Russell, an interesting post. To me, this legislation is not about bigots, crimes, minorities, etc – it’s about the centralization of power. Personally, I oppose any move that codifies further control over civil society in the hands of the bureaucrats in Washington. Why? I don’t trust them. Some responses to your comments below:

The pending legislation, which Bush, of course, vetoed, that has gone back to Congress, does not outlaw anything that is not already defined as a crime by virtually every State in the Union. It merely creates stipulations making these criminal acts - if motivated out of hate for these sexual minorities, Federal crimes.

Correct. This is exactly what I oppose – the federalization of crimes. As Mr. Paul clearly stated: “Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.”

This legislation only makes crimes - which are already crimes - Federal crimes if they are motivated out of hate for these oppressed groups in society upon whom the crimes are committed.

The reality is this – all violent crime is motivated in some way or another, out of hate. Should all murder and rape cases be prosecuted federally? By approving this legislation, we’re giving the politicians the power to do this in the future. We’re giving them the power to determine what IS hate, and what is not. Some people may approve of a central state with such power. I do not.

The consideration that makes this legislation so abundantly necessary stems from the failure of states and municipalities to protect these social identities, so they - the sexual minorities who are perceived as deviant - can exercise the freedoms enjoyed by all other members of society.

From this, it appears that the goal is to protect these minority groups. That’s what I assumed as well. But, the use of force to solve social problems doesn’t work, and in fact, it can create even more hatred for these groups.

Will this legislation protect them like the Drug War has protected this country from crime and drug use? Like the hundreds of billions in national defense has protected the country from attack? Like No Child Left Behind is protecting children from illiteracy? Like the Congress protected us from violations of liberty in the Patriot Act? Like the “war on poverty” is protecting us from poverty? and on and on and on…

Turning over our safety and protection to the politicians in Washington never gives the results they promise. All it does it give them more power. Eradicating hate should never be in the purview of the state. Ensuring equality under the law is a must.

Nevertheless, I do not want to appear callous toward the plight of bigots who are afraid of losing their privileges to practice bigotry against the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in society.
The crucial matter that justifies this legislation revolves around the necessity of expanding the Federal Government’s jurisdiction, allowing for Federal law enforcement to intercede where states and municipalities turn tail.

I didn’t realize that the States were not prosecuting for crimes. Is there some sort of evidence that backs an assertation that people who commit crimes against these minority groups are not being prosecuted? Or, is it that we feel it’s necessary to give them stiffer sentences? If the states are not prosecuting crimes, we have a much bigger problem on our hands than what this legislation supposes.

The rights of bigots to practice their hate against the vulnerable? Or, the rights of minorities to enjoy a life free from fright, humiliation, and negations of social and personal respect?

I feel the question should be different. Should crimes be prosecuted on a national, or local level? Should power be centralized or decentralized? For both, I choose the latter.

The first step towards the destruction of a free, democratic society is to turn power over to a centralized agency. Police powers are some of the most important, and ones that must be left in the hands of our localities. Whenever we give the central government the power to do something, we also give future politicians the power to do the opposite. Where that may lead us, I’m not entirely sure, but am quite wary of giving any of these people such power.

To increase the possibility that just laws will prevail over despotic ones, we must prevent the accumulation of power in one location.

Any local government that violates peoples’ rights is completely unacceptable and should be resisted, or better yet, abandoned. But, the same goes for a large centralized government that rules over all of us in the name of protecting those rights locally. The proper balance of power and rights is this - rights that are universal, but enforced locally.

This can only happen when people rule their own communities, and the corporate-government bureaucracy is smashed into thousands of pieces. Giving additional power to the central government will never bring us closer to that goal.

Thank you, Herbert Marcuse.

Here’s an idea: since the bourgeois rights only exist to enforce hegemonies, let’s start the process of getting rid of them by beginning with you. You don’t mind volunteering, do you?

I will first dispense with the fluff offered by Fluffy: I fail to see I would be pointed out as a member of organized capital, and, subsequently, feel pursuaded to volunteer for a process of getting rid of the class of organized capital, since I am not a member of the capitalist class. Unfortunately, Fluffy, I have to sell my labor in order to procure a livelihood. I do not accrue any capital from the investment of capital. Therefore, I am not a capitalist.
Additionally, Fluffy, I am all for the vast majority of Bourgeous, individualist rights. I simply want all members of society to be able to enjoy them, as well. As soon as sexual minorities appreciate the same rights as everyone else, I would be all for discarding with hate crime legislation.
Although, I do appreciate being likened to Herbert Marcuse.

Mike,
I apreciate your points and I am in agreement with the majority of what you have said. However, this legislation surely does conform to the platform, since it is primarily concerned with protecting the civil liberties of marginalized minorities, who currently suffer - due to discrimition - from a condition where they cannot enjoy the same liberties as everyone else.

What would have been the case if the FBI did not have jurisdiction to investigate crimes against civil rights activists in the South during the 60’s?

As far as stiffer sentences are concerned, I am in agreement with you. This is uncessary baggage that should be disposed of.

Nevertheless, the central point that I am trying to make - since in every instance where civil liberties have been expaned or protected has involved Federal legislation - I fail to see why this instance calls for a different approach than what has succeeded in the past.

Let me know what your thoughts are through an email, or we can continue to discuss this through this thread,
Best,
Russell

Russell:
My response would have to start with your position:

since in every instance where civil liberties have been expaned or protected has involved Federal legislation

I would take the position that this statement is wholly false, or - at very least - doesn’t take into account that most large violations of civil liberties have actually been the result of the federal government. Whether or not the federal government has been successful in some situations does not remove their guilt in their attacks on civil liberties since the first day this country was founded. And, this continues today, with a central government that lies to us, spies on us, and ignores virtually every provision of the Bill of Rights.

I’m not too trustworthy of state government either, by the way.

The reality is simple - rights exist whether you have government or not - it’s government that prevents people from exercising those rights. In U.S. history, we’ve seen grave violations of those rights from all government organizations, but the result of federal violations are much more dangerous than local violations.

The point here - federal power is the most dangerous kind because it is inescapable, and why we oppose the growth of power in the central government in nearly every situation.

I would assume, though, that there has to be a process for considering the growth of centralized power….to see if it’s acceptable or not.

At initial thought, I would think that the burden of proof - to show that additional centralized power is acceptable, must be on those who promote the change. As of yet, I’ve seen absolutely nothing on this issue which is convincing to me.

Some steps I’d think that would be appropriate:

1. Show a need for the new centralized power. In this - demonstrate undeniably that rights are being limited by the state governments. In this situation, also show that state governments are not prosecuting crimes against the groups with which we are concerned.

2. Explain specifically what part of the current system is deficient - how it should be changed to achieve the stated goals.

3. Demonstrate what, specifically, the new power will achieve.

4. Examine the “contrary power” Historically, power given to central governments generally also gives future politicians to do the opposite. Therefore, one would need to show that there is no such dangers in granting new power to the central government.

5. Potential for power expansion. Demonstrate, conclusively, that there’s no potential for abuse - or growth of this new power to areas that are neither wanted nor desirable.

6. Explain how the new power can be properly implemented. Even with its flaws, the Constitution is the law that rules over the federal government. In this situation, it would have to be shown how the new power is consistent with that law (precedent wouldn’t be acceptable), and if not, what the proper course would be to amend the law to allow the new power.  (In this situation, there is nothing in the Constitution which allows the federal government to be engaged in such activities, and thus, an amendment would be required)

Just some “musings” - quite a bit to overcome, in my opinion, to warrant any additional power in the hands of D.C. politicians.

Mike,
We all remember one of the most dreadful crimes ever committed against a gay in, I believe, Montana. The young college student was bought drinks until drunk and impaired and then taken out by the people, whom he thought to be his drinking buddies, who then took him to an isolated area, tied the poor soul to a post, mercilessly beat him, and left him to die; all the while he was whimpering and pleading for his life.

What was the reaction of the town members with respect to this incident?: To paraphrase: Well, we in the West follow the credo live and let live. Therefore, it is okay to be gay, just as long as you do not flaunt it in front of others making them feel uncomfortable. Although, not an endorsement of the hideous crime of hate that was perpetrated against the young gay college student, but certainly not an unequivical denouncement either.
What were the reactions of the local politicians in response to a crime so unspeakably hideous that it inspired cross-national gay protests: to paraphrase?: this crime should be treated as any other crime, and certainly did not warrant any extradordinary measures to be adotped to prevent crimes of hate against those whose only trangression is to be sexaully different from the mainstream of the heterosexaul populiation.
This is what I am talking about, and this incident appears isolated only because other such crimes are often concealed from public perview by the old boy networks who do not want to damage the reputation of the towns and country they are members of. Furthermore, locally elected sherrifs often possess the same bigoted dispositions as the constituency that elects them to power. Whether it is an affront to state rights or not - most of which I would support in most every instance and occassion - I cannot concede to the torture, terror, and socially exclusionary practices of sexual minorities, brushing them aside as an unfortunate enhcumbrance that we must ignore in order to achive the larger goal of decentralization.

Best
Russell Cole

Russell:

I have no doubt that there are crimes such as these that occur - not only to just minority groups, but to people all over. It’s disgusting to me no matter who (or what) the victim is.

It appears, though, that you’re arguing the point based on an emotional, rather than logical stance. I can’t imagine anyone wanting anything but criminals such as those in your example to receive the proper justice.

But, should we change the structure of our government without reasoned thought? The points I provided in my last comment were, I believe, a good basis to discuss power expansions in any situation.

a. identify the problem
b. explain how the current system is failing
c. explain how the new power will solve the problem (detail exactly what the goal is, and how it will be achieved)
d. (and e.) look at the potential dangers to the new power
f. analyze the proper way to implement the new power if all previous challenges have been satisfied.

There is nothing unreasonable about such an analysis of anything in goverance - it’s really the only way to convince people that what’s being done is right for the long term.

So far, I’ve only seen “a” - but that’s still barely touching the surface.

Is there nothing at all that can give some further verification that this is a problem running rampant? Is there no advocacy group which has done research on this issue? I would think if it were of such grave necessity, that there would be something further to go on than just a few cases of anecdotal evidence.

On top of this, and even more importantly, I have yet to see anything of research quality that can demonstrate how giving prosecution powers to the federal government will actually bring the results that we all want…..the protection of innocent people.