"Attacks" on Wardhouses not a hate crime, yet

Windows of Wardhouses get shot at with BB Guns or AirSoft Guns all the time.

And it's usually the work of teenagers. And, it often turns out that the teenager is a member of one of the wards that meets there.

I'd be willing to bet that the people shooting out the windows of local wardhouses are local teenagers. Heterosexual teenagers, at that.

Not only that, but if people were really targeting wardhouses as part of a hate crime, they would do a heck of a lot more than shatter a window.

A this point, it's petty vandalism.

As for the Book of Mormon burned on the steps of a wardhouse in Littleton, CO? Vandalism and attempted arson, at best. Had there been a note or graffiti left with it against Mormons, then we could start talking hate crime.

And the Littleton situation could be a heck of a lot more people than just the gays. Remember some of the "best" anti-Mormons tat aren't here in Utah are in Colorado.

-Bob

Hate Crimes

OK, it's time for my annual hate crimes rant. One of these years, a hate crimes bill will actually pass, and I won't have to go off on this topic yet again.

First, a history. Set back, little kids, while Mr Bob tells you a story.

Once upon a time, way back before I was born, there were a group of people. They were a happy people. However, some people hated them. Those mean people would start fights with them. They had to move. But every time they moved, there were more mean people who fought them because of what they believed. One time, some of the mean people even killed their leader. The happy people moved west one last time, to the middle of the dessert, where noone lived. No mean people came to desturb the peace, and they lived happily ever after. The End.

OK, so now that the storytime is over, what can we learn from this story? Well, most of you recognized that this story was of the early members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The early Saints were the first "Utahns" who were victims of hate crimes.

Now, we have had legislation for several years that would eneact harsher penalties for people who comit craimes based on hate. It wouldn't be hate based on hating one person, but on what that person is. For instance, let's say I hated people with red hair (soory Shaun). I tell everyone of my hatred, and write about it on my blog. Then one day, I see a redhead walking doown the street, I yell "death to all redheaded stepchildren," and beat the snot out of Joe Redhead. Then, until I am caught, all Redheads are terrorized (making me a terrorist), fearing they may be next.

Many Utah legislators feel that this terrorism is not a reason for enhancing my penalties. Others feel it is, unless I'm beating up on gay people.

Last year or the year before (I can't remember which), the LDS Church issued a statement which said that they support hate crimes legislation. Usually, when the Church says that they are for/against something, it passes/fails. Well, Gayle Ruzika, appearantly thinking that somehow enough people had died that she became Prophet, declared that the Chrch didn't mean that they supported the bill, but that they opposed it. There was a second statement from Church Headquarters, which said that they knew what they were saying and that Sister Gayle doesn't speak for the Church. The Bill failed anyway.

So, this brings us to the story I found that caused this post. According to BYUNewsNet, the Church has once again made it's views know on the subject.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints abhors hatred, intolerance and abuse of any individual or group," said the brief statement from the church released to The Associated Press. "As it has stated consistently over the last three years, the church does not oppose hate crimes legislation, including (House Bill) 90 as drafted."

We'll see if the legislature is listening.

-Bob

Hate is NOT a Utah Value

Hate Crimes legislation is the most mis-understood piece of legislation. People think the laws will only protect you if you are a minority.

Which is wrong.

If I get beat up by a bunch of people because I am white, They will get the same punishment under the law as I would have for beating them up because they are not white.

If I get beat up by a bunch of Homosexuals for being strait, Same Deal.

If I get beat up by a bunch of Baptists because I'm LDS, Same Thing.

If I get beat up by a bunch of women because I'm a man, same thing.

If I beat up my friend Dan (I would never do that) because he is a Republican, well.....same thing. Ü

What inspired this post, at such an odd time of year? An article in today's Deseret News about a new plan to introduce legislation that does not distiguish classes.

Because saying "race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age and gender" is too general a term, and would punish people unjustly in the eyes of the erutalsigel (That's legislature backwards). Don't believe me? Check out the Quotes:

"An assault is an assault," [Rep. Curt] Oda [R-Clearfield] said. "The
penalties shouldn't be any less for a group that's not included. Maybe
(Litvack's) come upon an answer. Until I've studied it, I can't give an answer."

Rep Oda, when you find the person that has no race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age or gender, come show me to it. I'd like to know. Because then your argument holds water.

"It's still a hate crimes bill that doesn't treat all people equally under
the law," [Gayle] Ruzicka said. "If we need to enhance penalties, it needs to be
across the board for all people for the crime that's committed, not for who it's
committed against."

We already have laws inhancing the penalty if you commit a crime against your spouce, a State Legislator, and sports referees. Maybe Gayle wants to eliminate those protections, too.

-Bob