The Hate Crimes Bill - H.R. 1592: Will you need a "Minority Report"?

During the summer of 2002, Steven Spielberg and Dreamworks pictures released the film Minority Report based on a story by sci-fi author, Phillip K. Dick. A great film, it told the story of a future where pre-meditated murder was virtually non-existent in Washington D.C. because of the "Department of Pre-Crime". This law enforcement arm used three young indiviuals, known as "pre-cogs" to be able to identify and locate murderous intent, before the actual act took place. Due to this breakthrough, only crimes of passion where there was no pre-meditation involved, posed a risk. Even then, the "Department of Pre-Crime" was a great success, as the perpetrators of "passion crimes" were still apprehended. As the film progresses the main character discovers, thanks to the pre-cogs, that he will commit a crime of passion. As he tries to figure out how this will all transpire, he becomes aware of the one piece of evidence that will vindicate him; his "minority report" - the actual string of images within the mind of the lead pre-cog which will prove his innocence. In the end, he's declared innocent of all charges and brings down the "Department of Pre-Crime" in the process, just before it is scheduled to go national.

This film dealt with the question of "if a person thinks it, will they really do it?"; the idea of the future being set in stone, if it is pre-ordained or changeable. In this film, the concept of "thought crimes" comes to the forefront.

In light of this Utopian idea, consider what is actually happening in the US Congress: as of today, H.R. 1592 passed in the House of Representatives by a bi-partisan vote. Commonly referred to as the "Hate Crimes Bill", this piece of legislation seeks to add to the existing categories that classify hate crimes (such as race, gender, and ethnicity) categories such as disability and sexual orientation (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, and Transgener - GLBT). Additionally, this legislation would allow the Federal Government, through the Department of Justice, to assist State and Local law enforcement with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. While this may seem like a good and proper thing to do, there are some large problems with it.

First among them is Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech as outlined within the First Amendment in the Constitution. The concern here, is that this legislation opens the door to repress the the Speech and Religious freedom of groups that would speak out against homosexuality as immoral and wrong, based on that group's religious doctrine. No, this bill would not create that problem but it could lead to it, thus allowing the United States to become as Canada has, where religious figures (who are not accepting of GLBT) are not allowed to speak out, as jail time would follow if successfully convicted of "hate speech". As the creators, implementers, and guardians of American Law, the government has a responsibility to guard against the unintended consequences of the laws they create, and this could eventually be one of those unintended consequences.

Second, is the issue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under this amendment, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of the law. This amendment, when ratified, concerned situations under which a person was born, such as gender, race, ethnicity, and skin color. Individuals and organizations who have lobbied for this legislation (such as Human Rights Campaign) often cite this part of the Constitution in their favor. The problem arises because, while disability can sometimes be a condition at birth, sexual orientation is not - or has not been proven scientifically. Therefore, since that is, in truth, a choice, it is not covered under the Fourteenth Amendment. The danger with disability comes when the disability is not a birth issue and happens after, how is it to be considered then? Under the Fourteenth Amendment, it is considered "applied" to a group of people if the characteristic of this group is immutable, there is a history of abuse, and if there is a lack of political influence. As I have already pointed out, sexual orientation is not immutable. Also, the "alternative lifestyle" lobby has great influence within the political process, typically through the Democratic party. That said, the Fourteenth Amendment would not apply.

Third, is the issue of the Tenth Amendment and the Enumerated Powers within the Constitution. This amendment states: "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited it by the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". This is the basis of Federalism; the separation of powers between the State, the states, and the People (the people being the most sovereign part of our American democracy). Within H.R. 1592, is a clause which says there are cases, when a state or local authority requests, the Federal government in the form of the Justice Department, can come in and assist with the investigation and prosecution of Hate Crimes. Alongside this is another clause which states that in certain cases, when a locality or a state has has not properly handled a hate crimes case, the Justice Department can come in and take control of the case.

Consider this scenario: someone is attacked and it is thought to have happened because of that persons sexual orientation. During the course of the investigation it is determined the person was attacked for reasons other than sexual orientation. The individual is prosecuted according to said evidence and the sterner penalties for hate crimes, according to the law signed by President Clinton in 1994, are not applied. Could then the Justice Department, say under a Democratic President, reopen this case, under pressure from special interests, and render the individual state's judicial decision as null and void? It's a possibility, one which could now be viable but was not so before. Under this bill, the Tenth Amendment could be violated and state's rights, trampled.

These are the concerns and dangers raised by this "now passed" bill. One might wonder, though "why would the government do this? Why might they seek to trample somethings laid out in the Constitution?" At this point in time, the Democratic Party is in power in Congress, having not been in this position for a dozen years prior. In light of this, they seek to please, and keep happy, primary constituencies which they receive votes from; the "alternative life" style lobby is one of the primary groups they seek to please. Could it be said this is about power and keeping it? Yes. Is that the only reason? Probably not.

Despite all this, the reality is that the door has been opened and the Constitution eroded.

The silver lining in this raging storm is that the President has vowed to veto this bill; what's more is that the House looks to NOT have the veto proof 2/3 needed to overturn the President's action. Bottom line - conservatives have won this round, or so it seems...

Might there still come a day when such thoughts, beliefs, and ideas are criminalized? In Canada there already seems to be cases where that is true. Is voicing those thoughts considered action enough? Does voicing them actually mean they will be carried out? Maybe, maybe not; one should consider the person and the context.

Will you someday need that Minority Report because of "thought crime"? Only the future can answer that...

A Day Long Remembered: In the Highest Court, a Victory for Life

Three days ago, Wednesday, April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States reached a landmark decision in deciding to uphold the President's 2003 ban on the practice of partial birth abortion or PBA. This victory is one that pro-lifers across America have waited long and worked hard for. What this decision has accomplished is the outlawing of a procedure where the baby is partially delivered from the mother's womb, and as this is happening, the child's skull is punctured and the child's brain extracted, and subsequently destroyed, thus ending a young life that some within our great nation see as not viable even at that time, the latest of stages, the actual delivery process. This process is commonly referred to as D/X, meaning dilation and extraction. Unfortunately, other abortive practices are still viable and protected.

Yet, not even 24 hours after the decision was handed down, Senators such as Barbara Boxer of California, who champions a woman's reproductive rights, a choice, as above the right to life, something that is indisputably protected by the Constitution, has come out saying that this ban is a bad thing and that she will fight it - having introduced a bill in the Senate to do so. Senator, and Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton has also come out on this issue saying that it is a violation, Constitutionally, of a "woman's right to choose". Other Presidential hopefuls on the Democratic ticket, John Edwards and Senator Obama, have both said they strongly disagree and are disappointed by the Court's ruling.

There is still much work to be done to protect the unborn, but certainly this is a leap in the RIGHT direction.