Share

Congress Expands Hate Crime Bill Despite Right-Wing Opposition

by: Yana Kunichoff, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
On the anniversary of Matthew Shepard's death, friends and supporters of victims of hate crimes display memorials. (Photo: Barack Obama / flickr)

In a landmark decision coming on the tail of decades of fierce debate, Congress passed a bill to widen federal protection against hate crimes to those victimized because of their sex or sexual orientation. President Barack Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act on Wednesday.

Though also encountering great antagonism, the decision was passed by a vote of 281 to 156 in the House vote earlier this month, and then by a 68 to 29 vote in the Senate last Thursday, with a gay rights march on the Capitol attended by more than 200,000 people from all over the country and a speech by Obama to the Human Rights Campaign occurring in between. It will now go to Obama, who has said he supports the legislation, for signature.

Republicans cited the illegality of violent attacks, regardless of motive, as reason not to pass what they considered superfluous legislation. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) called the new law "Orwellian" and a step toward "thought crime," as prosecution for attack would require ascribing a motive to the attacker.

The Republican right has also criticized the bill, intended to reduce violence against some of the more vulnerable groups in society, as "radical social policy."

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) pointed out the more than 77,000 reports of hate crimes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has received between 1998 through 2007, and said that crime based on sexual orientation was on the rise.

Earlier hate crimes provisions only covered attacks motivated by a victim's race, color, religion or natural origin, though the rise of identity politics and killings such as that of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student murdered in 1998, have increased the push for more comprehensive legislation.

The hate crimes addition, passed as part of a $68 billion military spending bill, will also allocate $5 million a year to the Justice Department to assist local communities in investigating hate crimes.

However, for many this is not far enough. Some states, with Maryland being the most recent, have extended the legislation to cover attacks against homeless people.

State Sen. Alex Mooney (R-Maryland), known for his socially conservative views, said, "since we have hate crimes as part of law, it only makes sense to look at truly vulnerable groups to include, not just to include groups that have clout, you know, in one of the political parties ... And I think homeless people deserve the same protections as other human beings."

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

  

»


Yana Kunichoff is a Truthout Fellow.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

This bill is a disaster for

This bill is a disaster for civil liberty and free speech. So-called gay protections is only the sheeps clothing. What this bill really authorizes is pro-active POLICE identification and investigation of "hate or bias" before any violent crime has occurred. It also allos the government to take measures to "counter" such "identified" hate or bias. (Read the d*** bill) In Europe it is against the law to disparage protected groups or to deny certain historical events. The Dutch version of the ADL has listed criticism of Israel as "anti-semitic". In other words, in Europe there is no freedom of speech as we undersand it. This bill, while maintaining the fiction of a nexus to an actual violent crime, accomplishes the same thing through the back door. The rejoicing over this bill also shows what is wrong with the so-called left in the USA, which is little more than indulgence and self love decked out in a political tissue. An an example is activist womyns groups supporting our mass murder in Afghanistan. Now gays are happily validating themselves while true liberty is trashed. I am more left than most. I hate what was done to Mathew Shepard and I despise the prosecutors who failed to vigorously prosecute under completely adequate existing law. But the "left" needs to think in terms of constitutional principles (and economic structures) and not just about special self. Speech isnot free when police can be snooping, keeping tabs and opening up jackets on people. This bill should send a chill through anyone who truly appreciates the First Amendment....

I am absolutely opposed to

I am absolutely opposed to hate crimes, and I believe that people who perpetrate them must be brought to justice. My confusion on this issue is, why do we have to have a special designation for "hate crimes?" Isn't a violation of another person's rights, regardless of the reason for perpetrating it, enough reason to bring a person to justice? Murder is murder, am I right? Rape is rape. Assault is assault. And we already have the tools available in our justice system to prosecute these crimes. It's dishonest to categorize certain crimes as being more deserving of strict punishment because of the perceived reasoning behind committing those crimes. Any of these serious crimes deserves strict punishment. The criminal's personal biases has nothing to do with it.

Equal Protection Under The

Equal Protection Under The Law is one of the main tenets of our excellent Constitution - and the so called 'hate' crime and speech laws are precisely "unequal protection under the law". These laws are truly divisive in the long run and will serve to divide our society and create far more racial discord than our current level - which is obviously rehabilitated enormously from year's past, as evidence by the landslide victory of a black president - who was elected by mostly white voters. These laws are truly creepy in their ambiguity and provide endless opportunity for corrupt application and take us further away from a state of freedom. If you don't think it's unequal protection, try this on for size - "A white man is pressing hate crime charges against a black man who threatened him while using racial slurs" - you won't see that case go to court because the white man has no such protections, while if the shoe were on the other foot, the black man can prosecute with greater force. Do we really think this law will promote racial harmony and progress? You can't cure inequality with more inequality. How could we have been so stupid as to allow this bill to be passed? And with the 'hate speech laws' - this amounts to thought crimes and a repeal of the first amendment - now anyone who disagrees with this president can be charged criminally with hate speech because the man happens to be black. What kind of a country is that? Sounds more like the Soviet Union than the USA to me.

So if someone were to

So if someone were to forcefully, but not violently, fend off the unwanted advances of a homosexual propositioner, they'd be charged with a "hate" crime? I guess the message to straight guys is β€œjust smother your natural revulsion and bask in the attention.”

Some people hate CEO's.

Some people hate CEO's. Should they be protected from hate crimes? Then there's hate against fundamentalist Christians, climate change skeptics, and pro-lifers. When do they get special protection?

Hate Crimes against Fathers

Hate Crimes against Fathers and Men that are in Family Division Courts? There has NOT been any Equal Protection Under, their Color of Law. These Courts continually deprive Fathers/Men of, Life, Liberty, Freedom and Children. The Incentive Money (Title IV-D) is the driving force, to steal our children and assets. This Incentive Money is Withdrawn from all of OUR Social Security.

Lou Dobbs reports that his

Lou Dobbs reports that his house was shot at while his wife was standing outside. Could this be a hate crime? Should criticism of Lou Dobbs be considered hate speech?

As someone who has been the

As someone who has been the target of anti-gay violence, including a death threat, harassing phone calls, and assault and battery, I welcome this law because in all three cases, I was afraid to report these events because I was concerned that the policemen would not take my concerns seriously. In other words, I wasn't sure if the police would be on my side because they do not approve of who I wish to take as a partner in the formation of a family. With this law in place, I know that there will be heightened awareness among police officers that anti-gay violence is a serious crime and that I and other LGBT people are particularly vulnerable (and fearful of) these attacks because there is so much antipathy towards us in the general population.

Crime is crime. There is no

Crime is crime. There is no need to have a special "hate crime". As others have pointed out this is attempt to make thought crimes. How could the legislature be so stupid? Guess it sounds good - after all who wouldn't be against hate. People are going to find this does not lead to improvements in society - but increased hate. What! How come this special group gets special laws? Anytime something seems unfair - people will react with increased animosity.

This is a very troublesome

This is a very troublesome catagory, as several have written, crime is crime in its various levels of seriousness. With the probable exception of actual Crimes of Passion (theres a different problem there), all have a degree of hate-logical or otherwise. >>>To Bosie, ID of 18:13: What you describe is the indefensible deficiency in the police, their leadership and civilian-political-community responsibilities. That cannot excuse it, but I don't believe Hate Crime legislation is the answer, but only an ineffectual bandaid. What's to hold cops to it? They seem not to pay much attention to any other laws... ~John L.

You know, thinking about

You know, thinking about what others have written, I can see that, instead of hate crime legislation covering only color, race, etc., what we need is a statute that adds time for ANY crime motivated by hatred. Yes, if an attack on Lou Dobbs is motivated by hatred (due to his viewpoint), it should carry extra time. The difference between a hate crime and "regular" crime is the motivation. And if you don't see the difference between beating a person (any person) in order to rob them, and beating a person because of who or what they are (or believe), I truly feel sorry for you.