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
[13] 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.