KRJY Announcer 0:00 Portions of the broadcast day on KRJY St. Louis are pre-recorded. JOY 86 FM. Charles Koehler 0:13 I'm Charles Koehler, and this is Lambda Reports, a weekly program by and for the St. Louis area community. In May of this year, a bill was introduced in St. Louis County to address the issue of bias crimes or hate related crimes. With us to discuss this proposed St. Louis County ordinance is Third District County County Councilwoman Geri Rothman Sarat and Second District County Councilman Jerry Corcoran, good morning, and welcome to Lambda Reports. Jerry Corcoran 0:41 Morning. Geri Rothman-Sarat 0:43 Good morning. Nice to be here. KRJY Announcer 0:44 Great. Let's start off with you, Mr. Corcoran, if we could have an idea of what exactly the bill is and what all does it entail, Jerry Corcoran 0:53 Charles, that's one of the questions that's going to be resolved in a committee meeting next week, starting back at the beginning, the County Executive announced that he was going to introduce this bill that was in the newspaper on May 17. We received a communication from the County Executive on May the 30th, and subsequently a bill was introduced in my name. That's customary to further County Council Chairman have requested legislation the County Executive in his name. When the newspaper article hit on the 17th, we started getting some inquiries as to the content of the bill. And so when the bill was introduced, it was referred to an ad hoc committee for that purpose, of which Geri Rothman-Sarat is was appointed chairman, and we will go into it in more detail at that time. But basically what the bill would do, it would replace an existing chapter in the county ordinances, the Human Relations Petty Offenses code and and replace it with a Human Relations related with an Anti-bias code as the phrase that they're using in the proposed arguments. Charles Koehler 2:13 Great. Well, maybe we can have a better understanding of exactly what the bill attempts to do, Mrs. Rothman-Sarat. Geri Rothman-Sarat 2:21 okay, I will try and do that. It's a little complicated. And as Jerry was talking about, we are going to be having a hearing next week, which will allow the public to come and tell us their feelings about this bill, which is very, very important to anybody that's in elective office, because that is really how we understand what the needs are from the community. But this bill is I feel very important, because it makes a very definite distinction between a regular crime of vandalism and a crime that involves an act against a group of people. And the only way I can compare it to you, not the only way, but one of the ways that I can compare it for you is if somebody paints the side of your house as an act of vandalism without your okay, and they're doing it to be mean, that is an act of vandalism. If they paint a swastika on the side of your house, that is a very different act of vandalism, and that makes a far bigger statement that I believe needs a different kind of prosecution than the normal vandalism crime, and that's what I believe this bill is attempting to do. Speaker 1 3:28 And for some, some individuals might say that all it is is just a symbol on the on the side of a building. And isn't this a means of free speech? I mean, it is vandalism, let's say, but it's just one person's free speech. Geri Rothman-Sarat 3:46 If it's on, if you pay a swastika on my house, it is very different than free speech. And a swastika is not just it certainly is a symbol. It's a symbol of some atrocities and some horrible things, and very much associated with hate, and far different than just painting a line or painting the entire side of my house just because you want to vandalize something that is anything but free speech, you have a right to do anything you want, to say anything that you want, on your own property, not on mine or someone else's. Charles Koehler 4:15 So in short, what we're talking about are acts which result in inciting fear or intimidation or oppression of a class of people. And it's not necessarily directed at any one individual, though it could be, so that that you would say is sort of the distinction acts which Geri Rothman-Sarat 4:34 They are acts against people or property, and they are acts not speech. And that's real important to distinguish. You can stand here and say anything you want to me and and you are perfectly entitled to do that. But if, if you spray—again, I keep going back to the same thing—But well, let's take a different example. If you put a burning cross, and if you put a cross in someone else's yard, and you burn that cross, that is not free speech. If you do that in your own yard, that's fine, but if you do that in somebody else's yard, that is more than just vandalism, that is making a statement that you hate a whole group of people, and I think that when you go before a judge, it's very important that he knows exactly what you have done, so that that particular kind of crime can be tracked through the years, because if that same person does it two years later, and all that his record shows is that he was arrested or committed of a crime called vandalism, and it does not distinguish that it had a much larger connotation. Then I think you are missing the whole point of what is going on here, and you it's a crime that is acting against a whole segment of society. Charles Koehler 5:48 Mr. Cochran, what do you personally feel is the value in such a bill that increases the penalty for hate motivated crimes? Well, Jerry Corcoran 5:56 I'm not so certain, Charles, that it does increase the the penalty. We have a Human Relations Petty Offenses code. Now Charles Koehler 6:07 Can you tell us a little ab Jerry Corcoran 6:08 It was enacted in October of 82 and the Human Relations Commission hears these offenses. This human, uh, this Petty Offenses bill, though, and the Anti-bias bill, which would replace it, neither one of them, I believe, have really have any teeth. In reading both bills, if I were an attorney and you were the one being charged, I'd say, don't do anything and wait until they charge you in court. And I think that's the problem with the existing Petty Offenses code, and I believe that they're trying to correct that with Bill 204 which is the Anti-bias code. I don't believe at this time that the bill that we have in front of us is any better than we have already. Possibly it can be strengthened in the Committee, and may very well be that we'll end up with a good bill. I'm optimistic. Speaker 1 6:08 Aside from the change in the name of the two bills, what seems to be the difference between the two bills, if you were had to do a side by side comparison? Jerry Corcoran 7:19 The situation that Geri was just referring to is covered in the existing ordinance. The scope of the proposed ordinance on the antibio, bias offenses is a little bit broader and increases, I make really a reference to health and handicapped, sexual oriented and some other things under the definitions that aren't covered in the bill right now. Geri Rothman-Sarat 7:51 And and after talking to Westfall's office, what they have what they are trying to accomplish with amending this code is that they are trying to label things that are already illegal, but they're trying to label them so that law enforcement and society will know them for exactly what they are, not some minor vandalism, but some major vandalism that goes much deeper than just the normal, normal, if you will, But the regular Charles Koehler 8:20 run of the mill Geri Rothman-Sarat 8:21 Right. Vandalism cases. Charles Koehler 8:23 Cab you give us some examples of what that might be like. You already use examples. Geri Rothman-Sarat 8:27 Those are, those are the easiest ones to understand. I think at this point in time, if you, if you burn a cross in somebody else's yard, you are making a very different statement than if you start a trash fire in his front yard. And that needs to be understood when they go before the this commission, they need to if, I guess the easiest way to say it is that if, if someone is much more involved in and hating a group of people, if they truly are bigoted in their thinking, then they should be labeled as a bigot and not as a vandalizer. And I think that that's what Mr. Westfall is trying to accomplish with amending this code, is to really state things as they are, instead of glossing over it. And interestingly, the State and the City of St. Louis already have a Hate bill in place. That is law the County does, does not have a similar one. The one we are trying to implement is closer to the State and the City's law. Charles Koehler 9:38 What are your I understand that one of the characteristics of this proposed bill has language in it which would forward the victim's name and address to the Human Relations Commission. This would have the effect of making the crime victim's name and location of where they live part of public record. Might that not be considered a breach of confidentiality, considering that this person was already a target of some hate-motivated crimes, and we know that it is not uncommon for hate-related crimes to be committed by an individual of a group, some hate groups, and there have been documented cases where once the person reports this, there's retribution against the person. I mean, it has resulted in their death. So this can have a very this could possibly prevent people from coming forward to report the crime in the first place. Jerry Corcoran 10:36 Well, yes and no. First of all, in the existing ordinance that we have in front of us, the ordinance is basically designed for businesses that were had discriminatory practices. The bill that we have in front of us now under consideration, broadens that out so that it would also deal with individuals. The reporting mechanism, mechanism is the police department so you would already have police records. Now, these are not available to the general public, as as you know, and the police department then report to the chairman of the Human Relations Commission, and the chairman then decides what avenue they're going to pursue. Charles Koehler 11:20 Is there any protection proposed in the proposed legislation that would protect persons in terms of confidentiality? Jerry Corcoran 11:30 I don't know how that could be done. I would think that that would be desirable, but I don't read any protection in the bill. That's probably Charles Koehler 11:38 This brings up an issue similar to Geri Rothman-Sarat 11:39 I think it's important also to understand that, that we can't back away from this, that we do have to stand up for what we believe is right and appropriate, and if, if someone is being harassed, if someone is being tortured, that is not an, to my way of thinking, a reason to lock your doors and close all the shades and pray it won't happen again. I think we have to stand up to people who maybe need to be educated, maybe need to understand that there's a big, wonderful world out here and that that it it's okay to be different and still be respected. And I think that I would just, just as it's difficult for anybody to report a crime against them, there are all different kinds of occasions and reasons why it could be very, very difficult to stand up to someone at a given time. I think if we don't teach, certainly, our children and the rest of society that we must stand up for what we believe is right, even if it is difficult, we will not move ahead. And so, yes, it is going to be difficult, it can be, but I'm sure that every effort will be made to be sure that it is confidential. But I think it's very important to stand up and speak for what we believe is right, and not allow people to get away with things that are not appropriate. Charles Koehler 13:01 Inappropriate behavior that has direct negative impact on other people's lives. Some of the controversy about this bill that we have read about in the newspaper, and again, this is only one small part of the whole bill and all the issues that are concerned but if just for a moment we can take a look at it, there's been some discussion as to inclusion of some groups in the proposed new legislation that did not exist in the former legislation in terms of, I believe, sexual orientation and handicap or disability. Are there any other groups that that you're aware of that are included with the new that are not with the old? Jerry Corcoran 13:53 Really, the definitions under the old don't get specific. And Charles Koehler 13:58 I think there it says No person shall because of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex of another person or of a group knowingly vandalized, defacee or otherwise, etc. I'm trying to read this upside down. It goes through the if I can say, the laundry list of race, color, religion, national origin or sex, and I believe that the new legislation lists all of those, and then, in addition, includes sexual orientation, Jerry Corcoran 14:32 race or gender, religion, national origin, age and just ancestry, sex and sexual orientation, disability, handicap, health related condition of an individual or group of individuals. Charles Koehler 14:42 okay, and from what we read in the newspaper, there's been some controversy in terms of the inclusion of certain groups, namely sexual orientation, in the wording of the proposed legislation. If we could address that just for a moment. Mr. Corcoran., Jerry Corcoran 15:03 Well, I have a hard time differentiating sexual orientation. Charles Koehler 15:09 What is your understanding of what the term sexual orientation means? Jerry Corcoran 15:13 Well, I would say that sexual orientation means someone that is gay. And I don't have any problem with anybody being gay, but I don't really think that we ought to differentiate someone gay from someone not gay in an ordinance. Charles Koehler 15:29 Okay, the legal definition of the word, the term sexual orientation, is similar to the legal definition of the term race, and that race is a neutral term, and it can mean white, black, any color that or any, any race that you can think of, and in the same, in the same meaning, the term sexual orientation is completely neutral. Sexual orientation, legally and also sociologically, can mean either heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, or anything in between. So it is a completely neutral term. Just the same as age is a neutral term. It doesn't say those who are over 65 or senior citizen. Ancestry doesn't say only those who are not Anglo-Saxon, so Geri Rothman-Sarat 16:29 Charles,I think I'd like to take it a step further, if I could. Charles Koehler 16:34 Sure. Geri Rothman-Sarat 16:32 Jerry Corcoran is Chairman of our County Council, and I have a great deal of respect for him, and we disagree very, very seldom. But this is one area that we will probably be disagreeing on, because I do feel that it should be left in. And I think rather, whether it is a neutral term or not, which I totally accept, I think we have to understand the real world as it exists today, okay, and and years ago, people's preference in theirs and their sexual desires were not necessarily as public as they are today. And I think people who happen to to be gay are vandalized and and and and condemned in the same way that other groups are, and I find that just as appalling as any other group being picked on, whether it's handicapped, whether it's Jewish, whether it's Black, whatever it may be. And I think that we have to accept the world as it is today, with all of our many varied differences, which is, which, to me, is what makes the world so wonderful. And I want to protect everyone, and so therefore I have no problem with leaving it and whether it is a neutral term or a very specific term, because I really believe very strongly that people have a right to do whatever it is that they choose to do, and I don't have any right to interfere with that. If they want to be Catholic, that's fine. If they want to be Jewish, that's fine. If they happen to be Black, that's fine. If they happen to be Arab, that's fine. If they happen to be gay, that's fine, you know. And no one, no one, should ever be picked on as a group because of who and what they are all about, by by circumstances they choose, or by circumstances that they were born with. And to me, that's what it's all about. Mr. Cochran, do you have … Jerry Corcoran 18:07 The only thing that I add to that is I don't think you can legislate morality. And then what is morality? And I'm sure the three of us here would probably each have a different definition for what that is. I don't know that we need to, need to, needs to be addressed in the bill, that's my only Geri Rothman-Sarat 18:41 Except I don't think that we're trying to legislate morality, because I think my morals might be different from yours, Charles, or yours, Jerry's, probably not. You know that the reality is, everybody has their own set of morals and their own guidelines, okay? But that's not what we're trying to do with this bill. I don't want to legislate somebody's morality, I can't, and that certainly I agree with Jerry, is not our job to do, but we can't. What we can legislate is the right for you, Charles, to come to my home and paint a swastika in my driveway and say all Jews are terrible, awful people. You should not have that right, and you should be punished for that. I we read in the paper this week Max Starkloff was was quoted about this bill, and he's had a Paraquod, which is a group supporting handicapped people, and it was amazing to me how he talked about people would drive by and make derogatory comments toward him because he was in a wheelchair. You know, you can say whatever you want about an individual, but when you attack that individual based on his problem and the entire group of individuals that they might represent, that is not okay. That is really not okay, and it needs to be prosecuted. Charles Koehler 20:01 There's been a number of national organizations that have all been reporting a rise in hate-related crimes, and then some of them are, for instance, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Center for Democratic Renewal. Hate crimes have been reported on the increase in Missouri, and certainly St. Louis County is reflective of the entire state and region. And also in St. Louis County, there's been note of an increase in local Ku Klux Klan activity, one of the many noted hate groups. We read in newspaper reports of an increase of attacks on African Americans, on women, the elderly, the disabled, and lesbians and gays, and particularly in light of the Gulf War, attacks on Arab Americans, with bombings, death threats, and destructions of their property. With all of this in mind, with this broad base increase in hate crimes, how can anyone advocate that any one of these groups be excluded from the ordinance? Mr. Cochran. Jerry Corcoran 21:14 Well, Charles, I'm a little bit older than you. I was around for World War Two. At that particular time, the Japanese Americans fell into hate group, and we as a country did some atrocities and put put some of them really behind behind bars. Same thing happened to some Italians and then some German people of German descent. I don't know that we legislate anything any different. I don't know that we need to make any legislation treating one person different from the other. Hate Crime is not a good thing. A hate crime should be prosecuted. We have that under the existing Petty Offenses code, but in most cases, you're talking about something that can also be prosecuted under federal law, we've probably violated someone's civil rights, and rather than try somebody in the associate circuit court for an ordinance violation which has a maximum penalty of $1,000 some of these should be prosecuted more vigorously, and I think felonies are probably committed, and we're talking state fines that carry much more penalty to them, in ome cases, imprisonment, and we don't have that authority for a County. Charles Koehler 22:44 What would you say about a group that is not covered by either the state or federal legislation? Jerry Corcoran 22:50 I can't think of one Charles Koehler 22:52 Well, sexual orientation. Jerry Corcoran 22:53 Well, let's go back and say she has it. Let's go back and treat that person as an individual. And I think that he has that, he or she has the has that right as an individual. I don't know that we need to specify. Charles Koehler 23:08 You're on the record as saying or you're quoted in the Post Dispatch as saying quote, I would not like to see St. Louis County get the reputation of San Francisco. If people want to be gay, I guess it's their right. But I don't think I have to support it. I have rights too. Can you explain what you meant? Jerry Corcoran 23:25 That came from an interview with Virgil Tipton and Post Dispatch writer. He saw a letter I made it available to me, and it wasn't like he was snooping. Following the article or paper on May 17, I've got several calls in the office. I returned one of them, and then, when I told the person that I would keep them apprised of, developments, then the bill was introduced, I felt that I should write the constituent, and he saw a copy of the letter that that's what started the poll of all the council members last Thursday, which was in last Friday's newspaper. The bottom line on that one was the Friends of Gays and Lesbians with the street that they were sponsoring, we have a program in St. Louis County where individuals or groups of individuals or organizations, if they patrol and pick up the trash and debris, the county recognizes that organization, their sponsor ofthe highway. Last year, the Friends of Gays and Lesbians requested to, I think it was Rock Hill Road that they were going to do in Webster Groves, and they were turned down. And I understand that they have since been granted and that's their street now. I feel that when you recognize a group, in effect you're sponsoring, when you advertise them, there are some limitations, I believe, on advertising nationally, on television. We've decided that it's not in the best interest to advertise cigarettes. It's not the best interest to advertise hard liquor. They're not illegal, but it's just not considered good policy, and I don't feel that, I would not like to see that expanded to this organization, or any organization like that. I feel if we advertise them, we are, in fact, sponsoring them doing what they're doing, but I don't, I don't believe we should appear to be sponsoring them. Charles Koehler 25:55 Okay, talking about the bias crimes, but we got off onto the roads, but I think that if we can tear them, Geri Rothman-Sarat 26:03 Okay, I would, I again, I hate to do this. I would just respectfully disagree with Jerry, because I don't feel that. I think that the program to pick up the trash along the highway is a very good program. I'm not sure I like the idea of signs, period for who's doing it. I'd rather just have them do it and not have the signs, because I don't think the signs are very pretty. However, given the fact that we have the signs, I feel that I am not saying that I am endorsing any person on that sign, any individual, group, business or whatever. There's Democrats, there's Republicans, there's blacks, there's whites, there's, you know, companies, there's individuals, there's whatever, and I don't know most of them, and so I don't feel that I as the county Councilman would be endorsing any particular individual or group that is is on those signs. And I feel that if anybody wants to do it, they have a right to do it under the system as it exists today, which means a sign. And I have absolutely no problem with this. Charles Koehler 26:58 What message would be sent to such groups such as the Ku Klux, Klan, Aryan Nation and the Skinheads and other hate-related groups. If one group of persons is excluded from this legislation, what message would be sent to them? Jerry Corcoran 27:17 I don't know that we'd be sending any message to anyone. I think everybody would be treated the same way. Charles Koehler 27:23 Okay, we do know that the that the disabled would be excluded. We do know that persons who are lesbian and gay would be excluded and would not be covered by this legislation. What message would this exclusion of either these groups from protection send to your children? What would it be saying to your Jerry Corcoran 27:48 Wellm Charles you also have Revised Statutes in Missouri's Chapter 630, which deals with the handicapped, mentally or physically, and there are some stringent penalties for doing anything. Charles Koehler 28:05 Sure, so there'd be no problem in including the disabled with the other group? Jerry Corcoran 28:10 Well, but what I would do is I would prosecute them under the state statute. The prosecuting attorney would do it as opposed to prosecute them under the Anti-bias code, or under the existing Petty Offenses code, not only can you get more money out of them, you can also, if it's serious enough, they can be in prison. Charles Koehler 28:31 What would you do in case of a similar attack on a person because of their sexual orientation? Jerry Corcoran 28:38 I believe that you find that we have laws against aren't I believe you'll find laws against damaging, hurting, injuring, you can end up in court. You know, personal injury. Charles Koehler 28:50 Then what is the purpose of any of this legislation? Then, if there already is exist legislation in existence that would cover everyone. Jerry Corcoran 28:59 I don't know. That's one of the things I hope to hear in the committee meeting next week. Charles Koehler 29:03 Okay, okay. You've been in politics for a good number of years. Both of you have, and as an elected officials, you probably have a good feel for the people that you represent. About what percentage of your adult constituents would you estimate are either lesbian or gay. Jerry Corcoran 29:22 I have no idea, Charles Koehler 29:23 Okay, any any feel at all? Geri Rothman-Sarat 29:25 I have no idea, okay, any more than I would know how many are black or white or Jewish or Catholic or Jerry Corcoran 29:33 Well, those we could find out from the census tract. Probably, I don't know that. That's one of the questions asked on the census watch. Charles Koehler 29:43 How do you think that your constituents, I mean, you do agree that you would have constituents in your in your district that are either lesbian or gay. How do you think they would feel knowing that they have been specifically excluded from protection aga It's this hate crimes. Geri Rothman-Sarat 30:01 Well, I'm going to work to try to see that they aren't excluded, because I don't think they should be excluded. Charles Koehler 30:06 Okay, real quickly. Jerry Corcoran 30:08 Well, I'm not going to have a vote in the Committee, so I've appointed Geri Rothman to be Chairman of the Committee, and we have John Shearer and Greg Greg Quinn will be three that will make recommendations to the full Council. Transcribed by https://otter.ai