|
April 30, 2009
A dishonest debate over a misleading narrative
Speaking of principles, I loved Jacob Sullum's vintage 1992 Reason piece in opposition to all -- and I stress all -- hate crimes. What bothers me about the current debate is that it is being spun -- by various people on the left and the right -- as a debate over homosexuality. Naturally (and doubtless to maintain this misleading narrative), the bill has been misleadingly titled "The Matthew Shepherd Act" even though -- by federalizing non-federal crimes -- it goes much further than adding sexual orientation to the list of protected categories. The new federal nexus requirement is so laughably accommodating that it might as well have been left out. A violent crime against a victim selected for one of the mentioned reasons can be federalized if it "occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim...across a State line or national border"; if the defendant "uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce"; if "the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce"; if the crime "interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct"; or if the crime "otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce."(Link via Glenn Reynolds.) The horrendous expansion of federal power in the "Matthew Shepard Act" serves as proof of how wrong it was to have hate crime legislation in the first place. Adding new categories only compounds the error. Of course, few people will take the time to analyze these things. They just hear the sound bytes about how it's "doing something about gay bashing" on the one hand, or "attacking Christian free speech" on the other. In the past, I wrote a number of posts opposing hate crime laws, and I was severely taken to task by commenters who not only disagreed, but who seemed to think it's my responsibility to run a debating club. (No it isn't; I try to say what I think, when I feel like saying it. And if people don't like it, they can say what they think, but that does not create any obligation on my part.) Right now, I'm sure they'd say that "the debate is over." No it isn't. The political war may have been lost, but this is not a debate. It's a discussion of principles. Not only do principles survive debates, they even survive wars. No matter who "wins." UPDATE: In a great post, Sean Kinsell raises an excellent point: if you give into the (thoroughly understandable) temptation to administer a good, sound beating-up to Barney Frank, the hate-crimes bill that just passed the House says...uh...you'd better not be thinking about his homosexuality while you're doing it....My thanks to Sean for the link! posted by Eric on 04.30.09 at 09:47 AM
Comments
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/30/2009 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often. David M · April 30, 2009 03:08 PM |
|
June 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2009
May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
It's An Absolute Disgrace
The Seeds Of Stupidity Remember D-Day Newton's Cradle Taxes Send Jobs Offshore The law is the law! A teaching moment? You Can't Do It At Random In debt to Islam? For Western thought? David Carradine Is Dead
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Naming this bill after Matthew Shepard is just dishonest. ABC's 20/20, of all organizations, spent a bit of time investigating his death, and found that:
1. The claim that he was victimized for being gay was spun by gay activists looking for a cause.
2. One of his killers was bisexual. They interviewed someone in Laramie who knew this for a fact; he was a former sexual partner of the killer. Shepard was murdered as part of a robbery gone bad, not because he was gay.