|
|
 |
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:
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:
| ||||||||||||||
|
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 |
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
Custom Search
. | |
|
Page Translator:
