- The Washington DC City Council kindly provides us a perfect
example of how "anti-hate" laws do nothing to protect us from
bias-instead they write bias into the laws of the land.
-
- The Council passed a symbolic measure condemning
hate crimes-after receiving requests from ten individuals and local organizations.
(See? Just a few people can do a lot!) The Washington Blade <http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/6-6/news/localnews/12704.cfm>reports
on the measure and reminds us that in 1989 DC passed "one of the nation's
most far-reaching hate crimes laws that calls for penalties and prison
terms 1.5 times higher than the maximum sentence for other offenses for
persons convicted of committing a hate crime." (So, say you and I
both murder a ten-year-old, but yours was black and you're racist. I'll
be in prison one and a half times shorter than you even though I committed
the same heinous act.)
-
- The Council, of course, doesn't condemn outright
violence or crime. Nor does it condemn hatred as a category. (It's pretty
much okay to hate Catholic priests and televangelists and close-minded
fundamentalists, oh, and creationists, etc.) No, it's certain kinds of
hatred that aren't okay. The Council defines hate crimes as "acts
of subtle and overt racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and ethnic bigotry."
-
- Please note the categories. You're condemned
if you have bias against a particular race (though probably not the white
race), against Jewishness, against homosexual preference, or against ethnicity.
It's not surprising that one of the instigators of this resolution- Peter
Rosenstein-is a homosexual Jew.
-
- Where's the condemnation of bias against fundamentalist
Protestants or Catholics-bias that definitely exists and is continually
propagated by big media? Look, bias is bias. I firmly believe it shouldn't
be illegal at all. But the Council should have at least gone all the way
and said nobody can be biased against anybody-we should all be emotionless,
belief-less Vulcans. Their measure as it stands is radically hypocritical.
-
- But, back to that other point, "fighting
words" and incitements to violence are illegal; but personally held
bias shouldn't be illegal at all. People can preach and write and argue
for and against beliefs and prejudices 'til the ocean turns to ice cream-that's
what people do and should do, since beliefs matter. In fact, "hate
crime" biases often revolve around the most serious civic and moral
questions, like sexuality and family and national identity. Everyone should
be free to state and possess whatever beliefs they choose, no matter how
extreme or distasteful. No one's particular biases (a bias for homosexuality,
for example, which says Bible believers are dangerous idiots) should be
enshrined in state or federal law. That undermines our entire way of justice
and freedom.
-
- <http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/388262.aspx>In
Britain this past February, two street evangelists were threatened with
hate crime charges and told to leave a Muslim neighborhood where they were
witnessing. They are now suing the police for violating their freedom.
Whether the courts rule on their side, the incident reveals how police
are trained to advocate for certain groups and against others, based on
political training, not basic rules of law and justice. That's what happens
with hate crime laws. They promote certain groups and statements at the
expense of others. When that happens, the freedom of all citizens is compromised
and ultimately lost.
-
- The majority of American states have hate
laws on the books, and we've written about numerous miscarriages of justice
based on them. Most notable was the arrest of 11 Christians in Philadelphia
for peaceful witnessing. But a Texas newspaper http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=1975167
- 4&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=6
ran a recent story about how few hate crimes have been prosecuted there
since the state passed a hate law in 2001. Jasper, Texas was the site of
the famous James Byrd Jr. killing, and the state hate law bears his name.
But for the first five years of the law's existence, Texan prosecutors
used it only eight times. I wonder why.
-
- The paper quotes an explanation from the director
of government relations for the Texas Department of District and County
Attorney's Association. It makes good sense. "There is no 'CSI'-type
scientific test to prove such motivation, so absent a valid, legally admissible
confession, the jury has to get inside the other person's head and try
to deduce his or her intent from circumstantial evidence," she says,
"That is not always easy to do."
- Um, no, it's not easy to get in someone's head. It's
a challenge to understand even my closest friends, let alone a perfect
stranger.
-
- Maybe the government needs to spy a little
more. (If you're truly committed to stamping out a particular set of beliefs
among the minds and hearts of Americans, be ready to go all the way.) Can't
you see now why snooping into phone calls, library and video records, and,
definitely, use of web time could come in handy? Indeed, it could become
necessary to gather this information about all citizens. We're all potential
hate criminals whose heads the government might need to get inside. In
fact, why not practice crime prevention by monitoring our biases, starting
now?
-
- The criminalization and prosecution of human
beliefs and emotions has never, ever been a good idea. It wasn't a good
idea in Socrates' time, in Jesus' time, or in ours.
|
