Defending civil liberties

Hate crimes against Latinos have increased by 40% between 2003 and 2007, mostly because of the nastiness of the immigration debate. Because of that the National Council of La Raza, the largest Latino human rights organization is joining the call for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act that has languished in Congress due to a threatened Bush veto and spineless Democrats. Hate crimes are also perpetrated against other racial groups, religious groups, and sexual minorities and their purpose is to deny rights to the targeted groups beyond the actual victims. They usually succeed. Under a new president and Congress action is now possible. David Neiwert, a journalist in Seattle, makes an interesting point as part of his news about La Raza and a description about the effects of hate crimes. He wrote:

Hate crimes are an integral part of that history [of intimidation], and laws intended to punish their perpetrators with stiffer sentences are an important blow for the cause of very real and substantial freedoms for millions of Americans. Trying to argue that, in some esoteric sense, they constitute "thought crimes" that somehow deprive us of our freedoms (to what? commit crimes?) turns this reality on its head.

Yet progressives haven't yet figured out that framing hate-crime laws as a defense of people's civil liberties is precisely the argument that will instantly deflate the long-running "thought crime" argument. In all the debate over the legislation, I haven't seen the point raised once.