Hate crimes need their own category

Re “Hate crime bill veto is vowed,” May 4

After the attacks of 9/11, I thought that the propriety of hate crime legislation would have become obvious.

Like any hate crime, the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon did not target only the persons directly affected but also the much larger group they represented in the minds of the attackers.

This was so apparent that we did not respond to it as a crime but as an act of war.

Within our society, hate crimes can be thought of as acts of war on a particular segment of the population, identifiable by the history of hostile treatment they received from the empowered majority.

When the empowered majority recognizes a population as having been victimized in such a manner, it is appropriate to grant it protection. It is also a statement that we as a society are serious when we renounce such crimes.

President Bush’s veto threat speaks volumes about how serious he is when he renounces violence against gays and lesbians.

MICHAEL WITMER

Pomona

*

I was struck by the irony of reading the front-page story about the White House vowing a veto on the hate crime bill, saying that it’s “unnecessary,” and then the next day finding in the California section that swastikas were pasted on the office doors of L.A. Councilman Jack Weiss (“Man arrested in swastika posting on official’s door,” May 5).

What happened outside Weiss’ office underscores the fatal flaw in the White House argument.

The attacker used the Nazi emblem and invoked Hitler to tap into a long-standing, systematic culture of oppression, hatred and killing to remind the recipients that the culture of hate is still alive and poses a genuine threat.

Petty vandalism is not what happened at Weiss’ office. The White House needs to recognize that.

DEAN BUCKLEY

Los Angeles

*

Despite 212 Democrats and 25 Republicans voting in favor of the hate crime bill, it seems that 166 Republicans and 14 Democrats in the House feel there should be only selected groups protected by federal legislation: national origin, religion, race and ethnicity.

Sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity should not be protected.

It’s that simple.

WENDY AVERILL

Culver City