Get a rope.

This made me sick to my stomach this morning (go to about 2:42 on the timeline):

In this clip, Representative Virginia Foxx (R – North Carolina) is arguing against H.R. 1913, a proposed bill that would expand the legal definition of hate crimes to include crimes based upon someone’s gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity or disability. Or rather, specifically, she’s arguing against calling it the “Matthew Shepherd Act”. Why? Because, according to Rep. Foxx, Matthew wasn’t actually killed because he was gay.

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 the young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay. The bill was named for him… but it’s really a hoax.

Are we really still at this place in our society? I mean, hey, by all means, let’s grudgingly pass a law making it illegal to stomp a faggot to death, but let’s not call it after Matthew Shepherd, because before those two pieces of shit pistolwhipped his skull to a pulp and left him hanging off a goddamned fence to die, they snagged his fucking wallet…which is clearly proof that it wasn’t a hate crime. Right?

Rep. Foxx later claimed she made a “poor choice of words”, but I don’t really think that covers it. Poor choice of thoughts, maybe.

Join the Conversation

No comments

  1. It is still illegal to kill, rob, beat, pistol whip, etc…

    A crime is a crime. If these 2 thug assholes did what they did to my grandmother instead of Matthew Sheperd, or any other gay person, why should the punishment they get be any less severe?

    It shouldn’t. It should be JUST AS severe. If not, MORE severe for targeting a frail old lady.

    It makes no sense to take these killers and enhance their punishment just because their victim happened to be gay. Their punishment should be the same as if they did this to ANYONE. It should be severe, yes. Murder is a pretty drastic thing, but no more severe than if the victim was you or I or any other John W. Public.

    If they want hate crime laws passed so badly, then it needs to work both ways. A couple of years ago in Queens, NY, a group of drunk lesbian women attacked a male after harassing him for several blocks as he quietly kept walking to get away from them. They ganged up on him and started beating him with bottles and sticks.

    (and these aren’t the hot lesbian blondes you see on Howard Stern. These were big, ugly, manly bull dykes. And when it’s 7 or 8 of them on one, you don’t have a chance)

    They beat the living daylights out of him.

    So that, too, should be a hate crime.

    When a group of whites beat up a black kid in Howard Beach and chased him into traffic where he was hit by a car, it made national headlines. HATE CRIME they all said. But last Halloween when a gang of blacks ran after 2 white kids and chased them into a McDonald’s and beat one of them up very badly whiling yelling “get whitey, get whitey”, that was not considered a hate crime. All the so-called hate crime advocates were silent.

    I don’t get it.

    A crime is a crime. If they want to add the whole hate thing into it, it’s fine with me – so as long as it applies to all. Blacks, whites, homosexuals, heterosexuals, rich people, poor people, old people, young people, etc…

    If you see someone driving a SUV, and you beat the shit out of him because you hate SUV’s, well, that’s a hate crime, too.

    Either apply it to all and everyone, or don’t apply it at all.

  2. Well said. I think hate crime laws are a waste of time. redundant. Its all illeagel anyhow. What difference does it make why you did it? I can think about killing a gay person. Thats not a crime. I can kill a gay person. Thats a crime. Then if its proven that I killed him because I hate gays, all of a sudden that makes it worse??? Then shouldnt it be against the law to hate gays? Or blacks or whatever.

Leave a comment