Gay Patriot Header Image

GOProud Comments on Hate-Crime Legislation

Just released today from GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia….

(Washington, D.C.) — “In the next few days, the Democratic controlled House of Representatives will do exactly what the Republican controlled House in the 108th Congress did — pass hate crimes legislation.  In their cynical never-ending quest to lower expectations, the gay left will undoubtedly hail the passage of hate crimes legislation as ‘historic.’  While the passage of hate crimes may be laudable, its passage, and indeed even its enactment into law, is not historic.

“The truth is that Democrats have spent no political capital on moving on important election year promises such as the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the partial repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Instead of making excuses for the lack of action by Democrats in Washington, the leaders of the gay left should be demanding that Democrats commit to living up to the promises they made.”

That will be the day.  Oh, if you haven’t joined GOProud, please sign up and donate today.  Our group is the only one engaged in the issues that matter to gay conservatives in America.

I have committed $2,000 to the new organization.  Please help us spread the word!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

55 Comments

  1. It sounds like GOProud is faulting the Gay Left for not being Gay Left enough, and the Democrats for not being Democratic enough.

    Only my own dumb little $0.02 here, but I’d love to see GOProud criticize the concept of “hate crimes” legislation as such. “Hate crimes” laws violate Equal Protection and punish criminals for their political or social views. “Thought crimes” legislation would be the next logical step.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2009 @ 12:15 pm - April 23, 2009

  2. Disclaimer: The following is not an attack. It is an observation.

    GOProud appears to support the concept of hate crimes legislation; the idea that their passage is seen as a “laudable” victory for homosexuals. In a sense, GOProud is consistent.

    Last week, Bruce posted GOProud’s statement “Gay Conservatives Slam Obama For Ignoring Islamic Terror Against Gays”, referring to brutality against homosexuals in Islamic fundamentalist societies and the relative silence of liberal gay organizations, highlighting this silence as hypocritical. Just as I find this kind of Balkanized outrage problematic, it is exactly this kind of thinking that produces hate crimes legislation.

    Per hate crimes, such thinking regards homosexuals as victims above and beyond criminality directed at others, particularly those who don’t enjoy the status delineated in such legislation and (usually) seeks punishment beyond the standard sentences for similar violence against garden variety victims. The problem is the idea that bigotry is beyond standard criminal intent and must be punished separately in additional to existing statutes concerning the actual (usually physical) crime, i.e. that there now exists an additional category of mens rea — emotional but depending upon the cultural identity of the victim.

    Similarly, tailored outrage reserved for homosexual victims seeks special attention based upon the cause of the crime, i.e. the identity. Thus, the outrage is issued based upon an assumed link between all homosexuals. The problem with such specific outrage is that it too regards such victims as worthy of attention specific to the symptom rather than the cause, i.e. not merely because Islamic fascism is anti-reason, but specifically anti-homosexual.

    Both statements from GOProud are consistent and run profoundly against my understanding of conservatism.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2009 @ 1:18 pm - April 23, 2009

  3. I am disturbed that GOProud would call passage of hate crimes as “laudable.” I’d rather see the organization make a strong case as to why hate crimes legislation is a bad idea and why gays should not support them.

    Comment by Chicago — April 23, 2009 @ 2:00 pm - April 23, 2009

  4. Last week, Bruce posted GOProud’s statement “Gay Conservatives Slam Obama For Ignoring Islamic Terror Against Gays”, referring to brutality against homosexuals in Islamic fundamentalist societies and the relative silence of liberal gay organizations, highlighting this silence as hypocritical… it is exactly this kind of thinking that produces hate crimes legislation.

    No, it doesn’t. In fact, that’s an absurd claim.

    Gay groups exist to highlight issues of concern to gay people. If you don’t like that, then don’t join any. But “highlighting issues of concern” to group X is not the same as – and need not lead to, and should not lead to – calling for unconstitutional special-victim protections for group X. Indeed, a proper concern for gay rights / gay issues logically leads a person to take a strong stand for a universal right of free conscience, and therefore a stand against hate crimes legislation, as many of us on this blog have noted in many past discussions.

    The problem [with hate crimes laws] is the idea that bigotry is beyond standard criminal intent and must be punished separately…

    Indeed. We can agree on that part.

    Similarly, tailored outrage reserved for homosexual victims seeks special attention…

    Assuming that you still mean Bruce’s earlier post:
    (1) That’s not what his post did. You yourself noted that its point was rather to highlight somebody’s hypocrisy.
    (2) For the rest, see my second paragraph above.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - April 23, 2009

  5. For the record, my above post has been mischaracterized.

    What I wrote:

    Just as I find this kind of Balkanized outrage problematic, it is exactly this kind of thinking that produces hate crimes legislation.

    In other words, the kind of thinking that produces ‘gay outrage’ (specific, targeted outrage in the event of gay victims) is the same type of thinking that produces hate crimes legislation. The root: collectivism.

    That’s not what his post did. You yourself noted that its point was rather to highlight somebody’s hypocrisy.

    Once again, the analysis misses the point and ILC didn’t carefully read my words or GOProud’s words. Here is what I actually wrote:

    referring to brutality against homosexuals in Islamic fundamentalist societies and the relative silence of liberal gay organizations, highlighting this silence as hypocritical

    [emphasis added for the purposes of reading comprehension]

    Bruce’s post both issued outrage at the gay purges occurring in Islamic nations and highlighted the lack of outrage from GOProud’s leftist counterparts. In fact, GOProud is taking pains to issue the outrage it claims its leftist counterparts are not issuing. If one actually reads Bruce’s original post (available here), the vast majority of the text is devoted to the global war on terror, moral leadership of the U.S., and human rights. Only at the end does Bruce devote a two-line paragraph to the hypocrisy of HRC, HGLTF, and LCR.

    Gay groups exist to highlight issues of concern to gay people.

    Groups that organize around a social identity (sexuality, race, gender, etc.) may think that they exist to further the cause of the identity — however that is defined — but my understanding of conservatism does not regard with any importance such politically artificial boundaries, a basic restatement of my last sentence:

    Both statements from GOProud are consistent and run profoundly against my understanding of conservatism.

    In other words, GOProud is being consistently anti-conservative. This is my observation.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2009 @ 3:53 pm - April 23, 2009

  6. The ’emphasis added’ didn’t add. Once again:

    referring to brutality against homosexuals in Islamic fundamentalist societies and the relative silence of liberal gay organizations, highlighting this silence as hypocritical

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2009 @ 4:04 pm - April 23, 2009

  7. This is toothless legislation. This legislation is just what Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) does so she can say she’s passing gay centric legislation. As someone who was gay bashed I can tell you how empty it is. How can you prove it was gay motivated? Well, you can do what I did and tell the police the stuff they were yelling during the fight on me against three others, but if they deny it then what? Any answer to that would depend on the disposition of the police, and then the judge to want to accept it. This law will not protect anyone who wasn’t already in an area (jurisdiction) that is sensitive to such issues. Is classifying gay bashing a hate crime a good thing? Sure. Will passing this legislation change anything for the community as a whole? No.

    Comment by Nathan — April 23, 2009 @ 4:20 pm - April 23, 2009

  8. For the record, my above post has been mischaracterized, since in fact it characterized Iggy’s post correctly.

    Here is one way Iggy represented Bruce’s post:

    referring to brutality against homosexuals in Islamic fundamentalist societies and the relative silence of liberal gay organizations, highlighting this silence as hypocritical

    [emphasis added for the purposes of reading comprehension]

    Here is another way Iggy represented Bruce’s post, in the same comment:

    Similarly, tailored outrage reserved for homosexual victims seeks special attention based upon… identity.

    [emphasis added for the purposes of reading comprehension]

    Note the contradiction between the two. In other words, Iggy took a post of Bruce’s that by Iggy’s own, first account, was only “referring to” brutality against homosexuals in Islamist societies [quotes added for the purposes of reading comprehension]… and in the space of the same comment, represented it as “tailored outrage reserved for homosexual victims [that] seeks special attention based upon… identity.”.

    I pointed out the absurdity of the leap and, contra Iggy’s account of my comment, my analysis was in fact correct. As for the rest:

    Bruce’s post… issued outrage at the gay purges occurring in Islamic nations…

    Again: Gay groups exist to highlight issues of concern to gay people. If you don’t like that, then don’t join any. But “highlighting issues of concern” to group X is not the same as – and need not lead to, and should not lead to – calling for unconstitutional special-victim protections for group X. Indeed, a proper concern for gay rights / gay issues logically leads a person to take a strong stand for a universal right of free conscience, and therefore a stand against hate crimes legislation, as many of us on this blog have noted in many past discussions.

    GOProud is being consistently anti-conservative. This is my observation.

    A sine qua non of something being an “observation”, as distinct from – oh, say, an attack, is that it refer to reality in a logical, fair and accurate manner. As with others of your observations, your present observation does not meet the standard.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2009 @ 4:28 pm - April 23, 2009

  9. Sorry, I should have put “observation” in scare quotes twice, for the purposes of reading comprehension, like this:

    A sine qua non of something being an “observation”, as distinct from – oh, say, an attack – is that it refer to reality in a logical, fair and accurate manner. As with others of your “observations”, your present observation does not meet the standard.

    Emphasis added for the purposes of reading comprehension.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2009 @ 4:37 pm - April 23, 2009

  10. Back on the topic, GOProud –

    Bruce, I asked this before – Are we saying it “go-proud”, or “gee – oh – proud”?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2009 @ 4:56 pm - April 23, 2009

  11. Bruce, I agree with the boldface paragraph highlighted in the post. I don’t see any evidence either of the Democrats moving on removal of DADT and federal civil union legislation. I’m assuming that GOProud will be pressing Republican congressman to support these issues?

    As for hate crimes, I’m still on the fence on that one. If there are going to be protected classes, it seems inconsistent to favor one class, but specifically not afford homosexuals the same protected class status, especially since there are still clearly too many hate crimes against homosexuals. If hate crimes are a bad idea, then repeal it for ALL protected classes.

    The problem is the idea that bigotry is beyond standard criminal intent and must be punished separately in additional to existing statutes concerning the actual (usually physical) crime, i.e. that there now exists an additional category of mens rea — emotional but depending upon the cultural identity of the victim.

    Ignatius, he same is somewhat true for murder vs. manslaughter. The crimes are the same physical crime. But one accrues a much higher penalty because of the intent (i.e., thoughts) of the person committing the crime.

    I don’t see murder or hate crimes punishing thoughts. For example, I don’t want to punish someone who wishes someone was dead, or for thinking that homosexuals should be bashed. It’s only when the thoughts turn into actions that criminality comes into question.

    I am surprised that GOProud appears to support hate crimes legislation. But then again, there is no rule that says a political organization has to be 100% consistent with some ideology.

    Comment by Pat — April 23, 2009 @ 5:01 pm - April 23, 2009

  12. I don’t see murder or hate crimes punishing thoughts.

    Pat, Hate Crimes laws punish social and political views. They say, in essence, that the crime is worse (or deserves heavier punishment) because of the social or political views that were supposedly expressed in the crime.

    Not to head you off, but just to save time… At this point, some people will say “Well, the views expressed in the crime mean that the criminal was targeting the community. He committed a crime against the community.” Then I’ll point out that *all* crimes are crimes against the community; it’s the reason our criminal law applies to all members of the community equally (or it should), and the reason criminal cases are titled “The People vs.” the criminal.

    Then my opponent might say “But the person was trying to terrorize the community. Think of it as terrorism.” Then I’ll say, “Fine. Let terrorism be defined as a crime, with an objective definition and its own punishments. Is that what this bill is doing?” Then they can’t say anything more.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2009 @ 5:32 pm - April 23, 2009

  13. Are we saying it “go-proud”, or “gee – oh – proud”?

    I had wondered the same thing, but I think it’s the latter. The other way, I was thinking, was G-O-P-roud which is silly.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 23, 2009 @ 5:45 pm - April 23, 2009

  14. i don’t have a real strong opinion on the issue of hate crimes, but just a couple thoughts:

    1) pat makes a good point about murder (first degree versus second degree or even manslaughter). obviously the intent of the defendant matters.

    2) some people gripe that a crime is a crime is a crime. i think, however, the point of the added severity of a hate crime charge is that the crime committed in a “hate crime” goes further than the crime itself. people seeking out members of a particular group to do them harm do more than hurt the individual victim. they incite fear in an entire community of people. they tell a group of people “you are not welcome in this community” and make target that specific group of people in a way that goes beyond a non-hate crime. of course, just b/c the victim of a crime is gay, that doesn’t mean the crime was a hate-crime.

    3) i believe people who cry about “special treatment” are mistaken. the hate crime legislation i have seen usually says something about crimes based on sexual orientation or sexual identity. it isn’t just for “homosexuals”. in other words, one could be prosecuted for a hate crime against heterosexuals if his motive was based on a hatred of straight people. in the same way, if some militant black nationalist group went around attacking random white people, that would be a hate crime.

    that said, i don’t have terribly strong feelings about this issue. but if we have this legislation for race, religion, etc., then i don’t see why sexual orientation should not be included as well.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 23, 2009 @ 6:25 pm - April 23, 2009

  15. ILC is wrong yet again.

    Note the contradiction between the two. In other words, Iggy took a post of Bruce’s that by Iggy’s own, first account, was only “referring to” brutality against homosexuals in Islamist societies … identity

    Nope. Bruce’s original post is issuing outrage (at Islamic fascism) and pointing to the hypocrisy of leftist gay organizations for not doing same. Read the post.

    If Bruce (via GOProud) weren’t stating the outrage he thinks leftists should be stating, then he’d be a hypocrite. I’ve repeatedly pointed out that GOProud is being consistent. The only inconsistency I’m noting is between GOProud’s statements and my understanding of conservatism.

    It’s really that simple — for the purposes of reading comprehension.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2009 @ 6:33 pm - April 23, 2009

  16. Read the post.

    [blockquoting added for the purposes of reading comprehension.] Standard Iggy goalpost-shifting; no wonder you like Levi. But I read and responded to the leaps (or contradictory implications) in your comment. We were discussing that.

    Iggy, give it up. As you put it, your key observation is now:

    GOProud is being consistently anti-conservative. This is my observation.

    [blockquoting added for the purposes of reading comprehension.] And you have not demonstrated it. As I put it:

    A sine qua non of something being an “observation”, as distinct from – oh, say, an attack, is that it refer to reality in a logical, fair and accurate manner. As with others of your “observations”, your above observation does not meet the standard.

    [blockquoting added for the purposes of reading comprehension. ] Up next: cue Iggy quoting me out-of-context in an attempt to shift the discussion to me-as-a-person or to my (imagined) situation, in 4… 3… 2…

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2009 @ 6:45 pm - April 23, 2009

  17. iggy: i wouldn’t waste your time. arguing with ILC is like trying to teach a giraffe integration by parts.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 23, 2009 @ 6:51 pm - April 23, 2009

  18. The thought that bob, Levi, Iggy and a special few others have that reaction to me gives me sort of a warm, fuzzy feeling. After all: I class them together in my own mind, based on the low tactics I see them employ when the going gets rough. They fit together, in my mind. The fact that they in turn class me with some of the great people on this blog, certain people that I really like, adds to the feeling. It’s like this little part of the universe is coherent and ordered. 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2009 @ 7:01 pm - April 23, 2009

  19. #14

    I’m in shock, boob finally shows some rational thought. But I do have to challenge just a bit.

    Point number 1, Does the intent really matter? Dead is dead, if you intended to rob me and end up killing me, I am equally as dead as if you had intented to just plain out kill me.

    Point number 2. While I can understand that a crime directed at a member of particular group can instill fear in that group, then we must consider all groups. I happen to be a disabled older middle aged man; if I am attacked and robbed, wouldn’t all other disabled older middle aged men in my neighborhood have fear instilled in them? Should that crime carry special weight? Am I a member of a special “victim’s” group?

    Point number 3. I agree completely, however, the motive of a crime simply does not justify special treatment of OFFENDERS. If I am killed because I am a disabled older middle aged man I am just as dead as if I were killed because I happen to be gay.

    I recall back in the 2004 election, Bush was attacked by the family of the black man who was so viciously murdered by those cretins in Texas who dragged him behind a pick up truck. Two of the three were given the death penalty, one received life in prison if I remember correctly. The man’s family attacked him because at the time there was no hate crime legislation in Texas. I just have to ask, how could the punishment have been any greater? Should we have executed the two sentenced to death twice? Or given multiple life sentences for the other who already had no chance of parole?

    Hate crime laws are laws against thought. Only if those thoughts are acted on, in violation of already existing laws, should they be punished.

    Comment by John in Dublin, CA — April 23, 2009 @ 7:05 pm - April 23, 2009

  20. #17 bob, I’m trying to figure out if his intention is merely attention or if he really doesn’t understand. Both?

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2009 @ 7:07 pm - April 23, 2009

  21. iggy: i don’t think he really tries to understand the argument; he’s more focused on scrambling to take any minute part of your comment and twist it in an attempt to get the upper hand.

    sadly for him, we all see through it.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 23, 2009 @ 7:30 pm - April 23, 2009

  22. Iggy and bob: Belong together.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2009 @ 8:57 pm - April 23, 2009

  23. the crime committed in a “hate crime” goes further than the crime itself. people seeking out members of a particular group to do them harm do more than hurt the individual victim. they incite fear in an entire community of people.

    A bad point; refuted at #12.

    the hate crime legislation i have seen usually says something about crimes based on sexual orientation or sexual identity. it isn’t just for “homosexuals”. in other words, one could be prosecuted for a hate crime against heterosexuals

    So what? Changes the Orwellian, fascist character of such laws – i.e., punishing people for their social or political views – not one whit.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2009 @ 9:02 pm - April 23, 2009

  24. #19 John – Excellent points. Hate crimes laws elevate one group above another, because one can never list all the characteristics that anyone might conceivably hate in some form. Whose characteristic is not listed, is now “less equal” than everyone else. Hey, I have a great idea. Why don’t we simply have objective criminal laws that apply to all people equally, regardless of their characteristics?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2009 @ 9:06 pm - April 23, 2009

  25. GOP PROUD.

    Assault is a crime no matter who commits it and hate is a given when an assault occurs.

    Comment by EDinTampa — April 23, 2009 @ 9:08 pm - April 23, 2009

  26. So, GOProud, an organization full of people who OPPOSE adding sexual orientation to hate crimes laws, OPPOSE laws banning Gay people from being fired for being Gay are upset because the Dems aren’t moving faster to pass the things they oppose? I’m a bit curious as to this.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — April 23, 2009 @ 9:16 pm - April 23, 2009

  27. Don’t have much to add except:

    1.) The problem with hate-crimes legislation is that it categorizes victims into a hierarchy. Who’s life are we more outraged at losing? A white woman’s? A black man’s? A gay teen’s? You can see how pernicious and ultimately degrading this excercise is.

    2.) I’m pretty sure it’s “GO. PROUD.” The CNN interviewer who talked with LaSalvia pronounced it that way. I’m sure if it was wrong, he would have corrected her. Then again this is the same network that hired that shrike Roesgen…

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — April 23, 2009 @ 9:41 pm - April 23, 2009

  28. Who’s life are we more outraged at losing? A white woman’s? A black man’s? A gay teen’s? You can see how pernicious and ultimately degrading this excercise is.

    I think that may be the point. Along similar lines, ever notice that the people who’re kidnapped/murdered, who make it on the evening news, are fairly good looking? The better looking, it seems, the longer it stays in the news.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 23, 2009 @ 11:56 pm - April 23, 2009

  29. In other words, the kind of thinking that produces ‘gay outrage’ (specific, targeted outrage in the event of gay victims) is the same type of thinking that produces hate crimes legislation. The root: collectivism.

    Not in the way you mean, Iggy. Let’s unpack it, for the record. Disclaimer: The following is not an attack. It is an observation. I’m an anti-collectivist and it will help organize my thoughts, even though you won’t learn anything.

    First, the Islamists are collectivists, through and through. That they persecute gays as a group, is only a symptom. But so they do. Next, the Gay Left are collectivists. Next, Bruce wrote a post which cleverly connected the two: the gay persecution on the Islamists’ part and the hypocritical ignoring-of-it on the Gay Left’s part. You’ve argued in essence that it was collectivist of Bruce to do that, or as you put it a bit later, “anti-conservative”. A typically absurd Iggy claim. Let’s skip over the fact that the quotation from Jimmy LaSalvia at the heart of Bruce’s post didn’t even mention the words ‘gay’ or ‘gays’ once, talking instead about universal human rights concerns, because you (and bob and Levi) don’t like to be corrected with facts. In fact, I’ve said more than enough now on all those bits; let’s move along.

    Let’s look instead at your characterization of Bruce and GOProud as “consistently anti-conservative”. The funny part is, even if you were right that LaSalvia’s statement and Bruce’s posts have manifested a collectivist streak (which they haven’t), there still wouldn’t be anything “anti-conservative” about it, because there is a strong streak of collectivism in traditional conservatism. Just a different kind than what the lefties like. Jonathan Rauch just wrote a big essay on it, that GPW called to our attention. Rauch called it something like ‘Burkean communitarianism’, I believe. It’s a limited or non-totalitarian form of collectivism, and it’s probably the main reason that I cannot call myself a conservative unless I carefully qualify the word with ‘libertarian’ – just as I can no longer call myself a liberal unless I carefully qualify the word with ‘classical’, meaning 19th-century / laissez-faire capitalist.

    So, there’s that as well. Even if your analysis of Bruce and GOProud were correct (which is laughably not the case), your calling them “anti-conservative” for it would still be misplaced / incorrect.

    Finally, and humorously, there’s the fact that you’re now working with bob in this thread… someone who is so utterly collectivist – and by that I mean, worshiping of State power; fascist – that he can’t see it, just like a fish can’t see the water it swims in. And, by the way, a guy who believes in hate crimes legislation. 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2009 @ 12:22 am - April 24, 2009

  30. […] GOProud Comments on Hate-Crime Legislation […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Democrats Delaying Repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell — April 24, 2009 @ 4:40 am - April 24, 2009

  31. Pat, Hate Crimes laws punish social and political views. They say, in essence, that the crime is worse (or deserves heavier punishment) because of the social or political views that were supposedly expressed in the crime.

    ILC, I get your point here. But we already do that for murder vs. manslaughter. And as I said, I absolutely do not want anyone being punished for their thoughts. I don’t think that is the intention of hate crime laws, at least it shouldn’t be. The intention, as I see it, is that one can have all the hateful thoughts they want, but they cannot use them to commit a crime against the people they hate. In other words, victims shouldn’t be punished for the perpetrators thoughts as well. So why the additional penalties? By making a point that turning their thoughts into a crime may accrue additional penalties could act as a deterrent. If that in itself reduces crime, hate crime laws may be worth it.

    As for the supposedly part, when a defendant is on trial, everything about the crime is “supposedly.” The prosecution has the burden of proof to show the defendant committed the crime. And also, if applicable, to prove beyond reasonable doubt what the motivation was. This has to be done with murder charges as well.

    Anyway, I’m still on the fence on this issue. While I think it’s a terrible mistake to not include sexual orientation as a protected class, I do see how it would be difficult to decide what all the protected classes should be. And having a harsher penalty for a crime motivated by hate against a group vs. hate against the victim seems unfair. Perhaps what may be useful is to use the same criteria that differentiates the crime of murder vs. mansaughter, with assault and other crimes.

    Comment by Pat — April 24, 2009 @ 6:57 am - April 24, 2009

  32. ILC, full of win.

    Tell me Ignatius, have the various left leaning civil rights groups (ACLU, NAACP, ActUP et al.) filed amicus briefs to the supreme court on the side of the firemen who’s test results were thrown out because they resulted in promotitons that were ‘too white’? Have they condemned the DHS report on rightwing groups? Surely if they weren’t expecting those laws to be exploited to their advantage, they’d be howling at the thought of people not of their ‘clique’ being punished for being of a certain group.

    Or (and Peter, I think you had the links to this) have they condemned the firefighter who ordered her people to march in a gay pride parade for fear of termination or reprisal? Until I see that, your argument of ‘well it protects the majority’ rings hollow.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 24, 2009 @ 7:03 am - April 24, 2009

  33. Point number 1, Does the intent really matter? Dead is dead, if you intended to rob me and end up killing me, I am equally as dead as if you had intented to just plain out kill me.

    John, sure, it doesn’t matter to the victim since he is dead. But that’s also the case if it was an accident. But that isn’t a crime, unless negligence lead to the accident. But in your example, there is a huge difference in the penalty.

    Also, in the rob and kill example, depending on the circumstances, that could be murder depending on the intent. For example, if the robber decided that he had to kill you so you won’t tell the police, that’s murder, even if the time between the thought and his actions was only seconds.

    I recall back in the 2004 election, Bush was attacked by the family of the black man who was so viciously murdered by those cretins in Texas who dragged him behind a pick up truck.

    I don’t recall the family’s reaction and criticism of Bush, so I’m not sure what their rationale was. Sure, I agree that you can’t really add any additional penalty to the death penalty. I wonder if the family’s point is that if hate crimes legislation was on the books, that they believe that might have deterred the perpetrator. They may not seem plausible, but who knows for sure?

    Comment by Pat — April 24, 2009 @ 7:11 am - April 24, 2009

  34. Pat,

    I remember that ad. Since the voice over said in relation to not having a hate crime law, “It was like he was dragged to death all over again” I doubt they were campaigning for deterence.

    I guess my problem is, if I’m killed for my wallet, or I’m killed because some eco-nut decides I’m ‘white, fat, and a threat to the earth’ either way I’m dead, and he felt he had a motive for killing me. Why is ‘fat white guy’ so much worse than ‘guy with wallet’?

    Comment by The Livewire — April 24, 2009 @ 10:03 am - April 24, 2009

  35. Livewire,

    Tell me Ignatius, have the various left leaning civil rights groups (ACLU, NAACP, ActUP et al.) filed amicus briefs to the supreme court on the side of the firemen who’s test results were thrown out because they resulted in promotitons that were ‘too white’? Have they condemned the DHS report on rightwing groups? Surely if they weren’t expecting those laws to be exploited to their advantage, they’d be howling at the thought of people not of their ‘clique’ being punished for being of a certain group.

    Your point is?

    Comment by Ignatius — April 24, 2009 @ 10:28 am - April 24, 2009

  36. But we already do that for murder vs. manslaughter.

    Sorry Pat, we don’t. The difference between murder and manslaughter is the person’s degree of intent to kill… not their social or political views.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2009 @ 10:44 am - April 24, 2009

  37. Bruce wrote a post which cleverly connected the two: the gay persecution on the Islamists’ part and the hypocritical ignoring-of-it on the Gay Left’s part.

    Never mind that ILC above disagreed that that is what Bruce wrote for the purposes of disagreeing with me. Glad he finally read it.

    Let’s look instead at your characterization of Bruce and GOProud as “consistently anti-conservative” … So, there’s that as well. Even if your analysis of Bruce and GOProud were correct (which is laughably not the case), your calling them “anti-conservative” for it would still be misplaced / incorrect.

    Wrong again. Conservatism theoretically does not practice the identity politics of the left. Identity politics places identity (race, sexuality, gender) over or in the center of political considerations, usually resulting in legislation crafted to appeal to or give special compensation to members of various groups. This is a form of collectivism. Conservatism theoretically rejects the notion of identity politics in favor of policies that benefit everyone regardless of such social identites.

    GOProud has issued two statements which Bruce has posted here at GayPatriot. The first deals with Islamic terrorism as expressed through what he terms “gay purges” and the hypocrisy of the gay left in not expressing outrage. The second deals with hate crimes legislation, calling them “laudable”. Bruce is expressing an outrage that is based upon the sexual identity of the victims of gay purges (identity politics) and the laudable nature of hate crimes legislation (identity politics). The connection between the two is collectivism, specifically identity politics based upon sexuality. This is anti-conservative.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 24, 2009 @ 10:49 am - April 24, 2009

  38. Pat, in other words: If the crime is killing, it matters how much the person actually intended to kill. If the crime is stealing, it matters how much the person actually intended to steal (e.g., if they were armed). If the crime is assault, it matters how much the person actually intended to assault (vs. merely to defend).

    But now we’re saying, the crime is killing, stealing or assault and… we’re going to look at the person’s political and social views, apart from their supporting role in establishing (or, as punishable in addition to) the person’s actual intent to kill, steal or assault. That can’t be good.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2009 @ 10:52 am - April 24, 2009

  39. Never mind that ILC above disagreed that that is what Bruce wrote for the purposes of disagreeing with me.

    Except I didn’t. In earlier posts, I accepted your characterization – oops, I mean one of your two contradictory characterizations – of Bruce’s post:

    Here is one way Iggy represented Bruce’s post:

    referring to brutality against homosexuals in Islamic fundamentalist societies and the relative silence of liberal gay organizations, highlighting this silence as hypocritical

    [emphasis added for the purposes of reading comprehension]

    Which I was fine with. Enough for your trying to stuff words in my mouth; let’s move along:

    Conservatism theoretically does not practice the identity politics of the left.

    Then what are you doing on this blog, Iggy? Did you notice that it’s a political blog with the identity word “GAY” in the title?

    The connection between the two is collectivism, specifically identity politics based upon sexuality. This is anti-conservative.

    The way you’ve structured that, it logically follows that all collectivism is inherently anti-conservative. (You have been identifying identity politics as a mere instance of the greater and deeper offense, the latter being collectivism and the thing that would make identity politics “anti-conservative”.) Then… what do you make of the collectivism-within-limits aspects of Burke and many others in the conservative tradition? (which some admirers such as Rauch prefer to call “communitarianism”) Will you now have the guts to argue, as logically you should, that only you know the one true conservatism; Burke and other traditional conservatives don’t?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2009 @ 11:10 am - April 24, 2009

  40. #32 – Here you go, LW:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57022

    Also, as a footnote to the above story, not only were the firefighters awarded $34,000 in damages due to sexual harassment, but now the city of San Diego is trying to appeal the judgment:

    http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story/City-to-Appeal-Firefighters-Awards-in-Gay-Pride/hqGM38lBXUOLMOUA2mKrRQ.cspx

    In short – equal rights for me, but none for thee. Typical liberal mindset.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 24, 2009 @ 11:13 am - April 24, 2009

  41. Thank you Peter,

    You reiterated my point, saving me the effort of typing it again, since Ignatius didn’t seem to understand the ‘if hate crime laws are so good, surely those groups would be supporting their use when it’s not their ox being gored’ bit the first time around.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 24, 2009 @ 11:48 am - April 24, 2009

  42. I remember that ad. Since the voice over said in relation to not having a hate crime law, “It was like he was dragged to death all over again” I doubt they were campaigning for deterence.

    Livewire, thanks. Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing or hearing about the ad.

    I guess my problem is, if I’m killed for my wallet, or I’m killed because some eco-nut decides I’m ‘white, fat, and a threat to the earth’ either way I’m dead, and he felt he had a motive for killing me. Why is ‘fat white guy’ so much worse than ‘guy with wallet’?

    As a victim of the crime, it doesn’t matter. Dead is dead. But there are different degrees of the severity of crime, depending on how it happened, and what you thinking before and at the time it happened.

    Comment by Pat — April 24, 2009 @ 11:51 am - April 24, 2009

  43. ILC, I have a comment pending.

    Comment by Pat — April 24, 2009 @ 12:05 pm - April 24, 2009

  44. Then what are you doing on this blog, Iggy? Did you notice that it’s a political blog with the identity word “GAY” in the title?

    Discussing with others who share my sexual identity is quite different from supporting hate crimes legislation and issuing statements of specified outrage re. crimes against homosexuals. I suppose ILC will now complain that my having a boyfriend is “collectivism” and that my sharing anti-collectivist views with other anti-collectivists is in the same sense “collectivism”.

    Will you now have the guts to argue, as logically you should, that only you know the one true conservatism; Burke and other traditional conservatives don’t?

    Observe my previous statements way back in the thread:

    #2 — Both statements from GOProud are consistent and run profoundly against my understanding of conservatism.

    #5 — but my understanding of conservatism does not regard with any importance such politically artificial boundaries.

    #15 — The only inconsistency I’m noting is between GOProud’s statements and my understanding of conservatism.

    It can be seen that I have maintained that my understanding of conservatism* does not agree with the collectivism Bruce (via GOProud) is expressing. ILC’s logic (“…as you logically should…”) is bad logic, i.e. that my statements in any way imply that my definition of conservatism is the only definition, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. This is, quite simply, argument in bad faith. To ignore the differentiation I have taken pains to repeatedly state and then make it an argument against me is deliberately counter-productive.

    * For the record, I am not a conservative and this is partly why I kept repeating “my understanding of conservatism”. The term conservatism is a broad one. It’s only reasonable to approach such terms generally, acknowledging various interpretations, even if general trends can be observed such as rejecting identity politics. This I have done by any reasonable standard.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 24, 2009 @ 12:09 pm - April 24, 2009

  45. depending on how it happened, and what you thinking before and at the time it happened.

    Why? I mean why is ‘I want is wallet’ lower on the offence-o-meter than ‘he’s a fat whte guy, get him!’ And who determines why the perp did it? I mean if I’m killing the fat white guy, I’m going to say “I was going for his wallet’ if I know it wil get me a lighter sentence than “I was going to kill the fat white guy.”

    Then you’re requiring the jury to read my mind.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 24, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - April 24, 2009

  46. Why? I mean why is ‘I want is wallet’ lower on the offence-o-meter than ‘he’s a fat whte guy, get him!’ And who determines why the perp did it? I mean if I’m killing the fat white guy, I’m going to say “I was going for his wallet’ if I know it wil get me a lighter sentence than “I was going to kill the fat white guy.”

    Livewire, defendants lie sometimes. It’s up to the prosecutor to sort out and prove what really happened, and if applicable, the intent. I get what you’re saying about fairness here, but as I said, there are several degrees of punishment for homocide.

    Then you’re requiring the jury to read my mind.

    They’ve been doing it ever since murder was a crime.

    Comment by Pat — April 24, 2009 @ 12:19 pm - April 24, 2009

  47. #46 read the mind if it’s the defense’s choice, this changes it to the prosecution.

    Insanity Plea: I did it, but was unable to tell between good and evil at the time.

    Murder vs. Manslaughter: It was a heat of the moment, it was an accident, I did it but didn’t mean to.

    Hate crime: Not only did he do it but he did it because he is a hater.

    It’s a completely different standard. In the first two, the prosecutor has to prove the mindset requires the higher penalty. In the later, the defendant has to prove a negative about himself.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 24, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - April 24, 2009

  48. I suppose ILC will now complain that my having a boyfriend is “collectivism” and that my sharing anti-collectivist views with other anti-collectivists is in the same sense “collectivism”.

    I think you’re confusing me with you, Iggy. Of the two of us, only you habitually make statements which are that warped and stupid.

    To wit, this thread: where you have tried to argue, in essence, that Bruce’s connecting the hypocritical Gay Left and the gay-hating Islamists would somehow make Bruce a collectivist. LOL 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - April 24, 2009

  49. Pat, I haven’t seen the comment you meant – but if worse comes to worst, you know I respect your input and there will be another time.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2009 @ 10:38 pm - April 24, 2009

  50. It’s a completely different standard. In the first two, the prosecutor has to prove the mindset requires the higher penalty. In the later, the defendant has to prove a negative about himself.

    Livewire, my understanding was that proving an act was a hate crime would require the same burden on the prosecution as proving any other crime. And the defendant doesn’t have to prove anything. I oppose any hate crime statute that does not have the prosecution with the burden of proof. If that is the case for hate crime statutes as it is now, I oppose them.

    Comment by Pat — April 25, 2009 @ 7:08 am - April 25, 2009

  51. Pat, I haven’t seen the comment you meant – but if worse comes to worst, you know I respect your input and there will be another time.

    Thanks, ILC. I see my comment didn’t make it, so I’ll try to repeat what I wrote yesterday.

    Sorry Pat, we don’t. The difference between murder and manslaughter is the person’s degree of intent to kill… not their social or political views.

    You’re right. Although it’s possible that the motivating factor of a murder could be social or political views, it doesn’t have to be. So it is different.

    One of the points I was trying to make was that one of the arguments against hate crimes laws is that thoughts are being punished. My argument is that (even though the type of thoughts are different), murder is punishing thoughts, in addition to the crime of homocide.

    But now we’re saying, the crime is killing, stealing or assault and… we’re going to look at the person’s political and social views, apart from their supporting role in establishing (or, as punishable in addition to) the person’s actual intent to kill, steal or assault. That can’t be good.

    Okay, but as I said above, one’s political and social views can be their motivation to commit homocide or other physical crimes. For example, if a person hates gay persons so much that he wishes them dead, decides to stand outside a gay bar and waits for the next person who exits that he perceives as gay, and then kills him, this crime is murder, even though the only motive was his social views. The prosecutor would need to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The prosecutor can look into the social and political views of the defendant all he wants. Just like for murder cases, he can look into the relationship between he and his victim, and speculate what how the defendant thought about the relationship, etc. But the prosecutor has the burden of proof that these thoughts were the motivation. As I mentioned in my previous post, I oppose any hate crime statute in which the burden of proof is not the same as any other crime.

    Comment by Pat — April 25, 2009 @ 7:25 am - April 25, 2009

  52. murder is punishing thoughts, in addition to the crime of homocide…

    Not quite. Again, and as you point out:

    …one’s political and social views can be their motivation…

    A murder conviction punishes the person’s degree of intent to commit the murder. To convict someone of murder, you must show that their behavior was intentional. As a supporting piece of that, you must show their likely motive. I agree that the criminal’ssocial and political views may be relevant in terms of their motive.

    BUT – once you have completed the process of establishing the person’s motive and intent to murder: the person’s social and political views should play no further role. Given, say, that you and I both committed murders with equal degree of intent, it should make no difference that one of us had a financial or family motive (say) and the other had a racial motive (say). If we both murdered with full intent, we have both terrorized the community and deserve heavy punishment. If other factors are equal (number of murders, prior record, etc.), our punishments should be equal.

    Hate crimes laws say that the person’s views will be used not only to establish the person’s motive and intent (where they are relevant), but as a reason for extra punishments. That’s wrong. It has a chiling effect on freedom of conscience. And that, it may be said, is the purpose of “hate crimes” laws: sometimes you can get their advocates to admit that they want to intimidate people from expressing certain views. That’s not right.

    The prosecutor can look into the social and political views of the defendant all he wants.

    Agreed – for the reasons, and within the limits, that I’ve given. The person’s social and political views may form part of their motive, and therefore may establish their murderous intent. Once intent is established, they should play no further role. They should not be the occasion for any ‘extra’ punishment.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 27, 2009 @ 8:04 pm - April 27, 2009

  53. ILC, I pretty much agree with what you are saying here. That’s why I have been on the fence regarding hate crime laws.

    This is the part where we still may disagree.

    Hate crimes laws say that the person’s views will be used not only to establish the person’s motive and intent (where they are relevant), but as a reason for extra punishments. That’s wrong. It has a chiling effect on freedom of conscience. And that, it may be said, is the purpose of “hate crimes” laws: sometimes you can get their advocates to admit that they want to intimidate people from expressing certain views. That’s not right.

    I still maintain that, in murder, the same thing is done. The purpose of a prosecutive to establish motive and intent is so that extra penalties (murder vs. manslaughter) can be given. So what I’m saying is I don’t want to punish the person for having certain thoughts, except when they use those thoughts in the commission of a crime such as homocide or other physical crimes.

    Where I do agree with you is that it shouldn’t make a difference if the thoughts had to do with racial, sexual orientation, financial, or family motives. Again, have any thoughts you want. But if these thoughts are motives to commit a physical crime, then extra penalties are justified.

    So, I would favor generalizing hate crime laws to a similar way that we separate murder from manslaughter.

    Comment by Pat — April 28, 2009 @ 7:07 am - April 28, 2009

  54. I disagree or at least want to find out more exactly what you mean, but this thread is getting old! Thanks for the discussion.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 28, 2009 @ 11:55 am - April 28, 2009

  55. Okay, no problem. I’m sure the topic will come up again.

    Comment by Pat — April 28, 2009 @ 5:39 pm - April 28, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.