including:
- physical
attacks – such as physical assault, damage to property, offensive
graffiti, neighbour disputes and arson
- threat
of attack – including offensive letters, abusive or obscene
telephone calls, groups hanging around to intimidate and unfounded,
malicious complaints
- verbal
abuse or insults – offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures,
dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and
bullying at school or in the workplace
Did
we really need new legislation to deal with this?
I
can hear Bastiat beginning to turn in his grave – yet again.
What
were the unseen affects of this legislation?
How many people
do you know who would actually carry out hate crimes as detailed
above? Not many I bet, if any. The people who do actually carry
out such crimes are a tiny minority who will do so anyway regardless
of whether the legislation is there or not.
The effect
of this legislation was to erect barriers where there were none
before, to create division and resentment where there was none before
and to achieve precisely the opposite of what was intended. Twin
this with the multi-cultural mantra of "celebrating diversity"
and we have a very nasty cocktail being mixed for the future.
Art Carden
in this piece writes about
tolerance and pluralism – about how "thoughtcrime" legislation
serves only to create "us versus them" situations.
Coerce
people to come together and you’ll only drive them apart.
"There
is no surer way to infect mankind with hatred – brute, blind, virulent
hatred – than by splitting it into ethnic groups or tribes."
~
Ayn Rand
Leave
people alone and they will come together.
"The
great virtue of a free market is that it enables people who hate
each other, or who are from vastly different religious or ethnic
backgrounds, to cooperate economically. Government intervention
can’t do that. Politics exacerbates and magnifies differences."
~ Milton Friedman.
The
last part of this quote bears repetition.
"Politics
exacerbates and magnifies differences."
Isn’t this,
ultimately, what hate crime legislation does?
July
20, 2009
Chris
Clancy [send him mail]
is Associate Professor of Financial Accounting at Zhongnan University
of Economics and Law in Wuhan, Hubei Province, People's Republic
of China.
Copyright
© 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
The
Best of Chris Clancy
|