As President Obama signs the new federal hate crimes statute-the only major piece of LGBT-related legislation that's likely to pass, in my view-Camille Paglia bucks the LGBT lockstep mindset, again (you have to scroll down through the jump in her latest omnibus Salon posting):
Hate crimes legislation, in my view, simply cushions people in their own subgroups and gives them a damaging sense of false entitlement. . . .
I say the law should be blind to race, gender and sexual orientation, just as it claims to be blind to wealth and power. There should be no specially protected groups of any kind, except for children, the severely disabled and the elderly, whose physical frailty demands society's care.
Rick Sincere, another independent voice, offers his own critique. As does Rob Power at Outright Libertarians.
24 Comments for “Worth Quoting”
posted by Debrah on
“Hate crimes legislation, in my view, simply cushions people in their own subgroups and gives them a damaging sense of false entitlement………..I say the law should be blind to race, gender and sexual orientation, just as it claims to be blind to wealth and power.”
****************************
Camille Paglia, I love you!
Such a red-hot bas bleu who has always challenged the lazy agenda that would breed a “specialness” culture.
And most amazing is how many gay “activists” stumble over themselves not to offend their most openly rabid detractors out of a false sense of shared “victimhood”.
The black community is treated with kid gloves….even as we witness over and over the most horrendous displays such as this D.C. Council hearing on the Gay Marriage Bill from Richard Rosendall’s blog.
It’s really quite astonishing.
However, when the gay community needs a handy “boogie man extraordinaire”, it’s always the old standbys like “Nazis” or the “religious right”—-(who, by the way, have earned enough scorn from everyone).
But they are hardly alone.
Those are the safe ones to use when a lazy retort will suffice.
Barack Obama isn’t turning out to be an authentic proponent of gay marriage as he indicated with fervor during his campaign.
It took enormous effort to look over the anti-Semitic and racist rants from his longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright in order to support him; however, it’s really quite time to begin identifying some of your big-gun detractors and stop tap dancing and pretending that all “minorities” have a common goal.
posted by Debrah on
One can only begin to imagine what the media, as well as the gay “activists”, would be doing to that ignorant woman in the video if she were white and one of those religious right cretins.
She’s be turned into the states of Washington and Maine’s poster-child-we-all-must-hate.
Ah, such is life in the world of side-stepping tendentious glory!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
You know, Steve, you really could disagree with people without being so contemptuous. Can’t people who support hate crimes laws be wrong, even wrong as hell, without being “in lockstep”? If LGBT people are in such lockstep, why are so many of their voices be raised in criticism of Obama on various points?
While I think hate crime laws are largely symbolic in value–and represent the merest crumb out of all our legislative agenda–this small victory at least breaks through a wall that stood for a long time: the failure to pass any pro-LGBT legislation. You may be right that this will be it, but OTOH one victory makes the next a bit easier, and there are a lot of smart people working on several other bills. ENDA, which is also largely symbolic and not remotely as important as DOMA and DADT repeal, is for that very reason likely to be the next victory. Also, there is a chance that the Uniting American Families Act will be included in a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which would improve its chances.
As to Paglia’s supposed brilliant and brave dissent, come on–lots of people have said similar things. And this is unpersuasive. Intent and motive have long been part of the prosecution of crimes. Possession of a certain quantity of marijuana, for example, raises it from a misdemeanor to a felony “possession with intent to distribute” solely on the basis that it is more than an individual could use personally. “Assault with intent to kill” is another example. The “thought crime” complaint is just not legitimate; there is no hate crime absent a crime, usually an assault. And there is seldom a peep out of any of these critics against hate crimes except when gay or transgender people are being included. What a lot of phony political posturing.
posted by Elizabeth on
All of these gay lefties falling over themselves in excitement over hate crimes are really getting on my nerves. I hope they’re enjoying themsevles now, so as to ease the blow when they realize this useless peice of legislation is all we’re going to get out.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Regarding that crazy woman, Ernestine Copeland, who testified at the marriage equality bill hearing on Monday: she was in a small minority of opponents of equality who testified. Indeed, she was not on the witness list, but was allowed to testify at around 11 p.m. after the first 100 on the list had gotten their chance. Most of us who have been working on this issue agree that hateful and irrational voices like hers help us more than they hurt us, because they put such a disagreeable face on our opposition. Only those who already agree with that crazy woman will applaud her, while many others will be appalled.
As to Ms. Copeland being black: excuse me, but a great many black people, gay and straight, testified FOR marriage equality at that hearing, including numerous affirming clergy members, gay men and lesbians telling emotional personal stories, and one black gay man for whom the hearing was his coming out. For God’s sake don’t repeat the misguided reaction to Prop 8 last year, when some angry gay people used our loss to vent a lot of racial hostility, including in some cases insulting black gay people who were demonstrating right next to them on the same side of the issue, while ignoring the many black allies including the California NAACP chapters and the SCLC chief in Los Angeles who has faced possible removal by the national SCLC board for defending our equality. Several of the leading organizers of the pro-equality effort in D.C. are African American. For God’s sake, people. STOP the racial crap. Please. It is NOT helping our cause.
There is a portion of the black clergy, only a portion, that has lent itself to serving the agenda of the radical right. Opposed to them are other black ministers who object to those right-wing alliances. This intramural conflict gives our side an opening if we would just stop making false generalizations and pay attention. My column this week looks at an example of this.
posted by Debrah on
” For God’s sake don’t repeat the misguided reaction to Prop 8 last year….”
******************************
I won’t belabor the point….for I know that many in the gay community have to believe that simply because a group self-identifies as victicrats they automatically share an unspoken bond.
As you so eloquently point out, many in the black community—gay or straight—support your agenda; however, I would defy anyone to assert that this is the majority.
We can get up from our desks this very moment, go onto the street, and pick people at random who would be either proponents and opponents quite easily.
No need to inveigh to the contrary.
But this sentimental take on all things “minority” in our 21st century is a fool’s game.
Wonder why Obama will not come out—eloquent as he is—and explain his real position on gay marriage?
Or any of his janissaries?
Wonder why this Democrat liberal president who is so wildly popular will not do that?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Debrah, my point is that it is insane for us to make false generalizations. Of course we have more work to do in the black community. So how exactly does making false generalizations help? How does only talking about our black opponents and not our allies help? I am focused on solving problems, not just on looking for an excuse to hurl invective.
It’s pretty clear that political calculation is behind the President’s general silence on the marriage issue (other than vague generalities spoken at the HRC dinner). But he wrote a letter to the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club in S.F. last year opposing Prop 8. And I think the WH is totally off-base if they think there would be a significant cost for him to state his opposition to the Maine and Washington State ballot measures now. But wholesale dismissals or denunciations of him on this account would be badly off-key. We should learn to modulate our criticism–assuming, again, that we actually want to accomplish something, as distinct from indulging ourselves.
posted by BobN on
I’d be more impressed with opponents of hate-crime laws if they concentrated on repealing existing law. Paglia should start with a diatribe about religious protections, no?
posted by Debrah on
” So how exactly does making false generalizations help? How does only talking about our black opponents and not our allies help? I am focused on solving problems, not just on looking for an excuse to hurl invective.”
**************************
A worthy goal; however, it’s most unfortunate that so many of your fellow travelers cannot conduct themselves in such fashion.
By the way, please note that it is not “hurling invective” to state a fact that isn’t welcomed by those who want to see a nonexistent light of transcendence at the end of the ideological tunnel.
One has only to check some of the comments on previous posts of this blog to see the knee-jerk reaction from some gays when they see an ounce of dissension and whom they lazily use as targets.
It’s juvenile.
Yet one will not see some of the most rabid detractors taken to task……simply because it is encoded in many on the Left to avoid reality in certain areas.
You cannot effectively make your case by continuing to only call out detractors who are time-tested, time-worn, and easily-consumed.
A panoramic approach would be more honest.
That’s all I’m saying.
I haven’t heard much about this news item.
Has it been exploited by the gay “activists” yet? No.
I believe everyone deserves equality in illumination of their positions.
Not coddling….in hopes of winning over some who are rabid Bible-thumpers (above all) and always will be.
Why not be that tolerant and understanding of the other anti-gay groups? (She asks rhetorically…..)
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
My “fellow travelers”? It is clear from that comment, Debrah, that you are not really addressing me at all, but a cardboard cutout. If I were a leftist I would not be an IGF contributor. If you have truly paid attention for any length of time to the comments below IGF articles, you will be aware that the obnoxious, flaming comments come from across the political spectrum.
As it happens, my testimony this week before the D.C. Council Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary on the marriage equality bill refuted the lies of a black minister who is leading the fight against us. The difference is that I did not and do not make it a racial issue–that is what HE has been doing. I am part of a racially and religiously diverse coalition working to defeat him and win marriage equality.
Let me try to get the point across one more time: if you selectively notice only the bad things black people say about us, you are effectively lying. I have tried to point out that black people have been among the leaders of the marriage equality coalition in D.C. (and mentioned black leaders in CA joining in the fight against Prop 8 last year), and that many black clergy and citizens testified on our side at the hearing. It is stunning that you refuse to adjust your perspective to take account of these facts, that you act as if they don’t count at all. In that case, why should black people support us, when–judging by your attitude–they won’t get credit anyway? You’ve already made up your mind. That is the very definition of prejudice. I have been arguing with black folk–both ordinary citizens and public officals–for nearly thirty years as a political activist in D.C., so I don’t need patronizing advice from you. As to your rhetorical question, “Why not be that tolerant and understanding of the other anti-gay groups?” My answer is to point out that you are implicitly classifying the entire black population as an anti-gay group, and that is not only false, it responds to prejudice with more prejudice. I am working with gay-affirming blacks (and others) against anti-gay blacks (and others). This is bearing fruit. Would it cost you so much to acknowledge that a different perspective might be more productive?
posted by TS on
“You know, Steve, you really could disagree with people without being so contemptuous. Can’t people who support hate crimes laws be wrong, even wrong as hell, without being “in lockstep”? If LGBT people are in such lockstep, why are so many of their voices be raised in criticism of Obama on various points?”
I concede your point, Mr. Rosendall.
“As to Paglia’s supposed brilliant and brave dissent, come on–lots of people have said similar things. And this is unpersuasive. Intent and motive have long been part of the prosecution of crimes.”
This one I don’t concede. Intent and motive should only be part of investigating crimes and determining their factuality, not grading their severity. I don’t understand why it’s worse to kill someone because you hate gays than because you hate guys that slept with your ex or you just hate going without your favorite drug and the nearest gay happened to have a full wallet. All value systems that places some dumb want or idea ahead of the value of your neighbor’s life are equal affronts to justice. And as a decriminalizationist (and a nonsmoker), I am deaf to your marijuana example. Perhaps if you come up with another one you could show me something I hadn’t thought of before.
But until then, while I agree with you that there’s no reason to be nasty (while I do believe Mr. Miller does it in style), I think it is a DISASTER that government’s only pro-LGBT “achievement” this year has contributed to making the world a little less fair.
posted by Debrah on
“My “fellow travelers”? It is clear from that comment, Debrah, that you are not really addressing me at all, but a cardboard cutout.”
**************************
Cut the drama. That’s my schtick.
By “fellow travelers”, I’m alluding to your comrades here who are working for SSM. A few of them “hurled” off-the wall “invective” my way…..issuing advice to “ignore” a difference of opinion.
I’d say, no, you are not among that group of insular cretins; however, I assume you have at least one goal in common with them or you wouldn’t be here.
You’re to be commended for the decades you’ve put into a cause outside yourself. Even though I am not in full agreement with it, I can admire your tenacity.
But hey, you’re in D.C. If you can’t develop a bond with the black community, who comprise a full 60% of the population there, you’d have an uphill battle.
I’m not attempting to chip away at the great progress you’ve made in D.C. Fine! Praise and exalt the positive wherever you find it.
Just cease pretending that coddling and glossing over the attitude of one group, who are generally very anti-gay, is not what gay “activists” do ad nauseum.
It will be a formidable task to achieve real change with regard to an embedded culture. Good luck to you.
“Would it cost you so much to acknowledge that a different perspective might be more productive?”
********************************
No, it won’t cost me a thing.
If only I concurred.
posted by Debrah on
Sorry about the misplaced double quotes.
I’m multi-tasking today.
:>)
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I’m not pretending anything. It is you who cling to a negative frame of reference.
As to why I am “here” on IGF, I am a contributor, and I don’t see “insular cretins” among my colleagues. As to the comments below articles, I found that those discussions were so spoiled by the obnoxiousness of a few (and no, I do not mean disagreement, I mean unrelenting boorishness) that I now ask the editor to turn off comments below my pieces that are published here. Moderating comments is too time-consuming. Unfortunately, flame wars are the rule rather than the exception on comment boards.
posted by Jorge on
That’s nice, but the debate over whether criminal law should be colorblind was lost a long time ago, so why should we be left out? I’d be more impressed with Pagila if she advocated *repealing* the current hate crimes law.
Oh, and I see someone said the same thing already.
posted by tristram on
One more time, Stephen, just who was Camille Paglia?
posted by Amicus on
Well, tongue in cheek, to return fire with fire, I see there is still a lockstep Paglia worship, going on.
Personally, I don’t feel “entitled” or smug, today, because of this legislation. Do you? Does anyone?
I totally reject the idea that the upshot of these laws are largely symbolic.
First, these crimes *are* different and any community’s sense of justice is served by saying so. This is non trivial, in my view.
Second, many people who are victims of hate crimes, not just LGBT or those mistaken to be LGBT, find their second victimization takes place at the local police station, where local law enforcement are ill schooled and ill prepared on handling the report.
There is more, but that will do.
posted by Amicus on
btw, Paglia is showing signs of losing it. I noticed this in passing. No one serious under-estimates the influence that external players have had on the outcomes in the regions.
“I remain skeptical of the “flypaper” theory of terrorism, which alleges that bad guys around the world have flocked to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight the U.S. incursions. Exactly what evidence is there of such a migration of outsiders?”
posted by Walker on
Richard Rosendall — I tried to comment on your latest article, but there was no field for comments. How come? Was it a computer glitch? You don’t ban comments on your articles, and then post harsh comments on other writers, do you?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Walker wrote, “You don’t ban comments on your articles, and then post harsh comments on other writers, do you?”
The evidence suggests that the answer to your question is no. I recognize that some people find it convenient to treat any disagreement as a vicious personal attack, but that doesn’t make it so. There have been some “regulars” on IGF comment boards in the past who routinely attacked me in the most personal and contemptuous terms as if I were a radical leftist. That is provably not true. Now of course anyone can assert anything, but there really is a published record easily checked. And by checked I do not mean cherry-picked. One fact alone should definitively prove that I am no leftist: the fact that FrontPageMag.com has published several articles of mine–simple not possible were I a leftist.
I grew tired of the pointless, dilatory viciousness of a small number of sociopathic individuals. If the evidence honestly shows that I do the same thing, then to hell with me. But that is not the case. (But of course it IS the case if your asserting it makes it so.) There is another difference detectable by those willing to pay attention: some of us, however strongly we defend our positions, are trying to focus on the subject at hand. Others, OTOH, are mainly focused on “winning” and scoring points. How tiresome.
I realize that some make the facile claim that blocking comments can only mean that the person requesting the blocking is incapable of defending his position; and I would deserve that accusation if the evidence supported it. But I have engaged more people at greater length for a longer time than most if not all IGF authors over the years, so that is plainly not the case. But again, if cheap, pseudo-clever point-scoring trumps the evidence, go ahead and make stuff up. I got tired of discussions on my pieces being dragged down by the same few boorish and dishonest people, so I started asking comments to be blocked. I do not lie about people, so I do not belong in the same category.
posted by Another Steve on
Rick Rosendall: If LGBT people are in such lockstep, why are so many of their voices be raised in criticism of Obama on various points?
The fact is that ALL the major LGBT political groups strongly supported the hate crimes bill — i.e., "lockstep." Only gay libertarians, on the margins, were opposed.
That LGBT groups range from left (pro-Obama) to far left (critical of Obama for not being as left as they are) is not exactly the same as being diverse.
posted by TS on
“That’s nice, but the debate over whether criminal law should be colorblind was lost a long time ago, so why should we be left out? I’d be more impressed with Pagila if she advocated *repealing* the current hate crimes law.”
I advocate repealing the current hate crimes law, for reasons listed in the above post. In the likely event it’s too entrenched to take off the books, I am apathetic to whether it includes us or not, because its net benefit to us is approximately 0. And aside from that, I think it is a DISASTER that government’s only pro-LGBT “achievement” this year has contributed to making the world a little less fair.
posted by Amicus on
TS wrote, “Intent and motive should only be part of investigating crimes and determining their factuality, not grading their severity. I don’t understand why it’s worse to kill someone because you hate gays than because you hate guys that slept with your ex or you just hate going without your favorite drug and the nearest gay happened to have a full wallet.”
—-
That’s just failing to make a distinction where one can be made.
Indeed, we have genocide laws and so forth that recognize the importance of distinctions in intent.
There are even laws that cover conspiracy, when thought or thought-planning is all that may exist.
The average guy would would probably grade the latter of these two statements as more severe:
1. “Give me your wallet, asshole!”
2. “Give me your wallet, [insert racial or gender or sexual slur of your choice]!”
If one is offended, as so many are, about actually writing “sexual orientation” into the Majesty of The Law {gulp} and, thereby official recognize that gay people exist, some states have put hate crimes statutes on the books that do not reference specific classes (I think Utah, for instance).
posted by Amicus on
Richard, I like reading your pieces.
You can do as you like, but I say leave the comments on (unless there is a consistent stream of slander or something similar).
Why? It’s anti-internet to write newspaper-like missives. Also, it doesn’t suit to censor speech, even if it is degrading. Ultimately, trust the audience, as hard as that is. Even if 2 of 10 can wade through the muck and find gems, it’s worth it, IMHO.