Not having heard much about it in the last few months, I optimistically hoped that we had heard the last of the draconian "hate crimes" legislation which Democrats have been trying to pass for years. Now it appears that the bill is about to pass the Senate as an amendment attached to the Defense Appropriations bill, and President Obama spoke this weekend to the Human Rights Campaign expressing his eagerness to sign the bill into law, announcing: "I can announce that after more than a decade, this bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law."
It troubles me at least a little to be on the same side as religious conservatives in opposing this bill and to be going against the majority of the American public who polls show supporting hate crimes legislation by a majority of as much as 88%, but when something is wrong it is wrong and it does not matter how many people support it or how wrongheaded some of those who oppose it are.
As I have written before, and still believe that no matter how well intentioned or how popular, no law which gives special privileges to selected classes of people and punishes individuals for their thoughts rather than their actions can ever be considered just. It is no more right to give a selected class of people preferential treatment under the law than it would be to take away the rights of a group of citizens for their race, beliefs or sexual preferences. To do so perverts and corrupts the law and undermines the Constitution.
Once this law passes, where do we draw the line? What is to stop the passage of myriad other well-intentioned laws which continue the pattern of setting one group above another and criminalizing thought? Will the next step be to outlaw certain political beliefs, to silence dissenting voices in the media and in the pulpit, or to punish anyone who is different just because the majority demands it?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
"It is no more right to give a selected class of people preferential treatment under the law than it would be to take away the rights of a group of citizens for their race, beliefs or sexual preferences."
Are you then opposed to the Americans with Disabilities Act and to the disability provisions of the Fair Housing Act?
2 - Dave Nalle
Dr. D., there's a huge difference between an actual disability and race or gender or sexual preference.
But yes, I believe that the ADA should only be mandatory for government offices and should not be imposed on businesses involuntarily. There's a market for handicapped services, so let those who want to fill that need do so and don't put the burden on everyone else.
Dave
3 - Doug Hunter
I agree. There are adequate means in place to give people large sentences without special hate crimes provisions. The left, hence democrats, try to divide the population on race, class, gender, etc. and this hate crimes legislation is just one part of keeping the illusion going and the base motivated.
For example here are some crime statistics for 2005:
Loving Murders: 16692
Hate Murders: 6
Loving Forcible Rapes: 93,934
Hate Forcible Rapes: 3
Loving Ag. Assault: 862,947
Hate Ag. Assualt: 1,062
It's silly that congress is concerning themselves with special legislation for what amounts to less than a tenth of a percent of major crimes. Even that tiny percentage and low numbers must be divided amongst many many categories of 'hate' so the animosity between any specifice group is much lower than you may be aware.
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Your train of thought got derailed in your article.
Will the next step be to outlaw certain political beliefs, to silence dissenting voices in the media and in the pulpit, or to punish anyone who is different just because the majority demands it?
The outlawing of 'hate crimes' is NOT about 'silencing dissenting voices'. Quite the OPPOSITE - and I think you know it!
If someone tries to 'silence' another because of that other's color/religion/sexual preference/political belief...THAT is a hate crime, sir. Identifying hate crimes and outlawing them isn't 'silencing' opposition - it's ENCOURAGING opposition! Because just as it's a hate crime to silence my liberal views, it's a hate crime to silence YOUR conservative views!
And frankly, Dave, there's been FAR more instances of persecution of liberals by conservatives than the other way around. Here's another example of it. The attorneys general scandal is another example. I can provide more examples if you wish.
The 'hate crimes bill' PROTECTS your right to be DIFFERENT, Dave! This bill weakens the ability of some to persecute others based on the DIFFERENCE of those others. You're strong in history - which means you KNOW that most tyrannies thrived on persecuting others BECAUSE of the victims' perceived difference - whether race (many examples), ethnic group (many examples), sexual preference (Nazi Germany), religion (many examples), political beliefs (Soviet Union), educational level (Cambodia), economic status (the French revolution comes to mind)...
...do you see the common thread? ALL of these were seen as reasons to HATE - and that hate was manipulated, used as a path to obtain and preserve power! The hate crimes bill is meant to strengthen our protection AGAINST such hate...and against those who would manipulate that hate to their own ends.
Your 'RINO' article was excellent. This article is 180-off the mark.
5 - Dave Nalle
Sorry, Glenn, but your argument just makes no sense at all. A crime is a crime. It doesn't matter what the motivation was. People should be judged by their actions, not their thoughts. And the point which you seem to have missed is that we start by criminalizing beliefs and thoughts in this context, the next step is criminalizing them even when they are not directly associated with a crime. This has happened in other countries, where merely speaking offensively has become a crime, and it's the inevitable next step we're looking at here.
Dave
6 - Clavos
When a society criminalizes thought, it has taken the single most important step toward controlling it.
And with it, freedom.
7 - Ruvy
... [if] we start by criminalizing beliefs and thoughts in this context, the next step is criminalizing them even when they are not directly associated with a crime. This has happened in other countries, where merely speaking offensively has become a crime, and it's the inevitable next step we're looking at here.
Dave hammers the nail on the head.
In Israel, "incitement" is a crime. That wouldn't be too bothersome - except for the way it is enforced. Jews who say anything alluding to Arab terrorists or that "Kahane was right" are hauled in for incitement. Arabs - any Arabs - can say what they damn please, calling upon Allah to murder us off, etc., and NOTHING happens to them.
Incitement laws will make internal conflict more likely by shutting off the valve that pissed off people have now. They have here.
When a society criminalizes thought, it has taken the single most important step toward controlling it. And with it, freedom. Quoted for truth.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
"When a crime is committed, it doesn't matter what the motivation was."
So there's no such thing as justifiable murder in self-defense? That's MOTIVATION, Dave.
Yes, motivation DOES matter - unless you want to turn your back on one of the main principles of American law enforcement for the past century or two.
How is this so? In most cases, before someone can be considered even just a suspect, the police have to show three things: means, opportunity, and MOTIVE.
So is a gang of five young men beating up on a kid to rob him really different from them beating him up because he's a Jew or black or gay?
ABSOLUTELY. Because a victim of robbery normally doesn't take his misfortune out on others...but one who is a victim of racial hatred DOES carry it with him for the rest of his life - and he's likely to take it out on others of the same race that persecuted him (innocent or not), and the vicious circle begins.
Yeah, there IS a difference. Want to see the vicious circle at work? Ask Ruvy why he wants to nuke Tehran.
9 - Ruvy
Glenn,
As much as i would like to see hate-crime legislation passed in the United States, I'm realistic to understand that it will be enforced selctively. The Wahhabi ass-kissing at the top of your government insures that Jews will be fucked over in your country with such federal legislation and the Wahhabi will get a free pass.
As I've told you elsewhere your (not yours personally) goodwill is worthless. American laws enforcement cannot be trusted, and American prosecutors cannot be trusted because your politicians are evil bastards in service to people who are even more evil.
10 - Silas Kain
Hate crime legislation is nothing more than pandering to a specific group of people. Hate is hate. Be it racial, religious or sexual intolerance, it still amounts to hate, period. If someone commits an act of violence motivated by ignorance and hate, then impose a reciprocal punishment -- the death penalty.
I'm unhappy with Obama's speech at the HRC dinner and stand strong with those like Dan Savage who say enough is enough. It's time for Obama to stop with words and ACT. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a disaster and regardless of what military brass may feel, the Commander in Chief can put an end to this entire debate with a stroke of a pen. DoMA is another one. I continue to maintain that any marriage solemnized by a religious official cannot be recognized by civil authorities as legitimate. Therefore all straight church-married couples cannot be accorded the "privileges and benefits" of marriage under the Constitution.
And speaking of the death penalty, will Governor Rick Perry at least be charged with involuntary manslaughter for the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham? If an investigation reveals a cover up or failure to act by any member of the Perry Administration, heads must roll.
11 - Baronius
Dave - I remember your earlier article on this topic. You completely changed my mind about hate crime law. Again, I tip my hat to you.
12 - Dave Nalle
Silas, a lot of people were unhappy with Obama's HRC speech. I don't know if you follow the Log Cabbin blogs, but they were pretty pissed that he didn't take a stand on don't ask don't tell at the very least. He made promises and he's not following through on them, and the hate crimes bill isn't fooling anyone who matters.
Not to follow you too far off topic, but what's the problem with the Willingham case? I've never heard of it and I'm here in Texas and read the papers from time to time.
Dave
13 - Dr Dreadful
Jews will be fucked over in your country with such federal legislation and the Wahhabi will get a free pass.
We're not exactly wading knee-deep in Wahhabis over here, you know, Ruvy. Yet another reflection in the extremely distorted lens your mondoscope there in Samaria is fitted with.
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Ruvy -
Perhaps you weren't aware of the prejudice to which Arabs - and anyone who looked like Arabs - were subjected to here just after 9/11. There were Sikhs murdered just because they looked Arabic - i.e. the turban.
15 - Jet Gardner
Hate Crime-Here's a video of a hate crime from last weekend click here
16 - Clavos
If two thugs go around town beating up straight white businessmen, is that a hate crime?
What if they go to playgrounds and beat 5 year olds of both sexes and all races? Hate crime?
17 - Dr Dreadful
Clav:
1. If they're specifically singling out straight white businessmen because they think all straight white businessmen should go back where they came from, the fucking perverts, then yes.
2. No, and I think the reason why not should be blindingly obvious to everyone.
18 - Jet Gardner
Was the businessman Jewish, were the little kids hispanic and couldn't speak english? Were the thugs telling their victim that he was being beaten because of a specific difference from what they were?
WHY are you trying to dilute the ABSOLUTE FACT that the beating in that video is a hate crime?
Any beathing where someone is yelling epitaths against a different group than the thugs giving the beating are is a hate crime.
Is your soul so cold Clavos that you can't admit that?
19 - Jet Gardner
When black were being lynched just for being black they needed help from hate crimes too.
Now gays need it, it so intensely hurts me that someone I respect can't see that... or worse but won't admit it because of political or religious reasons.
20 - Dr Dreadful
@ #2: Dave, I have to admit that was a bit of a 'gotcha' question. I don't - and I don't think that any reasonable thinking person would - consider special accommodations for disabled people to be giving them 'preferential treatment'.
Unfortunately, you don't appear to be a reasonable thinking person. "There's a market for handicapped services, so let those who want to fill that need do so and don't put the burden on everyone else." Dear me. With attitudes like that, no wonder segregation and apartheid lingered for so long...
21 - Clavos
I disagree with you on #1, Doc. Even under the circumstances you describe, it's no more of a hate crime than beating them because it's fun, or because they want to intimidate them to eliminate competition.
Assault is assault.
As to #2, I'm afraid I'm blind. Are they not attacking a specific group of humans for one of their characteristics, age?
22 - Jet Gardner
What Dave and Clavos are implying is that I deserve to beaten in the street because I'm gay with no recourse or help from the law.
23 - Clavos
Is your soul so cold Clavos that you can't admit that?
If I had a soul, Jet, yes it would be.
24 - Jet Gardner
It all comes down to your conviction that homosexuality is a "Choice". If we choose to be gay we deserve to have the hell beaten out of us.
25 - Dr Dreadful
Are they not attacking a specific group of humans for one of their characteristics, age?
Are they? You didn't specify. Or are they attacking them because they're small and can't fight back?