The interpretation of hate
Hate crime laws get a boost
The House of Representatives voted May 3 273-180 to expand federal hate crime categories to include violent attacks against an individual based on gender and sexual orientation.
While some welcome the change, others, such as conservative religious groups, feel it threatens their right to express their moral opposition to homosexuality.
Others, such as Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, feel that passing hate crime legislation would create inequality in the criminal justice system, giving more priority to some groups than others.
Rep. Smith has a valid concern.
After all, being a victim of a violent attack causes significant physical and emotional distress regardless of the victim’s ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.
Why should it be a worse crime just because the attack appeared to be prompted by some aspect of a person’s identity?
It’s still a horrible experience when it appears to be completely random.
However, when you attack a person based on an aspect of their identity, particularly something they can’t help, you are hurting them on a deeper level.
Not only have you done bodily harm to that person and emotionally traumatized them, you have attacked their very identity.
Our nation was founded on principles of equality and justice for all people.
As a democracy, we strive to allow the will of the majority while still protecting the minority.
When a person is attacked for being in a minority group, it undermines the principles our culture holds so dear.
I grew up in Latin America, and as a white person, I was a minority.
Most of the time, it was not an issue for me.
However, there were instances when I felt discriminated against.
At times, sales people charged me more than they charged Latin American customers for the same item.
Some people would make derogatory comments about Americans, particularly Protestants when I was in the same room because they believed I couldn’t understand Spanish.
Being both American and from a Protestant family, I resented that.
I knew several people who were robbed at gun or knifepoint.
I had a necklace torn right off my neck once.
With the lingering stereotype of white people being wealthy, I wondered if my ethnicity had made me a target. These incidents were few and far between, and the incident with the necklace was probably a case of being dumb enough to wear jewelry in a bad part of town.
My experiences were nothing compared to what victims of hate crimes go through, but just feeling discriminated against based on something I couldn’t help was troubling to me.
It must be much worse for someone who is beaten up and knows it was just because of some aspect of his or her identity.
As for those who oppose the measure based on their religion’s opposition to homosexuality, I ask this: does your religion condone a violent crime against a gay person just because you happen to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle?
Many religions that preach against homosexuality also preach love.
How is opposing a law that would protect another human being from harm just because of their sexual orientation an act of love?
Perhaps playwright Lillian Hellman said it best: “Since when do we need to agree with someone to defend them from injustice?”
If President Bush vetoes this measure, as he has talked of doing, it is like saying he only believes in justice for people he agrees with.
Cheryl is a senior studying music.
Columnists' opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of The Spectrum