|
U.S. hate-crimes bills/laws
California law (Bill SB 1234)
Sponsored link.
About the bill:
Most past conflicts in the U.S. over hate-crime legislation have been caused
by legislatures trying to add sexual orientation to the list of protected
classes under an already existing hate-crime law. Bill SB 1234 is an exception. Persons of all sexual orientations -- heterosexual,
bisexual and homosexual -- are already protected under existing California hate-crimes legislation.
Objections seem to be focused on one part of the law that would criminalize
incitement to violence if it hate speech could be reasonably expected to result in physical
harm to members
of a protected group. For example, it would criminalize incitement to violence directed against African-Americans
if it were delivered with such zeal, and had sufficient backing, that an
African-American would reasonably fear physical harm or loss of her/his life. The law would
not criminalize thoughts. It would not criminalize speech itself. However, it
would criminalize the act of inciting violence of the probability of harm were
sufficiently great. This bill has thus gone well
beyond the scope of hate-crimes legislation elsewhere in the U.S. which require
that an actual crime be committed before the hate-crime law comes into effect.
The main intents of bill SB 1234
are:
 |
To harmonize the wording of
existing state hate-crimes laws, |
|
To define precisely terms relating to hate-crimes, |
|
To increase penalties to $5,000 in fines and/or six months in jail, and |
|
To enhance the training that police officers receive about hate crimes. |
|
To criminalize the incitement to violence against a protected group if
it is sufficiently serious that it
can reasonably be expected to result in harm to members of the targeted
victims. |
The bill was sponsored by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D) of West Los Angeles. It was passed by
both houses of the
legislature by healthy margins on 2004-AUG-24 and 25. The votes were 24 to 14 in the Senate, and 51 to
23 in the Assembly. A number of fundamentalist Christian groups and individuals
tried
to convince Governor Schwarzennegger (R) to veto the bill. However, he signed it
into law on 2004-SEP-22. The law became effective on 2005-JAN-01.
Groups formally supporting and opposing the bill:
The bill was officially supported by:
Equality California; Anti-Defamation
League; California Church Impact; California Council for the Blind, San
Bernardino; California Council for the Blind, Inland Empire; California NOW;
Commission on the Status of Women; Community United Against Violence; Crime
Victims United of California; Jewish Community Relations Council; Los Angeles
Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness; Metropolitan Community Church Los
Angeles; Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Muslim Public
Affairs Council; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Coalition for the
Homeless; Our Family Coalition; Pride at Work, Southern California; San
Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center; SoCal Pride
at Work; Transgender Law Caucus; and Western Center on Law and Poverty.
It was formally opposed by:
The Capitol Resource Institute, and Campaign for California Families.
6
Fundamentalist Christian opposition to the bill:
A number groups mounted a stiff opposition to the bill:
|
Campaign for California Families: Executive director, Randy Thomasson,
was concerned that if the
bill is signed into law, it would be used to punish Christians for
speaking out on moral issues. He said: "The attack upon religious
freedom that we see happening in America will only be accelerated by
hate crime laws. We're all against the violent crimes against persons or
property, but let's punish conduct. Let's not punish thoughts." 1 He may not realize that the bill would not punish thoughts;
it would not punish attitudes; it would not punish speech; it would only
punish the incitement to violence, and then only if it were so egregious
that could reasonably be
expected to result in harm or death to the victims targeted by the speech. | |
California Family Council (CFC): Their "...mission is to
protect and foster Judeo-Christian principles in California’s laws, for the
benefit of its families." 2
Their main efforts are devoted to restricting abortion access, prohibiting same-sex marriage,
and preserving the right of parents to discipline and raise their children as they see
fit, without interference from the state. CFC concludes: "It is clear
that this bill is intended to punish those who speak out in defense of the
pre-born as well as restrict the rights of persons to speak out against
homosexuality." 3
They are concerned that the bill does not define precisely "...what constitutes
a person being 'at risk of becoming a victim'." 3 They are also concerned that
the bill contains the phrase "in whole or in part." That is, if a
mugging or other crime were motivated both:
 |
By hatred of the victim because of his identity as a member of a
protected group, and |
|
By a need for money, |
the hate-crimes legislation would still apply. | |
Campaign for California Families: Their values include "[heterosexual]
marriage and family, parental rights, sanctity of life,... [and] freedom of
conscience." They work: "...on behalf of the
best values the world has ever known." 8 Thisis presumably a reference to Judeo-Christian
ethics. They have three main concerns about Bill AB 1234: | |
Concerned Women for
America issued an Action Alert when bill SB 1234 passed the Assembly.
The national office notes that: "CWA of California
continues to vigorously oppose this legislation and has placed the attached
ad in the September issues of San Diego area Christian newspapers." 10
Unfortunately, a copy of the ad does not appear in their web site. They
provide fax numbers, phone numbers, Email addresses and a sample message for
Governor Schwarzenegger, to try to persuade him to veto the bill. Their main
concerns are:
|
The bill would criminalizes "speech rather than actions." |
|
Judicial interpretation of the bill, if it became law, could
threaten freedom of speech and religion in the state. |
|
"While the bill states that speech alone is not actionable, it
immediately makes an exception if that speech creates fear of violence
in the perceived victim." 10
In reality, the bill requires more than simple fear of violence on the
part of the victim. The fear must be "reasonable" and the the
person inciting violence must have "the apparent ability to
carry out the threat." |
|
"Even various forms of peaceful conduct, such as prayer vigils
outside abortion clinics, could potentially be considered a 'threat of
force'." |
|
That in Canada, one can no longer "speak critically about
homosexuality" on radio or TV. Actually, it is quite possible to
discuss all aspects of homosexuality there, as long as hate propaganda
is not involved. Also, one must be prepared for opposing views to be
given equal time. |
|
That in Canada, an individual and newspaper were fined for an ad
which quoted some of the "clobber" passages in
the Bible which have been used against homosexuals. Actually, the
Bible passages were not quoted in the ad; only citations to the verses
were listed. A symbol
including two stick figures accompanied the citations. Valerie Watson,
who formed a one-person board of inquiry commissioned by the
Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, stressed that the ruling did
not ban parts of the Bible. She wrote that the offense was the
combination of the symbol with the biblical references. |
|
That in Sweden, a pastor was charged, convicted and sentenced
because he read Bible verses about homosexuality in church. Actually, he
did a lot more than just read some verses. He is
reported as describing homosexuality as an:
"abnormal, a horrible
cancerous tumor in the body of society." He described homosexuals as
"perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest
weapon against God." He was charged with inciting hatred against a
group of people on the basis of their sexual orientation. But Bill AB
1234 would not apply to this type of situation, because the pastor
merely incited hatred; he did not incite violence. |
| |
Family Research Council: This is a Washington DC based,
fundamentalist Christian social action group that is very active in limiting
abortion access, fighting same-sex marriage, opposing equal rights for gays
and lesbians, etc. President Tony Perkins commented on bill AB 1234 in one
of his Washington Updates. He feels that the bill would primarily
inhibit freedom of speech by creating a class of thought crimes -- its main
goal is not to control criminal behavior by outlawing the incitement to
violence: "This bill is a prime example of the adage that ideas have
consequences. In this case, bad liberal ideologies like thought crimes,
taken to their logical conclusion, have very bad consequences." 11 |
Sponsored link:
What does the bill really say:
There appears to
be considerable misunderstanding of the bill's text:
|
Judy Chu, chairperson of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
prepared a summary of the bill, which said in part: "This bill defines a hate crime as a
criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following
actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: disability, gender,
nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, association with a
person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics."
4 (Emphasis ours). Conservative Christians "speaking
out on moral issues" have absolutely nothing to fear from this
legislation. Even if their speech degenerates to the level of hate
speech, this law would not be applied. It is only if the hate speech was
accompanied with the incitement for violence against a protected group that
the law would kick in. |
|
Section 51.1j of the California Civil code would be changed to read: "Speech
alone is not sufficient to support an action brought pursuant to...[this
law], except upon a showing that the speech itself threatens violence
against a specific person or group of persons; and the person or group of
persons against whom the threat is directed reasonably fears that, because
of the speech, violence will be committed against them or their property and
that the person threatening violence had the apparent ability to carry out
the threat." 5
There would have to be a credible threat of violence by the perpetrator
of the hate speech before the law would be applicable. |
|
Section 51.1k would read: "No order issued in any proceeding brought
pursuant to...[this law] shall restrict the content of any person's speech.
An order restricting the time, place, or manner of any person's speech shall
do so only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the peaceable
exercise or enjoyment of constitutional or statutory rights, consistent with
the constitutional rights of the person sought to be enjoined." |
As noted above, this bill was signed into law and became effective on
2005-JAN-01.
References:
-
Allie Martin, "California Christians Urge Hate Crimes Bill Veto,"
Agape Press, 2004-AUG-26, at:
http://www.crosswalk.com/
-
"About us," California Family Council, at:
http://www.californiafamily.org/
-
"SB 1234 Expansion of hate crimes," California Family Council, at:
http://www.californiafamily.org/
-
Judy Chu, "SB 1234 bill analysis," Assembly Committee on
Appropriations, at:
http://info.sen.ca.gov
-
Jody Brown, "California's Hate Crimes Expansion Potentially
'Dangerous' for Christians, Activists Say. Pending Legislation Would
Punish Those Who Speak Out Against Homosexuality," American Family
Association, 2004-AUG-18, at:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/
-
"Bill Analysis: SB 1234," Senate Rules Committee, 2004-MAY-24, at:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/
-
"Bill Number: SB 1234 amended. Bill text," at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
-
"About CCF," at:
http://www.savecalifornia.com/
-
"SB 1234 (Kuehl) • Hate
Crimes" Bill That Values Certain People as More Valuable than Others, and Could
Infringe upon Freedom of Speech," Campaign for California Families, at:
http://www.savecalifornia.com/
-
"CWA of California Action Alerts: 'Hate Crimes'
Bill Passes Assembly," 2004-AUG-28, at:
http://www.cwfa.org/
-
Tony Perkins, "California Lawmakers Expand
Thought Crimes," Washington Update, 2004-AUG-30.
Copyright © 1999 to 2008 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Latest update: 2008-FEB-05
Author: B.A. Robinson
| |
Page Translator: