Shae Goodell

Absolutely — here is a revised version with that language woven in more naturally and strongly: **Written Testimony in Opposition to Proposed Amendment to RSA 354-B:1** Dear Honorable Members of the New Hampshire Legislature, I am writing in opposition to this proposed amendment to RSA 354-B:1. As a clinician in training for Clinical and School Psychology, with Masters Degree in Neuroscience and Trauma, and as a trauma-aligned practitioner and Intefaith Minster, I am deeply concerned by the inclusion of the phrase "substantially motivated by hostility towards the victim's race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or disability" in the context of civil rights protections. My concern is simple but important: who determines what is “substantial”? That language creates a vague and subjective threshold in an area of law that should be clear, protective, and centered on human safety and dignity. Civil rights protections should not depend on a vague and subjective determination of whether hostility was “substantial.” If a person is targeted with violence, threats, coercion, intimidation, trespass, or property damage because of race, religion, ancestry, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected status, that conduct should be condemned and actionable. The law should protect people, not create loopholes around how much bias can be proven. The State of New Hampshire should not weaken civil rights protections by adding language that may make enforcement more difficult or inconsistent. When a person is subjected to actual or threatened force, violence, coercion, intimidation, trespass, or property damage because of who they are, the harm is already real. The legal response should focus on protecting individuals from targeted acts of hostility and violence, not on debating whether the bias behind those acts was “substantial enough.” From a trauma-informed perspective, this distinction matters deeply. Harm is not limited to what an institution or decision-maker later decides meets a certain threshold. Violence and intimidation exist on a spectrum, and their effects can be profound whether they are physical, verbal, emotional, sexual, or psychological. Threats and hostile acts can have lasting consequences on a person’s sense of safety, trust, belonging, and ability to participate fully in community life. We also know that the long-term effects of traumatic social policies and exclusionary systems disproportionately burden people who are not white, wealthy, male, or otherwise socially privileged. The State of New Hampshire and the United States should be concerned with TRULY protecting the rights of ALL PERSONS to engage in lawful activities and to exercise and enjoy the rights secured by citizenship in this state and this country. The emphasis should not be on who gets to decide whether hostility was “substantial,” but on affirming that targeted violence, threats, and intimidation are unacceptable in any form. I urge you to reject this language and preserve broader, clearer protections under civil rights law. The message of our laws should be unmistakable: all violence and intimidation—physical, verbal, emotional, sexual, or psychological—are not welcome, and all people deserve equal protection under the law. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Rev. Shae Goodel Stoddard, NH