Hate crime laws put a specific group to which the victim of a crime may belong above the individual.
Why is that important?
Who is the victim?
Is it the group?
No, the victim of a crime is the individual.
Was the crime committed against that individual already an illegal act for which there are proscribed punishments in the law? Of course. By its very nature of being a crime, there is a law against containing the necessary punitive actions that can be taken against the criminal.
Does the addition of a hate crime statute prevent the actual criminal act from occurring? Of course, not. Laws are punitive, not preventive.
Does the addition of a hate crime statute give any additional rights or protections to the individual who fell victim of a crime? No, they were still the victim of a crime.
What does hate crime legislation accomplish then?
Answering that question is where the use of identity politics is exposed for the social engineering effort that it actually is.
Our republic was formed to protect the rights of the most at risk minority – the individual. That is why the intrinsic rights of the individual are so clearly enumerated (not granted) and protected by the Constitution.
Identity politics, or collectivism, is designed to place the group above the individual. It creates rights for an abstraction rather than focusing on the actual existential rights of real individuals.
Why is this important?
Because it is the soft path into tyranny.
If specific groups are defined as being “at risk of hate crimes”, which is at best the granting of non-existent rights to abstractions, then that group becomes by default a protected class. It sets the imaginary “rights”, “needs” and “safety” of that group ABOVE the actual needs, safety and rights of the individual.
In essence, the right of the individual can then be violated in an attempt to protect the “rights” of the group.
“That’s nonsense!” – Oh really?
Since “hate crimes” have now allowed the creation of “hate speech”, the right of free speech of the individual is being regulated to protect the “rights” of particular groups.
Do you see it now?
Hate speech will give way to speech codes in which your right of self-expression is curtailed in favor of the “protected” groups.
This is what Jordan Peterson saw coming with the passage of the C-16 law in Canada which by proxy sets up enforceable speech codes.
And they were very sneaky in the way they set it up. By separating out the various roles and responsibilities into different legislation and departments, they attempted to hide the obvious trap they were building.
The original legislation was written to be intentionally benign sounding. It proposed to add gender identity and gender orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act (protected groups added – not protected individuals).
Now understand, the people who identify as members of these groups were already protected under current legislation. It did not all of a sudden make it a crime to assault a non-binary individual, because it was ALREADY a crime! Group identity does not prevent the application of current law, because current law applies EQUALLY to all citizens! Hate Crime legislation on the other hand tosses out equality of the individual under the law for preferential treatment of specific groups under the law.
Now, the application of the benign words of C-16 would then be left up to the Ontario Human Rights Commission which defines what constitutes hate crimes. And what do they say constitutes a hate crime? That’s right – hate speech. And what will now be the new definition of hate speech? Intentionally not using someone’s preferred gender pronouns.
And here comes the turn – NOW an individual expressing their intrinsic right of self-expression could potentially be found guilty of committing a hate crime by using hate speech about a member of a group. What is that hate speech? They would simply have to intentionally ignore some group member’s preferred gender pronouns when talking about them to someone else. (We don’t use third person pronouns in direct communication with that person after all)
Yes, we arrived at speech codes by way of hate speech by way of hate crimes by way of identity politics.
The rights of the individual trumped by the “rights” of a group.
The same thing is underway here in the US.
I, for one, will continue to exercise my intrinsic rights.