September 13th, 2007

liberian marauder

To the fullest extent of the law.

I'm currently thinking about this story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20737211/

I've always had some issues with the idea of hate crime legislation on a fundamental level. Is it really legitimate to protect speech that is hideous and vile (eg, Klan rallies) and then prosecute the views and beliefs behind that speech when a crime is committed consistent with them? In my mind, no, not entirely.

Now, some have argued that hate crimes do not only affect the victim, but work to stifle, terrorize, and control all members of whichever group the victim is a member of.

So, then I say, "Alright, I'll buy that"--but wonder why rape isn't considered a hate crime. I mean, I'd hazard a guess that it's the most common hate crime committed. And it does indeed work to control and terrorize an entire group of people (women, though men and people of other genders are also assaulted).

But since we DO have hate crime legislation, I'm really curious as to why the crimes in this particular case aren't being considered by the federal government to be hate crimes. If rape isn't a hate crime, and calling a woman a nigger and telling her that it is because she's black that she's being held captive, beaten, choked, stabbed, repeatedly sexually assaulted, and forced to drink from a toilet and eat rat and dog feces, I'd really like to know what the fuck is.