I’ve been working on a review of Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great, but it can wait until I address a very stupid comment from a local pol.
North Carolina Republican Representative Virginia Foxx, currently serving her third term in the House, took part in a debate on legislation to expand the definition of hate crimes to include those committed against gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation. The legislation was written partly in response to the vicious beating, and subsequent death, of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year old student at the University of Wyoming. Shepard was targeted by two young men to be robbed. One of the men, Aaron McKinney, also 21 at the time and a methamphetamine addict, was primarily responsible for brutalizing and ultimately killing Shepard. The facts of the murder are not in dispute; but what caused McKinney to fatally fracture Shepard’s skull is still a question in the minds of some. Was McKinney in the grip of a meth-induced rage? Or did his revulsion to an advance made upon him by Shepard cause his latent homicidal homophobia to surface?
The truth may never be known – I suspect that it may be a little bit of both, actually – but never let it be said that certain members of Your Government are going to let a little uncertainty stand in the way of their bigotry. The GOP has consistently fought against any recognition of homosexuality as somehow innate, and therefore a trait not unlike skin color. To the hardcore religious conservatives, homosexuality will always be a choice, and an immoral one, at that. So the Matthew Shepard Act, which would extend hate crimes protection to homosexuals, has been vehemently opposed by the Republicans in Congress.
Enter Virginia Foxx. Here is what Representative Foxx had to say about the Mathew Shepard Act:
I also would like to point out that there was a bill -- the hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. This -- the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.
Representative Foxx cannot possibly “know” that Shepard was not killed because he was gay. Shepard had already been relieved of his wallet; there was no reason to have beaten him to death except that his murderer was possessed by an uncontrollable hatred. We know that the thieves lured Shepard out to their truck by pretending that they were homosexuals looking for sex. Matthew Shepard’s sexual orientation had everything to do with his being victimized by predators who admitted they were looking for a gay man to rob. To claim that Shepard’s murder is somehow part of a “hoax” being used to further the “homosexual agenda” (for such is what Foxx and her friends believe) is sickening in the extreme. (Incidentally, Matthew Shepard’s mother was present to hear Representative Foxx’s outrageous assertion.)
But ultimately, it’s all beside the point anyway, because whether or not Matthew Shepard was killed because he was gay (and I believe he was), there are innumerable other instances of homosexual men and women being abused, discriminated against, and yes, even murdered, for no other reason than that they are gay. These are hate crimes, and nothing else; they may target individuals, but they send a message (intentionally or otherwise) to other homosexuals: you are different, you are not accepted, and you should be scared.
That state of affairs may be just fine with Representative Foxx and her bigoted, fundamentalist Christian comrades-in-evil, but it is not acceptable to a progressive, inclusive America. Please, voters in North Carolina’s 5th Congressional District: deny this woman any more time on the public stage to mouth her ignorant, hateful diatribes. In 2010, for the sake of common decency, vote Virginia Foxx out.
7 comments:
I whole heartedly agree that the crime was horrible and not part of civilized society, but if you read or saw ABC's 20/20 investigation the real reason was for drugs and money. You can link it here. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=1
Steve, I read that before I wrote the post. I am not convinced by that report. Too many stories, too many recantations of testimony, too many potential lies. The fact remains that the two perpetrators of the crime determined beforehand to lure out a homosexual man; that Shepard made a pass at McKinney; and that from all the contradictory stories, it seems that McKinney was probably bisexual and ashamed of it, causing him to go way overboard in his actions.
As far as the reliability of 20/20, they give John Stossel a sounding board. 'Nuff said.
I take it you don't like John Stossel. I find him for the most part to be informative. Back to this Foxx creature. I personally am against any hate crime legislation and the reason for this is it gives the impression that as long as you don't hate when you kill someone that is somehow lesser of a crime. To me murder is murder and if you killed someone because they are gay or straight should not make any difference. So if a child molester kills a child thats very bad but, if a man kills a gay man that is somehow worse. These laws are made to make society "feel" like it's making a change for the better but in fact it's just another law that will only be enforced when it's a politically motivated. This could be used by either the elected district attorney or the high paid defense attorney. Let's say that this is passed, how much trouble will the DA have trying to prove what was going through the scumbags mind? Just give the bastard a fair trial and a real "righteous" hanging.
I would agree with you, Steve, except for the nature of the crime. For example:
(a) Criminal A robs and kills Victim B because Victim B resisted Criminal A.
(b) Criminal A robs and kills Victim C because Victim C is black.
Can you see the difference? It's the difference between an act of individual criminality and an act of terrorism. In both cases, the victims were murdered; but in the case of Victim C, it was not because of what he/she did, but because of what he/she is. In my example above, Victim C isn't the only victim; all black people are victimized, because of the message the murder sends out.
It's the difference between the hanging of a white bank robber and the lynching of a black man. Two deaths, but the latter has a much more widespread message, to a large segment of our society.
So, the law doesn't say that if you kill a gay man it's worse than killing a straight man. The law says that if you kill a gay man because he is gay, that is worse - and it is.
So if you decided to just go and kill people, that's better than killing someone who is different from you. I disagree, killing is killing whether you hate or don't hate that doesn't matter. Timothy Mcvay hated the government is that a hate crime? Your trying to criminalize thoughts and that is very dangerous no matter how well intentioned.
Timothy McVeigh committed an act of mass murder AND of terrorism. It's not that thought will be criminalized, although I very much respect where you are going with that; it can easily be turned to such a misuse by an overzealous government. But I'm going to pull a Godwin on you.
Consider World War II. Other than the fact that they lost the war, why were the German leaders, particularly the perpetrators of the Holocaust, put on trial for the murder of millions of Jews, whereas the commanders who ordered the mass bombings of German cities, containing millions of civilians and killing hundreds of thousands of tem, not likewise put on trial?
We do differentiate between the motives of killers. We always have - for instance, someone who kills another person by accident is judged less harshly than someone who carefully plans to murder someone.
"Killing is killing" only applies to the corpse ("I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold" - Prince Richard, The Lion in Winter). Hate crime legislation addresses the effect that such crimes have on the greater society, or on a historically oppressed and targeted group within that society.
The commanders were not put on trial because the civilians that were killed were part of collateral damage. The bombing of a factory that produces parts will kill the civilians but that is part of war. The killing of the Jews in the concentration camps was the straight murder of civilians. I give you a thought, a man hates muslims and that is part of his "right" just like whatever "free speech" he wishes to utter. Now he is at a ballgame and gets into a fight with a man and kills him. That man is a muslim and it's known that this man hates muslims so after the investigation begins this comes out. Now he will be prosecuted for for killing him and it will be a hate crime. I give you another thought a serial killer targets young women and doesn't "hate" them but enjoys killing them. He won't be prosecuted for a hate crime because he enjoys killing young women.
Creating another law no matter how well intentioned will not stop the crime. All it does is make another law and with the corruption of our government I rightly fear new laws that are well intentioned.
Post a Comment