Agudath Israel of America regrets that it cannot support the federal “hate crimes” legislation recently passed by the United States Senate.
Weeks ago, as the Senate began consideration of the bill, we urged members to adopt the House-passed version, which included several provisions that substantially safeguarded religious liberty and that allowed our organization, for the first time, to support a general hate crimes bill.
Regrettably and inexplicably, the Senate chose not to include all those provisions. As such, the Senate bill does not provide the reassurance that its intent is to grant the full measure of free speech and free exercise protections to Americans of faith.
Despite this setback, Agudath Israel will continue to work at the Conference Committee level to ensure that the House-passed version is adopted and brought to the floor.
(Statement from Rabbi Abba Cohen, Washington Director and Counsel, Agudath Israel of America.)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
6 Responses
Does anyone know what were the provisions that Aguda wanted and why were they taken out?
Anyone know what the ommitted provisions were?
I guess the Washington Post got it wrong, then.
Nothing new about major media like WPost getting things wrong.
This posting was brought to my attention and I read the thread with interest. The provision that was in the House bill (Section 8 ), but not in the Senate version, is the following:
“Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”
As you can see, this provision provides an important legal/legislative reassurance that religious speech rights that are protected by the Constitution — preaching that homosexuality is a sin, for example — are generally not being prohibited by this bill and cannot be used as a basis for a hate crimes prosecution. This is intended to address the concern that the speech of religious leaders, teachers, etc. opposing homosexuality will be “chilled” due to the fear of prosecution. We believe this is an important religious liberty protection that should be incorporated into the legislation.
If anyone would like to see a copy of our entire letter, please do not hesitate to email me at [email protected].
Abba Cohen
It is true that the hate crimes the legislation prohibits relates only to “bodily injury.” But federal law also criminalizes the conduct of an abettor, accessory, inciter, etc.. And that’s where “expression” comes into play.
The effect of this added provision is to give reassurance that constitutionally protected speech is not being prohibited by this Act and, therefore, a religious teacher cannot be prosecuted as an accessory. If, as you correctly point out,the teacher says “let’s go out and attack some gay people” — which is not constitutionally protected speech — and they do so, then the teacher may be deemed an accessory.
Of course, no statute can prohibit constitutionally protected speech, but the provision is important nonetheless. It provides (as I write above) “reassurance” as to intent of the sponsors and the future application of the law. (Who knows for sure how the courts will interpret the constitution, especially on a charged issue such as this?)Both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republican, are always looking for these kinds of reassurances and insist on these kinds of provisions. Because of that alone, the addition or deletion of such a provision assumes meaning.