Senate adopts Senator Velis' amendment to fund mental health training for hate crime victims

BOSTON (WWLP) – The Massachusetts Senate on Tuesday adopted an amendment filed by Senator John C. Velis that would allocate funding for the development of specialized mental health training to support victims of hate and bias.
The amendment, part of the Senate's Fiscal Year 2026 Budget deliberations, directs the Department of Public Health to establish a competitive grant program for training clinicians and counselors in trauma-informed care tailored to individuals impacted by specific forms of hate.
Audit shows migrant crisis mismanagement
Velis, who co-chairs the Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism, emphasized the need for culturally competent support systems during remarks on the Senate floor.
'It has become evident in talking with victims of hate who have come forward to the Commission, including children, that there is a real gap when it comes to providers who are trained to understand, address, and treat these unique forms of trauma,' Senator Velis said. 'Hate manifests in different ways for different groups, and it is essential that clinicians have access to training that is culturally sensitive and considers the historical prejudice the group has faced.'
The measure calls for the training to be tailored to address various forms of hate rather than using a uniform approach, reflecting the differing impacts and cultural contexts of hate-based trauma.
Velis' amendment comes amid a documented increase in hate crimes across Massachusetts. The Executive Office of Public Safety and Security reported 557 hate crime incidents in 2023, a 26% increase from 2022 and a sharp rise from 351 incidents recorded in 2018. The report noted particularly alarming spikes in incidents targeting Jewish, LGBTQ, and Arabic communities.
WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on WWLP.com.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

an hour ago

• Boston Globe

After US strikes on Iran, a narrow path to diplomacy

Advertisement Now, Iran has a choice to make. The country may be a theocratic autocracy, but it is not monolithic in its thinking or the conclusions its senior officials reach. That means that while the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will ultimately decide Iran's next steps, there is almost certainly a significant debate happening within the country. Iran has two principal options. If the regime ultimately concludes that it has to try to restore some amount of deterrence, even if that means it puts the regime at risk of survival, Iran could choose a robust response that escalates into a broader conflict with the United States in the region. The same would be true if the regime already thought it was at risk from continuing Israeli strikes or internal pressures by hardliners who are frustrated over Iran's poor performance during the war. Advertisement To do so, Iran could leverage some or all of its diminished but not destroyed capabilities. That could include targeting US forces and military assets at bases throughout the region, aiming to inflict maximum casualties and damage. It could also include leveraging Shia militias in Iraq to attack US personnel and interests. Another option would be to close the Strait of Hormuz — a critical chokepoint through which one-fifth of global oil and one-quarter of liquified natural gas passes through daily. And it could conduct asymmetric terrorist attacks against Israel, Jewish, or US targets around the world. Any one of these actions — let alone a combination — would likely compel a US response. But if the regime does not believe it's in imminent danger of collapse and recognizes the reality that its survival is far more likely dependent on being pragmatic in its reaction, then Tehran could seek to undertake a limited and narrow response that would be a powerful signal of Iran's desire to deescalate the situation and might produce an off-ramp to the conflict. Despite the threatening tone of President Trump's post on Truth Social that 'ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT,' it would be naïve to think that Iran is not going to respond at all, despite some limited historical precedent. In 1988, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini's famously accepted the 'poison chalice,' as he called it, of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 that ended the Iran-Iraq war. But that decision came after eight years of war — and this is not the late 1980s. Iran's nuclear, ballistic missile, and proxy strategies that took decades to build have largely collapsed in a short 15 months. And even if some Iranian leaders were inclined to capitulate to US demands, doing so would almost certainly risk undermining the current leadership's credibility, which could set the stage for it to be ousted by more hardline leaders. Advertisement Given that Saturday's attack was directly on the Iranian homeland, Tehran is likely to believe that its response will have to be bigger than its response to the killing of Major General Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran's Quds Force, in January 2020. A missile attack on US personnel stationed at Al Asad airbase in Iraq resulted in multiple injuries of US service members, but no one was killed. An Iranian response, however, can be bigger in scope than in intensity. Attacking more targets but with the same goal of not killing US service members would allow regime leadership to boast to the Iranian population that it struck a critical blow against the United States, defending itself and the country, while not prompting the United States to undertake the kind of lethal attacks the US public would demand if Iran killed multiple Americans. There is still risk in this course of action — not intending to cause death or serious injury won't matter to the United States if it happens by accident. But if Iran avoids killing US service members, Trump could decline to respond and instead downplay the attack. But for Iran, which seems to wrongly but sincerely view the United States as being secretly behind most if not all Israeli actions, it will be critical that the conflict not only end with the United States but with Israel, as well. Trump should work to make that happen. His leverage has never been greater with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. The United States succeeded in striking the Fordo nuclear site that Israel seemingly couldn't — at least not via a higher risk mission, such as inserting ground forces. And while Israel's desire for regime change is more ambiguous now, Jerusalem's original two goals are clear: destroy or meaningfully set back Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Advertisement The strike has clearly set back Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, though to what extent may take weeks or longer to assess. Some reporting indicates that there was unusual activity at the Fordo site before the US strike that could be an indication that Iran moved much of its highly enriched uranium from the site. And Rafael Grossi, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has warned that it is unclear where all Iran's centrifuges are located. A few hundred advanced machines combined with highly enriched uranium and Iran could quickly enrich to weapons grade at a secret facility with a small footprint. Which is why diplomacy is still critical. Just as the United States should use its leverage with Israel to end its war with Iran, it should also use the now very credible military threat as leverage with Iran. The Trump administration needs to redouble its backchannel diplomacy using every legitimate intermediary — the Norwegians, Omanis, and Swiss all come to mind — to ensure the message is accurately conveyed that the United States is ready to continue diplomacy. Advertisement But Washington should be clear that if Iran is found to be engaging in nuclear enrichment or weaponization at a secret nuclear site, the United States will not hesitate to strike it again. In doing so, it can seek from Iran a real and verifiable diplomatic agreement that prevents Iranian enrichment but provides access to civilian nuclear power in Iran through the type of consortium that was under consideration before the war started. The US strike at Fordo significantly set back the potential for Iran to develop a working nuclear weapon. Now diplomacy is required to permanently eliminate it and avoid a broader war.

Boston Globe

an hour ago

• Boston Globe

Alarm raised over increase in antisemitism

Advertisement There has been too much silence and indifference for far too long, which enables and emboldens this harmful hate and abuse. It's time for real support and solidarity and a rejection of the civic inertia that has left Jewish people unsafe, marginalized, and threatened in Massachusetts, New England, and across the country. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Noam Schimmel Framingham The writer is a lecturer in global studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Israel's punishing campaign in Gaza has to be taken into account In a Voice of America Advertisement Samantha Joseph's op-ed does allude to the 'elevated threat' to the Jewish community that the FBI links to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. Regrettably, though, Joseph fails to acknowledge that in the 21 months since Hamas's brutal killings and kidnappings of Oct. 7, 2023, the Israeli government's grossly disproportionate punishment levied against the people of Gaza — a relentless assault viewed by many international legal scholars and human rights organizations as amounting to a genocide — has likely triggered the recent awful attacks on Jews. All of which tells us that Israel's ending the carnage in Gaza is what's desperately needed — for the people of Gaza, for the remaining hostages, and, frankly, for Jews everywhere. Michael Felsen Jamaica Plain BDS movement is a gray area between antisemitism, criticism of Israel Samantha Joseph is right to decry antisemitic violence perpetrated by supporters of Palestinian rights. No matter how one feels about Israel's attacks on Palestinians (and now Iranians), that does not justify attacks on American Jews. We all need to draw a sharp line between criticism of the government of Israel and antisemitism. However, later in her op-ed, Joseph blurs this line by calling the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel antisemitic. This movement is precisely an attempt to impose financial and reputational consequences on Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. Contrary to to the claims of the movement's critics, it has nothing to do with antisemitism. Ken Olum Sharon

2 hours ago

GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns

WASHINGTON -- The massive tax and spending cuts package that President Donald Trump wants on his desk by July 4 would loosen regulations on gun silencers and certain types of rifles and shotguns, advancing a longtime priority of the gun industry as Republican leaders in the House and Senate try to win enough votes to pass the bill. The guns provision was first requested in the House by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Republican gun store owner who had initially opposed the larger tax package. The House bill would remove silencers — called 'suppressors' by the gun industry — from a 1930s law that regulates firearms that are considered the most dangerous, eliminating a $200 tax while removing a layer of background checks. The Senate kept the provision on silencers in its version of the bill and expanded upon it, adding short-barreled, or sawed-off, rifles and shotguns. Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful." 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter. 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.