The time is ripe for some easy and empty rhetoric to capture the passionate hearts and blank minds of the crowd. And Andy Cuomo, the Governor of New York, wants to get him some.

“Our diversity is our strength and this legislation will help protect New Yorkers and send a clear signal that violence and discrimination have no place in our society,” Cuomo said in a statement.

It’s hard to argue with the sentiment and so what kind of horrible human being would you have to be to not gush, “yes, oh yes,” in furtherance of this lofty goal?

Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to crack down on hate-fueled rioting in the aftermath of the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia last weekend.

Cuomo proposed the “Charlottesville provisions” — changes to state law that would establish new hate crimes for inciting to riot or rioting “when directed at a protected class.” The charges would apply if a riot targets an individual or group based on several classifications, including age, color, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. 

At first blush, this seems like a no-brainer, particularly given that we’re beyond the argument that “hate crimes” are an inherently bad, if not terrible, idea, as they create an enhanced penalty for the commission of criminal conduct plus a thought crime. But what is the crime of “riot”?

A person is guilty of riot in the first degree when he:

1. Simultaneously with ten or more other persons, engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly causes or creates a grave risk of causing public alarm, and in the course of and as a result of such conduct, a person other than one of the participants suffers physical injury or substantial property damage occurs;

There has been no shortage of protests lately, both for causes hated and loved, that create a “grave risk of causing public alarm,” which is usually very much the point of the protest. Add to that “physical injury” or “substantial property damage” and it sounds remarkably like an awful lot of “protests” lately, most notably against conservative speakers on college campuses by a certain group prone to black clothing and face masks.

But this law is already on the books. Cuomo’s cry is to add an enhancement to the law by upping the degree of felony and punishment when the protest-cum-riot is “directed” at a protected class. If you asked the Charlottesvllle Naxos what they were marching for, they would have told you that their goal was to keep the Statue of Robert E. Lee. Maybe they would throw in the defense of Western Civilization.

But we know it was white supremacy and nationalism, which means the eradication of minorities and foreigners, plus whoever else they deemed too dirty for their Utopia. Outside of a small group of friends, nobody would shed a tear for them had they been charged with “hate” rioting. Because we all know their disavowals are bullshit.

Dumping on the outgroup is as American as apple pie (which may not be very American if somebody figures out that it’s racist and sexist), and the tyranny of the majority that oppresses the group for whom we feel passionately today turns into the will of the people. But as pendulums swing, and the next squirrel diverts our attention from the current problem that must be fixed, the laws passed in a fit of passion end up as weapons to be used in ways we never imagined.

At Reason, Scott Shackford points out the obvious next step for “hate” rioting.

As is typical when a politician makes grandstanding announcements about fighting crime, Cuomo sees—or wants you to see—only some of the likely outcomes. He says these laws wil protect marginalized minorities against bigots. He does not discuss the power dynamic that hate crime laws set up. Once you establish a list of protected classes, many different groups will try to get onto it. Right now, law enforcement interests around the country are trying to add police and first responders to the list.

Louisiana and Kentucky have done just that. In Louisiana, one police chief has declared that simply resisting arrest now qualifies as a hate crime.

Head of the Sergeants Benevolent Association (which is really, really benevolent to sergeants), Ed Mullins, is already on the job.

Members of law enforcement have become the targets of racism: Blue Racism.

Crazy? “Blue racism” makes no sense. Cops aren’t a race. Cops aren’t oppressed? Just stupid stuff, right? Get a life, kids.

As you know, our city, state and nation are under severe breaking points. Never in my lifetime have I witnessed such division of all people and, yes, this division is now impacting even the members of law enforcement. I find great difficulty in believing we have lost our way.

I have had the benefit of speaking with many members of law enforcement across the nation and I can assure you the honest and well-intended members of our profession want to serve all our citizens to the best of our abilities. However, we too have become the targets of racism: Blue Racism. All racism simply has to stop!

The problem with wrapping your cause up in vague platitudes is that anybody can do it, even Ed Mullins. And before you slough this off as ridiculous, remember how much we loved us some cops after 9/11? We even gave them a new benign name, First Responders, which sounds much better than the guys who shoot black guys whenever they get a little nervous and can’t be absolutely certain they won’t be hurt by the scary black guy (or white woman).

But cops are just the beginning. Favor comes and goes, and the list already includes cracks that can be wildly exploited. What about religion, like when the Chicago Dyke March threw out lesbians with an Israeli flag? Had they refused to be “erased,” and a fight broke out, you’ve got your hate crime.

These are dangerous times for law, as passions run deep and stupid. Sure, history teaches us that we’ve made a great many mistakes, like putting up statues of slave-defending losers which reflected the Will of the People until it became the tyranny of the majority. But when we’re busy fighting for the moment’s cause, we want to tear down the statue to George Santayana as well. We will inevitably regret it, but will we continue to make the same mistake over and over anyway?