HATE CRIMES HYPOCRISY IN D.C.
By Harmony Grant
11 Jun 08
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 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.
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 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.
Harmony Grant writes and edits for National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative
watchdog group.
Let the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith teach you how they
have saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians: http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp.
Learn how ADL took away free speech in Canada and wants to steal
it now in the U.S. Congress. Watch Rev. Ted Pike's Hate
Laws: Making Criminals of Christians at video.google.com. Purchase
this gripping documentary to show at church. Order online at www.truthtellers.org for
$24.90, DVD or VHS, by calling 503-853-3688, or at the address below.
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this
topic. Call (503) 631-3808.
National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas,
OR 97015
