Anti-Hate Crime Absurdity

In some quarters, there is panic over a proposed hate crimes bill that has passed the House.

I oppose the bill, because I oppose an increased federal role in crime control. Bills like this add to the architecture of a national police state, and that alone is reason enough to oppose it.

But the problem is, some of the allegations are false. Christians are allegedly not protected in the bill. But by being members of a religion, they are.

And one Congressman in opposition suggests that if a mother strikes at a pedophile who is victimizing her child, she'd be considered a hate criminal. But how can that be? She'd be acting out of defense of her child, or (if after the fact) out of anger and revenge against that particular criminal. In other words, she'd be attacking him for what he did, not for his sexual orientation. Because revenge is clearly the reason, how could she be prosecuted for a hate crime?

Yes, all forms of sexual deviancy are implicitly covered by "sexual orientation," which is mentioned in the bill. But the sexual behavior, if it is illegal, isn't protected, only the person who may have the deviancy. It's one thing to attack, in defense or retaliation, a person who is menacing your child or your barnyard. It's quite another to attack a registered sex offender who's walking down the street minding his own business. Let alone someone merely suspected of having perverted thoughts.

Lastly, there is fear this will mean pastors will be prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality. Square that with this provision in the House version, H.R. 1913:

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.

And Ted Kennedy's Senate version is even more precise:

SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

For purposes of construing this Act and the amendments made by this Act the following shall apply:

(1) RELEVANT EVIDENCE- Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this Act is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.

(2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.

(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

As one who once called myself a conservative and then a libertarian, I never quite understood why my allies got so worked up over hate crime bills. They condemn hate crimes as "thought crimes," but the fact is that all crimes are thought crimes. That is what distinguishes them from accidents or violence in self-defense: intent. A crime is harmful action plus the intent to do the harm. I defended the hate crimes concept a few years ago, and still agree with what I wrote.

I'm still not persuaded we need hate crime laws that much, and I oppose in principle federal meddling in this issue, but I can't quite get myself worked up about it. This hate crime bill will in any case apply only to people who commit violent acts, and at that point the only question is appropriate jurisdiction. Drug or gambling prohibition at any level is more morally offensive than any laws against violence, even if enforced with dubious Constitutionality at the federal level.

And if my interpretation of this bill, and its application, is incorrect, then I offer my congratulations to the Republicans. If the implications they draw from it are indeed correct, and Mommy will be thrown in federal prison for kicking the child molester in the shins, then they have the 2010 and 2012 elections sewn up. They wouldn't need to run "attack ads," they could just lay out the facts, and they'd clobber the Democrats. But I don't think that's the case. I think they're just grasping at something to rouse their base. It'd be better for them if they found a cause where their claims and the facts actually bear some relation to each other.

But you supported the Bailout!

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The Democrats can't rail against higher taxes for the rich or for corporations. By supporting the Bailout, they've essentially conceded they believe deficits don't matter and that money can be created out of thin air. $700 billion is more than corporations pay in taxes; if the money was used for that purpose, wouldn't corporations all over the world flock to America, creating jobs? Also, $700 billion is also more than half of the American people pay in income taxes. Why not a massive tax cut?

Can Democrats say "we can't afford it?" Five words are a sufficient response: "But you supported the Bailout!"

[...]

Republicans have also lost credibility.

They, too, seem to concede that deficits don't matter. If poorly-run banks and investment firms can be rewarded with a Bailout, why not the people defaulting on their mortgages? Why not school districts and state and local governments running out of money?

How can they rail against earmarks and pork? At least these projects keep people employed! Indeed, any Republican suggestion that thus-and-so social program goes beyond the "proper role of government" can be replied with, "But you supported the Bailout!"

Any proposed spending cut - $100 million here, $5 billion there - can be replied to with "But you supported the Bailout!"

The Civil Liberties Myth

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Democrats get a lot of mileage for their extreme pro-abortion views, faint pro-gay rights views, hobnobbing with Hollywood celebrities, and being perceived as on the "Left" along with the ACLU. And yes, perhaps if you think the most important issue in the world is whether "under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance, you correctly perceive the Democrats agree with you more than Republicans. But if you think you can therefore trust Democrats in Congress and the White House to protect your rights on any issue that actually matters, you are hopelessly naive.

Why Democrats Are Hated

Over the years, the reputation has been that Democrats are in favor of civil liberties, a regulated economy, and Big Government, whereas the Republicans are in favor strong policing and morality over individual freedom, but favor a deregulated economy, and small government.

The perceptions don't meet the reality very often. Democrats often vote for "tough on crime" and "tough on national security" legislation to make people think Democrats can keep them "safe," while Republicans will expand regulations and the welfare state to make people think they stand for fairness and compassion. The result is that most "bi-partisan" bills create more laws and more spending.

And the funny thing is, such compromises never work. Even if some or most Republicans join Democrats in a major spending bill, the fact is that all the budget hawks and smaller-government advocates are on the Republican side, which "taints" the party as a whole for lacking compassion and fairness. Likewise, even if some or most Democrats join Republicans in some "War on Terror" program, the fact that almost all the pro-peace and pro-civil liberty advocates are on the Democratic side , which "taints" that party for being soft. That's why the parties are portrayed as if it's still 1964.

An example of this is the House Democratic Leadership folding on warrantless spying and telecom immunity. The issue is back in the Senate where there have been heroic efforts on the part of Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd. The Republican attack machine will claim that the Feingold-Dodd position is what Democrats really believe.

Now, I support Feingold and Dodd in their efforts to protect Americans from warrantless spying by their own government. But they are vulnerable to the charge that they are the worst possible hypocrites on this issue. For instance, Feingold is most famous for the McCain-Feingold bill, which sought to silence the speech of non-partisan groups during elections campaigns. What will Republicans say? That Feingold values the rights of terrorists over the free speech rights of Americans. Meanwhile, Dodd is working on a bill that would "would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government" and "a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers."

Mortgage brokers!

The Republicans would say that Dodd favors the rights of terrorists over people who want to make an honest buck.

Now, let me emphasize that Feingold and Dodd are right about warrantless spying and telecom immunity. The government is being given permission to spy not just on suspected terrorists, but on average Americans and, especially, high-profile critics of the government who then become vulnerable to frame-ups and blackmail.

But Feingold and Dodd have dug a whole for themselves. It is precisely because they are right on this issue that their hypocrisy stinks all the more. It is true that Feingold and Dodd are rightly fighting for the rights of suspected terrorists, because by preserving their rights we preserve our own. But it is also true that Feingold has no regard for free speech, and Dodd has contempt for the rights of anyone who wants to make a purchase or a decent living. In that sense, they do favor the rights of terrorists over law-abiding Americans.

This feeds the perception that Democrats, essentially, favor the rights of criminals over the law-abiding. That they are soft on criminals, hard on businessmen. That they protect the lives of murderers, but not the unborn. That they care more about the rights of undocumented immigrants than native-born Americans. That when it comes to national security, Democrats favor rights over security, but when it comes to economics, freedom be damned.

If Dodd wins the telecom fight but then, next week, wins on spying on America's mortgage brokers and financial transactions, that would be a pyrrhic victory indeed.

Five Votes?

Yes, the numbers may increase, but according to CNN and with 97% of precincts reporting, Dennis Kucinich got 5 votes in the Nevada primary. Five votes in the entire state.

True, Kucinich was excluded in some recent debates, but, like Ron Paul, he had an entire year, including several televised debates, to build support. Sheesh, Duncan Hunter has 879 votes.

In the entire state, no more than 5 people decided to make a statement, register a protest against the front-runners, or be true to their convictions by voting for Kucinich. Even in Michigan, he got only 4% in a contest Edwards and Obama refused to contest. It makes me wonder whether he was ever running a serious campaign.

Considering how Dodd and Biden, like Kucinich, were annihilated early on, it seems as though Democratic voters set aside quibbles and disagreements, and narrowed the race early on by flocking to the front-runners. The Republican Party seems to be far more ideologically diverse, which is why its race is unsettled.

But speaking of that, it's strange, and wonderful, how they could marginalize one of the most famous men in America. If our primary system existed in 1952, and if there was a large field of contenders, Eisenhower wouldn't have had to campaign at all to have gotten solid percentages in every state. But Giuliani is no Eisenhower, and, like ex-Senator and television actor Fred Thompson, is now finishing behind Ron Paul with regularity. How can Florida propel him to victory in other states, if he has no solid standing heading into Florida?