Editor:
I am, once again, amazed at the ignorance in which an opinion writer is arrogant enough to write an article inferring that Zion is free from Hate. I am, of course, referring to the March 5 column written by John Morley entitled “Real Debate Over Hate Crime Bill Is Impossible.”
Mr. Morley looses all credibility when he attempts to equate the hate crimes bill (SB 64) to a “blunt object over Utah’s collective head,” inferring that such a bill would endanger the well being of these masses. How could a bill that offered an increase in penalties for those committing hate crimes be dangerous?
His ignorance is magnified when he so contemptuously claims that “Hate crimes legislation in Utah is unnecessary and ineffective,” a statement Curry in a Hurry owner/operator, whose restaurant was maliciously attacked out of hate towards Osama Bin Ladin’s Sept. 11 attack on the United States, would beg to differ from.
Or perhaps Mr. Morley would like to tell the two black Westminster students, who, only mere days after the bill’s unfortunate demise, the Salt Lake Tribune reported to have received letters from the “Bad Boys of Utah,” threatening their safety, that we don’t have a problem with hate crimes in Utah.
Yes, Mr. Morley, at first, second, third and last glance this bill is an important piece of socially conscious law making. And I applaud Senator Alicia Suazo’s fortitude to make a sixth attempt to pass such a bill. (And since when is six equal to umpteenth?)
If you believe that defending the rights of minority groups, including but not limited to ethnic, cultural, sexual orientation and religion as being the advancement of a personal agenda, then perhaps we need more legislators who will take personal the plights of their constituents.
Mr. Morley, in his infinite wisdom, charged that the bill was used to create confusion for legislators who already have too much to do, those same legislators who spent numerous hours promoting a bill to determine not only the historical state vegetable the beet, but also the new, much more progressive state vegetable?the onion.
Please, Mr. Morley, I beg to differ with you on the weighted importance of such bills.
Mr. Morley’s personal attack on Sen. Suazo’s intentions were to “back Utah’s conservative Legislature into a corner and to use such a tactic so as to feed her own ego as a attention hungry politician” is ludicrous.
Sen. Suazo does not yet possess the savvy or experience of her late husband, and yet she willingly took on an often closed minded group of Republicans whose every move is dictated by power hungry conservative activists like the Eagle Forum, whose presence is a constant reminder to most that when re-election rolls around, voting on such a bill will be remembered and politically bastardized. And she did this knowing that she would get “beat up.”
You, of all people, should know how politics works, Mr. Morley?especially here in Utah, where a Legislature is so partisan weighted that checks and balances have become all but impossible.
Mr. Morley makes a shallow attempt to quantify the need for such legislation, stating that while “every hate crime is a tragedy, it [the legislature] simply does not have the time or resources to deal with a problem that affects as few people as hate crimes.”
Mr. Morley, may I remind you of the overwhelming affect that the Sept. 11 attack had on this country?regardless of whether or not you lived in NYC, Alaska, or even Salt Lake City? What are you waiting for, Mr. Morley? Will it take an influx of cross burnings or swastikas scrolled across churches?
Just because your white Anglo Saxon person is able to look the other way, it does not mean the Legislature should. Zion is not safe, Mr. Morley. If we continue to think like this, then we will cease to prevent or even control crime and only become caretakers to those in the criminal system. Perhaps our gangs would not be operating at the levels and great numbers in which they are had we heeded the signs early on as opposed to waiting for a greater number to be affected.
Additionally, I would like to commend you, Mr. Morley, for putting the frosting on your own cake when you ignorantly lay claim that the governor signing a bill such as this would not change life on Salt Lake City’s streets. So why sign any bill, John? If signing bills really only make us feel good, then why have a Legislature at all?
Lastly, Mr. Morley, I am appalled at your indignation and blatant disrespect to not only Sen. Suazo but also to her late husband with your closing words: “And for Pete’s sake, please don’t bring this bill back again.”
Your use of this euphemism is not only inappropriate but also blasphemous. It was inappropriate because it breaks all journalistic and otherwise recognized etiquette when referring to the dead, and it was blasphemous because it originates from making reference to “for Christ’s Sake,” later replaced with Pete’s sake (referencing Saint Peter).
Tell me, Mr. Morley, why not just say “for Christ’s sake?” Because you are in Salt Lake City, and this terminology is unacceptable.
Your rhetoric is verbal urination on the sanctity of death, and YOU ARE WRONG IN THESE CLOSING WORDS, MR. MORLEY, JUST PLAIN WRONG!
Juan Hernandez, Jr., Political Science