Washington - U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-5th, is taking heat for comments
she made on the floor of the House of Representatives this morning.

During a discussion of a hate-crimes bill that would give gay victims of
violence more federal protection, Foxx referred to the beating of
beating of Matthew Shepard as a hoax.

"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."

She added: "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."

Shepard, 21, a gay college student, was robbed, beaten and left to die
on prairie in Wyoming in 1998. Two men pleaded guilty in his death and
have said that they singled out Shepard because he was gay.

Video of Foxx's comments were posted on the Web site Politico.com and on
Youtube and this afternoon the Human Rights Campaign issued a statement
refuting Foxx's assessments.

"Vile lies, like the one spread by Rep. Foxx today on the floor of the
U.S. House of Representatives about Matthew's brutal hate-fueled murder,
continues to underscore how extreme anti-LGBT opponents have become,"
said Brad Luna, the communications director for the HRC.

A spokesman for Foxx acknowledged that Foxx made the comments, but said
that she based them on news reports that questioned whether the men
killed Shepard because he was gay.

The bill passed by a vote of 249-175.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:06:17 -0400, HK wrote:



Washington - U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-5th, is taking heat for comments
she made on the floor of the House of Representatives this morning.

During a discussion of a hate-crimes bill that would give gay victims of
violence more federal protection, Foxx referred to the beating of
beating of Matthew Shepard as a hoax.

"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."

She added: "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."

Shepard, 21, a gay college student, was robbed, beaten and left to die
on prairie in Wyoming in 1998. Two men pleaded guilty in his death and
have said that they singled out Shepard because he was gay.

Video of Foxx's comments were posted on the Web site Politico.com and on
Youtube and this afternoon the Human Rights Campaign issued a statement
refuting Foxx's assessments.

"Vile lies, like the one spread by Rep. Foxx today on the floor of the
U.S. House of Representatives about Matthew's brutal hate-fueled murder,
continues to underscore how extreme anti-LGBT opponents have become,"
said Brad Luna, the communications director for the HRC.

A spokesman for Foxx acknowledged that Foxx made the comments, but said
that she based them on news reports that questioned whether the men
killed Shepard because he was gay.

The bill passed by a vote of 249-175.

At least one of Shepard's parents was in the gallery when Ms Foxx laid
out her intelligence.

How embarassing.

wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:33:07 -0400, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:53:32 -0400, HK wrote:

In the last century, you may recall, some of the states in the south did
not bother to properly prosecute those who murdered or otherwise abused
blacks or even whites who were helping blacks.

That is another problem that can be dealt with, simply by making
states enforce the laws equally. This "hate crime" thing is unequal
application of the law.


How do you make "states enforce the laws equally?"

Most crimes against persons and crimes against property laws are state
laws, and there are 50 sets of procedures and punishments for handling
these. In some states, you get a needle for a first-degree murder, and
in others, life in prison. Some states follow the rules of law and
evidence fairly closely, and others do not.

That's why there are federal civil rights laws and calls for federal
hate crime laws.

It's that simple.


I agree that is why there are federal laws but I also think that is an
anachronism from a bygone time. There may still be a county or two in
Mississippi or Arkansas that has a corrupt judicial system but I think
the 24 hour news cycle shines a bright light on that kind of thing and
makes it go away.


I'm not so sure it is anachronistic...there are still states in the
south where I think "justice" is little more than a word. Texas comes to
mind.

wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:56:55 -0400, HK wrote:

I agree that is why there are federal laws but I also think that is an
anachronism from a bygone time. There may still be a county or two in
Mississippi or Arkansas that has a corrupt judicial system but I think
the 24 hour news cycle shines a bright light on that kind of thing and
makes it go away.

I'm not so sure it is anachronistic...there are still states in the
south where I think "justice" is little more than a word. Texas comes to
mind.


Don't worry about them, they are seceding anyway. ;-)


Governor Perry changed his mind earlier this week when he begged the
feds to send whatever they had to help fight off the flu.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:34:08 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:23:08 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:53:32 -0400, HK wrote:

In the last century, you may recall, some of the states in the south did
not bother to properly prosecute those who murdered or otherwise abused
blacks or even whites who were helping blacks.


That is another problem that can be dealt with, simply by making
states enforce the laws equally. This "hate crime" thing is unequal
application of the law.

Seems that way to me too. Let's say you kill one of these "protected
classes" because you just don't like the SOB. You know he belongs to
the "protected class."
But that's got nothing to do with you killing him. Maybe he killed
your mother and got away with it.
So you get life with no parole or the chair for a hate-crime murder.
But if he kills you, he gets 20 years - with boyfriends.
Don't seem fair.

--Vic

I think a jury is likely to be able to discern. If you cannot prove
someone was targeted for their difference, it wouldn't apply.

If you run into someone in your car who's gay, it doesn't mean you get
nailed for a hate crime. However, if it's proven that you ran into
them because they were gay, the punishment should include electrodes
to the balls since we don't torture.