What has to happen for the authorities to label a bias crime against whites just exactly what it is?
Many opponents of hate-crime laws have long pointed out that they will never be applied equitably. The laws exist solely to punish members of politically-incorrect groups who commit politically-incorrect crimes. That is to say, they're not about eliminating hate – they're about targeting those the Left hates.
If ever there was a case that vindicated this thesis, it's a recent unprovoked attack on a white Ohio family by a mob of black teens. Phil Trexler at Ohio.com reports:
It [the attack] came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. [Marty] Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.
Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.
Despite this, Trexler tells us, "Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation. But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear."
Yes, it seems pretty clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
Now, I don't believe in hate crime legislation and have devoted copious ink to demonstrating its Orwellian nature. But if this isn't a "hate crime," what is? What has to happen for politically-correct, thoroughly corrupt authorities to label a bias crime against whites just exactly what it is? Do the perpetrators have to sign a notarized affidavit prior to the act stating, "We hereby acknowledge that we hate white people and are committing this act of violence on that basis"?
I understand that the police are generally circumspect in what they say. But, in the least, their statement should have been something to the effect of, "We're not officially calling it a hate crime yet, but it certainly appears as if the perpetrators were motivated by bias."
Of course, chances are good, I suppose, that Akron authorities will ultimately bring hate-crime charges (assuming the thugs are caught). If they do not, however, the city's citizens ought to demand that the whole leadership of its police force be fired and replaced.
And while we're at it, let's get rid of hate-crime laws – otherwise known as "get-whitey laws" – too.
It’s only a hate crime when Walt Kawalski points a gun at some black guys who are trying to rape a Hmong girl and he uses the word spook.
I hope this case, or one like it, goes to the Supreme Court.
I spent two years among this sub-culture. Great people who as traumatized by their own and have a deep aversion to the ugliness of “man’s inhumanity to man.”
The dudes, some of the bro, were deeply enmeshed in the darkside. My work with them and delight in hoopin whit da boys, homeys, was an education I will always cherish. They bleed red, their heart beats with the same issues of the educated, white, sheltered, arrogant middle class who fear the black man’s life and who have the money to escape the disintegration of the sub-culture.
Not all da men think like the perpetrators of violence. They hold a deep disdain for evil and violence. My pilgrimage among them as an old white dude got the brand of “street warrior.” – not for any combat which was visible but for walking the Light into the Darkness and the resulting impact of Truth upon Error.
Five nites in two years, when I think back, “shivers me timbers>”
I remain, da man!
Is he safe? no! but he is good!
In my time with these men there were two nites when the unspoken code of “my boys” was to stand with the “old man” as he walked into the face -literally- of a moving to extreme violence, dude.
Several times one from a sub-cultures would say when the explosion of excessive testosterone erupted, “I’ve got your back.”
been there!
Dale, what planet are you living on? There are good among all groups but some groups that have only minor amounts. Gang culture is one of the groups with minor amounts. My reference growing up dirt poor and a gang member at 11. The facts have nothing to do with an arrogant middle class just an underclass without the guts to work to get out. I go home sometimes to visit the ones I grew up with that never had the balls to leave. You can find them every day around 2PM in the local bar. I walked in to buy lunch and found I knew almost everyone. They didn’t like my choice of cars (Range Rover) or the fact that I left to see the world. My response was tough…
Trying to make apologies for those attacking by saying they are depraved because they are deprived (my appologies to Officer Krumpie in West Side Story) is naive at best. I thank God every day for my time in the military and the Viet Nam GI Bill.
The point of this article is that “hate” crimes is a politization and creation of new status relegating the ememies of the state (white fold and successful minorities) to the trash heaps while proclaiming the unproductive as the new rulers.
Mickey. Thx for the response. In private I have visceral reactions to the type of crime mentioned above and the police response.
I would not explain away personal responsibility at the expense of being deprived. Crimes against the state as long as the laws of the state are based on universals is okay with me. Law stemming from the desire to be politically correct or to give deference to a certain class is ultimately the road to a violent rule by Elite.
Didn’t mean to express myself in a way to explain away a crime by a sub-culture. Most of the time my feet are firmly planted on terra-firma.
Crime is crime, hate is hate, violence is violence.
Transformation of character is a profound event or process. My time with the sub-culture was never an experience in excusing ugly behavior.
Many of the men I met have made decisions to abandon destructive life activities. The ones who have been unwilling to leave the ugliness still live in the darkness.
I concur with your final paragraph. Rule by the elite and those who make selective application of law need to be opposed or we will live to experience the wrath of the thought police
Thank you, good piece. In one of Mr. Duke’s previous pieces on the subject he describes the scenario of Mr. Greed and Mr. Hate committing an identical crime. Greed gets ten years, but Hate gets ten years. My question: it has been alleged by psychologists that if someone beats you up because he hates you based on your race, there is an extra layer of emotional trauma suffered, as opposed to when someone beats you up to take your money. Suppose the psychologist is correct. Would the stiffer sentence be justified?
Question #2: Would Mr. Duke or other readers feel any differently about hate-crime laws if the laws were applied more fairly?
Question #3: Re: thought police. isn’t the thought process behind a criminal act already considered, e.g. homicide vs. premeditated murder? Does a categorical hatred of a specific group of humans that preceeds a criminal act against one of them come closer to “premeditation?”
It may appear I’m taking the usual liberal positions. Or I’m assisting the conservative in making dealing a final death blow to the ethical grounds for these laws.
I should have said “Hate gets 20 years.”
Mr. Duke makes some good points; however, for an example of how hate crime law worked to the furthering of justice, read about James Byrd of Jasper, TX. Also, good comments: this column by Donna Trussell http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/13/hate-is-a-verb-not-a-crime/ Take care, folks.
In the phrase “hate crime” hate is an adjective!
Ruminator, hate crime laws are wrong. Now let’s talk about Byrd and other individual cases. These cases are prosecuted regardless. Why do we need hate crime laws? Is the argument that the laws might help is some case somewhere reason enough to walk down Orwell’s path?
We say in this country that it’s better that 100 guilty men go free than it is to have one innocent man convicted. Okay, so then isn’t it also better to have one guilty man go free here and there than it is to undermine our whole system of law and go down the thought crime road?
Besides, any time you add ANY new layer of laws more guilty people will be convicted. So what? It also means more innocent people will be wrongly convicted. The point is that even if hate crime laws lead to a few more guilty people being convicted, it doesn’t even come close to justifying having them.
Suppose the penalty for assault is 5 years, and the penalty for homicide is 20 years. At what point would the added hate crime penalty actually cause murders since the prison sentence would be close and you eliminate the witness(es)?
Ruminator was stirring the pot to see what bubbles up. The issue to be faced with “hate” crimes is an objective method to determine the offense. Current statutes have objective standards, except for the current hate crime statutes. Why the lack? Politics!
The bottom line is that rape done by the normal sick individual is just as bad as that done via “hate” as the driving force. Just another Omessiah entitlement to make the non-producers feel good.
Crime committed by one with a malignant spirit is a crime by a malignant spirit. Hatred is one of the most deceptive of emotions. We explain the stirring of the spirit in many different ways.
In my culture there are acceptable ways to “let it out.” But still hatred is hatred. The hatred manifested by those with a hatred toward a race comes flowing out of the decadence of the human spirit. Crimes against humanity of the benign kind (not outwardly violent) are not as visible to the eye but are from the same inwardly decadent spirit.
Reading some intersting literature as far back as 100BC, I have found the spirit of hatred to permeate all races. One of the first motions of hatred which the human person can identify is to turn away from one with whom you have a disagreement and then when given an opportunity to harmonize the disagreement, to avoid!
Hatred in the Book is the stirring of the spirit against another person. The unwillingness to live in harmony and to be actively opposed so as to inflict discomfort.
Hate crimes laws have only identified one manifestation of the inner corruption of the spirit within man. Hate crimes legislation is an exercise in futility. The “law” only deals with what is measureable or visible.
Vigorous debate and strong interaction about race issues is needed, but the politically correct have created an environment of fear. Hatred just manifests itself in other ways.
I have ventured into the arena of discussing the use of the race card with those who use the race card, as promoting divisiveness between races. My pilgrimage has been cross cultural and hatred toward other races is not just black and white. But in every corner of the world antagonism toward race is alive and well. The response to my rebuke or my questions has been lively, to say the least.
I brought up the incident mentioned in the leading article for all this interaction. The white guys lamented fairly strongly. The black guys enjoined the discussion with some very colorful comments. “you guys use color to justify violence and then hide behind ‘hate crimes’” and self defense”
Frequently I mention “the use of race” as a copp-out for excusing personal responsibility. I ask questions pointedly of those living inside the “racial protection thing.”
There are no laws which will curtail racial antagonism. Hate crimes legislation is the shadow of the Power Elite to silence all who are able to think and oppose the State. The bills floating about many legislative bodies about hate crimes are a nite-mare waiting to happen.
These are the shadows of the all pervasive presence of a hostile government. Laws created by subjective thinking lead to totalitarian rule and extreme violence against all opposition. And in the process, loss of freedom, loss of the right to recall without recrimination, the right to impeach. Rather than a defense of human rights the direction of these laws provide the subjugation of an intelligent populace with exaltation of rule by the elite.
A life is not transformed by law, it is stirred to a deep consciousness of personal failure and the need for Mercy.
No one answered my question, would hate crime laws be acceptable if they were applied equally against all offenders? There are two concerns here, yes? (1) We don’t need extra laws to prosecute this sub-category of crime, and (2) the bigger concern: the people who wanted these laws are particularly untrustworthy.
My thought process was that of the three who murdered Byrd, the two who got the death penalty were outspoken black-haters, therefore the “hate-crime” status puts the charge on a par with murder one, which is logical if you consider that a person who hates a group of people enough to murder one of them at random has premeditated the act. Even though they didn’t know him.
However one weird turn of events was that the driver only got life imprisonment because it wasn’t clear that he was such a racist.
I appreciate these ideas #11-14. Paladin seems to say that a legal system cannot be perfect and one goal should be to avoid doing harm (like hypocratic oath?)
Hate crime laws bring an increased sense of discrimination. A crime agains one of a differenct race is a crime. The internal spirit of the perp is still hatred or corruption.
A crime because of a racial distinction or hatred of it is still a crime of hate.
Hate crime legislation is not necessary. Identify the internal antagonism in the trial / prosecution and add premeditation or whatever the appropriate word and send the man to prision or exact the appropriate penalty.
The laws only identify the object and the cause of the crime Violence is violence, man’s inhumanity to man is wrong. Racial violence laws are only the door which has swung open for the idea police. Going into recorded history and reading the slide into a demand for silence to opposition is turly frightening.
Arbitrary judicial law is a growing threat to our Democratic Republic. The issue is not about more law but a return to Universals and the Moral Absolutes which flow out of them.
I get it. Thanks.
In my realm of wanbering about I expressed some thoughts about priinciples of freedom. I used an acrostic.
Ethnicity is good but the diversity direction of our laws and teaching is destructive to the principles of the American Experiment. I come from a very strong ethnic background and the pride in our foreign national heritage.
We celebrated many of our cultural distinctives, as I was growing up. Many of my relatives – now in their 90′s – celebrated our cultural heritage. Our family ties are very strong.
A – A-merican first, ethnicity second. My father could not speak English until he was six. My grandparents spoke a broken English and we had hilarious moments of “murdering the king’s english.” My father and my mother occasionally had tell tale pronunciations of our foreign heritage. I was required to be an American first and to celebrate my heritage secondly.
Diversity has come to America as well intentioned but has drifted into a form of divisivenness which feeds into the hate of one people to another people.
Tolerance has replaced being gracious to differences. Diversity and hate crimes legislation have replaced delight in heritage. Cultural/Ethnic heritage has replaced “E Pluribus Unum”. The present emphasis upon Diversity is epitomized in the reaction of conservatives to the Supreme Court examination ongoing at the present.
Existentialism which found its roots in the early 1900′s as a thriving philosophical mantra finally expressed itself in the visible violence and degradation the revolution of the 1960′s. Those in the position to influence thought have created the Liberal Mentality of what happens in the moment for meaning as “I determine meaning”. Their favorite phrase, “the American People” is used to justify arbitrary law – “the majority, cultural diversity requires… . The Constitution “is a dynamic document” was an expression used a decade ago in the political discussion. This is most unsettling.
Rome – 30-350AD did not violently oppose Beleivers for their commitment to God or Jesus being God or there being a Trinity. Rome opposed Christianity because their claim was “there is only one God, and Caeser is not God or a god.” And latent in this hatred of moral abolutes and accountability to a single God who is personally involved in the Universe is found the “i am god, we are gods and i/we know what is good for the American People!”
Liberalism – Progressive Liberals oppose Universals and Moral Absolutes because those who “hold these truths self evident…” expect and demand that all in America be held accountable to a morality which transcends human laws.
Hate crimes is far broader than one race against another motivated by premeditation of antagonism. It is about those who have the power stemming from arbitrary law silencing those who are committed to Moral Absolutes which stem from the higher power called God who has stamped His Image into the Universe.
Legitimate Diversity has descended into Tolerance for the arrogance of self-rule and now we are facing Hate Crimes Legislation which has transcended the boundaries of Man’s Inhumanity to Man.
Karis / Shalom
Aun yong he kay say o
I don’t have Mr. Swanson’s knowledge of history but I can attest firsthand to the lunacy of fixating on “diversity.” There is a well known American college that has an Office Of Diversity, with, naturally, a sizable staff. The net result has been the gradual marginalization of fields of study that are peculiar to America. One Eastern European teacher says this: “I so looked forward to being in America in order to immerse myself in your culture only to find that you have lost interest in it.”