Invisible Minorities: the Expansion of What is Criminal Hatred

The definition of a “hate crime” has always been a difficult one; how, exactly, is one to trace the root of motives for perpetrators of violence against a minority of some kind?  But, nonetheless, we have always made our best attempts at justice in these situations.  So it is surprising to some, myself included, to hear of certain minorities who are omitted from the criteria of a hate crime.  The standing list includes discrimination against race and religious affiliation, but not – for now – sexual orientation, gender identity, biological gender, and disability.

However, recently, on September 27^th, the Senate passed a bill commonly referred to as the “Matthew Shepherd Act,” (named after a victim of a gay-bashing by two men in Laramie, Colorado) which will add the above qualifications to the standard hate crime definition.  Earlier this year, a similar bill was passed by an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives, and is supported by numerous organizations such as the Matthew Shepherd Foundation and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. President Bush, however, has vocalized that he may veto the bill, claiming it is an “unnecessary” change.

Now certainly, there is no assurance that even with the bill’s passing, every crime against LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) members will be acknowledged as a hate crime – both out of the simple fact that not every such crime will be a hate crime, and the sad fact that even if it is, it may slip by in trial. Indeed, it is a very difficult task to uncover a motive, and even more so in the instances proposed by the Matthew Shepherd Act.  In the case of race, it is at least apparent to all what the victim’s racial identity is; in the case of sexual orientation and gender identity, we must include their real identity as well as their perceived identity as criteria for the hate crime. So we must judge whether or not the attacker was even aware of their victim’s invisible minority at the time of assault, or, alternatively, if they thought their victim was LGBT, and had been incorrect. Gay-bashings of straight people must be tried as well.

But, complications aside, there is no doubt that this legislation, if successful, will be a landmark moment for all homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders, among the ranks of the famous Stonewall Riots that occurred nearly forty years ago. It is in no way “unnecessary,” as our current president declared, but in fact, a topic that is close to the hearts of millions. The Matthew Shepherd Act’s passing will hopefully allow for many more minorities to breathe a sigh of relief, and for the families and friends of previous victims to smile in the compensation. 

Andrew Paschal

( November 2007 Volume 5, Issue 1 )