We do not have to go way back in history, or even a month into the archives, to see that hate crimes are a problem locally and nationally.
Just within the past week, we have witnessed the disturbing aftermath of an arson at a mosque in Tampa, Florida; the vandalism of a Jewish cemetery in Missouri; and the evil and viscous race-motivated shooting of three people at a sports bar in Kansas.
On Wednesday, the FBI announced it was investigating the Kansas incident as a hate crime. The shooter, Adam Purinton, who is white, allegedly yelled “get out of my country” to three Indian men at the sports bar after mistakenly calling them Middle Eastern. He then fired gunshots at them. One of the victims did not survive the attack, which occurred while he was, as his wife described, merely “enjoying his beer and meeting a friend.”
This week, right here in Indiana, a gunshot was fired through the window of a classroom at Adath B’Nai Israel Temple, a Jewish synagogue in Evansville. This attack is also being investigated as a hate crime.
In this climate of anti-immigrant and anti-minority hysteria, one would think that our Indiana General Assembly would have passed a bill this session that would have condemned specific acts of hate. Nope.
Once again, our state legislature, the Indiana House and Senate, failed to pass hate crimes legislation.
A bill prohibiting hate crimes died in the Senate after its supporters experienced difficulty getting it passed in its current form. The bill would have given judges the authority to impose tougher sentences for crimes against people based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and national origin.
It was authored by Republican Sen. Susan Glick, who was joined by some other colleagues in her party as well as Senate Democrats, who offered solid support.
At least from the outside looking in, it seems like it would be a slam-dunk to pass a bill like this. However, Glick and her supporters withdrew the bill, allegedly because other senators had weakened the bill by adding too many amendments to it.
“After discussions with my colleagues, it has become apparent that there is a difference of opinion on various potential amendments to the bill, making it difficult to find consensus on a path forward,” Glick said in a statement.
Did Glick and her supporters give up too easily? Who knows? What we do know is the result of this situation: Indiana remains one of only five states in America that does not have a hate crimes law on the books.
Opponents of the bill say it will only politicize particular hate crimes. However, our state prison system has many people serving time for non-violent offenses after receiving harsh sentences. Why is it OK to increase penalties for some crimes, but not for others?
Also, hate crimes legislation is not about politics; it is about right and wrong. It is about sending a message to all Hoosiers and people across the country that Indiana does not tolerate any acts of discriminatory violence.
As a journalist, I like to be well-rounded in my knowledge of current events, and I often listen to different viewpoints from across the political and social spectrum. On Tuesday, a Republican woman who described herself as a conservative Jew lamented the rise of anti-Semitism in the U.S. and in Europe. So, this issue is not about politics.
Until the next legislative session, perhaps supporters of the hate crimes bill can prepare by following the lead of advocates of mass transit, who were successful in convincing the majority of Marion County voters and the City-County Council to increase taxes to fund expansion of the local public transportation system.
The process of supporting mass transit began long before the Council vote, with supporters meeting with state and local officials, community leaders, businesses and citizen to hear feedback and outline how important mass transit is to getting more people connected to jobs and developing the infrastructure of central Indiana.
Perhaps supporters of hate crimes legislation can adopt the interactive community approach of mass transit supporters so that future disappointments can be avoided during the next legislative session.
