Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) has admitted making a "poor choice of words," during House debate on a "hate crimes" bill on April 29, when she used the word "hoax" in connection with the 1998 murder of a homosexual Wyoming college student, Matthew Shepard. Here's what she actually said:
"We know that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."
It should be clear to anyone remotely familiar with the Shepard murder or the hate crimes issue that she was not claiming that Shepard never existed or that his murder was a "hoax," but only that it's classification as an anti-gay "hate crime" was a "hoax." Nevertheless, she was mocked as roughly the equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
Yesterday, Foxx explained, appropriately, that she was not trying to minimize the horror or brutality of Shepard's murder in any way. "Mr. Shepard's death was nothing less than a tragedy, and those responsible for his death certainly deserved the punishment they received."
Some people, however, may still not be aware of the basis for Rep. Foxx's claim that classifying this brutal attack as a "hate crime" is inaccurate. I explained it in a 2007 op-ed in the Washington Times.
Below is an excerpt:
QUOTE
The ultimate irony in all this is that Matthew Shepard's death was probably not a "hate crime" at all. A courageous investigative report by ABC's 20/20, which they unfortunately buried on the day after Thanksgiving [November 26] in 2004, revealed that most of the people most closely involved in the case say that the attack on Matthew Shepard was motivated by robbery and driven by drugs - not by hostility toward Matthew Shepard's homosexuality. If he was specifically targeted, it may have been because he was small (only 105 pounds) and well-dressed - not because he was a homosexual.
When asked about the proof that it was a "hate crime," Cal Rerucha, who prosecuted the case, declared, "Well, I don't think the proof was there.. That was something that they [friends of Shepard] had decided." Ben Fritzen, a former police detective, said, "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide.. What it came down to, really, is drugs and money."
McKinney's girlfriend, Kristen Price, said, "I knew that night it was all about getting money.. Money to get drugs." McKinney himself, talking for the first time (he did not testify at his trial), told ABC's Elizabeth Vargas that "it wasn't a hate crime.. [A]ll I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him." In fact, McKinney said, "I have gay friends. .. You know, that kind of thing don't bother me so much."
END QUOTE
Wyoming had no "hate crimes" law. But that didn't stop Shepard's killers, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, from being sentenced to two consecutive life sentences, after being spared the death penalty only because Shepard's parents interceded against it.
So it's hard to argue that a "hate crimes" law would have made much difference-even if it had been a "hate crime."
FRC, you must be taking lessons from Christian News Wire. Never have I seen in my life such doublespeak and misinformation. The Russians during the Soviet era would be proud, the way you guys can distort and bastardize THE FACTS. I say, let THE FACTS speak for themselves: Matthew Sheppard was gay , he was lured into a situation by rabid homophobes, who then proceded to murder him. I know a hate crime when I see one.
Family Research Council, what the f** do you know about the life and death of Matthew Sheppard? All you do is carp about the Bible and try to shove it down other people's throats. When you're not doing that, you are out saying or doing something that makes Christians like myself (Liberals, Mainstream Protestants and most Catholics) look like a bunch of tribalistic, ignorant peasants. Keep your fundamentalist agenda to yourself, before somebody gets mad and passes legislation to ban you!!
You DO NOT represent me as a member of the Christian faith.
I’m all for hate- crime laws , but let’s make sure they aren’t covering certain groups disproportionally just because the media covers them disproportionally. Men kill women they don't know many times more often than vice versa. Are they targetting women for slaughter? If so, why is there not a hate crimes bill for women? Adults kill children much more often than vice versa. Where is the hate crimes bill for children? Black people kill white people 18 times more often than vice versa. So where is the hate crime bill to protect white people from this?
Also, MaggieW, The killers did not go to a gay bar to find their victim. There were no gay bars in all of Wyoming, remember? Matthew had to rent a limo each week to drive him out of Wyoming to find a gay bar in Colorado. The killers went to a Wyoming (therefore not gay) bar to shoot pool and get drunk to forget that McKinney lost his job and had to go home to his unemployed young girlfriend and his baby .
Matthew Shepard was there to celebrate some gay/straight victory on campus by showering his bartender with large bills and waving his father ’s money around. It would not surprise me at all if McKinney wanted to rob him; he had just lost his low-paying job that day and he has 3 mouths to feed.
Aaron either wanted drugs or money from Matthew. Aaron really needed money that night. What he did to get it was very wrong .
Aaron tried to rob two other guys after he beat up Matthew that night and stole Matthew’s wallet, leaving him for dead.
Aaron wound up in the hospital for trying to rob two guys who were bigger and tougher than he was.
We're not surprised that radical right hate groups are making excuses for the inexcusable bigoted comments of Congresswoman Foxx. They were a slap in the face to those of us who've had family members who were victims of hate crimes, and an unspeakable insult to the family of Matt Shepherd. It's a proven fact beyond all question that he WAS the victim of a hate crime , murdered because he was gay as have been so many others--killed, beaten, harrassed, hated, discriminated against ALL because of bigotry and hate.
There is no excuse for opposing hate crimes law . The dispicable lies the radical right is promoting..that this is a "thought crime" law (false--it's about violent crimes ONLY) that it will make "speaking out against homosexuality " illegal (lie..again, it's about VIOLENT CRIME, you'll still be allowed to be as hateful and bigoted as before, to promote the blasphemous lie that your homophobia is "Christian," and any other dispicable slurs you want to put out there--hate crimes against blacks have been illegal for some time, has anyone been arrested for making racist comments? No. Otherwise Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh would have been in the slammer years ago) and, most insidious of all, that it will provide "protection" for child molesters..this is the sleaziest of lies from the homophobes, that gays are all a "threat" to children , proven false. In fact, hate crimes doesn't reduce by ONE PENNY or ONE SECOND the punishment for ANY other crime, from jaywalking to child molestation to murder. ALL it does is provide special punishment AND help in investigation to some specific crimes. The fact that so many hate crimes are not fully investigated or prosocuted, and I've seen it happen personally, makes this a vital law. It will harm nobody and will make ALL gay people safer on the streets. If these bigots want to promote the ridiculous lie that it's a "sin" to be gay, they can continue to do so. But unless they ADMIT that they WANT gays to be beaten and killed, there's no excuse for their opposition to hate crimes law.
And either way, there's no excuse for our legislators to listen to them.
And there's no excuse for the people of North Carolina sending the hateful bigot back to Washington. Send the Foxx back to the woods where she belongs.
Just a couple questions. First, "it was a gay panic", doesnt that make it quite evident the feelings of the defendants towards homosexuality ? Second, if they are "bigots" then why were they at a gay bar? -isnt that where they picked Mathew Shepard up?- If they felt certian agression towards certain lifestyles, wouldnt that make the possibility of a hate crime more possible? Third, wasnt mathew sheppard poor? I mean he wasnt really getting much help from his family, and he rejected alot of help from his friends. Fourth, "the kind that dont bother me so much"? what kind of statement is that, seems like he admitted that some homosexuals bother him.. Wouldnt that make it kinda evident that he was bothered by MS's homosexuality? Last, i dont remember anything about Mathew shepards stuff being stolen, then again i dont really see the use of a wallet when ones hands are tied to a fence.. So how much money did these guys actually get? Going on the psycology of normal robbers, people who rob on a basis usually know how to scope out people that are rich -not MS-, people who are first timers usually wait in a alley way or in a stall -not this case-. Also robbers dont really have a tendancy to beat up their victims..I take that back, they do beet up their victims, but usually in attempt to make them unconcious or afraid to tell anyone. This case dosnt really fit the prophile..
Why did they go to a gay bar if they were bigots? To find a gay man to rob, of course. During the trial, Chastity Pasley and Kristen Price (the pair's then-girlfriends) testified under oath that Henderson and McKinney both plotted beforehand to rob a gay man. McKinney and Henderson then went to the Fireside Lounge and selected Shepard as their target. McKinney alleged that Shepard asked them for a ride home. After befriending him, they took him to a remote area of Laramie where they robbed him, beat him severely, and tied him to a fence with a rope from McKinney's truck while Shepard begged for his life. Media reports often contained the graphic account of the pistol whipping and his smashed skull. It was reported that Shepard was beaten so brutally that his face was covered in blood, except where it had been partially washed clean by his tears.
From Canada
There is no such thing in human nature or Anglo-American legal heritage as crimes defined by hate.
If something is a crime then the values behind that are already clear.
So if someone assaults someone then the value of society against unjustified assault is breached and the punishment is there on the books.
So why add comment about the heart motivation behind a deliberate motive and action of assault.
This is a part of the homosexual agenda.
The real crime is not the assault or the motive to assault but the origin of the motive. In short hatred.
If the hatred is adding punishment and separate from the punishments otherwise on the books for unjustified assault then hate thoughts are punishable.
One could seemly be punished for expression of hatred without any deeds or intents to do deeds.
It is the , claimed, hatred behind deliberate acts that a liberal establishment wants to punish.
Its opinions that are the problem they are saying.
Not just motives to assault and assault.
This is a great new concept in law .
If laws are not tough enough in punishing assault then just make them stronger.
NO
Thats not the point.
They want to punish hate thoughts. They want to punish hate on certain areas they most dislike.
If you come behind someone and kill them so you can take their money its not as bad as if the reason for killing someone on purpose was because they are gay.
the life of the person was not the important point but rather the motive for taking the life.
The left is giving conservatives a great thing to agitate and define liberal politicians by.
Never has hatred been punished before because the willful action's punishment by definition means it had no legitimacy or rather was hatred.
Liberals don't want to punish crime for its impact on humans but rather want to punish thoughts.
They are actually saying some thoughts are more evil then others where it leads to deliberate crime.
The deliberate crime is not the problem or concern.
Come on. If a injustice is done deliberately then there need only be a single law covering all.
No
The motive behind the motive behind the action is what they want to punish.
They don't hate injustice or hurt but hate instead particular thoughts on particular issues.
This is a great change in jurisprudence.
Murderers etc beware of your motives for murder. Don't murder for the wrong reason. Try not to murder for hate.
You certainly don't speak for me or many other Canadians. I don't know about Ontario, I haven't lived there for some time, but rest assured here in Newfoundland we have hate crime legislation. I believe right now only Nova Scotia and Alberta are the only provinces in the country lacking hate crimes legislation. Also, hate crimes are punishable across Canada under Federal Law. So there!!
"There is no such thing in human nature or Anglo-American legal heritage as crimes defined by hate."
There is now. I'm willing to entertain any critique of hate crimes legislation other than the critique that the crime cannot logically exist and therefore that the legislation does not exist. It reminds me of the Confucians' in Pacific Overtures:
Night waters do not break the moon.
That merely is illusion.
The moon is sacred.
No foreign ships can break our laws.
That also is illusion.
Our laws are sacred.
It follows there can be no ships.
They must be an illusion.
Japan is sacred.
And yet Perry's ships were there, and yet hate crimes legislation has been on the books for nearly twenty years, and the convictions of violators are real enough.
Moreover, 45 states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of bias-motivated violence or intimidation (the exceptions are AR, GA, IN, SC, and WY). Each of these statutes covers bias on the basis of race, religion , and ethnicity; 32 of them cover sexual orientation; 32 cover disability; 28 cover gender; 13 cover age; 11 cover transgender/gender-identity; 5 cover political affiliation.
31 states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action, in addition to the criminal penalty, for similar acts.
27 states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics; 16 of these cover sexual orientation.
As AlibiFarmer points out, the federal legislation provides a backstop in the case of jury nullification (or perhaps in the case of local refusal to prosecute). From that angle, federal hate crimes legislation can be viewed as a law -- not just against a class of violent crime -- but against jury and local government complicity in that crime.
In the notorious "wolf whistle" murder of Emmett Till, on September 23 the all-white jury, made up of 12 males, ignored evidence acquitted both defendants in just 67 minutes; one juror said, "If we hadn't stopped to drink pop, it wouldn't have taken us too long."
Safe from double jeopardy, the murderers later sold their story to Look magazine for $4,000 and confessed to the crime. I personally remember a case in the 1970's of jury nullification when an unarmed transvestite was shot to death in Birmingham, Alabama, and the defendant successfully pleaded self defense.
Sometimes you want to lock up the jury. Failing that, it's sometimes good to get another shot at it. You may call it unfair, but so is murder.
Thanks for the reply.
Your wrong.
I insist that hate crimes has no place in human nature or Anglo american jurisprudence for concepts of hate crimes.
Its a invention of left wingers to punish thoughts as opposed to punishing only actions and motives behind actions.
The last twenty years is just my point. Canada here has more strident hate laws for a long time now.
Yet its a recent corrupt attempt to make some motives behind deliberate crime more evil then others.
Shooting into a crowd to murder is not the real problem but rather the motive behind the murder.
Its just a attempt to teach and stop historic bad thoughts about certain things.
its all about thoughts. Its too control the people and move then to the right thoughts about certain things. not everything.
Its a passion about race, gay, and so on.
its not about common rights and dignity of mankind.
Its really a attempt to criminalize what is called racism sexism, homophobia etc. liberal projects.
They can't actually make these things illegal so they come as close as they can by adding these motives to traditional crimes in order to make typical crime more punishable.
if a action is serious enough to be punishable then there would be no reason to add more punishment for motives.
Its the motives that are being punished too.
This is a radical change and is being ignored by conservatives and patriots and believers in the law because it adds welcome more punishment in a general liberal court system.
This must and will be stopped. Careless apathy.
If what is done is not bad enough to be punished enough with ordinary laws then motives can not add too it.
Its state control of motives. Its absurd.
the state is not hating the crime action but rather the motivation.
Therefore they really have a pet hatred of certain thoughts.
Bingo. The modern establishment os all about fixing how identities are treated by other identities.