Your eyes aren’t deceiving you; someone (Disney, actually) is making this necklace.
David Neiwert has a post up bemoaning the imminent death of a federal hate crimes bill called the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It’s yet another example of congressional Democrats showing a bewildering lack of political will even to pass fairly non-controversial stuff, similar to their bewildering inability to cut abstinence-only funding in the face of mountains of evidence both that it doesn’t work and that people are turning against it as they find out what it is. What are Democrats so afraid of? I’m not saying there’s no political support for hate-based crimes, gay-bashing, etc., but people who generally enjoy the free reign that members of dominant groups have to terrorize non-dominant groups with violence wouldn’t vote for a Democrat if their lives depended on it.
Moreover, there’s political momentum to revisit the fact that blatant, violent bigotry is still pretty damn common. The Jena 6 incident has drawn a lot of attention to the fact that whites will still happily keep blacks living in fear of violence, and even will go so far as to invoke the symbols of the most famous kind of historical hate crime, lynching.* Congress did finally pass a lynching ban, many decades after that specific kind of hate crime passed out of practice. If only we could get them to give a shit about governing over people that are living in the here and now!
David has a theory as to why political will failed in this case, despite the seeming anti-hate crime momentum—the bill was seen as a gay thing, and connections between gay-bashing and race-based hate crimes were not drawn sufficiently to create a coalition. (I would add that it would help if people drew connections between sexualized hate crimes against women, from banal street harassment to gang rape, and see the big picture of how violence is used to decrease all sorts of people’s freedom.)
Let’s face it: This legislation was tagged as a “gay issue” — mainly because the opposition to it arose almost wholly from the inclusion of sexual preference as a category of bias, fueled by the homophobes of the religious right. And gay-rights groups were certainly in the forefront of pushing the bill. However, other progressives, including those directly affected by hate crimes, neglected to join in the fight to any notable extent. Where were the civil-rights groups, the immigrant-rights groups, the labor unions?
He continues to make an impassioned argument for building alliances by focusing on the interlocking systems of oppression, instead of the current balkanization that defines the left. Personally, I think the free form, non-hierarchical nature of blogs can be and already is a great benefit towards this project. On blogs, especially group blogs, you can have a post about this issue, a post about that, and connections start getting drawn by proximity alone. And then people start moving towards making other connections. There’s a lot of hostility to the idea that bloggers are all talk and not enough action, but the balkanization of the left shows that without people dedicating themselves to the task of spinning ideas and rhetoric, all the emphasis on action will fail us. Civil rights groups may have dropped the ball on this one, but as David points out, anti-racist bloggers were all over it. The tools we have give us this opportunity.
53 Responses to “Federal hate crimes bill fails”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
That necklace … I’m …
Jeebus. Just….jeebus.
??? Really? Seriously??? I think blogs exacerbate the ridiculous balkanization of the left: look how well you get along with Kos and {Amptoons}, how’s that developing your community?
The Left has always been pathetic like that, cuz nobody is the boss of them, no sirree. So jack shit gets done.
So, Eric, who pissed in your Cheetos today?
Alright, can someone please explain to me what exactly is accomplished by making crimes like murder “hate crimes” when they will most likely end up having the same exact penalty if they weren’t?
You’re basically legislating Thought Crime.
“The Left has always been pathetic like that, cuz nobody is the boss of them, no sirree.”
Eric, you’re absolutely right. The Left just doesn’t have the organization, the dedication, and the will to power The “Right” has. Of course, in the Left’s defense, their path is a lot more difficult.
All the “Right” has to do is follow the guys in the jackboots and the brown shirts, who loudly scream about some manufactured outrage or other. Close your eyes, turn off your mind, listen to the authority figure, and do whatever they demand. You’re all set!
On the Left, you actually have to think, feel, and understand. It’s a lot of work to have to stand on your own feet, accept the world as it actually is and not as you want it to be, to wind your way through the bramble-covered thickets of reality without selling your soul and your morality to become a hollow Reichwing zombie. Tough road to follow…
“You’re basically legislating Thought Crime.”
Bingo!
Oh? No bingo card for that yet?
AtomicFruitbat -
The underlying assault is punished as a crime against the immediate victim. The hate crime carries an additional penalty because by making it known that you are attacking that person solely for his/her membership in a certain group, you are effectively making a real threat of violence against any member of the group. (ex. lynching “uppity” blacks who challenged the status quo in some way as a method of keeping everyone else in line) It’s not really thought crime because it’s not punishing thought, but the public announcement (ie. the threat). If someone were to kill a POC or a gay man out of prejudice but not indicate that, it wouldn’t be punished as a hate crime.
Even if you discard the theory that hate crimes are threats against a whole community, it’s still not inconstitant with the rest of criminal law. There are some motivations that are treated as aggravating factors and some that are treated as mitigating factors. Why a person commits a crime often has an impact on the sentence.
oops.
I meant to write “still not inconsistent”
What are Democrats so afraid of?
My personal feeling is this: They know that no matter what they do, there is no way that we’re going to suddenly vote Republican. So they don’t stand up for what their constituents want, because they stand to lose absolutely nothing by not doing so. I don’t really know what the solution is. I mean, much as I’m disillusioned with the Democratic leadership, they’re still better than the Republicans, and while voting for third party candidacies in this country makes for a good symbolic gesture, under the current electoral system there’s little chance of getting them into national office.
No, they will *not* have the same penalty, that’s the point. “Hate crimes” aren’t “thought crimes” unless the difference between first-degree murder and manslaughter is a “thought crime”.
One reason there’s a need for Federal hate-crime law is that hate crimes, by definition, are intended to frighten whole communities. All too often, local law enforcement is complicit in this effort, and only outsiders can see the need for justice.
Here are some good posts from Orcinus, my go-to guy about bias crime:
Hate crimes, not thought crimes
Hate crimes, democracy, and freedom
Hate crimes, the big picture
AtomicFruitbat:
the reason for a hate crimes bill is because many times people who go after people in a minority are not punished as harshly (people who beat up gays were for a long time given lesser sentences if any, and it’s still true in some areas, …). A hate crimes bill gives a back-up if justice is not done in some community.
And since this law only applies if an actual physical crime is committed, I don’t see how it’s punishing a ‘thought’ crime.
And since this law only applies if an actual physical crime is committed, I don’t see how it’s punishing a ‘thought’ crime.
Because intent isn’t…..oh, wait.
the reason for a hate crimes bill is because many times people who go after people in a minority are not punished as harshly (people who beat up gays were for a long time given lesser sentences if any, and it’s still true in some areas, …). A hate crimes bill gives a back-up if justice is not done in some community.
I suppose thats a good enough reason as any to have that kind of law.
Does this go both ways? If five black guys beat up a white guy in a black neighborhood for being white is that a hate crime too? And please don’t accuse me of “white privilege”–my genetics preclude me from having that luxury.
Atomic,
yes…that’s how the law is written.
“If five black guys beat up a white guy in a black neighborhood for being white is that a hate crime too?”
It could be. There’s more to a hate crime than just a difference in race/culture/orientation between the victim(s) and their assailants…
while we may not be able to accuse you of white privilege, it is pretty clear that you’re unfamiliar of the relationship between violence and systems of domination.
yes…that’s how the law is written.
Then I really don’t have a problem with it anymore. Having more equal sentencing in a crimes of the same nature is a pretty damn good reason for having it.
RE:, the left being fragmented. This seems to be the case in anti-war protests that mysteriously morph into anti-Israel, pro-mumia, pro-castro, anti-capitalism orgies. For anti-war people such as myself who don’t come from the left, it makes us feel very unwelcome at anti-war protests. Focus people, focus! You don’t see right-wing anti-immigration rallies getting bogged down by anti-tax or anti-gay protestors, do you?
This also shows some ineptitude on the Democrats part: they added it onto the Defense bill to try to force some Republicans to pass it, but none were convinced. Since some progressive Democrats were going to vote against the Defense bill because it contained continued funding for the war in Iraq, some of the most fervent supporters of the hate crimes bill were lost with no gain.
Well, Eric, I get along with “Kos” just fine. I fully admit that there’s a lot of attempts to recreate the circular firing squad on the blogs, but I burned out on that a long time ago.
From offsprung.com, re. the necklace:
That’s the reason they made this, then? Really? What in the blue hell are they thinking??!
More political parties, ASAP, please.
That’s the reason they made this, then? Really? What in the blue hell are they thinking??!
Honestly? They weren’t. Somebody brainstormed “pirates” stuff in a meeting and no one stopped to think, “Hmm, nooses — isn’t that bad?” In the rush of getting things to market before Pirates inevitably loses popularity, it never even crossed anyone’s mind. Stupid, but true.
The good thing about it being Disney, however, is that if they get a barrage of complaints, they actually will pull it. They won’t publicize it or apologize unless it gets bad publicity from a real (not blog) media outlet, but at least it will mysteriously disappear without a trace.
Write a (nice, polite, no swearing) letter telling one of the people on this publicly available site that you find it offensive:
https://licensing.disney.com/Home/display.jsp?contentId=dcp_home_executives_executives&forPrint=false&language=en&preview=false®ion=0
Mailing address is here:
http://home.disney.go.com/guestservices/faqs#hottopics9
While you’re writing the letter, you may as well send a copy to Bob Iger as well, the CEO.
They were never going to pull “The Path to 9/11″ — too much money had been sunk into it — but it’s not much of a hit to pull this necklace, so you could probably get some action.
AtomicFruitBat,
I know that you’ve already said that you are fine with the Hate Crimes Bill but I just wanted to add one more detail.
Currently the FBI keeps track of stats of Hate Crimes and in 2004 (I think), there were just shy of 1000 hate crimes recorded (as in charges brought against the alleged perpetrators) as black-on-white for the year. Of course, there were several times more white-on-black hate crimes recorded for the year.
I try to keep these numbers handy for the holidays as my extended family has a “fondness” of racial jokes and complaints. I’m “the oddball” that tries to should some light into their Rush-darkened world.
Not to get all PC here, but I really dislike the term “sexual preference” - my sexual preference is “Yes Please!” but my sexual orientation is heterosexual. Preference is simply the wrong word. I prefer white wine over red, but I’ll drink red if the occasion warrants. I could not have sex with a man because men simply do not turn me on - it’s not a matter of preference. Orientation is a much more fundamental thing than preference.
They know that no matter what they do, there is no way that we’re going to suddenly vote Republican.
Yeah, but we don’t need to vote Democratic, either. Sure, voting 3rd party may be a protest vote, but if we don’t protest why should they change.
Earn my vote, Democrats. It cannot be taken for granted. For example, I can’t vote for any of the Democrats running for president if they don’t publicly denounce Romney for equating atheists to enemies of freedom. I’ve written to each of them asking where I can find their statement on Romney’s speech. Strangely, I haven’t heard back from a single campaign yet.
Hello– The last two years here in Oakland have pretty much a violent bloodbath. We’re now number 4 in per capita homicides. I don’t think any of the murders have been classified as “hate” crimes. While I don’t particularly oppose hate crime legislation, IMHO it’s mostly a waste of political capital. The liberal/left should be pushing for progressive solutions for violence/crime instead of doing a bunch of chest beating over relatively rare hate crimes.
Of course for liberals it’s much easier supporting things like hate crime legislation than confronting the problem of urban violence because it takes them out of their racial comfort zone (at least white liberals). Here in Oakland crime is the number one city wide issue and leftists like Mayor Dellums and Barbara Lee are out to lunch.
Jake Squid - sadly the politician most given to speaking inclusively of atheists is non other than George Bush. Fat lot of good that’s done us. I’ll take the simple absence of atheist-bashing as long as we get a leader who gives a crap about actually making life better for the average American. As it stands, any of the Dem front runners beats the living crap out of any of the Republicans on that front.
Frankly all I want from a democratic nominee is that they be (a) a mammal and (b) not suffer from advanced untreated rabies.
I linked that story to several people I know. I was appalled by how many people didn’t think it was racist, or even that it was stupid of Disney to sell it.
Some bits and pieces:
H: I.. I actually kind of like it. it’s a hangman’s knot, used for many a thing other than lynchings.
H: so yes, a black person getting offended that OMG THEY USED THAT KNOT FOR LYNCHINGS is kind of patently ridiculous and getting worked up over nothing.
H: A hangman’s knot does not bring lynching foremost to my mind. I’d venture to say most people would say the same.
D: I’m… gonna have to go with H on this for a change. I think it’s a lot of oversensitivity. There’s symbols that are much more racist and much more overt.
D: If you think about it, getting worked up over these symbols is what gives them power.
D: the noose *itself* doesn’t have racist overtones. plenty of people have been hung of all colors.
H: it’s how YOU perceive it and take it as that gives it labels.
H: it’s people’s fault for being so sensitive, period. Shut the fuck up and get on with life.
H: I’m not denying that some people are upset by imagery. What I’m saying is that in this instance, it’s incredibly stupid.
That’s just responses from 2 of the people I was talking to about this. Another said that having media attention drawn to the rash of nooses being used as threats against blacks in the US constitutes encouragement of copycats.
Honestly? They weren’t. Somebody brainstormed “pirates” stuff in a meeting and no one stopped to think, “Hmm, nooses — isn’t that bad?” In the rush of getting things to market before Pirates inevitably loses popularity, it never even crossed anyone’s mind. Stupid, but true.
While I can agree with this on several levels, to pick a noose to represent the film seems kinda counter productive. I mean, it would have been better to pick a skull and crossbones, that’s pretty much been the public/marketing icon for all three films. They could have picked a gold coin from the first one, or even a miniature of Jack’s compass, which is also important to all three films. A noose just seems like you’d have to explain it if you were getting it as a gift for someone else.
Givee: “You got me a noose necklace?”
Giver: “It’s from Pirates of the Caribean! You know, in the third one where they were hanging all those pirates. Even the kids.”
Givee: “You got me something that represents a group of people being lynched en masse. And that’s just talking about the movie.”
Giver: “What? You didn’t like the third one?”
Givee: “I thought it was a bit convoluted…But you got me a necklace that’s a noose.”
Giver:”It’s 24K gold.”
Givee: “Are you trying to tell me something?”
:)
“You got me something that represents a group of people being lynched en masse.
Obviously better to just stick with a simple cross.
Oh, wait…
Many of us, including me, have posted on this before. For me, hate-crime law is bad law. I probably have mentioned it before, but Chris Hitchens’s comments are as true as ever.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/free_speech_6.html#comments
And please, stay on subject and not bring up his views on iiraq and iran. They are irrelevant to this point.
We have plenty of crimes on the books where there is a aggravating circumstance, and expressing a generic hate seems reasonable.
And I would be more surprised about the noose necklace, but Disney’s corporate culture seems really clueless. I mean, the ‘worst book title of all time’ was Disney’s “Cooking with Pooh”. I’m not going to put the link in, but Crooked Timber has it.
“Frankly all I want from a democratic nominee is that they be (a) a mammal and (b) not suffer from advanced untreated rabies.”
I’m not even sure how firm I am on the mammal part. I don’t want to eliminate perfectly good candidates over something that trivial…
:)
As someone mentioned there are already laws on the books, and their reason for being well-accepted, that are exactly equivalent to the hate crime laws and are based on the intent of the perpetrator. The most common are various degrees of killing.
It’s recognized that someone who plans murder in advance deserves harsher punishment than someone who kills in the heat of passion which is worse than someone who kills by accident. Using the terminology of people opposed to hate crime, all those are “thought crime”. The underlying facts of all three deaths are the same: one person killed another, but intent determines (at least theoretically, ignoring deals and all that sort of thing) what punishment they get.
In fact, there’s an even more exact equivalent: in many jurisdictions killing a police officer (and firefighter or paramedic in some crimes) in the performance of their duty automatically bumps up the eligible punishment. So until people start demanding that all murders get treated exactly the same, they have no ground to stand on arguing against hate crimes.
When was the last time Joe Lieberman was tested for rabies? Anybody?
Does this go both ways? If five black guys beat up a white guy in a black neighborhood for being white is that a hate crime too?
Yes, in the event that “reverse racist” hate crimes are committed, there is a penalty. Also, you can commit a hate crime against a member of a dominant group you just thought was not—for instance, if a straight man is mistaken for gay and gay-bashed, that’s eligible for a hate crime charge. The whining and hand-wringing of members of dominant groups who have a bizarre envy of victimhood (the sort of thing you could only have if you don’t know what it’s like) has been addressed thoroughly. Really, wouldn’t be stupid of politicians not to CYA on that? From what I understand, the court test cases on these were floated with a minority-on-majority hate crime, to do an end run around knee-jerk racism dismantling the law.
And I would be more surprised about the noose necklace, but Disney’s corporate culture seems really clueless.
Yep. For the noose necklace, since it’s for the Disney Couture line, my educated guess is they were trying to be “hip” and “edgy” and, hey, there’s that scene in the movie where they try to hang everyone! That’s edgy! Genius!
In an old job, I had to stop my boss from putting a nametag on a dinosaur character that said “Tranny.” I said, “You mean like ‘transsexual’?” and she said, “Oh. Yeah, I hadn’t thought of that.” And that was going to be on a nationally (and internationally) distributed movie poster.
When you make people work 60-80-100 hours a week on a regular basis, this is the kind of creative thinking you get, but that’s a whole other story and applies to the entire entertainment industry.
Many of us, including me, have posted on this before. For me, hate-crime law is bad law.
You do realize that hate-crime laws have to do with actions, not speech, right? You can walk down the street and scream “nigger” at every black person who passes by, and the only thing they can even potentially arrest you for is disturbing the peace. It’s when you scream “nigger” at someone and then punch them in the face that it becomes a hate crime.
Hate crime =/= hate speech. You can talk about how much you hate “faggots” until you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t become a hate crime until you pick up a baseball bat on a Saturday night and go down to wait outside the gay bar for the patrons to come out.
See the difference? We’re policing what people do, just like every other law on the books does.
“We’re policing what people do, just like every other law on the books does.”
They’ll never get it. The need to feel part of some privileged group and treat members of some other “lower” group like shit is just too strong for some people to give up. Hate Crimes legislation just cuts too close for their comfort…
“I was appalled by how many people didn’t think it was racist, or even that it was stupid of Disney to sell it.”
With it coming from Disney, I’d have to assume it wasn’t intentionally racist, just intensely stupid. That benefit of the doubt doesn’t extend to anyone who sees it and says “Oooh, I know what I want for [insert holiday here]!”, however.
Obviously better to just stick with a simple cross.
Oh, wait…
I think the offense only applies when the cross is on fire;)
“I think the offense only applies when the cross is on fire;)”
I think he was going for the oft-forgotten fact that the cross is a means of slow, inhumane execution.
“See the difference? We’re policing what people do”
BS. If someone is beaten or killed for whatever reason, that is what the attackers did. It doesn’t matter if it was for robbery or “hate” or “fun” or whatever. It is the act that matters.
Adding “hate” to the law is adding “thought crime” to the law. Get it?
By adding “hate” to the law, you are creating inequality. If someone beats you to rob you, those are the acts, the crimes. If someone beats only people of a certain ethnic group to rob them, it is the same act, the same crime.
There is no reason than one group should be protected more than another or that one of these criminals should be punished more than the other.
bernarda, it’s about the one crime (beating someone up) carrying with it an intended threat against an entire community. If they are merely beaten for their money, it’s not a hate crime. If a group of neo-Nazis beats up Jews and then rant about the Elders of Zion owning the banking community so theft is merely done for justice for the oppressed Aryan poor… there’s an obvious attempt to create an atmosphere where Jews cannot walk the streets freely.
It is, in fact, a form of terrorism; an attempt to change society through fear.
If you beat up someone for being Jewish, but do not advertise this motive, you won’t be prosecuted under hate crimes, because you aren’t trying to intimidate others.
Frankly– all of the politicians who didn’t support it should have their vote thrown in their face if they ever talk about Christians being persecuted. Why did they vote against a bill that would protect them from the Ebil Anti-Christian conspiracy?
I guess you think that the difference in sentencing between first-degree murder and negligent homicide is for thought crime too then.
Oh, you don’t?
“By adding “hate” to the law, you are creating inequality.”
Making hate crime laws is not creating inequality. It is protecting the most vulnerable people in our society from the already existing social inequality.
Two gay men holding hands on the street are a target in a way that a white heterosexual couple holding hands are not because of our culture’s homophobia. It would be nice if that were not true but that’s not the reality of the situation. Protecting minorities is not giving them “special rights” it is an acknowledgement of their reality in regards to discrimination and violence.
BS. If someone is beaten or killed for whatever reason, that is what the attackers did. It doesn’t matter if it was for robbery or “hate” or “fun” or whatever. It is the act that matters.
Geez, I hope you don’t get put on my jury if I ever have to shoot an intruder. After all, the guy is dead, so I should get the death penalty just as though I’d planned to murder him, right? It’s the action that matters, not the reason for the action.
Please look up the term “intent” and what it means legally and get back to us if you want anyone to take you seriously.
bizarre envy of victimhood
Bizarre? Victims get to feel good about themselves, because they’re the good guys, and they don’t have bitches giving them shit about how evil and oppressive they are. They get the kind of satisfaction you just can’t get if you hate yourself and have your head permanently lodged in your ass. Who wouldn’t want to be a victim?
bizarre envy of victimhood
There’s a reading of the New Testament that stresses victimhood and suffering for one’s beliefs. It’s fairly dominant in contemporary evangelical circles in which “spiritual warfare” is a central tenet–they’re always on the defensive.
These are very, very silly people. Unfortunately, they’re also very dangerous people.
““Hate crimes” aren’t “thought crimes” unless the difference between first-degree murder and manslaughter is a “thought crime”.”
Please, forgive me/correct me if I have this wrong.
I’m under the impression that the difference between murder and manslaughter is exactly that, the difference between what you “intended” to happen. Murder is that you intended to kill someone, manslaughter that you intended something else (something also a crime perhaps) but that someone was killed as a result.
So I would have thought that hate crimes are indeed thought crimes, in exactly the same way that the difference between murder and manslaughter is.
About the noose…. just wondering… should I be offended by my game of Clue?
Much of the analysis of the defeat of the hate crimes bill ignores Nancy Pelosi’s heterosexist bigotry. She gay-baited her way into office. She has severely sabotaged ENDA. Now, she has gone after hate crimes protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Pelosi is a pro-war, anti-impeachment, pro-corporate trade Republican who lives in SF. So, she pretends to be a liberal while pushing the Bush agenda whenever she can.
People need to face the unpleasant reality about Nancy Pelosi.
So I would have thought that hate crimes are indeed thought crimes, in exactly the same way that the difference between murder and manslaughter is.
So we need to eliminate the distinction between murder and manslaughter to avoid the danger of prosecuting “thought crimes”?