Last week the House of Representatives approved a bill expanding existing federal hate-crime laws to include gender, gender identity, disability and sexual orientation. It would increase the penalties for specific crimes as well as allow the federal government to provide grants for the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. It would also allow the federal government to step in and prosecute if states requested it or declined to exercise their authority.
Some people oppose legally singling out certain crimes as “hate crimes” and I understand where they are coming from. After all, murder is murder, assault is assault, right? We already have laws covering those crimes – what is the point of more? I’m not going to explore this issue here, arguable though it is.
The fact is, we already have hate-crime legislation covering certain actions against certain groups already*, and congress may expand that coverage to additional groups.**
Republicans and religious groups oppose this bill. Surprise. Again, I accept that there are genuine conservatives out there that would rather not have any hate-crime laws on the books, but I’m not referring to them here. I’m referring to the Republicans and religious groups that are bent out of shape because the proposed legislation covers gays, lesbians, et al.
Some Republicans claim the measure will be struck down as unconstitutional. They assert that it allows a person to be charge twice for the same act, once for a violent crime and once for a hate crime – a form of “double jeopardy,” if you will. I’m not an attorney so I can’t address the validity of this claim, though it leaves me wondering that if it is unconstitutional why haven’t existing hate-crime laws been struck down already?
I suspect the real issue here is many of these Republicans are not so much offended by the idea of hate-crime legislation as they are by the people the laws are intended to protect. If this law was solely for race and religious hate crimes I wonder how many of them would be up in arms.
Other Republicans argue that religious leaders could face criminal charges for speaking out against homosexuality*** or, at the very least, would be reluctant to state their views, which brings us to the religious groups. You know, the ones that live in some deep, dark fantasy land where black is white and wrong is right. Groups led by people like Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, who is concerned that the bill would subject religious leaders to prosecution if someone who heard a sermon denouncing homosexuality and then went out and attacked a person because of his/her sexual orientation. This scenario “ends up criminalizing free speech,” Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R – Wisconsin) said.
In response, supporters of the hate-crimes bill point to a section of the bill that protects any activities protected by the Constitution and counter that nothing would prevent religious leaders from speaking out.
It boils down to this: religious people think they have a god-given right to be bigots. They can – no – they must preach hate against an entire demographic group because they believe their holey book requires it.****
Here is what I have to say to these religious fanatics: if you think your religion gives you the right to be a bigot, then your religion is unnatural, evil, and so are you.
Religious freedom does not extend to oppression. Like the t-shirt says, your religious freedom ends where my civil rights begin.
* It is my understanding that currently this only covers attacks against certain groups while engaged in a federal activity – say, voting.
** Forty-five states have hate-crime laws of some sort. The exceptions? Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Wyoming.
*** I think they should be.
These idiots are already covered by hate crimes laws, i.e. enhanced sentencing for assault because of one’s religion.
There is a paragraph in the legislation, although I don’t have the exact wording, that specifically notes that there is no restriction on free speech. It’s in black and white on paper, yet the Religious Reich chooses to ignore it.
The only way a preacher could be charged with a hate crimes if if he/she actually said, “Go out and hurt gay people.” that’s incitement. Religious leaders are still free to verbally bash LGBT people to their heart’s content, and I say go for it. The more these idiots continue to speak hatred to their flocks the more marginalized they become.
These über religionists are confusing hate-speech laws in other countries with hate-crime laws here in the US. Hate speech laws would NEVER be constitutional here because of the 1st Amendment. The MSM has done a poor job of defining the two. But then again, what do you expect from corporately owned media?
Rob: To repeat, for a professedly “Christian” religious group to preach hate is unacceptable!
“Religious people think they have a god-given right to be bigots” – I’ve experienced much more than that. Some of them consider it natural and even holy to explain their hate’n'greed-driven decisions (including kicking someone out in the street) by saying that it’s God’s will.
The four stars, ****, were probably meant to refer to something but even without the reference this entry pretty mind-stimulating.
“Holey book” – a play on words? A book with a hole in it? ;-)
RG: How do you prove someone committed a hate crime without presenting proof of what they said at or about the time of the crime?
Chuck F: Thugs routinely target gay neighborhoods, looking for GLBT people to rob/bash, specifically targeting us because we are GLBT! You don’t have to be called names to know you’re being gay-bashed.
rg: If a GLBT person gets mugged, mauled or murdered, you cannot assume it is a hate crime unless you can prove the perpetrator has a record/history of bigotry/hatred. Can’t it, must it be said that all such crimes committed with malice and forethought are “hate crimes”? Chuck F. good question!!!
It also comes down to police work, and if they’re doing they’re job, they can find a motive and intent. I will agree though, it is a good question.
Criminal offenses still have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Inevitably, the only evidence of the motivation for such crimes is the statements made by the attacker at the time of the offense. Speech is an essential element of the criminal offense.
I also have difficulty understanding why someone should be punished more severely for assaulting a gay person as opposed to a straight person. Are gay people better than straight people and thus entitled to more protection? Are gay people weaker than straight people and thus in need of more protection?
I believe that we should already be protected from these people by the freedom of religion amendment to the federal constitution. I think our community should pursue the argument that Prop 8 and such amendments violate our freedom OF religion rights protected by the federal constitution. “The concept (of freedom of religion) is generally recognized to also include the freedom to change religion or not to FOLLOW any religion.” I think that we can argue, with success, that these laws are “religous laws” that violate our rights to choice in religion or no religion. The question being: Why am I being forced to follow the laws and customs of THEIR church. This is a true violation of my rights as defined by the US Constitution. Fortunately, we wouldn’t have to be a defined minority, such as the hate crimes bill would do. Which is also part of the republican argument that we choose to be “homosexual” and therefore not elegible for “special rights”. Our proof will be in the years of public records that point to the sources of financing for these propositions. Also, thanks to video and you tube, we will demonstrate who the groups are ithat are involved with pushing these laws and more importantly, their reasons behind it. Also, tangible evidence in the case.
I believe that we should already be protected from these people by the freedom of religion amendment to the federal constitution. I think our community should pursue the argument that Prop 8 and such amendments violate our freedom OF religion rights protected by the federal constitution. “The concept (of freedom of religion) is generally recognized to also include the freedom to change religion or not to FOLLOW any religion.” I think that we can argue, with success, that these laws are “religous laws” that violate our rights to choice in religion or no religion. The question being: Why am I being forced to follow the laws and customs of THEIR church. This is a true violation of my rights as defined by the US Constitution. Fortunately, we wouldn’t have to be a defined minority, such as the hate crimes bill would require. Which is also part of the republican argument that we choose to be “homosexual” and therefore not elegible for “special rights”. Our proof will be in the years of public records that point to the sources of financing for these propositions. Also, thanks to video and you tube, we will demonstrate who the groups are ithat are involved with pushing these laws and more importantly, their reasons behind it. Also, tangible evidence in the case.