Back during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, we became acquainted with the term “human shields.” This was the name given to innocent citizens whom the Iraqis would place in buildings that were obvious military targets so as to confront the West with a dilemma: either refrain from bombing such facilities and handicap yourself militarily or endure a public-relations disaster for “targeting” innocent women and children.

While this is considered a most cowardly and underhanded tactic, it essentially is done on political battlefields all the time. To pass social-engineering legislation, proponents don’t need to bother with intellectual appeals and logical argumentation. In fact, this would be counter-productive as such an approach would expose the fallacies that are their positions. So, instead, they just trot out some human-interest story, some poor, unfortunate soul who is emblematic of the supposed problem they promise to remedy.

This is easy to do, too, as there are eight million stories in the Naked City. Want to galvanize support for socialized medicine? Just find someone who developed cancer shortly after losing his health insurance. Want to enact more gun-control laws? Just find someone whose loved one was killed by a criminal wielding a Glock. Then, want to pass more hate-crime laws? Just use Matthew Shepard, the 21-year-old homosexual college student who, in a brutal and much-publicized 1998 Wyoming crime, was beaten and left for dead. You’ll have a type of human shield of which Saddam Hussein could only dream.

Someone who is learning this the hard way is North Carolina Congressional Representative Virginia Foxx. While debating the new hate-crimes bill (H.R. 1913) — the Senate version of which is known as the “Matthew Shepard Act” — on the House floor, Representative Foxx said the claim that Shepard was targeted because he was a homosexual was a “hoax.” Jim Morrill writing at CharlotteObserver.com reports:

“The Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed,” Foxx, a Banner Elk Republican, said. “But we know that that 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 that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.”

Not surprisingly, the media and homosexual activists (pardon the redundancy) have seized upon this. Keith Olbermann featured Foxx as his “Worst Person in The World” and said, “She is at best callous, insensitive, criminally misinformed. At worst she is a bald-faced liar. And if there is a spark of a human being in there somewhere, she should either immediately retract and apologize for her stupid and hurtful words or she should resign her seat in the House.” Not to be outdone, the liberal Daily Kos had the very irrational headline, “Rep. Virginia Foxx Dishonors Memory of Matthew Shepard.” (How does asserting that a killer might have been driven by one dark motive and not another dishonor the memory of his victim? Well, I suppose that when you’re detached from truth and governed by emotion, you just disgorge whatever feels right at the moment.) And federal legislative director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Becky Dansky, said, “I haven't ever heard anyone say before that Matthew Shepard’s death wasn’t a hate crime.”

Yet, Dansky must suffer from selective cultural deafness because that thesis has been around for quite some time now. In 2004, for instance, ABCNews published a report based on a 20/20 investigation indicating that Shepard’s killers, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, were drug addicts who targeted Shepard for robbery and then murdered him while experiencing “methamphetamine rage.” Among the other facts brought to light by 20/20 are that the prosecutor and a detective working the Shepard investigation didn’t think his case was a “hate crime” and that McKinney and Henderson attacked another man in the same fashion a little while after brutalizing Shepard.

Yet, I’m not going to retry the case here in the court of journalistic opinion. For one thing, those bent on calling this a hate crime have their evidence as well, and, second, dwelling on such things is a distraction from the real issues.

As to this, let’s first discuss the thoroughly irrational reaction to Foxx’s comments. From the kind of vicious attacks leveled against her — Olbermann also said her remarks were “the most despicable thing said on the floor in decades” — you’d think she had said the murder itself was a hoax or that Shepard deserved his fate. Yet, all she did was cite information from a mainstream news source questioning the motive of his killers. She also alluded to my idea that Shepard is being used as a prop, as a human shield, for the purposes of greasing the skids for legislation.

By the way, to cement the last point, consider this comment by Olbermann, “And adding to our shame, she [Foxx] said all that as Matthew Shephard's mother sat in the House gallery.” This is a common sentiment among the left, and let’s be clear on what is being stated: whenever the left has one of its human shields present during a debate, we have to censor ourselves — and refrain from launching surgical strikes that could carry the day — lest we be thought “callous, insensitive, [and] criminally misinformed.”

Well, sorry, but this ploy is what’s outrageous. Just as I said when commenting on Cindy Sheehan, I have little patience for grieving activists. If you want to grieve, grieve. But once you become a standard bearer for a cause and try to effect social change, you place yourself on the firing line and must expect to take flak. For you then cease to be a civie. You have donned a uniform, shouldered a rifle, and placed some fellow Americans in the crosshairs.

The reaction to Foxx also might lead one to believe that McKinney and Henderson escaped with a slap on the wrist. Yet the reality is that they both received life sentences. So what gives? Does the left want to see them subjected to a daily waterboarding as well? Why is it so important to many that their trespasses be labeled a “hate crime”? The last is a good question — and it has a good answer.

Clearly, this is a case where the left doth protest too much. After all, if they simply wanted to eliminate the violence in question, they would accept the following proposal: let’s just increase the penalties for a given crime to hate-crime levels regardless of the motivation. In other words, if you want “hate-crime” murderers to receive an extra 15 years, it can easily be accomplished by thus punishing all murderers. And if that level of punishment is needed to deter the behavior, doesn’t it make sense to apply it across-the-board?

The fact that leftists won’t do this is very telling. It indicates that eliminating crime isn’t nearly as important to them as making a statement. But what would that statement be?

The answer may be found in the fact that hate-crime laws punish thoughts and words. How? Well, consider this example: two crimes are committed, and they are identical in terms of the action undertaken. But they are prosecuted very differently. The perpetrator of the first crime is deemed to have been motivated by a politically correct sin, greed, and receives five years in prison. The criminal in the second crime, however, is said to have been animated by “hate” — as defined by oh-so loving social engineers — thus, the perpetrator is sent away for 15 years.

Now, we can conclude that the act itself warranted five years prison, as that is what was handed down when only the act was considered. So, we have to ask, what were the extra 10 years given to Mr. Hate for? Could they perhaps be for the thoughts expressed through the act?

This brings us to free-speech concerns. There is no doubt that hate-crime laws in general are a transitional phase on the road to hate-speech laws. To illustrate why, consider how it is that a criminal act is deemed a hate crime. It is thus labeled when the perpetrator expresses displeasure with a group his victim is identified with during the commission of the act. (And note that it isn’t just group-specific epithets uttered that would bring hate-crime charges but anything relating a negative opinion about the group in question. In other words, at issue is not just mindless profanity, not just style, but also substance.) But think about it: if the government can criminalize the expression of certain beliefs within one context, it is that much closer to criminalizing them within any context.

And I believe that the desire to do the latter is part of what animates hate-crime law proponents. They want to make a statement about the expression of certain ideas. Oh, don’t misunderstand me, I’m not so philosophically clumsy as to think that most of them are consciously aware of this factor. Yet some are that Machiavellian, and many of the rest will be amenable to the hate-speech laws that are sure to come down the pike.

This thinly veiled desire to slap an iron muzzle on unfashionable tongues is reflected in the attack on Virginia Foxx’s remarks. It also may help explain why leftists — who have been fighting for decades to reduce and even eliminate punishment in homes, schools and courts — become the Athenian lawgiver Draco where “hate crime” is concerned.

Hate-crime laws are less about eliminating crime than they are about eliminating hate. That is to say, the hate — and the love and indifference — that leftists hate.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (20)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Flu-Bird said:

	Only a hate crime My guess its only a hate crime if you have a antiobama bumper sticker on your car or you oppose obama and his ulteriour motives
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 04, 2009
Votes: +2

Uh ... the law has been on the books for 40 years now., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Joe M said:

Hmm Well, obviously the Shepard case is being used as a heart tugging prop to pass the legislation, but its hardly a liberal ploy. Just examples are common when trying to pass any new legislation by either side. The case got alot of media attention over the years and the jury was convinced that he was targeted because he was gay. The brutal nature of the crime speaks to more than a simple robbery. I think the whole concept of "hate crimes" comes down to addressing the motive and taking into consideration the damage that is done to the victimized community. I do understand the anger and fear raised in a minority groups when a crime like this occurs. Treating it as a federal hate crime ensures that the prosecution seeks a maximum sentence and puts the community more at ease that their concerns are addressed. I guess the arguement against hate crime legislation is that a crime is a crime and we cannot read people's minds. Well, motive is a vital part of any criminal case. It cannot be ignored. I do think motive should weigh in on the penalty. Its the same reasoning between having voluntary and involuntary murder.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 04, 2009
Votes: +0

missmurphy said:

motivation irrelevant A crime is a crime- regardless of the motivation to commit. There can be no good reason to rob or murder another person. I half agree with Chuck- "hate crime" legislation should be repealed. the author is dead on- we can't criminalize thoughts and feelings- no matter if we disagree with them or not- this is America. The only one authorized to judge morality does not serve on juries or sit on the bench.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 04, 2009
Votes: +2

Shaun said:

What about straigt white males? missmurphy, As to not reiterate the same points, I wanted to add something. As a knoxville native, the memory of the murder and torture of channon christian and christopher newsom is still fresh in many minds. 5 blacks car jacked, brutally raped, tortured and murdered 2 white collge kids and will not be charged with hate crimes. This is the same scenario as the Witchita massacre or the rape/murder that recently happened at the Uni of Michigan. White males(heterosexual) will never be victims of hate crimes, only perps.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 04, 2009
Votes: +8

A bit more nuance please, Lowly rated comment [Show]

srp said:

A bit more nuance please (continued) Two more points: (3) Missmurphy - with respect to your examples of whites being the victim of hate crimes and how "white males (heterosexuals) will never be victims of hate crimes". That is incorrect. Please visit the FBI's Hate Crimes Statistics page (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/index.html), which documents hate crimes statistics from around the country. Hate crimes against white males are committed, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I encourage you to visit the home page of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division at the US Department of Justice. This Section prosecutes federal hate crimes, and routinely prosecutes on behalf of white victims. (4) Hate crimes do not criminalize thoughts or feelings. Like most other federal and state criminal laws, they criminalize malicious intent.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 05, 2009
Votes: -4

lomanBill said:

	ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL!! errr {edit} BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUALER THAN OTHERS!
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 05, 2009
Votes: +3

Flu-Bird said:

	THE DEMAPIGS As was in ANIMAL FARM THE RULING DEMOPIGS LEAD BY THE BIG HOG HIMSELF BARACK OBAMA HAVE MADE THEMSELVES MORE EPUAL THEN THE REST OF US LOWER ANIMALS
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 05, 2009
Votes: +5

Billy said:

... Most are missing what this bill's real intent is.Just look at all the europeon countries and Canada who have this same hate crime law.It will kill free speech so the cabal's who run most of the world can shut up all truths being told. Just as in one case in Canada where a judge ruled the truth in no defence against a hate crime charge.Look at who has fought to get this bill in all countries and then you will find the real agenda.There are hundreds who have been put in prison and many that are in prison now for just having a different view on parts of world war two. This law will make anyone a criminal who does not except the lies by the very ones who have invented this bill and they and only they will decide who breaks these laws. The adl,splc and all the same people who have pushed so many un-American laws,taking prayer out of schools is one they brag about along with making all patriots,Christians and anyone who believes we should follow the Constituion as haters who will be punished by this very law.They have done a great job in detroying our moral fabric our founding fathers fought for! By the way all our founding fathers make in very plain we are a Christian nation and can only suceed by continuing to be one!

report abuse vote down vote up

May 05, 2009
Votes: +5

Plain Old American said:

	... The problem with "hate" legislation is that it is based upon emotional interpretations of behavior. There is no doubt that, given the opportunity, the nazis on the left would have Miss California brought up on charges for expressing her opinion that marriage should only be for two folks of opposite sex.
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 05, 2009
Votes: +2

patriot said:

Hate Crime Laws Punish Certain Kinds of Malicious Intent There is a huge difference between hate crime laws and the distinction between homicide and manslaughter. The latter punishes based on whether there was malicious intent and the former punishes based on the typeof malicious intent. The criteria that would classify a crime as a "hate crime" would be a type of malicious intent. So would greed (as in Selwyn's "two crimes are committed" scenario). Punishing the "hate crime" more severely than the crime committed out of greed would be wrong. It would be distinguishing between different kinds of malicious intent. In both cases, there was a malicious intent to commit the crime. It doesn't matter what the motivation was; both were intentional acts committed out of malice, and both should be punished equally. This is the distinction made in the United States courts, whether there was malice. Different types of malicious intent should be punished equally.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 05, 2009
Votes: +3

Flu-Bird said:

	IMPEACH GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES Impeach all those who support gun control and evict the sinister UN from our nations sovregn soil lets move it to a more approprate location like maybe TENEIMIN SQUARE
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 05, 2009
Votes: +1

Jonathan said:

The problem with the interpretation The problem with what patriot, srp and anyone else who wants to quote these "hate-crime" laws (I laugh) is that they act like we are ignorant enough to believe that they will be interpreted in an unbiased fashion in every case. I really don't think that you believe this argument. It's more about using a foggy veil to prove your liberal views. The fact of the matter is that it has been many days since the law has been dispensed equally and justly. Cases in point...Martha Stewart gets the book thrown at her for paper crimes but O.J. has to be caught on tape with hitmen pistols drawn before he faces any repercussions (OH, that's right he was innocent...I laugh again), M.J. walks on all ten counts....I was listening on the radio when the verdict was passed (what a sham). The term "hate-crime" should be taken completely off the books of law and out of the court rooms. If you kill someone and your intention was to kill them and you can't prove self-defense then it should be tried as murder...cut and dry!! This terminology will not be erased though because it furthers the left-wing agenda. It says that the BOOK that this Great Nation of America was founded on and the laws that our founding fathers put into place based upon Biblical beliefs are now all hate-crimes. They believe that all who stand upon any form of true moral standards and believe that there is a definitive line between right and wrong and will not compromise those beliefs for a slimy gray area are the actual criminals....Just in case we have forgotten, most of Romes Caesars had these same beliefs and killed all that went by the name Christian.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 09, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

srp said:

Re: Hate Crime Laws Punish Certain Kinds of Malicious Intent I agree that there is a distinction between punishing on the basis of whether there is malicious intent versus the type of malicious intent. Patriot writes that "Different types of malicious intent should be punished equally." Except they are not. Different types of malicious intent are very often punished different. In the category of homicide, we differentiate between express malice, implied malice, and (in some jurisdictions), 'depraved indifference to human life.' In the category of manslaughter, we punish certain types of voluntary manslaughter more several than other types of manslaughter, often making the distinction on the basis of malice/intent/mens rea, taking into consideration a number of mitigating factors (e.g., words of provocation) that increase or decrease the punishable quality of one's intent. In short, it may be convenient to think that we do not differentiate between intent amongst the same crimes. The simple reality is that we do. On a broader level - to your point that we should only consider the presence of intent, not the type of intent - hate crimes laws are punished on a "double-intent" requirement: intent to choose the person on the basis of a protected characteristic, and intent to interfere with the victim's participation in a federally protected activity. Those are not 'what kind', but 'whether', questions.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 10, 2009
Votes: -1

srp said:

Re: The problem with the interpretation Jonathan writes "The problem with what patriot, srp and anyone else who wants to quote these "hate-crime" laws (I laugh) is that they act like we are ignorant enough to believe that they will be interpreted in an unbiased fashion in every case. I really don't think that you believe this argument. It's more about using a foggy veil to prove your liberal views." My arguments do not assume anyone is ignorant to assume anything. The fact that laws are not applied consistently is no reason to abandon them altogether. Moreover, it is intellectually empty to tie together the application of hate crimes laws and insider trading prosecutions. I hope you recognize that the process of law-making in this country is meant to continually refine and revise to achieve consistency in application. As a final point, "as to my liberal views," it does not say very much about the strength of your argument if you cannot engage substance, but instead just accuse the messenger of being a "liberal." And it does not say very much about the intellectually lazy loudmouths we hear everyday (on both sides) who perpetuate such 3rd grade playground arguments. Grow up.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 10, 2009
Votes: -1

Carmen Brown said:

	Still doesn't add up A crime was committed. Punish the crime. When sentencing look at all the surrounding circumstances. Let the judge rule accordingly. Pulling out specific circumstances, i.e. hatred for the victim, why is that extra crime?.. just include it in the normal judicial accounting of surrounding circumstances.
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 17, 2009
Votes: +2

averageJoe said:

Crime is Crime I heard the best line about this on a tv show this year- Life on Mars- they had an episode where a returned war hero had been murdered and they found out he was "gay", the guy from the future said "this looks like a hate crime" and his boss in the 70's looked at him funny and said "well, I've never heard of a love crime". Too true! Yeah, I think they're moving into dangerous ground with this and I think there is a lot of room for abuse.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 22, 2009
Votes: +2

Jonathan said:

RE: Crime is Crime AverageJoe said "Yeah, I think they're moving into dangerous ground with this and I think there is a lot of room for abuse." I promised myself I wouldn't put another post here but if you can't break a promise to yourself then who can you break one to. AverageJoe, you're absolutely right!! Your ending statement describes the sole intent and purpose behind this "hate-crime law"...to leave room for abuse. Look at the majority of those that are pushing to see this law go through in all of it's glory and listen to there ideologies and you will see that there is absolutely nothing innocent or benevolent about this law. With that said, are there some good people who innocently back this law with the thought that it is designed only to curb violence? Absolutely! I think the old saying is "Ignorance is bliss." I wish I had the time (and typing ability) to describe in vivid detail what I know about the "intent" surrounding this law and what the law makers that have meticulously contrived it have said their purpose for it is. My typing is slow and patience for typing thin at best. It has taken me almost 15 minutes to type this post....well such is life. Hehehe...never heard of a "love-crime"...that was good.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 23, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

Bob said:

... All of the comments are very interesting, particularly those that imply a knowledge of the law by specifying the vary degrees of intent that are argued in the courts. Thank you, it is very educational. It does not in my mind vary the fact that a human life has been taken. The law of Moses is concise, "Thou shall not murder." While there may be a valid distinction between murder and manslaughter all the rest seem to be varieties of defense, arguements to water down conviction. Even more ironic is the condonement of these acts by sentencing which does not deter the crime and is laughed at by the criminal community.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 24, 2009
Votes: +2