Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Congressman Tim Walberg Lies About Hate Crimes

Jim Burroway

August 7th, 2007

In an amazing act of chutzpah, OneNewsNow, the “news” service of the American Family Association, claims that Steve Cohen (D-TN) is “lying” about hate crimes legislation.

But Congressman Tim Walberg (R-Michigan) says the bill does indeed threaten the First Amendment rights of pastors and churches.

“He [Cohen] said it was a lie — when, in fact, if you read the legislation it doesn’t go any further than what we have presently in place as far as actual murders and mayhem and assaults; but it moves into the thought police side in saying you can’t talk about beliefs and values that you’ve long held. The fact of the matter is that if you do, we may indeed be able to pull you in as an incentive to hate violence. That’s a chilling effect,” says Walberg.

The proposed legislation has no such provision. Rep. Cohen is correct. The law only addresses actual violence or specific threats to violence. It doesn’t cover speech or “talking about beliefs and values” because it can’t. No hate crimes law can overturn the First Amendment.

I’ve issued this challenge three times before. This will be number four. After the jump, I’ve posted the Senate bill yet again, and I challenge Rep. Walberg to point out where it tries to ban “talking about beliefs and values.”

The fact is, he can’t. And neither can anyone else, whether it’s the American Family Association, Focus On the Family, Family “Research” Council, Exodus, Traditional Values Coalition, or anyone else. Including congressmen.

And by the way, I still haven’t seen any of them having the guts, let alone the integrity, to put the bill’s text on their web site either.


Here is the bill’s text:

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1105

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 12, 2007

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. SMITH, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. SPECTER, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. BROWN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DODD, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. BIDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BAYH, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. REED, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. OBAMA, Mrs. BOXER, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. CLINTON, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. CASEY, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. SALAZAR, and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007′.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races’. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act–

(1) the term `crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

(2) the term `hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and

(3) the term `local’ means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that–

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.

(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

(b) Grants-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

(3) APPLICATION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall–

(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and

(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.

(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2008, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.

(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority to Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or Tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`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.

`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–

`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim–

`(I) across a State line or national border; or

`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)–

`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

`(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that–

`(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and

`(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that–

`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;

`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or

`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.

`(c) Definitions- In this section–

`(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

`(2) the term `firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and

`(3) the term `gender identity’ for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.

`(d) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.’.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`249. Hate crime acts.’.

SEC. 8. STATISTICS.

(a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `gender and gender identity,’ after `race,’.

(b) Data- Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `, including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles’ after `data acquired under this section’.

SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Jeff Johnson
August 7th, 2007 | LINK

Title 18 Section 371 of the United States Code: Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

“If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

IF the “hate crimes” bill is successful in including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in the list protected classes in federal “hate crimes” laws, ANY U.S. Attorney or their assistants could choose to prosecute a pastor, Sunday school teacher, youth leader, etc., under this provision if someone – who was present when the pastor/teacher/leader spoke about the immorality of homosexuality – later committed a violent act against a homosexual or transsexual.

Whether or not the prosecution could be successful is irrelevant. The pastor/teacher/leader would be financially ruined trying to defend him or herself from the attempted prosecution and the message would be sent to all other Christian leaders: “If you speak out against homosexuality, you’re next!”

Instead of your “it’s not in the wording of the bill” ruse, why don’t you be honest about what ALL of the applicable federal law will allow if the “hate crimes” bill is passed?

Benton
August 7th, 2007 | LINK

I question the Christianity of a church leader who would preach a sermon that would cause one to want to commit a crime.

I have preached hundreds of sermons and although I may have called people to action, I have not called them to crime.

David Farrell
August 7th, 2007 | LINK

I think that a lot of what fuels the fear is that once it starts it often goes beyond the original intent. In Canada, they started with hate crimes legislation and ministers are forbidden from speaking out against homosexuality on tv and radio. I am not in favor of hate crimes legislation, because it does infringe upon thought. What we need are structured sentencing guidelines.

Timothy Kincaid
August 7th, 2007 | LINK

Jeff,

Thank you for your comments. You, of course, are wrong.

If a pastor – or anyone else – conspires to commit a violent crime, the conspiracies act would apply. This is already in place and would not in any manner be effected by hate crimes legislation.

I suppose that if they conspired to commit a violent hate crime then the sentencing would be enhanced. And, of course, if a pastor is conspiring to commit a violent crime, he SHOULD be punished. But hate crimes legislation does not create a new crime where one did not exist before. We all know that pastors are not prosecuted at present when their parishoners commit unsolicited crimes, and nothing in this legislation changes that.

Just as right at this moment there are KKK members who hate blacks and can say so loudly and proudly without fear of being arrested regardless of current hate crimes legislation, you too may continue to loudly proclaim the hated that you hold so dear and not have any fear that your disgusting beliefs will be in risk of prosecution.

Now, of course, any prosecutor can violate his trust and arrest anyone – you, me, or the Duke LaCrosse team – for any crime. But it ain’t gunna happen. And we don’t avoid passing laws based on the notion that some corrupt prosecutor somewhere might possible misuse his power.

Timothy Kincaid
August 7th, 2007 | LINK

David,

Please provide evidence of your claim about Canadian television preaching. (Please use a credible source)

Martin Lanigan
August 7th, 2007 | LINK

David,

I am a Canadian. I am aware of no law in Canada that prevents a pastor or religious leader from speaking out against homosexuality (in any medium).

In fact , our hate crimes legislation is contained within the Criminal Code of Canada Section 319. In section 319(3)it is an acceptable defence if the incitement to hate was:

“…expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject”

You are recycling an old canard of the religious right. Shame on you!

Lynn David
August 7th, 2007 | LINK

We’ve had this same law for many years concerning religion. In the past there have been some very prominent preachers and leaders of various ministries (AFA, FotF, etc.) who have spoken out against Islam and Muslims and then it transpired that others have perpetrated hate crimes against Muslim persons or their homes or mosques. But it has never occurred that any of these ministers or other prominent people have been prosecuted.

So why should any such action occur concerning preaching against homosexuality?

Robguy
August 7th, 2007 | LINK

Depending on your brand of Christianity – it is already illegal to incite violence. I don’t see how this law changes that.

Bene Diction
August 7th, 2007 | LINK

David, are you Canadian?

what hate laws?

Cite please. There are no laws that prohibit that prevent any minister, iman, rabbi or priest from speaking out.

Again, are you Canadian?

Are you confusing or trying to meld the CCC and CHRC?

Neither have any such provisions. Have you read them?

I’ve posted the CCC and CHRC and Charter on my website. You can find them just googling. I get no sense you’ve read them.

Would you please tell me where you got your ideas?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.