Washington — Twelve years of activism by Jewish groups is nearing an end as Congress prepares to approve legislation that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include actions based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender or disability.
Jewish groups have been front and center in lobbying for the inclusion of these categories in the existing law, which already defines as hate crimes those that are committed on the basis of race, color, religion and national origin.
The Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Prevention Act is named after the gay student who was brutally murdered in Wyoming in 1998 because of his sexual orientation. Shepard’s murderers received life sentences, but the case was not prosecuted as a hate crime.
Michael Lieberman, Washington counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, who worked on the expanded hate crimes bill for more than a decade, said pushing it forward was in the interests of the Jewish community because of the leading role Jews play in fighting against hate crimes and for civil liberties.
“We must be cognizant of the fact that the third most common victims of hate crimes are gays and lesbians,” Lieberman said. The most common factor in hate crimes is race, according to FBI statistics. The second most common is religion. Crimes against Jews make up 70% of the religion category, according to the FBI data.
At times, the prolonged standoff over expanding the definition of a hate crime pitted Jewish activists against conservative Christian leaders, who argued the new legislation would criminalize opposition to homosexuality voiced from the pulpit.
In June 23 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee debating the bill, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, argued the legislation would infringe on the rights of religious groups that are protected by the First Amendment.
“While the bill before us is ostensibly limited to acts which cause bodily harm, it would put us on a slippery slope toward the punishment of so-called ‘hate speech’ as well,” Perkins said. The Family Research Council issued an alert to pastors warning them that “what you say from the pulpit could literally become illegal.”
Before the vote, another group, Focus on the Family, urged its supporters to sign an online petition arguing that the proposed legislation would be the “first step toward ultimately gagging our pastors and other ministry leaders who are faithfully preaching the Scripture about God’s plan for human sexuality.”
The ADL’s Lieberman believes that the differing viewpoints over the bill will not damage interfaith dialogue between Jews and Christians. “The opposition is mainly conservative, not Christian,” he said, adding that many Christian groups joined forces with the Jewish community in promoting the bill.
Conservative Christian opposition stalled passage of the legislation throughout the Bush administration.
The Obama administration and a massive Democratic majority in Congress paved the way for pushing the bill forward, although its supporters chose a controversial legislative path: The bill was attached as an amendment to the defense authorization bill, must-pass legislation that provides funds for the United States armed forces. Senate Republicans argued that hate crime legislation deserves a separate debate and should not be attached to the Pentagon spending bill, but in a July 16 vote, the Senate approved the measure 63 to 28. The House had earlier approved a similar bill.
The legislation is still awaiting debate in a Congressional conference committee that will attempt to iron out differences between the Senate and House versions. Political observers believe passage of the bill is imminent, which would then go to President Obama for his signature.
Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
As First Maharats Graduate, Orthodox Women Leap Forward
Barbra Streisand Visits Western Wall After Landing in Israel With Puppy
Tapping Into Growing Lure of Hidden Jewish Heritage
Montreal's First Jewish Mayor Michael Applebaum Hit With Corruption Charges
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
You've successfully signed up!
Any bill that creates the condition for second class victims is preposterous, and without doubt the Hate-crimes legislature does exactly that. Any act of violence against another is an act of hatred irregardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. A horrific bi-product of this bill is the inception of "the thought police"...the idea that the state can interpret an individuals intentions and as a result compound punishment. Really, it comes down to whether you believe the bible is true. A christian who supports such legislature apparently either doesn't know what the bible says in regards to these ideas or simply doesn't believe it in the first place. Thanks.
Actually, any superficial study of the law shows that certain crimes are punished more seriously because of the fear they cause in the public. Do you think all "theft" should be punished and treated the same? Does it matter whether the "theft" took place in the middle of the night in someone's home or in the middle of day time when nobody is home? From a public policy standpoint the person that enters someone's home in the middle of the night creates more public fear than the day time theft because the person is more likely to be home. It is long established that crimes that cause panic and fear in the public be prosecuted differently than those that do not cause the same fear.
Gays and lesbians have a real fear of being attacked only because they are gay and lesbian. The long term consequences of this legislation will be a decrease in violence against gays and lesbians and more and more people become aware of the penalties associated with it.
Any crime INTENDED to perpetuate fear of personal harm based on a personal characteristic deserves a different view by our society. How can you compare murdering someone you are angry with because they did something to you and murdering someone just because of who they are.
Look at facts, don't be clouded by your underlying disapproval of the gay and lesbian population.
I see your point in regard to day/night theft, however, the act remains the same in both cases. Fear, unfortunately, is a by-product of any form of violence. Theft also is different than assault & battery. The level of fear my vary, but to think that a home owner isn't worried about either type of theft would be a mistake. If your home is burglarized in daylight and mine at night, would this fact make me more a victim? It's not theft alone that makes the night scenario worse, it's the possibility of an escalation from theft to violence. Both of which are different crimes and are punished accordingly. I do understand the fears of the gay/lesbian community, however, the same fear can be expected from anyone when they hear of a murder in their neighborhood. We need no hate-crimes legislature including this new expansion.
How broad is the protection of "disability"? Does it included "mental disabilities" associated with anti-social behavior, eg violent assaults, or disruption of meetings? If so, the government should be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged "hatred" is of the disability itself, rather than of the antisocial behavior. --Hugo S. Cunningham http://www.cyberussr.com/
Actually, the bill passed the house on its own merit. Even before it was attached to the defense authorization bill. It also was attached to that bill, BY A VOTE. Its not like some sneaky gay senator tacked this on a defense bill. It was an ammendment that was passed BY VOTE because it was seen as improtant enough to pass at the same time.
In addition, a review of the facts of the case of Matthew Shephard clearly show that he was not simply "murdered." It is also quite evident that the reason he was beaten brutally and left to suffer on a lonely street in Wyoming was because his killers "perceived" that he had made a sexual advance at them. Thus, they were reacting to someone'sassumed sexuality and in response did not simply kill someone, they intended to "teach him a lesson" for being gay and beat him unconcious (not dead) and left him there to suffer until he was found, hospitalized, only to die later.
Jon,
You end your comment with saying that the fear is the same as if a murder "happened in your neighborhood." Why did you say that? Did the location of the crime change how it impacted you? Is it fair to say that a murder in your neighborhood would cause you more fear than a murder 100 miles away?
Would that not apply to the INTENT of the murder as well? What if the murder's intention was to "punish" someone for being gay? Would that not be similar to "being in your neighborhood?" Wouldn't that have a lasting effect on society beyond a murder with some reasoning behind it?
If Jake murders Ashley by shooting her in the head because she stole $10 from him does that make YOU scared to leave the house? No, because you didn't steal $10 from jake.
What if Jake raped Ashley and told her it was for her own good because she is a lesbian and he is showing her how God wanted her to be? Then, he takes her into a park and beats her until she is bleeding extensively and leaves her there to die with a sign that say "lesbians are an abomination." Doesn't this crime, murder, have a different impact than the previous crime of murder? If so, shouldn't they be prosecuted and punished differently?
You see, any murder based on race, religion, sexuality, etc. has a unique aspect and intent to cause fear in ALL people of that minority. For this, it deserves a different categorization under public policy and law.
Chris
Finally the religious wingnuts will lose. There is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588
So, everyone has rights except Christian. How ironic! Glad I will be gone before or during the rapture. I guess you will take my Christian music and Christian radio away as well since it may offend you. Its time for the Christian world to stand up and demand our right to worship. Those of you who think that this isn't aimed at stiffling Christianity - watch and see what happens. I love my God and I have a right to worship him; listen to Christian music and enjoy all that it offers. Radical religion of any kind is a "hate crime" but just like all Muslims are not radical - nor are Christians. Keep government out of religion.