Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Senate Passes Hate Crime Bill, Larry Craig Opposes

Posted by Melissa McEwan at 12:00 PM on September 27, 2007.


Melissa McEwan: This would be one example of why there is still an essential difference between the two parties.
gayflagthumb

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Also in PEEK

John McCain: Eco-Warrior
John Nichols The Nation

Pentagon Drops Charges Against "20th Hijacker"
Attaturk Firedoglake

Biofuel is Still a Stupid Idea
Manila Ryce The Largest Minority

This post, written by Melissa McEwan, originally appeared on Shakesville

This would be one example of why, despite our many legitimate grievances with the Democrats, there is still an essential difference between the two parties. The Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would never have passed (or probably even been brought up for a vote) under Republican leadership.

You can read more about the specific provisions of the bill, which better enables federal and local law enforcement officials to prosecute hate crimes, here. And I'll just repeat what I said when the House passed its version of the hate crimes bill, with regard to the necessity of such legislation...

One of the most frequent talking points you hear in opposition to hate crimes legislation is that giving specific consideration to crimes committed against people on the basis of some specific part of their identity amounts to "special rights" and some kind of preferential treatment. If you hear this in the next few days and need a way to explain why hate crimes legislation is necessary, here it is: The prosecution of hate crimes requires special consideration because when someone is targeted for her/his race, nationality, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, it has the potential to affect everyone who shares that identity across the entire nation.

A whole community isn't suddenly considered unsafe because a husband murders his wife, because we recognize the difference between domestic violence and community violence. That murder wasn't random; it was specific. The victim was chosen for a reason. It doesn't make the crime any less horrific, but it doesn't reverberate. It stops with that murderer and that victim.

Hate crimes are the opposite of that; we recognize that when someone is targeted just because s/he is black, for example, that can make all black Americans feel that much less safe, irrespective of the safety of their physical community, because their race community has been attacked. In a hate crime, it doesn't matter which black person/gay person/woman/Jew/quadriplegic had been there; it's so nonspecific that it inevitably reverberates. Suddenly blacks/gays/women/Jews/quadriplegics are staying indoors a little more, feeling a little less able to go out after dark alone...lives of people not directly touched by the crime are affected--and that's why hate crimes legislation is needed, so that freedom can be equally experienced by everyone.

UPDATE: Here's the complete list of 39 Senators who voted against the hate crimes bill. You might notice they all appear to have something in common.

Alexander (R-TN)

Allard (R-CO)

Barrasso (R-WY)

Bennett (R-UT)

Bond (R-MO)

Brownback (R-KS)

Bunning (R-KY)

Burr (R-NC)

Chambliss (R-GA)

Coburn (R-OK)

Cochran (R-MS)

Corker (R-TN)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Craig (R-ID)

Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC)

Dole (R-NC)

Domenici (R-NM)

Ensign (R-NV)

Enzi (R-WY)

Graham (R-SC)

Grassley (R-IA)

Hagel (R-NE)

Hatch (R-UT)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Isakson (R-GA)

Kyl (R-AZ)

Lott (R-MS)

Martinez (R-FL)

McConnell (R-KY)

Murkowski (R-AK)

Roberts (R-KS)

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)

Stevens (R-AK)

Sununu (R-NH)

Thune (R-SD)

Vitter (R-LA)

Monsieur Maveriqué McCain abstained, naturally. Once again, I am pleasantly surprised by the vote of my Republican Senator Dick Lugar, who was one of only 8 Republicans to vote in favor of the legislation.

Digg!

Tagged as: craig, democrats, republican party, gay rights, hate crimes, homophobia

Melissa McEwan writes and edits the blog Shakespeare's Sister.


John McCain: Eco-Warrior
In a swing through the Pacific Northwest, the candidate attempts to green wash his record and his environmental policies.
Post by John Nichols. May 13, 2008.
Pentagon Drops Charges Against "20th Hijacker"
Harsh interrogations likely caused the Pentagon to abandon its prosecution of Mohammed al-Qahtani.
Post by Attaturk . May 13, 2008.
Biofuel is Still a Stupid Idea
Cellulosic ethanol is not all it's cracked up to be.
Post by Manila Ryce. May 13, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hate crimes...
Posted by: Q30 on Sep 27, 2007 12:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The prosecution of hate crimes requires special consideration because when someone is targeted for her/his race, nationality, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, it has the potential to affect everyone who shares that identity across the entire nation."

In other words, if I beat-up a guy in a wheelchair because I think it's fun, it should be punished less-severely than if I were to beat him up because I think the handicapped are leeches upon society. Or if I were to mug a Jew because he's well-dressed, I should be punished less severely than if I mugged the Jew based on my belief that he got his money through swindling people. One crime doesn't reverberate whereas the other does.

Best of all, if I'm accused of the crime and found not guilty in a state court, I can be put on trial AGAIN for it in a federal court, doing-away with that stupid protection against double jeopardy which is mentioned in the 5th amendment of the uselss old Bill of Rights.

Good, I say. We all have too many rights as it is, and I'm glad that people will be possibly be put on trial several times for the same crime. Best of all, protecting me against hate crimes will make my identity-group feel so gosh-darned SPECIAL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Take the Bush model... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Hate crimes... Posted by: oregonox
» As far as... Posted by: Bbear41
» RE: As far as... Posted by: Q30
Yet
Posted by: chaoslegs on Sep 27, 2007 4:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Q30 makes some interesting points. I am still not convinced by them.

Part of what doesn't convince me is that those that voted against found their civil liberty sensibilities, yet they are fine with most rolling back of civil liberties in the sake of 'security'.

I mean, the Republican party is currently the party of maintaining white privilege. The party social darwinism. The party that blames those who face systemic barriers (ever heard of red lining) for their shortcomings without examining the causes of the barriers.

On the double jeopardy issue. Is a separate charge in a different court for the same action truly double jeopardy. I truly don't know. Would the federal court in your example, be going to court of the same charge, or is it just the hate crime?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yet Posted by: Q30
» Re: Thank you Q30 Posted by: chaoslegs
» RE: e: Thank you Q30 Posted by: Q30
» Likewise good points. Posted by: ABetterFuture
...punish the act, not the man
Posted by: spanskmand on Sep 27, 2007 6:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess I am an unique radical in that I don't view this hate crime nonsense as a "left vs right" issue. The problem with this legislation is that it is basically anti-white since it's axiomatic in some circles that non-whites are incapable of hating others. Sad to say, there are some who believe this absurdity. But in fact, non whites can hate and commit crimes just as well as white people. Witness Rwanda. Witness the Jews and the Muslims.

"Hate" is irrelevant in the adjudication of a crime except as an indicator of premeditation and malintention. Some crimes are based upon acquisition. Should we then construct an "acquisitional crimes" category? "Hate", and other subjective categories, explains the possible motive for a crime but doesn't necessarily lead to the act of the crime itself.

This is why we should only punish the act and not the man (viewed as a subjectivity), since the man is always much more than the mere act of his crime. When you start to punish people more severely for a certain subjectivity as opposed to another subjectivity, the next logical step is to make a certain subjectivity a crime in and of itself.

What is truly sickening about the hate crimes legislation is not that most Republicans voted against it, but that most Democrats did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tasteless
Posted by: kgs1947 on Sep 28, 2007 3:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I fully agreed with the content of this article, but I do have an issue with the photo of half-naked men raising the rainbow flag. Why is it that half-naked men is used to represent a gay issue? There's a tasteless connection being made that "gay" always means "sexual"! This is far from the truth. If whoever designed this photo had any kind of sensitivity, he/she would have had men/women dressed in various forms of full dress to represent that men and women who happen to be gay are in all walks of life! Come on now...raise your standards and perspective, okay?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tasteless -- really? Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Tasteless -- really? Posted by: Amynda M.
» RE: Tasteless -- really? Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Tasteless -- really? Posted by: Amynda M.
Why my knee doesn't jerk for "hate crimes"
Posted by: hagwind on Sep 28, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a lesbian and a feminist, I'm very ambivalent about the both the theory and practice of hate-crimes laws -- meaning, more or less, that I don't like the idea but that I don't want to climb into bed with most of the organizations that oppose them.

Melissa McEwan writes, somewhat disingenuously: "A whole community isn't suddenly considered unsafe because a husband murders his wife, because we recognize the difference between domestic violence and community violence. That murder wasn't random; it was specific. The victim was chosen for a reason. It doesn't make the crime any less horrific, but it doesn't reverberate. It stops with that murderer and that victim."

Most "domestic violence" doesn't go as far as murder, and I could argue that often its effects are random as well as specific. It does "reverberate." It doesn't stop with that perp and that victim. However, if you don't already subscribe to some form of feminist analysis, you're not going to believe me no matter what I say, so let's talk about rape instead. Rape is a hate crime. Maybe it's the prototypical hate crime. It "reverberates" big-time: Nearly all women are aware that we can be raped, and this influences what we do and don't do, where we go and don't go, what we say and don't say. Most of the time for most of us it's a deep-background awareness, but when we hear footfalls behind us on the trail or on a deserted, dimly lit street, it turns into a "heightened state of alert" -- if not full-blown fear -- in about half a second. But how often is rape considered a "hate crime"? In my state, Massachusetts, sex isn't even on the list of criteria for hate crimes.

Let's go back to this "reverberation" thing. Say Worker A speaks out against workplace conditions (or does something else that's completely legal) and is then reprimanded, disciplined, or fired. Say the worker fights back and manages to get reinstated. On one hand, it's a victory for justice on the job. On the other, everyone else looks at what happened to Worker A and at all the time and energy and money she put in to getting her job back. When they're tempted to open their mouths, they pause: "Do I want to go what Worker A went through?" Answer is often "No." Major reverberation effect. Freedom of speech? Hah.

There are plenty of good reasons for liberals and progressives, and especially leftists and feminists, not to go overboard with this hate crimes thing. Hate crimes are already crimes; they ought to be taken seriously and prosecuted as crimes. If certain crimes aren't being taken seriously enough, classifying them as "hate crimes" is, at best, a stopgap solution. The categories are inadequate. Focusing on crimes committed by discrete individuals lets organized entities, like corporations and government agencies, off the hook.

I suggest that we take another look at what makes a hate crime a hate crime. Let's focus more on the effects and less on the motives of the perps. Hate crimes reverberate and intimidate -- sound familiar? You betcha. Sounds like terrorism. Terrorism is a form of hate crime; hate crimes are a form of terrorism. Victims are targeted because of the class they belong to, and the effects reverberate through, and beyond, that class. Maybe it's time to move the EEOC and OSHA et al. to the Department of Homeland Security?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hater
Posted by: grn1 on Sep 28, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hate crimes are Muslim cartoons or special interest groups running a supposed democratic government into hate crime genocidal wars. This bill meant to protect groups through identity will also be useful when war criminal charges are brought against them. So any Dem thinking this is a progressive move to protect the sensitivities of others hasn't applied the legislation to their own actions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A bone thrown to the LGBT Movement
Posted by: StPeteRican on Sep 28, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe this vote is simply a bone thrown at the LGBT movement for their continued support of the Democratic Party. In the mean time, the Democrats continue to support the war in Iraq, if not with words, with votes. They have yet to impeach Cheney and Bush for the ever growing list of crimes against humanity and Americans specifically.
So many of us gays are so one issue that we continue supporting politicians who throw crumbs at us, but do nothing on the greater issues that affect us all, Gay or Straight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More than a bone. Posted by: ABetterFuture
The End of the Beginning...
Posted by: Gisele on Sep 28, 2007 10:55 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been watching the run up to this vote, but never doubted what the outcome of it would be. Welcome to the world of those governed by the "thought" police.

This law wasn't brought in as a result of people losing their lives to violence (although it may have been a factor), it's the administrations way of muzzling those who disagree with them. Now you are free to think what you like, but you may never speak it if it goes against the grain of someone who may object to your saying it.

It will be amusing to see what the Christian Right will have to say when the first one is taken to court for saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Season's Greetings." Now America is on the slippery slope of total censorship, welcome to the Canadian nightmare.

Be aware that anything can and will be used against you, it's not the intent behind the words you use - it's the PERCEPTION of the hearer that matters now. You may not have meant anything derogatory, but if it is perceived as being such - they'll be seeing you in a court of law. Count on it.

PS: You should also be aware of the fact that there will be folks trolling the internet now, specifically LOOKING for messages that can be construed as "hate"...it's how they make their living, and it's a damn good one. And yes, that happens here too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, Melissa...
Posted by: jrobertclark on Sep 28, 2007 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....they do all have something in common: They're all white rich Republican assholes--at least one of them a closet queer--as well as several others who are yet to be exposed. For shame!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

an extremely unfortunate example
Posted by: january37 on Sep 28, 2007 12:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A whole community isn't suddenly considered unsafe because a husband murders his wife, because we recognize the difference between domestic violence and community violence. That murder wasn't random; it was specific. The victim was chosen for a reason."

Yes, and the reason was hatred of females. Ms McEwan, there is an epidemic of domestic violence all over the world with men killing or punishing women. How can this not be a hate crime? I recommend the book "Femicide: the politics of woman killing," Jill Radford and Diana E.H. Russel eds. for all who believe that wife murder does not reverberate throughout the culture. If you have a moderately violent husband and you hear of a man who kills his wife, believe me, it will scare, control and oppress you. It reverberates!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm confused.....
Posted by: Voicedude on Sep 28, 2007 12:37 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....and apparently, so are others.

I agree with the sentiment that many GOP-ers don't really care about the little people, BUT....

Aren't ALL acts of violence - by their very nature - 'hate crimes'?

I mean, you don't beat someone to death if you're 'loving your neighbor', do you?

As a peaceful man, I still think the whole concept of a 'hate crime' is redundant. It's a reaction to all the mindless violence that has permeated society. But that's where the problem lies: trying to affix a logical label to something that was mindless (i.e. makes no sense) to begin with.

Why does beating a black man or a gay man to death and dragging them behind a car need yet another special classification, other than the obvious: it's a heinous crime that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Would it be any LESS horrific if it happened to a straight white man? Would that somehow diminish the pain and horror to the families? Would it be a hate crime again if that straight white man was killed by a woman or a black man?

Are black on black crimes 'hate crimes'? Since most are gang related, and gangs HATE each other, wouldn't that be the very definition of a 'hate crime'? Could a USC Trojan attacking a UCLA Bruin be considered one, too? Could not then ANY crime of violence be spun as a 'hate crime'?

And by the way, why was Craig's name spotlighted? His being a total hypocrite has nothing to do with hate crimes - other than his likely 'self-hatred'. Are we supposed to hate him now, even more than before? What does that say about you?

Maybe that's why this bill isn't getting the support that some think it should.

I'm just sayin'.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm confused..... Posted by: YogiBear