I got into a recent debate on a friend's blog regarding the nature of Hate Crimes, and why such a classification even exists. He, being a US Marine, felt a bit of injustice at the fact that harassment of military personnel isn't viewed as a hate crime... because it's stemmed from hate as well.
I explained that "hate crime" laws were established to protect minorities, and minority groups are marginalized by default -- they have less voice in the community than the majority, just by nature of sheer numbers. Less voice means less impact, and that the majority of laws and regulations will benefit the majority, and while utilitarianism seems to be a functional tactic for government, it certainly always sucks for the minority groups.
A counter-argument was presented: On an individual level, we each can petition on our own behalf; we can each go and educate ourselves and get a job, etc., etc. Since one individual is as much of a minority as another, the playing field is level. It's an interesting thought, and in my own case, I see it evident. I'm technically a minority (half-korean, half white), and I view myself as quite successful... but on the other hand, I don't have a collective mindset about my ethnicity. I don't embrace that part of my identity -- I don't think of myself as a part of a subset of the population. A woman might identify with being among "women," and a black man might identify with the plight of black-americans. Such a concept is entirely foreign to me, and I don't feel as though my voice has been marginalized.
What are your thoughts on this?
