Danger: Hate Crimes Bill Would Destroy Freedom Of Expression, Religion

Who could possibly oppose punishment for hate crimes? That is the quandary people of goodwill feel when confronted by the superficially attractive, but false title of legislation purportedly intended to prevent crimes of violence, when in fact the bill itself — HR 1913 (“Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009”), passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week — is loaded with hidden landmines that threaten sacred freedoms of expression and religion.

This quandary is brought about by a facile and concerted use of language that has been twisted by people with a radical agenda for America, so that certain words are emotionally loaded and convey a completely different meaning than their normal use. The word “hate,” for example, has been twisted to mean “disagreement,” so that if you express your disagreement with homosexual behavior, you are accused of being “hateful” and engaging in “hate” speech, or even a “hate crime.”

The intended effect is to silence reasonable and good people, and to quash any intelligent substantive debate on the normalization of homosexual or other “sexual orientations.” (Recall the excoriation of Miss California by Perez Hilton after she politely expressed her disagreement with same-sex marriage.)

It is important to underscore this point because silencing dissent and ad hominine arguments are standard tactics practiced in the name of stopping so-called “hate.” However, silencing dissent — antithetical to the First Amendment and true civil libertarians — is only a first step; the next move is criminally proscribing disagreement with the real threat of jail. This is precisely the intent of the Hate Crimes Bill, which the Senate will now consider.

HR 1913 is inimical to America’s core foundational principles of freedom of expression, religion, thought, ideas, and yes, dissent. Our Founders were extraordinarily careful to balance these freedoms with the responsibility to honor and preserve life and liberty, and to respect the dignity of all individuals. Our Founders believed that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The hate crimes bill eviscerates these founding principles.

First, HR 1913 will stifle religious speech and “politically incorrect” ideas by providing a legal basis for finding religious leaders guilty of hate crimes. How would this happen? HR 1913 makes it a federal crime to willfully cause “bodily injury” because of “the actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity” of another. Incredibly, the statute fails to define “bodily injury. When a statute fails to define a term, a judge must discern its meaning by looking to other statutes. Several federal criminal laws define “bodily injury” as including emotional distress. So, if a pastor expresses the biblical viewpoint that homosexual (or other) behaviors are immoral, a homosexual can allege that he has been emotionally injured by the willful conduct of the pastor. That is a hate crime under HR 1913!

Second, religious leaders could be found guilty for the violent acts committed by people who hear them speak. Federal law provides that whoever induces someone to commit a federal crime shall be punished as if he actually committed the crime himself (18 U.S.C. § 2). If a pastor addresses the topic of sexual orientation and an unstable person hears his sermon and is thereby “induced” to murder a homosexual (which would be a federal hate crime), then the pastor could be found guilty of murder.

Third, the bill provides special legal protections to people who engage in behaviors that ought to shock our collective moral conscience. The bill fails to define the term “sexual orientation” and a judge could interpret this term to include behaviors such as pedophilia, voyeurism, exhibitionism, bestiality, necrophilia, polyamory and a host of other sexual behaviors. When U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, also a former appellate judge, offered an amendment to prevent pedophiles from being included in this class of protected people, it was defeated on straight party lines.

This provides the legal basis for absurd results. You could be found guilty of a hate crime if you physically stopped a pedophile from assaulting a child because the pedophile is within the special protected class and you “caused bodily injury” “because of” his “sexual orientation.”

An activist judge could thus interpret the law based on his own sexual orientation or agenda. For those thinking such an interpretation is far-fetched, remember that no one in 1970 would have believed that the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), originally written to target organized crime, would be used by pro-abortion advocates to target pro-life organizations.

Yet, in 1986, the National Organization For Women (NOW) used RICO to sue pro-life groups, and the federal courts allowed this bizarre interpretation, finding in favor of NOW. It took nearly 20 years of expensive litigation before the Supreme Court overruled the lower courts.

Who should oppose hate crimes? All Americans who believe in equal justice under the law, who believe in freedom of expression, religion, thought and dissent, and who believe in the dignity and worth of all individuals. If you are a true civil libertarian, then you owe it to yourself, your children and your country to contact your senator ASAP and oppose this insidious bill.

David Wiedis is an attorney and COO of The Providence Forum, the West Conshohocken-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit scholarly and educational organization that preserves, defends, and advances the faith and values of our nation’s founding. The Providence Forum celebrates its 10th anniversary this year: www.ProvidenceForum.org