Both acts aim to send a message through violence. They are the same crime, differentiated by scope. Terrorism is a hate crime against a society. A hate crime is terrorism against a minority.
Roughly one month ago I watched as some of our Representatives and Senators stood on the floor of Congress and argued passionately to exclude LGBT Americans from hate crimes law. Inclusion, they said, would be tantamount to thought police. It would lead to censorship. These Congressmen and women explained that a violent act is punishable; the intent behind it is not. Punishing intent, they said, is unconstitutional.
Punish the action. Not the thought.
That is what they firmly, steadfastly believe.
Or is it?
For the past week, I have been glued to the unfolding story of the shooting at Fort Hood. I have watched as we, as a nation, attempt to understand the horrific events that occurred there. We want to know whether the shooting was a random act of violence or terrorism.
To that end, we have delved into the shooter's psyche. We have looked into his past. Into his religion. Into his connections. Into his emails. His work history. Past PowerPoint presentations. His anger. We are desperate to know the reasons for his actions - the why. We demand to know if his violence had a specific, broader purpose.
To those who voted against hate crimes protection for LGBT Americans, I ask these simple questions: Why does investigating intent not lead to censorship when the crime might be a terrorist act? Why is it only unconstitutional to take intent and speech into consideration when the violence committed might be a hate crime against a member of the LGBT community? Why haven't I seen even one of you on t.v. decrying the unconstitutionality of investigating this man's motivations? How are your deeply held moral beliefs so easily altered?
I fail to see a difference between harming Americans because they are Americans and harming gays because they are gay.
I do not fail to see your hypocrisy; your bigotry.
All things being equal, his intentions ought to be irrelevant and off limits, right?
If a man were to walk into an LGBT Center and open fire while screaming, "The Bible tells me that faggots burn in hell," you would argue to punish his actions, not his motivation; citing freedom of speech and religion.
If the same man walked into that same LGBT Center and opened fire while screaming about Jihad and American fascists, you wouldn't be quite so torn about trampling his inalienable rights.
If an American gets killed because they're gay, not so bad. If a gay person gets killed because they're American, look out.
Your message is crystal clear: hatred of country is neither understandable nor acceptable. Hatred of gays is both. Hatred of country that turns violent harms innocent people. Hatred of gays that turns violent just harms gays.
No comments:
Post a Comment