It is a measure of a bitterly divided nation that few proposals in Congress produce as much hateful rhetoric as new hate crimes legislation.
While there are legitimate constitutional and policy questions surrounding the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which passed the House last week and is expected to come up soon in the Senate, the loudest and shrillest opposition is coming from groups that seem driven by outright bigotry and whose primary tactic is gross misrepresentation of fact.
And sadly, the Bush White House seems to be listening to that voice. In recent days President Bush, appealing to what remains of his base, has promised to veto the measure, claiming constitutional concerns.
The new hate crimes law, supported by a number of major Jewish groups and law enforcement and civil rights organizations, would make it easier for federal authorities to assist local jurisdictions in investigating and prosecuting such crimes.
That outrages some hardcore conservatives who say they oppose any expansion of federal authority.
But what has really inflamed opposition is a provision expanding existing hate crimes statutes to cover crimes based on disability, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation.
That, some critics say, represents a legitimatization of homosexuality, or “special privileges” for gays and lesbians. Worse, some critics claim, the measure would essentially outlaw criticism of homosexuality. Pastors who preach that homosexual behavior is a sin, they say, could be hauled off to jail; courts could define the Bible as hate literature.
Groups such as the Traditional Values Coalition, a vehemently anti-homosexual group, have shamelessly distorted the bill, suggesting it represents an all-out assault against Christianity.
An analysis distributed by the Alliance Defense Fund calls the bill a “discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings and beliefs and has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech.” That’s true— but only if your religious liberty involves physically attacking someone because you hate their lifestyle, their race, their religion or their gender status.
Old-fashioned bigotry
In fact, the bill has nothing to do with speech; it applies only to crimes of violence. Pastors would still be free to teach that homosexuality is a sin, talk show hosts would still be free to use their favorite slurs, Christian advocacy groups (and Orthodox Jewish ones, as well) would still be free to preach and lobby against gay marriage.
Underneath the claims about religious freedom are barely concealed appeals to old-fashioned bigotry.
On its Web site, the Traditional Values Coalition, which claims to be a legitimate advocacy organization with an active Capitol Hill presence, refers to the measure as the “Pro-Homosexual/Drag Queen Bill.”
Some groups on the religious right, using Orwellian reasoning, say the measure will foster child molestation and tie it to organizations advocating illicit relations with children.
The Family Research Council claims that if the bill is passed and signed into law, “a homosexual would have more federal protection than the 32 victims” of the Virginia Tech massacre.
No slur, stereotype or exaggeration is too much for opponents who claim lofty “religious freedom” motives, but whose language suggests something more visceral.
That is not to say there is no room for debate on whether new hate crimes legislation is needed. Hate crimes are on the increase, but there isn’t exactly a nationwide surge. Evidence on whether there is a widespread pattern of laxity or indifference by local law enforcement groups is not overwhelming. Still, numerous Jewish groups say that such laws are necessary because of a long pattern of regarding crimes against some groups of victims as matters of local custom, not as serious crimes.
In an ideal world, murder and assault would be punished the same whether the motive was robbery, revenge or hatred because of some characteristic of the victim.
But this is the real world, where blind justice is far from universal. In the South, lynching was once considered a legitimate means of enforcing local norms; long after the last lynching, African-Americans still face skewed law enforcement and judicial systems.
Jews, too, have often faced a justice gap. Federal hate crimes statutes were enacted, in part, to ensure anti-Semitic violence will be treated equally whether it occurs in Baltimore — or rural Georgia.
Today, victims of hate violence are more likely to be gays and lesbians or immigrants, but the idea is the same: when crimes against unpopular minorities are treated less seriously by the legal and law enforcement systems, all minorities are threatened.
An expanded hate crimes bill may not be the most urgent priority for a Congress facing an agenda overflowing with critical issues. But not passing it, many Jewish leaders fear — or allowing it to succumb to a presidential veto — will send out a clear message that unequal justice is okay.
And letting the hate crimes bill die once more will be a clear victory for groups that are battling it with outrageous distortions and ugly slurs, all in the name of what they call religious freedom.
Former Madisonian James D. Besser has been Washington correspondent for the New York Jewish Week and Baltimore Jewish Times since 1987.
Loading ...