When to Draw the Line on Hate Crime

Well, looks like the media has grown board of Israel's scuffle with Lebanon. This big story this week is Mel Gibson's DUI. Conspiracy theories are out in full force, claiming Mel is in bed with the cops. The police spokesperson stated that he was arrested without incident, but the leaked police report tells a different story. Apparently the "Road Warrior" (as the media has dubbed him) resisted arrest and shouted slurs at the cops. This is something you expect from a drunk person, and Mel has suffered from alcoholism for some time.

You may be asking why I'm bothering with this idiotic Hollywood celebrity. It's because Mel has re-opened a can of worms that definately needs to be sorted out. This time Mel has taken the roll of the character Pink, from Pink Floyd's classic "The Wall". In a drunken haze, Mel alledgedly shouted racial slurs, anti-semitic slurs to be exact. It has long been suspected that Mel doesn't like Jews. Whether that's true or not is undetermined.
What can be determined is Hollywood's anger about it. Many of those that run Hollywood are Jewish. The rest are Scientologists, making Jesus loving Mel a bit of a minority. Mel's father Hutton Gibson is a extreme fundamentalist Catholic. He is well known for his Holocaust denial. Some are beginning to wonder is Mel takes after dear old dad. Mel's biggest movie, the infamous Passion of the Christ, is said to be anti-semitic.

Hollywood now wants to take their revenge on Mel. They want him to be black listed but also charged with hate crimes. This begs the question. How does one define a hate crime, exactly? Lets use Mel as a case study. Mel alledgeldy said hateful things about Jews. Was he hurting Jews? No, as the arresting officers were not Jewish. Was he spreading hate? No, he was drunk so it's unlikely anybody would take him seriously. So did Mel commit a crime? No. In the United States, freedom of speech is protected under the first amendment. You can say what ever you want no matter how idiotic. That's the way things should be in a democracy. California is slightly different. Hate speech in the workplace (only) is not prohibited, but it is not protected, meaning it is considered reasonable grounds for termination. How California skirts the 1st is unknown. The state is almost a different country and they seem to get away with having their own rules. However, under California and US law, Mel cannot be black listed and he cannot be charged with a crime.

Here in Canada we are a little different. In the US, freedom of expression and speech are god given rights. In Canada, not so much. Sure, our media has more freedom here. The CRTC is less likely to censor offensive material than the FCC does. However, if Mel had done the same thing here, it would have been a crime. You can be arrested, and jailed for making off the cuff remarks. Technically, your constitution is little more than a piece of paper. The SCOC gets to decide what reasonable limits it can put on you, and they get to define what's "reasonable". Doesn't seem quite right, does it. I don't condone hate speech as I like to follow the "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" ideology. However, I don't think our government has the right to tell me what I can and can't say, and they certainly should not have the right to imprison me for it.

Here's where the line is drawn. You say you hate Jews. That should not be a crime. You say the Holocaust never happend. You're an idiot and obviously never paid any attention in school, but that should not be a crime. You harass Jews, threaten them, vandalize their property, beat them up, and/or kill them, well then those are hate crimes and should be punished accordingly. We have to put our democratic values over people's feelings. As long as nobody is being hurt (hurt defined as being directly targeted, not simply offended), we cannot deny people the right to say what they want to. End of discussion.