May 12, 2009
Beware the Hate Crimes Bill!
Unintended Consequences
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
A statute’s words do not tell how the law will be interpreted and
applied.
All laws are expansively interpreted. For example:
The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was directed
at drug lords. Nothing in the law says anything about divorce; yet it
soon was applied in divorce cases.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly bans racial quotas and defines
racial discrimination as an intentional act. Yet, quotas were imposed
by the civil rights bureaucracy on the basis of the 1964 Act, and
intent was replaced by statistical disparity.
The Clean Water Act makes no reference to wetlands and conveys no
powers to the executive branch to create wetlands regulations. Yet,
for example, Ocie and Carey Mills, who had a valid Florida state
permit to build a house, were imprisoned by federal bureaucrats, who
claimed jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The bureaucrats ruled
that the clean dirt used to level the building lot constituted
discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters of the U.S. No
navigable waters were involved, and according to the state of Florida,
no wetlands.
The Exxon Valdez accident was criminalized. An unintentional oil spill
became the intentional discharge of pollutants without a license, and
the bird kill became killing migratory birds without a license. An
accident was prosecuted as crimes of intent.
Well informed attorneys can provide many examples. Others are
documented in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Awareness of what can be
pulled out of even clearly written laws is essential to the
preservation of civil liberty.
With this in mind, consider the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Opponents criticize the bill for adding a second punishment to
existing punishments for acts of violence. Assault, murder, rape are
crimes regardless of motivation. The penalties are sufficient, or can
be made so, without applying a new crime of motivation that creates
specially protected classes, such as homosexuals and minorities. To
commit a violent act against a member of a specially protected class
will carry a heavier punishment.
How will a court know whether a violent act was committed because of
hatred or because of sexual lust or the need for money? As case law is
made, the likely direction will be to eliminate intent. The issue will
be resolved by whether the attacked person is a member of a protected
class. The mugger who beats as well as robs a victim who turns out to
be homosexual or Jewish will have committed a hate crime.
It will prove difficult to separate speaking against members of
protected classes, or criticizing their practices, from hate. The two
things are easily conflated. Once enacted, hate crimes will become
independent of specific violent acts. An eventual likely outcome will
be that speaking against members of specially protected classes will
itself become a violent act of inciting violence.
Since the passage of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act in 2004, the
US Department of State is required to monitor anti-semitism world
wide. The State Department is not required to monitor anti-Americanism
or sentiments against Christians, Muslims or Arabs. Thus, the act
created a specially protected class worthy of careful monitoring by
the US Department of State of negative sentiments expressed against
Jews.
In order to monitor anti-semitism, the term must be defined. The
definition is subjective and will be widely, rather than narrowly,
interpreted. The State Department has come up with its attempt. The
State Department’s approach could include any truthful statements
about Israel and its behavior toward the Palestinians that the Israeli
government or AIPAC or the Anti-Defamation League would deny or
contest.
Anti-semitic speech can be interpreted as inciting hatred. Inciting
hatred can be interpreted to be a violent act. “Excessive” criticism
of Israel is a subjective, undefinable concept that can be used to
determine anti-semitic speech. It is easy to conflate “excessive” with
“strong.” Thus, demands that Israel be held accountable for war crimes
committed in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, or elsewhere become acts of
the hate crime of anti-semitism.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the
Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good
Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRobe...@yahoo.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05122009.html