Minnesota Lawmaker Concerned Over Bill Allowing Government to Track Alleged ‘Hate and Bias Incidents’

Walter Hudson, Minnesota State Representative, is launching a lawsuit to update the state’s response to and track requests. “hate and bias incidents,” It can be called a crime in which no crime was actually committed. “problematic.”

The bill HF 181, was first introduced in January this year by Rep. Samantha Vang, a member of the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party, in an attempt to address what she said are “hate and bias incidents” They have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Black Indigenous and people of color communities including Asian Americans.”

Minnesota’s bill will be amended to reflect the new law. “peace officers” Additional training would be provided to help identify, respond, and report crimes “motivated by bias.”

Additionally, the bill would allow community organizations, school districts, charter schools, and individuals to report crimes that they believe are “motivated by the victim’s or another’s actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, national origin, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, familial status, or disability.”

Such crimes could also be reported over the victim’s “actual or perceived association with another person or group of a certain actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, national origin, or disability.”

The bill would allow data to be reported and developed on the nature and extent of the crimes motivated by bias.

These crimes fall typically outside of hate crimes, which are reported annually to the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. According St. Cloud Times.

Bill Language Is ‘Problematic’

However, Hudson Telled Fox News Digital that he is concerned about “problematic” The bill contains language that does not just refer to race, but also to gender, sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Republican lawmaker said he fears such language could ultimately have a negative impact on religious liberty and noted that the bill contains the words “incidents” As well as “crimes” The term “actual or perceived” identity.

Hate “incidents” These do not always amount to a criminal offense.

“It’s a very insidious and conniving way to get the camel’s nose under the tent of expanding the scope of government scrutiny of speech beyond crimes and assault,” Hudson spoke. “The intention of whoever is being accused of exhibiting bias is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how the person making the report feels.”

“If the person making the report feels as though they have been the victim of an incident of bias, then they have been the victim of an incident of bias. And we’re going to create a database of all of these subjective, arbitrary, whimsical feelings that people have had, not anything objective or tangible at all,” Hudson continued. “It seems very clear, based upon their focus on motivation, that they’re more concerned about what’s going on in people’s heads, which is protected speech, and that’s thought crime.”

Hudson had earlier raised concerns over the bill to Rebecca Lucero, commissioner of the state Department of Human Rights, who has supported the bill, as well as Vang, during a Committee hearing January

Bill ‘Not Necessarily a Crime Situation’

The Republican stated that he believes the bill will create a governmental entity. “database of incidents that have no objective standard determining whether or not they violated the law, whether or not they had anything distinct from just normal speech.”

“So if someone were to post on social media a particular Bible verse that defined marriage or spoke of God’s institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman, or a Bible verse that spoke in condemning terms regarding certain sexual proclivities, would that posting of a Bible verse be considered an incident reportable under your bill?” He asked.

Vang defended Vang’s bill, stating that it was important to inform Minnesotans about the bill. “hate and bias incidents” That would not be tolerated. “we support communities that [have] been harassed, intimidated, and abused.”

Meanwhile, Lucero responded that the state is “already investigating incidents around discrimination” In a “neutral” way and that the bill “is not necessarily a crime situation here.”

Instead, she said the bill would allow the state to have a “better understanding of what is likely going on out there” so that it can be used to provide things such as additional educational outreach to schools that report an increased number of hate and bias “incidents.”

“It’s helpful to know,” Lucero added.

Vang declared that the bill would be announced in January when she made public her bill. “go a long way toward giving us the data and full understanding needed to track our rising hate crime problem so we can actively work to put an end to hate.”

“I urge my colleagues to join us in advancing this vital safety measure,” She continued.