The Thought Police Are Coming For You

Maryland has added homeless people to the list of peoples protected under hate crime laws. When passing the new law, lawmakers referred to a 2001 case where teenagers stomped 3 homeless people to death.

Some thoughts come to mind.

1. Does anyone care that hate crime bills increasingly prohibit thought?

2. Does adding “hate crime” to this make killing three people more serious?

3. Why is killing homeless people considered worse than killing non-homeless people in Maryland?

4. For that matter, if a man is shot to death in a dark alley in the middle of the night and his wallet is stolen, why is it somehow a worse crime if the victim is gay?

5. If killing three homeless people had the added stigma of being a “hate crime” in 2001, would those teens have thought twice about doing what they did? Are we to believe they were willing to violate murder statutes, but a “hate crime” law would have stopped them dead in their tracks?

6. If the same people who push hate crime legislation on us would stop opposing capital punishment, we could have executed these teenagers for triple homicide. How is calling them guilty of committing hate crimes going to be worse than that?

7. Every crime that has “hate crime” added to it is already against the law. Can anyone show us one instance, from any time at any place anywhere in the entire history of the world, where labeling a crime additionally as a “hate crime” resulted in one single instance of added protection for a potential victim?

8. I’ve asked this earlier, but it still bugs me. Why is it okay to stomp a person to death if they own a house? Or, why is it better than stomping a homeless person? You want us to believe it’s “worse” when they stomp a homeless person, then logic dictates it’s better when the victim is not homeless. Why?