Congress Votes On Hate Crimes Law
Apr 30th, 2009 | 9 responses
The House has voted to approve a new hate crimes law named after Matthew Shepard. The vote was 249-175. The bill has been introduced in the Senate but a vote is not yet scheduled. President Obama has indicated he would sign the bill if it makes it to his desk. The law would broaden current laws to include attacks based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.
Current laws already allow federal jurisdiction over crimes based on race, color, religion or national origin. The bill would also lift a requirement that a victim had to be attacked while engaged in a federally protected activity, like attending school, for it to be a federal hate crime.
I must admit to having mixed views on these kind of laws whether at the state or federal level. I would hope that my past postings make it clear I am a strong support of gay rights and find any form of prejudice (be it based on any of the above critera or any other) to be disgusting.
However I am also concerned about the idea of passing laws based upon what people think, even when those thoughts are offensive to most of us. I’m not paranoid or anything but once you outlaw one form of thinking then it becomes easier to outlaw other forms of thought.
In addition, it seems to me that most crimes are hate crimes. When a person attacks one man because he is <insert stupid prejudiced reason here> and then attacks another man just because the attacker is a rotten person, does he make that second attack out of love ?
Admittedly this law only extends federal jurisdiction to such crimes, and that means this is probably more of a procedural thing. My guess would be that if you want to you could pretty much get federal jurisdiction on almost any crime if you work at it.
On one level this is being seen as a great stand for gay rights, and I understand the desire of the adminstration to do something for a strong base of support. But I’m not sure this is really that much. From time to time I’ve gone to the West Wing for quotes and this is another good case.
In one episode they were passing hate crimes legislation in what was basically a tv version of the Matthew Shepard story. There was concern that the father of the victim might not be comfortable with his son having been gay so CJ goes to talk to him. I think his response sums up my views on the topic.
The hate crimes bill is fine. Who gives a damn? It’s fine. I don’t care. If you ask me, we shouldn’t be making laws against what’s in a person’s head but who gives a damn? I don’t understand how this President, who I voted for, I don’t understand how he can take such a completely weak-ass position on gay rights.
Gays in the military, same-sex marriage, gay adoption, boards of education – where the hell is he? I want to know what qualities necessary to being a parent this President feels my son lacked? I want to know from this President, who has served not one day in Vietnam – I had two tours in Vietnam. I want to know what qualities necessary to being a soldier this President feels my son lacked? Lady, I’m not embarrassed my son was gay. My government is.
Like the father in that scene, I’m agnostic on this new law. I probably would have opposed it just on the grounds of not passing laws on what people think but I have no major issue with it. What I do have a major issue with is the lack of real work towards government discrimination towards gays.
9 Responses to “Congress Votes On Hate Crimes Law”
Thank you for this post, while I do not completely agree to it, it brings up some important arguments in an intelligent way. It is the complete opposite of the incredibly cruel old woman representative from North Carolina who took the floor to spread the right-wing nonsense that Matthew Sheppard was “merely a victim of robbery.” What is worse, Matthew Sheppard's mother was in the chamber to hear this dreck.
It is fine to oppose a hate crime bill but anyone who would do so because they believe that kind of morally disgusting rhetoric has some serious problems.
The idea of thought crimes is a dangerous precident that the U.S. should do everything to avoid. It forces government officials into sounding like idiotic PC fools. In the DC area, four non-white gang members attacked a white couple out for a walk. The gang members killed the husband and chased down the wife and severely beat her. Yet, the Loundon County police were forced to go onto television and say that gangs were not involved and that it was not a hate crime before the gang members stole the husbands wallet.
If stealing a homosexuals money is not enough to keep a robbery from being a hate crime, then why is it when black gang members kill whites?
Reasoned post.
But, re:
“However I am also concerned about the idea of passing laws based upon what people think, even when those thoughts are offensive to most of us. I’m not paranoid or anything but once you outlaw one form of thinking then it becomes easier to outlaw other forms of thought.”
And someone else claiming something about “thought crimes”
Of course, the thoughts are offensive, but the law doesn't punish the thoughts, it punishes the crime.
The law doesn't target people's “thinking,” pure and simple.
Anyone who commits a heineous crime “thinks” about it, unless he or she is insane. Convicting and sentencing a murderer has nothing to do with his or her thoughts. The law punishes the crime, not the thought.
It is not about the thought, it is about the crime, made more heineous because it targets a group of people—just as genocide.
If some of these gay haters had the will, the means and the power, the individual hate crime could become genocide.
I'm ambivalent about hate crimes too. But if we're going to have them based on race and religion and sex, we should definitely have them based on sexual orientation too. Either protect all classes in the hate crime category or none.
If anyone is interested, there is already a discussion on this topic going on at Kathy's post from yesterday about this.
We already differentiate crime by motive. This law isn't trying to outlaw thoughts. It basically says that we as a society deem these crimes to be more offensive, thus more punishable, because of their motive.
I think it is only fair that we protect gays in the same way we protect other minorities.
In addition, it seems to me that most crimes are hate crimes. When a person attacks one man because he is <insert stupid prejudiced reason here> and then attacks another man just because the attacker is a rotten person, does he make that second attack out of love ?
The difference is that one is a crime against an individual, whereas the other is targeted at an identifiable group. It follows much the same logic as terrorism, as in the attack is meant to send a message far beyond the person or persons directly affected by it.
Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…
…
This is complete BS. I think hate crime bills only serve politicians and not the public. We have varying degrees of murder/manslaughter, why complicate matters anymore by trying to allocate further motive. All crimes involve a certain amount of malice; is killing a homosexual more important than killing a prostitute or anyone else. On another note, homosexuals have served at the highest levels in government, the military, business, entertainment for all time (e.g Buchanan, Hoover, Disney). Dont get it twisted, this is not a group of people that have been hunted down and lynched, denied opportunity and shackled and enslaved throughout history in any significant numbers. the reality is, you are ony homosexual if you tell someone, otherwise it's your f%*ing business and people leave you alone. It upsets me to see people elevate a glorified sexual fetish into a new “race” of people.