Post by Anja Nieser on Oct 1, 2006 5:17:27 GMT -5
Hate crimes still run rampant in our society
On June 7, 1998, James Byrd Jr. was beaten, chained to a truck and dragged
three miles to his death in rural Jasper County, Texas. Mr. Byrd was
black, his murderers were white.
According to the autopsy, Byrd was probably alive when his right arm and
head were severed from his body. Following the sub-human murder, the men
disposed of Mr. Byrd's partially dismembered body in the town's black
cemetery, then went to a barbeque.
Later that year, the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act was introduced in the
Texas legislature. No one doubted - from local law enforcement to the FBI
- that the brutal murder had been motivated by racism. Two of the
murderers, in fact, were self-avowed white supremacists.
Regardless of the horrific nature of the crime and the apparent racist
motives of the murderers, the bill died in a Senate subcommittee. The
suspicion at the time was that the bill had been allowed to die in
committee because sexual orientation had been added to the bill's list of
prosecutable offenses. The belief was that Senate Republicans had killed
the bill to spare Governor (and presidential candidate) George W. Bush the
inevitable political fallout he would face if he vetoed the bill.
Conventional wisdom at the time was that Governor Bush would have been
willing to sign the bill had sexual orientation not been included. Alas,
candidate Bush could not sign a bill granting special status to gays and
lesbians without alienating his evangelical base.
When forced to explain his position on the bill, candidate Bush argued
that an existing law (enacted by Governor Ann Richards) made additional
legislation unnecessary.
To justify further his out-of-the-mainstream position, Bush smugly - and
speciously - argued "[it would] be hard to punish them any worse after
they get put to death," referring to the death sentences that 2 of the
murderers had received.
Needless to say, Bush, who holds the singular distinction of executing
more people than any other governor in modern history, sees everything
through a very narrow lens. Laws, to Bush, exist to punish rather than
deter.
Supporters of the bill, however, countered that the existing law made
prosecution difficult, adding, correctly, that not all hate crimes were
punishable by the death penalty, as Bush's tortuous argument seemed to
imply.
On May 11, 2001, Bush's successor, Governor Rick Perry, faced with
overwhelming public support, signed into law the bill that candidate Bush
timorously and self-servingly avoided.
Texans today - no thanks to George Bush or to the Young Conservatives of
Texas - are protected by one of the strongest hate-crime laws in the
country. While Bush may have withheld his support for the bill as a matter
of political expediency, members of YCT lobbied against the bill, even
during Senate hearings, as a matter of, well, honestly, I'm not really
sure what the YCT stands for or against.
I'm sure someone will write to explain by what line of (un)reasoning
anyone could reasonably oppose deterring crime against persons because of
"race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or
ancestry."
Arguing against the bill, Marc Levin, the group's state vice-chairman at
the time, parroted the official Bush talking point, saying, "We believe
that we have a very strong criminal justice system in Texas," adding, "We
execute more people than anyone."
My question, to President Bush, Mr. Levin or any surrogate who would like
to argue affirmatively, is how executing more people than any other state
in the country has anything to do with opposing additional penalties for
someone who commits a crime motivated by hate for, or bigotry toward,
another person.
And, on a purely personal note, explain to me why writing f*g**t on my
office door is no worse - no more egregious, no more repugnant - than
simply writing IDIOT. And should the person who wrote f*g**t on my office
door, if caught, be treated identically to a person who simply vandalized
property?
Are my peace-of-mind and human dignity worth roughly - or exactly - the
equivalent of the door that was vandalized? If so, please explain.
And to whomever accepts my invitation to public debate, please explain how
the person who sent an anonymous e-mail attacking me (as happened on Sept.
16), not just for my political views, but also because of my sexuality,
not because I attacked George Bush, but because I dared elegize a former
governor who had just died, should be dealt with when he is caught.
And, while you're at it, explain to me why being called a f*g**t - not
once, but twice - is no more grievous than being called a four-eyed
leftist. Not to mention being directed to engage in an activity so obscene
that standards of decency prevent me from elaborating.
Honestly, I don't know if the culprits - or culprit, assuming it's the
same invertebrate individual who wrote f*g**t on my door - resent me
because I challenge his belief system or naively believe that the
harassment will intimidate me into shutting up.
Maybe the person doesn't believe in free speech. Maybe he's frustrated
because he can't articulate his views well enough to participate in public
debate. Maybe he feels threatened by a world that is evolving faster than
his own Neanderthal political and religious views. Or maybe he just hates
me because I'm gay.
For good or for bad, we live in a country in which hate is still legal --
until the hate turns into a hate crime.
(source: George Henson is a Spanish professor at SMU; Opinion, SMU Daily
Campus)
On June 7, 1998, James Byrd Jr. was beaten, chained to a truck and dragged
three miles to his death in rural Jasper County, Texas. Mr. Byrd was
black, his murderers were white.
According to the autopsy, Byrd was probably alive when his right arm and
head were severed from his body. Following the sub-human murder, the men
disposed of Mr. Byrd's partially dismembered body in the town's black
cemetery, then went to a barbeque.
Later that year, the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act was introduced in the
Texas legislature. No one doubted - from local law enforcement to the FBI
- that the brutal murder had been motivated by racism. Two of the
murderers, in fact, were self-avowed white supremacists.
Regardless of the horrific nature of the crime and the apparent racist
motives of the murderers, the bill died in a Senate subcommittee. The
suspicion at the time was that the bill had been allowed to die in
committee because sexual orientation had been added to the bill's list of
prosecutable offenses. The belief was that Senate Republicans had killed
the bill to spare Governor (and presidential candidate) George W. Bush the
inevitable political fallout he would face if he vetoed the bill.
Conventional wisdom at the time was that Governor Bush would have been
willing to sign the bill had sexual orientation not been included. Alas,
candidate Bush could not sign a bill granting special status to gays and
lesbians without alienating his evangelical base.
When forced to explain his position on the bill, candidate Bush argued
that an existing law (enacted by Governor Ann Richards) made additional
legislation unnecessary.
To justify further his out-of-the-mainstream position, Bush smugly - and
speciously - argued "[it would] be hard to punish them any worse after
they get put to death," referring to the death sentences that 2 of the
murderers had received.
Needless to say, Bush, who holds the singular distinction of executing
more people than any other governor in modern history, sees everything
through a very narrow lens. Laws, to Bush, exist to punish rather than
deter.
Supporters of the bill, however, countered that the existing law made
prosecution difficult, adding, correctly, that not all hate crimes were
punishable by the death penalty, as Bush's tortuous argument seemed to
imply.
On May 11, 2001, Bush's successor, Governor Rick Perry, faced with
overwhelming public support, signed into law the bill that candidate Bush
timorously and self-servingly avoided.
Texans today - no thanks to George Bush or to the Young Conservatives of
Texas - are protected by one of the strongest hate-crime laws in the
country. While Bush may have withheld his support for the bill as a matter
of political expediency, members of YCT lobbied against the bill, even
during Senate hearings, as a matter of, well, honestly, I'm not really
sure what the YCT stands for or against.
I'm sure someone will write to explain by what line of (un)reasoning
anyone could reasonably oppose deterring crime against persons because of
"race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or
ancestry."
Arguing against the bill, Marc Levin, the group's state vice-chairman at
the time, parroted the official Bush talking point, saying, "We believe
that we have a very strong criminal justice system in Texas," adding, "We
execute more people than anyone."
My question, to President Bush, Mr. Levin or any surrogate who would like
to argue affirmatively, is how executing more people than any other state
in the country has anything to do with opposing additional penalties for
someone who commits a crime motivated by hate for, or bigotry toward,
another person.
And, on a purely personal note, explain to me why writing f*g**t on my
office door is no worse - no more egregious, no more repugnant - than
simply writing IDIOT. And should the person who wrote f*g**t on my office
door, if caught, be treated identically to a person who simply vandalized
property?
Are my peace-of-mind and human dignity worth roughly - or exactly - the
equivalent of the door that was vandalized? If so, please explain.
And to whomever accepts my invitation to public debate, please explain how
the person who sent an anonymous e-mail attacking me (as happened on Sept.
16), not just for my political views, but also because of my sexuality,
not because I attacked George Bush, but because I dared elegize a former
governor who had just died, should be dealt with when he is caught.
And, while you're at it, explain to me why being called a f*g**t - not
once, but twice - is no more grievous than being called a four-eyed
leftist. Not to mention being directed to engage in an activity so obscene
that standards of decency prevent me from elaborating.
Honestly, I don't know if the culprits - or culprit, assuming it's the
same invertebrate individual who wrote f*g**t on my door - resent me
because I challenge his belief system or naively believe that the
harassment will intimidate me into shutting up.
Maybe the person doesn't believe in free speech. Maybe he's frustrated
because he can't articulate his views well enough to participate in public
debate. Maybe he feels threatened by a world that is evolving faster than
his own Neanderthal political and religious views. Or maybe he just hates
me because I'm gay.
For good or for bad, we live in a country in which hate is still legal --
until the hate turns into a hate crime.
(source: George Henson is a Spanish professor at SMU; Opinion, SMU Daily
Campus)