Editorial from The Guide	Editorials Archive

Top on the agenda of many gay and lesbian groups is enacting "hate crime" laws. Such laws require courts to evaluate language used during a crime to determine if the offense was motivated by "hatred" of the victim's religion, ethnicity, or-- in some jurisdictions now-- sexual orientation. If the crime is deemed "hateful," these new laws mandate harsher punishments.

Gay collaboration with drives to enact such measures is a terrible mistake, for hate crimes laws are incompatible with justice. Moreover, it is short-sighted for gay people to further arm the state with more ways to punish people for uttering words and holding attitudes judged offensive by the majority. We should, instead, insist that courts treat everyone equally.

View our poll archive

To determine if a hate crime has been committed, the government applies two political tests.

The first test asks: is the victim a member of a group popular enough to be "protected"? While gay people make it over this hurdle in some jurisdictions, other-- even less politically palatable groups-- are inevitably left out. Is hating a communist to be illegal? What about drag queens or boylovers or devil worshippers? By drawing protective lines around some, others are thereby excluded, implicitly signaling that they are more appropriate targets for assault.

The second political test evaluates whether the offense was "hateful." Right-wing congressman Henry Hyde favors federal hate crimes laws because he hopes to turn throwing condoms at priests during ordination ceremonies from constitutionally protected free speech into a punishable act of hate. But were Pat Robertson ever to get into a scuffle with gay activists, his venomous damnation for queers will be, undoubtedly, deemed sacrosanct religious expression, never to be judged as prosecutable hate. Clearly, the government will find offensive words and actions directed against powerful groups as more "hateful" than those targeting the politically vulnerable.

Any political tests of speech are noxious and dangerous to political dissidents. Instead of trying to join the protected elite, gay people should insist that assault laws evaluate action, not political motivation. Someone who has had their teeth kicked in should have access to fair legal recourse regardless of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or political persuasion.

Gay people and other minorities have not traditionally benefited from those in power trying to control what was said about us or what we are called. Furthermore, establishing that people can be punished for hateful language invites further censorship. It is a short step of logic from hate crimes laws to bans on expressions deemed to "degrade" or "dehumanize" protected groups. Already, Canada seeks to silence pornographers on the grounds that anal sex and S&M "degrade" women (even if no women are depicted!), and various European jurisdictions enforce official Holocaust history and ban certain political rhetoric lest persecuted groups feel "dehumanized."

It is, perhaps, understandable why our political organizations pursue campaigns for hate crimes laws-- they are much easier to win than the more fundamental battle for sexual freedom. Who wants to vote for "hate"? But giving the government broad new powers to punish unpopular views is a tragic error-- hate crimes laws should be vigorously opposed. Protecting people's freedom of expression means allowing them to dislike, even to hate, other people-- and to voice their opinions without fear that the coercive power of the state will be used to punish or silence them.

Physically attacking or threatening someone with harm is a crime. Calling them names should not be.