(The Center Square) – A Washington House committee voted to advance a bill that would broaden the definition of a hate crime in the state, and remarks by a ranking committee members indicate it could include non-violent acts or speech.
House Bill 1052 sponsored by Rep. Cindy Ryu, D-Shoreline, would expand what constitutes a hate crime to include incidents where the perpetrator did so “in part or the whole” due to a person’s perceived identity.
Although existing laws concerns acts of violence or destruction of property, Darya Farivar, D-Seattle, recounted a story prior to the committee’s Thursday vote where she witnessed a transit rider berate a fellow rider for wearing hijab, saying the rider was “yelling and kicking and saying to this woman, ‘I’m a Christian, you b—h!’”
“The interaction very clearly to me indicated that this would be a hate crime, and it was not because of how strict our laws are around this,” she told colleagues. “It was devastating that this not only was something that we could prosecute as a hate crime, but also that the data would not be reported as a hate crime, which it felt so clearly it was.”
However, some lawmakers to vote against the bill such as Rep. Dan Griffey, R-Allyn, argued that the bill is selective about what constitutes a “hate crime.” For example, those testifying in favor of the legislation were uncertain whether or not trespassing onto someone’s property and burning the property owner’s American flag would be prosecuted as a hate crime.
“The fact of the matter is, if we’re going to have a hate crime law, it needs to be color blind, it needs absolutely to have equal punishment and justice under the law,” he said. “I really seriously believe that the best thing to do is go through the trial process. If the elements are proved in the trial process, that we can enhance that sentence at the end. I honestly believe that is the real and proper way to do that, because then society has the chance to get after it.”
Also opposed was Ranking minority member Rep. Jenny Graham, R-Spokane, who said “the issue that I have with this bill is that it’s subjective. It’s based on a feeling, rather than this is how we define it, that needs definitely more work to it.”
She also said that the bus incident recounted by Farivar “is more on the lines of verbal assault, because if you also consider that … there’s been news stories about people that are white walking down the street and getting hit in the head with a bat; that’s severe, that is severe damage done to that person based on their skin color. There is a difference between saying something that somebody may not like versus a physical, really bad attack.”
The bill has not yet been referred to another committee.
