By PAULA TRACY, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD – A proposed change to civil rights law was opposed as potentially weakening the state statute at a meeting Feb. 12 before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Steve Boczenowski told state Senators he is actively involved in the life of the Congregational Church of Amherst which has at its core an open and affirming belief that all are welcome there.
Recently, he said his church put up a beautiful new sign with a rainbow on it and the words “welcoming to all.”
But in this current political climate, he said he worries it will be defaced.
He said he knows that other churches or places of faith have experienced it and he said he feels the current law protects them somewhat but that Senate Bill 464 would “weaken” the existing civil rights law.
No one spoke in favor of SB 464 at the hearing except its sponsor, Senator Daryl Abbas, who said it improves the law as it relates to motivated conduct.
Abbas, of Salem, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on which he sits that the bill is making a minor change to the civil rights enforcement law which “would cover the original intent.”
The bill changes the standard for civil rights enforcement by requiring that prohibited conduct be “substantially motivated by hostility toward the victim’s protected characteristics.”
As the law is written today it just takes into consideration that the conduct in and of itself is motivated by a protected class but does not factor in whether there is any hostility toward the victim who is in a protected class, he said.
Chapter 354-B:1 reads “when such action or threatened conduct is motivated by race, color, religion, natural origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or disability.”
He gave an example of a sign on a wall with a hate message on it and someone was to take it down because they felt insulted by it.
“You make an argument that they violated the act,” as written they are violating the laws.
“It is putting the prosecutors and the Attorney General’s Office in a position to pick and choose what is appropriate,” Abbas said.
It would tighten up the law and avoid “selective prosecution” arguments.
Sean R. Locke, senior assistant attorney general, who directs the state’s Civil Rights Unit at the New Hampshire Department of Justice, also opposed the bill on behalf of his office.
He said it takes the state in “the wrong direction” because it would be reducing the protections afforded to the public to protect their civil rights from hate or bias-motivated violence, threats, property damage or trespass.
If anything, he said, the state should be looking to ways to expand and modernize the law.
He said in terms of looking at similar laws in about 28 other states not all have that animus or hostility requirement in their law such as words like “motivated by” and “because of” or “selected for.”
He said when using adverbs or adjectives in law like “substantial” it does create some ambiguity.
The most significant change which Locke said troubles the Department of Justice is what he calls the lack of “through line” between the unlawful act and the victim and their protected characteristics.
The bill “reduces the flexibility we have,” he said.
One thing the state could do to improve the law would be to include harassment in the list of protections, he said.
“We invite conversation about ways to improve it,” he said and told Abbas the department would be happy to work with him on finding common ground.
The bill is in committee before the Senate Judiciary Committee. For a link to the bill, click here:https://gc.nh.gov/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=1444&inflect=2