Quoth Jim D, in full:
> In my e-mail inbox, I have a petition that my sister sent me, in favor of
> strengthening US "hate crimes" laws to apply to crimes against gays and
> lesbians. (BTW, she's a lesbian.) I'm in a quandary. This is not because
> I'm against gay and lesbian rights (quite the contrary). Rather, the
> problem is that I have a visceral reaction against the idea of "hate
> crimes" legislation.
>
> The problem with hate crime legislation for me is that it puts much too
> much stress on people's intentions. Too much of this gets into thought
> control. And prosecutors are already too strong in the US, as Alex
> Cockburn's column in today's L.A. TIMES reminds us. And what about hate
> crimes by the police themselves?
>
> It seems to me that what we need is stronger laws against _torture_. I
> think that this would catch almost all of the hate crimes, like that
> against Matthew Shepard. It also could be used against the prosecutors and
> police some times. I think it also allows us to have simpler laws and
> simpler law enforcement, since it's much easier to pin down torture than
> hate. (Many of the haters have great facades.)
>
> any thoughts?
Jim is right on target here, but I'd extend the position's logic.
Hate crime is a spurious category reified in the minds of those, like
blacks and gays, who have grown up with much hate present (including
spells of self-hatred), but _all_ acts of violence are articulations
of hate. Doesn't a mugger need to hate anyone with a few more bucks,
hence considered "rich?"
Doesn't a rapist need to hate women as a general category?
All that's necessary is an equitable enforcement of existing statutes,
otherwise expect a balkanized welter of minutely defined groups,
each with unique claims on the law and its applications.
Such a society would be a walkover for fascists, too.
valis
