Subject:
������� {The Grip} Fw: * Unequal Treatment Under the
������ Law.......HATE CRIME LEGISLATION . . .
��� Date:
������� Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:00:25 +0400
��� From:
������ "Henry Ayre" <[email protected]>
�Reply‑To:
������� The Grip <[email protected]>
����� To:
������� The Grip <[email protected]>
And the Yids are laughing all the way
to
the synagogue!
��������� HATE CRIME LEGISLATION:
�� UNEQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW
Delaine Eastin, California�s Superintendent of Public Instruction, has just
issued a set of 12 recommendations for dealing with alleged �hate� against
homosexuals in the public school system. If implemented, each school
district will hire a compliance officer who will locate and punish anyone
who engages in verbal, written, or physical expressions of �hate� against
homosexuals.
Eastin�s recommendations are based on a hate crimes bill passed in 1999 by
the state legislature. Under this hate crimes bill, a new category of �crime�
has been created: The �hate motivated incident.� A person is guilty of
�hate� if he �intimidates,� �interferes with,� or �oppresses� a homosexual.
This includes simple verbal expressions of opposition. If a Christian is
opposed to homosexuality on biblical grounds, and he expresses his beliefs,
he will be guilty of a �hate motivated incident,� that will be reported to the
compliance officer. He will also be taken for rehabilitation to cure him of
views.
����������� HATE CRIME LEGISLATION:
���� UNEQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW
Hate crime laws punish a person�s thoughts and beliefs, and they violate
freedom of religion and speech.
Homosexual activists are determined to use the force of law to gain social
acceptance in our culture. Their goal is to criminalize the speech of those
who believe homosexuality is a sin and sexual perversion. This assault on
free speech and religion in California will� also be played out in the U.S.
Congress this year. Congress is currently considering S. 19, the �Protecting
Civil Rights for All Americans Act,� being offered by Senator Tom Daschle
(D‑SD). In fact, this is more accurately described as the �Piggy Bank for
Homosexuals and Abortionists Act� because it will provide millions to aid
the homosexual agenda and abortion clinics. This huge, complicated bill
includes the �Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 (LLEEA),�
sections on genetic testing, funding for the Legal Services Corporation, and
special protections for abortion clinics.
It is a �hate crimes/thought crimes� measure. If passed, it will add
homosexual behavior as a specially‑protected class under federal law. Under
this bill, a person who commits a crime of violence against a victim because
of the victim�s sexual orientation, will be charged with a felony and also
charged with committing a hate crime. In effect, a perpetrator who kills
because of the victim�s sexual behavior is to be punished more severely than
a criminal who kills someone for their money or property.
S. 19 also contains the Employment Non‑Discrimination Act (ENDA) of
2001. This is a �thought crimes/homosexual quota bill.� It will add �sexual
orientation� as a special right under federal law. Once �sexual orientation�
is considered a minority right, homosexuals can demand hiring quotas.
ENDA will provide enhanced legal protections for homosexuals,
transgenders (including cross‑dressers), Homosexuals activists equate any
opposition to their agenda as being �Fascist.�
A homosexual and others who are �perceived� to have a different sexual
orientation than heterosexuality who has been criticized for his behavior
can sue under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal laws if S. 19
passes . While the bill doesn�t directly mention �transgender,� the umbrella
term of �gender� will give special rights to these individuals.
ENDA also contains a carefully worded �hate crimes� section that forbids
any employee from criticizing a person�s sexual orientation. Under Sec 505,
�Retaliation and Coercion Prohibited,� the bill states: �A person shall not
coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual� who is
protected under this law. The person who believes he has been criticized for
his sexual behavior can sue under several federal laws, including the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
In short, ENDA elevates a person�s sexual behavior to a federally‑protected
special right and allows the homosexual or cross‑dresser to sue an employer
or employee if that employer or co‑worker makes any negative statements
about the person�s sexual behavior or dress. Free speech will be severely
restricted if ENDA passes. A person who has real concerns about the
dangers of homosexual behavior will be silenced or face criminal charges for
his beliefs. This is a totalitarian effort that must be opposed!
There Is No Epidemic of Hate Crimes
In S. 19, under Section 102, this statement is made: �The incidence of
violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national
origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim poses a serious
national problem.� As we will see, this statement is totally inaccurate. Crime
in the United States, 1997 (FBI crime statistics), for example, shows that
so‑called �hate crimes� constitute an extremely small percentage of overall
crime. According to the FBI, in 1997:
� Out of 20,000 murders, nine were considered hate crimes.
� Out of every 20,000 rapes, 2 were hate crimes.
� Out of every 20,000 aggravated assaults, 24 were hate crimes. In fact, the
majority of these few hate crimes are not violent at all, but are listed as
�simple assault� or �intimidation.� A person who �name calls� another
person is considered to have committed a hate crime because his �victim�
may feel �intimidated.� Name calling should not be a federal crime, but it is
under many hate crime laws.
In 1998, there were 16,914 murders committed. Of those, 13 were considered
hate crimes. The victims were all men, as were their killers. Four of these
murders were committed against homosexuals. So out of 16,914 murders in
1998, only four were considered to be hate crimes directed against
homosexuals. The latest hate crime statistics available are from 1999.
According to the FBI, in 1999 there were only 1,317 hate crimes directed
against homosexuals and many of these were simple assault or intimidation.
�Name‑calling� rates equally with an assault in hate crime statistics.
Investigative reporter Fred Dickey, writing in the Los Angeles Times
Magazine, October 22, 2000, describes the reality of hate crimes in �The
Perversion of Hate: Laws Against Hate Crimes Are An Idea Gone Sour.
Prosecutors Apply Them Unfairly and the List of �Special Victims� Keeps
Growing.�
According to Dickey, news reports in 1999 in Los Angeles screamed that the
city�s hate crimes had risen by 11.7% from 1998. The implication was that
the city was experiencing an epidemic of hate crimes. But Dickey points out
that in Los Angeles County, an area with 10 million people, there were only
859 hate crimes committed. Most of these were gang related and only 98
resulted in felony charges. This is hardly an epidemic. The statistics tell the
story: There is no epidemic of hate crimes directed against homosexuals or
against any other ethnic groups. Yet liberal politicians are anxious to pass
onerous legislation that will stifle freedom of speech, freedom of
association, and religion in the name of protecting homosexuals from �hate
crimes� � which may include nothing more serious than name calling.
If politicians are truly concerned about hate and violence against
homosexuals, they should read Men Who Beat The Men Who Love Them by
homosexual researchers David Island and Patrick Letellier. According to
these activists, domestic violence within homosexual partnerships accounts
for as many as 650,000 incidents of domestic violence. As Island and
Letellier note: �The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is
mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple �
we believe as many as 650,000 gay men may be victims of domestic violence
each year in the United States.� (Page 14) If politicians truly wish to deal
with violence against homosexuals, perhaps they should pass legislation
banning same‑sex cohabitation.
This would greatly reduce the amount of violence against homosexuals.
Regrettably, politicians are more interested in caving in to homosexual
political pressure, than dealing with facts. James B. Jacobs and Kimberly
Potter, writing in Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics, note that
hate crime laws are actually aimed at criminalizing a person�s personal
opinions and beliefs. The authors note that the term �hate crime� is really
not about hate at all, but about a person�s beliefs about right and wrong.
According to Jacobs and Potter, �By linking hate speech prohibitions to
generic criminal law, many well‑meaning advocacy groups and politicians
seek to shake a fist at the kind of ideas, opinions, and degenerate
personalities that �right‑thinking� people abhor. But we must consider
whether punishing crimes motivated by politically un‑popular beliefs more
severely than crimes motivated by other factors itself violates our First
Amendment traditions.�
What about the bat‑wielding bigot who attacks a homosexual and kills him?
Should he be convicted not only for killing the victim but for his thoughts?
Why should he receive a stiffer sentence for killing a homosexual than if he
had beaten a woman to death for her purse? One can reasonably assume
that he had hatred in his heart for the woman. There is no loving way to
beat someone to death. Yet hate crime advocates would add a more severe
penalty on to his sentence because of his thought crime against the
homosexual.
Hate Crimes Violate Equal Protection:
In March of 2001, the West Virginia Troopers Association went public with
a demand that the state repeal its hate crime law. According to the trooper�s
executive director, David Moye, �We as police officers want to treat
everybody equally. I don�t think the public would expect us to distinguish
between a black person or a white one or a handicapped person or a
non‑handicapped, gay or non‑gay.� According to Moye, the West Virginia
hate crime law singles out specific groups of people for special treatment.
Moye noted that his mother is Hispanic. Yet, says Moye, �I don�t think
there should be anything enhanced because someone commits malicious
wounding against her rather than anyone else. Malicious wounding is mali
cious wounding.�
Hate crime laws provide special rights for favored groups or, in the case of
homosexuality, over a politically favored sexual behavior. This is unequal
protection under the law and should be vigorously opposed. Daniel E. Troy,
a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute testified before the House
Committee on the Judiciary in August of 1999 against proposed hate crime
legislation. Troy told the committee that the fastest way for a group to
achieve political power and status is to declare itself to be a victim. Troy
writes: �Status as a disfavored group paves the way for special protections
and special handouts. Thus, hate crimes legislation makes crimes into
political foot‑balls, further polarizing America on the basis of group and
identity politics.� Troy believes that special interest groups want to be
proclaimed as victims so they can have special laws, special handouts, and
special treatment.
Hate Crime Laws Are Bad Policy
There are numerous reasons why hate crime laws are bad public policy and
are unneeded. Here are several reasons:
��� Hate Crime Laws Criminalize Thoughts and Feelings: The effort to
��� create a new category of crime, the so‑called hate crime, is actually an
��� effort to punish indi‑viduals who stray from the current politically
��� correct orthodoxy. California�s school children will soon learn what it
��� is like to have their freedom of speech and religion suppressed by hate
��� crime compliance officers. Employers and employees will also lose
��� freedom of speech and religion if S. 19 passes. Typically, hate crime
��� laws, such as included in S. 19, have prohibitions against
�� �intimidating� or �coercing� an individual. This could be as simple a
��� thing as quoting the Bible to a homosexual co‑worker or leaving a
��� tract about sexual orientation on his desk. The Wall Street Journal
��� recently decried the tyranny of hate crime laws. As the Journal
��� observed in �The Hate Politics,� Like all restrictions on free speech,
��� bans of �racist� or �homophobic� expression rests on a slippery slope.
��� Some Christian denominations believe that homosexuality is a sin. Are
��� their clerics to be silenced by law because this view is unacceptable? �
��� We aren�t there yet. But when people can be given additional time in
��� jail for what they were thinking while committing a crime we are
��� approaching rule by a thought police. A good many people, even some
��� supporters of hate‑crime legislation, might find that a hateful outcome.
��� Political scientist Ronald J. Pestritto, a professor at St. Vincent
��� College in Pennsylvania and an Adjunct Fellow with the Claremont
��� Institute has observed that hate crime legislation is a political fad that
��� �seeks to criminalize all feelings, thoughts, or attitudes that run
��� contrary to the trends of the day.�
��� Writing in �The Ideology of Hate Crimes,� Pestritto says hate crime
��� laws assume that �...there are more serious crimes out there than
��� murder, or the taking of human life.� The advocates of hate crime laws
��� believe that �crimes motivated by animus toward homosexuals must be
��� con‑sidered the most hateful of all. Accordingly, we see that
��� anti‑homosexual murder is considered worse than other kinds of
��� murder, yet beating another human being unconscious with a brick
��� and dancing with glee about it, as several Los Angeles rioters did live
��� on television a few years ago, is hardly considered a crime at all since it
��� was motivated by rage over the racist Rodney King trial verdict.�
��� Authors Jacobs and Potter argue against hate crime laws because
��� �hate� cannot be accurately defined. No one should receive a tougher
��� sentence because of his thoughts..AEI scholar Daniel Troy rightly fears
��� that our nation�s emphasis on creating racial, religious, gender, and
��� other special interest groups will further divide our nation rather than
��� unite us with common concerns. In his testimony before Congress,
��� Troy quoted liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger who decries
��� separatism because it �nourishes prejudices, magnifies, differences,
��� and stirs antagonisms.�
Daniel Troy notes that although he is Jewish, he does not insist that because
another Jew is harmed, that his personal grievances must be written into
law. He says that everyone belongs to a group, but the way we should deal
with crimes is to penalize criminal conduct, not provide special legal
protections for an aggrieved group. �...we should not give greater legal
effect to the grievances of one group over those of another. Indeed, by
further forcing society into groups based on permanent status�racial,
gender, reli‑gious, etc. � hate crime laws ultimately erode the core unifying
values of our country. Instead of developing a civil society in which groups
form and disband to advocate ever‑changing interests, this sort of
legislation encourages the maintenance of permanent groups along lines
that should, ultimately, be irrelevant under the law.�
Hate crimes, notes educator Jonathan Kozol, �are symptomatic of society�s
Balkanization. They are futile in the long run. We cannot rebuild society by
legislative penalties for insensitive acts and utterances.� Journalist Fred
Dickey observes, �A large stone in the foundation of the American dream is
the idea that every person is equal in citizenship and that every life should
be equally valued and protected. No one should accept less, but is anyone
entitled to more?�
Hate Crime Laws Should Not Grant Special Rights to
Homosexuals
As we have seen, there is no epidemic of hate crimes in the United States;
hate crime laws criminalize a person�s feel‑ings or thoughts; violate free
speech; and create a permanent �victim class� that receives special rights
not afforded other citizens. Hate crime laws are frequently expanded to
include so‑called �hate speech� or actions that might be perceived by a
person to be hateful. This could include sharing one�s faith in the office with
a homosexual co‑worker or a child writing a report in school that is critical
of homosexual behavior. Hate crime laws should not protect a deviant
sexual behavior that many Americans oppose.
Consider the highly publicized murder of homosexual college student
Matthew Shepard. The killers, Russell A. Henderson and Aaron J.
McKinney have already been sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Should extra penalties be applied because of what Henderson and
McKinney thought when they were killing Shepard? No one brutally
murders another person out of love. Every violent murder is
hate‑motivated. As National Journal editor Michael Kelly observed in a
Washington Post column in October of 1998, what Henderson and
McKinney did was a terrible thing, but �would it have been less terrible if
Shepard had not been gay? If Henderson and McKinney beat Shepard to
death because they hated him personally, not as a member of a group,
should the law treat them more lightly? Yes, say hate‑crime laws.�
Kelly rightly observes that, �Hate crime laws require the state to treat one
physical assault differently from the way it would treat another�solely
because the state has decided that one motivation for assaulting a person is
more heinous than another.� U.S. News & World Report columnist John
Leo agrees. In a 1998 column, Leo noted that hate crime laws are ostensibly
created to provide special protections for mi‑nority groups. Yet this violates
the principle of equality under the law. Leo says, �Equal protection should
mean one law for all, pursued evenhandedly regardless of our differences,
not separate laws invented because of them.�
�Hate crime laws create a legal apartheid or a new form of segregation
where individuals are separate and not equal under our system of justice,�
says Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Chairman of Traditional Values Coalition.
�Our laws should not provide extra legal protections for someone simply
because of the way he engages in sex.� Hate Crime Laws Balkanize Law and
Society: Hate crime laws create a legal apartheid � where individuals are
separate and not equal under our system of justice. � Rev. Louis P.
Sheldon
S P E C I A L R E P O R T Traditional Values Special Report / P.O. Box
940 / Anaheim, CA 92815 / (714) 520‑0300 / 139 C Street SE, Washington,
DC 20003 / (202) 547‑8570 Email: [email protected]; TVC
web site: www.traditionalvalues.org <http://www.traditionalvalues.org>
Back to Table of Contents
<http://www.serve.com/pvbr/index.html>