OP says "There's no such thing as a love crime". Actually, some jurisdictions do recognize such crimes. They are usually caught under the general heading of crime passionel. These are crimes - acts the law prohibits - where the defendant has as an excuse for committing the crime such as sudden anger or heartbreak. Such crimes eliminate the element of "premeditation" and can be provoked in some cases by seeing someone one loves be unfaithful, threatened or harmed (and you spring to their defense). To be sure, there are crimes passionel that do not arise out of love but anger, remorse, guilt. As well, some countries permit a defense of mercy killing, when done out of love not gain or revenge or some such.
As for the question. Trivially, yes - the term was coined by journalists - and policy advoates:
The term "hate crime" was coined in the 1980s by journalists and policy advocates who were attempting to describe a series of incidents directed at Jews, Asians and African-Americans. The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines hate crime (also known as bias crime) as "a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-hate-crime
But the idea of a special class of crime pertaining to unlawful treatment because of race, color, religion, or national origin appeared in 1968, when Congress passed, and President Lyndon Johnson signed into law, the first federal hate crimes statute.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/hate-crime-laws
In other countries such crimes of bigotry are referred to as racial villification ocrimes - or more generally vilification crimes, because Islam is not a race.
That was then.
Now, the term is overused and is being used to silence debate and discussion and also to refer to crimes that may not be hate crimes at all - such as rape. It becomes a hate crime if the rape is motivated by the victim's ethnicity or race. "Hate crime" confuses motivation (why you act) with intent (what you want to achieve). Most crimes called "hate crimes" nowadays do not spring from hate, as a visceral emotion of disgust and loathing - a hateful motivation; but from bigotry, beliefs about groups of people and the members of the group.
In my view, we need to abandon this term or define it more carefully and focus it's use. Instead concentrate on the intent - and use the emotion as an aggravating factor.
As for whiteies having a monopoly on it, that is just nonsense. Rwanda the Balkans, Iran ("Death to America") and a mess of other places all wallow in hate crimes, but it is convenient for SJWs to blame whitey.
OP asks "won't this breed more resentment towards the protected minorities, who seem to have more rights in law than the majority?"
Yes it is doing just that. The double standards in a range of things, including hate crimes, are in fact drawing people to extreme right ideology and fueling resentment and also validating various conspiracy theories, which inturn draw support and supporters and make matters worse.
Banning extreme right and deplatforming people is also having the same effect.
Although some on the right bemoan this, there are others who welcome it and actively campaign for it, as they see it as part of a non-violent for now accelerationist program, hastening the end of a sick system.
Enough sperging.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
, so my first reaction to this was wondering what the fuck the deal is with you Brits and Nazi pugs
www.metro.news
