2 comments | In 1998, Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming student perceived as gay, was severely beaten, tied to a fence and left in a coma to die by his attackers. That same year, James Byrd, a black-American, was beaten, stripped naked and dragged three miles tied to a truck. Both crimes were motivated by hate, bias and intolerance, but no hate crime laws existed in either state.
Tracy Emblem is an attorney and a democratic candidate who is running for U.S. Congress, in California’s 50th District in 2010.
Some states have enacted criminal sentence enhancement provisions for “hate crimes” while Congress turned its back on civil rights and waited years to enact legislation while debating whether “hate crimes” exist.
On Oct. 28, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd legislation expanded the legal definition of “hate crime” to include attacks based on sexual orientation. The bill passed Congress and was signed into law by President Obama, but Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) failed to take a leadership role and voted “NO” on this historic civil rights legislation.
A hate crime occurs when the perpetrator selects the victim because of the person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. As a society we cannot tolerate hate crimes which intimidate and put a whole class of people in fear. Now the Justice Department can aid state and local authorities investigating reported hate crimes when local authorities choose not to pursue a civil rights investigation.
In 2007, the FBI reported that there were 7,624 hate crime incidents. The hate crime expansion of the protected class to sexual orientation is especially important. Over the past ten years there have been reports of 12,000 hate crimes based on sexual orientation.
More by Tracy: Project Labor Agreements create economic prosperity | Fire safety sees short sighted budget cut | The politics of health care coverage
Recently, members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka Kansas brought their road show to San Diego to target gays and Jewish people at several locations. The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies Westboro, with about 80 members, as a “hate group.” Westboro has picketed funerals of returning soldiers killed in Iraq “thanking God” for the soldiers’ deaths because Westoboro perceives them as contributing to America’s “fag-enabling” actions.
There is a fine-line distinction between “free speech” and hate speech designed to incite violence against people. As the economic times get harsher, Latinos are also becoming easy targets for hate crimes as extremists grow their ranks through the internet and talk radio.
In order to prevent crimes like the Shepard and Byrd murders, communities and religious organizations should work together to educate the public about tolerance through open dialogue and through public forums. Law enforcement agencies should partner with community organizations to initiate programs to prevent hate crimes and incidents. A good resource is the “Not in our Town” curriculum from PBS.org which is used by hundreds of other religious and community-based groups across the nation.
We must protect people’s civil rights and stop acts of violence based upon race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. An attack based on hatred and bias strikes at the heart of our communities. Creating fear and distrust strikes at the soul of liberty.
Tracy Emblem is an attorney and a democratic candidate who is running for U.S. Congress, in California’s 50th District in 2010.
Tags: brian bilbray, congress, federal hate crimes bill, hate crimes, james byrd, Matthew Shepard, SDNN
Comment by: Concerned Citizen Posted: November 6, 2009, 3:09 pm
Aren’t all types of attacks, both physical and otherwise, based on hate? I don’t care if it is committed because the assailant hates the victim. What I DO care about is that they answer for their real crime.
Increasingly over the last 10 or 20 years legitimate disagreement over any topic seems to be demonized by one side or the other as being “hate”.
Laws already exist for discriminating against people based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. If those laws and the associated penalties for violating them are strong enough, then why do you need the distinction added with the word “hate” associated with them.
You mention that intimidation of people should not be tolerated. I agree. But be careful; by blurring the line between real “hate” and simple differing of opinions and threatening punishment through this legislation for simple disagreement, you can eventually destroy free speech. In that respect, and if you follow that line of reasoning to a not-so-great extent, the Southern Poverty Law Center could be considered a “hate group” themselves. It’s not as great a stretch as you might think if you consider how far Political Correctness has come in the last 20 years. The way things are going, how bad will the chilling of free speech be in the next 20?For example, I have on several occasions had to be extra careful in expressing that I have disagreed with certain black “civil rights leaders” on some issues for fear of being labeled as a racist.
I join with you in not wanting to be in a society with senseless violence. But Hate Crime Legislation threatens to create the very same fear and distrust that you say strikes at the very soul of liberty.
Comment by: Lauren Z Posted: November 7, 2009, 4:53 pm
Here is the problem I have with the entire concept of enhanced hate crime prosecution - it means that it supposes that the government is capable of looking into the hearts and minds of people to determine why they might have committed a crime. The next step is for the government start arresting people for things that might do. What is their intent? The government shall decide. Is that really the kind of system we want to have.
Look, I have no problem with long prison sentences for criminal acts, but a crime is a crime. If it is wrong to beat someone up, the race, sexual orientation, religion, belief systems or anything else or either the assailant or the victim shouldn’t figure into it. The sentence for the actual crime should be the same.
~Lauren Z