Is hate-crimes legislation a good idea? Here is some correspondence I’ve had with Congressman Dennis Moore (D-KS). It started when I emailed him a couple months ago and asked him not to support a hate-crimes bill (H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009). I’ll first give you his response to that request. My reply (second email) to Congressman Moore is below that.
Friday, June 19, 2009; Congressman Dennis Moore wrote:
Dear Shaun:
Thank you for sharing with me your opposition to H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter.
As you know, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) reintroduced H.R. 1913 in the 111th Congress on April 2, 2009. This legislation adds several other classifications as hate crimes, specifically: gender, sexual orientation and disability. This bill would also allow the federal government to assist the local authorities in the investigation and prosecution of all crimes motivated by hate, as well as provides money to states to develop hate crime prevention programs. On April 29, 2009, this legislation was approved by the House, with my support. Shortly thereafter, H.R. 1913 was referred to the U.S. Senate, where it is currently pending before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
It is important note that, contrary to some misconceptions, H.R. 1913 does NOT limit freedom of speech. This legislation has been crafted in a fashion that protects First Amendment rights. Section 7(d) establishes a “Rule of Evidence” that an expression or association of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. The bill is designed only to punish violent acts, not beliefs or thoughts – even violent thoughts. The legislation does not punish, nor prohibit in any way, name-calling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any group, even if such statements amount to hate speech. It covers only violent actions that result in death or bodily injury.
Additionally, the bill will NOT limit religious expression. Some churches have stated that with passage of this bill, ministers may be arrested for speech and words said in the pulpits. This is false. This bill is about violent crime. It is not about and does not prohibit thought, speech or expression protected by the First Amendment.
As a former Johnson County District Attorney for twelve years, I have seen senseless acts of violence committed against individuals for no reasons other than their religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. While incidents of bias crime often appear to be isolated, our failure to address the irrational antagonism manifested in hate crimes may allow it to fester and grow, which could create widespread tension and hate that can destroy a community and make the targets of these crimes even more vulnerable. I believe that we must try to adequately protect all of the groups that are targets of crimes of hate.
While I know that you hold your views with sincerity on this matter, I hope you will respect my views as I do yours. I am confident there are many other matters of policy on which we may agree. Thank you again for contacting me. I hope you will continue to keep in touch and please feel free to let me know whenever I may be of assistance.
Very truly yours,
DENNIS MOORE
Member of Congress
Friday, June 19, 2009; Shaun LePage wrote:
Congressman Moore,
Thank you for replying to my email and for the explanation of why you supported the hate crimes legislation. I respectfully ask that you reconsider your position on this issue.
I’m obviously disappointed that you supported this legislation and I’m hoping it does not pass in the Senate. The fact is that this legislation sets up a SPECIAL CATEGORY OF PROTECTION for “sexual orientation” which is behavioral in nature—not innate such as race, gender or even most kinds of disability. No scientific study anywhere has ever proven that homosexuality is innate.
Laws are already in place to protect people from violence. This bill is NOT ABOUT VIOLENT CRIME. It is about setting up a special category of protection for people who behave a certain way sexually.
You are taking us down a very dangerous path by making a judgment about whether a crime was motivated by “hate” or some other motive. We should NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS, but by adding “hate” to this legislation you absolutely are OPENING THE DOOR TO CRIMINALIZING SPEECH. You are making a value judgment about what is in a person’s heart.
What you’re doing is giving special protection to (i.e. endorsing) those who practice homosexual behavior, so anyone who speaks out against it is therefore labeled as the equivalent of a racist—a “homophobe” or bigot.
Once you’ve established a special category of protection, it is not a big stretch to accuse someone who speaks out against homosexuality as inciting violence or some such accusation. If your legislation passes, those who speak out against homosexuality are speaking out against the official position of the state.
Please answer these questions for me:
* How will you determine if someone committed violence because of hate as opposed to another motive? If someone commits a violent crime for greed, is that going to receive a lesser penalty? Isn’t it beyond the role of a law enforcement officer (or district attorney) to determine what is in the heart of a person (i.e., hate)? Why not just punish the crime—regardless of motive?
* Are our current laws against violence somehow inadequate to protect all citizens from violent crime? Is any violent crime rational—as opposed to the “irrational antagonism” of which you write?
Thank you for your time and consideration of these important issues.
Shaun LePage
Lawrence, Kansas