Attorney General Eric Holder argued today before Congress that
laws against hate crimes should be expanded to protect women, gays, and the disabled. Republicans expressed skepticism, questioning whether it is necessary to offer special protection to certain groups. It is already illegal to assault or murder someone; why do we need additional laws on the books making it illegal to assault or murder someone
because she's gay, or
because she's female, or (as is already covered under the law)
because she's Black?
It's not a bad question, as far as it goes -- so long as it does not degrade into the implication that certain classes of people should not be protected against violence at all. But here's why I think hate crimes are different from, and more harmful than, assaults and murders motivated by other factors.
Hate crimes incite further violence. A person who assaults someone else because of the class to which the victim belongs, rather than for some individual or particular reason, implicitly (or in some cases, explicitly) makes a very public claim that people of that class deserve violence. If a man kills his brother for seducing his girlfriend, he commits a no-doubt heinous, but nevertheless solitary, act. He is unlikely to contribute to a culture of violence against the brothers of other men. Such is not the case for hate crimes, as can be observed in the culture of impunity that surrounded racially motivated lynchings in previous generations.
Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. With the threat of further violence, hate crimes are intended by their perpetrators to instill fear in the population whose representatives are targeted. They thus make victims, not only of those injured or killed, but of whole classes of people. In a time when crimes of terror are receiving such great attention around the world, it would be ironic if we failed to recognize the same thing, on a smaller scale, right here at home. Indeed, since many acts of terrorism are themselves religiously or culturally motivated -- that is,
hate crimes -- it would be doubly ironic.