Monday morning on national television, Elizabeth Hasselbeck
asked, "Why has the Black Lives Matter movement not been classified yet as a hate group? I mean, how much more has to go in this direction before someone actually labels it as such?"
Hasselbeck's question came after a sheriff's deputy was fatally shot while pumping gas in Texas last week. Law enforcement speculated that the murder was related to the Black Lives Matter movement, despite having zero—I mean zilch, nothing, nada—evidence to support such a claim.
Hasselbeck's question is just so irresponsible, ignorant, and baseless that it's hard to even know how to begin to answer it.
It's unclear how she thinks hate groups are defined, but in no way does Black Lives Matter fall under any definition of hate group. Note that the FBI does not make public their internal list of hate groups. However, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has long kept a reliable list of these organizations, defines such groups as:
[having] beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics […]
Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.
So, the first answer to her question would be that Black Lives Matter does not in any way fit the definition of a hate group. If Hasselbeck had done her research, she would know that the Black Lives Matter movement exists to fight
against beliefs and practices that attack of malign an entire class of people.
After all, the entire point of the Black Lives Matter movement is to end violence against people of color by law enforcement. The movement is fighting and working towards equality and against violence.
Hasselbeck also doesn't seem to understand how a movement works, as you can read below.
By her own definition, the Black Lives Matter is a movement. It is a movement of all kinds of people who want to end racist police brutality and racial injustice. As one founder has said:
"BLM is a network. 26 chapters that have relative autonomy and are connected to each other. We embrace a diversity of tactics and strategies. We aren't puppeteers telling people what to do. We respect local autonomy. It's not always clean, but it's important.
The larger movement of Black people fighting to get and stay free has also been dubbed Black Lives Matter. We didn't do that. We didn't start the movement. We are contributors to it."
Hasselbeck wants to define Black Lives Matter as a hate group, despite the fact that it doesn't fit the definition for a hate group—nor is it actually a "group" at all.
Look at how Hasselbeck makes reckless accusations entirely based on race. She is using the fact that a black guy with absolutely zero connection to the movement killed a white police officer to castigate the completely unrelated Black Lives Matter.
She also focused on a group of Minnesota protestors who chanted, "Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon," while carrying a Black Lives Matter banner. But as Hasselbeck should know, these protestors are individuals, using language that has not been supported, endorsed, or approved by those who lead this movement. The overwhelming majority of people within the movement are not advocating violence. Quite the opposite.
Black Lives Matter is a movement for racial equality, police reform, and opportunity. The only hatred in this movement comes from the opposition—from people like Hasselbeck, whose wild accusations and lack of knowledge indicate a dedication to maintaining the racist, unequal, and violent status quo.