Camille Paglia vs. hate crimes

Are Camille and Rod prepared to go down to the local synagogue or Anti-Defamation League or B'Nai Brith meeting and tell Jews that they don't deserve protection from hate crimes?

It's easy to talk about opposing hate crimes when it involves the expansion to a group like gays and lesbians, but it's a lot harder to make those arguments to a crowd of descendents of Holocaust victims. So I encourage La Paglia and Rod to do just that: schedule an appointment with the local synagogue and tell them that hate crime laws are bad.

Government functionaries should not be ceded the dangerous authority to make decisions about motivation.

Yet, strangely enough, judges, prosecutors, and juries make decisions about motivation all the time.

If John Doe runs over someone in his car, the question of whether it was an accident or murder depends entirely on judgments about his motivation.

I am undecided about hate-crimes laws, but this seems like a poor argument against them.

Although I am generally opposed to most sorts of hate crime legislation, I do like the idea of adjusting the sentence to reflect what Todd mentions. If the crime is not merely a single criminal act perpetrated on one victim, but an act of intimidation committed against many persons it does seem appropriate to increase the sentence. That would apply to organized crime thugs who "send a message" as well as more conventional bigotry-inspired criminality.

A first-degree murder is a first-degree murder, and a hate-crime enhancement doesn't make much of moral or legal difference.

However, what about the gay couple in my hometown (Northern California, but the conservative part) who just last week had their car heavily vandalized with anti-gay slurs? It was certainly something more than a simple teenage vandalism. It was a systematic attempt to drive someone out of their home -- much akin to a cross burning.

So ... yes, motive counts.

If the crime is not merely a single criminal act perpetrated on one victim, but an act of intimidation committed against many persons it does seem appropriate to increase the sentence.

But isn't that what hate crimes are. When someone gets beaten with a bat while the perpetrator shouts "fag--t," it is an act of intimidation that effects not just the victim but also the community. If a Jewish person has a Swastika sprayed on their door, it doesn't just victimize that one person but all the other Jews in the community who understand the impact of a swastika.

Hate crime enhancements are really about acknowledging the impact such intimidation has on an entire community of people. When someone is beaten with shouts of "nig---" or "fag--t," the victim isn't the only one who is terrorized.

Ultimately, I understand the intellectual argument against hate crimes. But the political reality is that having that conversation amid a cultural discussion of the rights of LGBT people makes it a more complex question. As I said before, very few people would be willing to have this discussion with Jewish descendents of Holocaust survivors and tell them they aren't terrorized by swastikas sprayed on a door.

I don't think it has to do with the victim, but with society itself, and the level of danger a criminal (after all, we are dealing only with someone who is already convicted of what was, before the hate crime legislation, already a crime. Murder, etc) is to society as a whole.

Which is more dangerous to the rest of society? John who kills Joan because he thinks she is cheating with his best friend? Or (to take some of the hot button nature out of it) John, who kills Joan because she is a female in her 20's with long red hair?

I would say the second, because ANYONE who fits that criteria is in danger from John.

In other words, they want to treat hate crimes as worse not because the victim is special, but because they are NOT. ANYONE with that characteristic, or who the criminal even thinks has that characteristic is at danger from this person simply for what they are.

The same reason we treat serial killers differently than other types of killers.

Pre-hate crimes, the law cared only whether you intended to kill someone, not why.

This seems a bit like moving the goalposts. First Paglia was deriding the idea of juries trying to "penetrate the mind of the perpetrator". Now it's OK for juries to examine some parts of the suspect's mind, but not others.

I suspect there are many times when our criminal justice system evaluates "why" John Doe committed a crime. (Did he believe he was acting in self-defense? Did he believe that breaking the law was necessary to avert some greater evil?)

No doubt we could come up with ways of distinguishing these "good" questions about motivation from the "bad" questions about motivation involved in hate-crimes laws. My point is just that a lot of the arguments against hate-crimes laws treat this too simplistically -- as if the idea of trying to read a suspect's mind is somehow beyond the pale, when it's actually a normal part of our justice system.

Crime is crime is crime.

Yet, strangely, we don't treat all people who commit a particular crime in exactly the same way. Prosecutors take all kinds of considerations into account when deciding who to prosecute, on what charges, whether or not to plea-bargain, etc. Judges have discretion in sentencing. Juries may acquit someone who is obviously "guilty" if they are convinced by arguments of necessity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity). Etc.

A crime doesn't become worse if someone does it while holding ugly opinions.

Does a crime not become worse if the intent is to induce terror or intimidate others? Is a swastika painted on that Jewish congregation's synagogue really just as trivial as some spray painting on a bridge abutment? Is a burning cross in the front yard of an African-American really just as mundane as an unauthorized bonfire?

Hate crimes are larger than what does or does not go on inside the head of the perpetrator. The purpose of the category is to prevent groups of people from thinking that they can get away with targeting a specific group, such as Jews, or Blacks, or gays. We HAVE to special attention to this kind of crime. If it spread or became common, we'd have some serious social division. There can be no tolerance for systematic violent racism or homophobia. Because that is the path to totalitarianism right there. The tendency is in every society. We are by no means immune.

The above post was mine - the filter keeps dumping my name out when I refresh the anti-spam text.

Please cut the talk of terrorism. There's been much hyperventilating about how Bush was supposedly playing on our fears for political power. Can we stop it NOW?

Karen Brown wrote, "In other words, they want to treat hate crimes as worse not because the victim is special, but because they are NOT."

Utter nonsense. This is a fine rhetorical turn, but it's a complete contradiction. You can't have someone treated differently from others and at the same time say he is not special. You might say not that the victim is special, but that the GROUP is special. But is that really a good thing overall?

octopus writes Somewhere, someone is making a statement about one class/group/caste/race being inferior ( in need of protection ) than another.

Not if it's written in generic terms (e.g., increased penalties for targeting a victim because of their race or religious beliefs). Such a law protects both whites and blacks, christians and jews and atheists.

Athelstane has this more correct when he says you are, in fact, valuing some lives and rights more highly than others (if you informally lump gender and race under "rights" ... perhaps a better phrasing would be that these laws value some characteristics over others.)

But, the simple fact is that bigotry against some aspects of our lives (religion, race, sexual orientation, ...) are more dangerous in our society than others. (How many people out there want to eliminate left- or right-handers?)

I wouldn't want to see hate-crimes laws hard-coded into our constitutions. But I can understand the argument for using them on an as-needed basis, as a way of addressing specific, real-world dangers.

I'm still ambivalent about these laws, but I don't think much of arguments based simply on the claim that it's somehow "totalitarian" to interpret a person's mind as part of a legal proceeding. We do that a lot!

Rod Dreher says, in the comments;

"At a certain level, all violent crime is hate crime. I find the idea that some victims are more important in the eyes of the law than others to be repugnant, and open to politically motivated abuse."

So I take it you object to laws that, for example, provide for higher penalties for assaults on or murders of police officers in the course of their duties than on regular people? Those laws have been around a lot longer than hate crime legislation, and usually have harsher penalties. Strangely, most conservatives don't seem to mind those at all even though they are specifically saying some victims are more important in the eyes of the law, and they are very open to poltically motivated abuse.

As a matter of fact, I'm actually opposed to hate crimes legislation, but I agree with other commenters who say that traditionally the law has looked into the mind of the perpetrator. Pentamom and other commenters mention that intent is different from motivation, and that's true. But the traditional difference between first degree murder and second degree murder was not intent, but pre-meditation.

This is not entirely consistent, but I would tend to argue that major crimes (murder, rape, GBH) are not made worse by virtue of being hate crimes, whereas minor crimes clearly are. Surely it is indisputable that painting a swastika on the door of a Jew is worse than painting "Joe woz ere"? Admittedly, there is a grey area in that muggers, for example, routinely subject their victims to racist abuse, but I do not think they should therefore be seen as hate crimes.

octopus: "When do we lift the protections? In 20 years will we need to add persons of European descent? "

Yes, I do think white people should be given exactly the same protection against hate crimes as blacks, etc.

Two brief comments on why most conservatives find "hate crimes" suspect:

1) "Hate crimes" are closely linked to calls for restrictions against "hate speech." "Hate speech" restrictions are generally more about shutting down particular viewpoints, which would be a blatant violation of the first amendment.

2) Those who advocate "hate crime" and "hate speech" legislation only seem interested in employing said legislation quite selectively. For instance, there were a number of reports of vandalism, threats and even assault against Mormons out West in the wake of proposition 8 passing. There wasn't any talk from the left about these crimes being "anti-religious hate crimes." Likewise, when someone says, writes or does something very offensive to conservative religious people (for instance P.Z. Myers antics) you don't hear much from the left about "hate speech." This gives conservatives the impression that either liberals don't care much about our rights or the whole "hate crime" and "hate speech" categories are a lot more about using government power to enforce leftist orthodoxy than they are protecting people in an equal fashion, especially people who don't interest the left or who the left even finds distasteful.

rr

Are you saying that an individual is the same thing as a group? It isn't about the victim.

Are you saying that there is absolutely no difference between a man who kills a group in a bank who resist during a robbery and, say, Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahlmer?

Some serial killers were proven to have killed far less than some other people in prison, yet they generally get far longer sentences. Other than the horror at their particular methods, in some cases (the Son of Sam just shot people in the head, for instance. No form of murder is nice, but there's nothing especially gruesome about it, in comparison with others), why would that be the case?

Because of the people still walking around, who could be in danger from the criminal. Anyone who fits their particular quirk, whether it is being a young woman with long brown hair (Bundy) or young male hitcher (Dahlmer), or you stopped your car at a red light, your life is in danger for nothing you do, nothing you own, nothing you say, but just fitting a template.

The law has dealt with that sort of thing differently in the past, the same reason they deal with premeditated murderers differently than spur of the moment.

hello hattio,

But the traditional difference between first degree murder and second degree murder was not intent, but pre-meditation.

But premeditation is a form of intent, not an underlying reason for that intent - dependent on chronology more than anything else. In other words, a different kind of mens rea is required to prove first degree murder than is the case with second degree.

Paglia's a very smart art historian and critic who goes off the rails when she comments on public policy. It's remarkable that anyone could say, of her quote here, that it's "of course" correct when it flatly contradicts itself:

Government functionaries should not be ceded the dangerous authority to make decisions about motivation. They aren't novelists, psychologists or sibyls!

(....a couple of sentences later:)

Although I am a supporter of the death penalty in extreme cases, I think there were ambiguities here: The aimless hooligans who beat Shepard and tied him to a fence perhaps didn't necessarily mean to kill him.

Who knows or cares what they "meant"? We can't inquire into that! We're not novelists, psychologists or sybils! I mean, come on. Can we be consistent for at least, say, two paragraphs?

Also, as others have pointed out, the ship sailed a long time ago on the matter of whether "government functionaries" (Paglia means judges and juries) should be able to inquire into motivation or not. That inquiry is absolutely basic to criminal law. I think pentamom is wrong when she says that "Pre-hate crimes, the law cared only whether you intended to kill someone, not why." There are legal doctrines like "malicious heart" that are much older than hate-crimes laws and that are all about the "why." It has long been relevant whether, for example, you killed for money or not, whether you killed someone to prevent him from testifying against you, etc. etc.

Finally, as others have noted, the concept underlying the idea of hate crimes is also the concept underlying concepts like genocide. Was the Nazi Holocaust merely 6 million individual murders? If not, what is the added element, and how many people would have to be victimized before we could recognize that that added element was in play? Questions like these are answerable in ways that don't lead to hate-crime laws, but it's inconsistent just to ignore the logical connection between these issues.

Re: "privileged classes" of crime victims--killing police officers and other public servants has always been considered especially heinous, and usually gets prosecuted and punished that way. Which has always bothered me, as to police officers who are trained, armed, and paid to defend themselves in neighborhoods where civilians are considered "fair game."

Why do we punish killing (or attempting to kill) a police officer (or the president) different from killing an ordinary citizen?

I find the idea that some victims are more important in the eyes of the law than others to be repugnant, and open to politically motivated abuse.

It's not about the victims being more important. It's about the perpetrators gouging into historical wounds we have collectively decided are too raw and too poorly healed over to take much abuse.

I wonder how you'd feel if gangs of teenagers started targeting autistic kids for extreme beatings. After all, they're just kids fighting with kids, right?

Rod:

Maybe you can explain the justice in this and tell me again why we don't need hate crime laws...

GREENVILLE, S.C. The man found guilty of the May 15, 2007, killing of openly gay Sean Kennedy was released from prison a week early.
Stephen Andrew Moller was released from his 5-year suspended sentence on July 1. His sentence had already been reduced by two months after receiving a good behavior credit for receiving his GED while in prison.
“Again the judicial system failed they say one thing and do something else,” Sean’s mother Elke Kennedy said in a release. “He should have served every single day of the already short sentence, instead he was released from prison today, one week early. Where is the justice?”
On Feb. 11, Moller was denied early parole and his original release date was set to July 7.

http://www.q-notes.com/2956/stephen-moller-released-one-week-early/

We see what murdering a gay man in South Carolina(while shouting bigoted epithets!) will get you. A five year suspended sentence.

All the sickening whining above about "thought crimes" is nonsense of the most useless sort. Motive matters!

It always has.

Hate crimes do not just target one victim. They are meant to terrorize and suppress an entire group of people. That is why bigots would hang one or two black men to make an example whenever CORE or other groups tried to register voters. Evreybody got the message...and the same thing applies here. Being gay in the wrong town will get you killed and the murderer gets a slap on the wrist, if anything

Want to know what he was saying as he beat Sean to death? Sure you do.

"Hey. (laughter) Whoa stop. (laughter) Hey, I was just wondering how your boyfriend’s feeling right about now. (laughter) (??) knocked the f— out. (laughter). The f—— f*ggot. He ought to never stick his mother-f—— nose (??) Where are you going? Just a minute. (laughter). Yea boy, your boy is knocked out, man. The mother——-. Tell him he owes me $500.00 for breaking my god—- hand on his teeth that f—— b*tch”"

The aimless hooligans who beat Shepard and tied him to a fence perhaps didn't necessarily mean to kill him.

Whatever Camille Paglia is, she's certainly ignorant about Wyoming winters.

Want to know what he was saying as he beat Sean to death? Sure you do.

"Hey. (laughter) Whoa stop. (laughter) Hey, I was just wondering how your boyfriend’s feeling right about now. (laughter) (??) knocked the f— out. (laughter). The f—— f*ggot. He ought to never stick his mother-f—— nose (??) Where are you going? Just a minute. (laughter). Yea boy, your boy is knocked out, man. The mother——-. Tell him he owes me $500.00 for breaking my god—- hand on his teeth that f—— b*tch”"

Maybe tell Rod that those are Eminem lyrics. Perhaps he'll care then.

We see what murdering a gay man in South Carolina(while shouting bigoted epithets!) will get you. A five year suspended sentence.

So you think that the abuse of one law justifies another law, which is also subject to abuse? The case you cite may be an instance of judicial and prosecutorial malfeasance but that, in itself, doesn't justify yet another law to try correct something that should be corrected by booting the offending parties out of their offices.

During his recent testimony before Congress on hate crime legislation, Eric Holder was asked if the bill would protect a minister who had just preached a sermon which condemned homosexuality and was subsequently beaten by gays. Holder said the bill would not protect the minister. If we are going to have such laws, they should apply to everybody, not just politically favored classes of people.

If we are going to have such laws, they should apply to everybody, not just politically favored classes of people.

Which is why the expansion is proposed. Right now, everyone is covered under hate crime laws--race, religion, gender--except LGBTs. So the law is doing exactly what you want.

larry - not sure who Eric Holden is, but perhaps that doesn't matter.

Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the United States of America, as such I think his opinion on what the law covers carries some weight. And I will believe what he says about before some random commenter on a blog.

Which is why the expansion is proposed. Right now, everyone is covered under hate crime laws--race, religion, gender--except LGBTs. So the law is doing exactly what you want.

Not according to Eric Holder, who explicitly stated that its protection only extends to groups against whom there has been a historic record of crime. Now maybe Holder is wrong, but if he is, he should be impeached for incompetence.

larry - not sure who Eric Holden is, but perhaps that doesn't matter. I have never understood the whole hate crimes laws give special protection to certain people. The laws just say "race" not any particular race, so all races are covered. And if the law says "sexual orientation", well doesn't that pretty much cover everyone too? I am not sure what the argument is.

Regarding your specific point, regarding the minister who had just preached a sermon which condemned homosexuality and was subsequently beaten by gays, if the crime was motivated by malice toward heterosexuals in general or against that particular minister's religion, then I'm guessing the law would apply, but in your example, it is not clear either of those things are true. Maybe the gay mob was just pissed off at this one guy? I don't think hate crime laws are written to protect the expression of opinions, so if you attack someone because of their opinion, you've committed a crime, but probably not a hate crime.

Eric Holder's testimony is available here: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3943 . They only have an audio feed so I can't cut-n-paste anything, sorry.

I don't think hate crime laws are written to protect the expression of opinions

So it again appears that some are more equal than others and more worthy of the protection of the law. I'm sure the minister would claim that his speech flows from who and what he is, but since the minister is not a member of a favored class that wouldn't make any difference. I also suspect an attack on someone advocating black supremacy, ala Louis Farrakhan would be treated as a hate crime, while a similar attack on a Klansman would not. The distinction between stating an opinion and who one is is not as clear as all that and would be ripe for abuse from publicity seeking prosecutors.

So it again appears that some are more equal than others and more worthy of the protection of the law.

No. You just seem comfortable with the fact that some people get less protection under the law then you. Who cares about dead gay guys, right?

Thanks for link, though.

If it is a worse crime to assault a [black person] [homosexual] [disabled person] than to assault someone else, doesn't that by implication devalue the lives and safety of people who do not fall into one of the Special Classes? Is that really what we want to do?

Again, read the example I posted above concerning the murder of Sean Kennedy. His skin head look alike killer got less then three years behind bars for the brutal beating and slaying of Sean while spouting vile homophobic slurs.

In South Carolina it seems, is is a worse crime to kill a dog in a dogfight then to beat a gay man to death. Meanwhile, you whine about special classes while resting comfortably in the special class you are in. If somebody killed you or a family member in South Carolina, the killer would face a far harsher penalty.

Kill a gay man and watch the victim become the pervert aggressor.

This isn't really about "special classes", as Grendel explained above. It's acknowledging that attacking a person to threaten other people like him or her damages society far more egregiously. When you burn a cross a a black mans lawn, you just threatened him, his family and every other black family in the town. They all know what the message is.

If you kill a gay man, decapitate him and burn his body*...every GLBT person around knows to leave or possibly face the same thing. It isn't just a crime against one victim...it is a crime that assaults society itself. That is what you are determined to not recognize for whatever reason.

*

http://rpc.blogrolling.com/redirect.php?r=8c21e5aaf6c89b6678ac862be337620c&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pamspaulding.com%2Fweblog%2F2004%2F12%2Fout-mag-is-alabama-really-worst-place.html

We change punishment based on the victim all the time. Assaulting a cop will get you a lot more time then assaulting anyone else. There are special penalties for attacking political leaders, especially the president.

Plus, motive matters. Burning a church to protest the faith of its members is morally worse than burning it because you like to see stuff burn.

Dreher was particularly outraged when he thought San Francisco residents had assaulted some people he believed to be Christians for publicly praying (no evidence supported the assertion, and they were using prayer to insult gay people, but that's beside the point here). I don't remember him being so outraged at any other simple assault. That's because he thought is was morally worse to assault someone for exercising their faith than over an ordinary argument.

We treat equal crimes equally. But it's fair to argue (and well within legislative discretion to decide) that assaulting someone because of their race is not equal to assaulting someone because of an ordinary argument.

Equal punishment for equal crimes. Unequal punishment for unequal crimes.

Larry claimed

"During his recent testimony before Congress on hate crime legislation, Eric Holder was asked if the bill would protect a minister who had just preached a sermon which condemned homosexuality and was subsequently beaten by gays. Holder said the bill would not protect the minister. If we are going to have such laws, they should apply to everybody, not just politically favored classes of people."

I have quickly listened to the testimony (thank you for the link). I don't see where he says that, but maybe someone could enlighten me.

At about 64:30 he answers a question about a minister who preaches against homosexuality, and following the sermon, a congregation member attacks a homosexual. The question was could the minister be of a hate crime. Answer: no.

At about 67:00 he is asked what if that minister didn't just condemn homosexuality but preached that it was each person's religious duty to punish homosexuals, would the minister be guilty of a hate crime? Answer: no.

At about 68:00 he is asked whether those who may harass or intimidate homosexuals, but not use physical violence be prosecuted. Answer: no, the law only covers acts of physical violence.

I don't see where he claims a minister beaten by homosexuals because of a sermon he gave would not be covered. but like I said, maybe I missed it.

Dreher was particularly outraged when he thought San Francisco residents had assaulted some people he believed to be Christians for publicly praying (no evidence supported the assertion, and they were using prayer to insult gay people, but that's beside the point here). I don't remember him being so outraged at any other simple assault. That's because he thought is was morally worse to assault someone for exercising their faith than over an ordinary argument.

You are wrong. I was particularly outraged because a group of people engaged in free speech on a public street -- praying, as it turned out -- were driven out of a place they had a right to be, by an enraged mob. Their physical person was in such danger that riot police had to be called to escort them away. It was clearly a "hate crime," this attempt at intimidation (N.B., I don't know if there was actually a crime committed here, but had the police not been there, I suspect the Christians would have been assaulted). Had someone in this mob physically attacked one of these Christians, would you have supported adding "hate crime" charges to the mix? I would not have, even though the victims would have been attacked specifically because they were Christians, and the attack would have been plainly intended to intimidate Christians from coming into that gay neighborhood (watch the video; that's what the mob wanted).

If someone from the gay mob had attacked one of these Christians, and you would have supported slapping this person with a hate crime citation, then I credit you for your consistency. I would not have wanted this. You do this, and you open the door for prosecutors to try to determine if the black criminal who raped a white woman chose his victim because she was white, or if the white criminals who murdered an Iranian cabdriver chose their victim because he was Middle Eastern. Do we really want to go there?

Perhaps Rod Dreher and Camille Paglia could go to the local church, synagogue, Mormon temple, and mosque and tell them it is time to remove hate crime enhancement laws designed to protect them. When they are finished they could speak to the NAACP as to why preserving hate crime statutes designed to give their victims a bite at the legal apple violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.

Hate is hate is hate. Either repeal all hate crime statutes now on the book or extend its protections so that any hate-motivated act is covered.

Why is "hate crime legislation" a remedy for such injustices as five-year sentences for beating people to death? A five year sentence is a travesty precisely BECAUSE it doesn't matter who the victim is.

Deaths resulting from malicious intent should result in life sentences. Personally, I'd prefer the death penalty in a lot of cases, but I understand that some are not comfortable with that. But why would we need to make it a hate crime if we consistently gave everyone the maximum appropriate punishment for the crime?

A five year sentence is a travesty precisely BECAUSE it doesn't matter who the victim is.

It apparently mattered to law enforcement and the judge and the jury. A federal hate crimes law covering Sean would have seen his killer prosecuted under that law and do federal time without parole, instead of the grimly laughable travesty we saw instead.

...if we consistently gave everyone the maximum appropriate punishment for the crime?

Because we do not consistently give everyone the maximum approprite penalty!!!!

In some places, people don't like other groups of people. maybe it's gay men...and maybe it's Latinos. The jury may like the good ol' boy who is charged, and the preacher says that gay men are an abomination according to Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Latinos are there to steal their jobs.

You figure it out.

If actual justice is being subverted by local prejudice, then some other sanction is needed.

If you got mugged, you might move, but your friends and neighbors and family won't.

Historically, this is inaccurate. This is what 'white flight' was all about. It started with the increased rates of love crime brought to northern cities with the 'great migration', and accelerated with the riots of the 1960s. I doubt very much that any of the crimes of those riots, or the 1990s riots in Miami, Los Angeles, Cincinnati would match 'hate crime' criteria. Clearly however they caused not only fear, but movement of white folk out of certain areas.

Moreover the actual application of hate crimes is very uneven. Do you really think that the Central Park Jogger case didn't cause white women in particular to avoid jogging in the park? Do you think the 2000 'wilding' case at the Puerto Rican day parade in New York didn't have an effect on Europeans and European Americas who were the disproportionate victims of the activity of AfroAmerican and Latino 'youth'.

Do you really think that the Central Park Jogger case didn't cause white women in particular to avoid jogging in the park? Do you think the 2000 'wilding' case at the Puerto Rican day parade in New York didn't have an effect on Europeans and European Americas who were the disproportionate victims of the activity of AfroAmerican and Latino 'youth'.

In a way, you are validating the central premise, in that if a group feels targeted for violence then they will react far more fearfully and be less able to participate in society then other groups.

To clarify my "mugging" example: say that a white man is mugged one night in an area, and two nights later a Latino man is mugged in the same area. People in the area will be alert and concerned, but no particular group (other then men walking alone) seems to be targeted and while the crime was violent and both men were assaulted, no specifically personally motivated violence is in evidence.

Now take that first man and have the mugger beat him while yelling "Kill whitey" or "kill the f***ing f****ts" and the crime is now specifically targeted to frighten a discrete group of people. You mention that white people were afraid after some well publicized incidents of anti Caucasion hatred and violence? Absolutely. White people started leaving the area because they specifically felt threatened beyond what other ethnic groups felt.

That is why hate motivated crimes are so destructive to society. All this hogwash about special classes of victims is absolute rot. The nature of the crime actually attacks the ability of society to function, because specific groups of people are afraid to participate, whether the group is African American, Asian, gay or whatever.

Behind the smoke and mirrors of arguing "thought crimes" nonsense is the notion that many Christians (some of my family members included) have that gay people deserve what they get, and they should be grateful to be allowed out at all. Straight people are better and deserve better, and any attempt to allow GLBT people to have the same degree of job security, legal protection or the ability to walk down the street without being beaten is met with Biblical passages, contempt and cries of "gay agenda" and "it offends my religious beliefs".

No thought crime here. We just want to make sure the f*gs stop being uppity.

Do you really think that this sort of thing only happens to gays? It happens to all sorts of people, all the time.

Just go look at the FBI hate-crime statistics and think again.

Rod's description of the "anti-Christian" "attack" in San Francisco after Prop 8 leaves out a few facts.

1) the group purposely walked into the Castro district in the middle of a rather large, on-going demonstration against the passage of Prop 8 three days after the election.

2) It was a Friday evening and they picked the part of the Castro where the most bars are.

3) The group does this every Friday evening. This was the only time they've been asked to leave.

4) They brought along an assistant along to video the whole thing. In other words, they expected trouble.

5) Many of the folks who "drove them out" walked between them and the few drunk people who were threatening them, acting as a human shield in case anyone lost his temper.

6) This "anti-Christian" "attack" occurred in a neighborhood with many churches, most of them gay-friendly. Within a few blocks of the intersection where the incident started are several houses of worship, all of them very well attended by both gay and straight worshipers.