Tag Archives: Hate crimes

Race and False Hate Crime Narratives, by Heather MacDonald

Whites commit a disproportionately low number of racial hate crimes, but you’d never know it from mainstream media coverage. From Heather MacDonald at quillette.com:

The reaction to the mass shootings in Boulder, Colorado, and Atlanta, Georgia, over the last week has revealed how invested the Democratic establishment is in one all-powerful narrative. Both shootings produced an immediate response from the media, Democratic politicians, and activists—that the slaughters were the result of white supremacy and that white Americans are the biggest threat facing the US. That interpretation was reached, in the case of the Boulder shooting, on the slimmest of evidence, and in the case of the Atlanta shooting, in the face of contradictory facts.

After the Boulder supermarket attacks, social media lit up with gloating pronouncements that the shooter was a violent white male and part of what Vice President Kamala Harris’s niece declared (in a since-deleted tweet) to be the “greatest terrorist threat to our country.” (Video of the handcuffed shooter being led away by the police appeared to show a white male.) Now that the shooter’s identity has been revealed as Syrian-American and his tirades against the “Islamophobia industry” unearthed, that line of thought has been quietly retired and replaced with the stand-by Democratic response to mass shootings—demands for gun control.

But the false narrative about the Atlanta spa shootings still has legs. It represents a double lie—first, that the massacre was the product of Trump-inspired xenophobic hatred, and second, that whites are the biggest perpetrators of violence against Asians. The most striking aspect of these untruths is the fact that they were fabricated in plain sight and in open defiance of reality. Given the enduring hold of the Atlanta story on mainstream discourse, it is worth examining in some detail.

On March 16th, 21-year-old Robert Aaron Long allegedly opened fire at three Atlanta-area massage parlors. Six of his eight victims were Asian. The analysis was instantaneous and universal—the shootings were the product of anti-Asian hatred, whipped up by Trump’s criticism of China for allegedly unleashing the coronavirus on the world. Protests broke out across the country against the scapegoating of Asians. Protest signs read “I am not a virus”; “Asians are not viruses, racism is!!”; “End white supremacy now!”; “All of us against racism.”

Continue reading→

Who Is Really To Blame For The Rise In Asian Hate Crimes? Spoiler Alert: It’s Not “White Supremacy”, by Brandon Smith

Although they are a much smaller percentage of the population, blacks commit more crimes than whites do against Asians. From Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:

These days, just talking about race issues in a critical manner will get you labeled a “racist”. If you don’t regurgitate the rhetoric of the mainstream media and social justice lunatics like a pirate’s parrot, then you are suddenly “problematic” and must be pigeonholed and canceled as quickly as possible. I will be called a racist for writing this article, but then again, what does that word even mean anymore? Almost anything can get you labeled as a racist now, so why should we care?

My position is this: Facts are not racist. Facts are color blind.

I was recently studying the latest “Asian hate crime” narrative and as I examined information on the attacks I was not surprised to find that the mainstream media version of reality was once again completely fraudulent.

For the most part the media tends to “lie by omission”, and it’s something they do on a regular basis. For example, the media consistently mentions “white supremacy” as a motivator for Asian attacks. Yet, the vast majority of recent hate crimes against Asians have been enacted by blacks. This fact doesn’t really fit the propaganda model, so, the media doesn’t mention the race of the specific assailants, they just use the phrase “white supremacy” and let their audience make assumptions.

Far left outlet Politifact’s analysis of Asian hate crimes does not make a single mention of the race of the majority of the attackers. They only mention the race of ONE attacker, the shooter in Georgia. This is not accidental, this is deliberate disinformation through omission.

Continue reading→

French Teenager Forces Free Speech Debate Over Her Calling Islam A “Religion Of Hate”, by Jonathan Turley

Non-objective laws such as hate crimes inevitably lead to lead to repression and tyranny. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and hereand here and here and hereand here). A teenager has sparked a national debate about blasphemy in France after an Instagram post calling Islam a “religion of hate”. Indeed, France has emerged as one of the greatest threats to free speech in the Westand we continue to face calls for European-style speech crimes, including calls by its President on the floor of the House of Representatives. Now a teenager in France has triggered a debateover its plunge into speech crimes and regulation after characterizing Islam as “a religion of hate.” She can now be criminally investigated for hate speech under the notorious French speech law.

On a January 18th live broadcast on her Instagram account, Mila, 16, was called a “dirty lesbian” by a Muslim commenter. She responded by saying “I hate religion. The Koran is a religion of hate” and using vulgarity against the religion. She added “I am not racist. You cannot be racist towards a religion. I said what I thought, you’re not going to make me regret it.”

Continue reading

Sarah Jeong Better Drive Carefully, by Ann Coulter

The whole idea of “hate” crimes is intellectually flawed and riddled with conceptual holes. Ann Coulter picks up on one of its loonier applications. From Coulter at anncoulter.com:

If you’re worried about the social media monopolies censoring speech, just be happy they can’t put you in prison.

Federal prosecutors are celebrating the one-year anniversary of the Charlottesville, Virginia, “Unite the Right” rally — isn’t this the “paper” anniversary? — by indicting James Fields for “hate.”

Fields has already been charged with murder in state court. (I would think that “hate” would be subsumed by a murder charge.)

But the federal “hate crimes” statute allows the feds to skirt the Constitution’s ban on double jeopardy — at least for certain kinds of “hate.”

— The stabbing of Yankel Rosenbaum by assailants yelling “Get the Jew!”: NOT a federal hate crime.

— The brutal kidnapping and murder of a young white couple in Knoxville, Tennessee, by black youths: NOT a federal hate crime.

— The torture of a mentally disabled kid in Chicago, by assailants saying “F— white people!” and “F— Trump!”: NOT a federal hate crime. (Curiously, none of the attackers was Sarah Jeong.)

— A white man killing a white woman by driving into a crowd of left-wing protesters: THAT’S a federal hate crime.

To make their case, prosecutors did a deep dive into Fields’ social media postings to prove that, yes, while he might have killed a white woman in this particular case, he’s still a racist.

The second paragraph of the indictment states:

“Prior to August 12, 2017, Defendant JAMES ALEX FIELDS
JR. obtained multiple social media accounts, which he used to express his beliefs regarding race, national origin, religion and other topics. On these accounts, FIELDS expressed and promoted his belief that white people are superior to other races and peoples; expressed support of the social and racial policies of Adolf Hitler and Nazi-era Germany, including the Holocaust; and espoused violence against African Americans, Jewish people and members of other racial, ethnic and religious groups he perceived to be non-white. FIELDS also expressed these views directly in interactions with individuals known to him.”

GUILTY!

Wait — what? Again, Fields is a white man charged with murdering a white woman.

This is a prosecution of Fields for Bad Thought, utterly oblivious to not only the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause, but the free speech clause and also simple common sense. It’s like a parody of what serious people feared about criminalizing “hate.”

To continue reading: Sarah Jeong Better Drive Carefully

New US Law Blurs the Line Between Hate Speech and Hate Crime, by Michael S. Rozeff

It was a huge mistake to make “hate” an aggravating element  of crimes beyond the traditional state of mind requirements known as mens rea, especially when the “hate” is only certain types of hate. Now hate speech, which was formerly not a crime, is becoming a hate crime. From Michael S. Rozeff at ronpaulinstitute.org:

Eleven years ago, this essay argued against hate-crime laws. One argument read “People can eventually be accused of hate crimes when they use hateful speech. Hate crimes laws are a seed that can sprout in new directions.” This has now come to pass, I am sorry to say. This week, the Congress passed S. J. Res. 49, and President Trump signed it, making it part of the U.S. legal code.

The law rejects “White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups…” But why? Because of their ideas? Because of their expression of these ideas? No government that stands for freedom and free speech, whose charge is to protect rights, should be singling out specific groups by name and by law declaring them as outlaws or threats because of their philosophies. If they have committed a crime, such as defamation of character or incitement to riot or riot itself, then charge them and try them. But American government has no legitimate authority to single out some of its citizens in this way. This, furthermore, is an exceedingly bad precedent. Who’s next?

The resolution is too specific, but it’s also dangerously vague. The term “other hate groups” has no known definition. Suppose that this term is defined by a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC currently names 917 groups as hate groups (see here for a list). Their criteria are not restricted to violent actions. They comprise SPEECH. They say “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” They are very clear about this: “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”

This Congressional resolution is a declaration that certain kinds of groups, some named but many, many others open to inclusion, are to be attacked by the U.S. government. The law urges “the President and the President’s Cabinet to use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups.” The term “threats” in the first paragraph is vague, dangerously vague. However, the very next paragraph singles outfree speech actions when “hundreds of torch-bearing White nationalists, White supremacists, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis chanted racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant slogans…” The same sentence joins this with violent actions “…and violently engaged with counter-demonstrators on and around the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville…”

To continue reading: New US Law Blurs the Line Between Hate Speech and Hate Crime