Opposing the Federal Hate Crimes Law...

So, in my continuing quest to avoid studying for tomorrow's exam (God, I hope I don't have to retake this class), I am catching up not only on the work on my desk, but on the blogs that I have been neglecting to read for the last few weeks/months. Among the stories of note was the passing of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act in the U.S. House of Representatives and its introduction in the Senate. Follow it here.

My first reaction was to be proud that Minnesota’s own Amy Klobuchar was a co-sponsor of the bill in the Senate. I called to thank her office. I further noted that a Minnesota Democrat, Collin Peterson out of the 7th District, was one of only 11 democrats to break rank and vote against the bill. I also called his office and told him what a shitty thing that was. His staffer came back with: “We don’t think we want to classify one violent crime as worse than another simply because of who the victim is.”

Bullshit. I got into one of my biggest arguments ever with my college roommate over this issue: hate crimes affect communities in a way that is meant to ostracize and stifle minority communities through fear. Often, the victim is unknown to the perpetrator except as a member of that minority community. So Dick wasn’t attacked because he was Dick or because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, but rather because he is Muslim, Black, Hispanic, Gay, or any or all of the above (perhaps at the wrong time with that minority status). Dick is definitely the victim, but so is every other minority member of his community who has to fear that they could be targeted as well.

But, after looking closely at the bill, I’m not sure that I personally support it. And it’s because I agree with George W. Bush. GASP!!!

Don’t get me wrong, if this bill were coming through the state legislature, I would be all about it. Even though there are still serious flaws (such as the possibility of rape or domestic abuse cases being classified as a hate crime against “gender”), I think that it is a good issue to be pursued at a state level.

But looking at the bill, it would federalize (or create the possibility of federal jurisdiction for) a wide variety of violent crimes. The “commerce connection” needed to qualify for federal jurisdiction is simply that a) a gun was involved, b) an interstate instrumentality (like a highway or other federally funded road) was involved, or c) that either the perpetrator or the victim were involved, going to be involved or could be involved in some type of commerce (had gone to Walmart three days ago). In the hands of an over-zealous federal prosecutor (and let’s be real, have we met one who isn’t overzealous?) this could federalize a HUGE assortment of crimes, crimes which would otherwise be dealt with on a state level.

I hate to let my libertarian, federalist colors show a little, but this is one of those things that can, and should, be addressed at a state level. It is a bit of a reach of the commerce powers of Congress, and something that I truly don’t feel like is best handled by the federal government.

This, ironically, is the exact reason that Bush’s office is threatening to veto this bill: not the gay issue, but the federalism issue. While I agree with that stated rationale, I am not sure it isn’t a smokescreen when compared to the only other two vetos of his tragic presidency: stem cell research funding and the Iraq Timetable Bill. Plus, wasn’t No Child Left Behind just a huge example of expansion of federal government? Anyway… I'm just trying to shield myself from the appearance of agreeing with the moron too much…

Oh... and please don't hate me for voicing this dissent.

Musical Fodder for my Writing:
"Something Pretty" Patrick Park,
Loneliness Knows My Name