I spent much of my life in various stages of suppression and denial, hiding my true self - not at all liking the fact I was born a bit different, that I was emotionally and physically attracted to men. I often put on acts and lived a double, secretive life. It was not a healthy way to live, and resulted in serious repercussions, including depression and anger. Simply put: I was afraid to be myself; a lot of people hate homosexuals. Some of us are beaten, shot and killed for it.
During a recent trip to Roanoke, Va., I overheard a man in a sporting goods store joke about “shooting queers.” This in a town where six years ago, a man walked into a gay bar and shot seven men, killing one. While visiting Lake Charles, La., last year, I was assaulted after leaving a gay bar and then treated poorly by a cop who said it should be “illegal” to be gay.
That is why I was disappointed to see the Missoulian come out against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 - recently passed by the House and now before the U.S. Senate. I was equally frustrated during a recent meeting when Missoula Police Chief Rusty Wickman (who I greatly respect and admire for his tremendous efforts to make Missoula a safer, better place for gays and lesbians) express reluctance to advocate for hate crime laws because he just didn't have the “data,” the “numbers,” to prove it was a problem. How many gays and lesbians does it take to be beaten or perhaps killed before people understand?
The Missoulian's main argument against hate crimes legislation is that it might infringe upon free speech. Yet the editorial acknowledges that the act prohibits only violent acts, not speech. If someone calls me a “faggot,” I don't really care. If they call me a “faggot” and assault me because I am gay, certainly the words can be used as evidence to prove I was attacked for being gay. That is not a violation of free speech.
The Missoulian also expresses concern that the act may lead to the passage of a “Hate Speech Act,” which indeed would be a violation of free speech. But let's oppose that one when and if it arises. This is a bit like opposing the restriction of pornography to minors for fear it might lead to the banishment of all books. As a friend of mine puts it, not everything is a slippery slope.
For those concerned about suppression of free speech and expression, consider this: There are good people all over this nation afraid to talk about who they are, afraid to talk about who they love, and afraid to hold hands, kiss or otherwise express love and affection in public. The Hate Crimes Act would help promote freedom of speech and expression.
The Missoulian also asks, “Is an assault more heinous because the victim was attacked because of their religion or sexuality? And should the prosecution be more vigorous?” No, it is not more heinous. However, it does have more widespread impacts, with an unknowing (but no doubt large) number of victims. It's a form of terrorism, keeping a segment of society living in fear.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 would go a long way in helping people, like me, live more honest, open, healthier lives - all of society benefits from that.
David Stalling lives in Missoula.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)