Hate crime laws, “bleeding-heart liberals” devalue life

To the Daily:

In the Jan. 29 issue of the Daily, mention was made in a front page article (“Film viewing kicks off first Hate Crimes Week”) relating to Hate Crimes Week, a new part of the University”s extended celebration of the Martin Luther King holiday. I am sure that everyone involved feels great that he or she is participating in such a noble cause. After all, what is the problem with punishing those who perpetrate crimes based on racial or ethnic hatred? Nothing, unless you consider that hate crime legislation is unjust and unconstitutional.

Essentially, hate crimes legislation punishes someone who kills based on racial hatred more severely than someone who kills because he thinks its fun. But isn”t the act of killing in itself the ultimate act of hate?

It doesn”t matter why someone decides to kill unless you ask the bleeding-heart liberals, who through their unwavering support for such legislation basically assert that it is worse when a bigoted person kills a black man because he is racist than if the same person kills a white man for his wallet. This utterly devalues the life of someone who is killed for non-racially motivated reasons. It says that the black man”s life is worth more because the murderer is a bigot. What nonsense.

Not to mention that hate crime legislation mandates extra punishment for racist murderers based on their thoughts and beliefs, a clear first amendment violation. I can just see the jury now, deciding in a racial murder trial that second degree murder mandates 35 years in jail, but the murderer”s racist convictions (no pun intended) mandate another 10. Hey, why not? There”s nothing wrong with punishing thought. In fact, if we just imprisoned all people with bigoted thoughts for 10 years, we would never have to deal with a hate crime in the first place.

Andrew Quesnelle

LSA junior

Musharraf not a “gentleman”

To the Daily:

While I have found Waj Syed”s ongoing series of articles (“Home of the Pure,” 1/28/02, 1/29/02) to be very interesting, I found his description of Pakistan”s military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to be less than accurate. This portrayal of the General shows that Syed is not “thinking outside the box.”

Syed described Pervez Musharraf as a “gentleman” who had been “marginalizing the Taliban and Islamic militants in his own country and approaching peace with India before Sept.11.” Wrong. General Musharraf has supported Islamic militants who terrorized India before and after Sept. 11 (his Jan. 12 call for Pakistani terrorists to stop their anti-India violence only proves that he supported the anti-India jehadi enterprise at least until that date).

Musharraf was also was the architect of the infamous Kargil invasion of Indian-administered Kashmir shortly after Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee, and then civilian leader of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, talked peace in Lahore. Musharraf stabbed India in the back through this action.

Let us also remember that Pakistan was one of only three countries to recognize the murderous Taliban prior to Sept. 11. Furthermore, we should not forget that Musharraf pulled Pakistan out of an agreement with the United States for a joint mission to capture Osama bin Laden. These are just a few examples of Musharraf”s complicity in world terror. Syed goes on to write, “Men in uniform don”t exclusively indicate the end of egalitarianism. Generals aren”t necessarily demons of democracy.”

Wrong again. Musharraf, although he has called for national elections this October, has decided that he will remain president of Pakistan for an undetermined period of time past the elections. Is this democratic? Is supporting terror and the Taliban democratic? Is sending democratically elected leaders of your country into exile democratic? No.

Think outside the box Mr. Syed call a spade a spade.

Utpal Munshi

Rackham student

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.