Shuler’s Ship Lists Right, Progressives Jump

I see the disappointment over Shuler’s HR 1592 vote as reminder that we need to work even harder. Rumor has it that Shuler’s office was flooded with thousands of calls against this bill all day, every day from Monday on. The best organized have a real advantage. And those in the White House wield the veto pen.

The “persecuted” of the religious Right have spun HR 1592 as making being anti-gay on religious grounds into a thought crime. In addition they claim it creates a “special class” of victims, that hate crimes laws aren’t needed because there are already laws against violent crime. But there were laws against murder when lynchings went unpunished, and the Holocaust wasn’t merely 6 million separate murders. I think their arguments are largely disingenuous and misinformation, but their paranoia is not incomprehensible.

Elephants have long memories. The past use of RICO to prosecute habitual abortion clinic protesters, for example – struck down by the Supreme Court in 1993. I also remember once reading a lengthy public apology from Pat Moynihan after the feds revoked tuition support to individual veterans who chose to attend private religious schools that wouldn’t toe the line on non-discrimination – an intrusion into religion Moynihan regretted never having foreseen.

Looking into the conservative view on HR 1592, I found that the story of arrested anti-gay street preachers in Philadelphia (video) in October 2004 set off alarm bells among the religious right, as the charges related to PA hate crimes statutes. The case was thrown out, of course, but was more than enough to reinforce their apocalyptic visions of an increasingly anti-Christian America. The Left Behind series was bestseller – it doesn’t take much.

In light of the Philly arrests and other creative readings of law, HR 1592 was read by opponents to specifically target the activities of groups like the Westboro Baptist Church and Repent America for federal prosecution for the crime of publicly preaching against homosexuality (and seeking Jesus’ teachings in Leviticus?). Justified or not – they see and fear a “free exercise” and abridgement of free speech threat.

I know. It’s easier to say they should just “get over it” than it is to understand it. But it’s important to know what drives them.

HR 1592 targets violence, but after watching the nonviolent Philly arrest video closely and reading the circumstances of the Repent America arrests, I understand the paranoia among the religious Right. This is not to condone their prejudice. But being annoying or hating any minority isn’t a violent crime. I stand up for their right to be annoying, even professionally so, so long as their activities remain within the law. (Where is the ACLU when you need them?)

How many of us have met activists from the Left who wear their civil disobedience arrests like badges of honor? The irony in watching the arrest video is that if I didn’t know which side was which, I might think the street preachers were peace protesters being harassed for doing their nonviolent thing. Protesters on the Right who make it their business to be professionally annoying shouldn’t be silenced by federal charges (or the implicit threat of federal charges) any more than those on the Left.

But violent hate crimes, especially when organized, deserve legal treatment similar to lynching. They are not crimes against (special classes of) individual victims, but crimes against entire communities. I agree in principle with expanding hate crimes penalties to violent crimes committed against gays, etc. One may disagree with Shuler on this particular vote, but it was HR 1592 supporters who won the day last week. Some version of this bill will come up again. Not that it would ever be used under any Republican administration. Rectifying that remains my focus.

Heath is a social conservative. I knew that, and wouldn’t have expected him to vote for this legislation. The district’s religious Right are Heath’s constituents too (and probably similarly peeved when he’s been with us on every major Iraq vote). But being a “know your opponent” kind of guy, I thought I’d point out the fears behind why they come out in such numbers against legislation like this.

The best response is to better organize.

Wonkily yours.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Thanks, Bradford, for commenting. You are correct that I was wrong to refer to the entire “staff” in my comments.

I was talking about a few specific people in high positions who have a long history of exclusion and downright nastiness. I didn’t say anything when they were hired because I’d hoped they would change with their new responsibilities. Unfortunately, they have continued this kind of unacceptable behavior as members of Heath’s staff.

I didn’t want to name names, hoping to give them another chance to make changes without being under the spotlight. I thought about not calling it “staff” but, technically, that’s who they are.

If Heath’s staff is as diverse as you say, it’s too bad that diversity is not reflected in the behavior of his entire staff towards people of other faiths, races, and gender. I wish I could get the people they have mistreated to speak to them privately but these victims fear retaliation. And from my experiences with the staff members in question, those fears are not unwarranted.

Thanks for calling me on my broad strokes. I have no evidence that the whole staff is the problem and I shouldn’t have painted all of them with the same brush.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Uundercover Blue,

Are you saying that if progressives were better organized re: supporting hate crimes legislation that Heath Shuler would have voted differently on it?

When the religious right decries “special treatment” without a hint of irony regarding the special treatment they get all the time as the predominant religious group in America it’s a bit like white people yammering about “reverse racism” when a black man gets a job they wanted.

The vote is absurd. Just like the stem cell vote was absurd. The logic jus falls apart with the slightest scrutiny. Fortunately there are enough members of Congress who are willing to stand up for the rights of oppressed people, and the bill passed.

Just like the stem cell bill passed.
Just like the compromise immigration language will likely pass.

Shuler’s absurd, pander-to-the-wingnuts votes are the ones that are going down in flames. So even if he is just pandering, we need not worry about the legislative consequences of his doing so. Culturally however, these votes serve to bolster racism, homophobia, and anti-intellectualism.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Bradford, first of all, thanks for getting involved with the campaign. So many people complain and don’t put in the long hours to bring about change. I worked for Heath but not in Buncombe so I regret to say I don’t know many of the campaign volunteers or staff. The few I already knew from previous campaigns are the absolute best. And from what I know of the Washington staff, they are impressive.

One of the truly egregious “non-diverse” persons worked on the campaign but, as far as I know, not that closely with volunteers. The other one must have been involved behind the scenes but he definitely didn’t have anything to do with the daily operation in any way, shape, or form. In fact, before working (at least publicly) for Heath, he had made statements admitting to being ineffective and divisive. I was shocked and concerned (and so were many many others) when Heath hired him.

It’s too late to change these people’s history of discrimination (and plain old rudeness). While it’s so long before the reelection campaign heats up, I just want to shock someone into insisting that they get diversity sensitivity training. That would be a start. However, with the kind of statements Heath is making to excuse his votes (and with his initial choices to hire these people), I’m worried that Heath doesn’t notice their ugliness and never will . . . because he’s simply not interested.

Rate this comment: 0  0