Symbols of hatred were proudly displayed before the world on every visible inch of his skin. Fortunately, I met him in the one place such people are safely observed—behind the double wire fence of a state prison. Whether inspired by race, gender or eye-color such hatred makes us uncomfortable. We imagine living in a world without hate—where everyone loves everyone else, with no war, no discrimination and no violation of rights. Congress is attempting to create just such a world with HR 262 currently moving through Congress as the Ray Richardson Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Like most liberal legislation this bill will accomplish nothing but the abrogation of our rights.

Such legislation makes certain feelings behind a crime extenuating circumstances in the punishment of the crime. If I mug a person, I get one punishment; if I am inspired by hatred of his race, gender, ethnic origin or sexual orientation then I receive a stricter sentence. While this may seem like a good idea, consider the issue of justice and why we inflict punishment on a perpetrator. When one commits a crime we take away from them something (time, money, or even life) commensurate to what they cost society and the victim. Hate crimes legislation insinuates that a victim of a hate-inspired crime loses more than the victim of the same crime when inspired by something else. The other victim would probably differ with this and so should we all. A mugger is imprisoned for violating the rights of another. These were the right to their property, and the right to a reasonable sense of security. To increase the punishment for a crime because it is inspired by hate assumes that one has the right to not be hated. This may sound warm and fuzzy, but would give you right over my mind and emotions. If I think in my own mind badly about you and it inspires me to hate then I would have violated your rights. Such a right is ludicrous and indefensible. I have the right to think as I see fit. I have the right to speak as I see fit. When hatred inspires one to hurt another it is the harm, not the hatred, that is a crime.

Hate crimes legislation also belittles the loss of other victims. “This woman was raped in a hate crime so her attacker gets 25 years. Your rape is only worth 15 years.” Sentence would be based on the beliefs behind the crime instead of the details of the crime, the cost to the victim and society?

One other problem is the difficulty of defense against accusations. How disprove hatred? How can a heterosexual prove he doesn’t hate homosexuals? How can a man prove he doesn’t hate women? How can a black man prove he doesn’t hate whites? It is often said that you can not prove a negative. When I was in the Army I was stationed in Korea and served with several Korean soldiers. Most were good friends whom I would hang out with to learn the language and culture while helping them to understand ours. However, one Korean soldier and I did not get along at all. He pretended to speak less English to get out of work, refused to take initiative and seldom carried out his own duties. One day the Company Commander called me into his office. This soldier had charged me with hating Koreans and discrimination. Such a charge can end a military career in a day. I was called on to prove that I did not hate Koreans. The fact that I could speak and read the language was not enough. The fact that I loved to walk through the Korean villages well away from camp to experience the food and culture was not enough. I had only one card to play in my defense. I responded: “Sir, you signed my marriage paperwork. You know my wife is Korean and my future children will be half Korean.” The Commander went blank for a second before sending me away. He tore up the charges and I was exonerated. This is important to realize the depth of actions needed to defend against accusations of hatred. Actually, my commander was wrong in one regard. My being married did not answer the charges because there can be any number of nuances to hatred. It is possible to hate an entire people and find one among them who, for some reason, is not hated. Once we open the door to hate crimes legislation we open a Pandora’s box that will be next to impossible to shut.

If a person has a right (as this legislation insinuates) to not be hated, before long there will be a cry for hate speech legislation. When this happens we lose the most central of our freedoms—the right to speak our minds, no matter how unpopular or uncomfortable the words may be. We will be a country muzzled, afraid to speak for fear of the hate police. Religious speech will be curtailed. Political speech will be monitored. The America that set the world free will have been killed by a hateful leftist agenda—the only hatred permitted.