Category: English

Philosophie 12

Français (FR)-English (EN)

FR

I

L’axiome de la morale selon Voltaire, « ne fais pas à autrui ce que tu ne voudrais pas qu’on te fît », Nietzsche l’appelle une « niaiserie anglaise » (La volonté de puissance). Son interprétation en est particulièrement bizarre : l’axiome est analysé comme prudence par rapport aux conséquences, alors qu’il s’agit de reconnaître qu’autrui est un égal. Mais il ajoute ensuite que c’est la morale du troupeau : « nous sommes égaux, ce que tu me fais je te le fais » et le réfute par ceci que mon action ne peut être « rendue » par autrui. – Ma propre objection au fait de tenir cette maxime pour un axiome fondamental est une meilleure expression de l’idiosyncrasie recherchée par Nietzsche : suivant un tel axiome, les natures grossières ne peuvent jamais concevoir qu’elles aillent contre la morale, quand elles blessent une nature plus sensible.

*

Kant : L’homme en soi est complètement étranger à la nature.

*

L’histoire est contre-nature puisqu’elle est le domaine de la liberté.

*

Le démon de Socrate le détournait de la politique – « sous peine de mort », disait-il. Pourtant, Socrate voulut être un taon – contre son démon.

*

La condamnation de Socrate à son procès semble méritée car on trouve chez l’autre candidat au titre de père de la philosophie, Pythagore, un grand nombre de maximes sur le culte et les rites, complètement absents chez Socrate, qui nous apparaît en cela comme un pur philosophe, émancipé des conventions rituelles. Pythagore s’apparente davantage à Confucius, relativement aux chinoiseries du culte. Ainsi, ce que Nietzsche défend, en définitive, comme sain par rapport à la dégénérescence introduite par Socrate, c’est le ritualisme et le formalisme, et il importe peu, à vrai dire, que ce ritualisme ait pu prendre chez les Grecs des formes orgiastiques.

*

Quand on pense à ce que devaient être les conditions de l’assistance publique au temps de Rousseau, on peut bien dire qu’il aurait été plus humain de sa part de tuer ses enfants lui-même.

*

Dans sa Lettre sur la musique française, Rousseau a détruit l’art abstrait avant qu’il n’existe.

*

Kierkegaard requiert une « exception justifiée » à l’état de mariage, mais le célibat n’a jamais rien eu d’exceptionnel même en dehors du monachisme : c’est une loi démographique.

II

« À qui s’adresse ce poème ? à l’actrice L. ? à la femme de ménage A. ? à la comtesse de B. ?… » Ce n’est pas de la critique, c’est du paparazzisme.

*

La critique paparazzi : ne serait-elle pas, cette bassesse, typiquement française ? Les éditions de poche des classiques anglais, américains ne pataugent pas dans ce caniveau.

*

La critique paparazzi fait de la littérature un journal intime. Elle voit l’homme et non l’art ; pour elle l’homme n’est pas porteur de l’Idée, c’est une caisse enregistreuse.

*

La religion d’Hugo, c’est… l’épicurisme.

*

Victor Hugo l’épicurien se fait l’écho de Socrate – « le corps est la prison de l’âme » – en écrivant sa propre épitaphe ainsi : « Passant, cette pierre te cache la ruine d’une prison. » Socrate ne serait-il pas un autre épicurien ?

*

Baudelaire n’est qu’un épicurien : « Les minutes, mortel folâtre, sont des gangues Qu’il ne faut pas lâcher sans en extraire l’or ! »

*

L’épicurisme, morale d’esclaves : Kierkegaard.

*

Victor Hugo a tout dit. Et malheureusement son contraire.

*

Hugo a suivi Lamartine : de la mauvaise théologie en vers bien balancés.

*

Hugo : « Solitaire, j’ai mes joies. J’assiste … Au viol, dans le ravin, De la grande pudeur sombre Par le grand amour divin. » À mettre en relation avec « Pour dire oui prononcent non ». Quand les meilleurs esprits d’une nation sont à ce niveau d’abaissement, c’est la race plutôt que l’époque.

*

La religion comme consolation (par exemple chez Hugo) est l’erreur de la religion : l’épicurisme de la religion.

*

Heine : un amuseur de cruches, dont Sissi.

*

« … dans l’angle où se croisent des lignes de couleur » (Reverdy) : c’est pousser la formule cubiste un peu loin.

*

En jetant mes écrits de jeunesse, poèmes et autres, j’ai par cet acte jeté toutes traces d’une activité de commentaire sur les lectures que j’avais alors, qui me permettraient de me replonger aujourd’hui au cœur de ces lectures. À une époque où je lisais beaucoup de bonnes choses, où je me cultivais, alors que j’ai lu depuis beaucoup de choses insignifiantes, de la documentation.

III

Les peuples esclaves se donnent des philosophies de la liberté comme l’existentialisme. Les Anglo-Saxons n’ont pas besoin d’une telle compensation psychologique : les institutions libres ne créent pas ce besoin.

*

Le Français est fermé au monde car il a honte de sa servitude.

*

« Ce n’est pas moi qui ai fait la loi », ce n’est pas moi et ce n’est même personne car tout le monde est pour la liberté, la main sur le cœur. Un gros joufflu arrive et me dit : « La loi protège la liberté ! » Il croit, parce qu’il ne parle pas anglais, que personne ne le parle, mais les États-Unis sont un pays libre, la France un pays de gros joufflus.

City of Houston v. Hill, U.S. Supreme Court, 1987, holding that “[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

*

Comme on pense qu’il faut des poètes, ils trouvent quelques buses et disent : « Les poètes ! » Comme on pense qu’il faut des penseurs, ils trouvent quelques buses et disent : « Les penseurs ! » C’est ainsi qu’ils perpétuent leur inhumanité.

*

Quand on lit des esprits plats, on a toujours quelque moyen de trouver l’un intelligent par rapport à l’autre ; mais, de fait, il n’y a d’intelligence nulle part dans ce qu’on lit.

*

Il n’y a pas d’individus hors du temps libre.

(Cela peut sembler contredit par la situation du pays le plus individualiste, les États-Unis, qui ont inventé l’expression « 24/7 ». Or les théoriciens américains du capitalisme industriel naissant, un William Graham Sumner par exemple, présentaient le projet de l’entrepreneur capitaliste comme un moyen d’enrichissement rapide en vue d’une retraite précoce et de temps libre. L’idée, de bon sens – mais serons-nous compris ? –, est que les sacrifices personnels consentis pour s’enrichir ne sont pas une fin en soi.)

*

Un « gouvernement des juges » n’est pas à craindre, au plan des principes, quand les juges sont élus.

*

Ce que nous appelons l’inflation législative, et que nous avons renoncé à combattre en France, est ce que Tocqueville appelle l’instabilité législative. Si nous lui avions gardé son vrai nom, nous n’aurions pas cessé de la combattre.

*

Pour comprendre la démocratie américaine, il faut être un véritable aristocrate : Tocqueville. Ce dernier a établi la supériorité indépassable de l’Amérique. Il faut creuser profond pour trouver en Amérique la contradiction avec les principes, mais en France il suffit de gratter, c’est différent.

*

L’administration n’est pas l’État mais un État dans l’État.

*

Il y a apparence que les hate speech laws des pays anglo-saxons autres que les États-Unis (Angleterre, Canada…) ne sont pas si funestes dans ces pays en raison du système accusatoire, de l’absence de parquet.

*

La véritable leçon de l’affaire d’Outreau, c’est qu’elle était la copie exacte du McMartin Preschool case, du début à la fin.

*

Si la loi peut ôter au droit de propriété des catégories de biens, il devient possible de concevoir une société reconnaissant un droit constitutionnel de propriété où les citoyens n’auraient aucune propriété. On peut donc défendre l’idée qu’il est inconstitutionnel d’ôter du droit de propriété des catégories de biens.

*

L’administré est-il un homme ?

*

Selon certains, le Brésil serait la seule exception parmi les pays de droit civiliste à appliquer un stare decisis (règle du précédent contraignant). C’est une exagération, le juge en droit civiliste peut très bien créer des normes contraignantes et répressives (« d’origine jurisprudentielle ») quand cela arrange le cartel politique de s’en défausser sur lui, par exemple le devoir des réserves des fonctionnaires en droit français.

*

Le droit d’origine jurisprudentielle en France est (principalement) du droit administratif. Le juge administratif y est donc plus un juge de common law que le juge de l’ordre judiciaire. Or sa pratique est la même que celle du juge judiciaire : décision collégiale anonyme, ce qui est incompatible avec une pratique acceptable de stare decisis.

*

Certains auteurs de droit insistent sur le formalisme des pays civilistes. En matière pénale, le formalisme n’est exigé que de la défense, et non de la police, du parquet, du jugement de condamnation.

*

Comment la Cour suprême américaine ne voit-elle pas (National Association of Letter Carriers, 1973 « upholding the Hatch Act against First Amendment ») que la neutralité du service public n’est pas un gage de son efficacité mais le contraire ? Le gouvernement a besoin d’une administration loyale pour conduire son programme efficacement et non d’agents « neutres » en apparence qui le sabotent au nom soit d’idées politiques contraires soit d’intérêts corporatistes propres à une bureaucratie exogène à toute majorité politique (le Deep State) soit des deux.

Or, aux États-Unis, la jurisprudence est à double sens : la neutralité du service public protège aussi l’expression des fonctionnaires et des contractuels de l’administration. Pas en France !

*

Il y a dans le système de la sécurité sociale une race de contributeurs nets. Les exploités. Car les « accidents de la vie » n’empêchent pas les lois statistiques, lesquelles permettent des prédictions dès la naissance.

*

Un pays purgé de toute forme d’imagination, parce que ce sont les rêves qui sont la source de l’imagination et qu’on n’écoute pas ses rêves quand on croit qu’on y trouverait des névroses.

*

Tout homme bien né éprouve du dégoût d’être né français. C’est là sans doute un paradoxe puisqu’être né français c’est, par définition, ne pas être bien né – sinon pourquoi un homme bien né en éprouverait-il du dégoût ? L’astrologie résout le paradoxe : on peut être bien né tout en étant né français, à condition d’être né sous une particulièrement bonne étoile.

*

Le « despotisme oriental », notion fameuse depuis Montesquieu, décrit l’administration impériale institutrice des tribunaux mazalim en dehors des tribunaux de la sharia, cantonnés, déjà, au droit familial et aux héritages. – De fait, Montesquieu dit expressément que la religion, entendez l’islam, est le seul contre-pouvoir au despotisme oriental.

*

Les Français sont une nation tellement romantique : « T’as d’beaux yeux, tu sais. »

*

Les femmes qui font du vélo n’ont aucune pudeur.

*

Marx est une moisissure hégélienne.

*

Si c’est la liberté que n’aiment pas nos ennemis, je veux leur dire qu’ils n’ont aucune raison de ne pas nous aimer.

*

Napoléon n’est pas ce que la Corse a fait de mieux.

*

Qu’on m’explique comment les limitations légales au financement des partis politiques et des campagnes électorales ne sont pas une prime au socialisme ?

EN

From life to knowledge – but most take the opposite direction: from ‘knowledge,’ in the guise of academic treatises that they write, they acquire status, thus a life.

*

As speech must be free, if you want no “administrative discrimination” and at the same time officials unhindered as to speech, make them take implicit-association tests (IATs). Another positive result would be to reduce the overplaying of antiracism in general, which garbles speech so much.

*

When they say “education” –that the solution is to educate the people on this or that– rather than education they mean bureaucratic coercion.

*

The phrase “liberal Enlightenment principles” is a misnomer. Enlightenment says nothing positive about the liberal agenda; in fact, Enlightenment philosophers were opposed to sodomy for instance (Kant, Diderot, both with express reasons). That they opposed a state-church nexus does not imply they did not hold morality church tenets as true or convenient. There exists enlightened antisodomy, believe it or not.

*

The Stanford Prison Experiments (Zimbardo): I suggest the results show that Stanford students are scumbags.

*

Human Tamagotchi.

*

If this side is earth, what’s on the other side of dreams?

*

John Milton: Truth shall prevail in the battle of ideas. ­­– What if truth were detrimental to minorities?

*

To answer a question with a knife under one’s throat is a waiver of dignity.

*

The difference between a written Constitution and a Rorschach test is original understanding.

Law 24: On Hate Crimes and Love Crimes

Intro
1 Definition
2 Preliminary Dismissal of Deceptive Appearances
3 Discussion

Intro

In Europe they have hate crime laws, hate speech laws, and police states. (Cf. City of Houston v. Hill, U.S. 1987, holding that “[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.” By this well-thought definition European countries are not free nations but police states indeed.)

In U.S. they only have hate crime laws.

What makes hate crime laws so unexceptional?

1 Definition

“Hate crimes are offenses that are committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation of another individual or group of individuals. … Various state courts found that, since the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protects speech and thought, even when that speech or thought is offensive, any law criminalizing thought should be rendered unconstitutional.” (Hate crimes by Kristin L. Stewart, J.D. [excerpt] in Encyclopedia of American Law, D. Schultz ed., 2002)

If a crime is found to be this or that “(name a crime) as a hate crime,” penalties are increased.

2 Preliminary Dismissal of Deceptive Appearances

Contrary to appearances, hate crime laws in the United States are probably not designed to protect the white population from black criminals. How, then, could such appearances have arisen?

First, we are told about an epidemics of hate crimes. “If you believe the news, today’s America is plagued by an epidemic of violent hate crimes” is from the presentation of the book Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War (2019) by Wilfred Reilly, assistant professor of political science at Kentucky State University.

Second, we know the massive proportion of black inmates in the prison population of the States: cf. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2012) by Michelle Alexander, visiting professor at Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

Third, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a hate crime state statute. A group of black men had assaulted a white boy after watching the film Mississippi Burning. It was found their attack was racially motivated and the increased penalty of the instigator, Todd Mitchell, justified.

From (1), (2) & (3), one would swear blacks are responsible for the epidemic of hate crime. Indeed, it is hard to see how a crime epidemic, namely a hate crime epidemic, would not be reflected in the prison inmates population, that is, how the disproportionate numbers of black inmates in prison would not reflect the hate crime epidemic, especially considering the emblematic precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court on hate crime laws applies to a black defendant who challenged the constitutionality of his increased penalty.

This is a deceptive appearance. In reality hate crime laws protect minorities.

3 Discussion

i
Hate crime laws trivialize crime

“This book is as timely as today’s headlines. Professor Lawrence has written a powerful, persuasive, and eloquent call for more effective action by Congress and the states to deal with these despicable crimes. Civil Rights is still the unfinished business of America. Hate crimes are uniquely destructive and divisive, because their impact extends far beyond the victim. They poison entire communities and undermine the ideals for which America stands. They deserve to be punished with the full force of the law, and Professor Lawrence’s book brings us closer to that important goal.” Senator Edward M. Kennedy on Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes under American Law (2002) by Frederick M. Lawrence.

This praise by Sen. Kennedy contains all the appalling mistakes an informed person is supposed not to make when thinking and talking about crime and the law.

“This book is as timely as today’s headlines.”

It is known, it is even common-sense, since at least Roscoe Pound (Criminal Justice in America, 1930), that to resort to designing criminal law in hysterical reaction to headlines is the worst one can think of, it is Lynch mentality smuggled into the legislative bodies and through them into the courts.

Sen. Kennedy’s is the confession he was a headline-law maker, one who made headline laws. With lawmakers like him, it is headlines which make laws. Yet no one knows what the headlines reflect (a few people believe they reflect reality). If media were neutral reporting agencies, then, given what has been said in II about New Jim Crow, media treatment of crime would reflect the makeup of prison population (because prison population is a good token for the known figure of crime), that is to say the media would devote the same share of crime news to black crime as the share of black inmates population in prisons. Is this the case?

If this is not, even if it were because the media are not racist whereas lawmakers, the police and the judiciary are, it turns out they make their headlines according to their own notions rather than to an actual state of things. If the state of the society as far as crime is concerned is institutional (colorblind) racism, i.e. a New Jim Crow, and the media correct this because they go against the stream, then admittedly their headlines are no different from political pamphlets; therefore legislators are not bound to take their headlines as guidelines, anymore than they are to follow the views of any scholar, intellectual, or writer.

The same holds with the media coverage of hate crime. Sen. Kennedy wants to legislate in a “timely” fashion, following the headlines. Given what has just been said, however, he is nothing but the willing audience of a hate crime law lobby, whereas the true situation might or might not support a need for new or further legislation. Obviously, if the coverage is a hoax (Wilfred Reilly), no legislation is called for by the timely headlines. (Needless to say the notion of timely headlines is absurd: Reread the sentence and you’ll see Sen. Kennedy actually talks of timely headlines; however there is but one timely time for news headlines.)

“These despicable crimes”

Which crimes are not despicable? Crimes that a senator is more likely to commit, like embezzlement?

“Hate crimes are uniquely destructive and divisive, because their impact extends far beyond the victim.”

That the impact of all crimes “extends far beyond the victim” is on the contrary the obvious truth, one at the foundation of the secular distinction between tort law and criminal law, and hardly, therefore, could a premise be more unsupportive of the conclusion, namely, that hate crimes are unique.

“They poison entire communities and undermine the ideals for which America stands.”

One would swear other crimes are mere trifles.

“They deserve to be punished with the full force of the law.”

Yes, like any other crime. Actually, a good axiom of jurisprudence is that crimes deserve to be punished with the full force of the law. Accordingly, since every crime is punishable by the full force of the law, one cannot make a difference between one crime and the same crime “as a hate crime.”

If such a difference were legitimate, it would actually imply a decrease in penalties for hate crimes.

ii
Hate crimes are crimes of passion
,
therefore the penalty must be decreased, not increased

Here come the love crimes.

I had intended the word as a joke. I thought: If one talks of hate crimes, there must be love crimes too, which is absurd. Then I remembered the crimes of passion (crimes passionnels): “The ‘crime of passion’ defense challenges the mens rea element by suggesting that there was no malice aforethought, and instead the crime was committed in the ‘heat of passion’.” (Wikipedia: Crime of passion)

Crimes of passion are what I would like to call the love crimes. Love is a passion. Hate is no less a passion than love –sometimes love turns to hate– and therefore, as the crime of passion defense applies to love crimes, the defense applies to hate crimes too.

Think about Todd Mitchell, the black defendant in Wisconsin v. Mitchell who “instigated an attack against a white young boy.” He had just been watching the film Mississippi Burning, which stirred the rage of oppression in his heart, to the point he could not stand it anymore. His brothers and sisters in race had been enslaved, trafficked, segregated, Jim-Crowed for centuries. Hatred was stirred in him, his spirits cried for vengeance. A young white boy walked by.

Even if Mitchell had been animated by an ideology, by the liberal ideology that cannot stress enough the evils of a system and the burden of debt currently weighing upon the white man till the end of times, even if he had been an avid reader of liberal books, still his deed would not be an ideological crime –because there is no such thing under the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of conscience– but a crime of passion.

(Even the minutest premeditation in coldest blood could be a crime of passion, I find, because hate is a passion, just like the cheated husband who premeditates his wife’s death could invoke the defense in my eyes, because from love to despair time may elapse but the heat of passion remains, the heat of passion is not the same thing as the heat of the moment.)

But the Supreme Court –Rehnquist Court (surely this rings a little bell)– did not see a liberal black boy under the dramatic and melodramatic influence of a Hollywood blockbuster stuffed with the most advanced techniques of emotions and mind manipulation, no, and “the Wisconsin statute…was not punishing the defendant for his or her bigoted beliefs or statements, but rather the predicted ramifications of his or her crime” (oyez.org). Mark these words: A hate crime law does not punish a defendant for his or her bigoted beliefs or statements. I have no idea what the Court, or its commentator, means by “the predicted ramifications of the crime” and as I have not read the whole decision yet I reserve my judgment, only saying it looks like a mighty innovation in the field of criminal law and I’m surprised it is not more discussed in academia and among advocates of hate crime laws, who keep saying, instead, that hate crime laws punish bigoted biases (one also talks of bias crimes).

So very true is it that hate crimes are crimes of passion that it is even positive law in the gay panic defense. A man subject to homosexual advances may react violently with assault, battery, murder attempt, sometimes the seducer’s death. The defendant can invoke gay panic defense at his trial and if the motion is accepted his act will be treated as a crime of passion. As the reader can well imagine, statutes to that effect have disappeared from about every legal system in the western world, and now the same acts are likely to be treated as hate crimes with increased rather than decreased penalties. (Likely because how could such a reaction not be the sign of strong biases?)

iii
Hate crimes are crimes of passion
and like other crimes of passion they have no place left amidst our laws

Today crimes of passion are hardly law any longer. A man finding his wife with another man will shoot them and then kill himself, and perhaps his kids in the bargain, because he knows society will not pardon him the heat of passion. He knows only cuckolders are excused nowadays.

As one, therefore, sees crime of passion laws dwindling, one must draw the consequences as to the notion itself, which includes hate crimes. Hate crimes can have no place amidst our laws.

iv
Hate crime laws shift the tendency of regimes from majoritarian to countermajoritarian

In aristocratic regimes, the nobility is a minority too.

If one agrees the purpose of hate crime laws is not, contrary to appearances, or not only to hold the grudge of black people against whites for a past of slavery and unequal segregation in check, then one must consider the following reasoning.

Hate crime laws are designed to protect minorities from the violent manifestation of biases. That minorities would bear a natural grudge against the majority for the latter’s entrenched position and status does not seem to ever enter the mind of advocates of bias crime laws and I have never heard one such advocate express concern for the safety of individuals in the majority due to a grudge of this kind. Yet it occurs to me that, if I belonged to a minority and the majority had privileged status in the society, I would resent the fact. In case I expressed my resentment with violent acts, that would be hate crime then, would it not? But no, we are never told of such psychological problems; one has to know the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions to be aware that anti-white feelings can be a bias, and in some European countries you would look for the same kind of precedent as Wisconsin v. Mitchell in vain (but not because such crimes never happen).

All in all, one can safely bet that a risk of increased penalties exists above all for crimes where victims are from minorities. Therefore, if a criminal who is neither a hate criminal nor a love criminal, only an indifferent criminal who wants money, thinks –and I claim the media and politicians have inoculated this thinking in him– that he risks increased penalties if his victim belongs to a minority, then the obvious consequence is that he will avoid picking a victim among identifiable minorities and on the contrary target individuals from the majority. Hate crime laws point to the majority as self-evident victim for “passionless” criminals. Clearly, a government must have strong countermajoritarian mechanisms to be able to pass such laws – to the point that one wonders what role is left to its majoritarian mechanisms.

v
Hate crime laws are hate speech laws

This section is divided in two parts (a) and (b), the former being the mere quote of an earlier writing, Hate crime laws are unconstitutional (Law 20).

a/ Hate crime laws are unconstitutional view-based discrimination.

It’s time the courts declared hate crime laws unconstitutional. This is long overdue. How can hate speech be protected as the U.S. Supreme Court intends (Brandenburg v. Ohio [1969], R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul [1992], Snyder v. Phelps [2011], Matal v. Tam [2017]) when public figures known for taking positions some call hate speech must always fear being provoked to offenses, even minor, that would lead to aggravated punishment while the opponents who provoked the incidents have no such Damocles sword hanging over their heads?

Let’s take an example. If a public figure vilified by LGBT groups as a hater gets entangled in a brawl with LGBT hecklers, he may face hate crime charges while the others will face unruly behavior charges or such like (they are not known for being haters because they’re the ones who call people haters and the media follow that stance).

The “haters” (who have a constitutional right to hate speech) are at greater risk of frame-up because for them even the slightest charges can be greatly detrimental due to the increased penalties with which hate crimes are dealt with. Hate crime laws protect a minority heckler’s veto. Due to such legislation, whole classes of people are therefore deprived of their full rights to political participation for lack of equal protection under the law. This is government repression of political opponents.

b/ Hate crime laws are conceived as disguised hate speech laws.

Discretionary police and prosecution power serves to squelch speech in scores of contexts, by making pretextual use of laws against disorderly conduct, trespass, unlawful assembly, disobeying a lawful order (like orders to move or keep moving), breach of the peace, and other such low-level criminal statutes, and scholars point out the failure of courts to address the issue properly.

The issue must be of increased concern when to low-level incriminations may be added the hate crime label. Since there have been various cases of “petty larceny, as a hate crime,” one can well imagine charges such as “trespass, as a hate crime” or “disobeying a lawful order, as a hate crime.”

Often, in the usual cases, charges are dropped and the victim of malicious policing is no more heard of. In the case of hate crimes there could be no dropping of the charges, for obvious reasons. Therefore, since police power can be used to squelch one’s speech and the courts have no sure means to second-guess the discretionary use of police power (filming police on public space is a hazy legal issue: don’t you fancy it be a well-established right), I believe advocates of hate crime laws intend to take advantage of the situation to have hate crime laws serve as hate speech laws. I believe it for the simple reason that if hate speech laws were not unconstitutional these are the laws they would demand. We have seen it in Europe: the same rhetoric used in the U.S. in support of hate crime laws is used in Europe to advocate hate speech laws.

So long as hate crime laws exist, the U.S. is at risk of becoming –if not being already, through the judicially undetected, pretextual use of executive discretion– a police state like current European Old World regimes.