On Jan. 16, the national ex-gay umbrella network Exodus International declared its opposition to the inclusion of sexual orientation in federal hate-crime laws.
Exodus President Alan Chambers cited the Philadelphia-based antigay protest group Repent America as an example of Christians whose First Amendment rights were allegedly violated in 2004 by government officials and gay activists who were supposedly armed with local hate-crime laws.
Focus on the Family launched an almost identical campaign the same day, quoting Chambers and its own pundits as the sole sources of information about hate-crime laws.
Ex-gay activist Stephen Bennett couldn’t resist joining the campaign — boasting on Jan. 17 that he was coordinating a secret White House effort. According to AmericaBlog via Pam Spaulding, Bennett told the following to his mailing list:
“I cannot give any more of the details as of this time, but SBM is coordinating a private meeting with President Bush and other FORMER homosexual men and women, along with their families to VETO this bill, should it come to that point. A very well know Senator who believes in our efforts is working directly with SBM to secure this meeting. Lord willing, this meeting will be taking place VERY soon and we need you to PRAY.”
But just days later, on Jan. 19, a federal court ruled against Repent America for violating the First Amendment rights of others. As it turned out, the ex-gay campaign against gay/straight participation in hate-crime laws was built upon the shifting sands of arrogance, politics, and self-pity, not a solid foundation of fact regarding federal hate-crime legislation.
The timing of this ex-gay campaign was suspicious from the start. Coinciding with Religious Freedom Day, Exodus and Focus sought to deliberately confuse hate crimes with hate speech and to stake out both, potentially, as forms of religious freedom. But the odd timing goes beyond that: Exodus and Focus on the Family knew, or should have known, that a verdict was near in Repent America’s claim to be the victim of suppressed free speech — and they should have known that the organization’s loss of the case was a foregone conclusion.
Protesters for Repent America had sued Philadelphia and the organizers of a downtown Philadelphia entertainment festival in 2004 after the protesters were arrested for using megaphones to shout down the celebration, and for disobeying police orders. The protesters were charged with numerous offenses — among them, some local hate-crime charges which were dropped because no violent crime had been committed. The federal court found that other charges against the protesters were justified.
“I am pleased that Judge Stengel was complimentary of the city’s efforts to protect First Amendment rights, while still preserving the public order,” said Philadelphia City Solicitor Romulo Diaz Jr. in a written statement reported by the Philadelphia Daily News.
[Judge] Stengel said the right to speak and assemble is not without limits. “There is no constitutional right to drown out the speech of another person,” he wrote.After the city issued a permit to Philly Pride for OutFest, it had the authority “to enforce the permit by excluding persons expressing contrary messages,” the judge observed.
Misleading claims about Repent America were not the only untruth issued by Exodus and Focus on the Family. They and Stephen Bennett also claimed that the proposed revision restricts religious expression — but suspiciously, none of the groups protesting the revision were willing quote either the revision or the existing law; they even imply that hate-crime laws are not already in effect for other demographic groups that are frequent targets of violence. Had these organizations provided the facts, their supporters might have realized that neither existing law nor the revision hinder religious expression — unless one considers violent crime a valid form of religious expression. In fact, the existing law does the opposite — it protects religious expression by explicitly punishing bodily violence committed on the basis of a victim’s religious faith.
What Exodus didn’t want people of faith to know
The revision for sexual orientation, the existing federal hate-crime law and the existing sentencing guidelines solely address violent crime, not speech. Here’s the key text of the revision:
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 device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person–
(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–
(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or
(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
In effect, whether through deliberate intent or recklessness, Exodus and its political allies tarnished Religious Freedom Day by asserting that violence against homosexuals is a valid form of religious expression that is threatened by hate-crime laws.
Several other web sites have noted that, since federal hate-crime laws were established in 1994, anti-Semitic protests and KKK rallies have continued unhindered. Adding sexual orientation to the existing laws does not prevent Repent America, Exodus, or for that matter gay activists from protesting — rather, the addition seeks to emphasize that violent crime on account of the victim’s heterosexuality or homosexuality will not be excused or overlooked by authorities.
There is legitimate cause for concern as to whether hate crime laws in general go too far in punishing the intent behind a violent crime based on race, gender or other considerations. Unfortunately, instead of raising legitimate arguments about violent crime and its intent, Exodus has chosen to tell untruths to people of faith, to stoke unjustifiable anger and fear, and to conflate valid religious expression with violent crime.
Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin offers excellent further analysis of the federal legislation. He contrasts the facts with the ex-gay political spin of Focus on the Family and Exodus.
*snicker* Now that’s poor phrasing.
Except that it was a summary judgement simply on the merits of the case, meaning the issue did not reach trial. Those organizations need not have known or understood that the judge would so rule against Repent America. I don’t think you necessarily have the interconnect you think you did.
So, if Alan Chambers in a fit of anti-gay fervor attempts to murder… let’s say Peterson Toscano, then Chambers’ anti-gay convictions should not be considered as a motivation of his crime, instead his crime (and his sin) was that he ceased loving the sinner and hating the sin and instead equated sin and sinner into one and took his hate out on both by attempting to murder Pete. And yet for the individual [though not for the state] is not seeing a sinner only by his sin a hate crime in the first place? Would not then this hate crimes legislation actually be in accord with Chambers’ own religion?
“There is legitimate cause for concern as to whether hate crime laws in general go too far in punishing the intent behind a violent crime based on race, gender or other considerations.”
I think the idea that the “intent” behind a crime should be punished is absurd. The ~crime~ should be punished and the victim given restitution, if possible. I don’t see the reason behind a crime as generally being very relevant. If one person hurts people because he’s a thief and another hurts people because he hates gays, what the difference?
Also, I consider Federal hate crimes laws to be Unconstitutional, as the Feds are granted no authority to legislate in that area.
Mark,
In the setting of a Hate Crime, two crimes are being committed. One is the actual event: arson, assault, attempted murder, murder, torture, etc. The second crime is the deliberate attempt to indimidate a group and deny that group their rights as citizens.
For example, burning a cross on the front lawn of the house of the only black family in a neighborhood, isn’t just arson. In most case the burning cross does little damage unless it spreads to the rest of the property. The real damage is the implied threat of violence (linching in particular) given this nation’s history of cross burning and the Ku Klux Klan. So it would be entirely inappropriate to just view this in the same way as some other arson prank.
The same applies to Hate Crimes that are committed against people because of religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.
The truth is that very few hate crimes are actually prosecuted as Hate Crimes, even when statutes are on the books that would allow the prosecution. Convictions are very difficult unless there is very clear evidence that the crime was committed due to hate and bigotry.
A gang of youths cruising a gay neighborhood with baseball bats methodically targeting gays and lesbians are far more likely to be charge with a Hate Crime, as opposed to a one off attack by one man on a gay man with a baseball bat. The second guy is more likely to be charged with some sort of assaut with a Hate Crime very unlikely unless there was far more evidence to support a hate crime.
I respect Mark’s position and I consider myself undecided on whether hate-crimes should be punished more harshly than other crimes. I do think that if society is going to protect certain demographics under such laws, then sexual orientation is as valid a cause for enhanced sentencing as religion and ethnicity.
The point of my post is not whether hate-crime laws are valid, but that Exodus and Focus have persistently:
1) lied about the legislation,
2) declined to state clearly whether they oppose hate-crime laws that protect people on the basis of race or religion
3) declined to truthfully and civilly discuss violent crime and the intent behind it, and — perhaps worst of all —
4) conveyed the message that bodily violence against others and the suppression of others’ free speech are both valid forms of religious expression.
It’s worthy to note that the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the merits of hate crimes laws.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell was decided in 1993, in it Rehndquist wrote the opinion.
Here is the money quote:
“Finally, there remains to be considered Mitchell’s argument that the Wisconsin statute is unconstitutionally overbroad because of its “chilling effect” on free speech. Mitchell argues (and the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed) that the statute is “overbroad” because evidence of the defendant’s prior speech or associations may be used to prove that the defendant intentionally selected his victim on account of the victim’s protected status. Consequently, the argument goes, the statute impermissibly chills free expression with respect to such matters by those concerned about the possibility of enhanced sentences if they should in the future commit a criminal offense covered by the statute. We find no merit in this contention.
The sort of chill envisioned here is far more attenuated and unlikely than that contemplated in traditional “over-breadth” cases. We must conjure up a vision of a Wisconsin citizen suppressing his unpopular bigoted opinions for fear that if he later commits an offense covered by the statute, these opinions will be offered at trial to establish that he selected his victim on account of the victim’s protected status, thus qualifying him for penalty enhancement. To stay within the realm of rationality, we must surely put to one side minor misdemeanor offenses covered by the statute, such as negligent operation of a motor vehicle; for it is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of a situation where such offenses would be racially motivated. We are left, then, with the prospect of a citizen suppressing his bigoted beliefs for fear that evidence of such beliefs will be introduced against him at trial if he commits a more serious offense against person or property. This is simply too speculative a hypothesis to support Mitchell’s overbreadth claim.
The First Amendment, moreover, does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent. Evidence of a defendant’s previous declarations or statements is commonly admitted in criminal trials subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like. .
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Mitchell’s First Amendment rights were not violated by the application of the Wisconsin penalty-enhancement provision in sentencing him. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
You can read the whole opinion here:
https://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wisvmitchell.html
Plain and simple, Exodus and the groups claiming their free speech will be violated are not telling the truth.
“Hate crime” laws ARE NOT “anti-vilification” laws.
The first adjusts the sentence, based on the motivating factors behind a crime. We already do this for crimes — ie 1st, 2nd degree murder — and Hate Crime laws simply add another factor to be considered.
(There is, surely, a difference between attacking someone who also happens to be Jewish; and attacking someone BECAUSE they are Jewish etc).
Anti-vilification laws are something else altogether. We have them here in Victoria (only covering race and religion) but we also do not have the U.S. Constitution that would otherwise proably prevent such a sweeping law. Ditto for every other place that get a mention by Focus/Exodus etc… UK, Sweden, Canada etc etc. Good law? Bad law? Hmmm… not sure, overall.
The judgement against Repent America seems to be based on something else again — “big public nuisance” or something. Basically, that people going about their lawful business should not have their lives disrupted to the complete extent possible.
And fair enough too, at that level. It’s one thing to show up with signs and flyers. But an amplified bullhorn? Preventing access to stall holders? Being obstructive, rather than simply trying to get a message across?
The alterative to not having at least some restriction on being a serial public pest is that the other side will, one day, turn up with a truck covered with amplified speakers instead of a bullhorn. And then the next day someone will retaliate with 2 trucks, and the next day…
The question, IMO, isn’t whether a line should be drawn; but where to draw that line.
I would like to point out that the idea of setting punishment based on motivation and other circumstances is nothing new. Our courts have been doing this since the beginning of the republic.
Think of it. There’s a recognized and legal difference between assault and aggravated assault. We distinguish between battery and domestic violence. We distinguish between capital murder, murder, and manslaughter (voluntary and involuntary) And, of course, we understand the difference between lynching and murder, and have enacted special laws to cover lynchings.
And even within these legal definitions, motive is often presented in the court of law in order to determine the precise sentence.
Classifying a violent crime as a hate crime and having hate crime enhancements written into law is entirely consistent with our legal system throughout history.
As you guys know, I was seriously injured (stabbed in the back) and my best friend murdered (stabbed five times in the back) by five gang members yelling “faggot”. We did nothing to provoke the attack. It DID have a “chilling” effect on our community. We got the message loud and clear: shut up or die. But we were not silent then and will not be silent.
I was completely shocked to learn that EXODUS (an organization I helped create to show God’s love for gay people) would take a stand against Hate Crime Laws.
Alan Chambers response to Jeffery’s murder was “sometimes bad things happen”. He told me he was against ALL such laws — even those based on race, religion, etc. EXODUS even posted a statement that “Hate Crime Laws are a tool to crush Christian Evangelism.” At this point, EXODUS seems more concerned with the right of some megaphone toting bigot to shout hatelful anti-gay slurs than the lives and liberties of gay people just trying to live thier lives in peace.