hate crimes bill and anti-gay lies

[rm]

via ginmar:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/shameless-brainless-heartless-factless.html

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina): The, uh, hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard Bill is named after, uhn, uh, a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know, uh, that that young man was killed in the, uh, in the commitment [sic] of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. This—the bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it, it's, it's really a hoax!

Text: FALSE. Fact: "According to local police and prosecutors, the two men lured Mr. Shepard out of a bar by saying they were gay. Then, the Laramie police say, the pair kidnapped Mr. Shepard, pistol-whipped him with a .357 Magnum, and left him tied to a ranch fence for 18 hours until a passing bicyclist spotted Mr. Shepard, who was unconscious."—The New York Times, 10/12/98

Liss' comments: In case you'd like to call one of Rep. Foxx's offices and politely let her know she's got her facts wrong and politely request that she not perpetrate lies about Matthew Shepard and the much-needed Hate Crimes Bill, you can call her Washington office at 202-225-2071 or her North Carolina offices toll-free at 1-866-677-8968. You can also contact the National Republican Congressional Committee at 202-479-7000 and politely let them know you disapprove of Republican House members disparaging victims of hate crimes and telling demonstrable lies on the House floor.

The link provides video of the remarks from Foxx.

I recognize that many people reading this may be opposed to hate crimes legislation because it can be said to create a category of thought crime, and a murder is a murder, after all. However, discourse on the subject shouldn't be happening based on the lies above.

I've had friends hospitalized due to anti-gay violence. I've been threatened with rape for being queer. I am _deeply_ unamused by this turn in the discussion.

Comments

[digitalsidhe.livejournal.com]

The people who "oppose hate crimes legislation" on the grounds that it "adds punishment based on a person's thoughts or intentions, rather than their actions" seem to be perfectly comfortable with the differences in sentencing between premeditated murder and accidental manslaughter. At least, I haven't heard of any political movement to get those distinctions removed from our legal system.

We take intent into consideration all the time. Why is it only in this one situation that some people suddenly think that's wrong, but they have no problem with it the rest of the time?

[rm.livejournal.com]

For the record, I'm not on their side, but I was trying to forestall the most predictable derailing I could think of.

[digitalsidhe.livejournal.com]

Somehow, I never thought you were.

I was just venting, because that argument has always pissed me off. It just looks so transparent to me, and yet so many people seem to actually fall for it.

[sushis.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's a question of "falling for it," but of a genuine difference of opinion, on the part of some.

[sushis.livejournal.com]

I think Rep. Foxx is vile and unforgivable.

I do have reservations about hate crimes as a category. I don't think those reservations make slandering a murder victim acceptable.

eta: just pointing out, I disagree philosophically about hate crimes, doesn't mean I'm the sort of person who thinks that Rep Foxx's behavior is okay, as the word "derailing" seems, to me, to imply.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

It's a great point, and one I'll remember to use from here on out when fighting with wingnuts.

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how I feel about hate crime legislation these days, but how does one draw a moral distinction between a man premeditating to kill his ex-wife because she dared to leave him (which seems to be depressingly common these days) and a man premeditating to kill a gay person for being gay and a man premeditating to kill someone for an inheritance, for example? That's the sticking point for me--I find all of those repellent and morally wrong and I'd like all those murderers to get hefty sentences. I'm not sure how I would rank them in terms of "wrongness," or if I can.

And I think comparing premeditated murder to unpremeditated murder, both of which are done with a deliberate intent to murder and frequently with malice and which differ only in amount of planning, is a better comparison than to accidental manslaughter, which happens without malice or intent to murder someone. I'm not sure there should be a distinction between premeditated and unpremeditated murder.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

The first is a crime of revenge.
The second is not just about the person, but also intending to send a message to the community: You are not safe.
The third is a crime of gain.

What makes a hate crime a hate crime is that it's not just about the two people involved. It's about that message to the larger community. Like painting swastikas on an underpass is vandalism and painting them on a synagogue is a hate crime.

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

That makes sense. Thank you for answering my question seriously.

[luke-jaywalker.livejournal.com]

Intent is taken into consideration all the time, yes. *Motive* is considered occasionally (i.e. "was the violence provoked or in self-defense"), but not too often.

Saying that beating up a gay because one hates gays is somehow worse than beating up random people because one is a just-plain asshole... makes no sense to me. Beating up people is bad, period. If you punish based on the choice of victim, you essentially *are* punishing the thoughts behind the actions.

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

I found valarltd's reply to me above makes a lot of sense to me. Not so much punishing the motive differently as punishing the murderer additionally for the threat to the targeted community, as we would punish people who make bomb threats (for example).

YMMV, and I'm still thinking about this so not interested in debating.