Hate Crimes Bill Anyone?
A New York City man was brutally gay bashed in Queens on Monday. Jack Price is in critical condition in a New York hospital. Did someone say there is a Federal Hate Crimes Bill ready to pass the Senate early this week? Um, its Wednesday.
We marched, we yelled, we sit here and twiddle our thumbs while the Senate plays with them selves and the "language" of the bill. The religious right fears that their discriminatory language maybe considered a crime should the bill pass. Hello?
Meanwhile, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick...
Comments [12]
I tend to agree with my
I tend to agree with my fellow Bay Stater and suspected homo Thoreau when he says that a standing government is as dangerous as a standing army. And with that in mind, I offer these comments:
1. Learn to defend yourself. The specifics of this are up to you, but take tangible action. Make gay-bashing dangerous. Do not rely on abstractions such as hate crime bills to protect you.
2. Stop thinking that the primary responsibility for your personal safety should rest on the shoulders of government, military, or police.
3. Begin asking why the following common sense idea is so strange to you:
Your personal safety is YOUR responsibility.
4. Grasp the fact that people who are so willing to "help" you by "unburdening" you of this oh-so-horrible responsibility are fucking you over, big time, and making every possible effort to control important parts of your life. Anybody who takes major responsibilities like this away from you is taking your freedom away.
5. Begin asking questions about hate crime laws. Put down the standard-issue script that you as a good little liberal are supposed to be reading from. Seriously consider what it means to give authoritative agencies the right to punish things like thoughts, sentiments or perceived motivations in a discretionary manner, rather than simply punishing crime.
There is a loud drone of thoughtless blah blah blah in the lgbt community when it comes to issues like hate crimes. Every single part of it needs to be brutally subjected to serious questioning, over and over again.
These ideas are not something you just say, "Yes, I agree with that" or "No, I don't agree with that" to. This is not true/false, I like this/I don't like that, good/bad type of thing. They are for rigorous contemplation marked mostly by ambiguity, with few of those "vote yes/vote no" landmarks you are so accustomed to in sight.
Here are some resources for people who are interested in learning to protect themselves.
Not Me! is a Massachusetts organization run by Erik Kondo. His organization is dedicated to teaching self-defense to lgbt people, people of color, women, people with disabilities, and people who are at a physical disadvantage to their attacker.
www.not-me.org
Pink Pistols is an organization dedicated to helping lgbt people and allies familiarize themselves with firearms, get licensed, and use firearms safely and responsibly.
http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html
I don't agree with everything these organizations say, but I am putting them out there as alternatives to adopting a victimhood approach to personal safety.
if its OK in the press
All of the hate language and carrying on that has become commonplace in the national press is basically telling ever hater out there to go for it. And there has been no real outcry. We need a bill that will make instigation of hate on national TV illegal. I don't give a rat's ass about all of the spiel about freedom of speech. There need to be limits.
Punish the action; not the speech
The current law is based on the Incitement Test that the court put forward in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
It's a two-pronged test. As applied to hate language:
1. The speech attempts to incite a hate crime.
2. The speech is likely to result in a hate crime being committed.
I disagree with this test. I have a serious problem ever attempting to punish speech. I never let my kids get away with "_______ told me to do it; so I did." And I wouldn't let any adult use that excuse, either.
First of all, it is nearly impossible to show a direct link between speech and action.
Second, if the hateful language leads to a crime; punish the crime not the speech.
This is not the same as hate crime legislation. Contrary to popular (Christian Right) belief. Hate speech is not punished. Singling our a particular person because of a class they are in is the crime. According to the FBI a hate crime is "a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
like I said
I know all the output on free speech. And I agree that the people who do the physical damage need to be held responsible. But if you can prosecute for a conspiracy and get everyone involved, you ought to be able to do it with deliberate pervasive spewing that makes people feel their actions are sanctioned. We disagree. I'm fine with that.
Not quite the same,
It's not quite the same, Tae. Conspiracy combines speech and action. Two or more people talk about committing a crime and one of them makes an overt action to carry out the plan.
[added. I know that I go a lot further than most in protecting 1st Amendment rights. There aren't even any absolutists left on the court. Not since we lost Douglas and Black.]
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
legal vs. justice
I'm talking about morality. Sometimes we really should just expect things to be right, rather than kowtowing to legal loopholes.
OMG...
Brutal - fucking - ignorant - bastards. This is simply heartbreaking.
Call or email
Has everyone called or emailed your senators to urge a Yes vote? Good, now call your friends and family and get them to call.
Here's a link with the contact information.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
Called, written, and emailed
Do it all, ladies!
Already saw the video...
... and was outraged by it. This sort of violence is precisely why hate crimes legislation is needed.
Word on CNN early this morning is that the second suspect, Daniel Rodriguez, 21, was arrested in Norfolk, VA by US Marshalls, after numerous tips were provided in NYC as to who and where he was.
Menawhile, Congress just drags their feet. The legislation won't be able to be retroactively enforced. We should send this video to our elected officials, and let them see why they need to get this legislation passed and onto Obama's desk ASAP.
This falls under NY State's hate crimes law
As shocking as this crime is, it is already covered under New York State's hate crimes law and the federal law probably wouldn't help in this instance. Federal hate crimes protections are most useful in areas of the country where there is a reluctance on the part of local law officials to investigate or prosecute a case. Federal law enforcement officials and resources can then be brought in to pursue the case. Since this took place in NYC, and since they already have one of the alleged attackers in custody, it is clear this is being handled competently by local officials--hence the resources of the fed are unnecessary.
Very true...
... The feds only step in when the state fails. However, there is an interstate aspect to this one, because one of the suspects fled to Norfolk, VA, hence the US Marshall's involvement (the charge would be interstate flight from prosecution), since the second suspect immediately crossed state lines to evade arrest.
My thinking on the need for the hate crimes bill to be passed is for the many states where this sort of thing occurs, and there are no legal protections at the state level, or jurisdictions where law enforcement refuses to act on the underlying crime itself (such as what happened in Georgia last weekend). That the suspect in the NYC case thought he would be safe from prosecution in Virginia is another reason.
There's also something odd about the NYC case, and it took me a while to snap to it. Normally, in hate crimes against LGBT persons, the attackers steal the wallets to disguise the hate crime as a robbery (usually works, too). The two suspects gave the wallet back, as if they're proud of what they did and want no one to mistake it for anything else.