Mercedes Allen

Point: The Matthew Shepard Act will show that hate is not tolerated

Filed By Mercedes Allen | February 08, 2009 1:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Canada, hate crimes against LGBT people, Matthew Shepard Act, us

I'm not one to believe that legislation is a be-all and end-all solution to the troubles that plague us, but it can be a necessary step in order to achieve equality in spirit. Hate crime laws exist because assumed and cultural prejudices, the need of certain institutions (some religions, or government) to manufacture a common enemy, and human nature's fundamental impulse to fear and revile what we don't understand all ensure that equality in its purest principle cannot be simply assumed and left to chance. Equality must be safeguarded with particular care to protect the marginalized, and environments must be created so that the machinations that drive discrimination can be confronted and defused over the long term.

Such is the Matthew Shepard Act, which was proposed as H.R. 1592 to add sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to the protected classes under hate crime law, as well as to remove some restrictive barriers to placing hate crimes charges, and adding crimes against transgender people to those being statistically tracked.

Although nothing is ever perfect, we can't allow our cynicism to keep us from seeing the potential ramifications of legislation like this.

In the absence of hate crimes legislation, it is not uncommon for people who commit acts of violence against homosexual or transgender people to be able to use panic defenses to barter their charges down to negligible complaints. In the case of murder, often to manslaughter or mischief. The really sad thing is this happens so commonly that I really don't know if the latter is an exaggeration; certainly acquittal is not uncommon. While hate crimes legislation doesn't always prevent panic strategies from working, it does provide a tool to defuse them. Panic strategies often assert that "they were asking for it," while hate crime designation reminds us that no one should deserve violence simply because of who they are.

The law doesn't help the dead, of course, but it does help survivors, or the living left behind, find closure, find a sense of justice, and re-assert the value of life. More than that, it prevents matters from being trivialized, sending the signal that crimes against GLBT persons are not acceptable, and that GLBT victims have no less value in our society than anybody else. The effect of this is not immediate, but it does indeed grow with time.

The concept of hate speech -- the more extreme potential application of hate crimes legislation -- is slightly more controversial, but even in that, we can see why something needs to be done, and how legislation can ultimately lead to something more closely resembling equality. I wrote a few months ago about a political candidate's declaration before a gathering of high school students in Sudbury Ontario that he felt that "homosexuals should be executed."

"My whole reason for running is the Bible and the Bible couldn't be more clear on that point." -- David Popescu

Canada does have sexual orientation included in the categories covered under hate crimes law (gender identity isn't, but that's a rant for another day), and the law didn't stop the comment from being made, of course. Neither did the school Principal, nor the other candidates participating in the forum, for that matter. What hate crime law does is provide a means of confronting the speech and the attitudes that drive it. It provides a means to come into that discussion and establishes that the hate simply isn't acceptable -- for example, for the sake of closure for the perhaps closeted students that had to sit through that speech and face the chilling realization of just how dangerous it can sometimes be to be Out.

I'm a strong believer in cultures of acceptance. When an environment is made welcoming, when intolerance is not tolerated, then gradually, the closeted moderates and eventually even some of the begrudging right-wing will gradually let go of the prejudices and "squick-factor" that they cling to, and start to welcome people who would otherwise be continually challenged simply because of who they are -- or at least to see them with empathy, as humans -- which in itself becomes a change of mindset. As legislation, hate crimes law is only as good as the authorities who make use of it and enforce it. As a social tool, however, it goes much further to signal that the social climate is changing and that we as a people too must change.

One cannot underestimate this. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example, does not specifically advocate violence, and yet it has been one of the largest sources of inspiration of genocide in history, through the creation of the culture of hate. We cannot change the acts of violence that occur, but we can change the attitudes and the boldness that drive them. This much, legislation (when properly enforced) can effect over time.

The role of hate crimes legislation in furthering a cause is sometimes invisible, yet crucial. As people realize that something CAN be done about hatred and violence if directed at them (and later, that something WILL be done), they become emboldened to be Out, to be vocal and to become active. Whether the fear is dismantled from real protection or an idea of protection, it loses its power over people nonetheless, and communities grow in numbers, in courage and in activity, thus expanding the culture of acceptance exponentially.

While the Matthew Shepard Act will focus primarily on established crimes as motivated by bias, it will still give the authorities the ability to act when no other specific law has been violated, but there is a clear need to act. It will also provide impetus to see cases through to their conclusion, rather than fall by the wayside for lack of concern. These have been serious roadblocks to people seeking resolution in the past.

And with time, it works. About that Canadian hate speech law? Society has been gradually (sometimes begrudgingly) accepting gay couples to the point that the Conservative government grumblingly voted down a revisitation of same-sex marriage. The shift toward tolerance (though not complete) has so threatened the extreme factions that they've seen fit for far-right journalists, the Roman Catholic Church, the Conservative Government, Protestant Fundamentalists and white supremacists to informally ally -- of course, provided the banners everybody flies are "free speech" and "morality."

Will the Matthew Shepard Act ban the Bible? Of course not. But if there is some acknowledgement now that Leviticus 20:13 has to be reassessed in the context of modern law, times, and respect for life, so too will the remainder of anti-gay sentiment eventually be re-examined to better fit the understanding of a Creator's love, and a changing society -- just as it has had to be re-examined in other contexts.

Such is the real and vital result of legislation, however glacial the change may sometimes seem.

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

lacy panties | February 8, 2009 6:47 PM

In the absence of hate crimes legislation, it is not uncommon for people who commit acts of violence against homosexual or transgender people to be able to use panic defenses to barter their charges down to negligible complaints.

As you acknowledge yourself, hate crime legislation does nothing to prevent defenants accused of violence against homosexual or transgender people from raising panic defenses. As far as I can tell, your entire column argues that shifting social attitudes toward alternative sexuality has yielded genuine gains for lesbian, gay and transgender individuals. You suggest that this shift in attitudes is somehow the result of hate crimes laws, but you don't give any real evidence to demonstrate that such laws are the cause of increased tolerance.

In fact, one could argue that increased tolerance for the LGBT community would have to prevail in order for such laws to pass, making them a result of the shift in attitudes rather than the cause of it. You haven't described any genuine benefit whatsoever that can be traced to the presence of hate crimes legislation.

What benefit do you want? The federal hate crimes law will not increase penalties. That's done at the state level. This law has nothing to do with the actual court case except provide local jurisdictions more money to investigate and prosecute/defend. So, basically, your concern with the "panic defense" is really N/A in this discussion.

lacy panties | February 9, 2009 7:09 AM

I agree that the panic defense is not applicable to this argument; it was Allen who introduced it, and it was precisely my point that her argument was irrelevant.

As far as what benefit I want--it seems to me that it's those who support hate crimes legislation who have the responsibility of demonstrating that it is beneficial. I'm suspicious of any campaign to increase the power of the state to surveil, punish and incarcerate citizens. I think the history of lesbians, gay men and transgender individuals in America provides ample justification for such suspicion.

This federal law will not give the states any expanded powers in surveillance. The FBI can keep hate crime statistics, but that doesn't mean the states can look into all LGBT people. The language can be tricky, but I have had a chance to ask LGBT lawyers on this. Their explanation helped me understand.

"In fact, one could argue that increased tolerance for the LGBT community would have to prevail in order for such laws to pass"

Yes - but I don't think that one could support the argument that the level of tolerance required to pass such a law would signify equality. Nor would it indicate equal levels of hate violence experienced by lgbt individuals and the general population.

Indeed, the disparate level of hate violence faced by lgbt individuals is one of the arguemnts most effective in helping to pass these pieces of legislation.

PA passed an inclusive piece of hate crimes legislation in 2002 (it was overturned last year due to an proceedural issue in the passage of the bill.) A civil rights bill hasn't yet been pased here. And - it's clear that hate crimes bills pass in all areas before nondiscrimination legislation. So - yes - the hate crimes bills seem historically to be part of the process of this society beginning to ackwoledge the equality of its lgbt citizens.

LP, what about the ability to track hate crimes against the transgendered nationally, something we don't have now except for our own informal tallies, but is done by the FBI for sexuality, race, ethnicity, and gender already?

How about the ability of local law enforcement agencies to enlist federal aid in solving and prosecuting hate crimes, which this bill would also provide?

Those seem like pretty genuine and worthwhile benefits to me.

Rebecca Juro
Is the term "transgendered" correct ? We don't say "gayed", "lesbianed", bi-sexualed, ect, so why transgendered? Is transgendered the same as being neutered? Seems to me that "transgender" person is the correct usuage. Not being critical, just curious.

Charles, in my opinion (some may disagree, but most I know of don't) "transgender" is an adjective, not a noun. I am a transgender person, not a transgender. When I say "the transgendered" it means all transgender people, but a single person would be a transgender individual.

I know it's a little odd and not quite the same as the common usage of "gay" and "lesbian", but if you read or say it out loud it sounds (to most of us I think) far better than "transgenders".

It's not a common use. It's worst then saying "I'm a transgender." Adding "ed" makes us a thing rather than a person. Adding "ed" doesn't make it another adjective. Ask an English major. They'll tell you.

Actually I was an English major and I know the rules as well as anyone. As someone who does radio as well as print, I tend to go with what sounds right to my ear rather than stick hard and fast to the most common print grammar rules. In fact, I break the rules all the time, tending to write much like I speak. I find it gives my written work more of an intimate, conversational tone.

Granted it's just my personal style, but it works for me.

YES! It is your personal style. This is the absolute perfect for you, which was what I was getting at with the word "tranny." I'm the last person to be mad at a person's personal choice, even though I always make an attempt to change someone's mind.