June 25, 2009

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.

The Congressman leaves out “gender identity” in his description of what this bill covers. Liberals refused to define what this term means or what “sexual orientation” means in the legislation. Gender identity is code for cross-dressers, drag queens, transsexuals and she-males. Sexual orientation includes as many as 30+ bizarre sexual attractions/behaviors listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic Manual and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) has admitted that this hate crimes bill will protect these 30 sexual orientations!

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.

The Congressman fails to mention that there is no epidemic of hate against drag queens, gays, bisexuals or she-males. FBI Statistics from 2007 show that there were only 242 sexual orientation bias crimes that resulted in actual bodily harm. All other crimes involved name-calling and shoving another person.

Nor, is there any justification for federal intrusion into state law enforcement concerns. The bogus “findings” justifying federal involvement because of the interstate commerce clause, were removed by Democrats because they were so ridiculous. These findings are still in the Senate version!

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.

The Congressman admits that speech may be prosecuted if “the evidence specifically relates to that offense.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is a former judge who has analyzed the dangers of this hate crime bill to pastors, religious freedom and free speech. He has explained:

“The hate crimes legislation purports to address only crimes of violence or attempted crimes of violence. However, under Article 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) of the Federal Criminal Code: "Whoever . . . aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" a crime's commission, is punishable just as if he is the principal.

“Here is one scenario about which every minister, rabbi, and imam would have to worry. A minister, rabbi, or imam preaches that homosexuality is wrong and leads to the ultimate destruction of moral society. Perhaps one might even quote language in sacred writing saying homosexuality is an "abomination." Then some nut who hears such preaching goes out and shoots a homosexual. When arrested, the mental defective says that the teaching of the minister/rabbi/imam is what "induced" him into committing the act. The minister/rabbi/imam could be argued to have induced the shooter. It raises a fact question that a prosecutor could demand be submitted to the jury at the religious leader's trial.”

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.

Rep. Gohmert has repeatedly debunked the claim that hate crime legislation will not limit religious expression. In a 2007 debate between Gohmert and liberal Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), Davis admitted that this hate crime bill could be used to prosecute pastors. Here is the transcript from that debate:

“Mr. Gohmert. Even with your amendment, you still have to go back to the "rule of evidence" at page 15 of the underlying bill. And it says that these things may not be 4857 introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the offense.

“And if I understood the gentleman's amendment—and I will put the question back to you—if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?

“Mr. Davis. No.”

Rep. Davis admitted that hate crime legislation could be used to prosecute pastors!