Bacon's Rebellion

Taking Bets on Votes

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Anyone wanna bet on how Virginia’s two Republican Senators vote on this bill?

House Adds Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation to ‘Hate Crimes’ MeasureBy Susan JonesCNSNews.com Senior EditorSeptember 15, 2005(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. House of Representatives passed a “hate crimes” measure on Wednesday, something that would expand federal protection to people victimized because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability.The measure, formally called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, passed by a vote of 223 to 199 after it was attached as an amendment to HR 3132, the “Children’s Safety Act.” A similar bill is pending in the Senate.Current federal “hate crime” law only covers crimes motivated by race, color, national origin and religion.

Homosexual advocacy groups have long pressed for the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity, but many conservative groups reject the notion of “hate crimes” entirely.”Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims, are contrary to our entire system of laws,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins in a statement released after the House vote.”Furthermore, granting special protections based on one’s ‘sexual orientation’ has repeatedly been rejected by Congress. It is shocking that a bill designed to protect children from sexual predators is now being used to protect the sexual preference of homosexuals.” Perkins urged the Senate to reject the House’s “attempt to advance the political agenda of homosexuals at the expense of children.”

On the other side of the issue, groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Human Rights Campaign welcomed House passage of the measure.HRC President Joe Solmonese called House passage of the measure a “historic step toward giving law enforcement the tools they need to enforce and prosecute hate crimes against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. “We must ensure that some of the most heinous crimes are fully prosecuted and enforced,” Solmonese added.The Anti-Defamation League noted that both the House and Senate approved similar measures in the last session of Congress, only to see the hate crime provisions stripped from the final bill.”We will work hard to ensure that these provisions are enacted into law this time,” said Barbara B. Balser, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

The hate crimes measure would allow the U.S. Justice Department to assist local authorities in investigating and prosecuting cases in which violence occurs against specially protected groups of people.The House bill was filed jointly in May by Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), IIeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), John Conyers (D-Mich.); Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called the bill long overdue: “Hate crimes have no place in America,” she said. “Our nation was founded on the principle that all are created equal, all are entitled to the protection of our laws, and all are entitled to justice. It violates this principle to have individuals in our country targeted for violence because of who they are, the color of their skin, how they worship, or who they love. The perpetrators of violence intend to send a message to certain members of our community that they are not welcome,” Pelosi said in a statement.

The one and only time I wrote a letter to Sen Allen was on his last vote supporting ‘hate crimes’. I got a lengthy note back from his staff, a bit snippy in tone, about how George Allen had always supported Hate Crimes legislation and campaigned on it. I don’t remember that in the campaigns I worked for him since 93 as a grassroots guy.

Hate crime is thought crime. It’s noxious to our liberty. The crimes, which are despicable, are addressed in the State and US Codes as appropriate. Hate crimes are an Orwellian harbinger. Check out how 11 Christians were arrested and charged with hate crime felonies for exercising their free speech in Philly last year. Christian speech, more precisely – Biblical speech that homosexuality is sinful is illegal in Canada and the EU. Our Senators should keep that aspect of Human Secular Totalitarianism out of our law books. Repeal the current hate crimes too.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    There will be two “yeas” recorded for Virginia if the bill comes to a straight up (pardon the pun) vote on the floor. And in fairness, if you are going to have enhanced penalties for “hate” crimes, why stop at the existing list?

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Whew, I hate people who think like that.

  3. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Anon 8:35. I hope, but doubt, that the Senate could have a vote for stripping off this amendment. Do you think there would be 2 yeas or nays to stop the hate crime admendment? If you have a funny list of additional categories of what my corporation calls ‘protected classes of people’ , you ought to print them.

  4. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    Great post, JAB. Couldn’t agree more.

  5. Bassizzzt Avatar
    Bassizzzt

    Well, the Council on American-Islamic Relations are all over hate-crimers – but hate crime in their definition is merely criticizing Islam. They will get you fired if you criticize Islam or CAIR. Test them out. Send them an email from your workplace and tell them you “hate” Muslims.

    Within the week you’ll be packing out in a box.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Hate crime is thought crime.”

    It’s one thing to oppose hate crimes, but I’m not much impressed by this line of argument which basically lies about the legal theory of the idea of hate crimes and attacks a straw man.

    The whole point of hate crime legislation is that certain crimes are committed not just because of the end itself, but because they are meant as intimidation and political statement The logic is pretty much exactly the same as laws against terrorist acts: in addition to the violence itself, additional harm is done to the community.

    The law punishes harm, not thoughts. It’s undeniable that crimes with the added element of race or anything else do extra harm by inflaming racial and other group conflicts that deeply scar entire communities. That’s why proving a hate crime involves not simply pointing out that the victim was black and the criminal white, but also establishing that the violent act was meant as one of intimidation and fear for an entire community. That’s Allen’s logic.

    Now, you may disagree with that logic also. But if disagree with it, and not some ridiculous claim about hate crimes JUST punishing free speech or thoughts. That’s just a straw man, and beneath you.

  7. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Anon: I agree hate crimes don’t just punish thought crime. I understand the argument about communities – that is why you don’t have a right to burn a cross – which is just symbolic speech, but one that damages the community.

    But, you miss the element of proof in a hate crime – which is intent. Or in the case of the Christians in Philly prosecuted for hate crimes, the viewpoint, the content of the speech. The former is thought crime and the latter is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

    It isn’t a straw man when people are arrested. How about the DC deejay who was fired for criticizing Islam? Couldn’t that be prosecuted under this law?

    Marrying speech codes and hate crime codes is basic Human Secular Totalitarianism 101. It was a premise of Herbert Marcuse. It was what the Nazi Human Secularist Totalitarians and the Communist Human Secularist Totalitarians did. Now, our kindly Liberal neighbors (not being sarcastic, I mean them well) go along with this emotionally and some conservatives, like Allen, go along with it blithely – to no good end. Allen’s staff should be more discerning. Hire a history major.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Or in the case of the Christians in Philly prosecuted for hate crimes,”

    I think you’re not being clear with folks as to actual events of that incident. The facts of the case was that this group came looking for a confrontation at a Gay Pride march, they got it, and they then resisted the police’s orders to move they were subsequently arrested for disorderly conduct and blocking the road. 4 of the 11 were arraigned with related felony charges to which the hate crime statute was then attached. The judge, however, _rejected the argument_, noting that there was not enough grounds for a felony charge and thus that their hate speech was just protected free speech.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/inpublic.asp

    Now, unless your argument is that we shouldn’t have laws against theft because someone could be wrongly chraged with theft and then have the case be dismissed (which is what happened here), I don’t really see what this case proves. Hate crimes laws existed, they were used to charge someone on top of other offenses, but they were found NOT to apply to the situation (primarily because the other offenses were thrown out and didn’t rise to a level of intimidation). And the great marytrs were deprived more showboating, which is primarily what they were after. What this teaches us about hate crimes laws isn’t clear. But the fact is they weren’t arrested for hate crimes, they were arrested for refusing to obey the police providing security for the event and started blocking the road.

    “It isn’t a straw man when people are arrested.”

    Who was arrested FOR a hate crime again? What was I saying about misrepresenting the issue?

    “How about the DC deejay who was fired for criticizing Islam? Couldn’t that be prosecuted under this law?”

    Er, no. And, in fact, he _wasn’t_ prosecuted at all. Hate crimes laws require there to be a charge involved in the first place.

    Let me just say that, personally, I’m not sure whether or not we should have hate crime laws. I mostly lean against it, on balance. But I also think the issue should be debated thoughtfully instead of with incomplete acocunts of the arguments for and against.

  9. CG2 Avatar
    CG2

    Perhaps it would help to read the bill cited here, HB 2332, which you can find online at http://thomas.loc.gov. The bill does two things re: hate crimes.

    First, it allows the Attorney General of the US to offer assistance (including grants) to local law enforcement in prosecuting any crime that is a crime of violence; and is a felony in the state; and 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 hate crime laws of the State or Indian tribe.

    Second, it creates a federal crime and establishes penalties for any person who “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.”

    The law does not punish thought.
    One is free to hate and speak about one’s hate without sanction.

    The law does seek to punish people who choose to act on their thoughts and who injure (or attempt to injure) someone simply because of their race or other protected characteristic.

    This law obviously would not authorize the prosecution of anyone based simply on their speech or their thoughts. Its effect is to enhance the penalty when someone commits a criminal assault on another person simply because of who they are.

    Bowden asks: “It isn’t a straw man when people are arrested. How about the DC deejay who was fired for criticizing Islam? Couldn’t that be prosecuted under this law?”

    The answer is clearly NO.

    This law does not authorize any prosecution based solely on speech.

    Nor would this statute either require or prohibit firing a DJ because of what he says on the air. That decision is a decision made by a private company exercising its business decision based on its perceived self interest. That’s what I call the free market. The only limitation on this action would be if the fired DJ could show that he was fired because of who he is (religion, national origin, gender). Then, he might have a federal employment discrimination claim. Otherwise, he’s simply the victim of the marketplace.

  10. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    I stand with JAB on this debate. There is something profoundly wrong with the concept of hate crimes. To my mind, a crime of violence is a crime of violence. It doesn’t matter whether a murderer kills someone because he hates the victim for his race, or because the victim happens to be a convenience store clerk during a robbery. Dead is dead.

    Claire uses the term “protected classes.” That term speaks volumes. In the eyes of the law, crimes against certain classes are worse than crimes against other classes.

    What we have is Jim Crow in reverse. Fifty years ago, a crime against a black person was trivialized, especially if committed by a white person. Now the same crime is magnified. The principle of “equality before the law” and of a “color blind society” are thrown out the window. It’s all about political power and privilege. The only difference is that the roles are reversed.

    As a politically inspired concept, hate crimes are subject to selective prosecution. I hypothesize that far more whites will be convicted of hate crimes than blacks. The decision to classify a crime is highly discretionary. Because the popular imagination defines hate crimes as something committed primarily by whites against blacks — a perception perpetuated by the Mainstream Media — the sanction will be applied mainly to white-on-black crimes.

    As a practical matter, the law may not make a lot of difference. Few people will shed tears over someone convicted of murder, regardless of the impetus for the crime. But the abandonment of core judicial principle is troubling.

  11. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    CG2, thanks for clarity on the law. You may be a lawyer and see things differently but look closely at what you wrote;

    “The law does seek to punish people who choose to act on their thoughts and who injure (or attempt to injure) someone simply because of their race or other protected characteristic.”

    You have to prove they intended (thought) to injure based on race or some other ‘protected’ characteristic. How Orwellian is that? The elements of proof would have to be very specific to preclude the presumption of intent. It would be impossible to measure a modicum of ‘hate’ in the mix of deadly passions in crimes in violence. Or, does any amount of hate trump the act of violence for whatever reason it was committed. Too hard for mortals to figure out.

    Furthermore, it is categorically unnecessary. Crime is crime. Punish the guilty and exonerate the innocent.

    The idea of protected classes isn’t in our Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Citizens are individuals. Protected classes is anathema to American Civilization.

    It’s time for Congress and the Courts to clean up the mess they’ve made of this idea in the past 40 years. This legislation is a step in the wrong way.

    Anon: I was asking about the DJ and C2G kindly cleared it up for me.

    Okay, so whose job is it to suggest to our Senators to offer an amendment to strip away the amendment on hate crimes?

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “It’s time for Congress and the Courts to clean up the mess they’ve made of this idea in the past 40 years.”

    That’s an odd statement coming from someone who only seems to have had explained to them what a hate crime actually is as of a few minutes ago.

    Again, the actual logic of hate crimes is that they involve extra punishment for a claimed extra harm: the “protected classes” moniker is derived from the fact that our society has these sorts of race and group issues that certain people inflame by their violent acts. When someone beats a black teenager nearly to death in a white neighborhood over racial hatred, that does a LOT more social harm than a beating without such context: it is a major act of intimidation that deepens racial divides. Arguing against laws that seek to put extra punishment on those acts without actually addressing the rationale of that claimed extra harm, and what the law should be doing or not doing about it, is disingenuous. I would also ask that someone who is against a hate crime also explain whether or not they support laws against terrorism, which also put extra penalties on violent crimes intend to send a message.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    My understanding of this bill was as explained in an earlier comment — it does not make “hate” a crime, it increases penalties for a crime if the crime is accompanied by specific “hate” toward targeted groups.

    It is (in a twisted way) like increasing penalties for a crime if a gun is “used” while committing the crime, even if the gun is not actually used. If a person sneaks up behind you and picks your pocket, and is caught, if they are caught with a gun I believe they can get more time than if they were not carrying a gun, even though the crime was identical.

    Anyway, I am strongly opposed to the bill (although they included enough different “classes” of people that there is something for everybody). BUT, it should not lead to travesties like the pennsylvania case.

    And, while I think it is wrong to evaluate what people think and give them longer punishments for certain thoughts associated with crime, my outrage is tempered by the realization that the people effected are criminals who are going to jail for committing violent acts against humanity — and it could be that the extra time will do nothing more than imprison them for the appropriate time after all.

    In other words, on my outrage scale, I’m more outraged at laws which take away my constitutional right to bear arms, or to freely exercise my religion, than I am about criminals unfairly getting longer sentences because they can be shown to act out of irrational hatred.

    I’m not going to say my position is defensible, or rational, or consistant. Like I said, I’d never vote for something like this — and I am encouraged that my congressman did NOT vote for this.

    Charles R.

  14. John Alexander Golden Avatar
    John Alexander Golden

    “Hate Crime” has always been a bad word to define these crimes.

    No one is punishing someone for the way they think. You’re not punishing Matt Shepard’s attackers because they hate gay people. Americans are free to hate as much as they like (as little as it does).

    What we tend to call “Hate Crimes” are crimes that are committed against an individual based solely on their actual or perceived minority status, and are meant to send a signal to those communities that they are not safe nor welcome. The whole concept behind the hate crime is that it’s meant to send a signal.

    The additional punishment is meant as as a way to deter such crimes, much in the same way the death penalty or mandatory minimum sentances. And yeah, it’s an additional protection, especially for communities that have a history of being under attack.

    You’re right, though, we shouldn’t regulate thought (hell, you can’t really regulate thought), no exceptions. But we can protect minority populations (and hell, for that matter, majority groups as well) from attack with deterrance.

    Just my two cents. End of rant.

  15. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    John Alexander Golden, you say: “The whole concept behind the hate crime is that it’s meant to send a signal.”

    Burning a cross on the front lawn of a black family “sends a signal.” How did murdering poor Matt Shepard alone in a field somwhere “send a signal?” Was there any intent to send a signal? If so, how did the prosecutors divine that intent? Did the killers leave a message, “All Queers Beware?” No, my friend, you’re still in the realm of mind reading.

    I have an old-fashioned way of dealing with hate crimes. Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. If someone is indisputably guilty of murder, give ’em the electric chair.

  16. John Alexander Golden Avatar
    John Alexander Golden

    I disagree: burning a cross on the front lawn of a black family DOES send a signal, you’re correct on that. But lets be honest, KKK members don’t have to leave a note saying “All N—ers Beware” for the act to be considered a hate crime. It still sends a message.

    The attack of Shepard absolutely sent a signal to the gay community, especially in the Laramie area, that if you’re gay, you’re running the risk of getting killed, so get out.

    You mentioned intent, and I’ll admit that’s a difficult one too, BUT, we don’t know for sure that burning a cross on a black family’s lawn had the intent of sending a message. The fact remains, however, that the message that black families aren’t safe is still sent, whether consciously or not.

    ~~JAG~~

    PS: Love the blog.

  17. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    About the same time that Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming, two homosexual men in Alabama repeatedly raped a 13 year old boy in Alabama (name of Durkheiser sp?) until he suffocated to death on a sock they stuffed in his mouth. So what was the signal those homosexual men sent the normal community of AL?

    See what utter rot this is?

    Shepard’s murderers deserve to die for the crime of murder which violates the social contract to deserve the extreme punishment. Likewise the boy’s murderers deserve to die by the State.

    Neither case needs anything called a ‘hate crime’ attached.

    Cross-burning shouldn’t be called a hate crime, but a crime of intimidation, kinda like putting a horse’s head in your bed or a dead fish in a newspaper – and kept illegal.

    Either the Founding Fathers were right when they said Americans have God-given inalienable rights – like all men are created equal or not – and we have classes of citizens. It can’t be both ways.

    We almost had a second constitution on property – the rights of property. Likewise, the discussion of the rights of classes was discussed and dismissed. Good move Founders.

    Are you an individual or not? Are you a member of a class of persons? Please note the difference between sharing characteristics that can be characterized – ethnicity, birth, wealth, education, gender, language, religion, Redskins fan vs all others, etc. and actually suborning some aspect of your free will, your thinking, your rational decision-making to some claim by some group (and who in that group thinks and decides for you?).

    One huge triumph of the Civil Rights movement was to have White Southerners STOP thinking of themselves as White.

    Creating and legislating for protected classes of persons is as invidious and, ultimately, as destructive as it was when much was made of an identity known as ‘White’.

    As I said, when you boil down the elements of proof, you must prove intent – thought – for a hate crime. Thus, hate crimes are thought crimes. Group rights and hate crimes will end badly for us all.

    I don’t see the point of making Terrorism a separate category of crime unless the Codes don’t have anything for the mass attacks that Terrorists do (as I said, I’m not a lawyer).

    Now, having said that, if too much time had not elapsed to make some old English punishments ‘cruel and unusual’ punishments and, thus unconstitutional, then I’d be in favor of heads on a pike and draw and quartering and sending the parts to the far corners of our realm – for terrorists. But,I’m just an old-fashioned guy about that for enemies of the state. Tant pis.

  18. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    JAB,
    The name was Jesse Dirkhising, and the fact that you — someone informed and concerned about these issues — know Shepard’s name, but not his, demonstrates one of the many things wrong with the mainstream media, and the entire concept of hate crimes.
    BTW, my understanding is that it’s become clear in recent weeks and months, if little-reported, that Shepard’s death had nothing to do with his homosexuality, or his murderers’ “hatred” of him. However, the media has done nothing to correct the widespread perception to the contrary.

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT