Article: Is hating violence a hate crime?

The NYT article Hate Begets Hate (NYT Editorial 01-04-2010) (OpEdNews 01-05-2010) fairly describes the widespread violence against homosexuals in Uganda. However, its claim about the anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 in Uganda is disingenuous at best. As reported by Scott Lively, "the proposed death penalty in the bill, just one of many provisions, is for "aggravated homosexuality," which is actually pederasty, pedophilia, homosexual parent/child incest, homosexual abuse of a disabled ward, and knowingly spreading AIDS." (AIM Column 01-04-2010, NAMBLA-gate: The Strange Case of Kevin Jennings, Part One) That's quite different from the implications of the NYT's editorial, which was by the way not signed. Could it seem that those who oppose the death penalty in the Act support pedophilia, homosexual rape, incest, rape of mentally disabled, and the spreading of AIDS? I not only would hope not but also think not. But perhaps they're just ignorant of the provisions of the Act, maybe willing so. However, part of the unjustified overreaction against many homosexuals in Uganda is due to the history of homosexuality in Uganda. Perhaps people should look up the history of 19th century homosexual Ugandan King Mwanga who persecuted and killed Christians and was a violent pedophile. (NYT 01-12-1898) As reported in wanderingcaravan-bronzebuckaroo.blogspot.com 09-10-2007, "Historical records indicate that between 1885-1886, recently converted Anglican Christian young men were put to death by King Mwanga II of Buganda (now Uganda) for turning to conservative Christian doctrine and subsequently refusing sexual relations with him." All this despite the fact that King Mwanga was a Muslim. But then Muslims have used rape, both heterosexual and homosexual to degrade infidels. (islam-watch.org 08-01-2006) Then there's the problem of European and American activists trying to bring back homosexual domination of the country. (AIM 01-04-2010) Nevertheless, one wrong doesn't justify another. Strong laws against sexual violence whether it be homosexual or heterosexual are justified. But bigotry and violence against law abiding people are not. As Lively implied, let's hope that the Act is modified so as to not be overly broad. Rape, incest, pedophilia, and the intentional spreading of diseases no matter what one's sexual inclinations should be strongly opposed by all moral people. I hope that's what the NYT was really advocating.