Hate crime bill in Senate

A bill introduced in the N.C. Senate on Thursday could expand the reach of hate crime statutes to include sexual orientation, but some say such a move would be a step in the wrong direction.

Sen. Jeanne Lucas, D-Durham, introduced a bill that would add age, gender, disability and sexual orientation to N.C. statutes on intimidation.

Such changes are essential for dealing with crimes based on sexual orientation, said Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, D-Orange.

“It’s very important for us to make sure that these crimes, which are over and above a simple assault, are dealt with in a way that sends a message that this conduct is not tolerated.”

Kinnaird, who co-sponsored the bill, added that expanded statutes could help to prevent incidents like the assault two weeks ago on UNC junior Thomas Stockwell, who told police that his attackers shouted derogatory remarks about his sexual orientation.

Since the attack, a petition supporting changes in the state’s statutes has been circulating on campus.

The petition has about 1,000 signatures so far. It backs the Senate bill but asks that gender identity and expression be included, said Win Chesson, co-chairman of the UNC Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender-Straight Alliance.

Gender identity is an individual’s internal sense of being a man or a woman, while gender expression is the behavioral expression of a person’s gender identity.

Ian Palmquist, executive director of programs at Equality NC, which is working with GLBTSA, said the bill is key to getting the word out. “These are people that are frequently targeted … and it’s important that the state send a message that it’s unacceptable.”

But adding sexual orientation to hate crime statutes isn’t high on the list of priorities for legislators such as Rep. Russell Capps, R-Wake.

Capps has not read the bill, but he said singling out a particular group is unnecessary because laws to protect people already exist.

“It’s a shame that (Lucas) doesn’t introduce anything but bills that try to push the homosexual agenda and I’m very sorry about that,” said Capps, who voted against a similar bill in the House in 1999.

John Rustin, director of government relations for the N.C. Family Policy Council, said sexual orientation does not meet the U.S. Supreme Court’s criteria for a protected class of citizens. “The underlying purpose of this legislation is … to gain legal legitimacy for alternative sexual behaviors, and we just don’t believe that’s in the best interest of the state.”

Others feel hate crime legislation is altogether unnecessary.

“I’m against anybody doing those sort of things to anybody,” said Rep. Jim Gulley, D-Mecklenburg. “I don’t see that a hate crime is any worse. I think that everybody ought to bear the brunt of what they do.”

Still, the atmosphere could be changing, said Rep. Dewey Hill, D-Columbus, who voted against the 1999 bill. He said if the bill were to make it to the House, he would have to give it a hard look.

Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, who introduced the 1999 bill along with Rep. Verla Insko, D-Orange,, said it’s too early to tell if the environment is right, but the Chapel Hill incident could be influential.

“The recent incident indicates that these are not just actions of the past,” he said. “In a sense, what’s happened in Chapel Hill reminds members that this is still a current problem.”

Contact the State & National Editor at stntdesk@unc.edu.