By Vincent Gioia
If you thought you had heard all the bad news coming from the Obama administration and a Democrat packed congress, you were wrong.
Two weeks ago, Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) quietly re-introduced the so-called hate crimes bill–H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. It is now expected that on Wednesday April 22, the full US House Judiciary Committee will vote on H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
Crimes already illegal will be considered “hate crimes” depending on the intent of the criminal. Therefore we must only hire psychologists as policemen or we have to assume all policemen are trained psychologists. Penalties for “hate crimes” will be greater than for the same crime not considered based on hate of the victim. Does this make any sense to a reasonable person? The criminal act is the same only the impossible assessment of the motivation is supposed to be different. It is one thing to deplore acts of violence against innocent victims or bias-motivated violent crimes directed at anyone including lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (gender confused) (LGBT) persons, it is another thing to try to get into the criminal’s mind to ascertain his motivation. The law should not provide extra legal protection for someone simply because of the way he/she engages in sex.
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 who the law deems capable of committing a crime motivated by hate of the victim. The problem is that innocent people like those just mentioned who believe in the Bible teachings will come under the rubric of committing a hate crime if they express their religious beliefs.
H.R. 1913 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.” During congressional committee markup in 2007, Representative Arthur Davis (D-AL) admitted that the legislation will not protect a pastor from prosecution. (So-Called hate crime bill threatens religious freedom)
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 number of categories deemed worthy of special treatment. Will Congress also protect other sexual orientations - such as pedophilia or polygamy?
Gender discrimination as a basis of a hate crime produces some interesting results. Gender identity includes such classes of people as cross-dressers, she-male, drag queens, transvestites and transsexuals. Under the Act, neither “sexual orientation” nor “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.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender activists (the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) have aggressively promoted the idea that any speech, including Bible oriented speech and anything in opposition to the gay agenda, will lead inevitability to violent “hate” crimes. This really enables them to demand restrictions of such speech 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.”
The ILGA have a broad definition of “hate crime: “Hate crimes are criminal acts (such as violent crime, hate speech or vandalism motivated by feelings of hostility against any identifiable group of people within a society.” The ILGA defines hate crime to include so-called hate speech and wants to limit the First Amendment freedom of expression to distinguish homosexuals and their cousins from criticism of any sort.
On the website “hatecrime.org,” LGBT activists claim that pro-family organizations are engaging in hate speech when they criticize homosexual conduct and his “hate speech” allegedly leads to hate crimes that must be suppressed.
The Hate Crime law, HR-1913, will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published 30 such 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 30 sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states or can result in death.
Among those sexual orientations are (Protecting 30 Bizarre “Sexual Orientations” And “Gender Identity” — Ever-Expanding Definitions):
Fronteurism — which involves a man approaching an unknown woman and rubbing up against her buttocks; this is already 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 H.R. 1913 – 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.
On the website “hatecrime.org,” LGBT activists claim that pro-family organizations are engaging in hate speech when they criticize homosexual conduct and his “hate speech” allegedly leads to hate crimes and must be suppressed. This site compares opposition to homosexuality as equal to Adolph Hitler’s slaughter of six million Jews in Europe before and during World War II.
This homosexual militant group has a lot of supporters and they flex their muscles all over the country.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Here are a series of articles on hate crime legislation that go into great detail about the dangers of these laws.
So-Called hate crime bill threatens religious freedom
Protecting 30 Bizarre “Sexual Orientations” And “Gender Identity” — Ever-Expanding Definitions
Religious Freedom Is Threatened By H.R. 1913
H.R. 1913 Will Inevitably Fund Anti-Christian Bigotry — And Attack Bible Speech
Misleading ‘Hate Crime’ Statistics
One tactic that is often used by homosexuals is to employ percentages in reporting on increases in hate crimes against LBGT persons instead of actual numbers or defining what those numbers mean. For example, a LBGT group could claim that hate crimes jumped 50% from one year to the next. This could only mean that there were 10 crimes last year and an additional 5 this year. The 50% figure sounds much worse than just honestly reporting that crime went from 10 to 15. (Misleading ‘Hate Crime’ Statistics)
LBGT claims that every 6 hours of every day, a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender person is “violently” attacked by a bigot. If this were true, there would be 1,460 such violent attacks each year, yet the group fails to define what “violent” is.
Here 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. 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).
From FBI collected data (same source as stated above) we can see there were only 242 crimes against a person’s sexual orientation that could be considered “violent.” And, twenty-seven 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 0.02827578411446785% of all aggravated assaults! This is not an epidemic of hate against LGBT individuals. So, in a nation of 300 million people, there were only 242 “violent” crimes against homosexuals, bisexuals or drag queens in 2007. This is no epidemic of hate and local law enforcement does not need intrusive federal intervention to deal with such a miniscule number of crimes.
No Epidemic Of Hate Crimes Exists. H.R. 1913 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, 2007, show that 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. It is clear from FBI statistics that there is no epidemic of hate against homosexuals that needs federal involvement in local law enforcement.
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 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.
Homosexual activists are well-known for having staged a number of fake hate crimes throughout the years.
For example, 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. If H.R. 1913 passes, we can expect a further flood of these phony hate crimes.
Homosexual groups will provide false or misleading information to reporters on the extent of this alleged epidemic of hate – and they’ll organize candle-light vigils, put on plays and use other street theater antics to push their agenda. What is this agenda? It’s getting LGBT conduct to be given minority status protection under federal law – and to use this legislation to persecute anyone who criticizes LGBT behaviors.
It is imperative that all people who know and understand the gravity of HR-1913 should call their Congressman and tell them to vote against this bill. If they don’t understand what the consequences of passing HR-1913 into law, send them a copy of this article or extract portions for a letter or fax to your representatives.
Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His articles may be read at www.vincentgioia.com and he may be contacted at email@example.com