|
What's Wrong with "Hate Crimes" Laws?
|
John Henry
|
Apr 26, 2007 18:46 PDT
|
WHAT'S WRONG WITH "HATE CRIMES" LAWS?
By Peter Sprigg
What are "hate crimes?"
A federal law passed in 1994 (Public Law 103-322) defines a "hate
crime" as "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a
victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the
object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color,
religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual
orientation of any person."
Why do you call them "thought crimes"?
Violent attacks upon people or property are already illegal,
regardless of the motive behind them. With "hate crime" laws,
however, people are essentially given one penalty for the actions
they engaged in, and an additional penalty for the politically
incorrect thoughts that allegedly motivated those actions.
Isn't there already a federal "hate crime" law?
A 1990 law (Public Law 101-275) required the federal government to
begin collecting statistics on so-called "hate crimes" from states
and local governments, but did not provide for any federal
prosecution of them. A 1994 law (Public Law 103-322) provided for
"sentencing enhancement" (that is, higher penalties) for existing
federal offenses that are found to be motivated by "hate," but did
not actually create a new category of offense.
So what's different about the currently proposed federal Thought Crime law?
This law, for the first time, would allow the federal government to
prosecute any alleged "hate crime" that occurs anywhere in the
country, regardless of the other circumstances--thus effectively
usurping the primary responsibility of states and localities for law
enforcement.
Are you against all Thought Crime laws, or just ones based on "sexual
orientation"?
We oppose all Thought Crime laws in principle, because penalizing
people specifically for their thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes--even
ones abhorrent to us and to the vast majority of Americans, such as
racism--would undermine the freedom of speech and thought at the
heart of our democracy.
However, we have a particular concern regarding such laws when they
include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" (a reference to
cross-dressing and sex-change operations) among the categories of
protection. This sends the false message that deviant sexual
behaviors are somehow equivalent to other categories of protection
such as race or sex. In fact, the very term "hate crime" is offensive
in this context, in that it implies that mere disapproval of
homosexual behavior constitutes a form of "hate" equivalent to racial bigotry.
Do Thought Crime laws limit freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
In some jurisdictions that have adopted these laws, "hate crimes"
have been defined to include not just violent physical acts, but
merely verbal ones as well, using terms like "hate speech,"
"intimidation," and even verbal "assault." When Thought Crime laws
are interpreted in this way, they pose a serious threat to freedom of
speech and religious liberty. Indeed, Christians have already been
prosecuted under Thought Crime laws for peacefully expressing
disapproval of homosexual behavior in Sweden, England, Canada, and
even in Philadelphia.
Would the proposed federal Thought Crime law allow people to be
prosecuted for speech alone?
The bills that have been introduced in Congress in recent years
target only violent actions, not peaceful expressions of opinion
(only someone who "willfully causes bodily injury" or "attempts to
cause bodily injury" could be charged). Nevertheless, by ratifying
the Thought Crimes mentality, this bill paves the way for future
expansions of its scope in ways that could eventually threaten
freedom of speech and religion.
The 1990 "Hate Crime Statistics Act" (Public Law 101-275), for
example, defines "hate crimes" much more broadly as "crimes that
manifest evidence of prejudice," and the statistics collected under
that law include even non-violent offenses such as "intimidation" (in
fact, nearly half--48.9 percent--of the "hate crimes" reported in
2005 consisted of "intimidation" alone). It would be a very simple
matter for a future Congress to change the definition of a "hate
crime" subject to federal prosecution to match the more sweeping
definition of "hate crimes" on which the federal government already
gathers statistics.
Why would anyone oppose free speech and freedom of religion?
Pro-homosexual activists like to claim that "hate speech" (which they
define as any disapproval of homosexual behavior) leads directly to
"hate violence." For example, the 1998 murder of homosexual college
student Matthew Shepard occurred the same year that pro-family groups
had mounted a compassionate "Truth in Love" ad campaign highlighting
the fact that many people have found happiness after leaving the
homosexual lifestyle. When the Today Show's Katie Couric asked
Elizabeth Birch, Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign (the
nation's largest pro-homosexual activist group), "Do you believe this
ad campaign launched by some conservative groups really contributed
somehow to Matthew Shepard's death?," Birch answered, "I do, Katie."
(There is no evidence that Shepard's murderers even knew about the
ads, and ABC's 20/20 reported in 2004 that Shepard was not killed
because he was homosexual at all.) The rhetoric of pro-homosexual
activists makes it clear that their goal is not just to protect
homosexuals from violence, but to protect them from criticism
altogether by silencing those who seek to discourage homosexual behavior.
Do Thought Crime laws treat everyone fairly?
No. Thought Crime laws favor some victims of violent crimes over
other victims of equally violent crimes, which violates the core
principle of granting everyone the equal protection of the laws. This
is a principle which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution and is even carved above the entrance to the Supreme
Court ("Equal Justice Under Law").
Would the proposed Thought Crime bill increase the power of the
federal government?
Yes, this bill's sweeping grant of authority for the federal
government to intervene in such crimes anywhere in the country would
constitute a significant federal power grab over local law
enforcement. Previous versions of the bill were deceptively named the
"Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act." They might better have been
referred to the "Local Law Enforcement Usurpation Act." In fact, this
law would even allow the federal government to prosecute someone who
had already been acquitted of criminal charges at the state level, if
"the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left
demonstratively unvindicated the federal interest in eradicating
bias-motivated violence."
Do we really need a federal Thought Crimes law?
There is no evidence that local authorities are failing to
investigate, prosecute, and punish, as they should, violent crimes
against homosexuals. Special Thought Crime laws therefore serve no
practical purpose, other than advancing a political agenda for the
official government acceptance of homosexual behavior.
So, do you think it's OK to beat up homosexuals?
Absolutely not. There is no excuse for violence against
anyone--including homosexuals. However, such violent attacks are
already illegal. What's needed is not a new law, but the strict
enforcement of existing laws--to protect all Americans equally.
Peter Sprigg is vice president for policy at the Family Research Council
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF07C02
------------------------
Fair Use Notice: This message contains copyrighted material the use
of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. The moderator is making it available in an effort to advance
understanding scriptural, political, and social justice issues, etc.
The moderator believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of this
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material is distributed without profit to those who have by
subscribing to this eGroup have expressed a prior interest in
receiving it for research and educational purposes. It must not be
used for profit!
The views expressed in this article are not necessarily the opinion
of the moderator.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE GO TO: http://groups.LandmarkBibleBaptist.net
ARCHIVED ON THE WEB AT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BaptistChurch
|
|
 |
|
