Misunderstanding hate-crime legislation (Gleaner Letter 03.11.09)

The Editor, Sir:
I think Ian Boyne could not be more wrong on the point of the effect of hate-crime legislation on the lives of those who object to homosexuality on moral or religious grounds. Where he says, "Those who refuse to go along with this principle then become encoded in law as hateful, discriminatory bigots", the law cannot and does not say any such thing.

Many people oppose many laws here as a matter of principle, faith or intellect. This is the simple result of any democratic nation comprised of individuals of widely varying experiences and beliefs. In order to be thought of in the terms Boyne describes, they would have to actively discriminate based on any contrary beliefs, not simply hold them.

Boyne goes on to quote a Mr Gagnon as saying "homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality are ... an aspect of human diversity that must be affirmed and celebrated". While I don't personally view this as a problem, for those who do, I can assure you that in my 36 years, the federal government has never mandated I "affirm" or "celebrate" anything. The assertion of this possibility would be laughably dark and Orwellian were it not for the purpose to which it is being put.

Neo-nazi and KKK groups

Hate-crime legislation in the US has not deterred neo-nazi and KKK groups from marching and proclaiming their message - however hate-filled - provided they do not commit or promote an act of violence directly. Their First Amendment right to free expression has meant, in fact, they are more often than not accompanied by a sizeable police contingency when they march. I must admit I am more than a bit gratified that the police are there to protect these marchers from a very real threat of violence.

What's more, David Duke, a known racist was elected member of the Louisiana House of Representatives from the 81st district for a term 1989-1992.

I think Boyne's citing the Old Testament is perhaps even more telling (and indicative of why our government separates liturgy and policy). While the passages he quoted cannot be denied, they may be found alongside sections commanding adulterous women to be stoned to death in public squares (their partners are spared but may have to pay for the "lost property" of the injured husband) and the proper treatment of slaves.

Earnest belief

I'm sure Boyne doesn't mean to espouse all beliefs as found literally in the Old Testament, but to cherry-pick in service of one's argument is all the more cynical. I don't think he can earnestly believe quoting scripture, regardless of context, will ever be likely to face persecution. (I can be certain of that protection here in the US, but I am a bit less familiar with the religious and speech protections in Jamaica).

I like to employ a simple intellectual exercise to any such situation. If I exchange the group in question for one I can more plainly identify with: what are my feelings on the subject?

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemoller (German clergyman) wrote this in response to the perceived political apathy of the German people during World War II.

I'm afraid the same people who can selectively quote from the literal text of their favourite translation of the Old Testament will similarly continue to adore Obama for the virtues they identify with and ignore the messages that don't suit them.

I am, etc.,

JOSEPH SCHWARTZ

Brooklyn, NY