Facts about hate crimes bill

On Crosswalk.com, Michael Craven is described as "Author, Speaker, Founding Director of the Center for Christ & Culture". His article, however, doesn't seem very Christian to me.

He writes,

Today, legislators in the House of Representatives are pushing for a “discharge petition” to force a vote on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2001, (LLEHCPA), H.R. 1343, another federal Hate Crimes bill that would add “sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability” to current hate crimes law. Introduced by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), this one has more than 100 cosponsors. LLEHCPA would authorize the Justice Department to conduct local law enforcement hate crimes training, and to conduct expanded hate crimes investigations and prosecutions.

So, let's start with some simple housekeeping: I think he has made some errors here. HR 1343 is the "Health Centers Renewal Act of 2007", which has nothing to do with hate crimes. And, I don't think a current bill in the House of Representatives would be titled with "2001". The House web site doens't list a bill by that title, but it does list HR 1592, "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007", with those sponsors Mr. Craven lists, so I'm going to operate under the belief that Mr. Craven has somehow got the numbers mixed up.

He continues,

This legislation will ban alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether actual or perceived, as well as “gender,” which include the categories of transgender, cross-dresser, or transvestite.

Uh, no. It bans violent crimes. You can't ban alleged anything, only actual crimes. But that's not the half of it. Mr. Craven claims,

The purpose of “hate crimes” legislation, in this instance, is to apply this preemptive aspect mentioned above, in order to render any speech opposing the legitimacy and promotion of homosexuality illegal, because such speech or even expressed thoughts constitute “hate.” Thus it inhibits the rights of those who resist the imposition of homosexual morality to disagree and brings the power of the state to bear on those who do.

Of course, that's 100% factually false in every way. First of all, as Mr. Craven himself points out in the very same article, banning speech in the US is unconstitutional, so a law can't do that. Further, the actual text of HR 1592 very clearly spells out that it is only applicable to cases of violent crime:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law , willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law , in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

So, first of all, it's my opinion that Mr. Craven is bearing false witness about the actual text and purpose of the bill. Further, I question whether a real Christian would be attempting to claim that a bill with the exclusive purpose of prohibiting extremely violent crimes would violate the rights of those who "resist the imposition of homosexual morality". What sort of resistance is Mr. Craven trying to protect, anyway? Can he seriously claim that Christians should want the right to use firearms and incendiary devices against gay people? But apparently that's exactly what he's trying to get you to defend, since he writes,

I urge you to contact your representatives today and voice your opposition to this destructive legislation.

It's destructive to ban violent crimes against gay people? I think Mr. Craven has a very un-christian agenda.

Recommended article

Hate by any other name

Blaming the victim

Journal Chretien claims:

Authorities in Michigan say a case last month involving the alleged fatal beating of an elderly homosexual man, which was used to promote the need for « hate crimes » legislation, was not a crime after all.

Only, it isn't true. They said the attack wasn't the cause of his death, they didn't say the attack didn't occur. If I recall correctly, I read in another article last night that the coroner did indeed find a large bruise on the back of the head, which is evidence of the attack.

I'm thoroughly disgusted that anyone would take the example of an attack on an old man and twist it around to the point that it's called an "alleged beating", as Journal Chretien refers to it later in the article.

Journal Chretien continues:

Conservative and Christian leaders have argued for years that, if « hate crimes » legislation became law, it could become illegal for pastors to preach from the Bible regarding homosexuality.

Of course, I'm sure they know full well that that's simply not true, no hate crimes law in the US has ever covered speech, and every gay rights law in the US has included an exemption for churches. So, I conclude that Journal Chretien is bearing false witness.

A lie in Massachusetts

I'm shocked that the Concord Monitor chose to publish David Testerman's letter, "Homosexual agenda puts our values at stake". I'm always shocked when a paper publishes as an "opinion" piece something that is full of factual errors. To say "I believe gay people are immoral" is an opinion; specific claims about specific events that happened in a specific place are either facts or falsehoods.

I'm also tired of hearing about the Homosexual Agenda. The planning committee is still working on it, and we're stuck on whether we want to ask for pink triangle lanes at the supermarket or pink triangle parking spaces at the hair salon.

Mr. Testerman writes:

Homosexual activists have laid out a thorough plan to gain acceptance of homosexual behavior in America

Oh, darn it, and they forgot to invite me to the planning meeting again!

We all have seen what this 1 percent to 2 percent of our population has done to destroy the fabric of our country.

Yup, we have. Absolutely nothing at all.

A late-stage step in that plan is legislation that would create stiffer penalties for crimes against those who identified themselves as homosexual than against other citizens.

Where do they make this nonsense up? I've never met or even heard of a gay person demanding such an outrageous thing. What many gay people (and not all) do ask for is laws to create stiffer penalties for crimes in which the criminal has made clear their belief that the victim is gay and that they are committing the crime because of this belief. Such laws protect not only gay people, but also straight people who are incorrectly perceived to be gay. And, they are not applicable in cases where the victim is gay but the criminal did not know or perceive the fact, or in cases in which the victim is gay and the criminal did know but the fact was not related to their decision to commit the crime. Indeed, hate crime laws are difficult to apply to most cases, because unless the criminal specifically says something to indicate that hate was their motivation for committing the crime, there is usually no evidence to indicate that it was in fact a hate crime.

Mr. Testerman continues:

It has already happened in the United States, where local hate-crime laws have been enacted. In Philadelphia, Christians ranging in age from 17 to 72 were arrested and jailed for singing hymns and carrying signs encouraging homosexuals to repent.

I don't know if Mr. Testerman is ignorant of the facts or is deliberately lying, but his statement is untrue. What actually happened is that a group of people who claim to be Christian were arrested and jailed because they invaded a gay rights event (which had a lawfully issued permit to parade and assemble in a public place) without a permit and loudly attempted to disrupt the gay rights event, and then refused to leave when asked to. So, these supposed Christians walked into what legally amounts to being a private party and made a point to be as loud and annoying as possible, and then refused to leave... and they have the gall to try to make it look like it's the gay people's fault that they were arrested?

Mr. Testerman writes:

House Resolution 254 establishes a federal hate-crime law. It creates special protection and stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by someone's actual or perceived "sexual orientation." The law does not, in itself, criminalize speech against homosexual behavior.

That's correct. Remember that.

But it will open the door to criminalization of speech.

Last I checked, criminalization of speech was still prohibited by both state and federal constitutions in the United States, and no law passed by congress can change that fact. I consequently conclude that Mr. Testerman is either ignorant of this basic aspect of how our government works, or is trying to whip up hysteria to get people to act against laws protecting innocent people.

"Concerned Women for America" and their questionable claims

Associated Press is reporting on the possibility that the US Congress may pass gay laws to protect the rights of gay and lesbian Americans at long last. The article speculates about the possible passage of an employment nondiscrimination law, and a hate crimes law to cover hate crimes against gay people.

From the article:

This year, with Democrats now in control and many Republicans likely to join in support, the hate-crimes and workplace bills are widely expected to prevail.

"With liberals in control, there's a good possibility they'll both pass," said Matt Barber, a policy director with the conservative group Concerned Women for America. "They're both dangerous to freedom of conscience, to religious liberties, to free speech."

"Concerned Women for America" claims on their web site:

"We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 28-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy."

They also claim:

"The mission of CWA is to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation."

I feel compelled to question two aspects of this claim. The first is the claim that it's a "women's organization", since their spokesperson's name is "Matt".

But moreover, I question what "biblical principles" they could possibly be trying to promote.

An employment nondiscrimination act would enable a gay or lesbian person to honestly hold down an honest job in the knowledge that they won't be fired just for being gay. It isn't dangerous to freedom of conscience, to religious liberties, or to free speech to let a gay person keep their job. It doesn't violate freedom of conscience, because people will still be free to believe whatever they like about gay people. Every single gay rights law in the United States that protects gay people from employment discrimination has made an exemption for religious organizations. No one is asking for a federal nondiscrimination law to be any different. So, it doesn't violate religious liberties either. And it doesn't violate freedom of speech, because it doesn't prohibit people from saying whatever they like about their opinions about gay people. So, it looks like CWA's claims don't apply to an employment nondiscrimination law.

Hmm. What about the other one?

Federal hate crime laws do not actually make anything illegal that wasn't already illegal. Rather, they place an additional penalty on certain crimes which are already crimes. So, passing a law to make crimes against gay and lesbian americans based on hate covered under federal hate crimes law won't cause anyone to be convicted who wouldn't already be convicted without the new law. So, claiming that such a law would violate people's rights in some new way is false.

I believe the bible does have something to say about making false claims. Perhaps CWA should try reading it.

Now, let's look at what motivation someone could possibly have for opposing these laws, because I doubt CWA would bother opposing them if they didn't have a motive.

Why would someone oppose a law prohibiting discrimination in employment against gay people? Because they want people to discriminate against gay people. CWA is no doubt aware that as a religious organization CWA itself would be exempt, so I conclude that they must want their members and supporters to discriminate against gay people.

Is it really Christian to deny a gay or lesbian person the opportunity to make an honest living and support themself? Is it really Christian to want a gay or lesbian person to have no income, and to suffer the consequences of having no income in the US, including homelessness and starvation? Is it, for that matter, American to deny someone the right to pursue their happiness by earning a decent living?

Next, why would anyone oppose a law against hate crimes committed against gay and lesbian people? The only concievable reason why anyone would oppose such a law would be because they want such crimes to be committed, and want the criminals to get off easy. I conclude from this that CWA wants gay and lesbian Americans to be victims of the kinds of crimes covered under federal hate crimes law.

And what kinds of crimes are we talking about?

According to the FBI, the 5190 hate crimes reported in 2005 include physical intimidation, assault, murder, rape, robbery, arson, and vandalism.

It is my opinion that "Concerned Women for America", by opposing a hate crimes law to protect gay and lesbian Americans, is doing nothing less than expressing support by inference for intimidation, assault, murder, rape, robbery, arson, and vandalism, directed against innocent gay and lesbian Americans. And I think that makes "Concerned Women for America" thoroughly un-christian.