[Marxism] Hate crimes legislation & David Thorstad

[Jeff]

Since David Thorstad (14:55 1 Nov. 2008  "Moderator's note") brought up a 
previous post of mine criticizing his opposition to hate crimes laws, I'd 
like to answer his attempt to ridicule my objection. Since he quoted only 
part of a paragraph I had written, I copied my previous answer below for 
reference. Right now I wish to answer:
1) What I was actually trying to say, which was NOT an "attempt to link 
[Thorstad] to racism".
2) The issue of name-calling and what I did or didn't say/imply about David 
Thorstad.

Thorstad:
>    Another rather bizarre attempt to link me to racism (!) and the 
>right came from Jeff (Oct. 27) in his comments on "Why Gay Marriage 
>Sucks," in which, reacting to my opposition to "hate-crimes" 
>legislation, he stated:
>
>>    "So to summarize, you are AGAINST legislation which is AGAINST 
>>racist violence. 
>[huh? This was about Wyoming antigay "hate crimes" 
>legislation, and had nothing to do with racist violence] 

Slight misunderstanding here, then. I can see he was concentrating on 
anti-gay violence which may have figured prominently in the Wyoming hate 
crime legislation in view of the Matthew Shepard atrocity. But so-called 
hate crimes laws have traditionally addressed racist violence, with some 
(but hardly all) of these laws also applying to anti-gay/gender based 
violence. I take these issues as essentially the same, but responded in 
reference to racist hate crimes.

These laws typically increase the sentence for any other offense when a hate 
crime is involved. I never claimed that such laws were THE way to prevent 
racist (or homophobic, etc.) violence. At best I see them as a statement by 
society deploring such violence (exactly the reason why racists oppose 
them!). But I was disgusted to see a Marxist finding common cause with the 
reactionaries who attack such laws (and apparently prevented its passage in 
Wyoming).

I was further disturbed that David Thorstad justified his opposition using 
an identical argument used by the right-wing to oppose passage of these 
laws. That is the specious argument that hate-crimes laws are "unfair" 
because they punish a person for "what he is thinking" rather than just the 
physical act of violence, thereby interfering in ones "freedom of thought." 
I expressed my objection to this line of reasoning and gave examples of 
other laws which depend on what someone is thinking when they carry out an 
action.

But more disturbing to me is that Thorstad was so inclined to borrow 
arguments from the right wing. I guess it's possible he came to this 
conclusion himself, and it happened to be the same argument as advanced by 
the right. But I suspect otherwise. Especially given that elsewhere in his 
post he pointed to "libertarian" (= right wing) support for his views.

He brought up my previous response to his position on hate crimes 
legislation as an example of "name-calling" on this list, but I absolutely 
deny that. In my entire post I didn't CALL him anything; rather I argued 
against the logic of his position, in a practical sense. His reply quoted me 
somewhat out of context (my original text is below) so it may not have been 
clear. But of course I was NOT implying that he actually WOULD go out 
canvassing with the Klan. I stated, and still maintain, that his opposition 
to passing hate crimes legislation, using arguments no different than those 
of the right wing, would make him appear as part of that right-wing campaign 
to a casual observer. Every bit as much as him supporting the anti-gay 
Proposition 8 in California would give someone the wrong impression. In both 
cases his sectarian position places him on the wrong side of the barricades, 
despite the fact that he knows better.

Thorstad:
>    Addressing the arguments of those one does not see eye to eye with, 
>rather than labeling them with loaded terms that turn them into the 
>Other, would seem advisable. 

Well I think I have done that. Now I'd like to hear how David Thorstad (or 
anyone else) expects to oppose hate-crimes legislation or the right to gay 
marriage, without winding up in league with the right-wing!
- Jeff