In an era bursting with real crime issues, what gets instant police attention these days? A group of teenagers from Georgia staking their claim on a $20 pride flag. Incredible, right? Atlanta, a city grappling with violent crime rates, apparently has no problem deploying law enforcement on these youths for this “heinous” act – cutting up some flags. Meanwhile, everywhere else, more significant crimes that actually threaten communities go unattended. Pickpocketing? Nah. A stolen pride flag? Send in the cavalry.
So, it’s a hate crime now if you ruin a flag adorned with rainbow colors, a symbol that not everybody even agrees with? It seems you can practically tear up Old Glory and it’d go unnoticed because “opinion” and “rights” and all that. But hit the pride flag in Midtown Atlanta, and suddenly, the world stops spinning. Even worse, they tag a parent with the crime of failing to supervise a teen. Surely the numerous real threats to community safety can be better uses of resources.
What’s intriguing here is that for a crime to exist, shouldn’t there be a victim? The folks over at the Atlanta Eagle, the popular gay bar near the incident, said they felt like their home was attacked. But was it? Did anyone get harmed physically or threatened? The law is getting dragged into foolery that divides rather than unites; a prank among teenagers—and such it was—should not trigger the machinery of hate crime legislation. Same standards for everyone or none at all.
The hypocrisy is mountains high and deafeningly loud. Unsurprisingly, whenever incidents merit political ammunition, like destroying symbols of the reigning social agenda, the narrative gets twisted. Hate crime charges are opportunistically employed to sideline political opponents or cater to lobbyists. Serious crime in the city is pervasive, only to be ignored while tokenism takes center stage. This isn’t justice; it’s social pageantry, a masquerade that benefits no one least of all victims who are truly threatened.
The situation isn’t just about prioritizing police resources judiciously. It’s a collision course where cultural sentiments are met with biased definitions of crime, diluting the impact of hate crimes’ purpose to tackle genuine discrimination and hatred. It’s high time the category was reevaluated, if not abolished. How about focusing on tangible security issues? That way, perhaps actual accomplishment—a safer community—can be grasped, instead of being sidetracked by misguided moral policing.
