Thanks so much for the OCA e-mail today (5/12), "Here We Ago Again: Ridiculous ‘Hate Crime' Legislation".

I called both of our Senators immediately, asking both to NOT vote for the mentioned legislation BECAUSE - and maybe this is understood by an amazingly small number of people - *all crimes are hate crimes*!

Why should someone w/a "protected minority" status ever get better legal treatment if s/he is the victim of any crime? This "hate crime" legislation doesn't take into consideration that if I - a straight, white, Christian female - were assaulted by anyone, that assault would also be because of the perpetrator's "hate" of me (or of humanity in general), whether the perpetrator knew me or not! Does anything about me make *me* special and worth more in the legal system if someone commits a crime against *me*? The correct answer to that is "no"; by passing a "hate crimes" bill, the average person - any member of the current "majority" (i.e., "Caucasian", which is temporary *anyway* in all statistical calculations of demographic changes going on in this country) - will be less protected in comparison because of the supposed increased protections of the "more equal" class created *by* "hate crimes" legislation. All people will become conditionally protected rather than equally protected. The U.S. Constitution intended for protection under the law to be equal to all persons.

Will a category be made for "hate crimes" committed by, for instance, the LGBT minority population members if a member of "the majority" is injured by such a person? Could a person in a wheelchair bitterly roll over a non-wheelchair-bound person's foot in rage and cause additional injury and be charged w/a hate crime for that? Would a person with AIDS, spitting on or otherwise offending a gay pride parade protestor, for example, be committing a "hate crime" against that protestor? Most people would say "yes" - these theoretical examples demonstrate "reverse" hate crimes. Where is the extra protection for the victim in these cases?

All crimes are "hate crimes" because all crimes are based on hate of the victim of that crime. The perp doesn't have to know the person in any way at all, OR the perp can know the victim very well; in either case, the perp acts out of some general hate directed toward the victim!

And that's why this legislation is a very bad idea. We can't decide that someone's crime is "worse" because of what they were *thinking* when they did it or because a protected minority suffers the same kind of assault that a "regular person" does! A crime is a crime, no matter WHAT the perp was thinking!

Conservatively yours,
Ann Almstedt, Columbus, Ohio

---