DeMint Speech Against Hate Crimes Legislation Attached to Defense Authorization

Tagged with: Defense

On Thursday, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, spoke on the Senate Floor in opposition to hate crimes legislation attached to the national defense authorization bill. Below are excerpts from the speech:

“It is very cynical that this bill that funds our soldiers, who are fighting for our Constitution and our country, actually undermines the very principles that they are fighting for.

“There are many practical problems with this report’s Hate Crimes legislation.

“The broad language will unnecessarily overextend federal law enforcement personnel. It will undermine the effectiveness and confidence of local law enforcement. And it will create conditions for arbitrary and politicized prosecutions of certain cases.

“I want to focus, though, on the basic, fundamental problems with any federal hate crimes legislation. The Rule of Law requires opposition to this idea that we treat crimes differently.

“Let me first state the obvious: Hate crimes are wrong. And that’s why they’re already illegal.

“That’s why they are already prosecuted. That’s why the rights of victims are defended by law enforcement authorities at every level of our government.

“Strictly as a matter of justice, the hate crimes provision in this report is offensive. It suggests that violence committed against certain kinds of victims is worse, more in need of federal intervention and swift justice.

“I’m sure most parents of a minority, homosexual, or female victim would appreciate the extra concern. But the other side of this coin is the implication that these crimes committed against a “non-special” person should have less punishment.

“And where does that leave the vast majority of victims’ families, who because of the whims of political correctness are not entitled under this legislation to special status and attention? How can a victim’s perceived status or the perpetrator’s perceived opinions possibly determine the severity of the crime?

“The 14th Amendment explicitly guarantees all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” These hate crimes provisions create a special class of victims whose “protection of the law” will be, in Orwell’s phrase, “more equal than others.” And if some are more equal, others must be “less equal.” It is then inevitable that this Hate Crimes provision will create the very problem it purports to solve.

“This provision will also move our nation a dangerous step closer to another Orwellian concept: thought-crime. It would criminalize certain ideas, in that those ideas’ involvement in a crime will make the crime more deserving of prosecution.

“The problem, of course, is that politicians are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal and which are not. Canadians right now live under this kind of regime, where so-called “Human Rights Commissions,” operating outside the normal legal process, prosecute citizens for espousing opinions the Commissioners disagree with.

“Today in the United States, only actions are crimes. If we pass this conference report, opinions will become crimes. What is to stop us from following the lead of European countries and American college campuses, where certain speech is criminalized?

“Can priests, pastors, and rabbis be sure their preaching will not be prosecuted if they say certain things are right and wrong? Again, in Canada, for instance, Pastor Stephen Boissoin was so prosecuted by Alberta’s Human Rights Commission for publishing letters critical of homosexuality.

“Or will this provision serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views, lest federal agents come knocking on their doors?

“What about the unintended consequences, such as a pedophiles and sex-offenders claiming protected status under this provision as being “disabled”?

“There is no such thing as a criminal thought, only criminal acts. Once we endorse the concept of thought-crime, where will we draw the line? And more importantly, who will draw that line?

“If my own children were attacked in a violent crime, justice would demand that their attackers be pursued no more or less than the attackers of any other children. We all say we want a color-blind society, but we cannot have a color-blind society if we continue to write color-conscious laws.

“Our culture can’t expect to treat people equally if the law – if our ruling class – treats citizens not according to the “content of their character” but according to their race, sex, ethnicity, or gender.

“I urge my colleagues to consider the implications of what we’re doing, just the raw cynicism of attaching this type of controversial legislation to the bill that funds the defense of our country. What type of legislative extortion will they consider of next? I have a choice to vote for hate crimes legislation that I feel would undermine the very justice system in our country or against the defense of my country. I don’t think we could be more cynical.

“I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report, unless and until the principle of equal justice is upheld and the report’s Hate Crimes provisions are removed.