The House has passed the historic Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592), which was endorsed by over 200 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations, by a vote of 237-180. Race, color, national origin, and religion were federally recognized categories with regard to hate crime, and now, for the first time, the disabled, women, and members of the LGBT community stand to be recognized, too.
The Senate’s identical companion bill, the Matthew Shepard Act, will come up for consideration soon.
[More from the Human Rights Commission. Also: The Black Knight may veto! Grrrrrr...]
One of the most frequent talking points you hear in opposition to hate crimes legislation is that giving specific consideration to crimes committed against people on the basis of some specific part of their identity amounts to “special rights” and some kind of preferential treatment. If you hear this in the next few days and need a way to explain why hate crimes legislation is necessary, here it is: The prosecution of hate crimes requires special consideration because when someone is targeted for her/his race, nationality, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, it has the potential to affect everyone who shares that identity across the entire nation.
A whole community isn’t suddenly considered unsafe because a husband murders his wife, because we recognize the difference between domestic violence and community violence. That murder wasn’t random; it was specific. The victim was chosen for a reason. It doesn’t make the crime any less horrific, but it doesn’t reverberate. It stops with that murderer and that victim.
Hate crimes are the opposite of that; we recognize that when someone is targeted just because s/he is black, for example, that can make all black people feel that much less safe, irrespective of the safety of their physical community, because their race community has been attacked. In a hate crime, it doesn’t matter which black person/gay person/woman/Jew/quadriplegic had been there; it’s so nonspecific that it inevitably reverberates. Suddenly blacks/gays/women/Jews/quadriplegics are staying indoors a little more, feeling a little less able to go out after dark alone…lives of people not directly touched by the crime are affected—and that’s why hate crimes legislation is needed, so that freedom can be equally experiences by everyone.
Thanks Shakes!
The White House has already informed the press that if this comes to Shrub’s desk he’s going to veto it.
Here’s Sully’s comment, which is inescapably logical.
And here’s another point that can be brought up. The anti-hate-crime law crowd will say that we are suddenly under the control of the “thought police.” As I’ve noted before here and at BBWW, there’s no law against thinking — perhaps there should be one that promotes it, actually — but thoughts turned into actions, including speech, are accountable. Think all the terrible things you want, but when you do something, that’s an entirely different matter.
“Republicans, in a parliamentary move that would have effectively killed the bill, tried to add seniors and the military to those qualifying for hate crimes protection.”
Have I missed the coverage of all of the hate crimes being perpetrated against the elderly? Perhaps the MSM has not picked up on some tale of an octogenarian being spray-painted with the phrase “old fart” and tied to a bus bench at Leisure World?
Heckofajob Bushie, you use your 3rd veto to veto this.
What an asshat, some would say.
To the other CC:
Conyers called them on their bluff and said they could add it. Then, true to form, the Repugs said, “uh, no…”
Well said, Liss.
Some particularly mendacious rightwingers will also try to paint Hate Crimes legislation as invoking some form of thoughtcrime.
They’ll pretend that it’s just the hate alone being prosecuted, rather than the combination of hate finding some form of violent antisocial expression. Or else they’ll hand-wave that the crimes themselves are already illegal, so why try to peer inside the hearts and heads of the perpetrators?
As if our system doesn’t already consider motive a potentially mitigating or aggravating circumstance for lots of crimes.
As if tougher minimum mandatory sentencing for hate crimes might not have an impact, keeping thugs off the street longer, and possibly having an enhanced deterrent effect as well.
As if making certain categories of crime federal (rather than local) might change whether good ole boy types in law enforcement or in the court system take seriously and treat fairly the victims of such crimes, rather than treating the victim as if he or she had it coming for not living up to community standards.
So, yeah, there are lots of good reasons why we need these laws, and it takes a special brand of willful stubborn pretense to the contrary to maintain that the laws are unnecessary. Sadly, that style of stubborn pretense is very much in vogue in some communities and some political circles.
oddjob,
You’re right; Sully nails this one. I tend to be philosophically opposed to hate-crime legislation for the same reasons Sullivan gives. However, it isn’t a top-tier issue to me, and certainly IF we as a nation have decided to have hate-crimes, then LGBT deserve whatever protection it provides as much as any other frequently attacked group.
David Neiwert has a lot to say on this issue, especially countering the “thoughtcrime” meme. (He even references you in the linked article, Shakes!)
Oh, Bushie. So concerned with how the history books will treat him. Wonder how these three vetos will be treated?
One could argue that cops need special protections because criminals will naturally target them in the course of their illegal activities. And one would be right, and could point to stiffer penalties for “cop killing” and the like that have in fact been put in place.
Who especially approves of this? Your right wing law and order types.
Well, same principle applies, folks. Get over it.
But the thing is, nightshift, Sullivan’s position on hate crimes ISN’T coherent. In order for it to be such, he would ALSO have to oppose a enormously large historical part of US jurisprudence … in fact, he would have to oppose the differentiations between different degrees of murder and manslaughter in order for such to be a ‘coherent’ position.
Hate crime legislation fits nicely and snugly into existing legal frameworks. It’s not made up out of whole cloth, it’s been constitutionally challenged, and upheld based on precedent. In cases where it has exceeded such frameworks, it has been trimmed back, but to oppose hate crimes simply as hate crimes isn’t a coherent position to take.
The effect of the victimisation, the motive of the perpetrator, and the specifics of the crime all have a well established and solid part of law. And honestly, I’d rather people like Sullivan shut the hell up rather than giving backhanded ‘help’ like this.
ter·ror·ism
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Hate crimes should be prosecuted as terrorism. That’s what they are.
Hate crimes should be prosecuted as terrorism. That’s what they are.
Thanks. That pretty much sums it up for me. Here I was trying to formulate a thought, and you come snatch it right out of the pre-cognitive thought area of my brain.
I unreservedly support your assertion.
David Neiwert has a lot to say on this issue
And when David speaks, it’s wise to listen.
Because he’s, like, totally brill.
On what is probably a related note, Barack Obama has been placed under the protection of the Secret Service:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/obama.protection/index.html
Here’s another good logical reason for “hate crime” laws protecting minorities. Imagine a city where you have two groups, the one outnumbering the other by, say, seven million to one million. Let’s say in that society that the likelihood on any particular day of a individual member of one group getting a bug up his ass and going after the other group with bias-driven criminal intent is, say, one in a million.
So on any day you’d expect, on the average, that seven members of the majority group would go after the minority, or in other words the chance of any minority person in our violent hypothetical city being attacked is 7/1,000,000. Also, on the average day, one of the minority group would go after a member of the majority group. So the likelihood of a majority group member being attacked becomes 1/7,000,000. Thus in this example, any member of the minority group is forty-nine times – 7/1,000,000 compared to 1/7,000,000 – more likely to be victimized.
You can work that out for a minority outnumbered k-to-1, where the likelihood of any individual committing a “hate crime” is n, and you will get the same result: all else being equal, the threat level for the minority is not inversely proportionate to the degree that they are in the minority, but inversely proportionate to that degree squared. Thus minorities are especially vulnerable to “hate crimes,” simply in consequence of the laws of arithmetic.
I’m glad to see this legislation. I hope to Heaven that it doesn’t get all caught up in hateful shrubbery and can make its way across the land. Especially Florida.
I so can’t wait till the next two years has passed. I’m so incredibly sick of Bush Co. I wish his plane would crash. Sorry but I do.
“Thus minorities are especially vulnerable to “hate crimes,” simply in consequence of the laws of arithmetic.”
you have to remember that under fascist control, there is a philosophy that even though there are laws specifying against certain acts, there is no “real” authorization for them to act on behalf of those who supposedly have protection… for instance… how many Justice Department actions have there been over the past 5 years defending minorities against racial discrimination?
zero?
sarah,
Further into my comment, I believe that I acknowledged that such legislation is here to stay, that I accept it, and that LGBT should be covered under it since we are going to have it. All I was saying was that there is great appeal in the idea that the action, the crime itself, ought to be punished without regard to the victim. Remember that historically, it was the upper crust who were special, and low-status people like women, children, and slaves could often be killed with only a monetary fine as punishment. So special regard for the victim is more likely historically to favor the powerful than the less powerful.
“Remember that historically, it was the upper crust who were special, and low-status people like women, children, and slaves could often be killed with only a monetary fine as punishment. So special regard for the victim is more likely historically to favor the powerful than the less powerful.”
I’m not sure I understand your logic here. Are you assuming that, historically, “low-status people” did have protection akin to that provided by hate crime laws? When and where was this?
The Right says gay-bashing laws are unneccesary because regular assault laws apply to gays–which is true, as far as it goes. The problem is, gaybashers figure most people share their values; therefore if they beat up someone who, in their alcohol-soaked opinion, is gay, it’ll be a freebie–the cops and the community will give them a pass.
Hate-crime legislation puts these @ssholes on notice that, in fact, most people are not supporting them and should they beat up an LGBT (or a black, or an Arab, or whoever) they are on their own, same as burglers and child molesters.
It occurs to me that in states where they have a problem passing these laws, the same purpose (protecting citizens) could be served by affirming (with lots of publicity) a policy that any assaults on homosexuals et al. will be prosecuted according to laws on the books.
I heard a Republican Representative on NPR today (didn’t catch the name) saying that the House’s passage of this bill on the day of remembrance of the victims in Virginia was itself an act of hatred against all the good Christians who object to homosexuality!
Just a thought. A mind boggling thought.