®l|p lailij (Tar MM
CHANGING HATE LAWS
Attacks
justify
legal
change
It is unfortunate that an event
such as the one last week
must occur in the Chapel Hill
community in order for discus
sion on sexual orientation legisla
tion to enter wider public scope.
It has become imperative, how
ever, to pressure the N.C. General
Assembly to include sexual orien
tation in the appropriate statutes,
so events like this one can be
deterred in our communities.
The Ethnic Intimidation Act of
1991 stipulates that crimes com
mitted by an individual “because
of the race, color, religion,
nationality or country of origin of
another person” require that the
offender endure specific conse
quences as outlined by the law.
Many wonder why this type of
legislation is warranted, and my
response is: based on equality.
Crimes like the one that
occurred last week do not target
just one individual but a group
BLAKELY WHILDEN
CO-PRESIDENT, UNC YOUNG DEMOCRATS
of individuals in this case, the
LGBTQ community as a whole.
; The Ethnic Intimidation Act
ensures that offenders will be
brought to justice and that all
groups of people are equally pro
tected under the law.
! Legislation of this nature is
necessary to fight discrimination
of all kinds, whether it is based
on race, religion, sexual orienta
tion or any other factor.
Opponents of hate crime leg
islation believe that there is no
difference between a crime moti
vated by the minority status of
a victim and a crime committed
against any other individual.
“ If this is the case, I find myself
pondering why there is a statu
tory difference between pre-med
itated murder and manslaughter.
In the end both result in a
death, but the means by which the
ends are met are starkly different.
Such is the case with hate crimes.
Why is it necessary to add sex
ual orientation to the N.C. hate
crimes law?
; Rhetorically I ask, “Why not?”
If individuals are protected due
to the religion they choose to
practice, their nationality, color,
race and country of origin, then
individuals identifying with a
particular sexual orientation also
should be protected.
; In fact, I believe that the hate
orimes law should be expanded
tio also include gender identity
and gender expression. Societal
ijorms dictate acceptable expres
sions of gender identity, and if an
individual doesn’t conform, he or
she tends to be labeled as homo
sexual, either rightly or wrongly.
‘ The Chapel Hill Police
department classified the attack
last week as a hate crime, and I
ean only expect that the state of
Slorth Carolina will also stand
against this type of crime by codi
fying sexual orientation, gender
Expression and gender identity in
toe Ethnic Intimidation Act.
• Violence of any kind against
another individual is wrong, but
drimes motivated by discrimina
tion are utterly inexcusable.
I It is time that the N.C. General
Assembly takes a stand against
violence and protects all residents
of North Carolina equally.
1 Stereotypes of sexual orienta
tion, gender expression and gen
der identity must not be perpetu
ated by legislative inaction.
This issue cannot be marginal
feed into a debate between liberal
2nd conservative ideals because it
effects all individuals, regardless
$f ideological beliefs.
• I encourage everyone to sign
the two petitions being circulated
6y the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual,
iVansgender-Straight Alliance,
Qne that calls on the N.C. General
Assembly to include sexual orien
tation, gender identity, sex, age and
ability in its hate crime laws, and
ftie other that calls on the UNC
System to adopt nondiscrimination
nd nonharassment policies based
m sexual orientation, gender
xpression and gender identity.
Contact Blakely Whilden,
co-president of UNC Young
Democrats,
• at whildebe@email.unc.edu.
SHOULD SEXUAL MINORITIES BE PROTECTED AS WELL?
The University community was shocked last week by the
news of a brutal assault on Thomas Stockwell, a junior
international studies major at UNC.
The Chapel Hill Police Department, which hasn’t yet
been able to identify the attackers, classified the incident
as a hate crime. But even if those responsible for the assault
were caught, they wouldn’t face charges by that name.
North Carolina’s hate crime laws are limited to the
Ethnic Intimidation Act of 1991, which states that “If a
person shall, because of race, color, religion, nationality
or country of origin, assault another person, or damage or
deface the property of another person, or threaten to do
any such act, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punish
able by imprisonment up to two years, or a fine, or both.”
Members of the UNC Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender-
Straight Alliance are trying to change this with one of two
petitions they are circulating in response to the attack. The
By Philip McFee; pip@email.unc.edu
I
Changes would
not prevent a
similar attack
The Feb. 25 assault on
Franklin Street prompted
an outpouring of support
for the victim. That was a wel
come and healthy public reac
tion to a crime. It also renewed
calls for expanding North
Carolina’s “hate crime” laws to
include “sexual orientation.”
Nothing that happened that
night was legal in this state. The
current laws didn’t stop it. Why
think expanded laws would?
Where do North Carolina’s
laws address “hate crimes”?
General Statutes 14-3(c) holds
that “If any Class 2 or Class 3
misdemeanor is committed
because of the victim’s race, color,
religion, nationality, or country
of origin, the offender shall be
guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor”
and that “If any Class Al or Class
1 misdemeanor offense is com
mitted because of the victim’s
race, color, religion, nationality,
or country of origin, the offender
shall be guilty of a Class I felony.”
Later, in G.S. 14-401.14 on
“Ethnic intimidation,” one finds,
“If a person shall, because of
race, color, religion, national
ity, or country of origin, assault
another person, or damage or
deface the property of another
person, or threaten to do any
such act, he shall be guilty of a
Class 1 misdemeanor.”
Also, No. 17 on the state’s list
of aggravating factors includes
any “offense for which the
defendant stands convicted
was committed against a victim
because of the victim’s race,
color, religion, nationality, gen
der, sexual orientation, disabil
ity, or country of origin.”
As the laws stand now, the
assailants would already face
heightened sentencing because of
aggravating factors. After all, they
“joined with more than one per
son in committing the offense”
(No. 2 on the list). Furthermore,
even though “sexual orientation”
isn’t stated explicitly, it could be
considered under No. 20, which
is “Any other aggravating factor
reasonably related to the pur-
Viewpoints
JON SANDERS
POLO ANALYST, POPE CENTER
poses of sentencing.”
Presumably, that catchall
would preclude the state from
having to rewrite the statutes in
case an assault like the one on
Franklin Street took place and
the victim was beaten for being
too fat, whistling, wearing funny
clothes or talking like a Yankee.
Surely any judge would consider
attacking someone just for being
gay “reasonably related to the
purposes of sentencing.”
So should the state’s “hate
crime” laws be expanded to
include sexual preference?
Preferably, the state’s “hate crime”
laws would be repealed altogeth
er, maybe replaced with greater
sentencing flexibility forjudges
to decide on a case-by-case basis.
Irrational hatred leading to crime
should certainly be considered
an aggravating factor deserving
additional punishment
But the statutes already make
room for greater punishment for
noxious criminal motivations not
foreseen by the legislature. As the
recent assault showed, trying to
enumerate them is unsatisfactory.
This ham-handed way to protect
citizens from “hate” is bound to
leave out some motivations. In
this case, it was sexual preference;
in the next, who can say?
It’s probably too late to put
the genie back in the bottle. The
change would have little effect
other than to provide empty
symbolism. So let the laws be
amended.
Still, recognize that the outrage
here is the assault itself not
that the presumed motivation
behind the crime hasn’t been
given especial condemnation by
state laws. Don’t lose sight of the
real in fighting for the symbolic.
Contact Jon Sanders,
a policy analyst for the John
William Pope Center for Higher
Education Policy in Raleigh,
atjsanders@popecenter.org.
petition asks the N.C. General Assembly to change the eth
nic intimidation law to include protection based on sexual
orientation, gender identity, sex, age and ability.
The group also has put together a petition to ask the
UNC system’s governing board to adopt a nondiscrimina
tion policy for all 16 campuses.
The state turned down a measure to address hate
crimes within the law in 1999, indicating that many North
Carolinians have concerns about an amendment.
This Viewpoints addresses the question of whether or not
the hate crime law should be changed —and whether or not
a change would be effective. The recent crime hit close to
home, uniting people in support of the student. But it has
the community debating any potential legal response.
Contact editorial page associate editor Jeff Kim,
atjongdae@email.unc.edu.
Hate crimes
hurt more than
just individuals
Hate crimes serve as a
mechanism of oppres
sion against marginal
ized communities whether
those communities are defined
by sexual orientation, gender,
gender identity, race, ethnicity,
national origin or religion.
Hate crimes are not ordinary
assaults or simple acts of aggres
sion. They are deliberate acts
perpetrated to send a message to
an entire stigmatized group.
Hate crimes deliver the mes
sage that if you are in a minority
group, you deserve to be in dan
ger and must fear attack.
Thus, hate crimes extend
beyond immediate victims and
reverberate through an entire
targeted community.
North Carolina affirmed that
hate crime legislation is a neces
sary measure to protect against
attacks based on race, ethnicity,
country of origin, nationality
and religion when the Ethnic
Intimidation Act was passed in
1991. The law allows for hate
motivation to be considered dur
ing sentencing.
But the law fails to include
sexual orientation, gender and
gender identity.
By amending this act, North
Carolina would remove the law’s
implication that hate crimes
based on sexual orientation don’t
merit the same kind of attention
as attacks based on ethnicity.
The law must be revised to
include a more comprehensive
set of protections for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and queer
identified persons from acts of
homophobic violence.
The recent hate crime based
on perceived sexual orientation
that occurred in Chapel Hill
makes this revision particularly
urgent.
Those that use the rhetoric of
“special protections” ignore the
fact that hate crimes are specially
propagated onto specific groups,
dividing the larger community
along identity lines.
Members of these minority
communities are uniquely target-
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2005
TOMMY RIMBACH
INTERN, UNC LGBTQ OFFICE
ed for violent criminal acts, unlike
crimes such as theft, which could
happen to anyone and are not
motivated by identity prejudice.
These protections are not “spe
cial,” since hate crime laws extend
to everyone.
Sexual orientation, gender
and gender identity aren’t sim
ply additional items to be added
to a laundry list of protections.
Rapidly increasing numbers of
hate crimes based on sexual ori
entation and gender identity have
been reported by the FBI since it
began reporting hate crime statis
tics. According to the FBl’s “Hate
Crime Statistics, 2003,” 16.4
percent of the 8,715 total hate
motivated crimes in that year
were based on actual or perceived
sexual orientation, second only
to crimes based on race. The FBI
also reported six murders in 2003
based on sexual orientation, out
numbering five based on race.
The FBl’s numbers do not
reflect the true number of hate
crimes because police reporting is
voluntary and hate crime legisla
tion varies from state to state or is
nonexistent
Until North Carolina’s Ethnic
Intimidation Act is strengthened,
queer people remain vulnerable
to violent attacks because of their
actual or perceived sexual orien
tation and gender identity.
Homophobic violence enforces
hierarchies intended to suppress
the liberty, dignity and humanity
of queer people, while privileging
those in the majority.
We must be vigilant in our
determination to construct an
accepting society in which hate
motivated violence isn’t further
propagated. No individual or
group should fear for their lives in
an open and democratic society.
Contact Tommy Rimbach,
an intern with UNC’s
LGBTQ Office,
at trimbach@email.unc.edu.
Punish
crime,
not the
intent
George Bernard Shaw said,
“The worst sin towards
our fellow creatures is not
to hate them, but to be indiffer
ent to them; that’s the essence of
inhumanity.” That is what makes
hate crimes such a difficult topic
to write on.
Writers who oppose hate crime
legislation are often accused of
being indifferent. However, it is
my hope to demonstrate that our
opposition isn’t out of indifference.
The push for the inclusion of
sexual orientation in hate crime
laws often comes from the notion
that crimes against members
of the LGBTQ community are
viewed indifferently by a cold and
uncaring world.
That is probably true, but one
must realize that toe world sees
genocide in Sudan and does next
to nothing. It is not the issue of
sexuality that is toe root problem
toe problem is the world itself.
RICHARD BEAN
UNC JUNIOR
If we strive for equality, we
must also realize that equality
under the law is as important. It
is here we begin to find problems
with hate crime laws.
Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment says that states can
not “deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.”
The problem is that hate crime
laws unequally protect certain
citizens based on categories or
qualifications. People of certain
races, disabilities, ancestries, et
cetera, are no more entitled to
protection against crimes than
others who suffer the same crime.
Generally speaking, I would
say it’s a safe bet that all violent
crimes involve a level of “hate”
to begin with. We do not need
legislation to tell us that. Society
should avoid laws that qualify
human value.
Erwin Chemerinsky, Duke
University School of Law profes
sor, told The Los Angeles Times
in 2000 that the current laws
regarding anti-discrimination
in the workplace are protected
because they deal with commerce.
However, he claims, “beyond
the workplace, it’s too hard to
find the constitutional basis for
federal regulation.”
At both the state and fed
eral levels, the 14th Amendment
makes it pretty hard to justify
hate crime legislation.
Another problem with hate
crime laws is the fact that they’re
often phrased vaguely. Such was
toe occasion in the Supreme Court
case RAV v. City of St. Paul, Minn.
(1992).
The court deemed that the Bias
Motivated Crime Ordinance was
too broad and thus unconstitu
tional.
That said, toe real issue here is
what we think rewording the hate
crimes laws will accomplish.
Do we want to punish crime, or
do we want to punish toe intent?
Hate is not a crime. Hate is a
regrettable condition of humanity
that stems from our differences.
Since hate is not a crime in and
of itself, we should not legally
penalize for it.
What should we do then?
Should we let people attack oth
ers based on race, religion, coun
try of origin, disability and sexual
orientation? Absolutely not.
No form of attack should be
regarded with more weight than
another. Assault is assault. People
don’t assault others out of love.
That requires no distinction.
The actions of those who
attack individuals based on their
sexual orientation are sickening.
They should be punished to the
fullest extent of the law. But the
crime is the assault, not the hate.
There are other ways a commu
nity can join together to condemn
such horrific acts besides creat
ing laws that are at odds with the
Constitution. We must explore
those alternatives while realizing
the sad reality that hate is a part
of this world and that we cannot
legislate it into nonexistence.
Contact Richard Bean,
a junior journalism major,
at rlbean@emaU.unc.edu.
9