Rep. Ron Paul has taking the most unfortunate stance in response to the legislation under consideration, which would extend Federal Hate Crime statutes to instances of hate motivated crimes that are perpetrated against gays and cross-gendered. Reverting to the less intellectually endowed Republican rhetoric - deviating from his more interesting and, often, more reasonable Libertarian slant - he contends that provisioning Federal authority for purposes ensuring the Constitutional Liberties of these historically persecuted groups - in fact - discriminates against those who wish
to discriminate - to extremes where crimes are committed - against these vulnerable identities in our society. Additionally, in the tradition of Liberalism, he contends that laws can only reference individuated agents in society; a monadic conception of of the composite of agents and agencies constituting humanity; a premise upon which Liberal juridical-politico discourse is built.
Link to Paul’s letter:
http://www.populistamerica.com/unconstitutional_legislation_threatens_freedoms
Nevertheless, Liberal individualism conceals the effects of hegemonies, that enforce their own cultural dispositions upon other subcultures as behaviorally demonstrable requisites for participating in the institutions embedded in the social fabric. The form of individualism promoted by Liberalism is not the natural, appropriate state of humanity; rather, it is the product of an historically situated cultural condition that has been naturalized into the ontology by the members of the preemptive discourse in American society, who, in turn, identify those who fail to conform as social deviants, who are the justified targets of the bigotry; the hatred; the exclusion; and, worse, the objects of attack that are committed persistently in order to reinforce the alienated and inferior status of these marginalized groups.
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.
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. However, we must consider from historical insight the following: If not for Federal intervention, the schools in the South appeared to possess little chance of entering into a state of desegregation. 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. Remember, in order for Southern schools to abandon the institutional arrangements of Jim Crow South, Eisenhower was compelled to use the Air Force.
The simple fact of the matter is we are not all treated with the same dignity and expectations of negative rights, as if we were only individuals; not latent with any group identifications, such as African American or gay. Consequently, to bring closure to this rather parsimonious analysis, we are left with the task of determining what assumes greater saliency: 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, for one, am partial to the latter.
Russell Cole
If you enjoyed this post,
Subscribe to the Free Midwest Populist Party Newsletter
Please consider a donation of $1 or more
to help keep this website active.
Spread the Word:
11 Responses to “Ron Paul’s unfortunate position on Federal hate crime legislation to protect gays and transgendered”
Ron is absolutely right on this. This bill threatens our freedom of speech and thought.
If one of these ‘minorities’ you cite is harmed, there are laws to cover it already…and there is no need for ’special’ rights.
Do you really want to give your right of thought to someone in Washington. Who are you going to allow to make the decision of whether something is a thought crime for you. For me I will never allow the government to criminalize my thoughts.
Rob Paul simply takes the libertarian position. Crime is crime, whether against gay people, black people, or otherwise. The punishment for such crimes should only be proportional to the crime, not the motivation. Ron Paul is against the idea of using law to attempt to control how people think, as are all libertarians. This is not to say he or any other libertarian fails to recognize that bigotry is an evil, only that the only civilized and moral way to fight ideas you don’t agree with is through peaceful debate and logical argumentation and not the coercive violence of government.
Ultimately, Russell Cole’s real disagreement in this article, is about the philosophic argument Ron Paul employs in making his stance. Ron Paul defends the rights of individuals to hate other individuals for whatever reason. This is the libertarian position, and contrary to what Cole implies at the beginning, this also the libertarian argument. This leads Cole, inevitably to attack negative rights, suggesting because people do not always respect these rights that we should throw them to the wind in favor of positive rights, that is the subsidizing of revenge and/or the coercive reprogramming of society through the violent means of the state.
I am not going to bother presenting the argument here, but I will say that libertarians like Paul believe rights are absolute and true by the existence of our reason. We do not believe that governments get to decide what rights people have based on some Utilitarian calculation. We believe that people have these rights even when the government says they don’t, or even violates them on a regular basis. Most of all, we feel the only role the government can possibly have is to enforce these rights in the most objective way it can. That is what libertarians mean by small government.
Beyond rights, it is the responsibility of the people to fight for propagation of good ideas and the deconstruction of bad ones. Charities, foundations, community organizations, friends and family, these are the types of organizations that change the world for the better, and it is through them, not bureaucracy or military and police might, that we spread truth and promote morality. You can’t Legislate away bigotry, but that doesn’t mean you can’t change the hearts and minds of others through peaceful means.
People who are against this legislation seem to think that it will prohibit certain types of thoughts or public oratory. This is patently incorrect. 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.
Further, as far as rights being expanded by families and friends, I wonder why every major advancement of Civil Liberties has involved Federal legislation?
As a gay man I firmly support Ron Paul’s stance on the hate crime issue. This is a man that firmly belives that all people are created equal. This includes gay people. He believes that we should all have the same rights regardless, and that those rights ARE to be protected by the constitution.
Passage of a hate crime bill which is only exclusive to specific races , creeds, or orientations, etc, is not an example of inclusive protection for all people.
I do not want people to be charged with a hate crime for their views and speech of them. I want to debate them and to tell them why I disagree.
That is a free society.
If they want to harm me unjustly because of my views, I want them to be prosectuted just like any other criminal for a violent crime would be.
I don’t however, believe that I should be allocated any additional rights or protection, because of my race or orientation, than any other member of society.
Why do we need “Extra” punishment for a crime if it is motivated by a single individuals hatred of a group of individuals. This makes no sense. If someone comments a crime, i.e running over someone repeatedly, does it make it any more or less evil if it was done to a gay man or a straight man, a black man or a white man? Why should the evilness of a crime be determined by a meaningless abstract that does not actually effect the objective pain that the crime causes. If a member of my family is murdered because they are white, and a member of another family is murdered because they are black, why should the murderer of either one of them be more or less guilty?
You have missed the point. The significance of this bill is it gives jurisdiction to Federal law enforcement when a hate crime is committed. I contend that this is important because of provincialism, where the rights of these sexual minorities might not be protected by state or municipal polities. It took the Air Force to finally permit African Americans to attend previously ‘white’ educational institutions. I could care less about any additional punishments for hate crimes. I am only afraid of crimes perpetrated against sexual minorities not being investigated, at all.
Russell, I understand what you’re trying to say. Being one who considers himself a strict Constitutionalist 99.5% of the time, this is the one area that has me saying, “99.5% of the time.” There are a number of events in US history where the federal government’s morals and ethics have superseded the laws of an individual state, or group of states.
You give the example of the federal government suppressing Jim Crow Laws in the South — another example could be when Lincoln decided to prohibit slavery in newly-created States, which ultimately caused succession of the south, and the Civil War. Personally, I feel that each event was the moral, justified thing to do.
However, one thing that your article fails to mention is that there are also examples of the federal government superseding state laws or actions that I happen to be in favor of; or, at least do not have a problem with. In states like California, and even in my fair city of Denver, there is legislature that allows (to some degree) the smoking/owning of marijuana. Unfortunately, federal law prohibits them from being exercised completely. Another example would be the federal government prohibiting Colorado from damming our own rivers for hydro-electric power (even though it was voted on by those in the state) as other states down-river, use that water. On these issues, I feel the federal government has stepped beyond its intended purpose, and should not supersede the states’ (or local) decisions.
So, to your point, yes, it could be said that if there was no federal intervention, states, theoretically, could turn a blind-eye to crimes against minorities. However, in giving the majority federal government the power to intervene, there’s nothing to stop it from imposing laws which may counter-act, supersede, or even disenfranchise those of the minority state, and local governments.
In other words, pick your poison, because both have the potential to be just as bad.
Will:
Some excellent points in your comment. I believe you hit the nail on the head with this:
“In other words, pick your poison, because both have the potential to be just as bad.”
This is exactly the reason why leaning towards state power over federal is most important.
When states violate rights, people still have an opportunity to “vote with their feet” and escape the tyranny.
When the federal government violates rights, we’re all affected, and we have no place to go.
I wrote the book on hate. I hate Ron Paul. Do you? If so, join me at www.IHateRonPaul.com - “…they hate us for our FREEDOM!”
For those who are interested in this issue, I have posted something concerning the Fourteenth Amendment and its proper role in our Constitutional deliberations at the following:
http://www.midwest-populistamerica.com/articles/racist-persecution-of-african-american-high-school-students-in-jena-louisiana-along-with-its-relevancy-to-the-political-positions-taken-by-ron-paul/
Care to comment?