Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on What He Said

1

I have never heard anyone use he term "Christianists" before. I love it! I'm going to have to work that into daily conversation.

Posted by Tiffany | May 3, 2007 11:33 AM
2

Yeah "Christianist" is the word of the week.

Posted by Transit Man | May 3, 2007 11:38 AM
3

It's really quite simple: Hate crimes are attacks that are meant to terrorize and victimize an entire community.

The arguments that Republicans use against hate crime laws are word for word identical to their predecessors' arguments against anti-lynching laws. Today's Republicans want to terrorize and attack our community just like previous Republicans wanted (want?) to threaten and harm the black community.

Same dif.

Posted by Original Andrew | May 3, 2007 11:51 AM
4

How do hate crime laws stifle free speech? It's violence that gets prosecuted under those laws, not insults.

Posted by keshmeshi | May 3, 2007 12:05 PM
5

If they added "political affiliation" to the list of people protected by hate crimes, I wonder if asshat Bush would sign the bill. I'm a nonviolent person but this sure makes me want to beat up some Republicans.

Posted by elswinger | May 3, 2007 12:11 PM
6

Conservatives pick & choose everything. They pick and choose what they like about the constitution, they pick and choose what they like about the Bible.

"our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law."

What about marriage? Where does the constitution say that it's a governmental benefit for anybody to get married? So you like equal protection, but you're not for treating everybody equal? Why is it all of you Bible-thumping bitches are always caught throwing stones? Shouldn't you be judging yourself instead of others?

What the fuck Reps, how did you turn into a different animal so quickly? Oh yeah, Reagan.

Posted by Mr. Poe | May 3, 2007 12:26 PM
7

Keshmeshi, I'm against hate-crime laws in general, because it doesn't make sense, in my mind, to differentiate against a crime committed because the perp doesn't like your tattoo versus a crime committed because the perp doesn't like your race. The reason it's a free speech issue is because of what Elswinger noted. If it's okay to prosecute someone differently for committing the same crime because it's racially motivated, what's to stop lawmakers from enacting legislation that prosecutes someone differently for a crime becuase it's politically motivated?

Yes, yes, it's a crime. It's violence. It's not speech per se, and people shouldn't be violent. But still. Why should you be prosecuted differently for getting in a fist-fight with a Republican versus a guy with a weird tattoo that you don't like versus a Communist versus a person of a different race?

Posted by arduous | May 3, 2007 12:27 PM
8

@7
Somewhat makes sense. Depends on what actually happened in the situation, but I see what you're saying.

My mind is slightly changed.

Posted by Mr. Poe | May 3, 2007 12:31 PM
9

there is a huge difference between attacking someone simply because you think they are gay, Muslim, whatever. The act is much more dangerous than some guy beating up another guy because he looked at a girl.

Posted by konstantConsumer | May 3, 2007 12:38 PM
10

This is nitpicking, but I'm somewhat of a historian and can't resist. @3, Republicans generally didn't terrorize blacks. The GOP in the South was virtually nonexistent at the time that most of the atrocities against the Movement occurred. Those terrorizing were mainly Southern Democrats. True, those Southern Democrats are now Republican almost without exception. I mean to point this out to highlight what a cancer the Dixiecrat has been to political parties (and the nation in general) throughout history.

I think it's also one of the reasons that the GOP had so much trouble controlling pork.

Posted by Ryno | May 3, 2007 12:55 PM
11

Hate crime laws are well-intended, but they need to go. The problems:
a) Government should not police people's opinions, despicable as they may be.
b) The relatively light sentences for certain categories of victim (e.g., homeless, punks, communists) implicitly condones violence against those groups.
c) I'm happy to be proven wrong here, but to my knowledge, no one has shown any evidence that hate crime laws are any more of a deterrent than previously existing laws.

But if you insist on them, then they need to protect all victims who are targetted based on their cultural and social category, including gay, poor, homeless, wealthy, punk, hippy, beautiful, ugly, atheists, liberal, conservative, communist, republican, mentally handicapped, intellectually gifted, personality disordered, vegan, bicycle riding, Hummer driving, slut, prude, girlfriend, ...

Posted by Sean | May 3, 2007 1:15 PM
12

Repeating what Original Andrew wrote: It's really quite simple: Hate crimes are attacks that are meant to terrorize and victimize an entire community.

If some one beats up a guy with a tattoo, the perp isn't trying to terrorize the tattoo community. A gay bashing is a message. Same as a burning cross, only bloodier...

Posted by Mike in MO | May 3, 2007 1:25 PM
13

Adding on the above comments, and with a focus on the political side of these things, and how the legislation plays in the heartland: One of the pretend arguments on the conservative side of the fence is that gays want "special rights." Hate crime legislation plays into the Christian right's victim mentality, that gays are trying to establish legal superiority over straights or Christians, or that they want protection/weapons against Christian thought, and so on. When a crime is defined based on (perceived) sexual orientation, it allows the right to claim (almost truthfully) that gays are at it again, trying to get "special rights" in our society.

Posted by torrentprime | May 3, 2007 1:27 PM
14

@12
That's not necessarily true. Don't give gay-bashers more credit than they deserve; a hate crime can be no more thought out than attacking a body in front of the perpetrator. Remember, all that is necessary to prove a hate crime is animus against the protected group or category; no one has to prove that the attacker had deeper plans or was thinking about the "message" an attack might send.

Now, you may claim that such a message may BE received by the community, if they hear about it, or is an outcome of the attack, but it's by no means present in all cases or in the attacker's mind.

Posted by torrentprime | May 3, 2007 1:31 PM
15

Aren't people who committ hate crime more likely to reoffend?

I mean, if you beat up a guy over a personal dispute, that's one person and probably the end of it.

If you beat up a guy because he's black... well, there's a lot more black people than people you have personal disputes with. I think that guy is more likely to reoffend.

As for the "thought crime" stuff, it's nonsense. Prosecutor already can and do take the intent and state of mind of the perpetrator into account for not only what crimes to charge them with but also what sentences to persue.

Posted by Aexia | May 3, 2007 1:45 PM
16

Ryno @ 10,

Yes, you are correct. Most people don't realize that the Democratic and Republican parties have flipped ideologies over the last 150 years. Same people, different name. But keep in mind that Repubs have to look back to Abraham Lincoln and Emancipation to name the last good thing they did for black people.

And we're never going to be able to appease the Christians who want to destroy us. No politician will ever be anti-gay or hateful enough for them.

Posted by Original Andrew | May 3, 2007 1:58 PM
17

@7,

Fist fights are hardly covered under hate crime legislation. There has to be proof that the offender hated the specific group and lashed out at the victim for that reason.

I also oppose hate crime legislation, because I think that we should be imposing tough sentences for all violent crime. I still think the free speech argument is bogus.

Posted by keshmeshi | May 3, 2007 2:10 PM
18

@15
Prosecutor already can and do take the intent and state of mind of the perpetrator into account for not only what crimes to charge them with but also what sentences to persue
Um. That's the point. So beating someone up because you want their wallet vs. beating someone up because you don't like what religion you think they are carry different punishments (hate crime enhancements to length of sentence, for example) under hate crimes law, and thus one opinion, one thought, is punished by the state over another thought. Thought crimes.

Posted by torrentprime | May 3, 2007 2:42 PM
19

Bush should be ashamed about *this*? Well, duh. But really, this is just a pimple on the ass of all the other things Bush should be ashamed of -- and isn't.

Andrew: Bush has no shame. None. Not an iota. Get used to that idea, and stop thinking that Bush and the sewer he has fostered in the Republican party is amenable to arguments about ethics and shame.

Posted by Jonathan | May 3, 2007 2:58 PM
20

Bush should be ashamed about *this*? Well, duh. But really, this is just a pimple on the ass of all the other things Bush should be ashamed of -- and isn't.

Andrew: Bush has no shame. None. Not an iota. Get used to that idea, and stop thinking that Bush and the sewer he has fostered in the Republican party are amenable to arguments about ethics and shame.

Posted by Jonathan | May 3, 2007 2:58 PM
21

"The first is opposition to the entire concept, its chilling effect on free speech, its undermining of the notion of equality under the law, and so on. That’s my position…. The other coherent position …."

Sullivan really like to hedge his bets, doesn't he?

Posted by JMS | May 3, 2007 3:16 PM
22

I'm truly shocked but Dave Reichert voted Yes on the Hate Crimes bill along with 24 other republicans.

Posted by monkey | May 3, 2007 3:55 PM
23

I'm a straight guy who's lived on Capitol Hill most of my life. I've been hassled or attacked on three occasions: once by the cops, twice by thugs from other areas. The incident with the cops was the only one that really scared me. The thugs ran away when I pulled a knife on them. And I'm thinking hate crimes legislation might not have helped much with the cops.

By and large, I'm against hate crimes legislation because I feel like the standard of proof is too low and/or arbitrary. There's a huge potential for law enforcment to abuse that kind of thing.

So for example, something I think people need to think about is that hate crimes laws where the standard is "animus against the protected group or category" would tend to apply much more heavily to young African American males (who, to be fair, get completely fucked on a regular basis) than to any other group. I've been bashed for being "gay" three times, but I've gotten in at least a dozen fights over being a white guy in a Black neighborhood (in my youth, of course).

And this could actually get pretty heavy pretty fast: in any physical confrontation between an African American and Anglo American, if the African American is wearing any Malcolm X stuff, is a member of the NOI, has a copy of Sieze the Day at home-- whatever. Because it's a lot more common and acceptable for minorities to be into minority nationalist movements (Black Power, etc), it would actually be pretty easy for the racist law enforcement establishment to use hate crimes laws to bitch slap African American offenders all over the place.

Just something to consider.

Posted by Judah | May 3, 2007 4:03 PM
24

Good observations Judah. I'm not necessarily in agreement with you 100%, but well articulated.

Posted by JMS | May 3, 2007 4:11 PM
25

Judah @ 23, that is a specious and circular argument.

Look, in a better country we wouldn’t need hate crimes laws, but here in the USA we have a long history of institutionalized hatred including racism, sexism and homophobia, as well a cultural hostility towards the well-being of others.

I’ve never heard of a case where hate crimes laws have been abused, if anything the police and DAs seem to be very cautious about using them. At any rate, they send a very powerful message that attacks because of someone’s ethnicity, race, gender and perceived sexual orientation are especially egregious because they are crimes against both the individual and the community. It’s not thought crime if someone’s fist hits your gut or face – that’s the violence that these laws are meant to prevent.

Messages matter.

Posted by Original Andrew | May 3, 2007 4:26 PM
26

Specious and circular? Boy, you don’t mess around, do you?

And speaking of circular, I say:

it would actually be pretty easy for the racist law enforcement establishment to use hate crimes laws to bitch slap African American offenders all over the place

And, by way of refuting me, you say:

here in the USA we have a long history of institutionalized hatred including racism, sexism and homophobia

So, you do know that the “law enforcement establishment” is the institution, right? So, like, when you say “institutionalized racism” that’s not rednecks with Confederate battle flags on their trailers. Institutionalized racism means racism by, among other people, “the police and DAs" you claim have been so even-handed in their handling of hate crimes laws. And what evidence to you use to support your assertions that hate crimes laws have been so judiciously applied?

I’ve never heard of a case where hate crimes laws have been abused

Wow. I’m sold.

But let’s look at the broader track record here. Do American cops—and Seattle cops in particular—have a history of killing unarmed young black men and getting away with it? Yes they do. Does American law enforcement have a history of levying harsher punishments for drugs common among African Americans, like crack, than for drugs more common among Anglo Americans like pure coke? Yes they do. Do African Americans receive harsher sentences than white Americans for comparable crimes? Yes. Higher conviction rates based on similar bodies of evidence? Yes. Are white people who assault African Americans less likely to be arrested or prosecuted than African Americans who assault white people? Yes. And all of this is ongoing. It’s happening right now.

So I point out that hate crimes laws would actually give law enforcement additional leverage to engage in unfair prosecution of African Americans for violent crimes and your argument proving me wrong is…

Messages matter.

Well. I’m… you got me. Hats off, yo. I take it all back. Lets have some hate crimes laws.

Oh, and by the way--

It’s not thought crime if someone’s fist hits your gut or face – that’s the violence that these laws are meant to prevent.

Did some part of my argument bring up "thought crime"? I don't recall even having suggested it. Are you sure your post was even aimed at me? 'Cause if it wasn't that would explain a lot.

Posted by Judah | May 3, 2007 4:50 PM
27

Judah,

Race is already covered under hate crimes laws. I'm referring specifically to the measure passed today to add gay men and lesbians to the groups covered.

I completely agree that African Americans are unfairly and over-zealously prosecuted by institutions like the police, but I don't understand your counter-argument. Are you saying that you're opposed because they might serve more time for gay bashing than a white person? Or that African Americans would be charged with hate crimes for attacking a white person? Black and white people are already covered under these laws and if there is systematic or selective prosecution of African Americans by DAs using hate crimes laws then I'd welcome more information about that.

The point is that it doesn’t make sense to exclude a group that represents a large number of hate crimes cases.

Posted by Original Andrew | May 3, 2007 5:54 PM
28

Tangentially, did anyone see in the GOP debate yesterday how one guy responded to "What would your response be to the overturning of Roe v. Wade?" with "It would be a great day for liberty and for freedom."

...God I hate Christianists who act oppressed.

Posted by Kat | May 3, 2007 11:40 PM
29

If we don't think that crimes should be punished differently based on motive, why do we punish terrorism differently than any other murder? Richard Reid (the wannabe shoe bomber) currently is serving multiple life sentences. That's much more than a guilty plea to attempted murder normally gets, and the judge in the case specifically said that Reid's al Qaeda training was relevant in his sentencing.

I hope Andrew Sullivan and all those who think that murder is murder is murder reconsider whether they truly think motive doesn't matter.

Posted by PG | May 4, 2007 12:09 AM
30

Completely off point but something that annoys me shitless...


Quote:
Bush, we now know, is a captive of this bigotry and an enabler of it.


Who is the "we" in this? What is the phrase "now know" doing there? Why is this sentence in present tense?


What verb tense is the phrase "have always known"? Because everybody, ***including Sullivan's "we"***, have always known that Bush is a captive of this shit. The people who spew it are his entire goddamned constituency! In reality, Sullivan's "we", the people who "now know" this fact about Bush, always did know; they simply spent six years willfully ignoring it. First, buying into his wink-wink act during the 2000 election, then, not wanting to admit they'd been snookered, kept up the bs "he's not *really* against personal freedoms" facade as the mofo suspended federal funding for stem cell research, signed the Patriot Act, illegalized d&x abortions and supported an amendment to the Constitution to illegalize gay marriage through out the country.


Now socially liberal Reps want to say "we now know" as if "we've" just woken up to the national hangover this administration has become in its sitting duck years.


"We've" always known this. *You've* always ignored it. Which is why this shit was elected in the first place.

Posted by Sorcha | May 4, 2007 12:18 AM
31

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Posted by Bill | May 12, 2007 6:12 AM
32

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Posted by Bill | May 12, 2007 6:13 AM
33

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Posted by Bill | May 12, 2007 6:13 AM
34

I am here to say hello and you have a great site! notem671

Posted by carolee | May 17, 2007 5:06 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).