A kindly reader recently e-mailed me links to
and
which deal with vandalism committed against a pro-life display down in Louisiana.
The display consists of 4,000 crosses to symbolize the 4,000+ children who are murdered each day in this country by abortion.
Pro-abort hooligans vandalized 3,000 of the crosses, including doing juvenile things like spelling out the words "Pro-choice" with them.
Police officers told them to stop but did not arrest them.
Excerpts from the first story:
“This is not a game,” [display organizer Mary] Higdon said, “this is private property.”
The crosses, which were on loan from St. Mary and St. Joseph Family Memorial Foundation, cost $3 a piece to make, Higdon said.
Richard Mahoney, president of the foundation, said they have been
lending crosses to Students for Life for 10 years and that vandalism
has occurred before, but never like this.Mahoney is furious, and said that if LSUPD does not handle the situation justly, he has lawyers prepared to file suit.
“Defacing a religious symbol is a hate crime,” Mahoney said.
Mahoney said the vandals damaged more than $9,000 worth of private property, which should be prosecuted as a felony.
But Adams said there is no way of knowing who took what, so the
identified individuals probably will be charged with misdemeanor
charges.Mahoney said that if a Jewish or other religious minority group set
up an exhibit that vandals defaced, such as the Star of David, the act
would not be tolerated.He said a Christian organization should not have to tolerate it either.
He’s right. No Christian organization should tolerate this. I am outraged by it. I’m happy to provide coverage of this. If they can nail somebody for a felony, great. I think that the individuals responsible for the vandalism should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law–or, at least, the full extent of the justice of the law.
But I have a quibble about one point: Just because the law may provide a penalty does not mean that the penalty is just. The law can overreach justice, and I think that is what happens with "hate crime" legislation.
Such legislation selectively isolates motive in some cases in order to extend special protections to certian groups (the targets of the "hate"). In reality, anybody who has a crime committed against him is the victim of malice, and to create certain classes protected by "hate crime" legislation selectively favors these classes over others, who are equally victims of malice. This contributes to the polarization of our society and works against the fundamental principle of equal justice for all.
Consequently, I don’t favor hate crimes legislation. I don’t favor it when it works to the benefits of groups to which I don’t belong or of groups to which I do belong (e.g., Catholics, Christians, religious people, pro-lifers).
To my mind, if someone commits vandalism, you charge him with vandalism. You don’t charge him with vandalism plus harming a specially-protected group.
So, to the folks down in Lousiana, I say: Run these malefactors out of town on a rail, but do it on the vandalism charge, not the "hate crimes" charge. We’ll all be better off the sooner we get over this "hate crimes" nonsense.
