"I support the repeal of ALL hate-crime legislation."

[Emproph]

Let's assume this person (congressperson, constituent, or whomever), is sincere. They have introduced or support a bill to repeal ALL hate crime legislation, or they have a track record of being against hate crime legislation even before the sexual orientation clause was added - or whatever else it took to convince you they were sincere as opposed to anti-gay.

Even if you disagreed with this position, found it misguided or uninformed, etc., would you at least respect the integrity of this position in regard to all the current arguments of free speech, freedom of religion, it elevates one person's life over another's, all crimes are "hate" crimes, etc?

In other words, if the anti-gay politics of known bigotry and hatred were taken out of the mix altogether, could you at least respect these arguments based on their merit alone?

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I'm a regular reader of Andrew Sullivan (you can find his blog at www.andrewsullivan.com). Andrew is very much openly gay and a strong advocate for gay equality. He is also a political conservative. (I am a liberal Democrat). Actually, Andrew is maybe more of what would be considered a "libertarian."

Andrew is for marriage equality, but he is opposed to ALL hate crimes legislation. However Andrew very strongly opposes folks who take the position that ONLY gay people should be denied inclusion in hate crimes statutes. He says one can make a logical case either for or against hate crimes legislation protecting ALL groups, but you cannot logically exclude ONLY gay people--that amounts to mere prejudice.

I strongly support hate crimes legislation, but I think Andrew is an example of an opponent of ALL hate crimes legislation who is a decent, intelligent and mostly unbiggoted human being.

Steven Webster

[andrewlittle]

I certainly do not think that people who are against ALL hate crimes legislation are necessarily hatefilled or bigoted.

There are so many laws that are on the books, and that get added, because the existing laws are not enforced equally or appropriately. In an ideal world, hate crime legislation would be redundant, because crime would be investigated and prosecuted with an even hand. The need for hate crimes legislation, in reality, comes from the follow-up crimes of police and justice officials exercising their power in a biased manner by determining that certain crimes against certain people are not worth their effort.

One definition of bigotry, according to American Heritage Dictionary, is:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Police and justice officials, many times, exercise bigotry, resulting in the need for hate crimes legislation. That is a fact.

Believing so strongly that the system is unpartial and inherently fair, despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary, is another form of bigotry. While it may be delusion, it is fed by the insensitivity and intolerance of opposing viewpoints - notably of those who experience life and the legal system differently than they. While this delusion may not be the result of hate, it is the result of bigotry - the insidious kind of bigotry that masquerades as patriotism and social conservatism. It would allow injustice to happen, so that a fixed perception of the value of the system, based on its value to that individual, can be perpetuated.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

There are so many laws that are on the books, and that get added, because the existing laws are not enforced equally or appropriately. In an ideal world, hate crime legislation would be redundant, because crime would be investigated and prosecuted with an even hand. The need for hate crimes legislation, in reality, comes from the follow-up crimes of police and justice officials exercising their power in a biased manner by determining that certain crimes against certain people are not worth their effort.

Police and justice officials, many times, exercise bigotry, resulting in the need for hate crimes legislation. That is a fact.

Believing so strongly that the system is unpartial and inherently fair, despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary, is another form of bigotry. While it may be delusion, it is fed by the insensitivity and intolerance of opposing viewpoints - notably of those who experience life and the legal system differently than they. While this delusion may not be the result of hate, it is the result of bigotry - the insidious kind of bigotry that masquerades as patriotism and social conservatism. It would allow injustice to happen, so that a fixed perception of the value of the system, based on its value to that individual, can be perpetuated.

I would have to agree with Andrew here. Also, as Judy Shepard so eloquently pointed out at the introduction to S 1105 in the Senate, this bill actually protects everyone. It is just the addition of "sexual orientation" that has the religious right in a flap. That is where you can find the bigotry.

[edgelessdepths]

I have always had mixed feelings about hate crimes legislation because I think that I crime is a crime is a crime. My line of thinking is that if you harm another person it is already a "hate crime" against them because you willfuling harmed another person. I don't think it is possible to reliably draw a distinction between whether someone has hurt someone because they were gay/a woman/black/white whatever, or whether they were hurting for some other reason. And even it could be proven that someone intentionally hurt another person because they were a certain type of person I'm not sure I would be comfortable punishing them more than someone else that committed the same type of crime.

-Elsa

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by edgelessdepths

I have always had mixed feelings about hate crimes legislation because I think that I crime is a crime is a crime. My line of thinking is that if you harm another person it is already a "hate crime" against them because you willfuling harmed another person. I don't think it is possible to reliably draw a distinction between whether someone has hurt someone because they were gay/a woman/black/white whatever, or whether they were hurting for some other reason. And even it could be proven that someone intentionally hurt another person because they were a certain type of person I'm not sure I would be comfortable punishing them more than someone else that committed the same type of crime.

-Elsa

in theory, I like the idea of a crime is a crime is a crime. but what do we do about crimes that are not prosecuted because the victim is clearly part of a minority group? my thinking is, and perhaps this has all been hashed out in the other threads, that hate crimes legislation may deter crimes based on prejudice against any group.

[edgelessdepths]

Originally Posted by keltic63

in theory, I like the idea of a crime is a crime is a crime. but what do we do about crimes that are not prosecuted because the victim is clearly part of a minority group? my thinking is, and perhaps this has all been hashed out in the other threads, that hate crimes legislation may deter crimes based on prejudice against any group.

It's true that in practice minorities get ignored when crimes are committed against them; I realize that. I am just not sure that codifying these crimes as special will not be a bad thing later on once people become less prejudiced. Although, I suppose laws like this can eventually be removed when they are no longer needed.

That is why I have very mixed feelings on this issue.