The tone of the passage is

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Americans originally used the term “hate crime” to describe a violent act committed against a person, property, or organization because of actual or perceived differences in race, colour, national origin, or religion. The phrase gained popularity as crimes motivated by prejudice and racism received national attention in the 1980s. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, violence against minorities is called “xenophobic” or “right-wing” violence in Germany, where neo-Nazi activity is scrutinized. It is called “racial violence” in nearby Great Britain and France. Hate crimes have also occurred throughout history, from the Romans’ religious persecution of Christians to the Hutus’ genocidal war against the Tutsis in Rwanda in the 1990s.

Today, the term “hate crime” is used to describe violent incidents in which the perpetrators are not only motivated by differences in race, colour, or religion, but by characteristics such as sexual orientation, gender, or disability. For example, when nearly 60 women were sexually and physically assaulted in Central Park in the summer of 1999, many Americans considered the attacks gender-based crimes. Also, the state of Oregon has laws that prohibit discrimination stemming from a myriad of characteristics, from political affiliation to marital status.

The current federal hate crime  s statute permits federal prosecution of a hate crime only if the crime was motivated by race, color, national origin, or religion. In addition, the 20offender must have attempted to hinder the victim’s participation in one of six federally protected rights, such as voting or attending a public school. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) was introduced in 1998, 1999, and again in 2000 in an attempt to enhance the present statute. Under the HCPA, hate crimes in which death or bodily injury occurred or a firearm or explosive device was used would be subject to federal investigation, whether or not the victim was participating in a federally protected activity. More importantly, the HCPA would allow crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability to be investigated by federal authorities. Former President Bill Clinton strongly supported the bill, claiming that it would “strengthen and expand the ability of the Justice System by removing needless jurisdiction requirements.” Despite winning the favor of 30the Senate, the 106th Congress disbanded in 2000 without passing the HCPA.

Though the HCPA has failed to pass a number of times, its supporters have not been discouraged. In 2000, over 100 civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, religious, and law enforcement groups launched a web-based campaign promoting the passage of the HCPA called “United against Hate.” Oregon Senator Gordon Smith states, “It has been more than 26 years since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet countless Americans still encounter discrimination.” He planned to introduce the bill to the 107th Congress in 2001.

The most controversial feature of the HCPA (The Hate Crimes Prevention Act) is that it attempts to “bring uniformity to the categories covered under current federal hate crimes 40law” by adding offenses motivated by sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the existing statute, which already prohibits crime based on race, color, national origin, and religion. Its supporters contend that crimes motivated by sexual orientation, gender, or disability deserve federal jurisdiction because they are fundamentally similar to other hate crimes. In the words of Mark Bargerter, “It makes no sense that the FBI can investigate, for example, a religious-based crime, but not a hate crime committed because someone is, or seems to be, gay.” Bargerter, a heterosexual man, was brutally beaten and partially blinded by an assailant who presumed he was a homosexual. Advocates of the HCPA also assert that gender should be added to hate crime legislation because victims have been targeted simply because they were women. For example, in 1989, at the 50University of Montreal, a man wielding a firearm verbally debased feminists and opened fire on female students, killing fourteen of them. Because they are intended to send threatening messages to certain groups, proponents maintain that hate crimes must be swiftly and harshly punished. According to Brian Levin, director of the Center on Hate and Extremism, such crimes “often inspire copycat crimes and a cycle of retaliatory violence by would-be vigilantes.”

Critics of hate crimes laws maintain that the criminal justice system deals with hate crimes fairly enough and that the HCPA is not needed. Criminal law professor William J. Stuntz says he does “not see significant social benefits of it. It fills no gap in the criminal law.” Other opponents claim that including sexual orientation, women, and disability in 60hate crimes law would create a special class of victims. Some argue that homosexuals, who strongly support the HCPA, seek minority status although they are not, like African Americans, historical victims of oppression. Law professor Lawrence Alexander agrees: “Violence against gays and the disabled, for example, is not a badge or incident of slavery.” Detractors also believe that the passing of the HCPA will balkanize the nation by giving select groups special treatment with protective federal laws. “Americans are not equal under the law,” argues columnist Heather Brick, “if crimes against a particular ‘victim’ group are punished more harshly than identical crimes against someone who is not a member of a government-protected group.”