John Hilgeman  0:04  
This is John Hilgeman welcoming you to our first edition of Lambda Reports a program by and for the lesbian and gay community in the St. Louis area. Today we will be discussing the newly enacted St. Louis City bias crimes ordinance with Alderman Steven Roberts of the 20th Ward, who introduced and shepherded it through the Board of Aldermen. The ordinance was signed by Mayor Vincent Shoemel on February the 22nd 1989.

John Hilgeman  0:32  
Alderman Roberts what is the bias crimes ordinance and just what exactly does it all involve?

Steven Roberts  0:38  
Okay, the bias crime ordinance sort of tries to address I think, today's atmosphere of racial intolerance, religious intolerance, certain intolerance for for the lifestyles of individuals. The ordinance comes in two sections basically, the first section designates what institutional harassment, intimidation, and that basically goes to areas such as religious institutions, it could be churches, schools, synagogues, meeting places, or religious groups. The second section talks about crimes against the person because of their particular color, religion, or lifestyle. We have probably the best legislation in the country to date in terms of clearly identifying individuals who would qualify under this particular ordinance we we designate not only race, religion, ethnic background, but we go into gender, age, handicapped health related condition, as well as lifestyle. And that's as we termed as sexual orientation. That clearly allows the police department in the city of St. Louis and hopefully with other cities across the country, to then understand if someone has been harassed because of their particular race, their ethnic background, or because of their lifestyle. The ordinance calls for a penalty of $300 to $500. And up to 90 days in jail because it's a city ordinance, a municipal ordinance, we cannot imprison anyone for more than the 90 days, it takes at least a state ordinance a state law in order to put someone in jail up to a year or a year. From that point. Also, in terms of heavier fines, you also need to have a state or constitutional ordinance. What happens in our particular situation is that it will allow us to do two things. One is allow that police officer who's on the beat who is reporting an incident, let's say that it's one based upon lifestyle that that because of one's particular sexual orientation, a neighbor or group of neighbors are individuals who live in their in this person's area has decided to intimidate this person because of this sexual orientation. This will allow that police officer to check off if this is a biased crime, crime, so that not only could you prosecute an individual on assault or battery, a burglary or whatever felony, which may have been committed, but you can additionally go after them on this bias crime issue. What's important with that is a lot of times people complete bargain and get off of the more serious crime. But if once we get them arrested, we'll be able to, I think with this new law, actively prosecute them, but that will then do is give us the ability to start tracking where people are being harassed because of their particular lifestyle or the background. It's significant because no other city in this country at this point has a computer tracking system is the city of St. Louis now does to track these kinds of crimes that that may take place. What we're trying to do with the legislation very clearly John is to send a message out to those who want to harass people because their beliefs are different because their lifestyle is different. We want to say to them, we will prosecute you at the fullest extent of the law within our power if you want to interfere with this person's lifestyle.

John Hilgeman  4:40  
One of the things I'm wondering is, you know, how you came about introducing this legislation? And was it what are some particular incidents that occurred or, and also another question is, how sexual orientation got included?

Steven Roberts  4:55  
Well, it's interesting primarily because of the gay community. Let me answer the last question first, the gay community came to me approximately six months ago when I had expressed an interest in in in the media picked up pointed that I was looking to put this kind of ordinance together. Because of the increased incidence in the state of Missouri. The US Department of Justice Community Services Bureau decided that they would encourage local municipality states to start looking into this whole issue of bias crimes. We met for about the last nine months discussing what kinds of elements should go into a particular bias crime bill because I clearly wanted it to be the best possible at that time, the NEA, anti Defamation League, NAACP, Urban League, the police department, several community, other community groups were actively involved. And they were trying to put this kind of legislation, this bias crime legislation, but their whole interest was to go in the direction of religious, racial ethnic bias. Then several members of the gay community approached me and said, that they had data to they would reflect what people had been harassed because of their sexual orientation or because of their lifestyle. I then had a chance to review a lot of this data, I suggested to this group that had been meeting all along that it's important that we include that aspect, because that's a very important aspect of our community here. And I guess, in my view, of being a black American, that, that if I'm being harassed because of the color of my skin, and a friend of mine who might be Catholic or Jewish, is harassed because of their religion, or another friend of mine is harassed because of their particular lifestyle or sexual orientation that, to me, it's all the same, or if because of one's health condition, and I intentionally put that in related to this whole issue of AIDS. My wife's a medical doctor, and she is clearly seen how people who have this particular contagious disease, and it's really not that contagious. But in some people's mind, they say is contagious, that that they're treated differently than someone who might have strep throat, which is a very serious, a highly contagious disease or several other diseases. So I intentionally put that in. Because if, if people are going to be harassed, because of a handicap to health condition, age, their color, or their lifestyle, or the sexual orientation that we need to address that, because this community is one that's made up for diverse a diversity of backgrounds of individuals, and lifestyles, and I want it to be the kind of place that my children can can be proud of that they could feel comfortable in knowing that all people are treated. In fact, equally.

John Hilgeman  8:01  
I understand that the the Missouri ordinance, the Missouri law doesn't include sexual orientation. And so as a gay person, this is something that really, I was quite happy with this particular ordinance included this. Did you Did you run it any opposition to that phrase from? Well,

Steven Roberts  8:22  
well, actually, that that was a concern of mine. Because I broaden our definitions in terms of who will fall under the bias motivated crimes. My concern was that, that there would be individuals who would who would say that, well, you don't need gender in there, because that would talk about women who are, you know, who abused by their husband? And I said, Well, that's my intent. Others would say that health related conditions or handicaps really wouldn't be necessary because they're covered by other federal ordinances. Well, I don't believe that I wanted to come as close as I could to, is we call it to be basically on the brink of infringing upon someone's first constitutional rights, first amendment rights that will allow them to speak their mind. But I didn't want them to make that extra step to not only speak their mind, but to do an act once they do the act that we're going to get. So because of the the act of research in support at the hearing, and during the process of putting this legislation together, now the gay community and in a sense, opened my eyes to to really the serious incidents that have occurred in this community and other communities across the country. And I certainly saw that the state legislation state statute was short, that you know that they were probably concerned to bring it up because of probably outstate people who might not be as sensitive as weird larger cities are that it would be essential that this legislation would be gutted. If we didn't include all people who were being concerned. There was some questions raised to me not at the hearing, which I'm very, very happy with. But, you know, off to the side, people make little comments. And there were some comments made. And my position was, you know, this is a very good solid piece of legislation, we're gonna go through it. And there were a couple of people who wanted to make amendments, but I think that that they were probably afraid to, because then then they really show that they had horns and tails and stuff, and they wouldn't they weren't willing to do it. So I was fortunate that we were able to get it through with little with little modification, there was just a couple of very minor changes, and they were more typographical. But I expect, well, you know, I will, I will be very diligent in terms of looking for people who might come in and say that we, you know, you really need to change this law, even though it's law, and people don't always come in to try to amend it. But I think that's, you know, that's not only my responsibility, but I think has a responsibility to gay communities to be on the Vigilant black community related to the questions of racial discrimination, religious community, I mean, I think that everyone who has an interest in this legislation should should, you know, be on alert, because until we can get the atmosphere in this country where all people are treated equally, then we have to, we'll have to be very vigilant in terms of protecting our rights.

John Hilgeman  11:35  
I, in preparing for the program, I did talk with Kevin Barrow, at the National VA Task Force, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and he mentioned a number of studies. And I think the first real study was done in 1984, by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in a number of people that they pulled 42% of the people in the sample had been threatened and 93% had had some kind of verbal or some kind of threat. And just in a couple of other reports that they did in 1985, in 1987. The cases that were reported by local groups in 1985, there were 2042, and in 1987 7008. And then other studies have been done in Maine and Maryland and Wisconsin, and Illinois, and Alaska. And the Department of Justice issued a report early in 87. And they mentioned that people most frequently victimized were black people, Hispanics, Southeast Asians, and gay people in of those groups the most, the people most frequently victimized, or I guess the highest numbers were gay men and lesbians, and also the National Council of Churches came out with a with a report that year two. Another thing that I'm wondering about, and this may have to be our final question, we're running short of time, but what kind of implications are there for, like ordinances in St. Louis that might protect such things as jobs and housing and public accommodation rights for lesbians and gay men? I know in New York City a few years ago, they found that the highest number of cases that the Civil Rights Commission received of complaints are from lesbians and gay men. But the problem that they had was that since there was no gay rights ordinance at that time, they couldn't do anything but most of them. So do you see any possibility?

Steven Roberts  13:49  
No one is really approached me or I think any other members of the Board of Aldermen in the city about it? You know, I guess, the same question was asked about me related to the whole employment issue, and this ordinance, he said, Well, you know, EEOC, and the different equal employment laws, address the things you're talking about it now or they don't, because this goes beyond that it goes to harassment, for the most part in harassment because of their particular condition, or lifestyle, religious belief or whatever. I think that we need to review it. Clearly. There's some federal federal statutes in the area of employment and housing that can assist people in that area, particularly gay men and lesbians. If if based upon recommendations of the gay community in the city, that we need to propose that kind of legislation, and if it's appropriate, then I wouldn't have any problem with with pushing it through. I mean, clearly, it falls in line with this whole issue of bias related crimes.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai