Why do the gays still want a "hate crimes" law?

Submitted by usernamehere on

Because you can still kill a fag, AND taunt his corpse in a recorded voice mail, but just serve 8 months.

I'll post the link to the full story from Pam Spaulding, although this story is posted on several sites including www.q-notes.com. I won't post the background here. Follow the story and links at Pam's place.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8930

Just across the state line, this killer was plea bargained down to an outrageous deal only some months ago, but is coming up for a possible parole hearing soon.

Why is this important? Because it shows the continuing need for "hate crimes" laws.

"Hate Crimes" is such an unfortunate term. Even some progressives cringe at the phrase. However, take a moment to get past the phrase and look and the what the bill actually DOES.

When a term like "Hate Crimes bill" is thrown around; it is shorthand. The shorthand phrase has no more meaning than "TARP" does for the "bailout bill" recently passed by Congress.

Just as the "Troubled Asset Relief Package" didn't buy any troubled assets, the federal "hate crimes bill" has nothing to do with criminalizing hate.

The federal "hate crimes bill" from last session was actually called the Local Law Enforcement Act (HR 1592). The bill did not criminalize thought. It provided for exactly the kind of case referenced above where a local prosecutor and/or judge engaged in a shameful miscarriage of justice.

This "hate crimes" bill simply provides authority and funding for the federal government to step in to aid or prosecute a case when a local agency is unable or unwilling to do so.

Still have questions about the need for the Local Law Enforcement Act (aka the Hate Crimes bill)? Ask away. I'll try to be nice.

Comments

While I disagree with him

Submitted by crowbar317 on

this is Andrew Sullivan's (who is gay) take on the issue:

To put it another way: violence can and should be stopped by the government. In a free society, hate can't and shouldn't be. The boundaries between hate and prejudice and between prejudice and opinion and between opinion and truth are so complicated and blurred that any attempt to construct legal and political fire walls is a doomed and illiberal venture. We know by now that hate will never disappear from human consciousness; in fact, it is probably, at some level, definitive of it. We know after decades of education measures that hate is not caused merely by ignorance; and after decades of legislation, that it isn't caused entirely by law.

Sullivan is a little blurry here himself

Submitted by usernamehere on

"Government" is not a single entity. When one arm fails to protect or "stop violence" to use Sullivan's terminology, another arm must step in.

 

why hate crimes are different

Submitted by IanEquality on

Hate crimes aren't actually about punishing hate. People are free to hate as much as they want. The reason hate crime are different is because when someone is targeted for violence because they are gay/black/Jewish/etc. they are not the only victim. Hate crimes are intended to terrorize an entire population; an entire community is being told their not safe and not welcome when victims are targeted based on group identification.

Thanks, Ian.

Submitted by Linda on

This is an issue I struggle with, because I really don't want to have to deal with "thought police". You're right - the violence categorized as "hate crimes" are meant to terrorize certain populations, and they generally do. It's domestic terrorism.