Hate Crimes billed passed in U.S.

[Stand Your Ground]

I have some amazing news: after a Senate vote today, the inclusive hate crimes bill has crossed its last hurdle in Congress! President Obama has vowed to sign it by the end of this month.

Today's victory marks a truly pivotal moment in our fight for LGBT equality. It happened because of the dedication of people like you and the families of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., for whom the bill is named.

And with bills seeking to end workplace and military discrimination coming up for debate in Congress, today's victory could be just the first of many if we can keep up our momentum.

http://www.hrc.org/news/13686.htm

[counterblast]

These anti-discrimination laws are neither pivotal or a step forward.

They simply replace one form of institutionalized oppression (homo/transphobia) with another -- the prison industrial complex.

As for the military "discrimination" issue; I find it difficult to believe that any leftist could see an increase in capitalist militarization and further assimilation into society hostile to queer and trans people as "momentum building"...

EDIT;
And using HRC articles as any sort of factual reference material shouldn't even be allowed in Revleft.

[manic expression]

Alright, well I think this could be positive. Getting equal protection under the law, even bourgeois law, is a potential step forward if it actually discourages hate crimes.

[counterblast]

Alright, well I think this could be positive. Getting equal protection under the law, even bourgeois law, is a potential step forward if it actually discourages hate crimes.

Equal protection already exists under the law. If you intentionally murder someone -- regardless of the motivation -- there are strict laws in place to punish you.

This law only serves to put people in prison LONGER.

It doesn't provide "equal" protection, to people in the GLBTQI community.

[mashintraffic]

This is good news that this law was passed.

[Uncle Hank]

While at least they're pretending to do something, this isn't the great leap forward for LGBT equality we've all been looking for.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Equal protection already exists under the law. If you intentionally murder someone -- regardless of the motivation -- there are strict laws in place to punish you.

This law only serves to put people in prison LONGER.

It doesn't provide "equal" protection, to people in the GLBTQI community.

In a country where LGBT folks and even heterosexual people with behavior or physical attributes associated with the other gender have been routinely beaten while teachers, coaches, authorities and military officers turned the other way (if not actively encouraging these attacks), the passing of this legislation is definitely a step forward and a sign that the ruling class is worried about the stirrings of a new movement for rights following things such as the passage of prop 8 here in California.

Also, look at this in the context of the right-wing arguing that things like cross-burnings should be legally treated as arson or vandalism rather than hate-crimes. The US (in)justice system is horrible and needs to be smashed, but it also isn't neutral and will punish LGBT people (especially transgender people) much more severely than someone "good old boy" that throws a rock through the window of a gay-owned business.

If there was a law put in place that said that scabs who beat up union picketers or strike-breaking thugs should be punished more severely than people who just start a bar-fight, would that also be seen as a step-backwards in your view?

If pressure has been put on the ruling class to the extent that they feel they need to pass laws like this or a law against strike-breakers (that would take a lot of pressure and a big movement), I think we have to see it as a good thing and the starting point for making demands for real LGBT liberation.

Totally agree about HRC though - they've really lost any remaining credibility people once granted them and their statements should be viewed by us as critically as we'd see statements from Moveon.org or something like that.

[counterblast]

Also, look at this in the context of the right-wing arguing that things like cross-burnings should be legally treated as arson or vandalism rather than hate-crimes. The US (in)justice system is horrible and needs to be smashed, but it also isn't neutral and will punish LGBT people (especially transgender people) much more severely than someone "good old boy" that throws a rock through the window of a gay-owned business.

So to protect transpeople from the US "justice" system, we need to increase the scope of its jurisdiction?

Its easy to simply look at this as a "victory" for queer and transpeople; but to do so you must accept the assumption that the justice system has the interests of queer and transpeople in mind or even the interest of preserving the common "good" (if such a thing exists). It simply doesn't.

If there was a law put in place that said that scabs who beat up union picketers or strike-breaking thugs should be punished more severely than people who just start a bar-fight, would that also be seen as a step-backwards in your view?

Not a step backwards; but a sort of political stalemate. You're passively broadening the scope of state power, and justifying it by saying "its for the good of ___ group".

The question we should be asking ourselves is; At what point does state intervention cease to have revolutionary potential?

Lets be clear that this isn't a cut and dry scenario of freeing Black people from slavery, allowing white women the right to vote, or decriminalizing homosexuality.

No, in all of those aforementioned circumstances, the gains were made at the expense of no one and certainly didn't benefit the state. These new "rights" for white gays and lesbians (and maybe some transpeople) come at the expense of everyone else, and benefit the state solely.

If pressure has been put on the ruling class to the extent that they feel they need to pass laws like this or a law against strike-breakers (that would take a lot of pressure and a big movement), I think we have to see it as a good thing and the starting point for making demands for real LGBT liberation.

Lets also be clear, this isn't something the state feels "forced" into. The state benefits from harsher laws, in the way of more authority over people.

[Yehuda Stern]

Boy, how meaningful does this seem when one just looks at the the thread right next to this one?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Its easy to simply look at this as a "victory" for queer and transpeople; but to do so you must accept the assumption that the justice system has the interests of queer and transpeople in mind or even the interest of preserving the common "good" (if such a thing exists). It simply doesn't.

I think the point you are making here is just a straw-man. I never argued that the state has the interests of any oppressed group in mind. In the context of a remobilization of people demanding rights for LGBT people, I think this is a sign that the government is feeling the pressure.

The US government began to strike-down some of the jim-crow laws in the late 40s not out of the interests of black people but because jim-crow was making the US's "defense of democracy" look hollow. Activists took this opening and ran with it which eventually turned into a limited civil rights movement which then began to develop a left-wing and eventually a liberation movement.

That's how I think we should look at things. Yes, I want to smash capitalism and smash the disgusting oppressive police, court, and prison systems that make that system possible but these oppressive systems do not treat working class "criminals" the same way it treats the rich or bigots. I want to abolish prisons, but I would be happy to see George Bush or Clinton locked up for war crimes because if that happened it wouldn't be due to the legal system, it would be because the state felt they had to or they would loose credibility at best, power at worst.

Not a step backwards; but a sort of political stalemate. You're passively broadening the scope of state power, and justifying it by saying "its for the good of ___ group".

The question we should be asking ourselves is; At what point does state intervention cease to have revolutionary potential?

I'm not quite sure what your point is with this last statement. Obviously, with everything done by capitalist politicians or the capitalists state the question is why are they doing this, who benefits? Without the mounting pressure from new protests and new grassroots groups following the passage of prop 8, I don't think this law would have been introduced let alone passed. Is it the finish line? No, it's not even the starting pistol yet, but it's a sign that the race is on.

No, in all of those aforementioned circumstances, the gains were made at the expense of no one and certainly didn't benefit the state. These new "rights" for white gays and lesbians (and maybe some transpeople) come at the expense of everyone else, and benefit the state solely.

Letting blacks into the military, allowing women fully into the workforce - these things do benefit some sections of ruling class over some other interests. I mean, who want's women to be wage-slaves? Who wants women to serve in the military? Civil Rights era legislation massively increased the power of the federal government to override decisions by companies and local governments. The Civil War led to northern conscription, an unprecedented growth in federal power, and paved the way for industrial capitalism.

In other words, the relative power of the capitalist state tells us little about the class struggle. If the US nationalized the banks to help capitalism and give bailouts, that's bad for workers. If public outcry and mass protests led to the US nationalizing an industry to stop foreclosures, then that would be the capitalists caving into pressure and feeling like they had to pass a reform to save their skin.

Lets also be clear, this isn't something the state feels "forced" into. The state benefits from harsher laws, in the way of more authority over people.

Well I think all else being equal, the ruling class would be more than happy to out and out promote violence and discriminatory laws against minorities of all kinds in order to divide people and promote their rule: just look at the way they inject anti-immigrant clauses in health care legislation or whatnot.

After hearing Obama's speech to HRC I feel like the ruling class is feeling the pressure and so they are trying to pass "easy" reforms like this or getting rid of "Don't ask Don't Tell" so that liberal lobbying groups can tell people: "look at the progress we're making - don't protest, don't abandon your support for the Democrats". We have to make sure that this, if it is their intention doesn't work and I think after being at the National Equality March in DC, that it won't work. It was the first big march I've been on in over a year where people were saying: "Hey, what happened to your promises Obama" and rather than saying, "Yeah, well we just need to give Obama some space so he can work the system".

As radicals we should say, hey great - they are scared of us and that's a start, but locking up a few bigots won't do anything against homophobia when there is still official systematic discrimination throughout the society. I don't think we disagree on that, just on the relationship between reforms and agitation and how to use small openings by the ruling class to build a larger movement that can eventually bust the whole thing wide-open.