Join The Debate!

Rubbish about pastors being prosecuted

I have read all kinds of rubbish over the years, but the conservative whining about the proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 takes the cake.

Contrary to the tripe that I have read so many times, not all crimes are hate crimes. When a mugger pushes an old man to the ground and steals his wallet, the mugger does not necessarily or even usually hate the victim -- injury to the victim is incidental to the true motive of the mugger, which is to steal money. In such cases, the mugger often does not even know the name of the victim he or she is about to assault and rob. The mugger does not act out of a frenzied hatred of old men carrying wallets; he or she merely seeks to relieve the victim of his money. Such behavior can be classified as showing disregard for the rights of the victim, but that is a far cry from hating the victim. A tenant who fails to pay his or her rent does not hate his or her landlord -- the tenant merely seeks to remain on the premises without paying the rent.

Contrast the above, hypothetical crime of a mugger pushing an old man to the ground on the one hand with the crime perpetrated against Matthew Shepard on the other hand. This young gay man was pistol-whipped by two local Laramie thugs (one of whom was a professed Mormon) so hard that the bones of his skull were smashed to powder, following which he was driven to the outskirts of Laramie and tied, in a crucified position, to a split-rail fence (his attackers used a rope to crucify him). Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson initially stated that they beat Shepard (who died several days after being cut down from the fence without ever regaining consciousness) because Shepard made sexual advances towards them (as though it is acceptable to kill a person who makes unwanted sexual advances towards the individual concerned). During the trial of Aaron McKinney, McKinney's counsel advanced the "gay panic" defense, to the disgust of many Laramie residents. Both attackers were convicted.

Now tell me seriously that there are no qualitative differences between the above crime, which occurred in 1999, and the hypothetical crime posited earlier.

Shepard was killed because he was gay. Attempts have been made by various right-wing commentators and organizations to muddy Shepard's name and character. These attempts do not change the underlying motive or the facts. Perpetrators of hate crimes frequently engage in precisely the "overkill" behavior manifested in the attack on Shepard. The hatred that motivates such crimes is not directed only towards the individual victim -- it is directed towards all members of the class to which the victim belongs (in Shepard's case, gay Americans). When news of Shepard's attack circulated throughout the gay community, many members of that community felt threatened and vulnerable.

That is the difference between hate crimes and crimes such as muggings. Hate crimes are intended to intimidate all members of the class to which the victim belongs, whether that class consists of gay Americans, black Americans, Asian Americans, or any other group of Americans, the members of which share a real or perceived common characteristic.

Now we hear whining about the possibility of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 being used to prosecute religious figures who voice their disapproval of gay relationships and / or of gay people. This whining conveniently overlooks the fact that any attempt to apply the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 against religious figures would fall flat. The US Supreme Court, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), made it clear that speech cannot be criminalized unless it constitutes "direct incitement to imminent lawless action." (Obscenity is another form of speech which does not enjoy First Amendment protection, but that is not relevant to this issue.) Thus, a priest or minister of religion could not possibly be prosecuted under the proposed legislation, unless he or she actually incites a riot. Is that what conservatives fear?

Then there is the talk of "special rights" being afforded gay Americans by such legislation. Why is this rubbish not referenced with respect to other groups protected by the proposed legislation? Only when sexual orientation is added to the language of the legislation do people cry out about "special rights" being afforded members of the gay community by such legislation.

The US Supreme Court, throwing out a state constitutional amendment voted into existence by the citizens of the State of Colorado in 1992 ("Amendment 2"), had the following to say about the "special protections" supposedly sought by gay Coloradans:

"We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people either because they already have them or do not need them; these are protections against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society." (See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)).

Furthermore, critics of adding sexual orientation to the grounds included in the proposed legislation forget the fact that the legislation classifies on the basis of SEXUAL ORIENTATION -- it does NOT protect only gay people. Just as a crime would be punishable under this legislation were it to be perpetrated by a heterosexual motivated by animus towards gay people, a crime would similarly be punishable under this legislation were it to be perpetrated by a gay person motivated by animus towards heterosexual people. Conservatives "forget" the fact that such legislation cuts both ways.

It becomes clear, when one conducts a more searching review of the proposed legislation and its impact, that conservatives are prepared to tell blatant lies in their efforts to derail the proposed legislation. Nobody could prosecute religious figures under this legislation. Nobody could punish thoughts under this legislation.

But truth never stood in the way of cultural conservatives, who have lied and spread disinformation up and down the country.

PHILIP CHANDLER