So-Called ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Attached As Amendment To Defense Authorization!
Yesterday, July 15, 2009 – The Capitol Hill switchboard was shut down because so many people were trying to call their Representatives and Senators about all of the dangerous bills that are being ramrodded through the House and Senate by Democrats. This is the most irresponsible Congress in our nation’s history!
Remember, it does NOT matter WHO you voted for, your Senator is there to represent YOU. Make your opinion known, contact your Senators today and let them know what their constituents want.
No legislator has time to read the bills and few are paying attention to the American people. Make sure they hear you.
Right now, the Senate is considering passage of a dangerous hate crimes bill. Sen. Harry Reid, in a dishonest manuever, has attached this bill as an amendment to S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Believing that Senators will not vote AGAINST funding the Defense of the Nation, Sen. Reid knows that they will be voting to destroy the 1st Amendment instead.
ACTION IS NEEDED IMMEDIATELY ON THIS! A vote on this bill is expected today.
The anti-Christian, pro-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) bill known as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act has been added as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill (S. 1390) to be debated & voted on this week, most likely today, Thursday.
The LGBT movement and its allies in the Senate are fearful of having this bill debated on its merits as standalone legislation, so they are attaching it to a “must pass” Defense Authorization bill. They hope pro-family Democrats and Republicans will be forced into voting for it in order to support our national security.
TAKE ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators and urge that they vote NO on the so-called hate crimes amendment to S. 1390. This legislation must be rejected by the Senate as the dishonest assault on our 1st Amendment Rights.
I. What Are The Facts About Examples Of Hate Crimes?
FBI statistics on “hate crimes” against a person’s sexual orientation from 2007 (the latest available) reveal the following: In 2007 there were 1,521 victims of “sexual orientation” bias (Table 7). However, the breakdown of these crimes is listed as:
335 were crimes of intimidation (shouting or name-calling)
448 were crimes of simple assault (defined as pushing or shoving without physical injury)
242 were crimes of aggravated assault (defined as bodily harm)
(source: FBI statistics 2007)
In short, there were only 242 crimes against a person’s sexual orientation that could be considered “violent.” And, 27 of these bias crimes were directed against heterosexuals! All together, there were 9,535 victims of bias crimes in 2007. This includes bias against race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, disability, or multiple-bias incidents.
The FBI statistics do not indicate how many of these “violent hate crimes” were committed by homosexuals against other homosexuals – or what provoked the violence.
Out of a total number of 855,856 cases of aggravated assault in 2007, only 242 were directed at LGBT individuals. This is only 0.0002827% of all aggravated assaults! This is not an epidemic of hate against LGBT individuals.
No Epidemic Of Hate Crimes Exists! S. 909 falsely claims in Section 2, without any evidence, that “the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.”
FBI statistics from 2007 (the latest available) reveal that there is no national epidemic of hate against minorities or LGBT persons.
Out of a nation of 300 million, there were only 1,521 hate crimes directed against a person’s sexual orientation in 2007. The majority of these “crimes” involved name-calling and pushing or shoving a person.
II. What Do These Categories Mean in Legal Terms?
Intimidation is defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, as: “…verbal or related threats of bodily harm.” This could be something as innocuous as name-calling and shouting.
Simple assault is defined as: “…physical attacks without a weapon or serious victim injury.” This frequently involves pushing or hitting.
Aggravated assault defined as: “attacks in which the offender uses or displays a weapon and/or the victims suffers serious injury.” (Kevin J. Strom, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice Special Report, September, 2001.)
“Bodily injury,” the requirement for S. 909, is an incredibly broad undefined term which could mean anything from a simple assault or a domestic assault to a rape or murder. It does not fit into the FBI categories upon which they base their statistics.
In criminal law, it is standard for an assault to be defined from the victim’s point of view as opposed to being based only upon the facts of the case. In short, even if a reasonable person would interpret an action as unthreatening, under S. 909, a victim could say they were in fear of bodily injury, thus triggering charges of a so-called hate crime. Local police and sheriffs are already effectively dealing with these crimes as a routine part of their jobs.
III. Other Examples Of Hate Crimes: Race And Religion
In fact, in analyzing FBI statistics, it is clear that anti-religious bias and racial bias are more serious issues than sexual orientation bias. Here’s a comparison of statistics on race, religion, and sexual orientation:
Out of 1,521 bias crimes against LGBT individuals, only 242 resulted in bodily harm.
Out of 4,956 racial incidents, 908 were anti-white; 3,424 were anti-African American; and the rest were bias crimes against other races.
Out of 1,628 anti-religious bias crimes, 1,127 were against Jews; 142 against Muslims; 70 against Catholics; 67 against Protestants. The rest were against other religions.
IV. Fake Hate Crimes Pose A Serious Problem
Homosexual activists are well-known for having staged a number of fake hate crimes throughout the years.
Homosexual activists have claimed that a 72-year-old homosexual named Andrew Anthos of Detroit was attacked by an African-American man who called him a “faggot” and struck him in the head with a metal pipe, killing him. Police later learned that Anthos had not been the victim of a hate crime. He had fallen because of a severe arthritic condition in his neck. He was also mentally ill.
In January, 2007, a homosexual student at Boise State University told police that a man had beaten him in the back of the head and swore at him. He later admitted to police that he’d faked the crime by using a stick and his fists to beat himself.
The faking of hate crimes by homosexuals goes back years. In 2000, U.S. News & World Report columnist John Leo documented case after case of faked hate crimes by homosexuals. One involved Jerry Kennedy, a homosexual student at the University of Georgia. Kennedy reported to police that he’d been the victim of nine hate crimes over a three-year period – including three acts of arson. He later admitted faking these. The objective of LGBT activists is to gain sympathy for their gay agenda or the passage of pro-LGBT legislation such as H.R. 1913.
V. Bogus ‘Findings’ In S. 909
The “Findings” section in the legislation, which is used to justify passage of S. 909, uses the same ridiculous claims that have been used for years.
Those “Findings” listed in Section 2 of the bill solemnly state (without any basis in fact) that:
Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.
Democrats were so embarrassed when Traditional Values Coalition exposed these ridiculous and untrue claims that they removed them from H.R. 1913 during the recent mark up of the House bill.
No Representative or Senator has ever tried to justify these findings as factual. Why? Because these findings are clearly false.
Proponents of S. 909 claim with a straight face, that LGBT persons (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) are so persecuted by angry bigots that they are fleeing across state lines to avoid being beaten up.
These mythical LGBT persons also have trouble finding employment or engaging in “commercial activity.”
But, it gets worse: Not only are LGBT persons regularly fleeing in large numbers across state lines, but they’re being pursued by angry bigots across these state lines. These bigots are also apparently using “instrumentalities of interstate commerce” to commit these mythical crimes against LGBT persons. Where do these bigots purchase their “instrumentalities of interstate commerce” – at Wal-Mart?
If there were large numbers of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and drag queens fleeing across state lines for the past decade, there would be some record of this mass migration. Surely, Highway Patrol officers of the 50 states would have seen these mass exoduses from one state to another.
All of this nonsense in the findings is a pretext to justify federal intervention in state law enforcement by invoking the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.
Proponents should be forced to provide actual evidence of the claim that there’s been this mass migration of LGBT individuals across state lines for a decade. And, they should be forced to prove that bigots are pursuing these poor terrified persons across state lines. Can they provide us with a bigot’s “instrumentality of interstate commerce” seized by a Highway Patrol officer?
Watch TVC’s ‘Hate Crime’ Video
VI. Religious Freedom is Threatened By S. 909
S.909 broadly defines “intimidation. A pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate speech” under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any “sexual orientation.” The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”
Supporters of S.909 claim the legislation only covers bodily injury. In actuality, it opens the door to the possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally, based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy law or the criminal code– and could include conduct or speech that aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, procures or causes the act to be done by another. Ultimately, a pastor’s sermon concerning religious beliefs and teachings on homosexuality and gender confused behaviors could be considered to cause violence and will be punished or at least investigated.
During the House Judiciary Committee markup in 2007, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) admitted that the legislation will not protect a pastor (as well as Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers etc.,) from prosecution.
Former judge, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) stated that federal law currently stipulates that anyone who “incites” or “induces” a person to commit a violent crime against a protected class, can be prosecuted for aiding or abetting in the crime. This could include a pastor who preaches against the gay lifestyle.
The so-called hate crimes bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, Christian counselors, religious broadcasters and anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truths found in the Bible, which have previously been protected by the First Amendment, resulting in a chilling effect on religious liberties.
Rep. Gohmert explains this danger in a YouTube video.
VII. Protecting 30 + Bizarre “Sexual Orientations” And “Gender Identity” — Ever-Expanding Definitions
The main purpose of this “hate crime” legislation is to add the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” “either actual or perceived,” as new classes of individuals receiving special protection by federal law. Sexual orientation includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality on an ever-expanding continuum. Will Congress also protect these sexual orientations-zoophiles, pedophiles or polygamists?
Gender identity includes such gender confused behaviors as cross-dressing, she-male, drag queen, transvestite, transsexual or transgender. Under the Act, neither “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” are really defined. How can a law be enforced if the new classes receiving special protection remain undefined?
The sexual behaviors considered sinful and immoral by most major religions will be elevated to a protected “minority” class under federal law.
Once “sexual orientation” is added to federal law, anyone with a bizarre sexual orientation will have total protection for his or her activities by claiming that Congress sanctions their appearance, behavior or attitudes.
Inevitably this will negatively affect the performance of co-workers who are forced to work alongside of individuals with bizarre sex habits. Imagine working next to a person who gets sexual pleasure from rubbing up against a woman (Fronteurism) or enjoys wearing opposite sex clothing. These are “sexual orientations.” More Than 30 Sexual Orientations Effectively Gain Federal Protection
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published a list of 30 + sexual orientations that, because of Congress’s failure to define “sexual orientation,” will arguably be protected under this legislation. These 30 + orientations are listed in the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders. Those bizarre sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states or can result in death.
Among those sexual orientations are:
Fronteurism — which involves a man approaching an unknown woman and rubbing up against her buttocks. This is criminal behavior.
Incest — which is a crime (sex with a daughter or son).
Necrophilia — a crime (sex with a corpse).
Pedophilia — a crime (sex with an underage child).
Prostitution — a crime in most states.
Zoophilia — (beastiality) which is a crime in numerous states.
Voyeurism — which is a criminal offense in most states.
Non-criminal sexual orientations include such behaviors as:
Autogeynephilia — the perception of a man as being a woman;
Apotemnophilia — sexual arousal from the stumps of an amputee;
Coprophilia — sexual arousal from feces;
Urophilia — sexual arousal from urine
Transvestic Fetishism — intense sexually-arousing fantasies, sexual urges, and behaviors involving cross-dressing.
To protect a “sexual orientation” under S. 909 – while leaving that term undefined — is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association.
Currently, the only place in federal law where “sexual orientation” is defined is in the 1990 “Hate Crimes Statistics Act.” In that law, “sexual orientation” is defined as “consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality.”
Over time, homosexual activists have expanded this definition to include bisexuals and transgendered individuals (cross-dressers, drag queens, transsexuals and she-males). The term LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) is the acronym currently used to describe this expanded definition.
In the House, Democrats refused to define “gender,” “gender identity,” or “sexual orientation,” legislation like H.R. 1913 and S. 909 will also protect the 30+ bizarre sexual orientations listed in our report. House Judiciary Committee Republicans offered an amendment to exclude pedophilia from the undefined “sexual orientation” reference in the bill. Democrats ridiculed the amendment and voted it down.
LGBT fanatics, however, are now claiming that the “paraphilias” listed in our report are actually different than a person’s sexual orientation. This is an absurd argument.
LGBT activists – including Rep. Tammy Baldwin during H.R. 1913 debate — refused to define “sexual orientation” because they want it to be an expandable term. They’ll add new “sexual orientations” to it as they see fit. Yet, they claim that these paraphilias are not sexual orientations. If they won’t define the term, how can they now assert that a person’s sexual desires for children or dead people are not sexual orientations?
If a person is sexually oriented toward a certain person, object, or animal, that is clearly a sexual orientation.
VIII. A Little Historical Perspective Is Needed
During the 1970s, the American Psychiatric Association was under attack by gay activists who demanded that homosexuality be removed as a mental disorder from the DSM.
The DSM at that time listed homosexuality as a “sexual deviation” – along with other bizarre sexual orientations. The term “paraphilia” replaced the term sexual deviation in the DSM-III-R. (Nathaniel Mcconaghy, “Unresolved Issues In Scientific Sexology,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, Issue 4, 1999.)
In fact, the second edition of the DSM, published in 1968 said this in section 302: “Sexual Deviations: This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts … performed under bizarre circumstances. … Even though many find these practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them. This diagnosis is not appropriate for individuals who perform deviant sexual acts because normal sex objects are not available to them.” Homosexuality was the first sexual deviation listed in section 302! (Dr. George Rekers, Growing Up Straight, 1982)
Gay activists, however, pressured the APA into removing homosexuality as a sexual deviation from the DSM. Homosexuality was not removed because of scientific discoveries, but for political reasons.
As psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has written in Homosexuality And The Politics Of Truth, the APA removed homosexuality in two steps: “At first it only removed from its list of disorders homosexuality that was ‘ego-syntonic,’ comfortable and acceptable to the individual, leaving only ‘ego-dystonic’ – unwanted – homosexuality as a disorder; later it removed ‘ego-dystonic’ homosexuality as well.” (p. 65)
The DSM also used the term “Sexual Orientation Disturbance” to describe those homosexuals who felt uncomfortable with their same-sex attractions. That term is also gone from the DSM.
Satinover notes that the DSM-IV “has quietly altered its long-standing definitions of all the ‘paraphilias’ (sexual perversions). Now, in order for an individual to be considered to have a paraphilia – these include sadomasochism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, and among others, pedophilia – the DSM requires that in addition to having or even acting on his impulses, his ‘fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors,’ must ’cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.” **
In short, the definition of a paraphilia in DSM-IV meant, for example, that a pedophile only needed treatment if he felt discomfort about his sexual desires or was impaired in some way. If he had no emotional problems molesting kids, he didn’t need treatment. Remember that “paraphilia” actually refers to a sexual deviation from the norm of heterosexuality. Gay psychiatrists and gay psychologists have distorted the old definitions in the DSM for their political agendas. **
Since then, the DSM-IV-TR has been quietly re-written to correct this major mistake. The DSM-IV-TR (text revision) version states that merely acting upon pedophilia impulses is sufficient for a diagnosis of a mental disorder. (Linda Ames Nicolosi, “The Pedophilia Debate Continues – And DSM Is Changed Again,” NARTH, September, 2008)
** Congressman takes to the floor to demand inclusion of “philias” in hate crime bill.
IX. S. 909 Will Inevitably Fund Increased Pro-LGBT Propaganda In Our Public Schools
This legislation provides hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund so-called anti-hate programs. This includes a series of $100,000 grants to organizations allegedly fighting “hate” in their communities.
If signed into law, this so-called hate crimes bill will be used to fund pro-LGBT teaching materials for our nation’s public schools. It will be a replay of what occurred during the Clinton Administration.
During the Clinton years, TVC exposed the federal government’s use of tax dollars to fund an “anti-hate” (actually anti-Christian) school curriculum. “Healing the Hate: A National Bias Crime Prevention Curriculum for Middle Schools,” actually did the following:
Compared Baptists and Pentecostals to White Supremacist groups.
Defined “prejudice” to include the “bigoted thoughts” of religious organizations. If a church teaches homosexual sex is wrong, you see, the curriculum calls it bigotry!
Defined a “hate incident” as “harmful words or actions motivated by prejudice,” which specifically includes “religious beliefs.” In other words, if you have moral principles based on your religious faith, the curriculum says you’re prejudiced!
Defined institutionalized prejudice as widely accepted in religious groups.
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno actually had a Department of Justice website for children K-5 teaching them to turn in their parents if they were “bigoted.”
The Washington State Safe Schools Coalition produced, for their Anti-Violence Documentation Project, curricula for kindergarten children — KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN — to think bisexuality and sex change operations were normal! These curricula were called “age appropriate.”
Under the guise of hate crime prevention, $100,000 a pop will be given to LGBT groups to create more anti-Christian pro-gay agenda materials for public schools and communities, teaching children to accept homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism, etc as normal behaviors.
Under the Act, the Office of Justice Programs is empowered to ensure compliance with “the local infrastructure developed under the grants.” Affected parties can include “community groups and schools, colleges, and universities.”
Another flaw in the bill is that affected parties are not defined. Will traditional values once again be denigrated with taxpayer dollars?
X. S. 909 Will Encourage Anti-Christian Bigotry
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activists have worked aggressively to promote the idea that Bible Speech (opposition to the gay agenda) will lead inevitably to violent “hate” crimes. Thus, they say restrictions of such speech is justified as a way of protecting homosexuals from violence. What they’re really targeting is speech against LGBT behaviors that is based upon an understanding of what the Bible says about this behavior. In short, they’re targeting Bible Speech – not actual “hate speech.”
For example, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) has defined “hate crime” this way: “Hate crimes are criminal acts (such as violent crime, hate speech or vandalism ) that are motivated by feelings of hostility against any identifiable group of people within a society, if systematic, rather than spontaneous, instigators of such crimes are sometimes organized into hate groups. The ILGA clearly defined hate crime to include so-called hate speech!
On the website “hatecrime.org,” LGBT activists claim that pro-family organizations are engaging in hate speech when they criticize homosexual conduct and this “hate speech” allegedly leads to hate crimes and must be suppressed.
This site compares opposition to homosexuality as equal to Adolf Hitler’s slaughter of six million Jews in Europe before and during World War II.
Hatecrime.org also blamed pro-family groups for the murder of gay college student Matthew Shepard. This effort to link criticism of homosexual conduct to the murder of Matthew Shepard is typical of the kind of thinking by the gay advocates.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution blaming religious groups for so-called “hate crimes” such as the murder of Mathew Shepard. In addition, the Board approved a resolution urging the local media not to carry advertisements by pro-family organizations that addressed hope for homosexuals to change.
Traditional Values Coalition’s Executive Director Andrea Lafferty was verbally attacked by the President of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). HRC accused Mrs. Lafferty of being personally responsible for the killing of Matthew Shepard. This occurred at the local Washington, D.C. Fox station.
In New York, a billboard with a Bible verse on it was taken down under pressure from city officials, who cited it as “hate speech.”
In Massachusetts in 2005, parent David Parker was arrested for protesting his elementary school child having to listen to pro-LGBT propaganda! He eventually removed his child from the school. He was in court for two years and lost all of his appeals.
Pacific Justice Institute President Cites Cases Of Anti-Christian Bigotry: In his testimony before the House Committee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on April 17, 2007, PJI President Brad Dacus cited several examples showing how hate crime laws are inevitably used to silence freedom of speech and religion.
He noted, for example, that the 9th Federal Circuit Court in California sided with homosexuals against a student in a high school in Poway who wore a T-shirt saying that homosexuality was shameful! The 9th cited California’s “hate violence” statute as an excuse to silence this Christian student’s religious viewpoint about gay behavior.
In addition, Slavic students in Sacramento wore anti-gay agenda T-shirts to protest the gay-inspired Day of Silence on campus. They were punished for their views.
The claim that hate crime laws against violence do not affect free speech or freedom of religion is bogus.
Dacus also noted that the Hindu American Foundation has attempted to compare opposition to Hinduism as “hate speech.” The foundation claims that such hate speech could provoke a crazed gunman to attack Hindus in their temples!
Pennsylvania Hate Crime Law Puts Christians In Jail
One of the most serious attacks on free speech and religious freedom came in Philadelphia in 2004.
Eleven Christians were arrested on felony charges for preaching the Word of God at a gay pride rally. Eight charges were filed against them: three felony charges and five misdemeanors.
Charges were eventually dropped against six of the Christians, but the five left faced potential prison sentences of 47 years in jail and fines up to $90,000!
They were charged under Pennsylvania’s hate crime law, which had recently added “sexual orientation” to their statute. The Christians were charged with: criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways.
The “instruments of crime” were bull horns for witnessing!
The “ethnic intimidation” section of the hate crime statute was used against the Christians for having preached to the homosexuals in the parade and rally. Their “speech” was considered ethnic intimidation.
The charges were eventually dropped against the Christians for having no basis in fact – but their free speech and religious freedom were violated and they had to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees.
The bottom line is that hate crime laws supposedly designed only to combat violence, can easily be construed to suppress free speech as “intimidation” and an incitement to violence. The Christians arrested in Philadelphia are prime examples of this slippery slope.
9th Federal Circuit Court Says Gay Agenda Trumps Free Speech In Oakland, California
The far-left 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco has attacked freedom of speech and religion for the Christian employees of the city of Oakland, California.
The court issued a memo declaring that it sided with the city of Oakland in censoring the emails and posters of the Good News Employee Association that used words like “Natural Family,” “Marriage” and “Family Values” in their materials. The 9th Circuit said the city had the right to censor those words because it made LGBT employees uncomfortable and violated the city’s sexual orientation ordinance! These words were considered “statements of a homophobic nature” and “sexual-orientation-based harassment”!
These are only a few examples that show how sexual orientation and hate crime laws can be used to suppress religious freedom and free speech!
For “Additional References” click highlighted link.