UPDATED: Letter to My Congressman on LLEHCPA (H.R.1592) Hate Crimes Prevention Act
May 3rd, 2007 | 30 responses
UPDATE: House Passes Hate Crimes Bill Despite Possible Veto
Even before House members debated and passed a bill today to expand hate crimes law, the administration signaled that President Bush would veto it if it ever reaches his desk — delighting Republican lawmakers and social conservatives.
=====================================================
The US House of Representatives is debating this issue as I prepare this post and will vote on it later today. You can watch on C-SPAN. I am appalled to hear some representatives repeat the most preposterous, slanderous, nonsense in opposition to this act, which should have been passed several years ago. These ignorant folks have apparently never seen a gay-bashing (as I have) and are unaware that such cases are often laughed off or ignored by local authorities.
Here is the letter I emailed to my Congressman:
May 1, 2007
Dear Representative Steve Chabot,
As a religious Jew, I encourage you to vote this Thursday for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R.1592), without any amendments or motion to recommit. This legislation will expand federal hate crimes law to include crimes based on gender, sexuality, and disability and will enable law enforcement to appropriately investigate and prosecute egregious hate crimes targeting and terrorizing an entire community.
All violent crimes are reprehensible, but the damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes rend the fabric of our society and fragment communities, targeting a whole group and not just the individual victim.
Therefore, a bias motivated act must be dealt with extra severely.
Furthermore, by collecting accurate information about these hate crimes, the government and non-governmental organizations can better plan and program educational activities to combat hatred. Although the stricter punishment is critical, the goal of hate crimes laws is often tied to the idea of educating perpetrators, law enforcement officers, and the general public about the scourge of hate in our society.
Jewish tradition consistently teaches the importance of tolerance and the acceptance of others. In the Holiness Code, in Leviticus 19:17, we are commanded “You shall not hate another in your heart.”
Nobel laureate Eli Wiesel once said: “To hate is to deny another person’s humanity.” Now is the time for Congress to pass hate crimes laws which will ensure just measures against those who commit hate-motivated attacks.
Sincerely,
Helaine Robinson
Here some additional resources on the issue:
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Human Rights Campaign
Anti-Defamation League
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
American Civil Liberties Union
National Conference for Community and Justice
Rep. Pence of Indiana is speaking now in opposition to the bill. Strangely enough, both gay-bashings I saw were in the State of Indiana.
Freshman Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota spoke very well on this issue.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio just spoke in favor – this is one thing I agree with him on!
Debate ended. The motion to recommit (send the bill back to committee) failed. Voting on the bill is now taking place. I just got an email from PFAW indicating that the bill will pass the House and it’s time to contact the Senate.
The bill appears to have passed by at least 40 votes. Reportedly, the White House has threatened to veto it.
BLOGGING ON THIS ISSUE:
AMERICAblog:
Lead gay group blasts religious right ties to hate group, white supremacist
“Thought crimes” against GOP members of Congress are already illegal – but they won’t support protecting gays from ACTUAL violent crimes
Mary Cheney, Izzy Hernandez, and NAMBLA
BREAKING: GOP refuses to add American troops and senior citizens to hate crime bill
237-180 Hate Crime bill passes US House
opinions powered by SendLove.to
30 Responses to “UPDATED: Letter to My Congressman on LLEHCPA (H.R.1592) Hate Crimes Prevention Act”
the federal government already has the power to step in if local authorities laugh off or ignore crimes… and they’ve done so many times in the past.
the issue is whether the penalty should be increased because of the (alleged) reason someone commits a crime… and since I disagree, I guess I must be one of those ignorant fools to whom you so affectionately refer.
First, I’m not comfortable with the lack of standards to determine the alleged reason one commits a crime. Just because a gay or a woman or a black is the victim of an attack doesn’t mean the crime was motivated because of that factor. Was, for exampe, James Byrd killed because he was black, or because he was simply there? Likewise, there was an argument (how serious, I don’t know) that Matthew Shepard was targeted because he had money, not because he was gay.
But more importantly, I don’t want society focusing on the reasons one commits crimes, nor do I want society focusing on the racial or other characteristics of the person attacked. I want the crime punished, period. It doesn’t matter to me the reason someone comes after me, all that matters is that the perpetrator is caught and punished for the underlying crime. And I don’t want my lack of ‘specialness’ to lead to a lesser sentence for someone who harms me than the same act would be for someone who happened to pick on somene special.
And what kind of silliness (pardon the bluntness) is that about needing to collect statistics on these supposed hate crimes so society can better educate the public? Educate them about what, that beating people up is bad? People who go after gays are going to be deterred from doing so because of some pamphlet put out by the government? And if by some chance, there was a benefit in these educational programs, that ought to stand by itself and doesn’t need to be piggybacked onto a bill that increases penalties for certain crimes against certain people.
This is just another effort towards ‘though-crime’. It is also a step down the slippery slope of ‘protected classes’, i.e., those for whom the law will be re-written as being worthy of extra and special treatments, rather than the principle of ‘all are equal’. It is pure Animal Farm.
“Hate crimes” legislation is shoving left-wing politics into the legal code. We don’t need to see PC reverse discrimination in yet another form.
> It doesn’t matter to
> me the reason someone
> comes after me, all that
> matters is that the
> perpetrator is caught
> and punished for the
> underlying crime. And I
> don’t want my lack of
> ’specialness’ to lead to
> a lesser sentence for
> someone who harms
> me than the same act
> would be for someone
> who happened to pick
> on somene special.
Equality before the law, remember? Discrimination is illegal, remember? Except that on the Left some should be more equal than others, and it’s okay to engage in reverse discrimination. Death to the “hierarchy-patriarchy”!
> And what kind of silliness
> (pardon the bluntness) is
> that about needing to
> collect statistics on these
> supposed hate crimes so
> society can better educate
> the public?
And taught in the schools, don’t forget, just like environmentalism, “AIDS education,” and earlier, “nuclear education” (US-Western disarmament).
Sorry guys, I know what political-correctness is from personal experience and I abhor it. I also know what hate crimes are from personal experience and I abhor them.
This bill is both right and necessary.
By the way, Holly, don’t make the false accusation that I’m a homophobe or any other false accusation. When visiting my radical friend in DC with GBLT community ties, I’ve not only joined in an anti-Bush demonstration for entertainment, but have also seen at least one gay pride parade there accompanied with the predictable punks who were shouting insults and may have thrown a rock or two at the marchers. But some of these people don’t so much hate gays as much as they are simply punks looking for an excuse to make trouble, just as are some who join the leftist mobs who trash McDonald’s and Starbucks. (The latter are Evil Capitalist Business so they don’t deserve special protection even though they’re as hated or more so than gays, is that correct?)
I’m not prone to making false accusations.
> This bill is both right and necessary.
“Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007″
“Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce”
“the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude”
“members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races’”
“A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.”
“Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended”
“Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person”
“Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person”
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592
> I’m not prone to making false accusations.
So I’ve noticed. Thanks, just the same.
> This bill is both right and necessary.
Neither of these claims is true. Laws that cannot be demonstrably proven to have been broken are rarely right and never necessary.
One could argue that defining a hate crime is similar to discerning between premeditated crime and not. But that doesn’t work either as there is no reliable scale to measure bias against as one can use time to determine if an act is premeditated or not.
This bill is in a gray area at best. Philosophically a country ought to strive to have as few laws as possible to maintain order and these laws should be structured with maximum clarity. This bill adds nothing but trouble to the system.
Will “federalizing” crime actually deter any criminal?
But, as long as they’re at it, I think we should add in little old ladies in New York apartment vestibules, all pregnant women, the Amish and New York Yankee fans living in Boston for this extra special protection.
Sorry Holly, but beating a man/woman or killing them is a crime, period. If it was pre-meditated, then we make it a more serious crime.
If it was because he was black, or gay, or he had brown hair, or he was taller than me, etc., that shouldn’t come into play.
I am not talking about political correctness, and I don’t think my post can be read that way. It is the thought-crime and protected class aspects that should be very worrisome, especially to anyone who has expressed deep concern over the loss of civil liberties under the current administration.
Stop for a second, and think about how laws like this will change and morph over 10, 20, 50 years. The opportunity for abuse and incremental expansion is truly frightening, and under the wrong administrations could even be turned back against the very people they are supposed to protect.
I fear that your strong support for laws like this may likely be more along the lines of ‘I have suffered in my life for who and what I am, so I want laws that give me extra vengeance against those who have wronged me.’
An understandable feeling, quite frankly, but a very bad basis for law.
> all pregnant women
[The Right, seizing the opportunity] The FETUS!!!
Bush may actually veto a third bill.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+veto+hate+crime+bill
Now here’s the thing, I’m a bit ambivalent about “Hate Crime” laws myself, for several reasons, some already stated by other commenters and also because I see enormous potential for abuse, although I do kinda see the spirit under which these laws are enacted.
But that’s not the issue to me now. There are indicators that say that Bush will veto the bill. OK, then that means he takes one of two roads, and if he were honest he would have to say which:
A- He opposes Hate Crimes legislation of any sort, for any group. That means he would favor removing hate crime legislation about race and religion. Fair enough, though he should clearly state this.
B- He doesn’t oppose hate crimes legislation, he just doesn’t think gays should have that protection. This would either stem from not believing that homophobia causes Gays to be disproportionately singled out for certain crimes or that he thinks opposition to homosexuality is good and therefore giving special consideration to homophobia driven crimes is like giving special consideration to crimes driven by hatred of adulterers.
Now, even if you believe that homophobia doesn’t cause Gays to be attacked more often than non-Gays by certain people that shouldn’t affect the decision to allow the law, if you agree that a Hate Crime is worse than just a Crime and you agree that attacking someone because of sexual orientation is wrong, then the law should pass. If there aren’t any homophobic attacks (HA!) then it will happily never have to be imposed.
But let’s not pretend that homophobia doesn’t play into opposition to this law. Yes, there are people (many here) who oppose ALL Hate Crime laws, but I’ll bet you ANYTHING that the people lobbying hardest against this law are *gasp* groups that virulently attack homosexuality. And since being Gay is BAD, you shouldn’t get “special” protection for it. They aren’t lobbying for the elimination of Hate Crimes laws that protect Blacks, or religious minorities, or disabled persons, they don’t want laws to protect Gays.
Actually Lynx, while I see the point you are trying to make, I am more cynical than you.
I think the majority of the people that oppose the bill simply because they think ‘gays are bad’, are likely to be bigoted about Blacks, the disabled, etc., or at least some of the additional protected groups, not just gays.
Rarely do I meet bigots who manage to confine their irrational hatred to just one group.
> A … Fair enough, though
> he should clearly state this.
Given how few vetoes he’s made, he owes the universe a clear explanation why he would veto this bill.
> B … he just doesn’t think
> gays should have that protection
If he specifically does this to gays while leaving the other special classes in this bill alone, then he has failed.
C. It’s a sop to the Religious Right to make sure they vote in 2008 rather than abstain, le Pen style, and for that matter to other voters who may be conservative and who voted Democratic in 2006 because they were angered by the GOP’s behavior.
> if you agree that a Hate
> Crime is worse than just
> a Crime and you agree
> that attacking someone
> because of sexual
> orientation is wrong,
> then the law should pass.
It does not follow. The law as proposed is defective. That’s despite the argument proponents may make that it in no way is “thought police” in nature, and in fact allows freedom of expression, not only freedom of thought. (It is not a crime to hate someone wrongly, even if it is wrong to hate someone wrongly.) The law establishes protected classes, makes some more equal than others (leftist reverse discrimination). There are also valid concerns by the religious, because since the 1960s the First Amendment has been routinely misconstrued and used as a political weapon against the religious.
> But let’s not pretend
> that homophobia doesn’t
> play into opposition to
> this law.
I’m certain it does. But it’s preposterous to label everyone who has legitimate complaints about this law as homophobic.
When I saw this story on the Yahoo front page under the titleWhite House opposes hate crimes bill>, I knew that it was only a matter of time before it turned up here at TMV. And though I am deeply dissatisfied with Bush on the issue of civil liberties and personal freedom, this is one of the rare instances in which I actually agree with him on the end judgment (though my rationale for reaching this judgment may differ from his).
I can already foresee this story generating some explosive debate, so first off, before anyone goes any further on this topic, I strongly recommend that you all READ THE TEXT OF THE BILL. It can be found “here. Let’s be very clear what we are debating before we get up in arms and allow this debate to devolve into unfair attacks.
I’m not going to post the entire text of the bill (that would take too much space), but I have posted that part which I feel is relevant to this debate:
First off, let it be clear that this is an amendment to already existing laws. My objection to this bill arise not because of the specific changes that have been made but because I oppose hate crimes legislation on principle. I do so because I believe that people should be prosecute based upon the crimes they commit and not based on whether their crimes were committed out of hatred toward any one particular group.
This reflects a change in my views.
At one time, I was a strong supporter of hate crimes legislation. In fact, the first time I debated someone on this topic was following one of the three presidential debates between Gore and Bush in 2000. During the date, Gore (predictably) favored hate crimes legislation while Bush (predictably) came out against hate crimes legislation. Mind you, this was in the backdrop of the incident involving James Byrd, an African-American male in who was tied to the back of a pickup truck and dragged to his death by three white men. This horrific incident occurred in Texas in 1998, so it was only natural that Bush (having been the governor at the time of this incident and had stated his opposition to hate crimes laws) would be questioned about this issue during the campaign. During the debate Bush argued that crimes such as this horrible and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and since the three men who committed this crime were sentenced to death, tougher laws were unnecessary.
At the time, I was outraged (against Bush, that is). Given that I was pulling for Gore, I was predisposed to disagreeing with Bush anyway–particularly on what I regarded as social/personal freedom issues. But at the time, I remember myself feeling confident that I was right and that Bush was seriously out of touch on this issue. My reasoning was simple:
1) I believe that murder/assault is wrong.
2) I believe that bigotry is wrong.
3) Therefore, committing murder/assault motivated by bigotry is more wrong than committing either offense alone.
4) Therefore, a person who commits murder/assault motivated by bigotry should receive a harsher sentence than a person who commits murder/assault not motivated by bigotry.
It made perfect sense to me at the time, yet I was unable to convince my roommate, who tends to have similar views as I do on social/personal freedom issues and had just watched the debate with me. Referring to Bush’s argument, my roommate pointed out that if hate crimes laws had been enacted, the three men who had murdered James Byrd wouldn’t have received a harsher penalty, as they received the death penalty.
But to me, that wasn’t the point. It was the general principle of the matter-that committing murder/assault motivated by bigotry is worse than committing murder/assault in the absence of bigotry and that our laws should reflect this. I debated my roommate for about twenty minutes and wasn’t able to convince him to my point of view. It was until after I had pondered this issue for several months that I began to understand why my argument hadn’t been that convincing…
It was a flawed argument.
At heart of this debate and many other political debates is whether one believes that government laws should reflect our personal beliefs. All too often, those on both the left and the right justify their positions by arguing, “Well, I personally believe this to be very wrong, therefore, the government should take steps to prevent/prohibit it.”
Let’s consider my argument above:
1) I believe that murder/assault is wrong.
2) I believe that bigotry is wrong.
3) Therefore, committing murder/assault motivated by bigotry is more wrong than committing either offense alone.
4) Therefore, a person who commits murder/assault motivated by bigotry should receive a harsher sentence than a person who commits murder/assault not motivated by bigotry.
Premise #1 is easy. I, like 99.9999% of the people in this country, believe that murder/assault is wrong. It violates my personally held beliefs. But the government doesn’t prohibit murder/assault because it violates our personally held beliefs. Government prohibits murder/assault because it is an infringement on the right of the victim.
Let’s consider premise #2. I personally believe that bigotry is wrong. I believed this in 2000 (when I supported hate crimes legislation), and I continue to believe it today. But just because I and others hold something to wrong, doesn’t make it a crime. People have a right to be bigots, and likewise, I have the right not to associate with such small-minded people. People do not, on the other hand, have the right to demand others not be bigots.
With this is mind, I continue to believe premise #3 is true; however, clearly this is my own personal opinion. I look at it like this: If you murder someone, then you’re a murderer, and I don’t much like you. And if your words and actions are driven by bigotry, then you’re a bigot, and I don’t much like you either. And if you’re both a murderer and a bigot, then I like you even less than I like just a plain old murderer or a plain old bigot. Again, this is just my personal opinion and should not necessarily reflect how our laws should be written.
Assuming we can agree that murder/assault is (and should be) a crime while bigotry is not (and should not be) a crime, let’s consider premise #4. Even if someone believes that it is worse to commit a crime motivated by bigotry than it is to commit a crime in the absence of bigotry (as I do), does it really follow that the government should impose harsher sentences on people who commit murder/assault motivated by bigotry than on those people who commit murder/assault in the absence of bigotry?
My answer (after having given this subject a lot of thought) is no. And my reason for reaching this conclusion is that people should be punished on the basis of the crimes they commit (preferably crimes in which there is a victim–not victimless crimes such as drug use or prostitution) and not whether they were motivated by hatred against any particular group of people.
People who support hate crimes legislation (as I once did) are, whether they do so consciously or not, are implicitly criminalizing bigotry. We know this to be true because when you consider the case of the persona who commits murder motivated by bigotry and the person who commits murder in the absence of bigotry, the only difference between the two case is that the former was a bigot and acted out on his bigot while the latter was not a bigot (or, at least, demonstrated no evidence on bigotry).
Consider what Section 7 of H.R. 1592 (see above) does. A person who commits a crime A already has to serve X number of years in prison. But under Section 7, a person who commits crime A and was motivated by bigotry has to serve X plus Y years in prison, where Y may be anything up to ten years. This law effectively makes being motivated by bigotry a crime, and it shouldn’t be.
I’m not arguing that one’s motivations shouldn’t be considered in the sentencing process. I think that in certain instances, it should be considered (i.e. whether the crime was pre-meditated or not) to determine what sentence the person serves (first degree murder versus second degree murder).
I also believe that one’s motivations should be allowed in the courtroom to establish motive. If their is evidence that shows that the accused is a bigot who has acted out on his/her bigotry in the past, that should definitely be used in the courtroom to establish that the person has a motive.
But what I don’t believe is right is for the government to impose harsher sentences on people based upon what hateful thoughts towards a group of people motivated them to commit murder/assault. For one thing, bigotry–though I find it personally abhorrent–is not and should not be a crime. For another thing, it is EXTREMELY difficult to prove that a person was motivated by bigotry. The way hate crime laws work is that only those bigots who are stupid enough to be openly bigoted while they commit murder/assault will be prosecuted for a hate crimes law while bigots who are closeted in the bigotry while they commit the same crime will not be prosecuted for a hate crimes law.
How do prove that a hate crime occurred. Sometimes it’s fairly obvious (the perpetrator threatens an African American with the “n” word or a homosexual with the “f” word or spray paints a swastika on the car of a Jewish American). But in many cases (perhaps even the majority of cases) the perpetrator chooses his/her victim based upon the victim’s race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation and leaves no evidence behind to prove that was the case. At some level, prosecuting people for hate-crimes involves guess work on the part of prosecutors who believe that they can read the minds and hearts of the accused.
Is a fair degree of white-on-black crime racially motivated? Probably. Is a fair degree of black-on-white crime racially motivated? Again, probably. But how do you prove it? The fact of the matter is that you can’t, and hate crimes laws becomes just a way of punishing the perpetrators of particularly egregious hate crimes while ignoring others.
Which brings me to an important point. What is the intent of passing hate crime laws? What is the effect of hate crime laws? Generally, politicians pass criminal laws for one of two reasons:
1) As a preventative measure–the logic being that if we have hate crime laws mandating longer sentence for people who commit crimes based upon bigotry, fewer hate crimes will occur, or
2) As a punitive measure–the logic being that if our government passes hate crimes laws mandating longer sentence for people who commit crimes based upon bigotry, we as a society have said that hate crimes are immoral and that perpetrators must be punished for their immorality.
Does reason #1 even apply in this case. Is there any empirical evidence to prove that enacting hate crime laws causes hate crimes to go down. I don’t think there is any evidence to prove this, and I think it would be extremely hard to conduct the necessary research to make this argument. Consider someone who commits murder. The murders commits this act, knowing full well that he will go to prison for doing this. Does anyone seriously think that a person who is willing to commit murder is going to suddenly change his mind because he’s afraid that if caught, he’ll be tried for committing a hate crime. It goes beyond the bounds of reason to believe that violent hate crimes will go down simply there are laws against committing hate crimes. What is more likely to occur is that violent criminals will simply better closet their bigotry in reaction to these laws (that is, assuming that a violent criminal cares about such laws in the first place).
In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that hate crime laws actually reduce crime, we are left to conclude that hate crime laws are purely penetrative measures–designed not to actually reduce hate crimes but as a way for politicians to show the country that they believe bigotry to be evil and are willing to punish some violent criminals more than others, simply because some violent criminals were motivated by bigotry.
Moreover, what is really gained by the victims of hate crimes by such laws? Have hate crime laws truly made life better for African-Americans? Have hate crime laws done anything to reduce anti-Semitism. Are gays and lesbians any closer to being accepted as humans who ought to live their lives that the way they (and not the government) want to live?
Hate crime legislation, though well-intentioned, does nothing to solve the root the problem that causes hate crimes, and that problem is hatred and intolerance. Hatred and intolerance are things that all human beings feel to one degree or another. Government cannot simply legislate hatred and intolerance out of existence.
When one person (or group of people) commits a violent act against another person (or group of people), the role of government is to punish the perpetrator based upon the crime he committed–NOT whatever thoughts happened to be floating around in his mind while (or moments before) he committed his crime.
Hate crimes legislation is driven by identity politics–the desire to use political action to advance the interests of members of a group because of a real or supposed shared identity or characteristics. Inevitably, such legislation has the practical (though perhaps unintended) effect of conferring certain rights on certain people rather than simply standing up for universal rights for all people.
I personally do not believe we should have laws mandating harsher penalties in cases in which the victim happens to be African-American, or Hispanic, or Jewish, or gay. And I extend this principle beyond victims who happen to be minorities. I don’t believe we should have laws mandating harsher penalties in which the victim happens to be a police officer or a politicians. Whether the victim of a violent crime is white, black, Hispanic, Jewish, gay, or is a police officer or politician–is one life more valuable than another? Do the families of victims murdered during a hate crime grieve any less that the families of victims who were not?
Granted, there are politicians who oppose hate crimes legislation due their own bigotry or to pander to bigots. But it would be a mistake to believe that everyone who opposes this legislation does so for the same reason. I know a number of libertarians who oppose hate crimes legislation, and for them, this has absolutely nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
President Bush is going to take a lot of flack from liberals and moderates for opposing this legislation, and perhaps some of it is justified if he relies upon flawed arguments to arrive at the correct conclusion. I just hope people carefully think this issue through–considering both the merits and flaws of this legislation before we criticize Bush for opposing it. Not being a big fan of Bush myself, I think there are numerous other issues in which he is far more deserving of criticism.
Lynx said:
> I’ll bet you ANYTHING
> that the people lobbying
> hardest against this law
> are *gasp* groups that
> virulently attack
> homosexuality
I decline your offer, as I would expect to lose that bet.
Front and center in this is the Religious Right and they are very much against homosexuality.
Just to note that Austin Roth’s “more general bigotry” remark strikes me as accurate. (Not all the Religious Right is bigoted, and not all bigots are Religious Righters, incidentally.)
Whoops! Text of H.R. 1542 can be found here.
I can’t seem to link correctly to H.R. 1592. If you’re willing to manually type out the web address, try this:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592
nic, first, one word…..WOW! That is the longest post beyond a cut and paste job that I have ever seen/read.
Fortunately, I can read pretty fast and there is little in conclusion that I take any issue with.
What I can’t do is type fast………I would have had to start on that post yesterday afternoon!
nicrivera I very much liked your comment, you may have actually convinced me on the issue (I have always been a fence sitter on this). Indeed, bigotry is not illegal, it’s “just” disgusting. Though this argument is a strong one it’s not one that had ever occurred to me, and I thank you for it. My bit with hate crimes legislation has always been the potential for abuse and the inequality with which it will usually be applied based on our perception of the “direction” of bigotry. Here’s another unwinnable bet: Anyone want to bet that it’d be equally easy to convince a judge or jury that you were attacked by blacks for being white than that you were attacked by whites for being black?
I think part of the intention of Hate Crimes laws is protection of communities from bigoted terrorism. That is, to impose stricter laws in order to prevent the harassment and terrorization of a community by bigots. But maybe you could use some form of anti-terrorism law against that, or create a figure by which terror, in the form of multiple crimes, committed against ANY whole community
(damn keyboard) rest of the sentence:
…gets more consideration than each crime by itself.
I apologize for the numerous spelling mistakes in my above post (and that was AFTER I ran my post through word spellcheck, hence some incorrectly-spelled right words were changed to correctly-spelled wrong words). Excuses and excuses.
The entire post can be read more legibly over at The Coming Realignment.
laws targeted as specific groups are never good. Laws should be general and the reason for their existence should be general as well. This means that hate crime laws, which are meant to protect particular groups, are not right.
Besides, killing is killing is killing: it is (nearly) always wrong.
nicrivera: FANTASTIC reply!
This should be put on the front page…
To add another rationale for opposing this bill:
If we punish more severely those who commit Crime M(urder) for Reason R(ace), S(exual orientation) or W(hatever), we are declaring that we’re less concerned with people who commit murder for Reason G(reed), J(ealousy) or B(ecause the victim was a liberal).
In other words, society would be saying that committing murder because of greed or jealousy is not as bad as committing murder because of an animus towards blacks or gays. Is this true? Given that there are many more greed-motivated murders than hate-based murders, what is the rationale that society is harmed more by the relatively few race-driven murders than the many many more which are committed because of greed and jealousy?
Shouldn’t society punish more severely those who inflict the bigger damage to society?
If you take the position that hate crimes legislation are wrong on principle, then stand up and support legislation to strike down the hate crimes laws that are already on the books. I’m fine with that position. If instead you are against adding gay people to the statute, then you are basically saying that is okay for the government to provide special protections for groups who have innate characteristics (like race) or characteristics by choice (like religion) but not based on sexual orientation, which everyone agree is either an innate characteristic, a choice or a combination of the two.
It is unfortunate that in this day and age we still have places in this country where a gay person can get beaten to a bloody pulp and have the local officials do nothing about it. Worse, the local officials can dismiss the entire incident by the attacker(s) claiming that they had “gay rage” from the gay person making a pass at them. Without this legislation there is no recourse for the gay person except to let justice slip through their fingers. That is not making the attacks against gays worse in the eyes of the justice system than one against some random person, it is bringing to the justice system a parity for that crime that currently doesn’t exist in much of the areas of this country.
Besides, killing is killing is killing: it is (nearly) always wrong.
This law is more important in cases of assault and battery where local law enforcement willfully or because of lack of resources does nothing to bring attackers to justice. Even in cases of killing local AG’s have accepted gay rage defenses. I know it is pathetic in this day and age but in a good percentage of this country just saying a gay guy hit on you is enough defense for beating them up and/or killing them. Luckily that percentage is decreasing, but it is still far from zero.
Mr. Moderate,
I agree with you on this point. There are some people who oppose this particular hate crimes for no other reason than because it adds sexual orientation to the list of groups and that being homosexual is part of a lifestyle that should not be condoned by the government. I completely disagree with this line of thinking, but I also happen to oppose the idea of hate crimes legislation in the first place.
I think that I gave a rational argument against hate crimes legislation that differs from the standard conservative position that one often hears from opponents of hate crime legislation. I approach it from a libertarian angle–one that takes a neutral view with regards to race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation and addresses rather whether such legislation is the proper role of government in the first place.
The fact one can make a principled argument against this particular piece of hate crimes legislation with criticizing gays makes the gay-bashing that sometimes accompanies this debate all the more repulsive to me. Hate crimes legislation should be view in terms of being “pro gay” versus “anti gay” but rather in terms of whether this is a proper role of government and whether it truly improves the lives of the victims that it claims to be helping.
As someone who supports the rights of gays and lesbians to live their lives as their wish, to marry whoever they wish, and to adopt children should they wish to do, I do not in any way agree with the line of thinking posited by anti-gay bigots or by politicians who pander to anti-gay bigots for political gain.