Tweet
It amazes me that Pulitzer Prize winning editorialist Paul Greenberg follows the talking points of conservative “Christians” like Focus On The Family, the American Family Association via their “news” organization OneNewsNow, and the Concerned Women for America (CWA audio files of Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona and Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright, for example) regarding hate crimes and the “thought crimes” meme.
But, in an Op-Ed of his I read just this morning in The Argus Leader by Mr. Greenburg entitled The annals of thoughtcrime, follows their lead in stating:
It’s back: the criminalization of thought.This time the same old bad idea has been all decked out in the latest newspeak. It’s now the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, aka HR 1913.
…But under the bill’s title, like a snake under a rock, is the dubious concept that George Orwell named concisely enough in “1984″: thoughtcrime…
I also learned the way a Pulitzer Prize winning editorialist makes points these days is either feigning ignorance, actually being proud of his ignorance, or just not doing his homework (emphasis added):
Another section of the bill applies to crimes committed “because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person.” There must be a reason for differentiating between gender and gender identity in the law, but I’d rather not guess.
I don’t have to guess. Angie Zapata’s hate crime murder is a reason for the differentiation that’s very fresh in my mind.
Have a read at the rest of Mr. Greenburg’s column — it reads to me as a lazy piece. Such as, the argument in his piece where he states…
The accused doesn’t become eligible for additional punishment unless he’s motivated by one of the designated politically incorrect hates named in the bill. All others are, in effect, discounted.
…so do we protect no one because the law doesn’t spell out all bigotries Mr. Greenburg can imagine? Is Mr. Greenburg arguing the law should be more expansive? No, he’s not. He’s arguing that because the law isn’t incredibly expansive, it can’t be made narrowly now, with a idea that we can add to this bill later. It appears to me he’s putting forward an affirming the consequent argument. It appears to me that he’s saying it’s better that statements that tell us that the bigotry of a perpetrator in the selection of a victim isn’t considered a worthy factor — well, not a worthy factor if every kind of bigotry Mr. Greenburg can imagine isn’t included.
Really. Well, my guess is he just doesn’t want to include lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people to any hate crime law. He doesn’t want to repeal federal hate crime laws on the books, he just doesn’t want to add teh homosexuals.
And “thought crimes?” Shouldn’t a Pulitzer Prize winning editorialist be familiar with R.A.V. v. City Of St. Paul, where speech essentially stops being free speech when it’s tied conduct? Shouldn’t he be giving us serious discussions of exactly how this federal hate crimes act winding it’s way through congress is substantially overbroad and impermissibly content based? How exactly the act as written in an unconstitutional manner that prohibits free speech that isn’t just limited in its reach to speech connected to violent conduct?
Shouldn’t he also be giving us serious discussions of this proposed federal act by taking into account Wisconsin v. Mitchell, which states:
[More below the fold.]
In determining what sentence to impose, sentencing judges have traditionally considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt, including a defendant’s motive for committing the offense. While it is equally true that a sentencing judge may not take into consideration a defendant’s abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the [508 U.S. 476, 477] admission of evidence concerning one’s beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because they are protected by the First Amendment. Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159; Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (plurality opinion). That Dawson and Barclay did not involve the application of a penalty-enhancement provision does not make them inapposite. Barclay involved the consideration of racial animus in determining whether to sentence a defendant to death, the most severe “enhancement” of all; and the state legislature has the primary responsibility for fixing criminal penalties. Motive plays the same role under the state statute as it does under federal and state antidiscrimination laws, which have been upheld against constitutional challenge. Nothing in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, supra, compels a different result here. The ordinance at issue there was explicitly directed at speech, while the one here is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment. Moreover, the State’s desire to redress what it sees as the greater individual and societal harm inflicted by bias-inspired conduct provides an adequate explanation for the provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders’ beliefs or biases. Pp. 485-488.
And…
Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought [508 U.S. 476, 488] to inflict greater individual and societal harm…The State’s desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders’ beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, “it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *16.
And…
The First Amendment, moreover, does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent. Evidence of a defendant’s previous declarations or statements is commonly admitted in criminal trials subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like.
We don’t get a kind of well reasoned piece from Mr. Greenburg — one that takes into account how the U.S. Supreme Court has handled hate crime issues in the past. Instead, we have a Pulitzer Prize winning editorialist just parroting the “thought crimes” meme.
Pathetic.
Below is the comment I left for Mr. Greenburg’s article, where my comment was the first one posted. I attacked his appeal to complexity argument regarding gender and gender identity:
I was in Greeley, Colorado, covering the trial of Allen Andrade from the courtroom for the blog Pam’s House Blend. Andrade was being tried for the bias crime murder of Angie Zapata, who was specifically selected as a victim of a brutal beating because she was transgender.While in the courtroom, I heard recorded jailhouse calls from Andrade where he called her “it” many times, said “Gay things must die,” and said “It’s not like I went up to a schoolteacher and shot her in the head or … killed a law-abiding straight citizen.”
Let’s be clear – Paul Greenburg may not be able to tell the difference between gender and gender identity, but transgender community members like me know what the difference is. We also know hate crimes aren’t for punishing victims for their crimes against the direct victim, but for the terror that these inflict on communities from selecting victims due to their community identity. Mr. Greenburg should have felt my fear as I left from San Diego for Greeley.
He also should feel my anger at him parroting the talking points of religious right organizations, but I didn’t have enough characters to convey that message in my 1000 character reply.
So, now, Mr. Greenburg, with all the others who are arguing that hate crime legislation is really “thought crime” legislation, you too own the words of convicted First Degree Murderer and Bias Motivated Criminal Allen Ray Andrade; you own the terror he fostered within transgender community members like me by committing his bias motivated crime.
You can choke on Andrade’s words along with all the conservative “Christian” organization folk.
~~~~~
Related:
* Pam’s House Blend tag: Angie Zapata
14 Comments
They have always positioned this kind of legislation this way…By, wrongly, focusing on the 5% of the bill that allows for sentencing enhancements.
I’d be glad to jettison that part of the legislation, if only to keep the focus on the real work of the bill: supporting local law enforcement.
What is that support?
As was the case in Jasper, Texas — providing federal law enforcement trained in this area; providing federal financial support for the local court system so that it didn’t bankrupt them to hold a capital case; and providing oversight so that local law enforcement officials wouldn’t buckle under the pressure of the political establishment.
That’s where the focus (and argument) needs to be:
Backing up law enforcement and making sure that the laws of this country are applied equally to everyone.
That’s what this legislation does.
Haters of Hate Crime LawsThis kind of sentiment is surprisingly popular. On the HuffPost, I am shocked (OK, not really) at how many folks say they “support” our fight for equality but get extremely defensive about other people’s “right” to brutally assault us 20x more viciously than other victims of violent crimes (but without being penalized more for their blatant HATRED of us).
Bob Cesca’s piece has some disturbing comments from those “in the middle”:
Republican Political Hackery and the Hate Crimes Bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
watching the house debate..
One can only hope that the s909 sponcers and co sponcers and the rest of the Senate will take a stand for equality and see through through the wing nut machine..and worry more for justice and equality than their own political asses..The wing nuts have had their day. It would be over due to send a message with the bill’s passage that the religious far right is not going to keep its strangle hold on this country..and the subsequent dumbing down that has gone along with it. They may have a well oiled machine, and it will challenge all of us to make our phone calls , write our letters..and point out to each and every senator that while we have our organizations. We do not march lock step. They need to pass this bill and bring it to the floor soon. These memes are growing..disinformation abounds…It is a chance for the Senate to send a message, that our society is setting out to go in a better direction. My biggest fear is that like politicians do – they will take the save their own ass way out and we the lgbtq will continue to be a political foot ball.
Thank you for a well researched post Autumn. We have to continue to lobby the Senators and point out that the people opposing this bill , are a MOB – and that we count on Congress, not to legislate the heart or morality but to set guideposts etc. To protect minorities from the tyranny of the MOB. We are a democracy, not a theorcracy etc. Urge them to do the right thing and continue to educate all the people we can possibly reach.
They are against them Because hate-crime enhancements would remind them what they really want to do is illegal.
While they may not actually physically assault someone but they would like to keep that as an option. After all, they considered LGBT (especially trans) less than human. They consider us uppity because we bring up the fact they would love to hurt us.
A few weeks ago, I listened to an hour of a Denver radio station overnight talk show. The subject that hour was the Angie Zapata trial verdict. Of the dozen or so who called in (all men BTW), thought Ms. Zapata while not killed, she should have beaten for her “deception”. I was shocked but not surprised of contempt and hatred.
Dena
Fuck themFine, they want to be all thought crimey, let’s call it by its real name:
Terrorism.
Hate crimes are terrorism, enacted against a minority group to cower them, make them know that they are considered lesser, that people from the dominant group or an opposing group will gladly kill them solely based on their inclusion in that group.
The Ku Klux Klan, the abortion clinic bombers, Allen Andrade. All of them terrorists.
We hear enough from these fuckers when the terrorists happen to be brown about how they can’t even look at American soil and oh noes, why do we have rights, how about we make them choke on the fact that they are perfectly willing to spend every ounce of their essence fighting for the well-being and coddling of domestic terrorists.
I spit on him.
Consider the SourcePaul Greenberg has been anti-gay since I first encountered his writings back in the 80s. He never met a pro-gay piece of legislation he liked or an anti-gay prejudice he disagreed with.
He lives in Arkansas, for chrissakes. And fits right in.
There are good arguments that can be made against the necessity of hate crimes legislation. Unfortunately for him, he’s either making them very badly, or not making them at all. And that ridiculous Robert Anton Wilson strawman attack against academia only makes him as a lunatic, while tarring all libertarians with the same brush.
C’mon Cerberus, don’t hold back…Tell us how you really feel…
Of course it’s not terrorism –If there are no cis-gendered white heterosexual Christian victims, then it can’t be terrorism! Terrorism is when “they” attack “us”, not vice-versa!
Exactly.I don’t agree with the well thought out arguments against federal hate crime legislation, but I do feel a few of these arguments probably should be addressed by legal scholars and law enforement specialists in the LGBT civil rights movement — some of the arguments against this particular piece of federal hate crime legislation seem pretty well reasoned to me.
But, even though there are good arguments to be made against hate crime legislation, Mr. Greenburg isn’t making any of those arguments. Honestly, I find it difficult to believe this poorly thought out, poorly researched, and fallacious argument ridden piece was actually written by a Pulitzer Prize winning editorialist.
Sorry for all the typosI become stressed thinking about all the hate directed toward us.
Dena
No there aren’tthere are arguments, but no good ones
Paul…Hi Paul Greenburg. I am sure that you must have written dozens of pieces about how it is just as immoral to murder LGBT individuals as it is to murder anyone else. Bullying LGBT (or any other) children should not be set aside as excusable, as you have elaborated, time after time…
And of course, you have condemned in no uncertain terms gay panic defenses, to the point where your arguments are quoted by all in court to cause their dismissal by presiding judges.
Your words and actions have ensured that there is no need to be on guard against hatred that kills, that it will not be excused, and no LGBT person need ever fear for their life; justice will be too swift and sure for those who would use violence against us…
What? You haven’t anything of the sort? Then why is anything you say on the matter relevant?
this is just good law.
The fact is, it’s the perpetrators themselves who have created this special class of crime. The new law simply recognizes an old fact. In many cases, the perpetrators have no connection to their victims, don’t even know them, had no reason to do anything to them, not even robbery. They chose to make a statement of their ideas, attitudes or feelings about another “kind” of person or perceived group of persons by committing what is, in any circumstances, a crime against them. They committed a crime against another person BECAUSE of that persons’ actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
Who and what the victim was provided the motivation for a criminal act. The perpetrator chose to break the law for the purpose of striking out against a whole group of people, an act of extraordinary anti-socialism. They chose to use crime to make a statement to all of society, to hurt and terrorize an entire class of human beings. They chose to move from thought to action, from thinking to doing, from abstract to concrete, from ideal to real. They forced this issue by moving beyond symbolism to actual crime. The new law does not criminalize thought, nor does it criminalize behavior that was not already criminal under the law: Assault, battery, rape, murder, arson, and other crimes of violence with intent to cause bodily injury: Crimes without a doubt, since time immemorial.
(rant continues here.)
.