THE US REPORT

Attorney General Eric Holder is once again pushing for passage of The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. Holder’s justification has nothing to do with Matthew Shepard, a young gay The Senate Judiciary Committee is headed by neoliberal Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) [Photo from Leahy website at US Gov.]man who died in 1998 in Wyoming. Shepard was murdered by 2 locals who agreed to give him a ride home from a bar. Shepard didn’t know the two men were, as one claimed, on a “hard-core bender” from methamphetamines. Widely billed as a hate crime against gays, the two killers told ABC news they were actually after money and drugs, not hatred for gays. Media used the case as a rallying cry for gay rights.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder said hate crimes against “certain groups” like Hispanics are on the rise.

That stands to reason, however, based on Census figures. According to a US Census Bureau news release in 2006, “Hispanics accounted for almost half (1.3 million, or 49 percent) of the national population growth of 2.8 million between July 1, 2004, and July 1, 2005.” There is no way of knowing the socio-cultural breakdown of such a large group. While immigrants come to the US as economic refugees, some immigrants come via drug cartels and weapons smuggling groups.

But Holder also admitted hate crimes are not getting worse. CNN reported, “When pressed, Holder acknowledged he had no hard evidence of trends showing the problem getting worse, nor that states are not prosecuting cases based on their own state hate crimes statutes.”

As President Barack Obama begins to push amnesty for millions in the country illegally, we may ask ourselves if Holder isn’t positioning the federal government to assume power that technically belongs to the states. Does the government anticipate anger over federal amnesty?

The bill Holder wants passed also expands hate crime to include disability, gender and sexual orientation.

Brian W. Walsh, Senior Legal Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, also testified Thursday. “The Act’s hate crimes offenses violate constitutional federalism by asserting federal law-enforcement power to police truly local conduct over which the Constitution has reserved sole authority to the 50 states.” The US Report pointed out the constitutional conflict in our column on April 29. Walsh’s complete remarks are posted at the Senate Judiciary website; he builds a logical and sound legal case for not passing the law.

The US Constitution guarantees every American equal rights. Many of us believe any murder is a hate crime regardless of the victim’s nationality, religion or gender. An excellent example is the murder at the Village Market Mall referred to locally as the “Somali Mall”, in Minneapolis. Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi, a 23-year-old from Richfield, killed 21 year old Adan Hassan for revenge. Abdillahi’s cousin had been killed by another man who left the US. So Abdillahi decided to kill one of that man’s friends in revenge.

Yet this crime, a hate crime in every sense of the word, would not be covered by the federal law and would be prosecuted locally.

The states are already under assault from the federal government’s increasing hunger for centralized power. Expanding the hate crimes bill is simply throwing bad legislation after bad. Any murder is a hate crime, regardless of the characteristics of the individual. Hopefully Congress will vote on this law in accordance with the Constitution, ensuring that equal rights are extended to all.

Kay B. Day
June 26, 2009