Bush Threatens to Veto Hate Crimes Legislation (And Don’t Worry You’re Still Free to Be A Bigot)
| May 4th, 2007The House of Representatives voted to extend hate crimes protections those who are the victims of crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Here’s a quote from the New York Times:
By 237 to 180, the House voted to include crimes spurred by a victim’s “gender, sexual orientation or gender identity” under the hate-crime designation, which now applies to crimes spurred by the victim’s race, religion, color or national origin.
“The bill is passed,” Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is gay, announced to applause, most of it from Democrats.
Similar legislation is moving through the Senate. But even assuming that a bill emerges from the full Congress, it will face a veto by President Bush on grounds that it is “unnecessary and constitutionally questionable,” the White House said before the House vote.
The House did not pass the bill by a margin wide enough to override a veto, which requires a two-thirds majority. The Senate is not expected to do so either.
Debate over the legislation has been spirited, and while some of it has addressed whether the bill is really necessary, the arguments have also been colored by issues of conscience and notions of personal morality.
Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic majority leader, said the House vote represented “a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences.” Civil rights groups have long urged that people who are attacked because of their sexuality be given additional protections.
But Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, a conservative lobbying group, told listeners to his radio program that the bill’s real purpose was “to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality,” according to The Associated Press.
I have no idea what these conservative lobbying groups and right wing Christian activists are talking about. For example, I found this site, which makes the following claims.
Today, conservative groups and lawmakers warned that the measure undermines freedom of speech.
They say it could lead to arrests of Christians who speak out against homosexuality.
Conservatives also say the bill would make homosexuals more important than other Americans — because crimes against them would have harsher penalties than crimes against others.
Well folks this is false (I thought lying was in the 10 Commandments.), and it reflects a basic misunderstanding of hate crimes legislation. Hate crimes legislation does not curtail freedom of speech, so if the conservative Christian activists want to have public protests denigrating women, gays, lesbians, and transgender people, they can do so. However, if they commit a crime in the process of their “protest” and that crime is motivated by bigotry, they could get a harsher sentence. But they have to commit a crime. So they can say God hates women and gays all day long, but if they decide to go and beat up a women/gay man/lesbian/transgender person while yelling I hate bitches, fags, and dykes. The prosecutor will now have the option to take on a hate crimes charge to the assault.
It is also ridiculous to assume that this makes “homosexuals have more rights than others.” Why? Because the legislation targets all crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Crimes against heterosexuals (and men), however rare they are, would also be covered. The identity of the perpetrator is also irrelevant. LGBT folks could commite hate crimes against other LGBT folks and be prosecuted for hate crimes, and the same could be said for men and heterosexuals.
What matters is the motivation of a crime. People will still be entitled to believe hateful things, but if they commit crimes motivated by bias, then they will have a harsher penalty.
May 4th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Also, as far as making victims of hate crimes “more important,” judges currently look at the motivations for crimes, as well as the severity and past criminal record of the defendant, when determining sentencing. All this law does is declare that discriminatory intent is added to the list of aggravating factors.
This comment was written by jd.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 8:39 am
I read a good post on this a few weeks ago. To summarize, terrorism and hate crimes both want to influence (terrorize) all members of some class of people by hurting some member(s). So if you say that terrorism is a distinct crime over and above the crime(s) inherent in some specific terrorist act (murder, arson, whatever), but you think hate-crimes legislation is “thought control,” in effect you’re saying that it’s OK to terrorize some classes of people but not others.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 9:07 am
You say that such crimes against heterosexuals are rare, but I would say this is actually untrue; there are many hateful crimes committed against people who are perceived as LGBT, no matter how they identify. Although I think what you were getting at is that people are not often targeted because they are perceived to be straight, and I would agree with this.
This bill protects straight people, too, who do not fit the exact gender roles of what a straight person should be and might get harassed for it. T, over at the Republic of T, has a three-part essay on this that is a must read. It basically talks about how school shooters were harassed and abused as “queer” because they did not fit stereotypes of manliness; it really hammers home how damaging this sort of behavior can be not just to gay people, but to straights as well.
[edited to close link - Mandolin]
This comment was written by exelizabeth.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Oops, I apologize for not closing my link tag. >.
This comment was written by exelizabeth.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 9:40 am
This goes after thought and speech in a manner that can get tricky.
I’m going to use a black woman as an example, because it’s a deliberate reversal of the usual use of hate crimes that serves to show some of the issues.
Let’s say that a black women gets mugged and shoots the (white) mugger. Let’s say it was perfectly justified (but only she and we know that) and that it was NOT AT ALL motivated by race (but only she and we know that.)
Now, let’s say that the mugger’s (white) girlfriend screams “Hate crime!”
Now what?
Well, folks go to look online. Perhaps someone presents evidence showing that she posted insulting things towards whites. Perhaps she seemed to regard whites as “lesser;” or said she was “angry,” or “hated” whites, or… (not that my opinion matters, but this is often perfectly justified IMO. Just stick with the hypothetical for a moment)
Now what?
Well, the result is that the perfectly valid things she may have posted online are now going to be used against her. THAT is a problem. It is a problem because doing so means that she, and others like her, will get a “chilling effect” on their speech.
I imagine most of you agree so far.
I ALSO feel the same problem exists on the other side. There are many attitudes I find revolting, distasteful, objectionable, disgusting, etc. White supremacists, for example. I don’t like them. But I don’t want to make them illegal. Not because I want them to be heard more–I hate them–but because it is more important to me to prevent the government from dabbling too much in the business of “bad speech” or “bad thoughts.”
In that link Lu writes, there’s an analogy made between terrorism laws and hate crime laws. And I think it’s an apt one, though with the opposite conclusion. Didn’t a lot of people here share my discomfort with parts of the patriot act? Didn’t anyone else cringe at the thought that open criticism of the government was–is–often considered support of the terrorists? Do most of you think existing laws on terrorism are used well, or ethically?
To me, this type of law sets a terrifying precedent. The weapon you rally around can (and if history is any indicator, WILL) at some point be used against you.
When people thought of “three felony strikes” they imagined rapists, not the dude who stole three steaks from Stop & Shop. And when people imagine “hate crimes” or “hate speech” they imagine white supremacists, not radical feminists or race activists. I think this is an error.
Remember all those conversations about why you can’t “switch out” white/black, male/female, etc when talking about statements? Good luck finding that in the hate laws. There’s no “…but I’m on the good side!” defense.
Do you trust the government that much? I don’t. IMO this is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I have no idea what these conservative lobbying groups and right wing Christian activists are talking about.
What they may be thinking (and I am speculating here) is that these laws are the thin edge of the wedge that will lead to laws such as there are in Canada. There, “hate crimes” include “hate speech” and you can get fined or otherwise punished for it. Here is an example:
The article itself gives links to a couple of other such cases. There have been cases in the U.S. where people have been punished in extra-legal situations. In Oakland the following happened:
Now, who exactly said what remains to be seen; the courts will play this one out. But this feeds many people’s fear that as the definitions of “hate crimes” expand, they will extend into an attack on free speech. I think the history of the First Amendment in this country is a bit stronger than the equivalent in Canada (although I am no expert on Canadian law and would welcome knowledgable commentary on the topic), but in fact this is something that a number of people are worried about given what they are seeing here and in other countries.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I disagree with extending hate crime legislation (and other forms of protection) to sexual orientation and religion. I think this does give certain groups privileged protection. In the case of religion one set of ideas and group identification is privileged and protected, but other affiliations - like political believes - aren ‘t. The same goes with sexual orientation some forms of sexual expression, like hetro and homosexuality, are protected but others - like being a masochist or having other preferences - aren’t.
I think the movement toward elevating religion and sexual orientation in this manner is dangerous. It’s about privileging certain people at the expense of others. We are seeing a shift from these protections which are being expanded from race and national origin to sexual orientation and religion. But there’s a real difference between these two groups. Sexual orientation and religion are ideas and this is an attempt to say some people ideas are more worthy of protection than others.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Sailorman, I suppose a rougue prosecutor could say connect unrelated behaviors, but I think it is indeed very rare.
They know these charges are hard to prove and they only tend to bring them in rare instances where it is fairly clear that discrimination is part of the actual crime.
Most hate crimes are propoerty related crimes and other non-violence crimes, and the perpetrators often do things like spray paint swastikas all over people’s homes, etc.
The point is there is a burden proof on the hate crimes enhancement just like everything else. (And it’s actually much tougher to prove motivations, opposed to just proving that a crime happened.)
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Canada’s anti-hate speech laws have been largely uncontroversial. As I understand it, they are mostly invoked when they specifically try to Incite Action against protected groups. There are still plenty of vocal bigots in Canada, and they can and do say whatever they want. The difference is that nobody can make a sort of generalized verbal threat towards protected groups. There are also, as I understand it, specific exemptions for saying things that are demonstrably true, religious doctrine and topics that are the subject of public debate (which is why so many people have been able to loudly demonstrate their bigotry during Canadian discussion of gay marriage). So the hate speech laws basically only protect people from egregious incitements to hate that are apropos of nothing. And Canadians are not yet living in an Orwellian police state for having had the gall to put protection for minorities above the right of bigots to incite hatred.
This comment was written by Sandra.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Personally, I think hate crimes ought to be prosecuted as acts of terrorism, because that’s what they are.
*shrug*
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Sailerman wrote:
I find your argument here extremely unpersuasive. In order for a “chilling effect” on speech to exist, people need to believe that the chance of their speech being punished is significant enough to worry about. So during McCarthyism, for example, people might reasonably have thought “I’d better not advocate for communism, because I could very well lose my job,” and that would have been a chilling effect.
I don’t believe that people see their chances of being mistakenly convicted of racially-motivated assault due to misconstrued self-defense as all that significant, however. Apart from people who actually are planning to commit assaults and other crimes, virtually no one thinks “I’d better not say this thing, because it could be misconstrued once I’m on trial for assault.” Hence, no chilling effect.
Do you conclude from this that we shouldn’t have any laws against terrorism at all, or just that it’s a mistake to have overly broad laws against terrorism?
Yes, “the patriot act” is way too broad. But I don’t conclude that therefore laws against terrorism are always bad and must always be wrong; rather, I conclude that overly-broad anti-terrorism laws are bad, and should be replaced with narrowly written anti-terrorism laws.
The proposed hate crimes legislation is narrowly written, and would not result in people being thrown in jail solely for stating political opinions. It should be supported, for the same reason reasonable, narrow laws against terrorism should be supported.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
James,
This comment was written by Rachel.Religion has been covered for years under hate crimes legislation. That is not part of the current legislation because it is already there.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
The latter. I think the laws against terrorism should be incredibly narrow, and should be drawn only as wide as is absolutely necessary. This comes from a general basis: I view motivation and intent as the most difficult, and most suspect (though necessary) parts of our judicial system.
It’s hard enough to get the “real truth” (if such a thing exists) to the question “did she mean to do it?” As a result, I don’t have a whole lot of faith in figuring out of the much more complex question “WHY did she mean to do it?” And I strongly dislike adding a whole new category of crimes whose sole identifier is “why?”
I also disagree with the issues regarding chilling and framing, though we’ll probably have ti agree to disagree. [shrug] I think we’re just coming from different places. I’m a strong civil liberties and first amendment kind of guy, so I weigh this differently than most people, I suspect. Basically, I think hate is bad but shouldn’t be illegal; proponents of hate crime laws disagree. And as a result I come to different conclusions than you.
I can easily see how folks would feel otherwise. Just like terrorism: some folks feel no law is too strict if attack risks are reduced, and some (like me) lean towards increased risk in exchange for increased freedom. I disagree with you, but I respect your position.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
The reason I favor hate crimes legislation, Sailorman, is that I think a hate crime does more harm to society than the same crime committed without the hate-based component.
That is, it damages the cohesiveness of our society, turns us against one another, encourages scapegoating of a specific group, etc.
I’ve got no problem with punishing extra for extra harm. It’s just another mitigating factor like premeditation.
Like you, I would oppose punishment for the hate alone without the crime aspect. You can’t be punished just for premeditation, in other words.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
It’s important to note that the question of motivation is often central to the *defense* in criminal cases involving queer or transgendered victims. These so-called “panic” defenses still have a lot of traction as mitigating factors in such cases. Of course, I hate this idea, just like I hate the “she asked for it” defense in rape cases, but under the American system it is important to allow each defendant a full chance to defend him/herself. So, given this, shouldn’t prosecutors be allowed to counter this defense (which amounts to excusing crimes because of hate) with a state-sponsored rejection of bigotry?
As a strong civil-liberties supporter (and, consequentally, a strong disliker of hate speech codes) I think the emphasis on speech is a red herring in this situation.
This comment was written by murphy.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Sandra:
As I understand it, they are mostly invoked when they specifically try to Incite Action against protected groups. There are still plenty of vocal bigots in Canada, and they can and do say whatever they want. The difference is that nobody can make a sort of generalized verbal threat towards protected groups.
Well, but then explain the cases I cited. And Amp had it right; even the threat of such a thing (especially when a few cases actually get successfully prosecuted) acts as a huge chill on what should be free speech. The purpose of government is to defend free speech, not inhibit it.
Murphy:
but under the American system it is important to allow each defendant a full chance to defend him/herself. So, given this, shouldn’t prosecutors be allowed to counter this defense (which amounts to excusing crimes because of hate) with a state-sponsored rejection of bigotry?
No. It’s part of the American legal system is that turnabout is not fair play when the two entities involved are the individual vs. the State. The power of the State is too overwhelming to allow it.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
The only question I have is “How many times has a hate crime been commited on heterosexuals by gays?” If any decernment at all is used, one would consider the fact that the GLBTI community rarely goes out of ther way to find some heterosexuals to beat up. I doubt if James Dobson has to worry about that happening, but I’d like to see him get on a church bus in Texas wearing a skirt and not have different feelings about the hate crimes bill after he got off that bus, if he were still alive of course.
Julie Z (Trans-woman)
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Over on another thread, sylphhead asked, “do you not see the parallels between hate crime and terrorism?” That’s a digression from the other topic, so I’m answering it here.
Yes, I do see parallels between hate crime and terrorism, but they’re different parallels: In both cases, what matters is not what’s thought or what’s said; what matters is what’s done, and in a society that values free thought and free speech, it’s what’s done that should be addressed by the law.
An argument could be made that all murders are terrorism: they say that people should be afraid of violent people seeking to solve their problems in the only way they know.
Another argument could be made that there is so very much that can be decided incorrectly in legal cases, and therefore it’s best to focus on deeds rather than words or thoughts.
And a third argument could be made that laws proliferate madly. That benefits lawyers and legal systems, but it does not necessarily benefit society.
If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong. If some people—poor people of all races and those who are considered outside the protection of “respectable” society because of their sexual orientation or for whatever reason—are not receiving full protection under the law, the solution is simple: Make the police and the judges obey the law, and when they fail, punish them for failing in their duty. But putting additional penalties based on the thoughts of the criminal or the identity of the victim is wrong. Humans are humans, all deserving of the same treatment before the law, no more and no less.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 1:07 am
1. So you’re against the distinction between first and second degree murder — a distinction that can easily be based in nothing more than “the thoughts of the criminal”?
2. Please don’t bring up the “penalties… based on… the identity of the victim” nonsense. That’s not how hate crimes statutes work; it’s just a strawman argument.
3. Using murder as your example is a way of hiding the weakness of your argument, because obviously the penalty for murder is generally sufficient without adding anything on at all.
Instead, consider the example of Joe and Bill. Joe trespasses on my property and lights a campfire because he’s hungry and wants to cook a hot dog. Bill trespasses on Rabbi Rosenburg’s property and sets a cross on fire because he wants all the Jews of the community to feel under threat of being violently attacked so they’ll move out.
In your view, are these the same crimes, deserving exactly the same penalty?
If we give Joe and Bill (assuming both are found guilty in a fair court of law) exactly the same penalty, is that just, in your view?
Let’s say Joe’s penalty is a $50 fine for trespassing. If we also penalize Bill with a $50 penalty, do you think that will provide Bill with any incentive to not commit the same crime again? Do you think the Jewish community would be wrong to feel that the law is failing to protect them?
Or let’s say that we give Bill six months in jail and a $5000 fine. Is it fair to give Joe six months in jail and a $5000 fine for trespassing?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:15 am
will, are you actually making those arguments? Observing that they “could be made” is an odd way of pre-distancing yourself–hey, these may be crazy, but somebody COULD make them, um, but it’s not me.
Do you believe there is no difference between the person in line who accidentally spills his Coke on you, and the person who deliberately spills his Coke on you? Exact same actions; the only different is the person’s “thoughts”.
“Murder,” by the way, is a crime where we look at the killer’s intent. You know, “thoughts.” Do you oppose that? Should any killing of another human being by a human being be murder?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Ampersand, I believe the courts should have leeway in charging and sentencing. If findlaw.com is to be trusted, the distinctions between first and second degree murder have to do with the amount of premeditation. They have nothing to do with the nature of the premeditation. That’s where “hate crime” enters the equation: it sets additional penalties for the motive.
As for Joe and Bill’s case, Joe’s situation is arguably a crime of necessity, while Bill’s is wanton trespass and destruction. But to go further with your hypothesis, if Bill burns a cross on a white person’s lawn and on a black person’s law, should he face a greater charge for the second case?
Or to take a personal example: my family couldn’t get fire insurance because the Klan had put out the word that we would be burned down. If the Klan had followed through, should they have faced a lesser charge for burning our home than if they had burned the home of a black family?
mythago, I’m trying to point out that a lot of approaches can be taken regarding the law, and once you begin to dwell on different kinds of premeditation rather than the deed, you’re entering a moral thicket that troubles me.
The law has always recognized premeditation, and that’s appropriate. Recognizing the difference between “sane” crimes that result in personal profit and insane crimes that are driven by a mania is appropriate.
But really, when it comes to murder, “Thou shalt not kill” covers it pretty well. If the judges and police are not enforcing the law for everyone, the solution is to charge them with dereliction; it’s not to make more laws.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 9:04 am
But to go further with your hypothesis, if Bill burns a cross on a white person’s lawn and on a black person’s law, should he face a greater charge for the second case?
If Bill burns a cross on a white person’s lawn because Bill thinks the white person is a “nigger-lover” and the cross-burning will intimidate that white person into moving away? That would be a hate crime.
What you’re refusing to acknowledge is that the law takes motive into account–not just “premeditation”. The very definition of murder–the example you keep using–is one that takes a person’s thoughts into account.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 9:32 am
mythago, I also addressed arson; I really don’t insist on sticking to murder. So let’s stick to the cross-burning: that’s trespass and vandalism, and it should be punished on those grounds.
Yes, “premeditation” acknowledges intent. But in the past, the law took premeditation in two directions: did you have a “sane” motive that would result in gain as society understands gain, or did you have an insane motive, and therefore you should go to a mental facility rather than a legal one. That’s always seemed proper to me. Hate crimes add an extra consideration: Was prejudice a factor in the premeditation?
And now you’re judging people’s thoughts. Now you’re a tiny, tiny step from saying that speech and thought should be regulated independently of actions. If you want to make everyone equal under the law, the most powerful way to do that is to insist that everyone is equal under the law, and to punish judges and police officers who show any favoritism.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
will, I really don’t know how many ways there are to repeat this.
1. The law has always taken motive, i.e. “thoughts”, into account in judging the severity of crimes.
2. Only a tiny handful of ’strict liability’ crimes (such as statutory rape) completely ignore the perpetrator’s intent.
3. Hate crimes do not protect particular people (i.e. African-Americans); they do apply to categories (such as race) and apply to any victim to whom the crime is directed based on their perceived characteristics.
Your claim that the law suddenly started considering “insane motives” is flat-out wrong. Your claim that applying mens rea to hate crimes is Orwellian thoughtcrime is also flat-out wrong. I’d be happy to explain why, but I don’t get the impression that you wish to be confused with the facts.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Mythago,
Yes, the law considers motives, but “hate crimes” subdivide motives. Here’s what the law traditionally decides: Did you do it? By the standards of our society, are you sane? Was this act premeditated or impulsive or accidental?
I didn’t claim that the law suddenly began to consider insanity as a defense; I should look up when insanity was first offered as a factor in deciding legal responsibility.
You may be correct that I don’t wish to be confused with facts. I think I don’t wish to be confused with ideology. I don’t want the law to discriminate for anyone, and I don’t want it to discriminate against anyone. I want it to be fair.
Well, that’s probably my last shot at explaining this. Just remember that our goals are, I hope, the same: a world in which everyone is treated equally. Your approach may be right, but I think it’s not; your approach focuses on differences, and mine focuses on similarities.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
As I said back in comment #14, Will:
I thought it then, and I think it now. A hate crime does extra damage in terms of fear and impact on the community.
In terms of arson, for example, I think that there’s a very different damage in the harm done between someone who sets fire to my house because he hates me personally and someone who sets fire to my house because he wants to ’send a message’ and scare people like me out of town.
In the first case, I am the victim.
In the second case, I am not the only victim. Everyone else in town who is a ‘person like me’ is being deliberately terrorized. The kid who’s scared to go to school is a victim. The parents who are frightened to go to sleep or leave the kids home alone are victims. The family who feels like they have to move away to find peace are victims.
If you commit a greater crime, affecting more people, you get punished more.
I’ve got no problem with that, and it doesn’t come even close to thoughtcrime.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Myca, what’s the more powerful message: “Everyone gets the same treatment” or “Everyone gets the same treatment, including those who are different, and therefore we’ll have additional laws regarding the people who are different”? I think it’s the first.
Here’s one problem with the “greater crime” argument: If you’re basing it on its effect on society, a typical act of arson is meant to terrorize everyone; a targeted act is meant to terrorize a subgroup. By the logic of “greater crime”, the targeted act should be considered a lesser crime.
Which is clearly wrong.
Because everyone should be treated equally, and should demand it when it doesn’t happen.
So the solution is to treat everyone equally. (Which, perhaps, I take to extremes, being a leveler, but I really don’t see how you can go too far in the pursuit of fairness.)
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I think justice is more important than soundbites, actually.
Plus, hey, as others have pointed out many times, this treatment applies to everyone. Everyone is treated equally. If someone commits arson against me with the clear intent of driving ‘people like me’ out of town, it doesn’t matter to the law whether I’m black or white, gay or straight, etc.
An act intended to terrorize my community is not the same as an act designed to affect me personally, and treating different acts differently is not unfair.
This is probably not true, as near as I can tell.
Do you honestly believe that most cases of arson (or murder or mugging) have the intent of creating an atmosphere of fear for literally everyone? I would think it much more common that these acts are committed due to personal animus or some kind of profit motive.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Will, what do you mean by “treat everyone equally”? You clearly don’t mean that literally, since you don’t call for punishing the criminal and the innocent equally.
If you mean “treat everyone equally” meaning treat black and white the same, women and men the same, queer and non-queer the same, etc., then hate crime laws already do that.
So what do you mean?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Will, do you honestly think a warehouse fire (a relatively common type of arson, which newspapers barely even bother writing about) typically spreads fear to everyone to the same degree and kind that burning down a synagogue typically spreads fear to members of the local Jewish community?
Because if you honestly can’t imagine ANY WAY that the latter example might create more fear among its targets than a warehouse fire creates among the community-in-general, then I frankly can’t see any point in continuing this discussion with you; you’re the equivalent of someone who doesn’t believe in evolution, in that you simply have no connection to or awareness of the real world.
However, I trust that you don’t honestly believe that, and that you mis-typed, or made your point too quickly in the rush of debate. (Both mistakes that I’d find very understandable, having made them all too often myself). I don’t think that you’re that disconnected from reality. Please justify my faith in you.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
You can go too far in the pursuit of fairness when you start to treat starkly different crimes as if they are not.
Hm.
Let me put it this way.
Let’s take the crime of rape. Ignoring hate crime statutes, ‘who the victim is’ is hugely important in prosecuting a case of rape. Whether a rapist rapes a woman in her 30’s, a girl who is 16, or a child of 2 years old generally makes the same act (sexual intercourse without consent) carry radically different penalties and charges.
Is this a case of treating different people unequally?
I mean, it’s the same crime, right?
No, it’s not the same crime. This isn’t unequal. This is a case of recognizing nuance.
My action may be ‘punching someone in the face’, but whether my punchee is an 80 year old man, a 30 year old man, or a 6 month old infant matters. These are different crimes, and punishing them equally isn’t ‘fair’.
My action may be ‘breaking a bunch of windows at the high school and spraypainting the lockers’, but whether I paint, “Kiss Rocks!” (why would anyone want to kiss rocks?), or “Die Jews” matters. These are different crimes, and punishing them equally isn’t ‘fair’.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
“Do you honestly believe that most cases of arson (or murder or mugging) have the intent of creating an atmosphere of fear for literally everyone? I would think it much more common that these acts are committed due to personal animus or some kind of profit motive.”
Profit is the most common motive for arson. But when you’re dealing with other examples, you tend to have troubled young people, usually male, who have anger issues and, often, a low IQ. I don’t know if Malcolm Shabazz, whose arson killed Betty Shabazz, fit the second half of that diagnosis, but he certainly had a troubled history.
Not-for-profit arson tends to be a public act by someone who feels powerless.
“Will, what do you mean by “treat everyone equally”? You clearly don’t mean that literally, since you don’t call for punishing the criminal and the innocent equally.”
I mean that your deed should be judged, not your thought. I can’t tell someone to stop being racist. But if someone robs or assaults or kills someone, I fully expect them to face the full legal consequences of robbery or assault or murder.
“Will, do you honestly think a warehouse fire (a relatively common type of arson, which newspapers barely even bother writing about) typically spreads fear to everyone to the same degree and kind that burning down a synagogue typically spreads fear to members of the local Jewish community?”
I was thinking about burning houses and forests and public buildings,—not about for-profit arson.
I am *NOT* arguing that general arson should be treated differently than targeted arson. I’m arguing that arson is wrong in every case, and legally sane arsonists should go to prison, and legally insane arsonists should go asylums.
“whether my punchee is an 80 year old man, a 30 year old man, or a 6 month old infant matters.”
I started to agree, but now I’m not so sure. Isn’t the damage what’s relevant? A broken nose is a broken nose. If the perceived strength of the victim is relevant, should gender also be a consideration? I personally feel that it’s much worse to hit a woman than a man, but I do have a macho protectionist streak, and I can see the argument that a woman who wants equal protection should want as much but no more protection than a man would get.
As for “Kiss rocks!” and “Die Jews!” I entirely agree that the first is sad and the second is vile. But not everything that’s vile should be addressed with the law. When vandalism incorporates free speech, we should punish the vandalism with the law. The free speech should be addressed with more free speech.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Will,
Once again, you appear to be denying that there exist things like systemic racism and that they affect people lives in a negative fashion that needs to be addressed. You seem to be invested in the idea that you, as a ‘poor’ white man (although you have a great deal of cultural capitol), are equally oppressed as a poor black woman who has no cltural capitol.
I agree with you on a lot of stuff, but I really think you’re stuck on this one.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Mondolin, the question isn’t whether racism continues—Jena answers that clearly. The question is how do you address it? I think all problems should be solved in their greater context. Black poverty? End poverty for everyone, including the 25% who are Hispanic and the 50% who are white. Homophobia? Grant everyone the same freedom in consensual matters, whether they’re GLBT or polyamorous. Etc.
I think we differ on a second issue, too. I don’t want more laws permitting things. I want fewer laws forbidding things. Doesn’t mean I’m an anarchist (though it does mean I have strong anarchist sympathies). Just means I have less faith in using the law to solve social problems.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Two comments, Will.
You said:
But first you said:
I agree. The damage is what’s relevant.
Sometimes the damage is so likely to be different (as in the difference between punching a full grown man and an infant or the difference between raping a full grown woman and a toddler) that we count it as another crime.
What I (and many others) have been saying is that a crime that targets a specific group with the intent of creating terror does more damage than the same ‘action’ without that goal.
Breaking into a school and spraypainting either “Kiss Rocks” or “Die Jews” is not free speech. Both are vandalism, and the second does more damage. Since it does more damage, I have no problem with punishing it more harshly. As you said, the damage is what’s relevant.
Walking down the street and shouting either “Kiss Rocks” or “Die Jews” is free speech. Neither is a crime. I am opposed to criminalization of either one.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Myca,when you start setting different standards for things, even based on obvious things like age, you inevitably end up with situations like the Genarlow Wilson case. Why should an adult woman get less legal protection than a girl or an infant? The act is wrong in every case. I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that a woman is better equipped mentally to deal with the consequences than a child and therefore the legal punishment for raping her should be less—she probably is better able to deal with rape, but that’s beside the point. Rape is rape, and the message for raping anyone should be simple: our society will not accept rape under any circumstances.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
So then, you don’t believe that damage done should be the standard?
Punching an infant is far more likely to do a deadly injury than punching an adult. Raping a child is (in most cases) going to do far more physical and emotional damage than raping an adult.
Our legal system takes that into account.
The problem with judging a crime based solely on the action, rather than its damage or impact on the world is that the damage is the only reason it’s a crime in the first place.
I mean, “How dare you treat me so unfairly! I was just shooting my gun, something that hundreds of people do every day while hunting or at the target range! Clearly, the fact that I was at the mall is immaterial. I mean, do you want to give ‘people who go to the mall’ special protection over others? That would be soo unfair . . . ”
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
“the damage is the only reason it’s a crime in the first place.”
People have rationalized doing horrible things in many, many ways. Some say pornography drove them, and some say God or the Devil made them do something that was wrong.
And what was wrong was that they did the wrong thing. Whether God or the Devil, pornography or racism, was in their minds when they acted is irrelevant. The deed is wrong.
The horrible thing about our legal system during the age of “separate, but (not really) equal” was that the laws were not applied equally. The solution is not to create more laws. It’s to apply the laws equally.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Yes, Will, I think we all get that. Nobody here (except you) is talking about criminalizing thoughts. We’re talking about different punishments for different actions with different impacts.
We are saying is that this is a different act.
Spraying spraypaint on a canvas at your home is one act.
It’s not unfair to treat it differently from spraying spraypaint on the pavement to make a beautiful flower . . . because that’s a different act.
And it’s not unfair to treat that differently from spraying spraypaint on the side of a public building to write an obscenity . . . because that’s a different act.
And it’s not unfair to treat that differently from spraying spraypaint on a private citizen’s home to write a racial slur . . . because that’s a different act.
Your vision of fairness seems to involve wanting to pretend that there’s no difference between all of these.
None of these (not one) involves thoughtcrime or reading the perpetrator’s mind or criminalizing racism or anything like that. It’s entirely possible that the fellow painting the flower on the street was horribly racist . . . but as long as his actions didn’t specifically terrorize one racial group, there’s no problem.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Additionally, Will, I’m not sure why you quoted me saying “the damage is the only reason it’s a crime in the first place,” . . . and went on to talk at length about people’s motivations, which was utterly unrelated.
I’m saying that for me, motivations aren’t the point. Damage is the point. damage is what makes a crime a crime, and it’s what separates a smaller crime from a greater.
And actions that terrorize and target a specific group do more damage.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
“Your vision of fairness seems to involve wanting to pretend that there’s no difference between all of these.”
I’d like to think my vision of fairness involves giving the government very little room to impose penalties based on what people think or say.
“Additionally, Will, I’m not sure why you quoted me saying “the damage is the only reason it’s a crime in the first place,” . . . and went on to talk at length about people’s motivations, which was utterly unrelated.”
Sorry! I often get much too terse in these discussions. I thought you were saying that prejudice was the reason for the crime, and therefore it was pertinent. I was trying to point out that there are many reasons for crimes, but what matters is the crime, not the reason–beyond determining sanity and premeditation, of course.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
No, no, what I mean is :
1) The fact that a crime does damage is the only reason it’s considered a crime in the first place.
2) How much damage the crime does affects how serious we consider the crime to be.
3) Targeting a specific group for the purpose of inflicting terror while committing a crime does more damage than the same sort of crime (assault, rape, vandalism) without that element.
Therefore:
4) Assessing an additional penalty on the perpetrator of a crime due to the additional damage is wholly appropriate.
Important Point
This isn’t extra protection for anyone. If I go out and beat up a dude and steal his wallet, and he happens to be gay, I don’t get charged any differently than if he happens to be straight. So there’s no extra protection there.
On other other hand, if I go out and beat up a dude and steal his wallet while screaming racial epithets, it doesn’t matter what his race is . . . I can be charged with a hate crime. So there’s no extra protection there, either.
I’m not sure where you get the ‘extra protection’ and ‘unfairness’ from, really.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Myca, it’s in the “screaming racial epithets.” I hate being called names as much as anyone, but I don’t think it should be illegal to call me names. (Slander law is a whole ‘nother topic that we should stay away from now!)
And it’s especially in the judgment calls involved with cases like the Christian-Newsom murders and the woman tortured in the Brewster trailer. Seems to me the police don’t need to spend extra time investigating the thoughts of the attackers. What they did was horrible enough, and the sentence will reflect that. Adding extra penalties doesn’t make a stronger statement than the basic one: The victims deserve the protection of the law, and the attackers deserve its undiluted judgment.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Okay, so you don’t think it should be illegal to call you names.
That’s cool, and let’s talk about that, but first can you either 1) agree that under this framework, nobody has ‘extra protection’ or 2) show where that extra protection is?
As near as I can tell, we’re all equally protected. If a group of Asian toughs beat the crap out of me while screaming anti-white epithets, I’m just as protected as an Asian dude beat up by a group of white guys screaming anti-Asian epithets.
I’d just like to get this out of the way before we get to what seems to be the meat of the matter.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Myca, I’m curious about the statistics on hate crimes and whether they’re applied equally. For example, blacks are about 10% of the population, and whites are 68% or 75%, depending on whether you include people who identify as “white Hispanics.” So, are 10% of hate crimes against whites and 75% against blacks?
Now, that doesn’t factor in class. For things that exclusively affect the lower class, the numbers become effectively 25% black, 25% Hispanic, and 50% white. Apply that against the death penalty and against the drug war, and it becomes pretty clear that the death penalty is not racist, but the drug war is. So if hate crimes are primarily a lower-class phenomenon, the statistics should reflect that.
Okay, having typed the above, I went googling. The first useful site is here; it’s the FBI figures. At the end of the page is this: “Among the 8,433 known offenders reported to be associated with hate crime incidents, 59 percent were white, and 27 percent were black. The remaining offenders were of other or multi-racial groups.” The statistics line up fairly well with the figures for the US’s lower-class (the death penalty also shows a higher percentage of of both blacks and whites due to a lower percentage of Hispanics).
Now, violent crime stats tend to focus on the lower class because people with money tend to pay lawyers rather than go to jail, so I’m guessing that applies here, though I don’t know. So, if all those assumptions are correct, I would conclude that you’re right, the hate crime laws are applied fairly.
But, as with the death penalty, being applied fairly doesn’t make it right.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Excellent, thanks.
Now earlier, back in post #43, you said that you oppose hate crime laws partially because you don’t think it should be illegal to yell racial epithets at you.
Is it your understanding that under hate crime laws, I could be arrested or fined for yelling a racial epithet at someone? If so, I think you’re mistaken.
Indeed, it is my understanding that hate crime statutes merely treat the terrorization of a group as an aggravating factor in the commission of a crime.
I think of it like possession of a deadly weapon. It’s not illegal for me to carry a knife. There are no laws making possession of a knife illegal. However, if I commit assault, and I do so with something that is, on its own, legal (a knife) the crime is considered more serious.
It’s considered more serious because assault with a deadly weapon does more damage than assault without.
Similarly, assault with the intent of terrorizing a specific group of people does more damage than assault without.
So . . . good news! You don’t need to worry about hate crime legislation making racial epithets illegal any more than you worry about assault with a deadly weapon making your kitchen knives illegal.
Are you still opposed to these laws? If so, why?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
You’re granting my assumptions about those statistics!?! I’m not sure I would! (*g*)
No, I don’t think someone can be arrested for yelling any epithets at me. Not my point. I meant that purely as an analogy. I was trying to point out that free speech and free thought are extremely important to me, no matter how distasteful I might find some of the things they allow.
My point is that by adding a hate crime law to an objective crime, you’re adding to the penalty based on your interpretation of the motive for the crime. Sometimes sports fans attack people who are wearing the opposing team’s shirt. Is that different than attacking someone wearing their team’s shirt? It’s still an attack. The damage is the same. An argument could be made that Britain should have soccer hooligan laws (and for all I know, they do), because prejudice is a factor in team-oriented crimes, just as it’s a factor when Crips and Bloods fight. But I would argue against those laws, too. What matters is the crime, not the prejudice. Prejudice is reprehensible. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I agree, but prejudice isn’t illegal, and these laws don’t make it illegal.
You (Or anyone. Not picking on you) can be just as prejudiced as you like. You can run anti-Arsenal websites from your basement, posting your angry soccer-hooligan screeds late into the night.
However, if you go out and beat up an Arsenal fan and spraypaint across the front door of his house “This is a Tottenham neighborhood” or something similar, then your attack has a greater impact than if you’d just beat him up. It does more damage just as surely as if (but in a different way than if) you’d attacked him with a knife.
Once again, this is about the damage the crime does. These crimes do more damage, and acknowledging that and punishing for that is not unreasonable.
Let me put it this way: Do you believe that concentrated campaigns of harassment meant to terrify an entire group of people should be legal? Assume that the crimes themselves will be minor . . . just some minor vandalism . . . a few windows broken a night, a few spraypainted messages, a ‘Die Jew’ here, a ‘we’re watching you’ there . . . that kind of thing.
This victimizes not just the families whose homes are targeted, but all Jewish people living in the area . . . in fact, of course it does. That’s the whole point. The goal is to create an atmosphere of fear, where members of the targeted group either leave or live in terror.
Do you believe that that should be legal?
If you oppose hate crime legislation, the answer must be yes.
What you are saying is, “we’ll fine you for the broken windows and make you clean up the spraypaint . . . but the intimidation? That should be legal.”
I believe that the damage these crimes do obviously and clearly goes beyond the physical damage of the vandalism. Do you disagree?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Myca, this really is where we disagree. I’m still at punish the objective crime. I would like to think that if the graffitti is especially hateful, people would try especially hard to catch those responsible. If Jewish homes are being targeted for window-breaking, then the police should be watching Jewish homes in hope of catching the window-breakers. Neighbors should rally and say loudly, “These are our friends and neighbors! We support them!”
There is a negative side of hate crimes that I first saw when looking at Germany’s laws against Nazi symbols: ban something, and you make it more powerful. You give it the allure of the forbidden. You help the people who are acting on their prejudices believe that they are delivering a message which a repressive society has forbidden. I think the more effective response from society is, “That’s what you think? We value free thought, so you’re allowed to think it, but, man, we all think people who believe that are pathetic.”
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 5:51 am
So you believe that a boy breaking a window tossing rocks and an organized campaign of terror ought to be prosecuted as equivalent.
Do you also oppose extra penalties for assault with a deadly weapon because that makes weapons ‘more powerful’? Do you oppose extra penalties for premeditated murder because that makes planners ‘more powerful’?
My point is that if you prosecute a crime doing damage ‘X’ at level ‘Y’ . . . and you prosecute a crime doing damage ‘X plus 10′ at level ‘Y’ . . . then the ‘plus 10′ is effectively legal.
If there’s no extra penalty for using a knife, why not use a knife? The crime will be prosecuted as if you punched him.
If there’s no extra penalty for killing a dude, why not kill him? The crime will be prosecuted as if you stabbed him.
If there’s no extra penalty for running someone over while drunk, why be careful? The crime will be prosecuted as if it was a simple DUI.
Tell me, which other crimes do you oppose aggravating factors for?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Myca, assault with a deadly weapon shows a greater disregard for life. It is a law that’s applied imperfectly–fists and feet are deadly weapons–but at least it is somewhat objective.
Premeditation has nothing to do with the reason why you planned something. It only acknowledges that the wrong thing was intended, and you had time to reconsider it, but you acted anyway.
I believe we should have as few laws as possible, and they should be as objective as possible, based on deeds and the desire to do wrong. When you add hate crimes to the mix, you’re now prosecuting people on the reason for their desire to do wrong. And that’s wrong. People should be allowed to have any stupid desire they want—you should only punish them for acting on their stupid desires.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 9:04 am
You’ve said this sort of thing several times, hinting that hate crime laws allow people to be punished for their thoughts rather than their actions.
Here are a couple more examples:
I would like you to offer an example of:
1) A situation where, under hate crime statutes, someone would be punished for “having a stupid desire” rather than “acting on the stupid desire”,
2) A situation where, under hate crime statutes, prejudice, on its own, would be made illegal,
3) A situation where calling you names, on its own, would be made illegal.
Please either do this or drop the rhetoric.
It’s not true, and you I think know it’s not true.
We can keep going back through your statements to dig this stuff out if you like.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the point of a hate crime law to charge someone with a hate crime, so the likely penalty will be more severe than if you simply charged them for the objective crime? So aren’t all hate crimes examples of punishing people for having stupid desires rather than acting on them?
To clarify that a bit, perhaps: Can you give an example of a hate crime that is not already a crime like robbery, assault, trespassing, vandalism, or murder?
I’m not saying that hate crimes currently make prejudice illegal. I’m saying that hate crimes add the charge of prejudice to the crime. And that’s both wrong in itself and it establishes a very dangerous precedent.
And, really, the calling me names thing was just an example of something I hate (in a few examples–most name-calling amuse mes). The only point I intended to make was that if you make everything you hate illegal, the law only makes sense to kings. In a free society, things you hate that do not cause objective harm should be free. That definitely includes speech and thought.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Hmm. I’m not so sure about that. I find it interesting to view it as a group guilt issue.
What are the chances that you were beating him up because he was gay, instead of because he wore the wrong color sneakers?
Obviously society is believed to be fairly anti-gay and as we all know that often includes violence. However, gays are not generally believed to be violently anti-straight.
Because of that TRUE societal issue, the state will have an easier time proving that charge against you. Because of the TRUE societal issue, the state will have a harder time proving that charge against him.
Result: hate crime legislation punishes you more than he. On average, anyway.
I haven’t gotten in a fight since junior high, I think. And I’ve never beaten someone up. But if I was for some reason in a situation where me and another person were trying to remove each others’ teeth using our fists, then I am not sure what would come out of my mouth. It would probably be the most vile, insulting, horrible, thing I could think of. He would probably be doing the same thing.
Again, because of our society’s history, it is more likely that my insults could be construed as motivation for a “hate crime” than could his. Same result as above.
Another way to look at it is this: Some liberals believe there is no “reverse racism.” Still others make the claim that comments on clothing, music preference, economic status, geographical location, and language choice are all considered racist.
This is combined with the reverse racism issue. Thus, insulting hop hop artists, or denigrating those who listen to hip hop (which I like, BTW), is often equated to racism. Substitute “classical music” or “country western” and it’s not considered racist. Similar examples abound: insulting baggy-pants wearers is racist and anti-minority, and insulting $3000-custom-tailored-English-suit-wearers is not, even though the vast majority of such folks are white. And so on.
I don’t know how those perceptions will be included in hate crime legislation. Do you?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 11:56 am
“if I was for some reason in a situation where me and another person were trying to remove each others’ teeth using our fists, then I am not sure what would come out of my mouth. It would probably be the most vile, insulting, horrible, thing I could think of. He would probably be doing the same thing.”
I have been in fights as an adult. Not recently, but well into my late 20s-early 30s (no, I didn’t start them: I was attacked on more than one occasion for not being sufficiently “feminine”—which, now that I think about it, is right on track with this conversation). Anyway, although hateful, vile things undoubtedly did come out of my mouth, they were always of the “asshole/fucker/shithead” variety and NEVER of the racist/bigoted variety, even though at times they could have been IF I HAD BEEN SO INCLINED.
I do not buy the idea that someone who “isn’t really racist” would come out with racial epithets in a fight. Only people who say they aren’t racist but haven’t dealt with the bad stuff they’ve got internally. And anyway, this whole tack the conversation is having is a blind: it reminds me of all those anti-rape threads where men come on to make arguments that are basically trying to set the limits for the violence/sexual abuse they will be “permitted” to make without it being called rape. Just fucking don’t do ANY of it.
Will: you have not managed to make any substantive refutation of Myca’s (or anyone else’s) position. Assaulting someone for their race/sexual orientation/whatever is DIFFERENT than assaulting someone because you think they’ve wronged you, or assaulting someone because you’re drunk. Burning down a synagogue is DIFFERENT than burning down a warehouse for the insurance or even burning down your school for fun.
The law takes intent into account all the time. The law takes the impact of actions into account all the time. Hate crime legislation IS NO DIFFERENT. It is not legislating against “thought crime,” it is not giving some groups “special rights” (and anyway, if YOUR group didn’t have special rights in the first place, there’d be no need hate crime legislation). All it’s doing is recognising that crimes committed for the purpose of creating fear and insecurity across a specific group of people are DIFFERENT to crimes that are committed out of personal animosity towards individuals or for a profit motive, etc. Exactly like the law takes into account that shooting someone dead unintentionally while playing around with a gun is DIFFERENT to getting a gun, planning to shoot someone, and then killing them.
Do you think that everyone who kills another person, no matter whether it was by accident, for profit or for the sadistic pleasure of killing, should be treated exactly the same by the law? Because unless you do, your argument against hate crimes legislation holds no water.
“insulting hop hop artists, or denigrating those who listen to hip hop (which I like, BTW), is often equated to racism. Substitute “classical music” or “country western” and it’s not considered racist.”
Firstly, though I don’t doubt that there are people so ignorant that they would automatically equate not liking hip-hop to racism, those people would be fringe loonies, so presenting their views as if they were some sort of norm isn’t valid. They aren’t. Secondly, there is a vast difference between saying that some individuals reject hip-hop out of hand for racist reasons, or that some analyses of hip-hop are racist, and saying that not liking hip-hop is in itself racist.
Also, as C&W and classical music are culturally identified as “white” genres (even though their musicians and admirers span all racial groups), and white is dominant and sees itself as the default, saying that not liking those 2 genres could be tied to racism wouldn’t even really make sense, at least not in a white-dominated culture.
However, a lot of the analyses about C&W and a lot of the negative responses individuals have towards it are definitely classist. Again, this is NOT saying that anyone who doesn’t like country dislikes it for classist reasons, merely that some people are classist in their rejection of it.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Crys T, I agree those things are different. That doesn’t justify giving the state the power to penalize what you believe when you choose to act illegally on your beliefs.
I think you were reading hastily (it’s a long thread!), because I addressed some of your other points earlier. Perhaps the biggest one bears repeating: premeditation has nothing to do with motive; it only has to do with whether you planned to act illegally.
The quote after what’s addressed to me was Sailorman’s, not mine. I do agree that the objections to C&W are mostly classist. I think a similar argument could be made for hip hop and other musical forms that come from poor blacks—though race remains a factor there, of course, and you also get to add prejudice against the young to the mix.
This comment was written by will shetterly.