Geov Parrish makes an important point in this column, pointing out that, rightwing demagoguery notwithstanding, Muslim fundamentalists rioting over those now-infamous Danish cartoons really does present a challenge to democratic freedoms in those countries that are committed to practicing and defending them: Free speech vs. fascism WorkingforChange.com 02/06/06. He writes:
Sorry, but I find riots and violence to be spiritually offensive. Am I the only progressive alive who thinks this?
While the Right goes apes**t on this issue, the Left's relative silence has been troubling. Me? I'm all for cultural sensitivity, and as a child of desegregation in the South Carolina of the late '60s, I'm fully aware of the power of words and images to wound.
I suppose definitions of "progressive" and "the Left" can be pretty fluid. But I can certainly say that here at Old Hickory's Weblog and also over at The Blue Voice, we haven't been silent about this particular isse.
However, Parrish includes in his explanation of his position a discussion of his own opposition to "hate crimes" legislation. But his treatment of that subject seems to indicate and real misunderstanding of what such laws are about:
But I've never been a fan of so-called "hate crimes" legislation, in which charges and sentences are increased when a defendant is allegedly motivated by racial, ethnic, religious, gender-based, sexual-orientation-based, or whatever-based hatred.
The problem with these laws is that it is inevitably the state - people in power - who are increasing penalties based on their interpretation of what someone else is thinking. Eventually, and usually sooner rather than later, the state (or the D.A.) realizes that this is a very handy tool for suppression of all sorts of untidy thought. Criticizing the state, magically, becomes a "hate crime" ...
David Neiwert talks at some length about "hate crimes" legislation and how it functions in his book Death on the Fourth of July: The Story of a Killing, a Trial, and Hate Crime in America (2004). It is somewhat somewhat mistitled, as Neiwert himself has commented, because it's real focus is on the larger issue of hate crimes, and uses a particular incident from the Pacific Northwest as a detailed illustration.
One thing he does in that book is to explain how modern-day "hate crimes legislation" is essentially the same kind of law as anti-lynching legislation, which Northern liberals advocated on a federal level after the Second World War and Southern segregationists fought bitterly. The concept was embodied in the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which stemmed from Congressional hearings on vigilante violence against Southern blacks during Reconstruction. Unfortunately, the act was not seriously enforced, because by the time it was passed, Southern "Redeemers" had begun what would quickly become a successful campaign to overthrow the democratic governments in the South by force and violence. And the Northern Republicans had largely lost their stomach to defend democracy in the former Confederacy.
In fact, he thinks that "hate crime" legislation has been an unfortunately label from the viewpoint of those who support such laws, because it encourages the impression that they are aimed at opinions or even emotions. In fact, the need for "hate crime" (or, better, anti-lynching) legislation is based on the social function of such crimes. Their effect is not the same as a mugging or even a gang murder on a community. The effect is larger and more corrosive, because they contribute to fear and aggression between various distinct social groups, often racial groups in the American context. (I should specify here that I'm talking about American-style "hate crime" legislation like that in Calfornia. "Hate-speech" legislation like that in some European democracies is a different thing.)
Also, one of the most serious problem for law-enforcement in this area of law, especially in towns and smaller cities, is that local cops are often just not trained to recognize the characteristics of hate crimes. Normally, the perpetrators are not directly connected to organized groups, and they are often rowdy young people. In his book, the gang of whites who set off the events referenced in the title by threatening two Asian-American kids fit that profile. The police in that particular smaller jurisdiction had encountered their antics prior to that assault. But they failed to recognize the signs that the white punks were targeting people on a racial basis or what they meant about their likely future behavior. They regarded the earlier things as over-the-top antics, not as crimes or warnings of more serious problems to come.
One of the functions of anti-lynching legislation is that it increases the liklihood that local police will be trained to recognize such crimes as what they are, and to understand why they are distinct.
In a recent blog post, Neiwert talks about lynch-murder (Hate crimes: The big picture 11/28/05 ):
It's perhaps useful to remember that, over the course of American history, the greatest threats to the liberty of American citizens have come not from the government, but from our fellow citizens. Particularly, those directed by white citizens against nonwhites.
Recall, for instance, that the most egregious example of the removal of citizens' civil rights in America occurred primarily through extralegal means -- namely, during the lynching period, when thousands of blacks were summarily murdered in the most horrible fashion imaginable, often merely for the sin of being successful by white standards (this made them "uppity" and thus marked for extermination).
Lynching was a form of socially sanctioned terrorism against the black community whose entire purpose was to "keep the niggers down." It largely succeeded, until the wellsprings of the civil rights movement began working to tear it down as a broadly accepted American institution.
Parrish makes reference to a silly-sounding example of hate crimes legislation being invoked inappropriately in a San Jose incident. I'm not familiar with that particular incident. But some laws are better than others and some prosecutors are more careful in applying them than others. But the fact that one state's law may be overly-broad, or that over-zealous prosecutors try to use them in a wrong way, are potential problems in any criminal legislation.
Certainly, anti-lynching legislation can be abused, especially if poorly written. But that doesn't remove the need for this type of legislation.
Neiwert discusses some specifics instances showing the difficulties that can be encountered when evaluating hate crimes in another post (Missed motives, hoaxes, and hate 05/02/05), in which he addresses the problems that can arise when hate crimes are mis-characterized or unrecognized as such:
It is, as I've argued many times, a mistake on the part of community leaders to try to brush over incidents like these. Hate crimes, because of their terroristic nature, victimize not just the immediate victims, but in cases like this especially, much broader swaths of the community -- not just an entire neighborhood, but any black person living in Bremerton.
More to the point, typical hate-crime perpetrators like to believe they are secretly carrying out the wishes of their respective communities. When the community glosses over their actions, they see that as tacit approval -- and a green light to escalate their behavior.
This is especially the case when law enforcement fails to take the crimes seriously and prosecute them as hate crimes. Such slaps on the wrist are often interpreted as pats on the back.
He also links to a college newspaper report on one of his talks on the topic (Author offers insights into bias-motivated crimes by Jeff Hudson Davis Enterprise 05/13/05):
"The law always has to be measured and careful, particularly in the case of young people," Neiwert said. "You don't want to be unnecessarily subjecting young men to a prison system where white supremacism pretty much runs the show."
At the same time, "It's important to adequately and properly prosecute hate crimes. Not as a form of harsh retribution, but as a form of community condemnation of the acts."
People in a community where a hate crime has occurred need to realize that "people project their own normalcy on people they meet," and tend to do so when discussing a teen charged with a hate crime.
"Actually, most hate crime perpetrators have personality disorders," Neiwert said, even though they may appear outwardly typical. Often community members are soon "projecting normalcy onto kids that aren't actually normal. It's a human thing, part of human nature, but something we have to recognize and deal with.
"When it comes to hate crimes, we are far more likely to absolve a young white man than we are a young black man, and to make excuses for them. That's one of the real dynamics," Neiwert said. "It's kind of surprising how many hate crime perpetrators are actually children of privilege."
No comments:
Post a Comment