There just might be a problem with adding "Sexual Orientation" as a new basis for hate crimes. The debate on this is heated! Further, the issue of "Religious Speech" possibly being curtailed, I think is overblown. So far the discussion on that issue seems to misconstrue normal discussion into hateful speech and thus being prosecuted for such.
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009:
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP END VIOLENT HATE CRIMES?
US House Roll Call Vote
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX]: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, every year thousands of violent crimes are committed out of hate, but just as many violent crimes, if not more, are motivated by something other than hate--greed, jealousy, desperation or revenge, just to name a few. An individual's motivation for committing a violent crime is usually complex and often speculative.
Every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating, not only to the victim and their family, but also to the larger community whose sense of safety has been violated. That's why all violent crimes should be vigorously prosecuted.
Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system--equal justice for all. Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal. Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. This is the real injustice.
One of the most troublesome aspects of this bill is that it divides America. It divides America by race, again, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other status. We should focus on the opposite, uniting America, not dividing our country.
.The bill also could have a chilling effect on the words of religious leaders or members of religious groups. For example, religious individuals who feel strongly about some values may hesitate to discuss their personal beliefs about homosexuality or gay marriage for fear of criminal investigation.
Some of my colleagues on the other side claim that the bill protects religious speech. But religious leaders could still be subjected to criminal investigations and be reluctant to preach the teachings of their faith as a result of this bill.
In addition, the bill itself is probably unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts. There is little evidence to support the claim that hate crimes impact interstate or foreign commerce, an important consideration for any Federal court reviewing the constitutionality of this legislation.
In 2000, the Supreme Court in United States v. Morrison struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence. In that case the court specifically warned Congress that the commerce clause does not extend to "noneconomic, violent criminal conduct" that does not cross State lines.
Nor is the proposed legislation authorized under the 14th and 15th Amendments. Those amendments extend only to State action and do not cover the actions of private persons who commit violent crimes.
While the 13th Amendment reaches private action such as individual criminal conduct, it is difficult to argue that one's religion or national origin constitutes a "badge" or "incident" of slavery, the subject of the 13th Amendment.
Also this bill purports to federalize crimes that are being successfully prosecuted by our States and local governments. Furthermore, FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has actually declined and substantially declined over the last 10 years. In 2007, for example, of the approximately 17,000 homicides that occurred in the U.S., only nine of the 17,000 murders were determined to be motivated by bias.
This legislation blurs the lines between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not. If we go down this road, where does it end? With speech monitors and thought police?
I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The issue of pedophiles etc. came into the discussion during consideration of a "Transexual Amendment" to the hate crimes bill, and that amendment was voted down:
Rep. Steve King [R-IA]: I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership in opposition to this issue and for yielding.
The gentleman, the previous speaker, just said this bill only punishes violent crimes. I take you to the language from the bill. Here's the definition of a crime of violence. It means an offense that has, as an element, the threatened use of force against the property of another. If one threatens to use force against the property of another--this is verbatim from the section that is referenced in the existing code--property crimes are included in this, threats against property crimes are included in this. Hate crimes, the definition of hate crimes in the Federal statutes means a crime when the perpetrator selects property because of the property owner's actual or perceived sexual orientation.
This isn't just violent crimes. It is in some of the Federal segment of it but not in the assistance that goes to local governments. And in local governments it also states in the bill that any local jurisdiction's hate crimes ordinance or legislation can be supported by supporting the prosecution of the local hate crimes legislation that's there.
And so whatever local jurisdiction may determine is a hate crime is covered under this bill. It might be a city, a county, a municipality; it might be a parish, it might be a State. It might be San Francisco's ordinance that says, Thou shalt not discriminate against the short, the fat, the tall, or the skinny. That is hate crimes ordinances that could be prosecuted with Federal assistance under this bill. The short, the fat, the tall, the skinny. That will cover some regular people, I think.
And so I would ask this: Why are you dividing us? Why are you pitting Americans against Americans? That's a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker. This divides us and pits Americans against Americans. And the definitions in this bill are broad, ambiguous and undefined anywhere with any consensus, even among the professionals that deal with this on a daily basis.
In the committee, I asked specifically the question, "What is the definition for sexual orientation?" The answer that I got back from the gentlelady from Wisconsin was, "This bill only covers homosexuality and heterosexuality." Now it presumably excludes bisexuality, but in the rule debate, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said, "No, no. Here's what we have," and he read through a whole list of philias, he called it.
There are 547 specific paraphilias that are listed by the American Psychological Association. About 30 of them have been read into this RECORD. I've got a list of these 30 philias. Among them pedophilia--the obsession with children--which specifically was excluded from the bill when I offered the amendment by the Judiciary Committee.
So, Mr. Speaker, we're going down the path here of no one really knows. Am I going to buy into the statement made by the very senior member of the Rules Committee who says I want to protect all philias whatsoever no matter what the proclivity? And many of them are perversions, Mr. Speaker. We're going to grant that protected status to people who are actually breaking the law if they act on their particular sexual orientation, or are we going to limit it to--as the gentlelady from Wisconsin says--homosexuality and heterosexuality, not bisexuality.
I tried to explain this to the press as they asked me questions. And finally my answer became, "If this sounds confusing and gibberish, it is." And it leaves it open to any judge, any lawyer, anyone for anything that is in their head or might be their plumbing or might be in the perception of the perpetrator as well as, and/or, the perception of the alleged victim.
There is no precedent for this in law, this broad, broad idea that we're going to punish what is in the head of the perpetrator by dividing what may or may not have been in the head of the victim. That's where this legislation takes us.
Why are they dividing us, Mr. Speaker?
I oppose this legislation.
No comments:
Post a Comment