Rachel’s Tavern- Shakesville Comment on Whiteness and Racial Awareness
- Arrested for BAHWB (Being at Home While Black)
- John Hope Franklin Has Died
- Bottles, Breasts, and Mothering “Choices”
- NAACP Class Action Lawsuit on Subprime Loans
- We Have a Future Blogger
- I’m Afraid President Obama, Himself, is a Bit of Coward on the Race Issue
- Highly Skilled US Immigrants are Emigrating: What’s the deal?
- Troll Comments Galore
- Mark’s Spinach Face
May
4
Bush Threatens to Veto Hate Crimes Legislation (And Don’t Worry You’re Still Free to Be A Bigot)
Filed Under Original Essays and Analysis, Politics, Sexuality and Heterosexism, Sociology, Uncategorized by Rachel
The 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 victims gender, sexual orientation or gender identity under the hate-crime designation, which now applies to crimes spurred by the victims 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 bills 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.
Comments
25 Responses to “Bush Threatens to Veto Hate Crimes Legislation (And Don’t Worry You’re Still Free to Be A Bigot)”
Leave a Reply
Hate crime legislation is bullcrap anyway. As if there were so many violent crimes out there committed out of love and brotherhood.
What I don’t like about hatecrime legislation (besides the illogical nomenclature) is that it’s applied haphazardly and I think it does have an effect on speech. Lets take a recent case that has been weighed in on here. The long beach mob beatings of three white women by a large group of black youths. They were charged with a hate crime enhancement solely because a couple of them were heard to shout the equivalent of ‘I hate whitey’. If that person had not spoken, there would have been no enhancement. The only difference between a hate crime having occurred was one person out of a mob of a dozen or so saying that he hated whitey. Does that seem to make a lot of sense? Dosen’t that impact speech since the action, a brutal beating, would have been the same either way?
Now, there’s a good reason I’m using this case as an example. I find that people seem to prop up a double standard for this case when it comes to hate crime legislation. If I had used one of a myriad of cases where a hoard of redneck teens beat the snot out of 3 black men and one happened to shout ‘I hate niggers’, I imagine the reception would be different. I wish some people would spend some time thinking about that.
Henry said, “Does that seem to make a lot of sense? Dosent that impact speech since the action, a brutal beating, would have been the same either way?”
Well I think the problem in that case was that they had several different defendents and didn’t exactly know who did what. But the larger question that a jury has to decided is was this crime motivated by racial bias. You assume that this crime would have happened with or without racial bias. I don’t know that this is true, but if you are saying that the law has double standards that are going to allow people in the dominant group to get away with more, I agree.
However, at this point in time, the vast majority of hate crimes are motivated by race, and most of the victims are African Americans, which should come as a surprise to anybody. (Comes from the FBI data.) So the law is not so biased as to make totally ignore hate crimes against people of color.
Henry,
If hate crime is so illogical, why is there a harsher punishment on terrorism than multiple murder?
http://hartfordimc.org/blog/2007/05/04/fag-bashing-and-sexual-assault-at-u-of-hartford/
Thought you might be interested in this story. The link in post will take you to the Informer’s full write-up.
Henry,
If hate crime is so illogical, why is there a harsher punishment on terrorism than multiple murder?
Sorry, you’re going to have to cite the particular laws here since I’m not sure exactly what you mean. I mean, Timothy Mcveigh was charged and convincted of murder as the top count and that was certainly a terroristic act.
I can’t believe that people wouldn’t want to pass something against hate crimes. I have been upset at a lot this administration has done but this literally made me want to throw up.
Henry said,
The Patriot Act.
Henry: If someone paints a swastika on a synagogue, it MEANS a hell of a lot more than a random graffiti tag. And the deliberate nature of it (i,e, there aren’t tons of graffiti swastikas all over the neighborhood, just on the synagogue) is meant to evoke a very specific hatred and historical genocide towards a very specific group. Should it get harsher penalties? You betcha. Crap like that tends to escalate. And attackers in violent hate crimes seem to put just a little more effort into it than if they were just after drug money, or were just fistfighting over a girl. They get… inventive.
Hate crimes have a deep impact on communities, and can affect victims and families in a deeper way. If someone is mugged for their purse, well, they can choose to no longer carry a purse, or to take other precautions, etc. (my mother doesn’t carry a purse for exactly that reason). But if something intrinsic that cannot be changed (skin color, religous affiliation, ethnic background, and sexual orientation) is the reason for a crime against you, then you have NO options, NO recourse. It is a special feeling of helplessnes and vulnerability, and that is what stiffer penalties for hate-based crimes acknowledges.
I guess if you haven’t been a target, it’s hard to understand. But trust a multiple visible and invisible minority when I say that hate crimes happen, and they can be far more reaching than a “random” crime.
Nazi Germany– violence that was not random. It meant that a great many people were killed and in danger because of who they were (or were thought to be). This kind of hate crime–acting out of bigotry–enabled the attackers to justify what they were doing.
Henry said,
Sorry, youre going to have to cite the particular laws here since Im not sure exactly what you mean.
The Patriot Act.
What about the patriot act? This is like pulling teeth. What I want to know is what law, specificly, that punishes a crime. The patriot act as a whole was thousands of pages long. What specificly proves you point about it?
Henry: If someone paints a swastika on a synagogue, it MEANS a hell of a lot more than a random graffiti tag. And the deliberate nature of it (i,e, there arent tons of graffiti swastikas all over the neighborhood, just on the synagogue) is meant to evoke a very specific hatred and historical genocide towards a very specific group. Should it get harsher penalties?
You’d be backing the wrong piece of legislation then. This bill wouldn’t even affect someone painting swastikas or burning a cross. It has to be a violent crime.
For people who seem to value equality under the law, the “hate crime” theory seems to deviate from that belief. To me, it seems that escalating punishment because the victim is of a certain social group is unequal application of the law. A violent attack is a violent attack. Who the victim likes to sleep with seems irrelevant to me.
By saying that you wont get as much time for beating someone for his/her money as you will for beating them because you dont like them is ludicrous. If you commit a violent crime against somebody…..ANYBODY…you should be prosecuted equally.
Does anybody here speak common sense?
How dare lyonside minimize a random violent attack. You have no idea what being mugged does to an old lady. To say “just dont carry a purse” shows the shallowness of feeling of the author. Crime is crime and violence is violence. I guess if the old lady is white we can just chalk that up to payback right? OUTRAGEOUS!
BTW; still havent heard anything from the admin about her stance on the Duke hoax. SILENCE IS DEAFENING…..as well as very telling.
Hate crimes are violent crimes, hate speech or vandalism, motivated by feelings of enmity against an identifiable social group. (Wikipedia)
Some comments about rape as a hate crime from another blog…
The act of rape is in itself hateful towards women and rapists are themselves hateful towards women so most rapes are hate crimes and should be prosecuted as such. I don’t think intent matters because the act of rape is in itself hateful towards women and because hatred of women is endemic in society and in each person. Intent and effect are separate matters although rape has the effect of terrorism on all women.
Hate crime laws are basically antiterrorism laws. They are based on the premise that certain crimes are crimes not only against the individual, but also against the identifiable community to which the individual belongs. Few would argue that rape is not misogynistic, that it does not have the effect of terrorism on all women (note the number of people in conservative circles who say that women should be terrorized and watch when they go out, what they wear when they do, whether they’re alone, how much they drink, etc.), and for this reason I think that most rapes are probably hate crimes and should be prosecuted as such.
What we’re talking about is the actual, psychological effects of rape on women in the general population. You don’t think the psychological effects of a crime on a subgroup of the population is relevant to determining whether or not something is a hate crime??? How do you define a hate crime??
My understanding of hate crimes is that they are crimes committed against persons primarily BECAUSE of some characteristic such as gender, sexual orientation, or race. Thus the effect will often be to intimidate members of that group, whether or not that was the intent of the perpetrator.
Hate crimes are violent crimes, hate speech or vandalism, motivated by feelings of enmity against an identifiable social group. The devaluation of women and misogyny are pervasive in society and most rapists harbor this hatred towards women so rape is a hate crime.
“Rape is only a hate crime if it’s committed with the expressed purpose of keeping women in their place, then.” Yup, I covered this too. Would you consider it a “hate crime” if someone attacked a black or gay man solely because he was black or gay, not with the specific intent to set an example to other blacks or gays that “you’ll get more of the same” but just because they’re racist or homophobic and are expressing their hatred through violent assault? Because I would. And if I’m not mistaken, most anti-hate-crime laws agree with me.
Additionally, I think porn is hate speech against women.
And yes, according to Wikipedia, that would make pornography a hate crime.
Henry: I used the swastika example to prove a point – that crimes (violent or not) that have a racial/ethnic/gender/orientation element to them tend to be MORE damaging on a physical and psychological level, since you’re using the argument that a crime is a crime and intent doesn’t matter. Sorry I wasn’t explicit enough. My other examples after that ARE about violent crimes. And when I typed “inventive” I was thinking of that horrific assault last year on the Latino kid that was at least partially racially motivated.
I think your example is a bit flawed. I would support different levels of punishment for spraypainting a swastika on a synogogue and random graffiti. They are clearly not identical crimes and the reason they should be punished differently is not that one is a ‘hate crime’ and the other is not. The difference between them is one is an explicit threat in addition to damage against private property. There are laws covering terroristic threat and I think that clearly applies to this situation without any need for hate crime application.
If I go out and punch someone in the face and break their jaw, I don’t see why it would matter whether it was because I thought they were a homosexual or simply because I thought they deserved a smack in the face. If you really want the’psychological impact’ of a crime to be weighed, there’s a place for that. It’s called the victim impact statement and the jury is given discretion to take that into consideration.
[...] Rachels Tavern Blog Archive Bush Threatens to Veto Hate Crimes Legislation (And Dont Worry Youre Still Free to Be A Bigot) “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.” (tags: hate racism sexism homophobia crime politics law assholes abuse) [...]
All violent crimes involve juries and impact statements? Not in my state.
Whatever, Henry – it’s very clear that you have never been targeted for harassment, abuse, or outright violence because of an unchangeable facet of your very being. I have, and please trust me that there is a very different feeling in knowing that I was targeted based on my color and ethnic background, than if they had just not liked my brand of jeans. It’s a rejection of my humanity. And had either of my personal incidents resulted in an prosecutable crime, instead of childhood simple assault with no lasting injury, and public harassment and stalking, then I’d want some stiffer penalties than just the status quo. “Hate Crime” implies THREAT – therefore, it qualifies for special consideration under your logic.
I guess I just have problems explainig things that are so very obvious to ne. I guess for me hate crime is like porn – hard to define but you know it when you see it.
Besides, the point of this is not to debate the merit of hate crime legislation to begin with -like it or not, we have it – this would extend it to other groups, not throw the whole concept out when Bush vetoes it. Another aspect of having federal legistlation for this type of crime is that if state laws fail victims, which in states with significant records of prejudice often has happened, the federal government gives another avenue of prosecution.
Joh Harland: Spare me the false outrage. I did NOT “minimize a random violent attack.” What I SAID was that you can change behaviors or minimize the chances of being mugged for something of value – how in hell can I change my religion (short of conversion), my skin color, my ethnic background, my gender, my place on the Kinsey scale/Klein grid?
“You have no idea what being mugged does to an old lady.[snip] I guess if the old lady is white we can just chalk that up to payback right?”
You’re confusing me for someone racist. Where did I ever say that I advocate beating up old white ladies because they’re white? Now THAT would be hate speech (and in the appropriate venue, prosecutable) Sounds like someone’s trying to deflect the conversation. What I said about my mother not carrying a purse? She’s white, My white grandmother was mugged for her purse. My mother was shot on the job for not opening the cash register quick enough, Although unrelated, both incidents have made my mother jumpy enough to never look like she carries much of anything at all. My grandmother? still carries a purse, BTW.
Oh, and if someone were targeted because they were white? ALSO a hate crime and covered under the existing law. Sheesh…
All violent crimes involve juries and impact statements? Not in my state.
Amazing. You must live in the one state which has no such statute since as of the present, 49 out of 50 states allows “input by victims at sentencing, through Victim Impact Statements and oral testimony”. [Black, R. Forgotten penological purposes: A critique of victim participation in sentencing. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 225-240.] Lets play a little game. You tell me what state you live in, and we see if it actually matches up to the one state which has no such process and we see if you know what you’re talking about.
Whatever, Henry – its very clear that you have never been targeted for harassment, abuse, or outright violence because of an unchangeable facet of your very being.
Strike two. Man, this isn’t looking good for you. You should have stuck to the swastika angle. At least that might help since if you can’t win tying an argument to Hitler, you’ll never get there. Hey, at least it’s a shortcut to Goodwin’s law, right?
Hate Crime implies THREAT – therefore, it qualifies for special consideration under your logic.
Only if you use your definition of hate crime, which is completely illogical and arbitrary. If you actually applied it as this law would, what your statement would then mean is that if I were to punch someone in the face because, in some part, I thought they were homosexual and don’t like homosexuals, then the act of my violence is itself a threat of violence. Ummm, derrr? Dosen’t make much sense does it.
Besides, the point of this is not to debate the merit of hate crime legislation to begin with -like it or not, we have it – this would extend it to other groups, not throw the whole concept out when Bush vetoes it.
No reason to extend something that dosen’t make sense in the first place. If we can’t roll it back, then we should at least see that the beast isn’t fed and dosen’t grow.
Henry: Wow. Could you be more condescending? (That’s not an invitation to try – let’s keep the ad hominums to the bare minimum here).
>Amazing. You must live in the one state which has no such statute since as of the present, 49 out of 50 states allows input by victims at sentencing, through Victim Impact Statements and oral testimony.
http://research.lawyers.com/Pennsylvania/Criminal-Process-in-Pennsylvania.html
It’s called a bench trial – no jury selection required. Besides, if a crime is committed that carries a punishment of less than 6 months imprisonment, it would also seem that no jury trial is required. That’s where the whole “states may be lax on punishment” angle comes in.
>At least that might help since if you cant win tying an argument to Hitler,
You know what, I invoked the swastika thing (in my SECOND post) because 1) it actually happened about 2 miles from my house to a local synagogue, and 2) it was the first thing I thought of for a non-violent but definitely ethnically/religous based crime. My personal examples have nothing to do with Judaism or the Holocaust – they both involved race/skin color instead.
OK. Since I’m evidently not being clear in what I’m thinking, let me try to get into your head.
Are you saying that if someone burns lumber in the shape of a cross on a neighbor’s lawn, it doesn’t matter about the history of cross-burning as a form of ethnic intimidation, and therefore are guilty of… what? Trespassing? Burning a fire outside of a firepit or grill? Both would usually be misdemeanors, if prosecuted at all (probably fined instead).
I’m sure that makes the neighbor feel absolutely great then. The person lighting the fire gets cited, and they’re supposed to not care about WHY the cross was burned?
Its called a bench trial – no jury selection required. Besides, if a crime is committed that carries a punishment of less than 6 months imprisonment, it would also seem that no jury trial is required. Thats where the whole states may be lax on punishment angle comes in.
Ummm, that would make absolutely no difference as to whether there’s a victim impact statement allowed. If a defendent chooses to have a bench trial, the judge basically serves as the jury in determining guilt. There would STILL be a victim impact statement if the victim chose to make one. It would simply be to the judge before sentencing. In either way, the one who decides the outcome and severity of the punishment has the discretion to weigh the victim’s perspective.
Are you saying that if someone burns lumber in the shape of a cross on a neighbors lawn, it doesnt matter about the history of cross-burning as a form of ethnic intimidation, and therefore are guilty of what? Trespassing? Burning a fire outside of a firepit or grill? Both would usually be misdemeanors, if prosecuted at all (probably fined instead).
If you burn a cross on someone else’s property I would take that to be: tresspassing, criminal damage to private property, making terroristic threats, arson, and perhaps reckless endangerment depending on if they put the cross out after they lit the darn thing.
If you decide for shits and giggles to burn a cross on your own property, I would call that your right to do so as you please as long as you put it out safely. If not, more reckless endangerment charges.
I guess that’s the difference. While you, I’m guessing, would find the idea of someone lighting up a burning cross on their own property and parading around in pointy hats a ‘hate crime’, I find it to be unactionable legally. The difference is where it takes place and if there is a direct threat involved.
Back to your swastika example for a moment. We’ve discussed how we differ on if it was scrawled on a synogogue. You seem to believe that hate crime legislation is the only way to punish such an event while I believe the law covers it through terroristic threat. Lets say instead that we have someone spraying swastikas on random trees in a city park. I can only assume that you would also peg that as a hate crime and believe that it deserves every bit as much sanctioning and legal punishment as the previous case. After all, from your perspective, isn’t the motivation and the act the same? I, on the otherhand, would say they’re guilty of graffiti.
For all that you’ve focused on non-violent crimes, that’s not what the bill addresses. In fact, even if this bill were to pass, every example you’ve cited (if it applied to homosexuals) woudln’t even come into play. It requires an act of violence. From my perspective, a punch is a punch and should be legally punished as a punch.If there are aggravating circumstances such as the victim being a 90 year old woman in a walker or whatever, that should be dealt with through VIS’s and judicial/jury discretion.
Henry:
“Ummm, that would make absolutely no difference as to whether theres a victim impact statement allowed.”
True, you said “jury” and I jumped on that. Again, I maintain that federal guidelines can take the subjectivity out of it (i.e. mandatory sentencing, etc.) especially in regions where bias could AFFECT the jury, judge, or entire process start to finish.
“If you decide for shits and giggles to burn a cross on your own property, I would call that your right to do so as you please as long as you put it out safely. If not, more reckless endangerment charges. ”
“While you, Im guessing, would find the idea of someone lighting up a burning cross on their own property and parading around in pointy hats a hate crime, I find it to be unactionable legally. ”
No, you guess wrong – we agree on this one – you can do whatever you want safely on your own property – it’s the reason I specifically said “neighbor’s lawn.” A hate group has the right to march down Main Street if they get the proper permits, and I support their right to do so and I wouldn’t be a protestor. In fact, I like it when a march gets hardly any protestors. It means everyone else has better things to do. It’s free speech/freedom of movement. But I go by the saying, “the right to swing your fist ends at my nose.”
“You seem to believe that hate crime legislation is the only way to punish such an event while I believe the law covers it through terroristic threat. Lets say instead that we have someone spraying swastikas on random trees …”
No, hate crime penalties are ON TOP OF existing penalties, right? Assuming it’s a Nazi-style swastika and not the reverse religious symbol used in Hinduism and some Native people’s rituals, are the trees linked to past or potential victims/targets of WWII Germany or the Neo-Nazi/white supremecist movements? Here’s a better question: is the PARK named or in memory of those victims/targets, or are those who typically frequent the park part of that group? Because if so, then hatred of ethnicity or religion is likely a factor. With hate crimes, you have to prove intent, so I don’t think the motivation and the act are the same. Circumstances can determine what is and isn’t prosecutable as a hate crime.
>For all that youve focused on non-violent crimes, thats not what the bill addresses.
Yes, but the thread went into whether “hate crimes” should even be prosecutable, regardless of whether they’re violent or not. It seems that you think non-violent bias crimes are victimless, and that victims of violent bias crimes will always get justice. Non-violent crimes still produce victims, and justice on a local/regional level can be fickle at best, especially if the local sympathies are not on the side of the victim.
Again, I maintain that federal guidelines can take the subjectivity out of it (i.e. mandatory sentencing, etc.) especially in regions where bias could AFFECT the jury, judge, or entire process start to finish.
Which again comes to the point that it shouldn’t be punished differently in the first place, at least not mandated to be so. If you commit the identical crime, you should serve the identical time (within as far as that is possible). What I have tried to get across is that your instances of ‘hate crimes’ are in fact additional crimes already punished and defined through criminal statute. Thus, those crimes have their own guidelines and minimums. It’s not a question of graffiti vs graffiti and asking that one be punished harsher. The graffiti aspect should be viewed similarly. The difference is that there’s an additional charge of making terroriristic threats and that is punished in and of itself. Problem solved.
is the PARK named or in memory of those victims/targets, or are those who typically frequent the park part of that group?
If the prosecutor believes that a terroristic threat has been made, it is his job to charge the perpetrator with that crime and then seek to prove the elements of the case. If anything, it’s easier then all the rigamarole with hate crimes since it dosen’t delve into mental states.
Non-violent crimes still produce victims, and justice on a local/regional level can be fickle at best, especially if the local sympathies are not on the side of the victim.
Bullcrap. Like the federal government would be any better at it. Hell, like the feds would even get involved for the crimes you’re talking about. Can you think of the last time the feds seized jurisdiction in order to prosecute a non-violent case like these?
[...] Bush stated that his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill because the bill was “unnecessary and constitutionally questionable.” It is not a secret that James Dodson, founder of the conservative lobbying group Focus on the [...]