A Compilation of Critiques on Hate Crimes Legislation
Many liberal, and even self-proclaimed progressive, organizations are fighting for “hate crimes” legislation nationally and state-by-state. The Senate just voted in favor of the “Matthew Shepard Bill”. Challenges and critiques are made over and over again by queer/trans/gender non-conforming folks, people of color, low-income/poor folks, and others most impacted by the many tentacles of the prison industrial complex, yet the campaigns continue on. This document is intended to be a bullet point compilation of materials put out by the following organizations (in no particular order): Sylvia Rivera Law Project, Audre Lorde Project, FIERCE, Queers for Economic Justice, Peter Cicchino Youth Project, Denver Chapter of INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, Denver on Fire, and the article “Sanesha Stewart, Lawrence King, and why hate crimes legislation won’t help” by jack. The intention behind this document is to present a somewhat simplified critique that can inspire a desire for more information.
If a particular crime is deemed a hate crime by the state, the supposed perpetrator is automatically subject to a higher mandatory minimum sentence. For example, a crime that would carry a sentence of five years can be “enhanced” to eight years.
Plain and simple, hate crimes legislation increases the power and strength of the prison system by detaining more people for longer periods of time.
Trans people, people of color, and other marginalized groups are disproportionately incarcerated to an overwhelming degree. Trans and gender non-conforming people, particularly trans women of color, are regularly profiled and falsely arrested for doing nothing more than walking down the street.
If we are incarcerating those who commit violence against marginalized individuals/communities we then place them behind walls where they can continue to target these same people. It is not in the best interest of marginalized communities to depend on a system that already commits such great violence to then protect them.
Hate crime laws do not distinguish between oppressed groups and groups with social and institutional power.
This reality of the state makes it so that white people can accuse people of color of anti-white hate crimes, straight people accuse queers, and so on. Such a reality opens the door for marginalized people to be prosecuted for simply defending themselves against oppressive violence. This type of precedent setting also legitimizes ideologies of reverse racism that continuously deny the institutionalization of oppression.
Hate crime laws are an easy way for the government to act like it is on our communities’ side while continuing to discriminate against us. Liberal politicians and institutions can claim “anti-oppression” legitimacy and win points with communities affected by prejudice, while simultaneously using “sentencing enhancement” to justify building more prisons to lock us up in.
Hate crimes legislation is a liberal way of being “tough on crime” while building the power of the police, prosecutors, and prison guards. Rather than address systems of violence like health care disparities, economic exploitation, housing crisis, or police brutality, these politicians use hate-crimes legislation as their stamp of approval on “social issues”.
Hate crimes laws focus on punishing the “perpetrator” and has no emphasis on providing support for the survivor or families and friends of those killed during an act of interpersonal hate violence.
We will only strengthen our communities if we take time to care for those who have experienced or been witness to violence. We have to survive systems of violence all the time and are incredibly resilient. We must focus on building our capacity to respond and support survivors and create transformative justice practices that can also heal the perpetrator (though focusing first and foremost on survivors).
Hate crime law sets up the State as protector, intending to deflect our attention from the violence it perpetrates, deploys, and sanctions. The government, its agents, and their institutions perpetuate systemic violence and set themselves up as the only avenue in which justice can be allocated; they will never be charged with hate crimes.
The state, which polices gender, race, sexuality, and other aspects of identity, is able to dismiss the ways it creates the systems that builds a culture of violence against marginalized communities as it pays prosecutors to go after individuals who commit particular types of interpersonal violence. Hate crimes legislation puts marginalized communities in the place of asking the state to play the savior while it continues to perpetuate violence.
Hate crimes don’t occur because there aren’t enough laws against them, and hate crimes won’t stop when those laws are in place. Hate crimes occur because, time and time again, our society demonstrates that certain people are worth less than others; that certain people are wrong, are perverse, are immoral in their very being.
Creating more laws will not help our communities. Organizing for the passage of these kind of laws simply takes the time and energy out of communities that could instead spend the time creating alternative systems and building communities capable of starting transformative justice processes. Hate crimes bills are a distraction from the vital work necessary for community safety.
Passing hate crimes legislation will not bring back those who have been killed by hateful violence, it will not heal the wounds of the body or spirit, it will not give power to communities who have felt powerless after episodes of violence.
Organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and others take advantage of our pain and suffering to garner support for these pieces of legislation. Advocates in the campaigns for hate crimes legislation tokenize individuals like Sanesha Stewart and Angie Zapata while still pushing forward the white, class privileged, gay and lesbian agenda. To truly honor those we have lost and to honestly heal ourselves we must resist the inclination to turn to the state for legitimation or paternalistic protection; let us use the time to build our communities and care for our selves.
Posted under revolt
[20] Comments
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from hate crimes chess. « skinned knees.wings.blueprints. -
August 5th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
[...] hate crimes chess. i was really inspired when i first read this statement of opposition (from five New York queer + trans organizations) to a proposed NY Gender Employment Non-Discrimination Act. the Act included a component that would add gender identity as a protected category under hate crimes laws. seriously, if you can find the time, read the whole thing. it’s a really nuanced, smart analysis that talks about why giving the state more power to pull people into the criminal legal system is never going to keep trans and gender nonconforming people safe. (there’s also a pretty big collection of resources about this here.) [...]
-
Pingback from Blackandpink.org = a cool site about being radical/queer « FemBot -
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 am
[...] 3, 2009 Thanks to this post, am rethinking my stance on hate-crime legislation. So many “blank-industrial [...]
-
Pingback from The Murph Report » To be or not to be a supporter of Hate Crimes Laws. -
January 6th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
[...] A Compilation of Critiques on Hate Crimes Legislation | black and pink [...]



Excellent compilation. I hadn’t considered many things you presented before, so thanks!
I cannot believe, in all seriousness, that people on the queer left would advocate this. It’s really disheartening.
Here’s a step by step response, for what it’s worth:
“Plain and simple, hate crimes legislation increases the power and strength of the prison system by detaining more people for longer periods of time.”
…It also keeps people who inspire and commit societal and cultural terrorism off the streets. It doesn’t increase the ‘power and strength of the prison system’ but rather increases the strength of the queer community by making it law that if you bash us motivated by prejudice, you’re inspiring fear in our entire community and you will receive a harsher sentence.
“If we are incarcerating those who commit violence against marginalized individuals/communities we then place them behind walls where they can continue to target these same people. It is not in the best interest of marginalized communities to depend on a system that already commits such great violence to then protect them.”
The amount of this kind of juxtaposition occurring compared to the amount of hate crimes that happen every year is, I would imagine, extremely out of proportion. Your argument isn’t taking on hate crimes legislation, it’s (or rather, more appropriately should be) taking on the grouping in of hate crime inmates with the minorities they target. A more proper step would be to advocate for attention towards this, and some kind of solution to it, like not letting hate crime inmates be in the same prisons or holding areas as the minorities they target, as opposed to abolishing hate crime legislation all together.
“This reality of the state makes it so that white people can accuse people of color of anti-white hate crimes, straight people accuse queers, and so on. Such a reality opens the door for marginalized people to be prosecuted for simply defending themselves against oppressive violence. This type of precedent setting also legitimizes ideologies of reverse racism that continuously deny the institutionalization of oppression.”
First of all, how often is hate crime legislation actually applied in this kind of way? How much good does it do compared to this kind of paranoid interpretation of how it could be abused? Second, if there WAS a ‘hate crime’ committed against a white or straight person, and that could be proven, then that IS a hate-crime and, like you said, an example of racism. I don’t see how that legitimizes the idea of reverse-racism… if that kind of thing were to happen, it’s just racism and hate-crime legislation could be applied to it. If someone was defending themselves against oppressive violence, that should be able to be proven.
“Hate crimes legislation is a liberal way of being “tough on crime” while building the power of the police, prosecutors, and prison guards. Rather than address systems of violence like health care disparities, economic exploitation, housing crisis, or police brutality, these politicians use hate-crimes legislation as their stamp of approval on “social issues”.
This is a problem with bourgeois liberal politicians, not hate crime legislation. Should health care disparities, economic exploitation, housing crisis and policy brutality be addressed? Absolutely. Should we expose liberal politicians for not addressing these issues? Definitely. But if they use hate crime legislation as a soap-box to garner sympathy and support from left-leaning people, that facade is something we have to work towards addressing on a larger scale, and it’s no reason to be against hate crime legislation in general. You want to get rid of a good thing because liberals take advantage of it as opposed to just exposing liberals for their self serving agenda.
“We will only strengthen our communities if we take time to care for those who have experienced or been witness to violence. We have to survive systems of violence all the time and are incredibly resilient. We must focus on building our capacity to respond and support survivors and create transformative justice practices that can also heal the perpetrator (though focusing first and foremost on survivors).”
That sounds great, but in the mean time, hate crime legislation is still a worthwhile transitory option. It’s like arguing for an abolition to welfare or a minimum wage because they are ‘obstacles’ to abolishing capitalism because they strengthen the state. Right-wing economic libertarians and christian conservatives are glad to have your support!
“The state, which polices gender, race, sexuality, and other aspects of identity, is able to dismiss the ways it creates the systems that builds a culture of violence against marginalized communities as it pays prosecutors to go after individuals who commit particular types of interpersonal violence. Hate crimes legislation puts marginalized communities in the place of asking the state to play the savior while it continues to perpetuate violence.”
What ever happened to individual responsibility? Again, go ahead and expose the state for how it perpetuates oppression, but that doesn’t excuse the actions of individual people committing violence against another person based on their minority status. Again, this is more of an argument against the state than hate crime legislation. Also, one can’t help but wonder – if the state was the big bad wolf anarchists say it is, why are there less hate crimes in social democratic countries, who rely very heavily on the state? They have lower (and in some cases, zero) prison populations, less hate crimes, and higher income equality. But they still have the pesky state and legislation! Darn!
“Creating more laws will not help our communities. Organizing for the passage of these kind of laws simply takes the time and energy out of communities that could instead spend the time creating alternative systems and building communities capable of starting transformative justice processes. Hate crimes bills are a distraction from the vital work necessary for community safety.”
Go ahead and work towards building that anarchist society, but in the meantime, the rest of us want some kind of legal protection. Not every queer person is an anarchist. You’re selfishly promoting your biased agenda in the name of your greater, grand-narrative anti-state politics while the rest of the queer community just gets bashed. “Creating more laws will not help our community.” Really? Pretty sure that creating a law that said it’s illegal to fire someone for being queer helped our community. I’m all for building alternative systems, but I’m not willing to drop the gains we’ve made within this system altogether in order to do that.
“Advocates in the campaigns for hate crimes legislation tokenize individuals like Sanesha Stewart and Angie Zapata while still pushing forward the white, class privileged, gay and lesbian agenda. To truly honor those we have lost and to honestly heal ourselves we must resist the inclination to turn to the state for legitimation or paternalistic protection; let us use the time to build our communities and care for our selves.”
This is simply not true. Why would anyone assume that being in favor of hate crime legislation equates to being aligned with a white, class privileged lgbt agenda? Hate crimes extend beyond the queer community.
Also, in regards to the disproportionate amount of queer people in prison, this can be addressed on other fronts that simply abolishing hate crime legislation for fear of backlashes within prisons. Assuming the issue is vagrancy, homelessness, sex-work, etc. then address those issues as they relate to economic exploitation combined with queer oppression.
What you’re arguing for, again, is akin to suggesting getting rid of welfare, a minimum wage and employment protection simply because they rely on the state even though they help economically and socially oppressed people. Building an alternative to capitalism and all its injustices is a noble cause, but abolishing a few legislative gains we’ve made in order to do that is contradictory. And until the rest of the queer community is on the side of anarchism, you’d be hurting a lot more people than you would ideally help. Don’t cut off the nose to spite the face.
what do you think should happen when people commit hate crimes?
Thank you for this compilation. I’ll refer many people to it.
#3
Maybe they should be punished, just like what happens if someone commits a “regular” crime.
Thank-you for showing me this critique. It makes people realize passing legislation is not the only solution to preventing violence.
But it’s NOT a “regular” crime.
A great summary — I especially like the last point…
Love –
mattilda
thanks you really helped me get to know the other side of hate crimes
To the jackass who did the point-by-point response: how about this for a reason to be against hate crimes legislation
HARSHER SENTENCING DOESN’T REDUCE CRIME.
we’re not cutting off the nose to spite the face. We’re simply demonstrating that increasing the sentencing of hundreds of people and thereby justifying increases to a law and order budget HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACE.
thanks for posting this, Jason. otherwise, I wouldn’t have known about this perspective!
Hate crime laws are plain and simple, “thought crime” laws and un-American. PERIOD. They were created and lobbied into law by those ugly, modern-day Bolshevik monsters from the ADL.
Hate crime laws are totally anti-Western laws, and were designed to punish dissent and politically incorrect beliefs by those commissars of political correctness!
I am a survivor of rape. I believe that in a patriarchy when a man rapes a woman that is also a hate crime against women. Rape victims have very little resources left to them and often even progressive communities turn on them when they report the rapist if he is a member of their community. In my case he was a friend and supposedly my comrade in the struggle for social justice. In my friends’ case (also a rape survivor) the rapist was also a friend and supposed “femenist”. Reporting her rape was also seen as going against the community and supporting the “state”. Or at least that was the manipulative language that was used to protect the rapists. When the man who raped me, raped again, I decided I needed to report him and file charges. We can’t be afraid to use the law to send a message to serial rapists who parade around in sheeps clothing that our community and survivors of these hate crimes will not go unpunished. Yes, I want believe that rapists are sick and need counseling and help but that did not happen by his own will. Too many women gave him too many chances and were not supported. There was not enough evidence to go through with the trial as is often the case. And he is free. But I hope that I sent him a clear message. Since the majority of the progressive community I was a part of chose to remain silent and not hold him accountable for his hate crimes towards women, or even find him help for his sickness. When we say rape is a hate crime it means it is institutionally sanctioned by patriachy in the dominant system and even in progessive communities. I found that most progressive communities do not have the capacity to deal with the rapists, sometimes inadvertantly supporting them by supposedly remaining “neutral” and often alienate the survivor (both men and women). If I could have I would have pressed charges against him and my rape as a hate crime. And I don’t think anyone should ever take that option away from a victim of a hate crime because it is just as traumatizing as the crime itself.
I forgot to mention I am not part of the white, class privileged, gay and lesbian agenda. I am a bisexual woman of color. I am working class, low-income. I believe in women empowering ourselves and our communities to heal from colonization. I also work with prisoners human rights. I know the prison system needs to come to and end as it exists. Yet, I still believe that we cannot take away the right of rape victims to denounce the hate crime and file charges. I do not see how going against this legislation helps us to heal. It may only protect perpetrators who may already have the system on their side.
BP decision makers should also be convicted of hate crimes against humanity. They do deserve to do some long and much deserved prison time. More so than just a “regular” crime such as person who steals food from a rich corporation just to get by in this failing economy. To do anything less than take a stand against “real” hate crimes makes us implicit in the very structure we say we work against by silencing the vicims once again.
But I agree that our energy must also be focused on the victims healing. Resources must devoted for that. there are already so few and very little support. But resources must also be in correcting the behavior of the perpetrator who probably also needs counseling and will not seek it voluntarily. This must also be an alternative model but for now victims must be allowed to work with what is available to them.
Let’s see if my second attempt at replying to you will even be published. Been waiting quite a while for the first one to be.
Harsher sentencing doesn’t reduce crime? So if someone bashes a queer person, and is in prison for a longer time, that person isn’t off the street for a longer time which would probably indicate that queers would be safer from that person?
You’re defending hundreds of people that, presumably, bashed people. All so that you can stay in lock step with your anarchist politics of being anti-state, disregarding the damage that discrimination has done to people of your own community. Then again, from the sounds of it, you care more about the anarchist community than the “queer” community at large. As if you can’t fight against a law and order budget and at the same time support justice for people who get bashed. And as if being anti-state and being against a law and order budget is going to do a goddamn thing to stop conservative neonazi types that do bash people. You’re clueless.
I agree. I have been physically assaulted TWICE since I’ve moved here. te first time by a rown cop named Ian Nathaniel Gallup, and the second was just last week by a member of “da white boy gang”. Gallup attacks me out of the blue & calls me a nigger, does he get punished? NO. he gets reassigned to a town 40 miles away because of his connections in the Windham County Sherriff Dept.
That’s Windham County VERMONT. The same state who told you all to come up and get married. Well let me tell you a little secret VT is not as tolerant as they want you to believe. I was assaulted AGAIN last Sunday IN MY OWN HOME by a member of “da white boy gang” and the police did fuck all out of sympathy for gallup.
In the meantime I have asked every GLBT advocacy/Ativis group in the state for some form of support/aid. and they just shrug their collective shoulders and say they can’t do anything…