President Obama recently signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law — expanding existing federal hate crimes laws to protect against assault based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.
So why would the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, a pioneering group that works on behalf of transgender, transsexual, intersex and other gender non-conforming people, oppose it?
Sometimes friends and allies disagree. This is as it should be. In progressive circles, we can and should dispute strategy and tactics while still affirming our commitment to the same core set of shared values. Dissent gives our body politic a healthy workout. In that spirit, it seems healthy to consider the SRLP’s opposition to a new law that was generally praised by progressive LGBT voices.
The group advances two primary arguments as to why the legislation is a “counterproductive response to the violence faced by LGBT people.” First, it sees hate crime laws as expanding the tentacles of the current criminal justice system that already results in “staggering incarceration rates of people of color, poor people, queer people and transgender people.” Second, the SRLP argues that evidence fails to show that hate crimes legislation actually works to deter or prevent violence against oppressed groups. Taken together, the basic proposition is that the new legislation is essentially another version of a “get tough on crime” measure that threatens to increase violence in oppressed communities rather than decrease it.
In addition to these arguments against the Act on its own terms, the SLRP also expressed dismay that the legislation was joined to a military spending bill that included $130 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, stating: “Killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan protects no one, inside or outside of U.S. borders.”
In considering these claims, critics of SRLP’s position could fairly counter that the unfortunate joining of the Act to a military spending bill says nothing about the content of the legislation itself. Furthermore, the SRLP’s arguments seem to underestimate the symbolic value of mainstream legislation widely proclaimed to secure LGBT rights.
In the end though, the question of whether or not the act will deter hate-based violence or instead increase incarceration rates in oppressed communities is an important empirical one. It is a question that can only be answered by paying close attention both to the implementation of the law and its relationship to evolving trends in our truly horrendous system of mass incarceration. For this reminder to pay attention to the bigger picture of the struggle for justice, even those who disagree should be grateful for the SRLP critique of progressive strategy.
Image via London Metropolitan Police