How does Rubin’s Hate Crimes Position Agree with Conservative Thought?

Jim Kelly Jim Kelly 9 Comments


In the Family Values Voter Information Guide, 77th Assembly District candidate Christine Rubin states that she supports hate crimes legislation.  This position is antithetical to conservative thought.

It is important for the readers of Rostra to know that I am deeply opposed to the concept of thought crimes legislation.  I say thought crimes because the emphasis of such legislation is to have a chilling effect on thought and speech.

By embracing hate crimes legislation, Rubin aligns herself with liberal groups such as The Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU.  These groups have pushed for hate crimes legislation so as to give selected groups a preferred minority status, ignoring the fact that the law already provides equal protection for all. These protections do not however extend to speech.  The reality of recent hate crimes legislation in Europe is that speech is no longer protected.

In Stockholm, Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to prison for condemning homosexuality from the pulpit.  Pastor Jim Garlow said to the La Mesa City Council in opposition to a proposed Hate Free Resolution, “Freedoms are being lost.”   Many believe that enacting hate crimes legislation is the way in which the state will further muzzle conservatives as they wish to do with the anti talk radio agenda of the Fairness Doctrine.

Please See links below for validation of statements:


Jim Kelly is a longtime conservative activist and an elected member of the Grossmont Union High School District Governing Board


Comments 9

  1. Hey Jim –

    A) How about you actually link to the information guide so people can see
    – How vague the question is
    – How plenty of Republicans support the measure (Judge candidate Craig Candelore, Congressional candidate Michael Crimmins, Assembly candidate Emma Turner)
    – How many Republican candidates were undecided and how few candidates chose to respond to the questionnaire at all.

    B) How about you explain that Green was also acquitted by the same justice system?

    C) What’s wrong with being aligned with the ACLU? The San Diego Republican party currently is:

  2. All sentencing should be as stiff as sentences for “thought crimes”. It would be a tragedy if a violent assaulter got out of prison a day earlier because his victim wasn’t gay or a minority.

    How is it equal application of the law if someone receives a lesser punishment for assaulting me (I’m white) than they do for assaulting someone with a darker skin tone?

    How is dividing the country into pockets of people who receive different treatment under the law good for Americans? Boy, liberals find new and more creative ways to offend me every single day.

  3. You know, I’ve always been uncomfortable with hate crime legislation for the very same reason–that it’s awfully close to thought crime.

    That said, I do no acknowledge that certain crimes create a sense of terror across the community. A Neo-Nazi has a right to be a Neo-Nazi, but once he beats up a Jew, that has the effect of intimidating a larger population than just the one victim and that should be reflected in the punishment.

    What about a “mass assault” or “mass intimidation” charge that would be applied when it can be proven than act intended to threaten a larger, specific community or created a great amount of fear across a specific community. This would allow for enhancement not only for so-called hate crimes, but for sexual offenses like rape that specifically have an emotional affect on women or home-invasions in a specific neighborhood.

    I think this would allow us to deal with the issue of hate crimes without punishing someone for their beliefs, but for the actual damage they cause.

  4. Dave,

    While some of the questions you raise are worth addressing by Jim Kelly, I would like to add two thoughts/ observations:

    #1 Christine submitted her information to the voter guide because she is running for office. The other two candidates she is running against both oppose hate crime legislation which leaves her to the left of Wells and Jones.

    #2 The voter guide stated she opposes same-sex adoptions yet she supported them when she spoke at the CRA meeting back in February. This is yet another position she is to the left of the other two candidates running.


  5. Mike D:

    Those are fair points.

    I still wonder if there was an actual question that was asked or a simple do you or don’t you.

    And I also wonder whether the right/left really applies here, considering how broad the term “terrorism” became under Republican leadership. (Ex: If someone vandalizes a US Forest Service building, it’s vandalism. If they do it because they’re extreme environmentalists, that’s terrorism. Really, it’s the same kind of “thought crime” Kelly’s addressing)

    Also, to correct a typo in an earlier comment, the line should have read:

    “That said, I do acknowledge that certain crimes create a sense of terror across the community.”

  6. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that any CRIME committed against any person or group of people based on anything other than just that CRIME being one of convenience could be considered a “hate crime”?? A “hate crime” is a CRIMINAL act that targets a person or group of people and this could protect Pastor Garlow or anyone else just as much. Remember, we are talking about an act that is CRIMINAL. Was there a question that I missed regarding “hate speech?”

    I have been watching this race closely and it is clear to me that Mr. Wells is not out actually campaigning in the district. Looking at the official sample ballot, you wouldn’t even know Mr. Wells is running, both Mrs. Rubin and Mr. Jones have candidate statements but as I have mentioned before, Mr. Wells does not. I happened to be at the Gun Show as well but must have missed Mr. Wells; I did see other candidates though.

    Perhaps Mr. Kelly could let us know what he thinks about Assemblyman Anderson laundering money. (If that is too vague, I will be happy to get the article(s))

  7. In defense of Christine, I remember the question on the form. I had to assume it meant Hate crimes in reference to the Gay viewpoint. In my professional life I have had to deal with individuals suffering at the hands of domestic violence, also a hate crime. The question was loaded and vague as I recall, you had to guess at the definition the interviewer was using.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.