Connect with us

homepage news

Nadler ‘concerned,’ wants to narrow ENDA’s religious exemption

N.Y. lawmaker unsure he’d vote for bill as LGBT groups withdraw support

Published

on

Jerrold Nadler, New York, United States House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, Democratic Party, gay news, Washington Blade
Jerrold Nadler, New York, United States House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, Democratic Party, gay news, Washington Blade

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is unsure how he’d vote on ENDA because of the religious exemption (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key).

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is concerned about the religious exemption in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, indicating that he’s unsure whether he’d vote for the bill if it reached the House floor.

Nadler articulated his objections Tuesday in a statement to the Washington Blade as concerns over ENDA’s religious exemption continue to grow. On the same day, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Action Fund announced it now opposes the current version of the legislation before Congress, followed by other national groups who announced they were withdrawing support from the bill.

In his statement, Nadler said the religious exemption is “overbroad” and pledged to work to amend the language within the legislation.

“I am very concerned about the religious exemption in the ENDA bill that passed the Senate,” Nadler said. “I think it is overbroad and I will of course work hard with my colleagues to narrow it appropriately.”

Nadler, who’s the first member of the U.S. House to voice objections to ENDA’s religious exemption, based his concerns on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case, which determined the Obama administration cannot compel closely held corporations to provide contraception coverage to employees.

“Particularly in light of the recent Hobby Lobby decision, we must be more careful than ever to ensure that religious liberty, a cherished American value intended to shield individuals from government interference, is not wielded as a sword against employees who may not share their employers’ religious beliefs,” Nadler said.

Even though Nadler is among the growing bipartisan number of co-sponsors of ENDA, his spokesperson, Aaron Keyak, said he can’t affirm at this time whether his boss would vote for the bill on the House floor.

“I can’t say today how Rep. Nadler will vote because we don’t know what exactly the final bill will say once it’s through committee,” Keyak said.

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, praised Nadler for joining the organization and other LGBT groups in articulating opposition to the religious exemption.

“We are grateful to Mr. Nadler for speaking out about this critical issue and for his commitment to narrow the exemption,” Minter said. “Every day, it is more apparent that the current exemption is dangerous, discriminatory and has no place in a civil rights bill.”

Nadler has a history being the face for an uncompromised version of ENDA that would provide extensive protections for the LGBT community. In 2007, Nadler was among the around two-dozen Democrats to vote “no” on a version of ENDA that came to the House floor without transgender protections.

Also at the time, the New York lawmaker was among 402 members of the U.S. House to vote for a more expansive religious exemption when it came to the House floor as an amendment to the version of ENDA. However, the language wasn’t quite as expansive as what’s found in the pending version of ENDA, which further insulates religious organizations.

Some other Democrats still in Congress who voted against ENDA in 2007 don’t share the same view as Nadler this time around.

One of them is Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine), who voted against ENDA at the time at the behest of Equality Maine because the legislation lacked transgender protections. He’s currently running in Maine’s 2014 gubernatorial election and may become the first openly gay person elected governor in the United States.

Dan Rafter, a Michaud spokesperson, said on Tuesday the Maine lawmaker, who still retains his seat in the U.S. House, “continues to support ENDA.”

Passage of ENDA, which would prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, has been a high priority among LGBT advocates for many years. However, the bill’s religious exemption — which is broader than the religious exemption under Title VII for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for characteristics such as race, gender, religion and national origin — has faced criticism from LGBT advocates who say it should be narrowed.

Even if ENDA were to become law, businesses with religious affiliations, such as Catholic churches and schools, would be able to fire not just a priest, but a janitor on the basis of anti-LGBT bias.

Numerous national LGBT groups — GetEQUAL, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Transgender Law Center — have said they won’t support ENDA because of its religious exemption, while other groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal have voiced objections to the language. State LGBT groups have split views on ENDA — although four of them — FreedomOhio, Equality New Mexico, the Transgender Education Network of Texas and Wyoming Equality — say they don’t back the current version of ENDA.

Other groups, such as the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Work, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and Log Cabin Republicans, continue to support ENDA and have been lobbying in conjunction with the $2.2 million effort headed by the Americans for Workplace Opportunity campaign to pass the bill.

Rea Carey, executive director of the Task Force, which had previously supported the version of ENDA pending before Congress, switched views on Tuesday and announced opposition to the current legislation, saying the Hobby Lobby decision compels the organization to reconsider its views.

“As one of the lead advocates on this bill for 20 years, we do not take this move lightly but we do take it unequivocally – we now oppose this version of ENDA because of its too-broad religious exemption,” Carey said. “We cannot be complicit in writing such exemptions into federal law.”

The Task Force’s new vow to “oppose” ENDA places the organization in a position that is furthest against the legislation among LGBT groups, which have only gone so far as to say they no longer support ENDA. That view also aligns the organization’s position with its views on ENDA in 2007, when the group wouldn’t support the bill because the transgender protections were dropped.

Following this announcement, other groups who previously articulated concerns about ENDA’s religious exemption — the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders — joined NCLR and the Transgender Law Center in a joint statement to declare they’re withdrawing support from the bill.

“Given the types of workplace discrimination we see increasingly against LGBT people, together with the calls for greater permission to discriminate on religious grounds that followed immediately upon the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has become clear that the inclusion of this provision is no longer tenable,” the statement says. “It would prevent ENDA from providing protections that LGBT people desperately need and would make very bad law with potential further negative effects.  Therefore, we are announcing our withdrawal of support for the current version of ENDA.”

In response to concerns from Nadler and others on whether the nation’s largest LGBT group will continue to support ENDA, Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said his organization continues to back the bill.

“HRC supports ENDA because it will provide essential workplace protections to millions of LGBT people,” Sainz said.

Groups that maintain support for ENDA continue their work in the U.S. House to lobby for additional support for the bill. The legislation passed last year in the Senate by a 64-32 vote, so the only thing keeping ENDA from President Obama’s desk is a successful vote in House.

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, maintained her organization is working to advance LGBT protections when asked if objections to the religious exemption have interfered with lobbying efforts.

“We’re focused on trying to move the Senate bill through the House,” Keisling said. “Like a majority of members of Congress, and frankly a majority of Americans, we support protecting the millions of LGBT people across the country who need explicit, clear remedies against job discrimination.”

From July 14 to July 15, NCTE is set to organize a transgender lobby day on Capitol Hill to encourage passage of ENDA. A website promoting the event says as of Tuesday it’s a joint project of NCTE, the Trans People of Color Coalition, Trans [email protected] Coalition, PFLAG National, Black Transmen, Inc., Black Transwomen, Inc. and — even though it now opposes ENDA — the Task Force.

Christian Berle, legislative director for Freedom to Work, said the controversy hasn’t reached the undecided Democrats or Republicans who have yet to co-sponsor the bill.

“In all of our lobby visits with the eight Democratic holdouts and every single House Republican office, no member of Congress or staffer has ever raised the ENDA critiques that some advocates have been publishing on blogs recently,” Berle said.

Although supporters of ENDA claim sufficient support for the legislation exists in the House for passage, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he opposes the legislation when asked if he’ll allow a vote on the bill.

Gregory Angelo, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, said prior to the Task Force announcement he was unaware that certain groups have decided to withdraw support from ENDA, maintaining the religious exemption has enabled Republican support for the bill.

“No one I’ve spoken with has expressed misgivings about the religious exemption — to the contrary, the religious exemption has been key to gaining Republican co-sponsorship of the bill,” Angelo said. “All of Log Cabin Republicans’ lobbying on ENDA has been with GOP members, but I am unaware of any Democratic co-sponsors who have withdrawn their names in protest. Politics is about the possible, and right now what’s possible is passing ENDA with its present exemption.”

The current version of ENDA has eight Republican co-sponsors in the U.S. House: Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.); Richard Hanna (N.Y.); Charles Dent (Pa.); Jon Runyan (N.J.); Chris Gibson (N.Y.); Michael Grimm (N.Y.)., Mike Coffman (Colo.) and Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.).

Continue Reading
Advertisement
4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. El Dorado

    July 8, 2014 at 10:09 pm

    First all you bitches oppose ENDA for the Transgender exclusion of the bill now it’s because of the religious exemptions. It seems our own community is more a hindrance to passing this bill than our own enemies!

    This all our nothing thinking has kept us from achieving our goals for decades. What is the extent of the religious exemption? Does it mean that Liberty University, Concerned Women for America or The Family Research Council don’t have to hire us because they are specifically religious organizations or does it mean any secular business claiming faith can discriminate against us? If it’s simply religious organizations, who cares if we can work in all secular businesses? Why would you want to work for people who hate you?

    But if it’s anyone than claims faith as an excuse to discriminate in any business then yes, it’s unacceptable.

    • El Dorado

      July 8, 2014 at 10:19 pm

      Everyone should support passage of ENDA while Obama is in office. We have no guarantee that a future President would support let alone sign the legislation into law assuming it can get through Congress in the first place regardless of a more narrow religious exemption.

      Why can’t everyone support the version passed by the Senate and then if you get approval in the House later mark up the bill to narrow the religious exemptions? You may lose the support you need to get it passed in both chambers only delaying the bill’s passage indefinitely.

      Face it, the chance to pass ENDA was when Pelosi was in charge of the House but her endless excuses blew it. Harry Reid wouldn’t act either. Now you have GLBT people trying to derail the bill yet again when it’s bogged down in the House by Boehner.

      You people are so ridiculously shortsighted with we get everything or we don’t want it mentality. You’re as bad as the religious conservatives sometimes.

      ENDA has been hosted up for over thirty years dammit and we’ve never been closer to passage. Why screw us up for possibly another generation? At this rate, I will have spent my entire working life and likely retire in another two decades without seeing ENDA become law.

  2. JCF

    July 9, 2014 at 4:20 am

    “Add the Four Words!”

    …meaning, add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to the EXISTING Civil Rights Act. That’s all we need: no less, and NO MORE! (no more exemptions)

  3. brians ions

    July 9, 2014 at 5:01 am

    A bad, unconstitutional ENDA law would be far worse for all Americans than none at all. Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion.
     
    Kudos to Jerry Nadler for making his concerns about the weakened ENDA known. That goes for the half dozen or so LGBT groups who have just announced their opposition to a mistaken, loophole-driven ENDA. However, Nadler and LGBT activists should refocus on NEW legislative LGBT protections, as we all should.
     
    It is time that we recognize that ENDA has been made obsolete by other forces. ENDA’s obsolescence is due to changes in most Americans’ view of their fellow LGBT citizens. And that has happened rapidly, surprisingly across political, religious and geographic divides of many decades.
     
    The despicable Hobby Lobby decision by SCOTUS is a factor, as well– though an outlier I think, to the embracing of traditional American fairness for LGBTs and their basic rights.
     
    Accordingly, we are now asking far too little to affirm and secure the nondiscrimination rights of LGBT Americans that other American minorities and women have enjoyed for as much as FIFTY years under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
     
    Now is the time to scrap ENDA legislation altogether, and to replace it with full, specific addition of LGBTs as a protected class to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
     
    Title VII inclusion would be stronger and more effective in securing LGBT employment nondiscrimination rights than the current ENDA version, while providing other important nondiscrimination protections for LGBTs as well.
     
    A federal contractor ENDA EO is still as needed as it ever was– and without ANY religious exemptions. The president should fulfill his multiple promises on that federal contractor ENDA EO promptly. Yesterday wouldn’t be too soon for him to do that.
     
    But let’s scrap ENDA– the sooner, the better. Let’s not make an historic mistake of enormous proportions. Title VII is the best legislative path forward to secure LGBT protections under federal law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

homepage news

Equality Act, contorted as a danger by anti-LGBTQ forces, is all but dead

No political willpower to force vote or reach a compromise

Published

on

Despite having President Biden in the White House and Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, efforts to update federal civil rights laws to strengthen the prohibition on discrimination against LGBTQ people by passing the Equality Act are all but dead as opponents of the measure have contorted it beyond recognition.

Political willpower is lacking to find a compromise that would be acceptable to enough Republican senators to end a filibuster on the bill — a tall order in any event — nor is there the willpower to force a vote on the Equality Act as opponents stoke fears about transgender kids in sports and not even unanimity in the Democratic caucus in favor of the bill is present, stakeholders who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity said.

In fact, there are no imminent plans to hold a vote on the legislation even though Pride month is days away, which would be an opportune time for Congress to demonstrate solidarity with the LGBTQ community by holding a vote on the legislation.

If the Equality Act were to come up for a Senate vote in the next month, it would not have the support to pass. Continued assurances that bipartisan talks are continuing on the legislation have yielded no evidence of additional support, let alone the 10 Republicans needed to end a filibuster.

“I haven’t really heard an update either way, which is usually not good,” one Democratic insider said. “My understanding is that our side was entrenched in a no-compromise mindset and with [Sen. Joe] Manchin saying he didn’t like the bill, it doomed it this Congress. And the bullying of hundreds of trans athletes derailed our message and our arguments of why it was broadly needed.”

The only thing keeping the final nail from being hammered into the Equality Act’s coffin is the unwillingness of its supporters to admit defeat. Other stakeholders who spoke to the Blade continued to assert bipartisan talks are ongoing, strongly pushing back on any conclusion the legislation is dead.

Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the Equality Act is “alive and well,” citing widespread public support he said includes “the majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents and a growing number of communities across the country engaging and mobilizing every day in support of the legislation.”

“They understand the urgent need to pass this bill and stand up for LGBTQ people across our country,” David added. “As we engage with elected officials, we have confidence that Congress will listen to the voices of their constituents and continue fighting for the Equality Act through the lengthy legislative process.  We will also continue our unprecedented campaign to grow the already-high public support for a popular bill that will save lives and make our country fairer and more equal for all. We will not stop until the Equality Act is passed.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), chief sponsor of the Equality Act in the Senate, also signaled through a spokesperson work continues on the legislation, refusing to give up on expectations the legislation would soon become law.

“Sen. Merkley and his staff are in active discussions with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to get this done,” McLennan said. “We definitely see it as a key priority that we expect to become law.”

A spokesperson Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had promised to force a vote on the Equality Act in the Senate on the day the U.S. House approved it earlier this year, pointed to a March 25 “Dear Colleague” letter in which he identified the Equality Act as one of several bills he’d bring up for a vote.

Despite any assurances, the hold up on the bill is apparent. Although the U.S. House approved the legislation earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn’t even reported out the bill yet to the floor in the aftermath of the first-ever Senate hearing on the bill in March. A Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic aide, however, disputed that inaction as evidence the Equality Act is dead in its tracks: “Bipartisan efforts on a path forward are ongoing.”

Democrats are quick to blame Republicans for inaction on the Equality Act, but with Manchin withholding his support for the legislation they can’t even count on the entirety of their caucus to vote “yes” if it came to the floor. Progressives continue to advocate an end to the filibuster to advance legislation Biden has promised as part of his agenda, but even if they were to overcome headwinds and dismantle the institution needing 60 votes to advance legislation, the Equality Act would likely not have majority support to win approval in the Senate with a 50-50 party split.

The office of Manchin, who has previously said he couldn’t support the Equality Act over concerns about public schools having to implement the transgender protections applying to sports and bathrooms, hasn’t responded to multiple requests this year from the Blade on the legislation and didn’t respond to a request to comment for this article.

Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who declined to co-sponsor the Equality Act this year after having signed onto the legislation in the previous Congress, insisted through a spokesperson talks are still happening across the aisle despite the appearances the legislation is dead.

“There continues to be bipartisan support for passing a law that protects the civil rights of Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Annie Clark, a Collins spokesperson. “The Equality Act was a starting point for negotiations, and in its current form, it cannot pass. That’s why there are ongoing discussions among senators and stakeholders about a path forward.”

Let’s face it: Anti-LGBTQ forces have railroaded the debate by making the Equality Act about an end to women’s sports by allowing transgender athletes and danger to women in sex-segregated places like bathrooms and prisons. That doesn’t even get into resolving the issue on drawing the line between civil rights for LGBTQ people and religious freedom, which continues to be litigated in the courts as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day now to issue a ruling in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to determine if foster care agencies can reject same-sex couples over religious objections.

For transgender Americans, who continue to report discrimination and violence at high rates, the absence of the Equality Act may be most keenly felt.

Mara Keisling, outgoing executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, disputed any notion the Equality Act is dead and insisted the legislation is “very much alive.”

“We remain optimistic despite misinformation from the opposition,” Keisling said. “NCTE and our movement partners are still working fruitfully on the Equality Act with senators. In fact, we are gaining momentum with all the field organizing we’re doing, like phone banking constituents to call their senators. Legislating takes time. Nothing ever gets through Congress quickly. We expect to see a vote during this Congress, and we are hopeful we can win.”

But one Democratic source said calls to members of Congress against the Equality Act, apparently coordinated by groups like the Heritage Foundation, have has outnumbered calls in favor of it by a substantial margin, with a particular emphasis on Manchin.

No stories are present in the media about same-sex couples being kicked out of a restaurant for holding hands or transgender people for using the restroom consistent with their gender identity, which would be perfectly legal in 25 states thanks to the patchwork of civil rights laws throughout the United States and inadequate protections under federal law.

Tyler Deaton, senior adviser for the American Unity Fund, which has bolstered the Republican-led Fairness for All Act as an alternative to the Equality Act, said he continues to believe the votes are present for a compromise form of the bill.

“I know for a fact there is a supermajority level of support in the Senate for a version of the Equality Act that is fully protective of both LGBTQ civil rights and religious freedom,” Deaton said. “There is interest on both sides of the aisle in getting something done this Congress.”

Deaton, however, didn’t respond to a follow-up inquiry on what evidence exists of agreeing on this compromise.

Biden has already missed the goal he campaigned on in the 2020 election to sign the Equality Act into law within his first 100 days in office. Although Biden renewed his call to pass the legislation in his speech to Congress last month, as things stand now that appears to be a goal he won’t realize for the remainder of this Congress.

Nor has the Biden administration made the Equality Act an issue for top officials within the administration as it pushes for an infrastructure package as a top priority. One Democratic insider said Louisa Terrell, legislative affairs director for the White House, delegated work on the Equality Act to a deputy as opposed to handling it herself.

To be sure, Biden has demonstrated support for the LGBTQ community through executive action at an unprecedented rate, signing an executive order on day one ordering federal agencies to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Bostock v. Clayton County to the fullest extent possible and dismantling former President Trump’s transgender military ban. Biden also made historic LGBTQ appointments with the confirmation of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rachel Levine as assistant secretary of health.

A White House spokesperson insisted Biden’s team across the board remains committed to the Equality Act, pointing to his remarks to Congress.

“President Biden has urged Congress to get the Equality Act to his desk so he can sign it into law and provide long overdue civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ Americans, and he remains committed to seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible,” the spokesperson said. “The White House and its entire legislative team remains in ongoing and close coordination with organizations, leaders, members of Congress, including the Equality Caucus, and staff to ensure we are working across the aisle to push the Equality Act forward.”

But at least in the near-term, that progress will fall short of fulfilling the promise of updating federal civil rights law with the Equality Act, which will mean LGBTQ people won’t be able to rely on those protections when faced with discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. bill to ban LGBTQ panic defense delayed by Capitol security

Delivery of bill to Congress was held up due to protocols related to Jan. 6 riots

Published

on

New fencing around the Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented some D.C. bills from being delivered to the Hill for a required congressional review. (Blade file photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A bill approved unanimously last December by the D.C. Council to ban the so-called LGBTQ panic defense has been delayed from taking effect as a city law because the fence installed around the U.S. Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented the law from being delivered to Congress.

According to Eric Salmi, communications director for D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who guided the bill through the Council’s legislative process, all bills approved by the Council and signed by the D.C. mayor must be hand-delivered to Congress for a required congressional review.

“What happened was when the Capitol fence went up after the January insurrection, it created an issue where we physically could not deliver laws to Congress per the congressional review period,” Salmi told the Washington Blade.

Among the bills that could not immediately be delivered to Congress was the Bella Evangelista and Tony Hunter Panic Defense Prohibition and Hate Crimes Response Amendment Act of 2020, which was approved by the Council on a second and final vote on Dec. 15.

Between the time the bill was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and published in the D.C. Register under procedural requirements for all bills, it was not ready to be transmitted to Congress until Feb. 16, the Council’s legislative record for the bill shows.

Salmi said the impasse in delivering the bill to Congress due to the security fence prevented the bill from reaching Congress on that date and prevented the mandatory 60-day congressional review period for this bill from beginning at that time. He noted that most bills require a 30 legislative day review by Congress.

But the Evangelista-Hunter bill, named after a transgender woman and a gay man who died in violent attacks by perpetrators who attempted to use the trans and gay panic defense, includes a law enforcement related provision that under the city’s Home Rule Charter passed by Congress in the early 1970s requires a 60-day congressional review.

“There is a chance it goes into effect any day now, just given the timeline is close to being up,” Salmi said on Tuesday. “I don’t know the exact date it was delivered, but I do know the countdown is on,” said Salmi, who added, “I would expect any day now it should go into effect and there’s nothing stopping it other than an insurrection in January.”

If the delivery to Congress had not been delayed, the D.C. Council’s legislative office estimated the congressional review would have been completed by May 12.

A congressional source who spoke on condition of being identified only as a senior Democratic aide, said the holdup of D.C. bills because of the Capitol fence has been corrected.

“The House found an immediate workaround, when this issue first arose after the Jan. 6 insurrection,” the aide said.

“This is yet another reason why D.C. Council bills should not be subject to a congressional review period and why we need to grant D.C. statehood,” the aide said.

The aide added that while no disapproval resolution had been introduced in Congress to overturn the D.C. Evangelista-Hunter bill, House Democrats would have defeated such a resolution.

“House Democrats support D.C. home rule, statehood, and LGBTQ rights,” said the aide.

LGBTQ rights advocates have argued that a ban on using a gay or transgender panic defense in criminal trials is needed to prevent defense attorneys from inappropriately asking juries to find that a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression is to blame for a defendant’s criminal act, including murder.

Some attorneys have argued that their clients “panicked” after discovering the person against whom they committed a violent crime was gay or transgender, prompting them to act in a way they believed to be a form of self-defense.

In addition to its provision banning the LGBTQ panic defense, the Evangelista-Hunter bill includes a separate provision that strengthens the city’s existing hate crimes law by clarifying that hatred need not be the sole motivating factor for an underlying crime such as assault, murder, or threats to be prosecuted as a hate crime.

LGBTQ supportive prosecutors have said the clarification was needed because it is often difficult to prove to a jury that hatred is the only motive behind a violent crime. The prosecutors noted that juries have found defendants not guilty of committing a hate crime on grounds that they believed other motives were involved in a particular crime after defense lawyers argued that the law required “hate” to be the only motive in order to find someone guilty of a hate crime.

Salmi noted that while the hate crime clarification and panic defense prohibition provisions of the Evangelista-Hunter bill will become law as soon as the congressional review is completed, yet another provision in the bill will not become law after the congressional review because there are insufficient funds in the D.C. budget to cover the costs of implementing the provision.

The provision gives the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the Office of the D.C. Attorney General authority to investigate hate related discrimination at places of public accommodation. Salmi said the provision expands protections against discrimination to include web-based retailers or online delivery services that are not physically located in D.C.

“That is subject to appropriations,” Salmi said. “And until it is funded in the upcoming budget it cannot be legally enforced.”

He said that at Council member Allen’s request, the Council added language to the bill that ensures that all other provisions of the legislation that do not require additional funding – including the ban on use of the LGBTQ panic defense and the provision clarifying that hatred doesn’t have to be the sole motive for a hate crime – will take effect as soon as the congressional approval process is completed.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. man charged with 2020 anti-gay death threat rearrested

Defendant implicated in three anti-LGBTQ incidents since 2011

Published

on

shooting, DC Eagle, assault, hate crime, anti-gay attack, police discrimination, sex police, Sisson, gay news, Washington Blade

A D.C. man arrested in August 2020 for allegedly threatening to kill a gay man outside the victim’s apartment in the city’s Adams Morgan neighborhood and who was released while awaiting trial was arrested again two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill another man in an unrelated incident.

D.C. Superior Court records show that Jalal Malki, who was 37 at the time of his 2020 arrest on a charge of bias-related attempts to do bodily harm against the gay man, was charged on May 4, 2021 with unlawful entry, simple assault, threats to kidnap and injure a person, and attempted possession of a prohibited weapon against the owner of a vacant house at 4412 Georgia Ave., N.W.

Court charging documents state that Malki was allegedly staying at the house without permission as a squatter. An arrest affidavit filed in court by D.C. police says Malki allegedly threatened to kill the man who owns the house shortly after the man arrived at the house while Malki was inside.

According to the affidavit, Malki walked up to the owner of the house while the owner was sitting in his car after having called police and told him, “If you come back here, I’m going to kill you.” While making that threat Malki displayed what appeared to be a gun in his waistband, but which was later found to be a toy gun, the affidavit says.

Malki then walked back inside the house minutes before police arrived and arrested him. Court records show that similar to the court proceedings following his 2020 arrest for threatening the gay man, a judge in the latest case ordered Malki released while awaiting trial. In both cases, the judge ordered him to stay away from the two men he allegedly threatened to kill.

An arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in the 2020 case states that Malki allegedly made the threats inside an apartment building where the victim lived on the 2300 block of Champlain Street, N.W. It says Malki was living in a nearby building but often visited the building where the victim lived.

“Victim 1 continued to state during an interview that it was not the first time that Defendant 1 had made threats to him, but this time Defendant 1 stated that if he caught him outside, he would ‘fucking kill him.’” the affidavit says. It quotes the victim as saying during this time Malki repeatedly called the victim a “fucking faggot.”

The affidavit, prepared by the arresting officers, says that after the officers arrested Malki and were leading him to a police transport vehicle to be booked for the arrest, he expressed an “excited utterance” that he was “in disbelief that officers sided with the ‘fucking faggot.’”

Court records show that Malki is scheduled to appear in court on June 4 for a status hearing for both the 2020 arrest and the arrest two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill the owner of the house in which police say he was illegally squatting.

Superior Court records show that Malki had been arrested three times between 2011 and 2015 in cases unrelated to the 2021 and 2020 cases for allegedly also making threats of violence against people. Two of the cases appear to be LGBTQ related, but prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not list the cases as hate crimes.

In the first of the three cases, filed in July 2011, Malki allegedly shoved a man inside Dupont Circle and threatened to kill him after asking the man why he was wearing a purple shirt.

“Victim 1 believes the assault occurred because Suspect 1 believes Victim 1 is a homosexual,” the police arrest affidavit says.

Court records show prosecutors charged Malki with simple assault and threats to do bodily harm in the case. But the court records show that on Sept. 13, 2011, D.C. Superior Court Judge Stephen F. Eilperin found Malki not guilty on both charges following a non-jury trial.

The online court records do not state why the judge rendered a not guilty verdict. With the courthouse currently closed to the public and the press due to COVID-related restrictions, the Washington Blade couldn’t immediately obtain the records to determine the judge’s reason for the verdict.

In the second case, court records show Malki was arrested by D.C. police outside the Townhouse Tavern bar and restaurant at 1637 R St., N.W. on Nov. 7, 2012 for allegedly threatening one or more people with a knife after employees ordered Malki to leave the establishment for “disorderly behavior.”

At the time, the Townhouse Tavern was located next door to the gay nightclub Cobalt, which before going out of business two years ago, was located at the corner of 17th and R Streets, N.W.

The police arrest affidavit in the case says Malki allegedly pointed a knife in a threatening way at two of the tavern’s employees who blocked his path when he attempted to re-enter the tavern. The affidavit says he was initially charged by D.C. police with assault with a dangerous weapon – knife. Court records, however, show that prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office lowered the charges to two counts of simple assault. The records show that on Jan. 15, 2013, Malki pleaded guilty to the two charges as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

The records show that Judge Marissa Demeo on that same day issued a sentence of 30 days for each of the two charges but suspended all 30 days for both counts. She then sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for both charges and ordered that he undergo alcohol and drug testing and undergo treatment if appropriate.

In the third case prior to the 2020 and 2021 cases, court records show Malki was arrested outside the Cobalt gay nightclub on March 14, 2015 on multiple counts of simple assault, attempted assault with a dangerous weapon – knife, possession of a prohibited weapon – knife, and unlawful entry.

The arrest affidavit says an altercation started on the sidewalk outside the bar when for unknown reasons, Malki grabbed a female customer who was outside smoking and attempted to pull her toward him. When her female friend came to her aid, Malki allegedly got “aggressive” by threatening the woman and “removed what appeared to be a knife from an unknown location” and pointed it at the woman’s friend in a threatening way, the affidavit says.

It says a Cobalt employee minutes later ordered Malki to leave the area and he appeared to do so. But others noticed that he walked toward another entrance door to Cobalt and attempted to enter the establishment knowing he had been ordered not to return because of previous problems with his behavior, the affidavit says. When he attempted to push away another employee to force his way into Cobalt, Malki fell to the ground during a scuffle and other employees held him on the ground while someone else called D.C. police.

Court records show that similar to all of Malki’s arrests, a judge released him while awaiting trial and ordered him to stay away from Cobalt and all of those he was charged with threatening and assaulting.

The records show that on Sept. 18, 2015, Malki agreed to a plea bargain offer by prosecutors in which all except two of the charges – attempted possession of a prohibited weapon and simple assault – were dropped. Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. on Oct. 2, 2015 sentenced Malki to 60 days of incarnation for each of the two charges but suspended all but five days, which he allowed Malki to serve on weekends, the court records show.

The judge ordered that the two five-day jail terms could be served concurrently, meaning just five days total would be served, according to court records. The records also show that Judge Irving sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for each of the two counts and ordered that he enter an alcohol treatment program and stay away from Cobalt.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular