Recently, Congress passed legislation that would expand hate crime laws to include not just crimes motivated by hatred for race, ethnicity or religion, but also those motivated by hatred for gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or a disability. This is not legislation against hate speech, but rather against violent acts committed because the attacker targets the person for the quality they represent.

There’s a lot of criticism for this kind of law, including from liberal quarters, the most-argued being that hate crime laws are laws against thought–on the grounds that the only thing different from a hate crime and a random mugging is a belief held by the attacker.

This argument tends to be over-simplistic, explaining only that one is punished for ones thoughts or beliefs, as if the thought alone is enough to convict. This is what religious organizations are claiming, that these laws will prevent them from even just speaking out about homosexuality. But that is not even close to being the case: thoughts or beliefs alone could not be punished.

Instead, there must be a violent crime, and not just that, but the beliefs of the attacker must be demonstrably responsible for the crime. If a Christian violently attacked a gay person for reasons not related to homosexuality and was convicted of a hate crime because his religious beliefs tended against gays, that would be unjustifiable–but that’s not what the laws are about.

The attacker cannot be punished under hate crime laws just because they attack someone who offends their beliefs; there has to be clear evidence that the attack was motivated by the belief, that the person was not targeted because of some other reason. For example, if a Christian were goaded into violence by a gay person with insults, and the Christian did not indicate anything about homosexuality in his attack, then hate crime legislation would not kick in. But if the Christian person attacked a gay person and had no reason to attack that person other than their sexuality, and shouted out insults at the person’s sexual orientation during the attack, that would suggest that the attack was based on hate.

For me, there are two solid reasons why hate crime legislation is justified. Both relate to the same reasoning which applies greater punishment if a person attacks a police officer. First, if a violent act is committed against a person primarily because they belong to a certain group, then it is an attack not just against that person but an attack against that entire segment of society. Just as a person attacking a police officer is considered to be committing a crime against society as a whole and is therefore held more accountable, a person committing a hate crime is not just attacking the individual. In some ways, this is not unlike a terrorist act–striking fear in all of those who belong to the community.

Second, a person who commits a hate crime is a greater danger to society on the whole. When one person attacks or kills another, it tends to be for a specific reason, and is targeted against that specific individual; they are not a danger to society as a whole. But a person who attacks or kills for their hatred of an entire group is far more likely to commit such an act again, and therefore poses a much greater threat. Again, this is the same reasoning for greater punishment for assault on a police officer.

These are not “special privileges” or “special protection” for minorities; Christians, Heterosexuals, or Caucasians are covered too. The laws protect all groups. If minorities tend to be the ones who are violently attacked far more often, then this legislation is not necessarily a protection the majority would want to deserve.

If the legislation does not demand high standards of proof for the intent to be colored by the specific hatred, then it is wrong; if the legislation outlaws only criticism against groups, banning anything short of clear incitement to violence, then it is wrong. But it is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong here, citing the evidence please) that most hate crime legislation does not go that far.