"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-- Section One, 14th Amendment, United States Constitution.
No one shall be denied equal protection of the law.
What could be more American? Indeed, did not the Founding Fathers consider it a self-evident truth that all men are created equal?
All men are created equal, and all are deserving of equal protection under the law.
As I consider the recent -- most recent, I guess -- hate crime legislation in the Federal Government, I am reminded of another quote concerning equality.
This quote isn't found in the Declaration of Independence, not is it in the Constitution of the United States.
Instead, this quote is found in a much-later work --1945 -- to be exact.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
It is, of course, from the novel Animal Farm by George Orwell -- a work which probably needs to be read more often, especially in schools.
So. Why do some animals get to be more equal than the rest of us; and why in the name of sweet bugger all does the Federal Government think it has the right to decide which animals get to be more equal?
Equal Protection Under the Law can not -- I say again my last -- Can Not be "equal" if one group is getting more protection than others.
Once you have singled out one group, or two groups, or ten groups, and decided that they get more protection than the rest, there is no way that you can claim that All are receiving Equal Protection Under the Law.
At least, not with a straight face.
If all -- ALL, everybody, each and every animal -- are not receiving Equal Protection Under the Law, then someone is violating the Constitution of the United States, and should be tried for treason before being hung by the neck from the rafters of the Capitol Building.
And let us not be coy here: "Hate Crime" is a misnomer. It is not "Hate" crime, that is being legislated, it is "Thought" crime.
Yes, it bloody well is.
If Joe Schmoe walks out of his house and punches a 22 year-old-man in the mouth, it is assault. And Joe is punished for the act.
If Joe Schmoe walks out of his house, punches a 22-year-old-man in the mouth, whiling yelling, "Queer!" what is the difference?
Both acts are assaults. Both acts involve a fist and a mouth, and both acts involve the same level of physical damage.
The difference is that in one, Joe thinks -- thinks -- that his victim is somehow deserving of an assault because of sexual orientation. Or he thinks the sexual orientation is evil. Maybe he thinks his God has a case of the red-arse towards that particular sexual orientation.
Whatever the excuse, it still boils down to the fact that the Federal Government wants to add extra punishment, more charges because of What. Joe. Thinks.
Are you not proud?
Where does it stop?
Government power does not, has not and will bloody never decrease. The government camel never pulls his nose out of the tent.
So. Once we start hacking people for thought crimes, which thoughts should be next?