Posted on 08/19/2009 5:51:12 AM PDT by AJMCQ
If “hate crimes” were declared on a more even basis, maybe the term (and its meaning) would be taken more seriously. But we live in a politically correct society that dictates that whites are always oppressors and minorities are always victims.
Someone should explain that to Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian…
On Saturday January 6, 2007 Hugh Christopher Newsom, age 23 and Channon Gail Christian, age 21, both students at the University of Tennessee went out on a date.
They were driving in Channon’s Toyota 4-Runner when they were carjacked at gunpoint. Suddenly the crime turned far more savage than an armed car theft. Chris and Channon were kidnapped and driven to 2316 Chipman Street where they were forced into the home at gunpoint.
The details have been withheld by the media. Wouldn’t want to inflame racial tensions….
(Excerpt) Read more at black-and-right.com ...
Camille Paglia on Hate Crimes.
As a libertarian, I must also express my opposition yet again to hate crimes legislation, which is not progressive but authoritarian. The government should enforce and even reduce existent laws, not pile on more and more regulation and surveillance, which increase the size and intrusiveness of the state. Hate crimes bills formalize ideological inquiries into motive that smack of the totalitarian thought police. In a democracy, government has no business singling out one or several groups as more worthy of protection than any other individual or group. Justice should be blind.
I don’t think it’s particularly inflammatory to report on it, and even if it is, perhaps public exposure and outrage would make thugs like this think twice before hiding behind their race in the commission of a hideous crime. It would certainly give blacks as a whole the chance to rise up and reject this and say that it does not reflect their own lives or attitudes.
By keeping it secret and letting it fester, the media makes it look as if most blacks agree with horrible hate crimes like this and that they are therefore excusable and to be expected.
Obama’s Attorney General has affirmed this.
The new Hate Crime Bill will only cover victims whose race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc, has a “historic basis” of hate crimes. Whereas, other Americans who dont have this hard lefts definition of historical victim are not protected.
The lefts double standard will now be enacted into American Law in a new area.
What are the DOJ stats? Something like NINETY PERCENT of all interracial violent crimes are committed by blacks on whites.
Considering the stats I quoted,
if every interracial crime was treated as a hate crime regardless of perp/victim race,
our violent crime rate in America would plummet.
Never turn your back on a progressive.
Now when the black Carr brothers executed 5 young white people in Wichita, was that a hate crime? I don’t recall it being reported as such.
That’s good news. There is a history of black-on-white violence in this country, and it’s gotten worse lately.
Waaaayyyyy back in 1978 I was stationed in Germany in the USAF, my roomate and I went “downtown” one night to have a few of those AWSOME German biers. As we were waiting for a bus back to our base,six african-american (army) “gentlemen”, relieved us of our wallets, I.D.,and a portable radio we were carrying, along with three of my roomates teeth. Being a cook on the base, I saw A lot of Army personnel in our chow hall,(usaf had WAY better food)I recognized two of the thugs that robbed us. When we went to the army base to reclaim our wallets, etc.We were accused of inciting a riot, racial slurs, etc. Yeah right, six to two odds,hmmmm.So this crap is nothing new, it’s just the same old reverse racism rearing it’s ugly head.
Of course not. Whites are like Jews, legitimate targets because they work hard, stay out of trouble with the law, and live well as a result. Whites are the legitimate targets in this country and always will be.
“If “hate crimes” were declared on a more even basis, maybe the term (and its meaning) would be taken more seriously.”
By definition, a “hate crime” cannot be applied evenhandedly to all classes of people. Even handed application of the law implies equal protection under the law for all. To be a hate crime, the victim has to belong to a certain race, gender , or sexual orientation that, according to those in power, deserve more protection than others.
If a crime is particularly egregious, as was this one, its up to the judge to earn his pay and throw the book at the perpetrator.
Hate crime laws are unconstitutional, but those in government love them because they provide an opportunity to win minority votes and they free judges of the responsibility to make potentially unpopular decisions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.