I'm not turned around -- yet -- but a reader has sent me a couple of links which have me reconsidering the topic of hate crime legislation.
In the past, I've derided the opponents of such laws, who tend to repeat the inane fundamentalist argument that such a bill would jail pastors who denounce homosexuality from the pulpit. Not bloody likely.
Still,
this British precedent does give some reason for worry: Michael Forsythe, an Irishman living in Wales, got into a dispute with a woman over a scratched car; during their argument, he called her an "English bitch."
The 55-year-old former lorry driver was found guilty of racially aggravated disorderly behaviour, and received a ten-week prison sentence suspended for 12 months.
I hope that here in America, I'll always have the right to use terms like "English bitch," especially if I think that said bitch is harming the cause of a Democratic win in 2008. And if Mr. Forsythe ever comes to southern California, I'll happily buy him one of our piss-golden beers while calling him a Mick bastard -- not out of malice, just to prove that we can still say such things here in Freedom's Land.
What if I wanted to fill this blog with epithets like "nigger" and "kike"? That's my right. You'd be a fool to come here to read such trash, but that doesn't mean I don't have a
right.
Back to the American bill.
Here's what a writer named Jacob Sullum has to say:
But it's not a stretch to say that hate crime laws, by their very nature, punish people for their opinions. A mugger who robs a Jew because he's well-dressed is punished less severely than a mugger who robs a Jew based on the belief that Jews get their money only by cheating Christians. A thug who beats an old lady in a wheelchair just for fun is punished less severely than a thug who does so because he believes disabled people are leeches.
The counter-argument is that the law currently takes state-of-mind into consideration, and has done for many years. An accidental homicide is not a murder committed in the heat of passion, which is not a premeditated killing.
Still, we are getting close to a nightmare scenario in which the state criminalizes not just certain behaviors but certain thoughts. This situation reminds me of a couple of scenes from Truffaut's underrated adaptation of
Fahrenheit 451. Early on, Julie Christie -- a pretty ninny-noodle -- sits on her sofa watching a wall-sized TV screen while a talking head firmly instructs the viewers to "
Hate hate! BE MORE TOLERANT --
TODAY!" Later, our hero is told by his boss: "This is why we must burn the books, Montag --
all the books." At that moment, boss-man holds up a copy of
Mein Kampf.
Well, the day of the wall-sized TV is here; fortunately, Montag can't incinerate the internet. The film's message should be obvious: Saving the books, saving free speech, means protecting
all the books, protecting
all speech. Freedom has no meaning if it does not include our freedom
not to be tolerant. To love hate.