Skip to main content

Messing with equality

This article was first published in the Times of Malta on Tuesday 14th February 2012. Added at the end are some further comments and clarifications.


A recent assault on two lesbian teenagers has sparked quite an emotional appeal for a review of hate crime legislation to also cover acts motivated by gender or sexual orientation. I have also read with interest Claire Bonello’s contribution to the matter in an article entitled All Crimes Are Hate Crimes on Sunday and I would like to add my views on the topic.

I am sure of the good intentions of all the NGOs supporting this call and participating in the protest last week, but I believe that our society is consistently missing the wood for the trees, continuously reacting with calls for law changes whenever something happens which sparks public opinion.

While I deplore this incident and express my solidarity with the victims, I think that, unfortunately, our politicians seem consistently prone to enacting patched-up laws in reaction to the current trendy public outcry, without having a long-term vision of what type of society we are creating.

For me, the Prime Minister’s and the Opposition’s reaction that, yes, we do need to patch up hate crime legislation, is a perfect example of this.

Reports of gangs and thugs randomly beating up people have been consistently reported for these past months. Targets included couples, the lone teenager, foreign students, parked cars. Two incidents last year immediately come to mind: the attack on a German student and the attack on a Maltese couple, where in both cases the victims were innocently beaten up by gangs.

An article by Noel Tonna last Friday also described an attack his son suffered in a playground in Sliema. Other cases have been reported by this newspaper, and still we saw no tightening up of enforcement and stricter penalties for violent behaviour.

What is the logic, then, of increasing the gravity of the crime only if the victim happens to be a homosexual person, a black person, a non-Christian, or associated with any other minority group? When it happened to be a black victim, we introduced racial hate crime. Now that it is a lesbian couple, we are calling for sexual orientation hate crime. As a reaction to last year’s other attacks, why aren’t we calling for “student hate crimes”, “Germanic hate crimes”, and “relationship status hate crimes”? Can we just introduce stricter penalties, of jail-time and no suspended sentences, for anyone who acts violently and without any provocation against anyone else? If not, someone has to kindly explain to me what makes it less dangerous for us members of this same society if the victims of such random beatings are to be part of the “majority” instead of part of the “minority groups”?

The only basis for such a differentiation between violence on a “minority” member and violence on a “majority” member seems to be the motivation. But how exactly can anyone determine what crossed the perpetrators’ minds before they beat the victim up? Is big-government going to start the thought-crime regime we read about in 1984 and watched in Tom Cruise’s Minority Report?

The only logical conclusion from this type of review is that for our “equal” society, it is more acceptable for gangs and thugs to beat up a white, straight, Christian guy, than if they do the same thing to a black, lesbian, infidel woman. I am sorry but I beg to differ. For me, both are human and both are equal victims of an act of unprovoked violence. And I am sure that, if thugs call me “pufta” while beating me up, while it still wouldn’t qualify as a homophobia-motivated crime (or would it?), I wouldn’t really care if the beating was a result of their misjudgement of my tastes of whom to sleep with. I would still want to see them locked up in jail.
So my answer is, no dear Prime Minister and Justice Minister. It’s not hate crime legislation which must be strengthened. It’s law enforcement and the penalties for all acts of violence which must be strengthened. On the other hand, all minority-segregating hate crime clauses should be completely removed from our laws. They are discriminatory and make us non-members of any religious, racial, or sexual minority groups feel less safe since we become less risky targets.

Hate crime legislation is messing up the whole concept of equality before the law. It is akin to removing the blindfold from Lady Justice’s eyes so that she can first check who the victim is before contemplating the offender’s penalty. And that is always wrong. Very wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to add some further comments here since I understand this might be a sensitive and controversial topic, and many might have misinterpreted me as being anti-gay or racist, when nothing is further from the truth. I believe in a society where the government interferes as little as possible in the lives of its people, and acts only to protect them from violence or infringements of their rights. In reality, creating 'inequality' in the eyes of the law won't stop any of the discrimination we are talking about. Not one single act of it! Moreover, it could create further antagonism against minority groups because other people will in the long run view them as a 'privileged' class.
Apart from that, there is no logic in increasing the aggravation of a crime for the simple reason that the victim happens to belong to a minority group, or by trying to determine what led the offender to do it. We should aim for a society that treats everyone equally, without labelling him as gay or straight, black or white, christian or muslim. And adding laws which REQUIRE this segregation is a step backwards from this, not forwards.

We already have it enshrined in the Constitution that no one should be treated differently because of his sexual orientation, race, gender, religion, political group etc. We don't need to discriminate the penalties as well (apart from the fact that personally, I would contest such a differentiating law as going against the Constitution itself).

What do you think should be the penalty for anyone who acts violently, without provocation, against a human being for the simple reason that he is gay, or that she is black? 5 years, 8 years, jail time with no suspended sentences? Fine. I agree. Then let's have that penalty for ALL types of unprovoked violence against ANYONE for ANY reason.

Let's educate, let's increase penalties which protect us from violence, but let's keep treating everyone equally in the eyes of the law. That's all. That's the equality I believe in.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who's the real monster?

I usually hate comparisons, but some very different reactions from the 'great unthinking' rabble do merit some analysis. In May this year, the notorious dog Star was found buried alive . A prima facie , this looked liked the most horrific case of animal cruelty, and is still considered so by some. The perpetrator was described by the sensitive and caring animal-lovers as a villain, a heartless monster, deserving of death, stoning, or even to be 'buried alive in the same manner'. But what did Mr. Vella actually do, according to the testimony heard in Court? Star was sick. It was shedding fur, and quite old already, and its owner did not afford the treatment. In trying to save some money from paying for the dog to be put to sleep and killed properly by vets, she gave it to Mr. Vella to have it killed himself. Nothing much to make people angry till now. Mercy-killing of very sick and suffering animals is widely done and usually acceptable. You may

Shema Yisrael, the cries of the Palestinian people

You live a peaceful life in a modest home. You've never bothered anyone and you've never caused trouble. Out of the blues, a group of people claim that they should live in your house. Why? Because they have been persecuted in a war, and they claim that some 5,000 years ago, their God had told them your home was their promised land. Somehow, the whole community agrees with their wishes, and asks you to grant them your spare-bedroom. You oblige. After a few months, they take the whole top-floor. In a few year's time, they take over your kitchen. After a few more years, they own your house and keep you and your family locked in the bathroom. They don't even allow you to get out, while they strip-search you the few times they do. Even if it's a medical emergency. Sometimes not even medical personnel and ambulances are allowed to see to your needs while your children die in your hands. Desperation starts hitting you. Life seems to offer no hopes. In moments

Why I am dropping out of the Anti-ACTA protest

Like many avid internet users, I have followed with interest the debate about ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). After reading numerous articles, watched sensational videos, and discussed ad nauseam with friends, I have realized that what I have come across is a campaign hi-jacked by lies, myths and misconceptions as to rival Malta's misinformed divorce referendum campaign. I have to say that the videos on Youtube   got me worried. I quickly signed the petition, joined the Anti-ACTA groups, and prepared myself for a full-blown fight against the big-governments who want to intrude on our privacy and freedom of expression. Like our MEP Edward Scicluna invited us to do in the University debate last Wednesday, I did not try to understand the details of ACTA but rather saw who the players behind it were. But as usual, my logical instincts took over, and his call to not try to understand ACTA actually pushed me to read the text. And here's what I now know: ACTA is