Subscribe"...it [is] unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person's race, color, religion or national origin..."
"Aurora Grajeda, a resident of San Francisco's Mission District, said she had been spat upon and stalked by a man bent on harassing her just because of who she is: a transgender woman.So, the guy who was harassing her should just be charged with simple harassment? Even though he was shouting epithets at her? Even though he targeted her because of her gender and/or perceived sexual orientation?
"At first I was dumbfounded . . . then angry," said Grajeda, 54, recalling the incident that occurred on Valentine's Day as she walked along Mission Street to one of her favorite markets. "After he followed me for several blocks, it was sheer terror."
The man, who was riding a bike, followed Grajeda, taunting her with anti- gay epithets until she ducked into an alcove, where she found a pay phone and called police. By the time officers arrived, she was in tears. The man was gone. The officers took a report, but no arrest was ever made.
I can kind of understand how someone would walk into a 7-11 and demand money from a minimum-wage clerk, and during the confrontation, the armed robber felt it was necessary to shoot and kill the clerk, or when a man comes home and finds his wife in bed with another and kills one or both of them, or a serial killer who targets prostitutes. I'm sure some of these killers will have extenuating circumstances and I sympathize with their plight. But there is absolutely no reason to kill someone because they are gay.I wrote that snarky comment and was going to post it, but then I thought about my knee-jerk reaction and I changed my mind. Killing someone because they're gay really is an unthinkably cruel and inhuman thing to do. And if that is the reason for the murder, then yes, it should should be treated differently. Extenuating circumstances work both ways.
"Under the authority of section 534 of title 28, United States Code, the Attorney General shall acquire data, for each calendar year, about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of property."
"Some may argue that hate-crime legislation is just special-pleading from liberals with a hand in the 'gay agenda.' Hate-crime legislation for gays and lesbians does not mean special privileges for this group, as the legislation would deem all sexual orientation as a protected class safeguarding heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals. Our country is deeply divided over many issues pertaining to sex: sexuality, teenage sexuality, gender identity, contraception, marriage, abortion, etc. Can we not all agree that any/all means to protect a specifically targeted group of people for violent acts should be instituted as soon as conceivable possible? Even if you are not in support of gay rights, surely any moral individual would not want to see their neighbor, dentist, interior designer, realtor, professor, hair stylist, auto mechanic, brother, father, cousin, etc. with a ratchet in his skull. Right? We are an ever-increasingly diverse nation, to be sure; yet we can make some strides toward greater unity. W. H. Auden wrote: "Civilizations should be measured by the degree of diversity attained, and the degree of unity retained.'"
-- from Homosexuals Hunted in Massachusetts: A Case Study for Hate-Crime Legislation
The principal changes to the existing 1969 law would be:BTW -- many states already include sexual orientation and disability as defined classes in their Hate Crimes laws.Gender, disability and sexual orientation would become additional protected classifications [added to those classes already covered -- race, color, religion or national origin].The scope of the law would include:
The six federally protected activities would be deleted. A victim would be protected by the law at all times, not just when they were doing specific activities, like being at work, voting, or attending a public school.Both men and women would be protected if the assault or threat of assault was gender-based."The bill's main sponsors were Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) This is the third time that the Senate has passed the bill. On...previous occasions, the House either defeated a similar measure or stripped the amendment during the conference committee."
Quadriplegics, paraplegics, and persons who are blind, deaf etc. would be protected from attacks from individuals because of their disability.
Heterosexuals, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals would all be protected from crimes motivated by hatred of sexual orientation.
"Social and religious conservatives generally oppose the bill. Many ignore the protections that the bill would give to women, men, the disabled, and heterosexuals. They appear to be concerned almost exclusively with protections given to persons of one sexual orientation: homosexuals. They are concerned that a person who verbally attacks gays or lesbians could be charged under the act if any violent or criminal act resulted from the speech. This appears to be a misinterpretation of the bill, because it could only be applied to a person who has actually committed a crime. Speeches attacking gays and lesbians are not a criminal behavior; they are protected speech under the First Amendment."
« Older Dalkey Archive conversations with William Burrough... | The Places We Live... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:50 PM on October 12, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]