More "Thought Crime" Meme, But This Time From A Pulitzer Prize Winning Editorialist
by: Autumn Sandeen
Mon May 11, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM EDT
http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/10915/more-thought-crime-meme-but-this-time-from-a-pulitzer-prize-winning-editorialist (http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/10915/more-thought-crime-meme-but-this-time-from-a-pulitzer-prize-winning-editorialist)
I also learned the way a Pulitzer Prize winning editorialist makes points these days is either feigning ignorance, actually being proud of his ignorance, or just not doing his homework (emphasis added):
Another section of the bill applies to crimes committed "because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person." There must be a reason for differentiating between gender and gender identity in the law, but I'd rather not guess.
I don't have to guess. Angie Zapata's hate crime murder is a reason for the differentiation that's very fresh in my mind.
Why Autumn would be surprised is beyond me.
Every time a category's proposed for inclusion in anti-discrimination bills or hate-crime bills there is a remarkable outpouring by Wasp/y white guys who have a certain cachet in their respective fields, even if the field is laying block or roofing.
Usually their arguments run to some trope regarding how "we have laws already that cover murder, voting rights, housing, lending, etc, etc."
Why, of course we do!
But, predominantly men who have theirs already, think they have theirs already, and those they have as allies, hoping to get theirs soon, believe we need no "extra-legal" protections.
Of course white males make up only a relatively small proportion of people who are murdered, raped, segregated, red-lined, etc, etc. OTH, they are not necessarily very much affected by those things. Thus, no reason seen to include them in a law -- afterall we have "equality in this country."
Uh-huh, unless you measure when "equality" was achieved. White guys with enough wealth to be landowners were for a long time the only people legally and de facto "equal." In the course of 150, 200, 200+ years ya get a certain "handicap" in those races for "equality."
Your ideas about equality generally include keeping your place as is and "giving everyone an equal chance to overcome the prejudices and old legal roadblocks to equality." And that is considered fair.
Besides I read Greenberg and he ain't exactly liberal and has never been.
There's a lot of reason for him to support the propaganda of the orgs. she was puzzled that he'd support. He's done that for years.
Nichole