Congresswoman Virginia Foxx has issued an apology after using the word “hoax” to describe the details surrounding Matthew Shepard’s death in 1998.

Several human rights organizations have expressed discontent with Foxx’ statements.

While on the House Floor on Wednesday, the Republican said, “The hate crime bill that is 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… The hate crimes bill was named for him but it’s really a hoax.”

Shepard was a 21-year-old college student who was tortured and murdered by two men near Laramie, Wyoming.  He died from severe head injuries several days after the attack.

Witnesses said that Shepard was targeted because he was gay.  The trial brought attention to the issue of hate crime legislation at the state and federal levels.

Thursday, Foxx issued the following statement:

“It has come to my attention that some people have been led to believe that I think the terrible crimes that led to Matthew Shepard's death in 1998 were a hoax. The term ‘hoax’ was a poor choice of words used in the discussion of the hate crimes bill.  Mr. Shepard's death was nothing less than a tragedy and those responsible for his death certainly deserved the punishment they received.  I am especially sorry if his grieving family was offended by my statement. 

“The larger context of my remarks is important.  I was referring to a 2004 ABCNews 20/20 report on Mr. Shepard's death.  ABC's 20/20 report questioned the motivation of those responsible for Mr. Shepard's death.  Referencing this media account may have been a mistake, but it was a mistake based on what I believed were reliable accounts.”

Foxx represents Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Davie, Stokes, Surry, Watauga, Wilkes, and Yadkin counties as well as parts of Forsyth, Iredell, and Rockingham counties in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Comments

Add New Search

paulman1   Registered | 04/30/2009 2:57PM I believe she's has now officially taken over the leader position of "Putting one's foot in one's mouth" ahead from GW Bush,Sarah Palin, Bill Richardson and even Joe Biden... Wow, can't wait to see how the rest of her term goes....

Molon Labe   Registered | 04/30/2009 3:06PM Think again Paulman1. Listening to the news today, I have not heard a single report about what Foxx said. However, Biden's statement warning people not to ride public transit is being widely reported. While the Foxx statement was unfortunate, I don't think it was as serious as advising the people in a round about way to do something that would devastate our economy even more than it already is.

paulman1   Registered | 04/30/2009 3:35PM I don't have time to think Molon Labe, by the way,what's up with your goofy username.. Molon Labe sounds like a cross between the movie flop "Moulon Rouge" and a far away planet in one of the those cheap Sci-Fi movies on the Sci-Fi Channel... Anyways, thats my opinion on Ms Foxx. Besides my Dad told me to stay away from public transportation long ago and way before Joe Biden even became a politician....

chambels   Registered | 04/30/2009 3:39PM I agree with Foxx in the sense that Matthew Shepard was not murdered because he was gay. He was murdered because of the hatred, anger and bitterness in the minds and hearts of those who murdered him. To say that he was murdered because of who he was, something he did or his choice of lifestyle intimates that he caused or brought on the vicious brutal attack.

Overall   Registered | 04/30/2009 5:03PM Chambels--Thank you for your post. It pretty much proves the need for hate crime legislation. Your comments remind us that there are still certain individuals and groups among us who either fail to recognize or refuse to admit that some crimes are committed not as individual, isolated acts, but as symbolic attempts to intimidate, oppress or scare into submission entire sub-groups of our society. There are also certain individuals and groups among us who fear that the Matthew Shepard Bill might stand as a federal statement that homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice, but an involuntary, genetically determined trait like yellow skin, blue eyes or brown freckles. These people are frightened that this law, in some way, poses a threat to certain religious doctrine which, in their minds, is more important than the basic rights and lives of violently attacked citizens. Chambels, to suggest that Matthew Shepard was not abducted, tortured and murdered because he was gay is akin to suggesting that Southern lynching victims were not killed because they were black and that Eastern European Jews were not killed because of their faith. It just makes no sense. That said, I still thank you for your post. It helps to show that there really is a level of ethical blindness, faith-based predudice, and tolerance for viscious discrimination against which many in our country need to be protected.

Molon Labe   Registered | 04/30/2009 3:55PM What is with your problem with my username, Paulman1? I must admit that your continual statements about it sound somewhat childish to me. There is a great site on the internet called "Google". I am sure you would not have too much problem finding it and typing in "molon labe". Once you do you will find all sorts of places where you can read what the term means. Consider it my attempt to improve your knowledge base, which heaven knows you need. The question at hand has nothing to do with public transportation, but with stupid remarks by laughable politicians like Joe Biden.

paulman1   Registered | 04/30/2009 4:14PM To Molon Labia (the All-Knowing...) What's google... Sounds like eye-wear someone would wear when sky-jumping or using a power tool... You need to bring it down a notch.... thnx

Tigress Il   Registered | 04/30/2009 4:50PM LMAO @ Paulman. For once I actually agree with you, although some of your remarks have made me laugh - very hard. To help you out (just a little) Google is a search engine. Its great you actually should look into it. Try Google.com hahaha anyway your first post here is what I agree with. It really is a shame that votes don't count more. She sucks, has sucked and always will. She and Bev should get together and see how much worse they can sc**w the people of NC

chambels   Registered | 04/30/2009 6:39PM Overall - don't feel bad misunderstanding the reasoning I presented it takes some people longer to understand than others. Would you say that Jeffery Dahmer's victims were abducted,raped,dismembered and buried because they were young boys? Or because Jeffery Dahmer was a horribly mentally derranged individual. How about a female victim of rape, is she raped because she is a female. Southern lynching victims were not killed because they were black, they were killed because of the hatred,anger,fear on the part of the people who were doing the lynching. To say otherwise, that they were killed because they were black means somehow by virtue of the color of their skin they were culpable or at fault for the treament inflicted upon them. Jews were not killed because of their religious heritage or their faith they were killed because of a psycho wack-o named Hitler and his followers. To say otherwise means that by virtue of their birth or beliefs they are culpable in the treatment inflicted upon them at the hands of Hitler. Are you getting it yet. Keep trying you have to break away from the old cliches that are tossed around. As a side note - have you ever heard of anyone being murdered or attacked because they where white or heterosexual?

Overall   Registered | 04/30/2009 8:30PM I understand quite clearly what you're trying to assert, Chambels. And I don't disagree with your claim that hate and fear are causes of these crimes. I just don't see your cited causes being mutually exclusive of mine. Saying that someone is killed because they are gay or black or of Jewish decent is NOT, as you would have us believe, the SAME as saying that they are killed for something of their own doing. After all, none of those examples involves a chosen, an elective, or a voluntary trait or characteristic. As such, should a sane, logical, rational individual assert that a person has been killed because they are gay, or black or of Jewish decent, they cannot possibly be suggesting that any fault, blame or culpability lies with the victim. Let's be clear on this. Supporters of hate crime legislation DO NOT believe gay people CHOOSE to be gay. Nor do they believe black people choose to be black, or that persons of Jewish decent choose to be of Jewish decent. All that being said, I think we are BOTH right about the causes of these crimes. I think the crimes are commited because certain hateful, backward and/or insane people choose to strike out against members of certain categorical groups that they feel do not deserve to live. Would this make it easier for you? Let's say "The reason blacks were selected as lynching victims, the reason Jews were selected for gas chambers, and the reason Matthew Shepard was tortured and beaten to death was because, in each example, the victims met the hateful, vindictive, inhumane and/or insane criteria established by their killers." Is there any part of that premise that you'd find fault with? If so, please be specific. If not, then we've actually found common ground and understanding on this issue.

karnut   Registered | 04/30/2009 8:05PM The thought of a hate crime bill is OK, HOWEVER, The little stipulations (or however you want to spell it Grammar Nazi) on the bill, Like anyone who speaks out about homosexuals is considered hate. This would be a good charge to add to murder,etc... but to go against a Preacher for preaching the Gospel is not right either. I know separation of church and state technically doesn't exist in the Great US Constitution, But this would be a good argument for it. You have no control over where you are born, the color of your eyes, skin, hair color, or sex, YOU DO HAVE a choice in sexual PREFRENCE. At my last check two males cant reproduce, and two females cant reproduce. When they can I might have a different opinion. Just because you are gay doesn't mean I have the right to pick on you, nor does it mean you should be harassed. In other words, IF You want to be gay BE GAY, I just don't want to know about it. (If being gay was Genetics, It would be destroyed in the first carrier) --->

FreeThinker   Registered | 04/30/2009 9:36PM Karnut, you are wrong when you state, "YOU DO HAVE a choice in sexual PREFRENCE (sic)." Do you remember the day you chose to be straight, when you decided your liked girls parts' instead of boys' parts? There is no choice in one's sexual orientation. There is choice only in one's sexual conduct. And what's the big hang-up about the ability to reproduce? Are infertile people not allowed to have sex? Finally, as to your last point, "if being gay was (sic) Genetics, it would be destroyed in the first carrier," you seem not to understand that gay people have children all the time. To deny that makes you more of a Wingnut than a Karnut.

bellanonna   Registered | 04/30/2009 9:40PM I am so proud! Our state has made national news for Foxx's stupid remark.

chambels   Registered | 04/30/2009 11:46PM Overall I forgot to mention earlier this: "some crimes are committed not as individual, isolated acts, but as symbolic attempts to intimidate, oppress or scare into submission entire sub-groups of our society." What you noted in the above quote from your post is what I would define as "terrorism". Of course that is if the government is allowing us to utter that word. "After all, none of those examples involves a chosen, an elective, or a voluntary trait or characteristic. As such, should a sane, logical, rational individual assert that a person has been killed because they are gay, or black or of Jewish decent, they cannot possibly be suggesting that any fault, blame or culpability lies with the victim" So, if a person chooses to wear a skimpy suggestive outfit, or chooses to say no I will not give you my money, or chooses to go to an abortion clinic and they are attacked and/or murdered it would not be a hate crime. What would you call it just an ordinary crime because it was not the result of something they did not choose or had no control over. Any assault or attack against any person for whatever reasoning on the part of the perpetrator is a "hate crime" This is were I am coming from. As a child I experienced verbal,physical and sexual abuse. This carried over into adulthood with my involvment in abusive relationship and at times participating in unwanted sexual activity. Through that I came to believe that it was my fault, that there was something I did or that there was something bad or ugly in me that caused people to hurt and abuse me. I thank God that I eventually came to understand that it was not me but it was because of the bad, evil, mental problems, whatever of the person atacking or using me. Suppose an adolescent was struggling with their sexual identity that they are attracted to the same sex and then they hear people saying that someone like Matthew Shepherd was beaten and murder because he was gay. Speaking from experience I think that would make me very afraid and more confused. How can it be that I was born gay yet that causes people to get attacked and murdered. Why would nature or God make me something or someone that is hated and attacked? What is WRONG with me?

Overall   Registered | 05/01/2009 3:06AM Chambels--NOTHING is wrong with you. I so regret that you had to personally suffer the harm that you did. No one deserves such dehumanizing treatment. This makes it completely understandable that your previous comments were not made from the point of view of some religious extremist, but from that of a victim of horrible, unforgivable acts. I can't possibly say that I understand what you've gone through. I can't begin to imagine the short and long term effects of such treatment. But I do objectively recognize, assuming that you are a white female, that your horrible experience does not qualify, by currently accepted terms, as a hate crime. In all liklihood, the crimes committed against you had nothing at all to do with your being a member of any targeted minority. What happened was unbelievably horrid, but you were not, I'm assuming, violated because of your being of the WRONG race, the WRONG creed, the WRONG religion or the WRONG sexual orientation. Again, that's NOT to say that what happened to you was any less despicable than similar treatment suffered by anyone else. It's just that the crime perpetrated against you was not, by all assumed means, committed because of what you represented. And THAT'S the biggest difference between regular crimes and hate crimes. Just to be clear, supporters of hate crime legislation, as far as I know, have no hatred toward victims of non-hate-crime attacks. They simply see such acts as being different. And, as such, they see them being worthy of different treatment and punishment. It's just an apples and oranges situation. To answer your question about the confused adolescent, that person's plight it EXACTLY why hate crime legislation is needed. If people see that it is not normal for "different" folks to be attacked and killed just because they are not like everyone else...if they see that their society respects and protects them, regardless of their inability to fit within "expected" norms, then there should be no confusion. Be they believers or not, they should understand that their neighbors are there to protect them regardless of how God chose to make them. And THAT'S really what I was trying to say before. God DOES make them in their own unique way, regardless of what some extremists may want us to believe. To go further would, to me, be disrespectful at this point. I do honestly believe that we would probably agree that our opinions are very close on this issue if we spoke face-to-face. Thank you for your open commentary. You're quite brave.

Ms Perfect   Registered | 05/01/2009 6:08AM From Fred Norris, "The yelling unruly kids of trailer trash that cling to God and guns" nice remark. So kids that don't live in trailers are the good kids. What a pathetic and sad remark to make. And if you "gays" "guys" want to get married, go at it. I see some of you are already. Thats obvious by your post.

Molon Labe   Registered | 05/01/2009 6:44AM Ms Perfect, dont worry too much about what Fred Norris says. He is just a pathetic loser whose greatest joy in life is coming on this forum to make fun of others and ridicule them as well as anything that is considered good and decent. If anything, he is to be looked at as an object of pity. Just be thankful that you are not filled with hate as he is.

Molon Labe   Registered | 05/01/2009 8:11AM Thank you Fred, for proving the point of my last post. Now, go to work so you can make lots of money and pay in lots of Social Security so you can fund the system in order that I can continue to draw my check. Don't work too hard today, I know I won't.

Just call me Bill   Registered | 05/01/2009 11:02AM Apparently Mr. Norris' post has been removed. It seems that I have missed little by not being able to read it. When the Persians told the Spartans to lay down their arms, the Spartans replied "Come and get them." Molon Labe means come and get them. It is a rallying cry for those that refuse infringement on their second amendment rights. My compliments on the name. I am very disappointed in Ms. Fox. She had a valid point, but made it poorly. The main reason I am disappointed in her is that she was so foolish as to believe anything the mainstream media reported.

chambels   Registered | 05/01/2009 11:17AM Overall - you tell me that nothing is wrong with me in one breath and then in the next breath you say that some people are violated because they are of the WRONG race, the WRONG creed, the WRONG religion or the WRONG sexual orientation. By the way I was not feeling any love when I was being abused so I would say it was a hate crime. How about I was the WRONG kid, that I just existed and that was WRONG. If I had been a little black gay kid then would you consider it a "hate crime"? Also, you never answered my questions about actions, things a person chooses to do? Do you think people who dress a certain way, act a certain way, practice certain professions are targeted for attacks and crimes? Are those crime less hateful because the victims had control or were choosing to act or be a certain way? Do you think that gays & blacks and their family's suffer more than regular people who are victims of crime? I do not see the need to segregate victims into sub groups to determine that an attack/crime against one person is more henious and deserving of greater punishment that an attack/crime against a regular person.

Overall   Registered | 05/01/2009 12:50PM Chambels--It's obvious that your pain and ongoing struggle are torturous. But the severity and seriousness of the acts committed against you are in no way diminished by the introduction, discussion or passing of a hate crimes bill. I'm sorry if you see the legislation as some type of action meant to lessen the import of your traumatic past. That's not the intent of its supporters and its not the projected impact recognized by rational observers. I understand that you see no need for the law. Fortunately, for the sake of our Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Jewish, Islamic, Baha'i, and gay communities, we have elected officials with more objective sight.

chambels   Registered | 05/01/2009 1:52PM Overall - "Fortunately, for the sake of our Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Jewish, Islamic, Baha'i, and gay communities, we have elected officials with more objective sight." You call the above objective sight, this is the epitome of reverse discrimination. So crimes against WASP, christians, heterosexuals, etc. are not just as hateful, hurtful and devestating as a crime against the above group that will have special legislation segregating and protecting them. I suppose, under this legislation, the attack and brutal beating death of a white straight guy is not as henious and warrants a lesser degree of punishment. I do not have any ongoing torturous pain and struggle with my past experiences. By the grace of God I have peace and healing with it.

Ali Baba   Registered | 05/01/2009 1:12PM Overall, you left out white people.Sounds like you "hate" white people or something. Since the majority of the US is white, how are we going prosecute "hate crimes" of white on white? Or is it only a "hate crime" from white on anyone else?

FreeThinker   Registered | 05/01/2009 2:00PM Ali Baba, white people can indeed be victims of "hate crime." Remember the case of Reginald Denny in the 1992 riots after LAPD officer where acquitted in the beating of Rodney King? He was a random white victim for an angry black mob. Can't we all just get along?

paulman1   Registered | 05/01/2009 2:36PM and don't forget about Norman Bates who was abused,possesed by his mother... or Hillary Clinton who was humiliated by our first black President or by Ms Marylou who said she needed money up front and that she been abused, and that she could get killed if she told me what she knew...

Overall   Registered | 05/01/2009 3:29PM Chambels--Free Thinker raises a VERY important point. Straight white people CAN be considered victims of hate crimes in the event that hate crimes are committed against them. Using your own cited example, the one regarding the "attack and brutal beating death of a straight white guy," THAT could indeed be considered equally covered under hate law legislation provided authorities can prove that a hate crime was committed. Let's say an underground crew of Black supremicists, living and training on a compound in the woods of Idaho, publish and distribute a White-hating manifesto that calls for the complete destruction of the White race. If members of that group were to plot an attack of a suburban Boise mall, with the expressed intent to kidnap a white man in order to beat, torture and mutilate him, and then use a speeding truck to drag his body through the streets of town as a symbol of their plan for all white people, I believe THAT, Chambels, would indeed be considered a hate crime. Here's another important point to keep in mind....NOT EVERY crime committed against a minority OR a white person can or will be considered a hate crime. It will be necessary to prove the intent of the criminal in order bring foward hate crime charges. Otherwise, those acts will just be tried as normal crimes. Try to understand that ALL people, minorities or no, will be covered equally by both EXISTING laws AND by proposed hate crime legislation. Trouble is, since we just don't read about many straight white men being plucked out of public places and killed purely for being staight, white and male, a certain resistant strain of our community refuses to believe that hate crimes actually exist. Well, they do.

chambels   Registered | 05/01/2009 3:46PM Overall - see my post to Free Thinker below also: "It will be necessary to prove the intent of the criminal in order bring foward hate crime charges." Here in lies the problem. It is a very ambigious gray area trying to prove intent of a criminal. If all people are now covered equally by existing laws then why the need for more legislation on the matter? That would mean the legislation is regarding the criminal act not the victims of the act. So say killing a person and then dragging their body through the streets behind a speeding truck is considered a hate crime as opposed to just killing the person and walking away.

chambels   Registered | 05/01/2009 3:34PM Free Thinker - you missed the point. Yes white people have been and are victims of hate crimes but it was not until a gay guy was beaten and murdered that someone decided we needed legislation segregating particular demographics of individuals for extra protection and added punishment. Generally when this legislation is discussed there is no mention of crimes against whites, heterosexuals, etc. being considered hate crimes. What if a drug addict robs a man at gun point to get money for a fix, then later it comes out that the man (who was robbed) was gay, is it a hate crime just because it turns out that the victim is gay? Would there be a burden of proof required that the robber knew the victim was gay? Also, would there be more severe punishment just because the victim was gay? What if the drug addict is also gay, does that nullify the hate crime scenario? To much gray area in this legislation for me.

Overall   Registered | 05/01/2009 3:55PM Chambels--You're mistaken about the time line you present. Federal hate crime laws, protecting people against persecution due to race, color, religion or national origin, have been in place since 1969. They just haven't covered sexual orientation or been extended to protect persons outside of school attendance or voting situations before this current legislation which, by the way, has already passed the House. So our government had already passed "legislation segregating particular demographics of individuals for extra protection and added punishment," as you put it, more than 30 years before the death of Matthew Shepard.

paulman1   Registered | 05/01/2009 3:48PM To Overall, How about the examples of JFK,John Lennon,Warren G Harding and Abe Lincoln.. They weere all targeted and killed by white people whom I am not sure about their sexual preferences... but there was some "hate" on some level to follow thru with the killings... How about the gay guy in Miami, a few years back, that killed that fashion designer Versaci, who I think was gay also... Now you have a gay on gay hate crime resulting in a killing ... Where does this all lead to... How can you regulate behavior whether evil,hate,jealousy,rage,guilt,are all invovled.. I think we are making the Laws like our Tax Codes which are too damn complicated.. let's have simple rule and if you brea them,there is a consequence gay,straight,black,white,old,young,asian ,hispanic,russian,biker,rock 'n' roller,country,disco,mamba,Islam,Buddist ,Taoists,Catholics,Protestant,Jewish, Baptists,this ism,that ism, ism ism ...

FreeThinker   Registered | 05/01/2009 6:09PM Thank you, Overall, for your clear thinking. And, Paulman1, hush!

karnut   Registered | 05/01/2009 8:27PM Free stinker, I may be wrong one day, but until than, YOU HAVE A CHOICE ABOUT BEING GAY. I will take the compliment about being a wing nut. This is not expressing hate to anyone, just the opinion of me and I would bet a whole lot of people. I DO NOT hate anyone. I might not agree with their life style but that does not mean I hate them. I don't discriminate. Why not say wealth class in the law too. THERE IS TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT!

crash   Registered | 05/01/2009 9:23PM There's definitely too much gov. I hate mosquitos. I look for the gov to regulate my disgust for these pesky insects at any moment. BTW, I hate them regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, and whether they live in a trailer park or at lake norman. I hate them all.

chambels   Registered | 05/02/2009 4:13PM Overall - I did some research on the expansion of the existing law. I agree with the arguments presented against passing this legislation. There is existing law that should protect all individuals. It is discrimitory in that it does not provide "equal justice for all" since there would be greater punishment for a crime that someone deems to be a "hate crime". I have concerns about proving intent. Suppose someone ran by and snatched a womans purse and it happened to be that "she" was a "he". The purse snatcher could possibly get a much more severe punishment simply because of the victim being a trans something. Which raises another question how do you tell by looking at someone if they are transexual/gender or gay for that matter. Way too much gray area and room for unjustified punishment. Our justice system is very flawed now with cases of innocent people in jail and guilty people getting off without more legislation to muddy the waters.

barkleydog   Registered | 05/03/2009 10:26AM Actually, Foxx doesn't represent Watagua County in ideology, spirit, or popular vote.

Please keep comments on topic. Posts containing profanity, personal attacks or other inappropriate content will be deleted. Please review our commenting rules.

1. Keep it clean - This is a public forum, open to civilized people who do not appreciate obscene, vulgar or sexually-oriented language, no matter how creatively spelled.
2. Keep it civil - Don't defame, threaten, abuse or invade the privacy of other readers or the subjects of stories. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person will be tolerated.
3. Keep it truthful and legal - Don't lie, impersonate another individual or post comments that advocate illegal activity.
4. Keep on topic - Stay focused on the subject at hand. Do not post advertisements or solicitations for funds, goods, or services.
5. Be responsible - Comments are the sole responsibility of those who post them and do not necessarily reflect the views of GoBlueRidge.net, High Country Radio, or any of their affiliated entities
6. Share your knowledge - Give us your eyewitness accounts, background and observations. If you see a factual error in a story or think there are issues we should follow up on, please e-mail us at tom@wecr1023.com or call 828-264-2411.
7. Exercise your authority - Police these comments and suggest removal of those that violate the house rules. Report them to tom@wecr1023.com or call 828-264-2411.
8. And remember - Rules violators may be permanently banned from commenting.

(Thanks to our friends at KOMO-TV, Seattle)

Only registered users can write comments!
The Login Form is on the Bottom-Right
Click here to register!